If J. Matt Barber were handed a nail gun, he’d most definitely find a way to shoot himself in the foot with it. I say that, not out of any particular wish that he would shoot himself in the foot with a 16 penny nail, rather because it’s a fact that even though Barber is charged with the realtively easy task of fabricating right wing hate speech bullshit, he doesn’t seem to have the mental ability to come up with good right wing hate speech bullshit. Instead of just going after the 3v1L g4y5, he manages to textually urinate on women, black people, and non-bigot conservatives. Case and point, his commentary on Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a ‘faggot’. You can read it for yourself, but at the very least you’ll understand how an ignorant fellow like this could get himself canned from Allstate.
It’s really a simple case of the anti-gay rhetoric you find from Labarbera spawn, complete with the dehumanising methodology such as shown when referring to the “gay community”. But there’s a theme to this one, one which I would watch for in the future from the noise machine. There’s an underlying premise that black folk ought be outraged by the fact that gay folk are having a civil rights movement. Opinion after the hop:
Never mind that those in the “gay community” throw the word “faggot” around as a term of endearment for one another as frequently as Hillary Clinton changes her accent and in much the same manner as black “gangsta-rappers” break out the “N-word.”
Now, don’t misunderstand; Coulter’s comments lacked civility to be sure and were entirely inappropriate. Some compare her use of the word “faggot” to use of the “N-word.”
However, it would seem that African-Americans, who have truly experienced grave and systematic injustice over the years while struggling to obtain certain civil rights to which they were denied, might rightfully be offended by such a spurious comparison.
Most African-Americans are a little more than annoyed by the fact that the militant homosexual lobby has so artfully hijacked the rhetoric of genuine civil rights. That rhetoric has been cynically misapplied to the homosexual agenda, which includes mandated moral relativism, social androgyny and not just full acceptance, but celebration of a pleasure-based, sexually deviant lifestyle.
Equating the black community’s struggle for civil rights to homosexual activists’ struggle for special rights is a disingenuous parallel. By comparison, homosexuality is rooted in disordered, unhealthy and changeable behaviors that have – prior to the onset of social post-modernism – been considered both immoral and repulsive. Being black is rooted in, well, being black.
Here’s why this concerns me, and this is more in the context of Illinois – though it may be applicable in other states:
The homobigots here are well funded and well connected. If they haven’t tried already, their next logical step will be to attach themselves to elements of the black community whom, at least here, have been shown to be susceptible to various forms of religous political leadership.
Should they buy out or grow their own home grown black religious leader, it would not be difficult for them to generate the kind of public support they need for their notable “signatures against gays” movement.
I’ve always said that a republican reach out to the black community in Illinois is possible and in fact probable, my view was that the intersection issues would be schools and taxes. Things geared toward increasing black home and business ownership. Maybe even looking at some destinct elements of social issues to foster a working relationship between the communities.
“Agreeing to hate the queers” is not what I had in mind.