Rules for Racists

A textbook tactic of statist radicals in America is the systematic character assassination of their enemies as racists. Loathe to engage their intellectual opponents in a real discussion of the issues, lest the radicals should be perceived for what they are and lose the fight to bring America under their heel, they prefer instead to slander their opponents, to intimidate and shout them down, and to destroy their credibility with whatever lies or twisted propaganda they can muster in a never-ending witch-hunt.

But when actual, genuine racism rears its ugly head within their own ranks (and make no mistake- it very often does), the radical socialists do everything they can to deflect, to distract, to evade, and- laughably- to denounce as racist anybody who points out and criticizes the racism of the radicals. There can be no better example than The Daily Caller's enlightening exposé (M) of a deliberate media conspiracy by Journolist members to ignore the racist rantings of Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at a church Barack Obama attended for two decades:

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

A Question for Rachel Maddow

Watching Rachel Maddow attack Rand Paul with a typical, predictable, closed-minded, and intentionally dense line of questioning:  "Should restaurant owners be allowed to discriminate against racial minorities? Yes or no, please," I have a question of my own for her.

Rachel, should black restaurant owners be forced to serve white nationalists? Hmm? Say David Duke walked into a black restaurant and wanted to be served.  Does the black restaurant owner have a right to say, "Mmm... no thanks, we'd rather not serve you"?  Or does David Duke have a right to be served by the black restaurant owner? Yes or no, please.

It's interesting -- to be consistent, Maddow would practically have to say that Duke has a right to the black restaurant owner's labor, which is dangerously close to advocating something akin to slavery. Yes or no, Maddow?

Let's use another example: if Fred Phelps (that's the God Hates Fags guy) walked into a gay bar and demanded to be served a drink, would Maddow support the right of the restaurant owner or bartender to refuse to serve him? Yes or no, please.