← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident

Thread 4272

Thread ID: 4272 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-01-01

Wayback Archive

Texas Dissident [OP]

2003-01-01 12:25 | User Profile

[url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30157]Stirring Racial Fears[/url]

by Neal Boortz

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

When Trent Lott capitulated last week and resigned his Senate leadership position you could hear the groans all the way to Mississippi. Not the groans of Mississippi, the groans of the Democratic Party leadership in Washington.

What a tremendous time they had been having! The Republicans had just swept them from power in the Senate and some pollsters were talking about a generation of Republican rule. It was certainly a depressing month for the party of big-government and class warfare. Then along comes Trent Lott with some stupid comments which appear to embrace the era of segregation, and it's suddenly blue skies and green lights for the Democrats again!

With every Lott averment that he was going to remain in his leadership position, the Democrat smiles broadened. It was getting so bad that it looked like someone had wedged a coat hanger in James Carville's mouth. Then the devastating news hit. Lott was stepping down. Disappointment washed through Democrat ranks like Hugo's storm surge through South Florida.

How sad. Democrats had so hoped that Trent Lott would stick around so that they could play their "Republicans are racists" card for the next two years. Now those nasty Republicans had cleaned their own house and the Democrats were left standing on the sidelines saying, "But ... but ... they're still racists, you know!"

You did hear Hillary Clinton last week, didn't you? Friday afternoon she slithered up to the microphones to tell her fawning press myrmidons that the "Republicans can't cleanse themselves of their constant exploitation of race. They just had two senators who were elected in the South on the Confederate Flag."

One of those two senators Hillary speaks of is the new Republican from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss. Hitlary, being the astute political vulture that she is, knows that the Georgia State Flag was not an issue in the Saxby Chambliss- Max Cleland senatorial race. The issue was Cleland's constant support of the liberal Democratic agenda in the Congress and his refusal to abandon his union campaign donors to support the president's plans for a Department of Homeland Security. The Confederate Flag was never an issue in Georgia's senatorial race, yet Hillary says that this is why the Democrats lost that seat.

The Confederate flag was somewhat of an issue in another Georgia race though, the contest for governor. So, would Hillary's condemnation apply to this particular race?

Shortly after coming into office four years ago Georgia's Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes worked swiftly with state business leaders and legislators to remove the Confederate battle emblem from the Georgia state flag. It was the right thing to do, though it certainly didn't set all that well with some rural Georgians. They vowed to have their revenge in the next election.

Along comes November of 2002 and Roy Barnes is out, Republican Sonny Perdue is in. **Immediately the Flaggots (my name for the Confederate Flag bunch) claimed credit for the defeat. **

Is their claim sustainable? It seems not. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution conducted a study of election results and voting patterns and determined that there were not enough Confederate Flag votes to cover the Perdue margin of victory. Yes, the votes were there, but not enough to make the difference. Roy Barnes lost because of a combination of perceived arrogance toward the people of Georgia and actions taken in an attempt to reform Georgia's government schools that created an outright voter's rebellion among state school teachers.

But, just for the sake of argument, mind you, let's give the Flaggots credit for swinging the election. Would Hillary's assessment of Republican racism be a legitimate explanation? Again … no.

In Georgia you will find that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were casting their vote against Gov. Roy Barnes on the flag issue. It was Democrats turning on their own governor. Election results show that the unexpected surge of votes for Sonny Perdue didn't come from the Republican suburban strongholds. They came from the Democratic rural base. These were loyal Democrats, not Republican voters, who were eating their own. So, if you want to blame Barnes' defeat on a political party, assign that blame to rural Georgia Democrats, not Republicans.

Hillary's statement was more of an attempt to incite than it was a statement of fact. She shows how desperate the Democrats are to keep the race war alive. Democrats, after all, really have nothing to offer their black constituents except crippling government paternalism and the image of Republicans as frightening bogeymen. Everything possible must be done, include lying, to nurture and sustain that fear.

Flaggots, huh? This Neal Boortz seems to be quite the SOB. Fly the colors, white man!

[img]http://www.confederate-flags.com/pic/battle.gif[/img]

DRSLICEIT

2003-01-01 12:31 | User Profile

It is hard to believe that we have assholes like Bortz, Limbaugh, Carr, Savage and Henry on our airwaves with the bullshit they spew.

Welcome to the USA, the worlds fastest growing 3rd world country.

Texas Dissident

2003-01-01 12:37 | User Profile

Originally posted by DRSLICEIT@Jan 1 2003, 06:31 ** It is hard to believe that we have assholes like Bortz, Limbaugh, Carr, Savage and Henry on our airwaves with the bullshit they spew. **

Only because their corporate sponsors have bought out every AM station on the dial.

One of these days here soon all the wrongs will be righted and our people will have a homeland free of this kind of BS. It's our birthright and heritage.

Count on it!

Sertorius

2003-01-01 16:35 | User Profile

Pardon my french, but fck Neal Boortz. I get to listen to this asshole in the morning here. Boortz is a multiCultist* Lite that I actually owe a debt to- I nearly joined the Libertarian Party. Boortz talked me out of it with his stupidity like the above article and this memorable comment on illegal immigration. "I not going to one of those who would throw someone out of the lifeboat."

I wish upon this prick who lives in an area that is 99% White that he would have some Sec. 8 housing moved in next door to him filled with illegals and/or third worlders- like the Somalis he wanted allowed in the country before he found out about them scamming the system. I bet that would straighten his ass out real quick.

Incidently, Boortz was also one of the first people calling for Lotts scalp, so he is being disingenous here in his column. At one point he stated that Southern Republicans need to "grow up." I guess he means with this that they should embrace Neo-libertarian Lite Multicult and dump on Americas past. He certainly doesn`t realize that the only reason the Reps control congress is for the massive shift of White voters from the Dems to them.

Once again, F*ck Boortz.

Oh yes, here`s a Happy New Year to you people on this board.

Great War Post- 1914. Half a lemon to the Anglo-American plutocrats and the other half to organized Jewry for their late entry. (Balfour Declaration)

DRSLICEIT

2003-01-01 16:38 | User Profile

Texas....I damn well hope you are right, but I think it will require an armed revolution to make any changes in this country and there are not enough men with the conviction of the constitution to make a stand.

Another alternative would be to garner a referendum that would ban all federal politics and a return to states rights.

I want to thank you for having this forum and I have been soliciting others to come here from Delphi as well as lesser known forums.

il ragno

2003-01-02 17:19 | User Profile

Somehow, this seems more appropriate as a rebuttal to Boortz than as a standalone post.

More Than a Slogan JOS SOBRAN

December 19, 2002 This week Trent Lott has been on the covers of more magazines than Halle Berry. The absurd flap is only the latest of many in the endless campaign to stigmatize the South.

To this day, Southerners can never grovel enough to satisfy some Northerners, who insist on attaching dark meanings to Southern symbols. The Confederate flag can’t just be a symbol of regional pride; no, it stands for slavery. “States’ rights” can’t just mean states’ rights; no, it means racial segregation. Whatever evils Northerners choose to associate with these things are supposed to be their “real” meanings, no matter what Southerners intend.

Now it’s true that some Southern Democrats used to invoke the principle of “states’ rights” only to protect segregation, while supporting Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in its assault on the Constitution. But the abuse of a good principle doesn’t nullify the principle.

“States’ rights” should be more than a Southern slogan. In the Civil War, the Northern states were fighting not only against the South, but, though they didn’t realize it, against their own rights. So they won the war and lost their rights.

The Northerners who did see what was at stake, and preferred to let the Southern states secede peacefully, were derisively nicknamed Copperheads. The Lincoln administration jailed thousands of them and shut down many of their newspapers. “A new birth of freedom”?

The Declaration of Independence had proclaimed that the original 13 colonies “are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.” It didn’t say anything about “a new nation” or a monolithic “Union.” This meant that each of the colonies was claiming full statehood. Rhode Island and South Carolina were now sovereign states, just as much as France or Russia. But who today would call them “Free and Independent States”? Does that phrase describe your state?

Shortly afterward, as the Revolutionary War still raged, the Articles of Confederation were adopted. Its first principle was that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” In the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which concluded the war, Great Britain recognized not the American monolith, but those same 13 “free, sovereign, and independent states.”

Did the states surrender their hard-won and jealously preserved independence — that is, their statehood — when they ratified the Constitution? Not at all. The Constitution continues to call them states, not colonies or provinces. It even speaks of “the United States” in the plural: “them.”

Several states ratified the Constitution on the express condition that they retained the right to secede later. Nobody objected. How could they? The states were still states, in the full sense, and it went without saying that a state could withdraw from a mere federation of states. Nor could a state bind its descendants to remain in a federation forever. Since these conditional ratifications were accepted as valid, it’s obvious that secession was recognized as a legitimate option of any state.

It’s sometimes objected that the Constitution doesn’t speak of a right of secession. True enough, but to say this is to get things backwards. Given the nature and the very definition of a state, the Constitution couldn’t forbid secession. Nor does it give the Federal Government any power to prevent it. A social club may have strict rules for members, but it can’t forbid them to quit the club; in which case the rules cease to bind them.

Some opponents of the Constitution warned that ratification would lead to the loss of the states’ sovereignty. But they didn’t argue that the Constitution denied that sovereignty; only that this would probably be the practical result of ratifying it. If they were here today, they’d surely claim that history has proved them right.

Hoping to justify war on the seceding states, Lincoln offered the weird and ahistorical assertion that “the Union” was older than the Constitution, older even than the Declaration, so that no state could rightfully secede. According to his logic, then, the states had never been “free,” “sovereign,” and “independent” — even when everyone agreed that they were!

In order to win the war, Lincoln had to violate the Constitution again and again. He had to arrest dissenters, elected public officials, even a congressman; he had to set up puppet governments in the conquered South. So much for self-government.

Today the United States have become a single monstrous monolith. If the signers of the Declaration could see it, they would demand, “We staked our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to bequeath you free and independent states. What on earth have you done with them?” At least the South tried to preserve them.

Joseph Sobran

MadScienceType

2003-01-02 20:13 | User Profile

Thirded, if that's the correct term.

I too owe the prick a debt of gratitude. Like Sert, I almost became a Libertarian until I caught wind of the guy's diatribes. Some of what he has to say makes sense, but like I.R. has pointed out before, his wrath is always against nebulous targets like "liberals."

I was particularly fascinated with the speed with which he glossed over squaring his so-called "Libertarian" non-agression principle with his foaming, Hannity-like endorsement of the upcoming war on Iraq. As far as I know, he glossed over it by simply never mentioning it, but then again I haven't heard his show for a while now. It'd be interesting to see a caller pin him to the wall on that one. He's very typical of "conservative" radio. Anyone who disagrees with him is not only wrong, but un-American. This last one has received great play ever since 9/11 as it seems to work as well for stifling debate as does the charge of racism, homophobia or anti-semitism whenever uncomfortable questions are posed to any of those groups.

He's also super-PC, especially on the smoking and homo issues. He seems to spend a lot of time on the homo question and regale listeners about how wonderful his queer friends are, etc. etc.

Also, for being from Texas, he sure spends a lot of time pissing on the South. The "flaggots" thing is typical Boortz.

mwdallas

2003-01-02 21:15 | User Profile

**Sertorius, I'd suggest the light pole at the intersection of Peachtree and Roswell Road be reserved for our good buddy. You? **

Peachtree and Lindbergh might have a bigger impact on a particular community, but why not West Paces Ferry?

**Immediately the Flaggots (my name for the Confederate Flag bunch) claimed credit for the defeat. **

Doesn't Boortz know that "Flaggot" means something else in Atlanta? Georgia Tech had a male baton twirler a few years back, and he will always be known as The Flaggot.

Sertorius

2003-01-05 10:39 | User Profile

Weisbrot,

I think that what I would like to see happen to Boortz is this. He is set upon by a gang of illegals and gets put in the hospital for three months. He is one of these jerks who really likes the sort of diversity where he can see these folks like in a Mexican restuarant or the Midtown Music festival but doesn`t have to deal with them on a more personal level.

Incidently, Mad Scientist type, Boortz is no more a Texan than I am an Israeli, so don`t be fooled by that nonsense about Texas he spouts. He is from Pennsylvania originally. That may explain his contempt for Southerners.

MadScienceType

2003-01-05 18:49 | User Profile

Sertorius,

Thanks! That's a load off my mind. We have enough contemptible folks who are from Texas that we have to disown without adding more to the list.

You're right about that type of diversity lover. Austin is full of them. They like to be able to go and "experience" mexican culture when it suits them (and I guess get PC brownie points of sorts), but really don't like to see it once the yard guy has finished cutting the grass.

Diversity at a distance.