Liberal “Anti”-Racism

Margo Davidson - Jabbering about Murdering WhiteyLiberal “Anti”-racism is a amazing thing, not in it’s value but in it’s inherent prejudice and bias and it’s foundation of lowered expectations of- and requirement from Blacks. Liberal views on racial relations and “equality” can be summed as the strident call to lower the bar – any bar, even basic civility – for any and all non-White people while simultaneous holding Whites to ever-shifting but always unreachable standards.

Daryl MetcalfeA current example of this particular Liberal failing is their and the MSM pundits’ total silence on the matter of Pennsylvania State Representative Margo Davidson’s (D-164) tacit threat to gun down fellow Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-12) while debating an expansion of PA’s Castle Doctrine, a law allowing lethal self-defense to be used by an armed citizen who feels threatened.

If the gentleman from Butler County stood yelling, knowing that he’s a gun-toter, and I felt threatened, would I be protected under court law if I blew his brains out?

That’s what passes for anti-racism in Liberal and Progressive circles. A Black female asking such a question about a White Man in a public forum, a Legislative forum in point of fact, is not something to commented upon. Yet, can we imagine what would have been the hew and cry from the left and their jabbering Black political sharecroppers if the races had been reversed?

This is also likely an example of Liberal anti-Sexism as well, given that Davidson’s female and Metcalfe is a man. Female bad behavior is normally excused by the Left, especially when directed and Men and/or boys, but the Feminists would have a hysteria-laden field day if it’d been Metcalfe who asked that “question” in reference to a woman.

But that’s thing about the so called anti-racism and anti-sexism measures demanded by America’s domestic enemies. They’re all based up maintaining different standards for different groups and basing those standards upon race and gender as applicable. Indeed, any attempt by Americans to apply a single standard for anything is decried by the left and their minority tenants as being racist and the most common argument that they use is that doing so “disproportionately affects” one or more of their “protected” groups.

Think about that for a moment. It seems to me that either those “protected” groups are incapable of adhering to normal standards and, hence, are undeserving of any sort of protection or the Liberals perceive them to be so. If the latter is true, isn’t that the worst form of racism or sexism?

NOTE: Personally, I have no problems with Davidson’s question. Sometimes hyperbole and shocking statements or questions are necessary to wake people up and get them thinking about the possible ramifications of a proposed or planned course of action. I have a problem solely with the double-standard and the metrics used to form it that the Liberals have concerning such things.

Tags: | | | | | | | |

8 Responses to “Liberal “Anti”-Racism”

  1. Ceefour Says:

    If I were on the receiving end of that comment she made about feeling threatened…I would feels threatened and, knowing what These People are likely to do, I would be on the alert for any attack…

  2. jonolan Says:

    I wouldn’t because she’s a Black woman and I’m a White man. Black women normally keep their violence within their own gender.

  3. Soylent Green Says:

    I know Metcalfe. He has a habit, like several of the Rs in PA of saying amazingly politically tone-deaf things when cameras and microphones are present. It’s possible one such might have preceded her question. Then again, she’s from just outside Philly, where folks blow each other away with considerably more abandon.

  4. jonolan Says:

    There’s no indication that the two had an exchange of any sort before Davidson’s question. It’s not impossible though, especially if Metcalfe was a firebrand of sorts. I don’t have quick and easy access to the meeting’s minutes to find out though.

  5. Alan Scott Says:


    Catching Liberals engaging in hypocrisy is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The H word seems to deeply offend them.

  6. jonolan Says:

    Offense is often a sign of guilt. Not always, of course, but quite often.

  7. Régulation Luis Says:

    Interesting posts. Offense is often an outcome of oppressed feelings.
    Many of them try to vent out themselves through violence but at the same time they fail to understand that it is another person or individual that is being hurt.

  8. jonolan Says:

    Welcome, Luis.

    Yes, the cult of victimhood seems to lead people into dehumanizing the very ones that the supposed victims claim are dehumanizing them.

Leave a Reply