← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Recluse
Thread ID: 3928 | Posts: 40 | Started: 2002-12-09
2002-12-09 14:54 | User Profile
Washington -- Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if then- segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948.
Asked to comment on Lott's remarks at the Thurmond celebration, Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, said, "God Bless Trent Lott."
[url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2002/12/07/MN176462.DTL]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...07/MN176462.DTL[/url]
I'm not going to praise Lott because I'm sure that the inevitable groveling is only moments away, this is just an FYI post. The [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802524/posts?q=1&&page=51]freepers are soiling themselves[/url] of course. Questioning forced integration is a taboo topic over there these days, almost as bad as questioning our relationship with Israel. Good to see the CofCC in the news again. Yes, they go too far in dowplaying the role that powerful Jews play in the destruction of our way of life, but they've been putting a lot of people in the streets lately protesting immigration and that goes farther towards reaching the lemmings than book-of-the-month clubs or polite discussions ever will, and for that I'm grateful. That's why I support VNN and Hal Turner and The Couch Potato and the Tombstone Militia and every other activist who's out there putting their butts on the line to get people's attention. God bless 'em all!
2002-12-09 18:53 | User Profile
Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond GOP Senate Leader Hails Colleague's Run As Segregationist
By Thomas B. Edsall Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, December 7, 2002; Page A06
Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948.
Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey: "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."
On July 17, 1948, delegates from 13 southern states gathered in Birmingham to nominate Thurmond and adopt a platform that said in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, said yesterday he was stunned by Lott's comments, which were broadcast live by C-SPAN. "I could not believe he was saying what he said," Lewis said. In 1948, he said, Thurmond "was one of the best-known segregationists. Is Lott saying the country should have voted to continue segregation, for segregated schools, 'white' and 'colored' restrooms? . . . That is what Strom Thurmond stood for in 1948."
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said "Oh, God," when he learned of Lott's comments. "It's ludicrous. He should remember it's the party of Lincoln," referring to Lott's role as Republican leader of the Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month.
Lott's office played down the significance of the senator's remarks. Spokesman Ron Bonjean issued a two-sentence statement: "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong."
Bonjean declined to explain what Lott meant when he said the country would not have had "all these problems" if the rest of the nation had followed Mississippi's lead and elected Thurmond in 1948.
Lott's comments came in the middle of Thursday's celebration for Thurmond, Congress's oldest and longest-serving member. Lott followed at the lectern former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan). Initially Lott made jokes about Dole and then became serious when discussing how Mississippi voted in 1948.
The gathering, which included many Thurmond family members and past and present staffers, applauded Lott when he said "we're proud" of the 1948 vote. But when he said "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if Thurmond had won, there was an audible gasp and general silence.
In 1998 and 1999, Lott was criticized after disclosures that he had been a speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization formed to succeed the segregationist white Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. In a 1992 speech in Greenwood, Miss., Lott told CCC members: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries."
Asked to comment on Lott's remarks at the Thurmond celebration, Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, said "God bless Trent Lott."
And I'd like to say God Bless Trent Lott and God Bless Strom Thurmond. Yes gentlemen, "we wouldn't have had all these problems all these years" if the jews weren't so firmly planted up our azzes all these years. Mr Lott, I've just found a new respect for you and please sir.........DON'T APOLOGIZE!!
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20730-2002Dec6.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2002Dec6.html[/url]
2002-12-09 19:20 | User Profile
Maybe with more Jews jettisoning the blacks (ala McKinney, Hilliard) and defecting to the GOP with their money and support, some of the Republicans feel less inhibition about speaking on racial issues.
It's not like that many blacks vote GOP anyhow.
2002-12-09 19:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Dec 9 2002, 15:20 **Maybe with more Jews jettisoning the blacks (ala McKinney, Hilliard) and defecting to the GOP with their money and support, some of the Republicans feel less inhibition about speaking on racial issues.
It's not like that many blacks vote GOP anyhow.**
That kind of polarization of the parties is a step in the right direction, if it's truly occurring. Maybe that's also why Horowitz and friends have been engaging in almost-friendly dialogue with Jared Taylor over at [url=http://www.amren.com]American Renaissance[/url]. There are trends that suggest "American" Organized Jewry is jumping ship and going over to the nationalist camp, since they realize they made a strategic mistake by pushing for open immigration laws that have brought their Muslim enemies into their cushy American Sanctuary. The famed Steinlight article is an example of this trend.
Now, someone needs to displace Rove and Company and let the polarization occur.
2002-12-09 19:36 | User Profile
PA,
If you start seeing truckloads of Jewish money supporting anti-immigration GOP candidates in the Southwest, something's definitely afoot.
2002-12-10 06:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 9 2002, 19:28 > Originally posted by Centinel@Dec 9 2002, 15:20 Maybe with more Jews jettisoning the blacks (ala McKinney, Hilliard) and defecting to the GOP with their money and support, some of the Republicans feel less inhibition about speaking on racial issues.
It's not like that many blacks vote GOP anyhow.**
That kind of polarization of the parties is a step in the right direction, if it's truly occurring. Maybe that's also why Horowitz and friends have been engaging in almost-friendly dialogue with Jared Taylor over at [url=http://www.amren.com]American Renaissance[/url]. There are trends that suggest "American" Organized Jewry is jumping ship and going over to the nationalist camp, since they realize they made a strategic mistake by pushing for open immigration laws that have brought their Muslim enemies into their cushy American Sanctuary. The famed Steinlight article is an example of this trend.
Now, someone needs to displace Rove and Company and let the polarization occur.**
I agree completely.
The Steinlight article was a real watershed. Here the Head of the Sanhedrin Committee on US Immigration Policy ordered a one-eighty turn in direction. Of course, it takes a while for a big ship to turn, but turn it will.
Walter
2002-12-10 07:47 | User Profile
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/john-parker1.html]True Colors[/url]
by John R. Parker, Jr.
Q: What are the differences between the Revs. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, National Review Contributing Editor David Frum, NRO Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg, Webblogger Andy Sullivan, and Weekly Standard Editor-in-Chief Bill Kristol?
A: What differences?
In case you havenââ¬â¢t heard, Senator Trent Lott had the audacity to say that he was proud Mississippi had voted for Strom Thurmond in Olââ¬â¢ Stromââ¬â¢s 1948 Dixiecrat presidential bid. The horror! Here is what the aforementioned folks had to say about it:
Jesse Jackson
"Trent Lott must step down," Jackson said in a statement. "He is supposed to be Senate majority leader for all Americans, but he once again has shown he is interested only in Confederates."
Rev. Al Sharpton
"The Republican Party has said that it wants to reach out to minorities, whom have historically felt uncomfortable with being members of their party in any great numbers. Now the Republican Party has an opportunity to show they sincerely reach out, by repudiating Lottââ¬â¢s statements and asking him to step aside as Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate."
David Frum
"Lottââ¬â¢s words suggest that one of the three most powerful and visible Republicans in the nation privately thinks that desegregation, civil rights, and equal voting rights were all a big mistake.
These would be disgraceful thoughts to think, if Lott thought them. If Lott thought them, any Republican who accepted his leadership would share in the disgrace. So Lott needs to make it clear that he does not in fact think them. He owes his party, his state, his country, and his conscience something more ââ¬â something much more ââ¬â than a curt "I am sorry if you were offended." If he canââ¬â¢t do that, Republicans need to make it clear that Lott no longer speaks for us."
Jonah Goldberg
On the facts, Lottââ¬â¢s comments were dumb. Morally, they were indefensible. Politically, they served to confirm the suspicions of millions of blacks and liberal whites about what is in the hearts of conservatives and Republicans while earning him nothing but a smile from a 100 year-old man. And, on that note, surely Lott could have said something which would have been just as flattering to Thurmond without the Republican Senate Majority Leader saying that things would have been a lot better if we never passed anti-lynching laws.
(Never mind that Congress has no authority to pass anti-lynching laws. Read the truth about Senator Thurmondââ¬â¢s record on lynching.)
Andrew Sullivan
TRENT LOTT MUST GO: After his disgusting remarks at Strom Thurmondââ¬â¢s 100th birthday party, it seems to me that the Republican Party has a simple choice. Either they get rid of Lott as majority leader; or they should come out formally as a party that regrets desegregation and civil rights for African-Americans.
William Kristol
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said "Oh, God," when he learned of Lottââ¬â¢s comments. "Itââ¬â¢s ludicrous. He should remember itââ¬â¢s the party of Lincoln," referring to Lottââ¬â¢s role as Republican leader of the Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month.
Mr. Kristol has taken the words from my mouth.
December 10, 2002
*John R. Parker, Jr., [send him mail] has an AB from the University of Georgia in Greek and Latin, and a JD from Harvard Law School. He currently works in South Carolina.
Copyright é 2002 LewRockwell.com*
2002-12-10 08:10 | User Profile
"Itââ¬â¢s ludicrous. He should remember itââ¬â¢s the party of Lincoln," referring to Lottââ¬â¢s role as Republican leader of the Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month.
That's an appropriate statement, considering the GOP's recent expansion of government and usurpation of the Constitution.
2002-12-10 08:44 | User Profile
This appeared in the 10 December 2002 [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/10/opinion/10KRUG.html?todaysheadlines]New York Times.[/url]
Walter
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A man from Mars ââ¬â or from Europe ââ¬â might expect Mississippi voters to favor progressive taxation and generous social programs. After all, the state benefits immensely from the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson: it doesn't pay a lot of federal taxes because it has the lowest per-capita income in the nation, and it does receive a lot of aid. Unlike, say, New Jersey, which pays far more into the U.S. Treasury than it gets in return, Mississippi is a major net recipient of federal funds.
But Mississippi is, in fact, the home of Trent Lott ââ¬â a leader of a party determined to roll back as much as it can of the Great Society, perhaps even the New Deal. Why do Mississippi and its neighbors support politicians whose economic policies seemingly run counter to their interests?
Do I really need to answer that?
Fifty years ago the politics of race in America weren't at all disguised. Jim Crow laws both impoverished and disenfranchised Southern blacks; Southern whites voted for politicians who promised to keep things that way. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act ended overt discrimination. Yet race remains a major factor in our politics.
Indeed, this year efforts to suppress nonwhite votes were remarkably blatant. There were those leaflets distributed in black areas of Maryland, telling people they couldn't vote unless they paid back rent; there was the fuss over alleged ballot fraud in South Dakota, clearly aimed at suppressing Native American votes. Topping it off was last Saturday's election in Louisiana, in which the Republican Party hired black youths to hold signs urging their neighbors not to vote for Mary Landrieu.
Still, nobody now misses the days of overt racial discrimination. Or do they?
Last week, at Strom Thurmond's 100th-birthday party, Mr. Lott recalled Mr. Thurmond's 1948 race for the presidency. "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
What, exactly, did Mr. Lott mean by "all these problems"? Mr. Thurmond ran a one-issue campaign: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race," declared his platform.
Is it possible that a major modern political figure has sympathy for such views? After all, the Bush administration includes figures like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice; some of Mr. Lott's best friends . . . Yet during the 1990's he was extensively involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens ââ¬â a descendant of the White Citizens Council ââ¬â telling them at one point that they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy." When this came to light in 1998, Mr. Lott declared himself ignorant of the group's aims. Was he also ignorant of the aims of the 1948 Thurmond campaign? Or was he just, in the excitement of the moment, blurting out his real views?
At first the "liberal media," which went into a frenzy over political statements at Paul Wellstone's funeral, largely ignored this story. To take the most spectacular demonstration of priorities, last week CNN's "Inside Politics" found time to cover Matt Drudge's unconfirmed (and untrue) allegations about the price of John Kerry's haircuts. "Just two days after moving closer to a presidential race, John Kerry already is in denial mode," intoned the host. But when the program interviewed Mr. Lott the day after the Thurmond event, his apparent nostalgia for segregation never came up.
Now Mr. Lott has apologized for a "poor choice of words." But choice of words had nothing to do with it. What he did, quite clearly, was offer a retroactive endorsement of a frankly racist campaign.
And yes, there are political implications. In the midterm elections, Democratic candidates carefully avoided doing anything to mobilize the black vote, fearing that this would just encourage turnout by rural whites. But the rural whites turned out anyway, while blacks didn't. In Louisiana, black turnout ââ¬â the result of a determined get-out-the-vote operation, perhaps helped by Mr. Lott's remarks ââ¬â was the key to Ms. Landrieu's unexpected victory. Might I suggest that this tells us something?
2002-12-10 08:50 | User Profile
Still, nobody now misses the days of overt racial discrimination. Or do they?
Ummm . . .
Actually, I'm not for racial discrimination. Segregation - different races remaining socially separate within the same state - did not work. It was bound to fail.
We must divide into ethnically-pure states - this is the only way forward. It's happening all over the world now anyway - the former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union, etc. It's only instinct for people to prefer to live with their own kind, and this instinct will inevitably express itself. We can do it the easy way, or we can do it the hard way.
Yugoslavia did it the hard way, Czechoslovakia did it the easy way.
I'd prefer the easy way.
But, with fools like the author of this article forming the opinions for millions of sheeple, I think we're doomed to live in interesting times.
Walter
2002-12-10 09:21 | User Profile
That "thump" you heard was Lott falling to his knees in abject sorrow before the nigras & the zhids - he's already issued a weeping apology.
2002-12-10 10:05 | User Profile
I'm truly puzzled. I mean, Lott is a successful politician, for Pete's sake: that's like being a card-carrying Professional Mealymouthed Bulls*it Artist. Why he would make such a comment is a mystery: there's no political gain to be had from it, and I don't buy Trent Lott as a racialist Bulworth seized by a truth-telling fit. These guys say and do nothing without first adding it up on the mental abacus every pol totes around at all times.
Motives aside - and though I've no unconditional love for the black community, as a glance at my other posts will confirm - we are getting closer and closer to the point where we will have to choose between swallowing pride in the name of pragmatism and victory, or maintaining a Pyrrhic purity in total annihiliation.
Racialists will have to consider reaching out to nonwhites if we are ever to wrest our country back from the real enemy. Ask Hitler how fighting on two fronts simultaneously worked out for him. There are promising new currents, of both seal-the-border nativism and resentment of disproportionate Jewish power & influence, stirring among blacks at the moment....and the coming simultaneous war/depression will only feed both. Unthinkable as it sounds, we would be fools to waste such capital if there is a way to intelligently use it. Maybe an achievable better future will trump the symbolic importance of paying fealty to the Confederate past.
One thing is for sure: if Lott's on his knees now, it's Frum & Kristol who bent him low, not Sharpton & Jackson. Two mortal enemies may be a luxury we can't afford any longer.
2002-12-10 12:33 | User Profile
There maybe no political gain to be had from it but I fail to see any political loss.
The Republicans just won the back the Presidency and the Senate with every negro in America voting against them.
So who gives a sh*t what they think? Same with all the pettifogging pundits condemning Lott's comments.
Fact is white America has indeed paid a terrible price for integration. Race relations are worse now then they were in 1948. Negro resentment of 50 years of white solicitude exceeds their resentment of the previous 150 years of slavery and de facto apartheid. Our colonial cities are hell holes infested by negroes dependent on the government dole just as Calhoun (John C. not Algonquin J.) said they would be were the slaves ever freed. Our culture openly goads negroes into acting on their resentments and thus you have guys like the Carr Bros and many many others who act it out 365 days a year every freakin chance they get.
The schools suck, the old neighborhoods suck, the clerks at the MVA suck, the military sucks (except for the elite units which are all white), the postal department sucks, movies suck, TV sucks, even commercials suck, baseball sucks, basketball sucks, and football sucks too.
And guess who ruined them?
I wish more people would speak the truth that dare not be spoken.
2002-12-10 13:30 | User Profile
*There maybe no political gain to be had from it but I fail to see any political loss. The Republicans just won the back the Presidency and the Senate with every negro in America voting against them. So who gives a sht what they think? **
Well, after the euphoria passes comes the reality that the Republican Party is thoroughly corroded with a Zionist hawk agenda, and that nothing serves Jewish interests better than someone/thing else to distract us from noticing they're steering the ship of state (why else are they so pro-immigration?). As for Lott, I assume they'll begin parboiling him any minute now.
Yes it's definitely about time that somebody struck a blow for whites by getting up off his knees before the great god 400 Years of Slavery. That's not quite what Lott did, though, but it'll be treated as such and he'll be made to issue a contrite apology. And I repeat, he will do so because of Frum and Kristol and not Jackson and Sharpton.
If instead he had bemoaned the re-election of FDR, the manipulation of America into WW2, the overwhelming makeup of the communist Party....or even the dadblasted Liberty..... I'd be in breathless awe from the sheer display of balls. But a Missisippian playing to the gallery re a beloved elder statesman, while the Zionists (and Christian Zionists) in his own party aim the USS America towards the icebergs, is down two touchdowns late in the fourth quarter and settling for a field goal.
2002-12-10 14:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by eric von zipper@Dec 10 2002, 07:33 **There maybe no political gain to be had from it but I fail to see any political loss.
The Republicans just won the back the Presidency and the Senate with every negro in America voting against them.
So who gives a sh*t what they think? Same with all the pettifogging pundits condemning Lott's comments.
Fact is white America has indeed paid a terrible price for integration. Race relations are worse now then they were in 1948. Negro resentment of 50 years of white solicitude exceeds their resentment of the previous 150 years of slavery and de facto apartheid. Our colonial cities are hell holes infested by negroes dependent on the government dole just as Calhoun (John C. not Algonquin J.) said they would be were the slaves ever freed. Our culture openly goads negroes into acting on their resentments and thus you have guys like the Carr Bros and many many others who act it out 365 days a year every freakin chance they get.
The schools suck, the old neighborhoods suck, the clerks at the MVA suck, the military sucks (except for the elite units which are all white), the postal department sucks, movies suck, TV sucks, even commercials suck, baseball sucks, basketball sucks, and football sucks too.
And guess who ruined them?
I wish more people would speak the truth that dare not be spoken.**
Excellent post EVZ. Nothing more to say.
2002-12-10 18:09 | User Profile
To piggy-back Eric: What do you boys think the GOP is going to do about Mr. Lott?
Minority support for the GOP actually worsened in 2002. At what point does it have to reach for the GOP to say, "Uh, this is hopeless"?? If it hit ZERO, would they abandon that stupid idea?
Do they boot Lott and risk alienating the only quadrant of the country they are liked: the South?
-Jay
2002-12-10 19:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Dec 9 2002, 18:53 **
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said "Oh, God," when he learned of Lott's comments. "It's ludicrous. He should remember it's the party of Lincoln," referring to Lott's role as Republican leader of the Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month.
**
Of course what Kristol really means, (and all the other neocons) is it is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=4750&h]Karl Marx on Abraham Lincoln[/url]
2002-12-11 02:50 | User Profile
**The Truth is spoken and taken back. Better than not being spoken at all.
Trent Lott, you still have time stand and fight for America. What will you do?**
Washington -- Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948.
Asked to comment on Lott's remarks at the Thurmond celebration, Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, said, "God Bless Trent Lott."
"Yet during the 1990's he was extensively involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens ? telling them at one point that they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy." When this came to light in 1998, Mr. Lott declared himself ignorant of the group's aims. Was he also ignorant of the aims of the 1948 Thurmond campaign? Or was he just, in the excitement of the moment, blurting out his real views?"
The GOP sells out once more!
2002-12-11 04:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Dec 11 2002, 02:50 **Mr. Lott declared himself ignorant of the group's aims. Was he also ignorant of the aims of the 1948 Thurmond campaign? Or was he just, in the excitement of the moment, blurting out his real views?" **
Give me a break about what his views and principles are. Like most politicians, he has no views or principles, other than getting reelected.
Occasionally though a note of enthuisiastic admiration creeps through for people who unlike him, do have some real views and principles, at moments of weakness like retirement dinners. That's how I see the Thurmond remarks.
2002-12-11 04:37 | User Profile
I would also venture to guess he had had a good bit to drink.
2002-12-11 06:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 10 2002, 10:05 **There are promising new currents, of both seal-the-border nativism and resentment of disproportionate Jewish power & influence, stirring among blacks at the moment....and the coming simultaneous war/depression will only feed both. Unthinkable as it sounds, we would be fools to waste such capital if there is a way to intelligently use it. Maybe an achievable better future will trump the symbolic importance of paying fealty to the Confederate past.
**
I agree.
Blacks per se were never our problem. We can always deal with them.
The big problem for us is the Jewish-Black alliance. This is an unholy alliance of brains combined with brawn that has been advancing directly on us for the past 50-plus years. It's the combination that kills us. Remove the brain, and the brawn is no big deal. Remove the brawn, and the brain is isolated and ineffectual.
That's why this growing rift between Blacks and Jews is such good news for us. We need to encourage hate and discontent within the Black-Jewish alliance as much as we can.
Besides, I tend to agree with the Black nationalists about a whole lot of things. Like, for example, nationalism. Blacks deserve to have their own sovereign territory, and I'm willing to help so long as they'll reciprocate and support whites having their own sovereign territory. The same for Jews, actually. They deserve to have a homeland. There's plenty of room for all of us.
The truth is that I really have nothing against either Blacks or Jews. I wish both of them nothing but the best. But the fact remains that they have been waging PsyOp war on us for 50 years, and very effectively I might add. The proof of their PsyOp success lies in the fact that whites fail completely to recognize that a war is being waged at all - depite the litany of evils that we discuss here everyday.
Walter
2002-12-11 07:08 | User Profile
**There are promising new currents, of both seal-the-border nativism and resentment of disproportionate Jewish power & influence, stirring among blacks at the moment....and the coming simultaneous war/depression will only feed both. Unthinkable as it sounds, we would be fools to waste such capital if there is a way to intelligently use it. Maybe an achievable better future will trump the symbolic importance of paying fealty to the Confederate past. **
IR,
Only problem is the "seal the border" blacks are GOP neocons while the "J-E-W-S" blacks are lefty Dems (or even Greens) of the McKinney/Nation of Islam type who want the nanny state and "repamarations." We're talking about two different groups here.
The GOP blacks (no matter what they think in private) can't be critical of Jews, especially as more Jews defect to the GOP. In fact many GOP blacks probably are Christian Zionists, pro-Israel and anti-immigration.
The lefty blacks, however, identify with (and are allied politically with) Palestinians and Aztlan fanatics, so long as they get their piece of the pie. The logic they use is that Israel couldn't exist in its current state if it were to adopt the standards of our own civil rights, so why should we be propping up an oppressive regime with tax dollars. They also are the ones screaming loudest about foreign meddling in elections, since it was their candidates that were targeted.
My strategy suggestion is to let nature run its course. Fact is, Zionist, anti-immigration Jews are jumping over to the GOP in increasing numbers, possibly bringing a few neocon blacks with them. Overall, the GOP is moving left, but the newest Zionist-approved targets are La Raza fanatics. The anti-immigration movement is gaining steam, and paleos don't have to play the "bad guy" role as much anymore since it's mainstreaming.
The Dems with fewer Jews, less money and a polaraized lot of lefty blacks and Hispanics, are going to have to move farther left radically or face having the Greens spoil more elections for them like they did to the Dems in Florida in 2000.
There literally is no moderate center anymore for the Dems. The Southern Democrats that long provided moderation to the left-wing elements of the party are all but gone. Southern conservatives vote solidly GOP now. As the GOP has lurched and continues to lurch left, it is now the "moderate" party.
Which gives me hope that sooner or later enough Middle Americans will finally have the courage to make a break into a third party.
2002-12-11 07:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Dec 11 2002, 06:32 **That's why this growing rift between Blacks and Jews is such good news for us. We need to encourage hate and discontent within the Black-Jewish alliance as much as we can. **
With all due respect, I don't really see how you aren't just buying into the media hype when you talk about "the growing black-Jews rift". If you study black-jewish relations, there has always been resentment of Jewish dominance amng blacks, ever since Marcus Garvey stormed out of NAACP headquarters, complaining it was a "white" organization, and reading about all sorts of incidents since then. The LA Watts riots come to mind. But just basic gutteral resentment never amounts to much politically, wqithout coherent leadership. And Jews have always been very good at redirecting the anger of people away from themselves towarrds others, along as there are obvious targets. That's why MacDonald notes Jews prefer cultural diversity so much - they're very good at playing the goyim off against each other, in the absence of a coherent counter strategy.
At this higher level, the book White Power, White Pride recalls meetings a few years ago between WAR leader Tom Metzger and similar people and some selected Farrakan type Black Nationalists, but they broke down.
2002-12-11 10:47 | User Profile
Only problem is the "seal the border" blacks are GOP neocons while the "J-E-W-S" blacks are lefty Dems (or even Greens) of the McKinney/Nation of Islam type who want the nanny state and "repamarations." We're talking about two different groups here.
Centinel,
You make some very good points but I disagree on this one. First in that you assume that there's a sizable black-neocon contingent large enough to form even a statistical anomaly: I don't see this. Secondly, that neos have any interest in reversing recent immigration patterns: even among Jews, this is hinted at as being inevitable but I have yet to read ONE unequivocal "close the borders" column from any Jew (that isn't restricted to Muslims alone), let alone from a Thos Sowell or Walter Williams!
Third is your assumption that working-class and poor blacks would either be pro-immigration or neutral on the topic, when all nativist movements traditionally spring from populist/working-class origins; and blacks - who for decades have fumed at the sight of newly-arrived Korean, Indian & Vietnamese merchants opening stores and seizing control of the local ghetto-commerce almost overnight, are if anything MORE vocally opposed to immigration than whites. The guy MOST worried about the mestizo who'll do it for five bucks an hour is the one who's already doing it for ten bucks. Same with the entitlement crowd: blacks see their public-money faucet shutting off because Poncho and his brood of 17 are on line ahead of him now.
It still boils down to antipathy towards unrestricted immigration and a growing dislike of Jews, two positions which dovetail synergistically that we can use. We're in this mess because Jews have had no false pride, and certainly no shame whatsoever, re using ONE hated breed of goy as a club against ANOTHER. We should do likewise, considering victory is often a matter of strategic (and temporary) alliances at decisive moments.
Hell, sometimes I get the feeling there are a whole mess of "white folks" out there who'd gladly settle for saluting the Israeli flag, so long as the stars'n'bars were allowed to fly alongside it while "Dixie" plays on the p.a.!
2002-12-11 13:31 | User Profile
Drudge headline: Lott Said It Before!
Excerpts from the washingtonpost.com --
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37288-2002Dec10?language=printer]Lott Remarks on Thurmond Echoed 1980 Words[/url]
[Wednesday, December 11, 2002; Page A06]
**Twenty-two years ago, Trent Lott, then a House member from Mississippi, told a home state political gathering that if the country had elected segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond to the presidency "30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." The phrasing is very similar to incoming Senate Majority Leader Lott's controversial remarks at a 100th birthday party for Thurmond last week.
The Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported Lott's earlier comments in a Nov. 3, 1980, report about a rally for the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan in downtown Jackson at which Thurmond was the keynote speaker.
Then Thurmond declared: "[We] want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states." For many supporters and opponents of civil rights, the phrase "state's rights" stood for the right of states to reject federal civil rights legislation.
After Thurmond spoke, Lott told the group: "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."**
A spokesman for Lott defended the 1980 remarks: "Clearly, Senator Lott was expressing his support for Ronald Reagan's policies of smaller government and fiscal responsibility."
And, get this:
David Frum, writing on the Web site of the conservative National Review, said: "Lott's unwise words have reduced the ability of all Republicans to speak frankly about race and racial problems."
What an Alice-in-Wonderland quote from Frum--as if Republicans ever spoke frankly about race before Lott's comments!
2002-12-11 16:28 | User Profile
The latest...
Sen. Lott Apology Fails to Calm Critics
By JIM ABRAMS of The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, facing fierce criticism for remarks seeming to endorse the segregationist positions once held by Sen. Strom Thurmond, made nearly identical comments at a Mississippi rally with Thurmond more than two decades ago.
The furor over Lott's comment that the nation might have been better off if the then pro-segregationist Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, comes just weeks before he is to return to the position of Senate majority leader with the GOP's takeover of the Senate.
The Mississippi senator has since apologized, but some black leaders have demanded he give up his leadership position and even a leading conservative group questioned Lott's qualification to head the party.
The remarks were made last week at a birthday party for 100-year-old Thurmond, R-S.C., who is retiring after a record 48 years in the Senate.
Lott said Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond, the Dixiecrat presidential candidate in 1948, ``and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.''
The Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported Wednesday that his statement echoed Lott's words at a Nov. 2, 1980, rally he attended in Jackson with Thurmond. After Thurmond spoke against federal pre-emption of state laws, Lott said, ``you know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.''
Lott also got caught up in a racial issue in 1999 when it was revealed he had addressed a rally sponsored by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group accused of racist views. Lott at the time said he had ``made my condemnation of the white supremacist and racist views espoused by this or any other group clear,''
Talking with reporters in Bedford, N.H., Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday that both President Bush and Republican Chairman Marc Racicot should publicly denounce Lott's statement.
``They've been too quiet on this issue,'' McAuliffe said before a speech to a business group.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday that Lott ``has apologized for his statement, and the president understands that that is the final word from Senator Lott.''
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus led criticism of Lott on Tuesday. Newly elected caucus chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Lott's comment ``sends a chilling message to all people.''
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, an officer of the 39-member caucus, said Lott's words were like a ``shocking, if you will piercing, voice through the fabric of black America.''
Lott originally characterized his remarks as simply lighthearted praise for Thurmond. But he issued an apology Monday night: ``A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.''
Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume both demanded that Lott step down as Republican leader. ``His remarks are dangerously divisive and certainly unbefitting a man who is to hold such a highly esteemed leadership role,'' Mfume said.
Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, also asked if Republicans should ``look to a new Senate leader who is not encumbered by this unnecessary baggage.''
Connor said he didn't believe Lott was a racist, but ``his thoughtless remarks ... simply reinforce the suspicion that conservatives are closet racists and secret segregationists.''
Coming to Lott's defense was the only black Republican in Congress, Rep. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma. Watts, retiring at the end of this session, said he had talked to Lott and was assured that the remarks praising Thurmond were not racially motivated. ``We should not trivialize the issue of race for political gain,'' Watts said.
Black Caucus members demanded that fellow Democrats not play down the seriousness of the issue. This is a Democratic Party issue,'' said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.It is not enough to simply defend or to explain these kinds of statements and then at election time talk about why black Americans should turn out in large numbers.''
Several top Democrats issued strong statements against Lott. Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who on Monday said he accepted Lott's explanation that he never intended his remarks to be interpreted as they were, said that regardless of the intent, "His words were offensive to those who believe in freedom and equality in America.''
Except the freedom to have voted for Strom Thurmond in 1948, admitting to which will deny you equality*, in 2002. *
2002-12-11 22:40 | User Profile
New round of apologies today; Lott refers to his 'terrible remarks'.
The guy's toast and he doesn't even know it. Bush will make him drink the Kool-Aid, given how his idea of democracy is troops in 100 different countries and war in the MidEast, and he's gonna need docile blacks to keep on schedule. Say goodnight, Amazing Gracie.
2002-12-11 23:05 | User Profile
**The guy's toast and he doesn't even know it. Bush will make him drink the Kool-Aid, given how his idea of democracy is troops in 100 different countries and war in the MidEast, and he's gonna need docile blacks to keep on schedule. Say goodnight, Amazing Gracie. **
Not to mention, Lott's been calling for troops on the border. The last thing Jorge wants right now is a counterpart to Tancredo in the Senate. This might be a convenient excuse for Boosh to target him for removal.
2002-12-12 00:06 | User Profile
Didn't Marion Barry smoke crack with prosititutes as mayor of D.C.? That didn't stop him from running a few years later and winning.
Lott should say: "It wasn't like I smoked crack with a prostitute." Watch the blacks howl even more.
-J
2002-12-12 09:20 | User Profile
Well, Rush, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal have all clobbered him. That's pretty much all the major neocon press, except The Washington Times, and they'll most likely go with the flow if and when they weigh in.
With that much backlash in the so-called "conservative" press, he may be through. If I was him, I'd say f*** it, step down, and then change my party affiliation to Independent, Constitution, or America-First and speak my mind. But he's a weakling...he never will.
Pity, too...he might just be able to get re-elected on a third party ticket, especially if the economy keeps tanking. I know this recession can't be easy on his constituents. He could harness that black resentment of out-of-state Jewish influence and everyone's anger about immigration and the borders.
I'm starting to think if there is a paleo resurgence represented by elected officials at the federal level, it just might begin with an exodus of renegade Senators and Congressmen.
Hehe, anyone been to CofCC.org website lately? They have a photo of Lott calling for Army troops on the border and a link to express your support to him! You know with the CofCC in the press alot of hacks in the mainstream media will be digging around their Web site to see what they can find out. That should be interesting.
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/11/politics/main532739.shtml]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/11/...ain532739.shtml[/url]
A Whole Lott-a Trouble
WASHINGTON, Dec, 11, 2002
Could Democrats have Trent Lott to thank for their first sound bite of Campaign 2004?
It took a few days for word of Lott's remarks at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party to filter through Washington. But, once it did, it became Topic A in the nation's capital. Democrats eventually pounced, and now they don't seem to be releasing their grip on Lott's political jugular.
Whether or not the comments could cost Lott his GOP leadership spot still hasn't been determined. No Republican senators have publicly called for Lott to step down, but some Democrats, and some conservative pundits, have.
A quick recap: Last Thursday, Lott said America "wouldn't have had these problems over all these years" if Sen. Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Lott crowed about his home state of Mississippi's support for Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy, which was based, in part, on opposition to civil rights for blacks.
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him," Lott said, with a chuckle. "We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."
As it turns out, Lott made almost identical comments 22 years ago at a rally for Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign that Thurmond also attended. Lott also came under fire a few years ago for speaking to the Council of Conservative Citizens, which has a record of white supremacist views.
Lott's handling of the firestorm has been as ham-handed as the comments themselves.
Lott issued an initial statement, not an apology, on Monday. He said his comments about Thurmond during the "lighthearted celebration" were "not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life."
When that failed to quiet the storm, Lott issued a more contrite statement Monday night. "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded policies of the past," he said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended."
Lott went even further on Wednesday on a conservative radio talk show when he called the comments "poorly chosen and insensitive." Lott said, repeatedly, that he "regretted" the remarks.
As it turns out, some of Lott's fellow conservatives have been his most vocal critics.
The National Review and The Wall Street Journal ââ¬â two of the most reliably right-wing publications around ââ¬â smashed Lott.
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, felt compelled to remind Lott that the first Republican president was the same one who led the Union during the Civil War.
"It's ludicrous. He should remember it's the party of Lincoln," Kristol was quoted in the Washington Post as saying. On Wednesday, he called for Lott to step down from the Republican leadership team.
On his radio show, conservative lion Rush Limbaugh said: "What Lott said is utterly indefensible and stupid. I don't even want to attempt to explain or defend it. Yes, there's a double standard on this stuff, but you have to take this into consideration before you open your stupid mouth."
Conservative newspaper columnist Robert George and conservative pundit Laura Ingraham wondered if Lott's comments would hurt GOP attempts at making inroads at black voters.
"If this clip is played and played and played in the black churches, all around the country Republicans are going to have hell to pay," Ingraham said on MSNBC.
Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, also called for Lott to step down from the GOP leadership. "Such thoughtless remarks - and the senator has an unfortunate history of such gaffes - simply reinforce the suspicion that conservatives are closet racists and secret segregationists," Connor said.
Connor and his cohorts have reason to be concerned. If this week has been any indication, Democrats are sure to use Lott's comments ââ¬â captured in beautiful Technicolor ââ¬â on an endless loop between now and 2004.
2002-12-12 10:59 | User Profile
With that much backlash in the so-called "conservative" press, he may be through. If I was him, I'd say f* it, step down, and then change my party affiliation to Independent, Constitution, or America-First and speak my mind. But he's a weakling...he never will. **
I've spent a little time in Miss - real pretty state, btw - and Lott could easily win re-election on a third party ticket there. If he chooses to put himself through the wringer again (any future runs by Lott will now become de-facto 'national affairs' news stories - with Hate Again Rears Its Ugly Head-type heds).
Again, the why of his remarks escapes me. This isn't Jim Giles, this is an oily career politician who'd gotten his feet put to the fire for similar remarks 20 years ago. I refuse to believe this was a moment of awakened altruism. More like he'd had a few cocktails and didn't count on the presence of unfriendlies in that gathering.
2002-12-12 16:05 | User Profile
Better to go down like a man holding fast to the sacred Battle Flag than to go out like a squealing piggy. If only once one of these pilloried public figures defied the high priests of political correctness (both the self annoited minority spokesmen and the neocon pseudo-conservatives) he might become such a folk hero that they can't get rid of him.
In 1948 Strom Thurmond ran on a States Rights platform. He only advocated leaving the states free to govern themselves in line with their folkways. He certainly didn't advocate forcing segregation on any State where the people did not agree with those policies. Chances are that if the South had been left alone segregation would have evolved into a more equitable institution or withered away. But since the impudent snobs had their way America bears the burden of the bitterness they engendered forcing their notions on the South.
It is bad form to marr the honors due the retiring centarian senator with this stupid controveresy. On that happy day when Ted Kennedy leaves the Senate let's dredge up Chappaquiddick. Payback is a MF.
2002-12-12 18:58 | User Profile
As an Atheist and somewhat Libertarian in political views, I think Lott, should have simply responded by saying, "Screw You, I said what I said and if you took it out of context and meaning, that is your stupidity". But of course, no one ever accused Mississipians being overly smart.
There is just toooooo damn much of this PC crap and eveyone is waiting in the dark to jump on anyone for any stupid ass reason that says something that could be misconstrued to offend ones feeeeeeeelings.....for krist sake, grow up!
2002-12-13 03:55 | User Profile
Whore-o-witz speaks:
Trent Lott Should Resign
The revelation that Trent Lott made a similar remark about Thurmond's segregationist presidential campaign twenty years ago comes as no surprise. Desegregation was the most important domestic event in Lott's lifetime, especially because of his role as a leading politician in what was once the most segregated racist state in the union. If he was oblivious to the implications of his outrageous remarks at Thurmond's party, that is reason enough for him to step down as Republican leader in the Senate. The stakes are simply too high to allow this kind of political stupidity (which is to put the best spin on it) to pass without consequence. It is bad for the Republican Party and for the country.
That said, one should not let the hypocrisy of some members of the Black Caucus go unnoticed. California congresswoman Diane Watson, former State Senator and former ambassador to Micronesia is one of those calling for Lott's head as though he were a dedicated racist. Watson is infamous for attacking Ward Connerly's interracial marriage on racial grounds. This would be hypocrisy enough. But she is also indebted to Trent Lott for making her ambassadorship -- which was blocked by the opposition of her hated (or should I say hateful) colleage Maxine Waters (the antagonism is personal not political). With Watson's appointment in limbo because of Waters' opposition, Lott intervened on Watson's behalf to make her appointment possible. This episode makes Watson a prime candidate for the Jean Carnahan award for graceless ingratitude.
Here's a comment from a Republican reader:
Senator Lott's apology was disingenuous. He talked about "discarded policies" of the past--not wrong policies. He speaks in code; he antagonizes blacks with his transparent longing for the ante-bellum South. I don't think Senator Lott is a racist, and I do think the Black Caucus is vicious and hypocritical. But Trent Lott as majority leader spells disaster for the politcal future of the Republican Party.
Kathleen
url: [url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp]http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp[/url]
A Freeper Ohioan spaks:
To: JohnGalt
So offend the South, to please the New York Times editorial board? That's good thinking.
Your sarcasm is well placed. It is absurd to even suggest dropping Lott at this moment in time. Frankly, I agree with those who point out that he has been wishy-washy and often ineffective. But in the face of this vicious attack on Lott because he dared to praise the most consistently Conservative Senator in recent decades is patently outrageous. People need to stop and catch their breaths, and look at what is being done here:
The Left has launched one of their typical, apparently hysterical, but actually carefully calculated efforts to push America to the Left, without ever even debating the issue on the table. We are being treated to the typical ex cathedra pronouncements. We are seeing the typical raised eyebrow, the supercilious disdain, the sanctimonious pretense of the moral high ground. But no where do they dare to debate the actual issues before the American people, when Strom Thurmond ran for President in 1948. We are just supposed to kneejerkedly assume--because they belligerently demand that we assume--that Strom Thurmond was wrong, and that anyone who suggests that he was right, must be driven from American politics.
Well, Strom is now over 100, and is retiring from the fray. But those Conservatives, who think that Strom was wrong--so very wrong that it is an unforgiveable sin for anyone to even suggest that he was right--need to at least acquaint themselves with the issues. Because it was Thurmond--and not Truman or Dewey (and certainly not Henry Wallace, who ran on the far Left)--who took the stands that were by far the most consistent with the overall Conservative philosophy. And the Left is making fools out of Conservatives, who will jump through hoops to distance themselves from values they actually hold sacred.
The principal reason that Thurmond led a revolt from the Democratic Party in 1948 was about freedom and the preservation of a predictable Constitutional heritage that put freedom first. It was the same reason he again revolted in 1964, to lead many Conservative Democrats into the Republican Party, in support of Barry Goldwater. It was the same reason he insisted ever since, that Republican Presidents appoint more Conservatives to the Federal Judiciary. (It was Thurmond, more than any other man in Washington, who has responsible for the gradual improvement on the Federal Bench, since 1969.)
The major "Civil Rights" issue in 1948, was whether Washington should be allowed to dictate employment practices to private employers across America (F.E.P.C.). How can anyone suggest that Lott needs to apologize for supporting Thurmond in opposing such Federal dictation? 16 years later, when Lyndon Johnson finally rammed the proposal through, the Conservative Republican candidate for President--Strom Thurmond's good friend, Barry Goldwater--also opposed the Socialistic measure--as do I. (For more on the specific issue, see "Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.)
But no one is actually debating the underlying issues. They are simply buying the Leftist smear of Thurmond--when we should all be honoring him--on the pretense that Lott has done something terrible in praising his lifetime of dedication to Conservative and Constitutional values. It does not take a lot of analysis to understand the corner that those Conservatives, who are in a panic over this, are painting themselves into.
For the love of common sense, we need to say to those who are parrotting the enemy, "Snap out of it!"
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
44 posted on 12/11/2002 3:49 PM PST by Ohioan
To: GraniteStateConservative
All right, you have quoted some rhetoric out of context. Are you suggesting that that is the sum total of what Strom Thurmond stood for in 1948?
Secondly, do you support the idea of an FEPC law? It is a highly Socialistic idea. (See "Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.) Instead of getting sick, why don't you see what you are endorsing and be certain that you really want to be endorsing it.
As for the anti-lynch law that Truman had advocated. The South considered that insulting. They already had local laws on the subject, and they were being enforced. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics handy, perhaps you do, but was any one lynched in South Carolina while Strom Thurmond was Governor? He was not advocating lynching, just opposing dictation from Washington. That is quite a different thing.
Personally, as a school boy in 1948, I was an enthusiastic supporter of Harry Truman and his Civil Rights proposals. It was only as I grew up over the next few years that I realized that I had bought a proverbial "pig- in-a-poke"; that the issue was not fairness, at all, but one of the allocation of power and control.
You can certainly disagree. But to want to crucify Lott because he agrees with the Southern view of the time is the sort of ludicrous thought control that really should sicken any Conservative.
William Flax
71 posted on 12/11/2002 4:35 PM PST by Ohioan
"Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society: [url=http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/fepc.htm]http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/fepc.htm[/url]
To: GraniteStateConservative
If you want to look at the issues outside the context of the Constitutional issues, you can surely say that Thurmond's issues in 1948 were racial issues. In that same sense, you can say that the issue over suppressing local religious sentiments in public places are religious issues. But both situations are also fundamental Constitutional issues that go to the essence of Federalism.
Just what, exactly, did Thurmond disavow. Certainly not his stalwart stand against Federal dictation of private and local affairs and institutions. He has been the driving force behind Republican efforts to move the Federal Judiciary towards strict construction for over a generation. In a very real sense, Bush owes his Presidency to Strom Thurmond. The Rehnquist appointment, in fact, was one of Nixon's payments for Strom Thurmond's support.
As for your taking stuff out of context? I believe that the States' Rights Democrats put together a full platform, addressing a gauntlet of issues. You simply pulled the racial part out. I will grant you that that was by far the most significant difference between the SRDP and the Democrats and Republicans that year, but they were not a single issue party.
The Anthropology views that you quoted from Thurmond sound so much like some of the things that Teddy Roosevelt wrote on numerous occasions, that I am surprised that you as a Republican stalwart would want to make such an issue over them.
I am sure that your intentions are honorable. But you need to get off of the high horse. We, who claim to be Conservatives, should never even consider crucifying one another over differences, however strident, on historic issues. Because history is so important to Conservatives, we naturally have stronger views on historic issues than other people. The Left understands this, and is delighted to use those strong feelings as a way to drive a wedge among us. This is why they have stirred up such a hoopla over the Confederate flag. This sudden attention to Lott is a similar ploy.
Republicans should stop even discussing it from any standpoint other than outrage at the idea that the Left would dare suggest that one be crucified for having a different historic perspective. The answer should be, "tell us which issue on the table today, you want to discuss?" The 1948 Presidential campaign is not such an issue.
You need to understand that the Left does not have the high ground they claim on racial and religious controversies; anymore than three generations ago, they had the high ground on labor relations.
You may have no problem with a Federal anti-Lynch law, but some of us still do. It is the same problem that we have with Federal "Hate Crime" legislation; with Federal legislation telling people they cannot even take the labels off their mattresses; with Federal legislation telling business men or working men, with whom they may associate or do business; with Federal legislation defining what citizens of any particular State may do to arm themselves for personal protection.
The Federal Government was not set up to be the Policing agent in the American system. The Police power was left with the States. Strom Thurmond understood that in 1948, and I am sure that at 100, he still understands that.
You and I may have very different social values. But neither of us has the right to have the Federal Government enforce our Social values on our neighbors. This idea that the Federal Government is the ultimate problem solver for every group with a wish list is the real problem in America today.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site [url=http://www.logical.arts.new.net]http://www.logical.arts.new.net[/url]
156 posted on 12/12/2002 10:18 AM PST by Ohioan
To: Poohbah
An alleged "apology" that includes the dreaded phrase "if I offended anybody" is disingenuous on its face. When you screw up, you eat the worms, and you say you were wrong and that you're sorry.
Even in Nazi Germany, they did not crucify one for expressing a viewpoint on an historic question, which had nothing to do with Hitler's current program. One could probably have expressed the view in 1938 that Kaiser Wilhelm I should or should not have done something in 1884, without fearing the Gestapo. But you, my arrogant friend, aspire to censor what opinions today's generation of politicians may have on what happened in 1948, and the consequences. And what is your justification? You think that the political enemies of the man you would shoot down, will make hay with his views.
Well they have made hay, all right. But it is from the reactions of so-called Conservatives, bent suddenly on internecine warfare to appease an absurd fantasy. That fantasy is that the public--the objective or not already committed public--will somehow be inflamed because one Senator expressed admiration for what another Senator did 54 years ago. Do you have any idea how silly that is? The people making all that noise about their outrage are the already committed verbal warriors of the Left. They are not people who were on our side who have suddenly shifted.
The correct response should have been to laugh in their faces and then denounce their irrationality for thinking the American people are so stupid that they would be taken in by this sort of contrived controversy.
Stop playing into the hands of propagandists who want to undermine your heritage by dividing its defenders on stupid diversionary issues.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
157 posted on 12/12/2002 10:45 AM PST by Ohioan
To: Poohbah
Trent Lott was not hauled away by the FBI in the middle of the night, dummkopf, he merely got feedback on his speech.
Trent Lott's "speech"--if you can call it that--was a tribute to the most honored Senator of the present era. It did not call for feedback, except from wacko fanatics and Leftists looking to make angry statements for the purpose of creating division among Conservatives, and intimidating the susceptible into not criticizing the socio-political fruits of "Liberalism." Whoever heard of making a poltical issue out of a brief toast-like compliment to one being honored? What you are calling "feedback," is moreover, a demand that he be purged from a position of Senate leadership--and for what? An historic opinion on a political election that took place 54 years ago! If this all seems rational to you, perhaps there really is a "dummkopf" on this thread.
You have the right to speak your mind. You do not have a right to have the really stupid ideas you choose to express taken seriously and treated with respect. You have the right to keep silent and merely be thought a fool. You also have the right to open your mouth and remove all remaining doubt.
I would be more than happy to have anyone judge the intellectual contents of my posts on this thread vs. your posts on this thread. Let us just leave it at that. We will both be known by our work product. Fair enough?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
159 posted on 12/12/2002 1:53 PM PST by Ohioan
The Freepers
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804914/posts]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804914/posts[/url]
Jonah Goldberg on Lott: [url=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah1.asp]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah1.asp[/url]
Kathleen Parker: [url=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker1.asp]http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker1.asp[/url]
Trent Lott's Faux Pas: What Historians Think [url=http://hnn.us/articles/1137.html]http://hnn.us/articles/1137.html[/url]
"When Trent Lott called homosexuality sinful, he should have kept his mouth shut"-David Horowitz url: [url=http://www.salon.com/col/horo/1998/06/nc_29horo.html]http://www.salon.com/col/horo/1998/06/nc_29horo.html[/url]
Lott Is Unfit To Run the Senate [url=http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp]http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp[/url]
Related threads:
So What If Thurmond (Or Goldwater) Had Won? [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=4868]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=4868[/url]
Lott under fire [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=4779]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=4779[/url]
Vacant Lott -The GOP and the Ghosts of Mississippi [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=4845]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=4845[/url]
More Lott [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=4854]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=4854[/url]
2002-12-13 19:26 | User Profile
Wow! Some good commentary from William Flax.
2002-12-13 20:42 | User Profile
Frosty....if Libertarians are 'culture marxist' democrats are for sure, passive Maoist and rebublicans are their mentors.
2002-12-14 05:28 | User Profile
mwdallas,
Still a few good Freepers.
DRSLICEIT,
Well I was pretty mad when wrote that down. But sadly I think it true in good part, just look at "Reason" the sick Libertarian Party. It is there open Immigration/borders nonsense that I find most stupid. And many other things.
2002-12-14 05:55 | User Profile
**Well I was pretty mad when wrote that down. But sadly I think it true in good part, just look at "Reason" the sick Libertarian Party. It is there open Immigration/borders nonsense that I find most stupid. And many other things. **
I like Buchanan's take on it all. Libertarians are not Cultural Marxists but they promote socialism and big government by advocating open borders, letting people into the country who have no libertarian ideals themselves, who in turn vote and have kids who votes for the nanny state. The only way libertarians could claim success with their policies is if they were the dominant political party in power over a long period where borders were left open, but virtually no taxpayer-provided services were provided to anyone. Since that ain't the case and isn't likely to be anytime soon, about all the Libertarians accomplish is to be useful idiots for factions in both parties who want lax immigration policies and big government.
Seeing how we can't get government at state and federal levels to scrap the nanny state (which they are paying dearly for now in red ink BTW), the only viable alternative is to stop the illegals at the border so they can't get inside in the first place to line up for the gravy train. I also think that making visible examples out of employers who hire illegals with stiff fines and prison sentences is equally important.
That was one major reason I left the LP...the others being that the party refuses to comdemn abortion and is obsessed more with liberal lifestyles than with small government and noninterventionist foreign policy....ie it's full of potheads, wiccans, and porn stars demanding their "liberties."
2002-12-14 07:31 | User Profile
Centinel,
Good Post. But maybe keep this Lott thread on subject.
And move this to a new thread.
Libertarians and Cultural Marxists [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=4899]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=12&t=4899[/url]
2002-12-14 07:38 | User Profile
I was thinking Trent Lott is a bit like the other Lot from the Bible. He tries to the Right thing but never gets it Right. :D