Browse By

Nebraska Republicans Officially Embrace Racism And Sexism To Placate Donald Trump

Do you remember that time when Donald Trump refused to denounce the Ku Klux Klan, the racist organization with a long history of assault and murder of African-Americans? Some people thought that this outrageous indifference to racism on Trump’s part would doom his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Instead, Trump’s friendly attitude toward the KKK made him more appealing to the racist base of the Republican Party. Some Republicans might say that’s not a fair assessment, but it’s a fact that after Trump declared he wouldn’t pass judgment on David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, the rate of support he got from Republican voters increased.

This weekend, the new racist ideology of the Republicans was officially confirmed at a meeting of the Nebraska Republican Party – with some fresh sexism thrown in. When delegates at the Nebraska State Republican Convention were presented with a resolution declaring that, “The Nebraska Republican Party will strongly oppose all degrading remarks towards women, minorities, and other elected officials, including candidates for the President of the United States,” they voted against it.

Their justification: If the Nebraska Republican Party takes a stand against racism and sexism, it would hurt Donald Trump’s campaign.

Just as Donald Trump refused to denounce the KKK, the Nebraska Republicans are refusing to denounce racism in general, and won’t take a stand against crude sexism either.

You’ll never guess who the Nebraska Republican that introduced the motion to kill the resolution against racism and sexism was. It was Pat McPherson, a member of the Nebraska State Board of Education who on five separate occasions called Barack Obama a “half breed” on the Objective Conservative blog that he owns, operates, edits and writes for. Well, to be fair, McPherson claims that he himself didn’t write the five articles calling President Obama a “half breed”. He says it was a friend who did it, in the name of McPherson’s blog. McPherson won’t say who this friend is. It’s a secret racist identity.

35 thoughts on “Nebraska Republicans Officially Embrace Racism And Sexism To Placate Donald Trump”

  1. Al Hopfmann says:

    I find it absurd that you refer to the Republican Party as having a “racist base” You must be mistaking them for the Democratic Party. I am not a Republican and will not become one because the Republican Party is the “Party of Stupid”. While there are many good Republicans, the party structure has for years only given the voters the “lesser of two evils” choice (Trump, Romney, Bush, Nixon, Eisenhower, Hoover, etc). But the Democratic Party is the “Party of Evil”. It has consistently offered us dedicated statists who have no respect for the Constitution or the American way of life.. It has essentially the same platform as the Socialist and Communist Parties. And if you don’t think that the Democratic Party is the more racist of the two parties, just check Appendix E of the Massachusetts Democratic Party State Convention Delegates’ Package. Or look at the list of Congressmen and Senators who have voted for the racial discrimination euphemistically called “affirmative action” over the past few decades. They far outnumber the Republicans. To eschew racism, vote Libertarian.

    1. J Clifford says:

      So, to sum up your reaction on the subject of racism: The real problem you perceive with racism in America is that African-Americans have too many advantages over European-Americans. So, vote Libertarian.

      Is that summary inaccurate, Al?

      1. Al Hopfmann says:

        Libertarians are not racists . Libertarians believe that all individuals are unique minorities of one and should have equal rights that exist naturally, not “granted” by government. Libertarians are not like “liberals” who categorize people by races — supposed, real, or arbitrary. Libertarians find it obnoxious that governments get away with classifying people by race and try to manufactures “rights” for groups. The abomination known as “affirmative action” is racism by definition, clear and simple. To deny that is to ignore the fact that nobody has a choice of their skin color or ethnicity when born. Individual racism is bad. Institutional racism is worse. Governmental racism is the worst of all.
        Naysayers and apologists for state-sanctioned racism can try to twist concepts and misappropriate words into other persons’ declarations, but that doesn’t change the reality of who the real racists are.

        1. J Clifford says:

          In your case, Libertarianism seems to mean the belief that African-Americans have unfair advantages over European Americans.

          Libertarians aren’t racist, huh?

          1. ella says:

            J Clifford, did the Congress finally give white females first citizen status. If not still, for the longest both men and women among ‘blacks’ were legally ‘first class citizens’, if a person was born ‘black’, they were automatically first class citizens, still are. But ‘white’ females were no higher than ‘second class citizens’. The ‘respect’ factor seems to be an advantage, don’t you think?

      2. ella says:

        Guess I should have jumped in here sooner. Yes, actually, African Americans do have more privileges than any other race. Only ‘blacks’ are so racist as to only recognize ‘whites’ when whining about wanting to take over everything the country has to offer. The only whine ‘blacks’ make are to the generous and kind-hearted ‘white’ people who gave them their jobs, their tax money to feed them so they could stay home and raise their children without having to worry about medical expenses, and gave them free food, plus cash to buy needs with. Prior to the welfare program, no ‘white’ person ever had any of those privileges. And they were for the ‘blacks’ only in the beginning. Soup kitchens opened when ‘whites’ were starving while working for a nickle a day, if they could find that. Children didn’t go to school unless they could find a job so they could have shoes. After so many ‘whites’ lost their jobs by law, to ‘blacks’ and now other nationalities who have illegally moved to the country where they are citizens, they were included in the use of the tax money they paid in. Of course by now so have the ‘blacks’ had to pay taxes as well. But who is still whining about ‘race’ issues? Who wants to have literally everything, and what do they want the ‘white’ race to do after it is taken? Will the racist ‘blacks’ then give everything back to the ‘whites’ they just conquered because of their kind-hardheartedness and generosity. not to mention sense of fair play? Shame to those racist ‘blacks’ that instead of fighting drugs and crime in the neighborhoods they want to live in, say that ‘whites’ force them to live there. Shame to those racist ‘blacks’ that complain that they don’t have jobs, yet do not create jobs for their own people in those same neighborhoods. Ask those racist ‘blacks’ why they don’t keep or maintain businesses in those same neighborhoods? Not everyone is whining, just those that have real political agendas to help themselves, and those who they can play off of – and they are pure racists.

        1. Jim Cook says:


          I have no patience with your claim, considering that in field experiment after field experiment after field experiment, it has been shown that given a pair of equally-qualified people who differ only in skin tone or racialized name, the non-white member of the pair tends to be treated quite a bit more poorly. Follow these links for connections to empirical research:

          1. ella says:

            The problem with the research you present is that it is targeted to particular circumstances of “treatment”, not what those same people actually say about and/or to each other. Racism is based on the speech actions of people. Racism is ‘because you are green you do not have the right to cross the street in front of my store.’ That sort of racism did and may still exist. Racism is also saying, even though there were multiple people or multiple races present, orange man is responsible for the injury to green man.’ Racism is saying you owe me, even though you have never met that person, but just because you are an orange person that means you ‘owe’ green’ person. That is usually even though ‘green’ person was not alive when former ‘green man’ had to walk out of his way. Human nature tends to respond to others the way they are related to. Speak nicely, politely and in a friendly manner in some areas and you take your chances. In those same areas you snarl and are disrespectful to be treated with respect. It is called culture. You test groups within different cultural areas with the same data and circumstances and you may well have different results. The same holds true of multi-cultural groups, the difference being that many will respond in a like manner to ‘be like the other person.’ And it greatly depends on if a group/individual stands to gain something from the results.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            To be totally upfront, I care much less about what people say about one another (prejudice) and much more about what people do to one another (discrimination). Racial discrimination is demonstrably real on multiple dimensions and in the United States of America demonstrably leads to favorable treatment of white people and demonstrably poor treatment of non-white people.

          3. ella says:

            “Racial discrimination is demonstrably real on multiple dimensions and in the United States of America demonstrably leads to favorable treatment of white people and demonstrably poor treatment of non-white people.”

            You say ‘demonstrably’, but then we see that is also the case in reverse. White people are also unfavorably treated by people of other races. It happens in public places all of the time. Probably the most violent case has been ‘demonstrated’ in the past two or three years with the game of slugging a white on the street to knock the white out. It was called a game though, wasn’t. Why? Because ‘blacks’ were doing the slugging. If a ‘white had done that, there would have been belligerent demonstrations, maybe riots, and constant press calling whites – what’s that word? – racist! Most of what is being called ‘racist’ among ‘whites’ is resentment and fear. Fear of being called a racist and therefore subject to legal action. Resentment because most of those people never were, and still are not, racist. Could not care less what race a person is as long as they can relate to civilized society. And there is one of the worst rubs. Many of other cultures, including ‘blacks’ that have decided to separate themselves from ‘white society, do not fit in that description. Therefore the national and state laws are broken far more often in those cultures and are bloating the prison system. In some subcultures, that is a badge of acceptance into the group. And so it perpetuates. Until someone quits excusing bad habits and rebellious juvenile like actions by saying it is because of ‘racism’, it will continue. There is not enough positive discipline, self or otherwise.

          4. Jim Cook says:

            You’re just sharing stories you’ve heard, which is NOT the same as systematic research. The stories you are spreading are a made-up urban myth:

            Stop spreading falsehood. Just stop it.

          5. ella says:

            Thank you for the link which proves this point. But this is only one of many facets of ‘other race’ abuse of whites. There are the workplace rebuffs and snobbery, the instances of racial blackmail. Such as: “You will do what I tell you to or I’ll claim you made racial remarks to me, get you fired.” Yeah, that happened frequently around an office job I once had. There were four ‘other race’ women who banded together to run the place when no one was looking.

            “[W]ith the “knockout game,” we have several cases in a handful of cities, as well as five reported deaths. Victims tell similar stories: They were walking down the street when they were suddenly punched from behind. There’s no doubt that the experience is terrifying and traumatic.”

          6. Jim Cook says:

            The Daily Beast link does NOT prove your point. Of course somewhere, at some time, some black people are going to be mean to some white people. There are more than 7 billion people on the planet, so of course you can find a story. The question is, is it an observable TREND? No, it’s not; as the Daily Beast discovered, the supposed “knockout game” movement is a myth. The repeatedly observed trend is that black people in the United States are consistently discriminated against more often than white people are discriminated against. See the links to research I’ve provided above.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      I call bullshit, Al. In a recent Pew poll, only 48% of Cruz supporters and 39% of Trump supporters agreed that “an increasing number of people of different races and ethnicities makes the U.S. a better place to live.” In contrast, 72% of Clinton supporters and 73% of Sanders supporters agreed. Source:

      1. Al Hopfmann says:

        You’re the one spreading the “BS”. I believe that Ted Cruz would not vote for the racism known as “affirmative action”, while Clinton and Sanders would vote for it consistently. More Democrats have consistently voted for state-sanctioned racism than Republicans have. Actions speak louder than words.
        I also think that you will find that while there is a great range (from good to bad) of sensitivity to and understanding of the whole issue of racism in both “major” political parties, Libertarians are the least racist of any identifiable demographic group.

  2. ella says:

    Actually Donald Trump did disavow the KKK leaders endorsement. Let me ask a question while here. Would you support Jan Brewer for Donald Trumps VEEP pick?

    1. J Clifford says:

      Donald Trump took three days to disavow the KKK, and only did so after coming under extreme pressure.

      Do you not understand the seriousness of that?

      Why are you coddling this kind of racist immorality, Ella?

  3. Korky Day says:

    Jim Cook wrote: In a recent Pew poll, only 48% of Cruz supporters and 39% of Trump supporters agreed that “an increasing number of people of different races and ethnicities makes the U.S. a better place to live.”

    It might, but only because those darker people (I’m one) tend to be less racist. If the Whites weren’t racist, it might be fine if their proportion of the population remained as high as it is. That would mean, first of all, that the country would stop its current genocidal practices against the First Nations and gain with fair treaties some of the land.

    I’ve already written in Irregular Times that I don’t think that Trump is any more racist than the average US American. He just has a loose tongue. Which is what the voters will choose over a carefully scripted Wall-Street phony like Clinton. (I generally vote Green.)

  4. Korky Day says:

    Jim Cook deserves credit for his restraint in answering the racist stories from ‘ella’.

    Now, ‘ella’, you know that I like you and defend you when you’re right. But not on racism.
    The USA is and always has been racist against Brown people like me and against Blacks.
    It used to discriminate against Irish, of which I have some in my family tree, too.
    If you just had one or 2 misconceptions about racism, I’d try to straighten you out, bit by bit.
    But because you seem to have a whole slew of them (you got from some racist group, I guess), I don’t have time to refute them all.

    1. ella says:

      Korky Day, I appreciate your being candid. My point is that “racism” is a multi-cultural, multi-racial facet of any society. There are brown skin groups, yes I said groups, that collectively are racist against white skin races. Not because of their nationality, not because of the cultural differences. Rather, and only, because of the color of their skin. This applies to groups of white skinned races as well. To me to say that this nation is racist, and that the government should be involved in settling certain aspects of the national cultural problems, is wrong. The very ideology behind a national racism in the United States, is wrong. In fact, it was white skinned races that fought, among themselves, to free not only brown skinned and black skinned races, but people of bronze, yellow, red, and white skinned races, from slavery. The only slaves that are mentioned are the brown and black skinned races. In those days, the black and brown skin races preferred to live among their own racial cultures. Some however moved in around white skinned neighbors and were accepted, educated, and became educators and business people. What happened to change all of this? If you think about it, you will look back to the early 20th century, to a political movement that began sweeping the world. To a political movement whose purpose was served to divide this nation – and in so doing – divide the races and families. It is not a national racism, it is a group – politically based – that uses inflammatory rhetoric to divide people.

      1. Jim Cook says:

        That’s enough, Ella. It really is. Please go read a history book. An actual book of actual history.

        You just said that before the 20th Century, black and brown people in the United States “preferred to live among their own racial cultures,” but that those who bothered to choose to hang out with white people were accepted.

        Actually, before the 20th Century, black and brown people in the United States were slaves and sold as chattel.

        Well into the 20th Century, black and brown people were denied their right to vote, to go to school, to own property, to move into white neighborhoods, to even sit next to white people.

        Into the new 21st Century, a white person with a criminal record is more likely to get a job interview than an equally-qualified black person without a criminal record. This is not a mere story; it is a systematic demonstrated fact:

        While you are reading that history textbook, I encourage you to read this brief article on cognitive dissonance:

        1. ella says:

          Jim Cook, yes, let us look into history for a while. Piece by piece we can at least show some of the truth that is smothered in the political rhetoric of the 21st century. There were Africans in America that were free at the time of the Civil War.. Those that were living in the north, mostly, were instrumental in the bringing of the Civil War. I will start it here:

          “In the North, they clustered in small communities in the larger cities. They established stable families, built their own institutions, and, although most were denied full citizenship, nevertheless became a vigorous force in regional and national politics. Free African Americans represented only about 10 percent of the total black population at the time of the Civil War, but their role in the issues that led to Southern secession was in great disproportion to their numbers.”;jsessionid=f8301762051464423906041?migration=7&bhcp=1

          “Genealogists for our Finding Your Roots PBS series told me that I had descended from three sets of fourth great-grandparents who had been freed well before the Civil War. (Unless, like comedian Wanda Sykes, you descend from a mulatto child born to a white mother, all of your African-American ancestors were once slaves; the only question is when they became free, which for 90 percent of us was either during the Civil War or with the ratification of the 13th Amendment following the war.) Two sets of my own ancestors (the Cliffords and the Redmans) were free people by the time of the American Revolution, and the other set, the Bruces, were freed in the will of their master in 1823”

        2. ella says:

          In this you may find a great deal of the way you have learned to think.

          “Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
          January 10, 1963
          Current Communist Goals
          Thursday, January 10, 1963”

          1. Korky Day says:

            You write, ella, as if you are in some sort of strange cult which has its own way of thinking and its own facts which are unknown to the rest of us.
            Your latest comment is also too full of absurdities for me to want to spend time countering them.
            You cult or group or party is anti-communist, I guess. What’s the name of it? Do you have a holy book?

          2. ella says:

            You apparently have no interest in facts, so I get your point. Ignoring, or trying to pretend you have know knowledge of the historical facts that have led up to the present, and then refusing to read those facts from verifiable sources, Korky Day, surprises me. But to call the Congressional Record a pop cult? Just guessing, your are an atheist, but that has no bearing on the ability to accept historical fact. Or is it that you are simply already aware of it and so – – well accepting that Communist political view. You should be a Sanders (far Left) fan then. It begs the question – then why are you pretending to be in denial concerning the political environment of today in relation to the past? The ‘divide and conquer’ plot that has been successful throughout history.

          3. Jim Cook says:

            You’re digging your hole deeper, Ella. The longer this conversation goes on, the more your us vs. them view of the world is leaking out.

          4. ella says:

            What have you heard of the West Nile virus since the Zika virus has become a new ‘epidemic’? Are they both going to be problematic mosquito born medical problems this year? And where on Earth will the Olympics be moved to (if they are) since the Zika virus originated in that country?

          5. ella says:

            But, I see you do know what I am saying and maybe you did read the manifesto. It is interesting to watch what is going on, it has been tracked by scholars for so long. Odd to see it come together so easily, just as planned.

          6. Jim Cook says:

            Yes, I see perfectly what you’re saying: you’re saying you’ve built your life perspective on the basis of identifying entire classes of people you believe are out to get you and who therefore must be punished as a class through government action.

          7. ella says:

            “…you’re saying you’ve built your life perspective on the basis of identifying entire classes of people you believe are out to get you and who therefore must be punished as a class through government action.” Jim Cook

            You have a vivid imagination, but it is better if you only attribute it to yourself. Maybe someone is out to get you. Is there someone out there that does not like something you ever did? Or said? Not to worry, life is an ever changing amalgam of circumstances where everything living is always trying to live a life of its’ own. Of course there are always those who, like you, take words and rearrange them to suit a different meaning. Usually the opposite. You are good at it. But I’ve seen you do it before. Did you learn the double speak language in recent years or decades ago? I am actually curious.

  5. Korky Day says:

    Affirmative action, or even the stronger measure of quotas, are not racist.
    I’ve argued for hours about that with people over the years.
    To be brief, consider that the USA House of Representatives has quotas by geography.
    Does that make the House of Representatives geographist? (I made up the word, like racist.)
    No, AA and quotas are not geographist or racist. AA and quotas can be very fair.

    If Congress did not have quotas by geography, then each state would not be guaranteed its fair share of members of the House of Representatives.
    California and Alaska might elect twice as many members as now, and Vermont and New York might elect none. Or the other way around. You’d never know ahead of time. Your ballot would list candidates for the House of Representatives from anywhere in the country.

    That doesn’t happen, though, does it? Because of geographic quotas. Fair. Racial or sexual AA or quotas are just as fair.

    Our prime minister here in Canada promised before the election that he’d appoint women to half of his cabinet.
    Then he kept his promise. I guess you’d call him sexist, ‘ella’.

  6. Korky Day says:

    If I’m lazy, you might think that I deserve to be poor.
    But if I’m poorer than average because I’m an average descendant of slaves, then do I also ‘deserve’ that?

    That’s one of the main absurdities of libertarianism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.
    True communism and socialism are better in those ways.

    1. ella says:

      If I live 100% below the poverty line, but came from a middle class white family, does that make me lazy? Do I deserve to be poor? Does anyone notice how many poor white people there are?

      1. Korky Day says:

        The point you seem to have missed, ella, is that people can go either way, but some have unfair advantages.
        Libertarianism assumes we all had an equal start.

      2. Korky Day says:

        Trump is not a libertarian. He wants to help the poor and working classes of all races.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!