The Trayvon Martin case, which exploded onto the national scene last week, has reminded me of everything I utterly detest about colorblind conservatives. They will openly lie, use faulty logic, ignore facts—while pretending to “wait for all the facts to come in”—and twist words in order to promote their absurd “race-free” ideology. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that colorblind conservatives are sometimes as bad as the liberals they profess to dislike.
WATCH THIS TO LEARN THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE:
Before I begin to expose and refute the arrant lies and fallacies that have been swirling in the conservative blogosphere since this story broke, I must say that it is extremely problematic when people think that real conservatism is simply about having the complete opposite of every position liberals take on an issue. Clearly, that’s what colorblind conservatives have done with this Trayvon Martin story.
Because liberals have correctly decried the racist nature of the Trayvon killing, colorblind conservatives feel in order to be “authentically conservative,” they must take the opposite position on the issue—which means advancing the manifestly preposterous notion that the case has nothing to do with race, in defiance of the facts which suggest that it does. When you have credible evidence—which I will show later in this blog—that Trayvon’s murder was racially motivated, to have colorblind conservatives screaming that the situation isn’t racial just makes them look not only clownish, but also deliberately duplicitous on the issue of race. And then when minorities vote for Democrats at staggeringly high rates, they then concernedly begin scratching their heads while deeply pondering the question: “Why aren’t minorities attracted to the GOP?”
This is probably going to sound like heresy to the conservatives with the intellectual capacity that can only manage simplistic talking points that have been repeated ad nauseam, but the fact of the matter is that while I may completely disagree with liberalism as a political philosophy, it does not mean that everything liberals say is always wrong. I can come to the same conclusion as a liberal with different reasoning, and I can also agree with a liberal on completely non-partisan issues. The murder of a black teen while walking down the street after buying Skittles and ice tea should be considered a non-partisan issue. However, in an election year, conservatives have used it as a way to irrationally lambast President Obama for making the mildest, most appropriate remarks on the killing. (More on this absurdity later.)
So, with that said, let’s go through the fallacious logic and the arrant lies of the right on this issue.
I saw this story on The Blaze, and it is so shocking how liberals consistently use the worst parts of the history of blacks in America to make fallacious political points. This comment from Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not an anomaly. Bill Clinton made the same absurd point last year.
It’s a shame that Republican voters eliminated Michele Bachmann. She is the best person to substantively refute the leftist claim that Obama is tough on foreign policy. It is very difficult to make the argument that the president who managed to kill the extremely evasive Osama bin Laden is a weak foreign policy president; however, Michele Bachmann makes the case expertly.
While I completely disagree with Ann Coulter vis-à-vis Mitt Romney, I enthusiastically agree with her comments in this video! Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she is an absolute self-serving fraud. The fact that the conservative movement didn’t unanimously turn on Palin after her backstabbing of Michele Bachmann—on the day before the Iowa vote!—is absolutely shocking to me. Also, it’s curious that conservatives haven’t questioned her flip-flopping on candidates. First, she heavily praised Santorum (for the sole purpose of attempting to get Bachmann out of the race, because Santorum was Bachmann’s main competitor), then she switched to Gingrich, who was floating her name around as a possible cabinet pick.