Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Dispatches from Ni**erhead Ranch UPDATED: Now He's a Birther

MOOOOOOOOOSE!

We had a spirited discussion surrounding Rick Perry and his Niggerhead Ranch.  If you recall we were waiting for him to make a further statement, maybe comment on why that symbolism would be so offensive perhaps do something to erase the legacy of a hunting camp run by White men called Niggerhead.  

So, the Perry camp didn’t do any of that of course.  Instead they launched a bigoted attack on the Mormon faith of Mitt Romney.  One of his hand picked pastors stated his opinion that Mormonism was a cult, and when questioned on the subject Perry disavowed the “cult” label pretty much the same way he disavowed the name on his hunting ranch.

Well my stars, look what we have from Talking Points Memo some leaked e-mails.

New emails obtained by the Daily Beast have cast doubt on the Perry campaign’s attempts to disassociate itself from attacks on Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith.

The documents show David Lane – a Christian fundraiser who reportedly played a large role in convincing Perry to run – writing to evangelical talk radio chief Dick Bott.

“What would anyone think if a candidate were a Scientologist?” Bott wrote. “Shouldn’t they want to know what the implications were that may flow therefrom? [sic]”

A day later, Lane included the following in his reply:

“Juxtaposing traditional Christianity to the false god of Mormonism is very important in the larger scheme of things.”

Snip

Perry has publicly distanced himself from the pastor since then, insisting that he does not believe Mormonism to be a cult. But the new emails between Lane and Bott suggest not everyone in his camp believes this is a bad development, the Daily Beast reports. Here’s more:

“We owe Dr. Jeffress a big thank you,” [Lane] wrote to Bott, adding that the media criticism that has called attention to the pastor’s comments was “a stroke of luck.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo….

Rick Perry has advisers who believe starting a nice round of religious bigotry is a lucky thing.

There was a great deal of effort made to state that Rick Perry was not a racist.  He painted over the rock ever so long ago, he appointed some Herman Cains to positions yada and yada, but he did nothing to erase the legacy nor does he apparently feel like he should.   He painted over the rock but the locals still call the place Niggerhead.  Rick Perry to this day has not done or said a single thing to heal even allowing the real Herman Cain to take a spanking for merely calling it insensitive.  Now his advisors are apparently openly endorsing religious bigotry, and are you surprised?  Not me, just another dispatch from Niggerhead Ranch and there will be more.

Hot off the presses of Think Progress we have another dispatch.  Rick Perry is a birther.

http://thinkprogress.org/polit…

Perry said that he recently met with Donald Trump and discussed the issue. Perry stated that he doesn’t “have a definitive answer” on whether Obama was born in the United States or “any idea” if Obama’s birth certificate is real. Here’s the transcript:

Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?

I have no reason to think otherwise.

That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”-

Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.

But you’ve seen his.

I don’t know. Have I?

You don’t believe what’s been released?

I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.

And?

That came up.

And he said?

He doesn’t think it’s real.

And you said?

I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.

There will be more, because dude is a stone bigot and like his poodle headed friend a racist.  Yes, if you are a birther you are a racist.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 9 Comments

9 comments

  3. anna shane

    that should be a film, one dvd that’s worth owning cause it’s amazing.  I thought Cain sounded like a dope, but less than half way through he didn’t seem that bad, compared with the group.  Ricky stands and walks like a bad impersonation of W, who badly impersonated John Wayne.  In other words like he has a towel wadded up his crotch.  Many of them could not stand straight, but Ricky stands at a decided tilt.  The Texas tilt one supposes?  Michele comes on stage like she’s on the Carson show. And what smiles.  

    Mitt has shown his truest side, in wanting the houses to hurry up and be foreclosed already, so that his investor friends can scoop them up and turn them into a tidy profit.  But did he turn beet red or what when Ricky got him on his gardening service?  He gets this look that says, ‘damn, got me on this one, what can I say what can I say.’  Actually they all radiate ‘got’ when they’re gotten and the only thing Santorum could have added was, liar liar.  I mean they were all calling the others liars.  I hate arguing facts, but in this case it was entertaining, and anyway who knew any of them cared about facts, or even had the ‘fact’ concept.  Biggest surprise of the evening, you bettcha.’

    Of course Mitt being Mormon is his biggest problem (of a host of them).  Ricky knows his followers believe Mitt is in an evil satanic cult, and if anyone but me reads Maureen, you’ve had your morning laugh, and if you don’t, break the boycott for today, I recommend, you bettcha’.  

    Who needs Saturday night live,  this one should earn an emmy.  Ricky was cute when he said he didn’t answer questions, just said what he wanted to say.  If any had held back before, after he said that it was question-free zone.  

    No one is smart enough to have written that script.  

    NIne nine nine?  

  4. wordsinthewind

    I can tell you that changing minds where such terms are considered “descriptive” is a slow process, generally one person at a time. I personally won’t put up with hateful speech in my presence and long ago learned to personalize it. I look the offender straight in the eye and explain that such hateful talk hurts my heart and would they please stop in my presence. It’s as neutral in judgment as I can manage but I mean it. I’ve been practicing since I was a teenager in the early 60s and convinced my family I would not speak to them if they didn’t stop using the n-word in front of me. It worked in the sense that everyone was careful around me and that attention evenutally changed some attitudes. Now that I’m old it’s even easier, I care even less what people think.

  5. Rashaverak

    In my opinion, a candidate’s religious beliefs are a legitimate factor to take into account when deciding whether or not to vote for the candidate.

    Some people cite the Constitutional no-religious-test provision for the proposition that a candidate’s religious beliefs are not a legitimate factor to take into account.  That provision, found in Article VI, Paragraph 3, states:

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    The provision was a reaction to English statutes that prohibited Roman Catholics and non-conforming Protestants from holding public office.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…

    What the Constitutional provision concerns is whether or not someone can get on the ballot, and whether, if elected, he or she can serve.  It says nothing about whether voters may or may not take into account a candidate’s religious beliefs.

    A candidate’s religious beliefs can affect the candidate’s opinions and actions on issues of public importance.  E.g., a fundamentalist Christian or a Roman Catholic might favor, and vote for, a Constitutional amendment declaring that a human being with full equal-protection rights arises at the moment of conception.  Voters should be entitled to take that opinion into account.

    A candidate might be a follower of a sect that believes that the world is going to end within the lifetime of everyone who has already been born.  That candidate might therefore be unconcerned about the long-term effects on global climate of the burning of fossil fuels, or about the conservation of natural resources.  Voters should be entitled to take such an opinion into account.

    Or suppose that a candidate is a Creator.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…

    All of that said, a candidate’s religious beliefs do not necessarily indicate how the candidate would act in office.  E.g., a number of Roman Catholic office-holders have taken the position that, despite their personal religious beliefs that abortion is morally wrong, they should not impose that belief on others by voting to deny government funding of abortion, or outlawing abortion outright.

    I do not think that voters should decide to vote for a candidate simply because he or she is a Christian. I do not think that voters should decide not to vote for a candidate simply because he or she is a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or…

    But I do think that voters are entitled to take a candidate’s religious beliefs into account in deciding whether or not to vote for that candidate.  Depending on the nature of the beliefs, the beliefs might be a sufficient justification for deciding not to vote for that candidate… as in the extreme example of the hypothetical candidate who is a Creator.

    Specifically with regard to Mormonism, I think it is fair to ask a Mormon candidate whether he or she believes that the Book of Mormon contains historically accurate accounts, and if so, how he or she reconciles the proposition that Native Americans are descendants of lost tribes of Israel with the results of DNA studies that show essentially no Semitic elements in the DNA of Native Americans.

    That is just as legitimate a question as asking a fundamentalist Christian how old the world is, or whether we should conserve natural resources, or as asking a Roman Catholic whether contraception and abortion should be outlawed.

    Such inquiries are legitimate and do not evince bigotry.

Comments are closed.