Is there something in the water libs drink?
Appointed Montana Democrat Senator John Walsh is busted. Read the link. This is incredibly bush league stuff.
Is there something in the water libs drink?
Appointed Montana Democrat Senator John Walsh is busted. Read the link. This is incredibly bush league stuff.
Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.
MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.
The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.
First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.
That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.
Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.
The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)
Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.
Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.
Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.
I am writing to you to urge you to vote against the President’s resolution granting him authority to bomb Syria.
Syria is involved in a civil war that the US has no business meddling in. Syria has not threatened the US and is not a threat to the US.
In 2008 Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary primarily because he had opposed the invasion of Iraq. He then won a Nobel Peace Prize based on his opposition to the War in Iraq.
Now Obama is advocating military interventionism no different than his predecessor George W. Bush. I thought the Democrats were supposed the be the party that opposes military adventurism.
I urge you to stay true to the professed position of your party and vote against the bombing of Syria and repudiate this new direction of a supposedly anti-war President.
“These are children of the civil rights era, remember, taught from childhood that good people must go out and confront evil. They believe that’s what they should do, even when evil is minding its own business in some obscure foreign nation.” John Derbyshire, on Obama and other supporters of attacking Syria.
The Civil Rights Revolution and the Global Democratic Revolution are indeed one and the same.
Unpatriotic Americans are steaming over continuing revelations about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying. Thanks to that trouble maker Edward Snowden, Americans are now aware of what their government is up to, and what good can come of that? Everyone knows we’re all happier when our handlers and protectors can do what has to be done without having to worry about the common folk finding out.
Here’s the latest: Seems many of those “accidental” peeks at Americans’ private communications weren’t all that accidental. As the Guardian reports:
US intelligence analysts have deliberately broken rules designed to prevent them from spying on Americans, according to an admission by the National Security Agency that undermines fresh insistences from Barack Obama on Friday that all breaches were inadvertent.
A report by the NSA’s inspector general is understood to have uncovered a number of examples of analysts choosing to ignore so-called “minimisation procedures” aimed at protecting privacy, according to officials speaking to Bloomberg.
Defenders of the welfare/warfare national security state realize their work is cut out for them. Fortunately, they work within a political system where the vast majority of citizens accept the regime’s notion of what constitutes acceptable political thought. Politically, you can be anything you want, as long as it’s Democrat or Republican.
Or, as I like to phrase it, housebroken liberal or housebroken conservative.
So, as these embarrassing revelations heat up the blogosphere, regime apologists are focusing on their base, and do so through the most transparent flattery. Housebroken liberals fancy themselves morally superior because they are so darn tolerant. Therefore, their designated handlers portray the whistle blowers as “racist.” And no one beats the “racism” drum like Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. Check out the Lizard King’s latest counter-attack on critics of government spying: The Convergence of Glenn Greenwald and Rand Paul’s “Southern Avenger.”
Liberals have a gut-deep hatred of anything Southern, so left-leaning defenders of the DC Empire equate critics of government spying with “racist Southerners.”
On the other hand, housebroken conservatives imagine they’re morally superior because of their patriotism and traditional morality. So DC’s right-leaning apologists slam whistle blowers as traitors. And to keep the heartland distracted, The Other McCain has been uploading multiple posts on this story of under-age lesbians acting badly. Never mind the NSA — Look! Lesbians!
Con men know they must customize their acts by distracting their targets with different ruses. It all depends on the target audience.
We keep hearing insistent claims that if Republicans don’t pass amnesty yesterday it will be the end of the party.
Can I see the math on that? I can see why bringing in 30 million new Democratic voters would be good for the Democrats, but how does it help Republicans? Maybe conservatives shouldn’t blindly trust the calculations of the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy.
If I were a Democrat, I would have tried to sneak this bill past Republicans by proposing amnesty only after reaching some easily rigged benchmarks. But, apparently, Chuck Schumer knows elected Republicans better than I do.
Step One: Everyone’s amnestied. Step Two: After they’re amnestied, they can bring in all their relatives.
If Hispanics voted 50.1 percent for Democrats, amnesty would be a bad deal for Republicans. But, in fact, they vote 70 percent to 80 percent for Democrats. How did it become an urgent priority for Republicans to bring in 30 million new voters, 80 percent of whom will vote Democratic?
Democrats want 30 million new voters and they will say anything to get there:
Various encounters with the better parts of internet punditry, have led me to conclude that Benghazi was a take down of Hillary Clinton from the neocons–though I’ll dispute and say from the Biden faction of the DNC, and secondly, the release of the IRS “scandal” info, from the Hillary supporters (the Trilats) and hence the defections from Liberal Media (e.g. Chris Matthews.)
So then why (he asked in a 101 sort of way) would the House Republicans pick a Friday to cave on the Amnesty Bill, with the President at his weakest?
<sarc>Yeah, great deal here. So glad the Republicans saw the light and compromised on taxes.</sarc>
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.
Working with Congress against a midnight deadline, President Barack Obama said Monday that a deal to avert the “fiscal cliff” was in sight but not yet finalized. The emerging deal would raise tax rates on family income over $450,000 and individual income over $400,000 a year, increase the estate tax rate and extend unemployment benefits for one year.
Make no mistake here, any Republican who votes for this compromise is voting for a tax increase whether Grover Norquist gives them cover or not. If this passes the spineless Republicans will have been worked again.
Update: There will be no vote tonight.
More proof that you can’t trust “conservative” Democrats. Not that you can trust “conservative” Republicans not named Ron Paul either, but at best a “conservative” Democrat is a RINO Republican who has to vote in the wrong caucus. Manchin will regret this.
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, an “A” rated member of the NRA, on Monday questioned the availability of assault weapons and suggested Friday’s shooting in Newtownm Conn. has opened up the issue for debate.
Manchin said past debates about assault weapons have been shut down over a fear of destroying Second Amendment rights. But the senator said last Friday’s shooting changed all that. “The massacre of so many innocent children has changed—has changed America. We’ve never seen this happen,” Manchin said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
Manchin issued criticism of assault weapons, saying, “I don’t know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”
Original video can be found here.
We at Conservative Heritage Times have been inspired by the TAC symposium to do one of our own, although one with more of a paleo edge. I’m actually not sure symposium is the best characterization of this. It is a virtual symposium I suppose. But I’m going with it because we are blatantly riffing (not ripping :-)) off TAC’s effort.
Not all the people here would be best described as paleoconservatives, and some would not claim that label, but the attempt was to try to get people who might be considered part of the paleo/traditionalist sphere. I asked CHT’s own contributors, plus people I know (both actually and virtually) whom I thought would represent a broad cross section of the paleo/traditionalist sphere, plus some of our regular commenters. Other of our regular commenters volunteered their services.
In order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, I have arranged the contributions in alphabetical order by first name. I am still expecting some more to roll in. They will be added in their appropriate alphabetical order as they do. Please check back frequently and please promote this on Facebook, Twitter, with you email contacts, etc. Thanks, enjoy and discuss. The endorsements commence below the fold. ~ Red
Much of the fault for the failure of the protestors here at the Charlotte Democratic Convention lies with – the protestors themselves.
Why isn’t their message getting through? Well, as appealing as soggy, unwashed, tatooed Marxists yelling obscenities may be, their message is hopelessly muddled.
They say they want Obama tried for war crimes. But how can you say you insist that the rule of law be applied to all when you support illegal aliens who DEMAND (their word) halting all deporations?
The Occupy protestors scream at the Bank of America building for the number of home foreclosures, apparently unaware it was their hero Barney Frank (and other liberals) who imposed “affirmative action” lending, making it all too easy for unqualified people to get loans. People who can’t discipline themselves to save for a down payment won’t be able to make future payments. It’s that simple.
Saddest of all, the Occupiers denounce the loss of middle-class income, while supporting floodtide immigration, which has suppressed wages. Big business loves an overabundance of cheap labor. That’s why the Wall Street Journal supports Open Borders.
And while the Occupiers think it’s grand that Obama can impose the Dream Act by imperial decree, they dislike his use of drone strikes. But when one man has that much power concentrated in his hands, don’t be surprised WHEN (not if) he abuses that power. That’s just human nature.
The Charlotte city government has issued permits to various groups to protest at designated areas and to speak at a city-provided platform during the Democratic National Convention in September.
Here’s a partial list of the groups with permits to protest, with links to their home pages:
Raleigh FIST, which believes “the only way to achieve true liberation for all peoples throughout the world is through socialism” and is therefore “dedicated to achieving such a society by building a multi-national, multi-gendered organization of revolutionary youth.” They even come out and admit they intend to achieve that by “overthrowing bourgeois society for a socialist future.” (They seem to mean it, too – check out their tribute to mass-murderer Che Guevera.)
Students for a Democratic Society of Chapel Hill, UNC Asheville, and NC State. You remember the SDS? That was radical bomber Bill Ayers’s group back in the 60s. And their radical rhetoric hasn’t changed a bit since then:
Oppressed people are at the forefront of movements for liberation. We understand that our work must target structures of domination in order to build powerful diverse movements for change. We realize that lines of power cut deep in our society, and we must be grounded in the work of combating systems of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, heterosexism, transphobia, and the many other forms of oppression thoughtfully and strategically.
And let’s not forget the Occupy movement, which promises to be a major presence in Charlotte come September. In the Observer article, Occupy Charlotte member Michael Zytkow expressed his disgust with the city’s rules:
“The parade route is abysmal,” he said. “We essentially want the right to speak at a zone that would not be far from the convention.”
“We denounce the government telling us where we can or cannot march,” Zytkow said.
Think these cats are going to behave?
Oh, and I almost forgot – 20,000 Muslims will also converge on Charlotte to host their own events during the DNC, including a massive public prayer.
I don’t foresee any possible problems. Do you?
I suppose pigs are flying loop-the-loops on this St. Patrick’s Day. They have to be. For Leonard Pitts, a hard-left columnist who’s never seen a federal power grab he didn’t like, now agrees Obama’s claimed power to execute Americans without a trial is wrong and should be opposed:
[I]t is inconceivable that the White House would claim the right to kill without at least presenting its evidence before a federal judge in a secret hearing. To eschew even that safeguard — there is precedent, in urgent cases, for a ruling to be handed down in hours or even minutes — is to set Obama up as potential judge, jury and executioner of every accused terrorist.
So where is the outrage? Had Bush claimed the right to kill American citizens without judicial oversight, the resulting cries of protest would have been audible on the moon.
Of course, Pitts is right – there would have been massive protests had Bush claimed such power. But, just as only Nixon could go to China, only Obama could nullify the Bill of Rights.
That’s how the central government works. Republicans provide “conservative” cover for big-government programs conservatives would object to, and Democrats provide “liberal” cover for programs liberals would oppose if a Republican sponsored them.
Both parties assure us they must control us for our own good. Obama’s just doing what Democrats do best, and that is to expand DC’s power over us in the name of “social justice” and “democracy.”
Glenn Greenwald rips into the Democrats’ fake concern for Constitutional rights. With one of their own in the White House, Panetta (and many other Democrats) say it’s just fine that the Commander-in-Chief wields all the dictatorial powers, and then some, that W and Cheney claimed:
But this is one of the towering, unanswerable hypocrisies of Democratic Party politics. The very same faction that pretended for years to be so distraught by Bush’s mere eavesdropping on and detention of accused Terrorists without due process is now perfectly content to have their own President kill accused Terrorists without due process, even when those targeted are their fellow citizens…
Whoa! Panetta, a liberal Democrat from the Clinton administration, now clicks his heels and defends the president’s power to call legal hits at will?
Sure. As George Will recently observed, “progressives” have always longed to forge a nation where the citizens march “in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer.” All in the name of “progress,” you see.
But that’s the role of liberalism in the DC Empire – it gussies up brute power with a facade of noble intentions. What I once wrote about the Bush regime is just as true about Obama:
With Communist egalitarianism and Nazi economics, Neo-Conism avoids the flaws (racism, planned economy) while appropriating the strengths (universalism, mercantilism, and really good citizen surveillance) of both totalitarian systems. Combining the world’s largest economy and the world’s noblest ideals, Bush’s USA is the most powerful force the planet has ever seen.
And … the greatest threat to our liberty and security, as Leon Panetta just admitted.
Dave Weigel addresses the Ralph Nader effort here.
Six weeks ago, word got out about a progressive project that could have Ralph Nader playing a familiar role: Electoral scold. He was the best-known member of a coalition to recruit five progressive candidates to run, as Democrats, against Barack Obama. At 4:30 p.m. today, the coalition was going to face its first deadline: qualifying to enter the New Hampshire primary.
Nader’s group won’t make the deadline.
“[Secretary of State] Bill Gardner switched the days on us,” Nader says. “He threatened to change the primary date after Nevada moved up its caucuses, and in the process, he moved up the filing deadline. So he’s pulled the rug out from under us — you think it’s late November, and all of a sudden it’s October 28.”
Nader is annoyed, and understandably so. “You ought to have one federal standard for every state’s elections,” he says…
Interestingly, look how much hostility there is to Nader at DemocraticUnderground.com.
Above cross posted at IPR. My editorial opinion follows.
How can anyone be that hostile to Nader? I’m a Constitution Party supporting right-wing paleocon, and I can’t help but respect Nader as a principled voice of opposition. The Democratic Underground folks come off like a bunch of rabid partisan shills. So far I only see one comment even supportive of the idea of a primary challenge.
That said, when Nader said he was all but certain there would be a primary challenger, I assumed he knew something. I guess he didn’t. He shouldn’t have said that unless he already had someone lined up.