Posts Tagged ‘Nikki Haley’

One Right-Wing Conservative’s View On The Banishing Of The Confederate Flag

June 24, 2015

For the record, the Confederate flag has NOTHING to do with me or with my conservative worldview.  I was not born in the South, which makes it easier for me to be able to declare this: but I have never ONCE in my life worn a hat, or a shirt, with the Confederate flag on it or with ANY symbol of the Confederate cause.  Nor have I ever been near enough to be photographed – even inadvertently – standing next to any such flag or symbol.

So as for the banning of the Confederate flag, I say, “We should have banned that damn flag in 1865 as a symbol of a vicious rebellion that consumed the lives of as many Americans as all the rest of our wars put together.”

When I was in the Army, I remember being invited to a party at a home in Georgia whose owner had proudly displayed a giant Confederate flag in the garage (where most of the party was happening).  I’d seen the Confederate flag before, of course, but not so up close.  And as I looked at that giant emblem, something welled up inside me.  I declined to go in.  I didn’t talk or think about race, but said something like, “My flag fought against that flag when that flag rose up in rebellion against my flag, and my flag defeated that flag in a war that that flag started against my flag.  That is an enemy flag.  I’m not about to honor that flag now.”

I wasn’t upset about the Confederate flag as a “racist symbol” at that time; I was upset about that flag as a statement of rebellion against my country and against the flag that I had pledged allegiance to since I was a kindergartner.  And now I was in the armed forces fighting for the same flag that I had pledged allegiance to, and in my heart I would tolerate no rivals to it for my allegiance.

So from my childhood, the Confederate flag has never had anything to do with me or anything that I believed in.

In the spirit of someone who hates the Confederate flag as a patriot, would you like to see a flag that is EVERY SCINTILLA as morally outrageous as the Confederate flag?  Here it is and anyone who actually loves America will readily agree with me:

That damned flag represents TREASON and “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America” – which is a euphamism for the “fundamental perversion” of a once-great but now degenerated and depraved country that used to be “one nation, under God” until the president of “God damn America” warped it with his lies.

But let’s talk about race and the Confederate flag.

There’s a line from a great movie called Gettysburg made in 1993, in which a great Civil War hero and Medal of Honor recipient named Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain speaks about the fundamental hypocrisy of the South/Confederacy.  It sums up my own thoughts perfectly:

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain: All these thousands of men. Many of them not much more than boys. Each one of them some mother’s son, some sister’s brother, some daughter’s father. Each one of them a whole person loved and cherished in some home far away. Many of them will never return. An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Now, somewhere out there is the Confederate army. They claim they are fighting for their independence, for their freedom. Now, I can not question their integrity. I believe they are wrong but I can not question it. But I do question a system that defends its own freedom while it denies it to an entire race of men. I will admit it, Tom. War is a scourge, but so is slavery. It is the systematic coercion of one group of men over another. It has been around since the book of Genesis. It exists in every corner of the world, but that is no excuse for us to tolerate it here when we find it right infront of our very eyes in our own country. As God as my witness, there is no one I hold in my heart dearer than you. But if your life, or mine,is part of the price to end this curse and free the Negro, then let God’s work be done.

Slavery is an evil that fundamentally denies the powerful truth of Genesis 1:27:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

ALL men are created in God’s image.  And the position of slavery is implicitly and explicitly a Darwinian view that we all evolved, and in Darwin’s book-title words, some races are “Favoured” over others in “the Struggle for Life” in which the races are all pitted against one another.  And I reject that premise utterly and profoundly.

There are a lot on the left who amazingly want to blame that damn Confederate flag on the right and on Republicans.  Such people are historically stupid to a degree where they are beneath contempt.  Every single state that seceded from the Union and fought the bloodiest and most vicious war against the United States in all of its history WERE DEMOCRAT.

The Democrat Party voted AGAINST Republican Abraham Lincoln and voted for the DEMOCRAT Stephen Douglas ran for president.  And the DEMOCRATS seceded from the Union when and because REPUBLICAN Abraham Lincoln won the election.

One of the things that amazes me is how little the Democrat Party has changed since the days when they fought a vicious war for slavery.  Consider the identical nature in the debate over abortion that I described shortly after I started this blog back in 2008. In that article, I carefully consider (and copy and paste) Obama’s speech defending abortion and say this:

Obama’s answer essentially is, “We don’t know for sure when life begins, so we should opt for death.”

Let me give an example: Suppose you are in the shower, with shampoo in your eyes, when your five year old says, “Momma, can I kill this?” What do you say? Do you seriously reason, “Well, I don’t know what the ontological status of the thing my little Johnny is talking about is, so I should allow him to make his own decision.” Johnny might be talking about his two-year old brother!

By Obama’s own reasoning, he just may be supporting and even advocating the murder of innocent human beings. The bottom line is, if there is any doubt at all about the status of the unborn, why not opt for the side of life?

The view that the government should be or even can be morally neutral in such a circumstance is simply false. African-Americans ought to be particularly sensitive about this line of reasoning. Allow me to cite an answer by Abraham Lincoln in refuting the view expressed by Stephen Douglas. It is historically fitting that Democrat Stephen Douglas ran for president as the U.S. Senator from Illinois. Douglas said that, although he was personally against the institution of slavery, “popular sovereignty” ought to determine whether slavery was legal or not. In their Sixth Debate at Quincy on October 13, 1858, Lincoln’s famous response to Douglas was:

“So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,” whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don’t see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

The fact of the matter is that if government permitted blacks to be owned as slaves, it was not taking a neutral position. It was implicitly accepting the view that blacks were less than fully human, and therefore could be owned as property. And if the presuppositions justifying slavery were wrong, then as Lincoln said, one simply could not have “the right to do wrong” – even by popular vote. In the same way, by permitting unborn babies to be aborted, the government is not taking a neutral position. Rather, it is likewise implicitly accepting the view that the unborn are not fully human, and therefore can be regarded essentially as property rather than as persons (property that may be destroyed at will).

There is something else that should be realized: that the right of a woman to choose abortion logically and morally entails the position that fathers do not and should not matter. Abortion trivializes the role of the father.

If the “thing” that is created by intercourse is not in fact a human being and a human person, then why should he be held accountable for what develops 9 months later? It is out of his control by the implicit reasoning of abortion: the woman alone decides. Only if he fathered a child with all the recognition and human dignity of a human being should he be held accountable for fathering a child! If the “right to choose” is up to a woman and a woman alone, then what does the man have to do with it?

Fathers are put in a despicable position by abortion logic: if a woman decides to abort her baby, then the father – by abortion morality – must stand idly by while his own child is put to death, and even approve of the killing. If, on the other hand, the woman decides to keep her baby, then a father is held to the duty of supporting that child until that child reaches legal adulthood whether he wants to have a child or not. Where is his “right to choose”? Where is his “reproductive freedom”? The father is completely left out of the decision as an insignificant component. Is there any wonder

Just as the institution of slavery pit one group’s rights up against another group’s rights, and then usurps the rights of one group to privilege a hypocritical group of people who usurp other people’s rights in the name of their “freedom” and their “right to choose,” abortion does the identical same thing.  A slaveowner should have the right to choose to own slaves – and damn the rights of the poor black person who is now condemned a be a slave; a woman should have the right to choose to kill her baby – and damn the rights of the poor baby who is now condemned to die and damn the rights of the father who is every bit as responsible for that child coming into the world as the mother is.

The same Bible that condemns racism as being anti-God also condemns abortion as being anti-God and states the nature of the unborn:

Psalm 139:13-18

13 You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
    and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex!
    Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.
15 You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
    as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
16 You saw me before I was born.
    Every day of my life was recorded in Your book.
Every moment was laid out
    before a single day had passed.

17 How precious are Your thoughts about me,[a] O God.
    They cannot be numbered!
18 I can’t even count them;
    they outnumber the grains of sand!
And when I wake up,
    You are still with me!

Democrats haven’t changed their spots in 150 years.  Long after fighting and losing a war against Republicans to enslave black people and forcibly keep them on plantations, Democrats began another strategy to voluntarily keep blacks on plantations through a welfare system and through an ideology that implicitly declares that black people don’t have a right to come to conclusions for themselves, but must believe as their “masters” tell them to believe and think and vote as liberal progressive Democrats who put them in chains to begin with.

Abortion is every bit as morally and scientifically wrong as racial slavery is.

Republican Governor Nikki Haley courageously banned the Confederate flag.  Let’s see how many DEMOCRAT governors could have done so before her. Since the beginning of the Civil War, 41 of the Governors of the State of South Carolina – including the ENTIRE period of segregation and “separate but equal” status – were DEMOCRATS. Versus eight Republican governors – one of whom finally took down that damned Democrat Party symbol of hate.

Don’t you DARE blame the Confederate flag on Republicans, you lying hypocrite Democrat fascists.  Don’t you DARE transpose your symbol of hate onto us.  The Confederate flag is the DEMOCRAT PARTY FLAG that the DEMOCRAT PARTY CREATED AND FOUGHT FOR AND KILLED REPUBLICANS UNDER.

Hey, you want a nice contemporary example gift-wrapped with a bow for you?  How about this one: guess which president as governor signed into law an act to add a Confederate star on his state flag “to commemorate the Confederate States of America.”

Oh, but it gets even BETTER: guess which party actually resurrected the flag and made it part of South Carolina again. And of course the answer is a damned DEMOCRAT.

Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton are for HELL.  The Democrat Party stands for hell on earth.  And they are for whatever the HELL will give them POWER to keep perverting and depraving everything sacred in this land that was built on trust in God.

And so 150 years later, you DEMOCRATS are still every bit as wicked and as hypocritical and every bit as eager to deprive innocent people of their basic rights and freedoms in the name of your own twisted “rights” as you were in 1865 after good Republicans rose up to defeat you.  When Democrats and the residents of Democrat-controlled ideological plantations blame Republicans for the Confederate flag, they are Adolf Hitler blaming the Jews for being the cause of the German defeat in World War One – when any reasonable and moral person would realize that the Republicans are every bit as innocent of the Confederate flag that they literally rose up against and defeated as the Jews were for being responsible for everything Hitler falsely blamed on them.

If black people want to show the same spirit that Republican Governor Nikki Haley displayed in banning the Confederate flag, they would similarly ban black race-based organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Black Congressional Caucus, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the historically black colleges and universities and the historically black religious denominations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liberals Are The Racists And Misogynists. They’re Also Hypocritical Demagogues Who Project Their Own ‘Values’ On Their Opponents.

November 6, 2014

I’m watching a Democrat strategist give his post-mortem on the November 4 elections in which Democrats got their heads handed to them (not that Obama has a clue as he plans his next fascist executive order power-grab between golf rounds.  All we know is that Obama doesn’t feel “repudiated” no matter how much of a toxic pariah he’s become even to his own party).  Why do Democrats tend to fare so badly in midterms, the strategist is asked.  And he says, “We’ve got to do a better job reaching out to white voters.”

This is PRECISELY what Democrat strategists are saying.

You are not a human being to Democrats.  Human beings are created in the image of God and Democrats piss on both God and His image.  No, you are a black voter, or a Hispanic voter, or an Asian voter.  Or you are an enemy who has to be tricked into voting for the party that wants to give the good races all the stuff your family worked so hard to earn because you belong to the wrong race.

Of course, that is racial politics from the PARTY of race politics.  If you want to divide people up by race and play the game of divide and conquer – and to hell with the increasingly incredibly polarizing results you are guaranteed to get as a result – you are a Democrat, pure and simple.

All you have to do is blame your racism and the climate of anger and polarization your racist engineering engenders on the other side.  And your media propaganda will duly report that “fact.”

Republicans are the party of ideas and the party of Americans.  Democrats are the party of racism and the party of bitterness against America.

It’s just the way it is.  And it’s just the way it has been since Democrats realized that if you can’t beat them, join them and then subvert them to the same plantation agenda they’ve always had.  Before you were useful as slave labor; now you’re useful as slave voters.  To wit: if you want your welfare check, you vote for the master party.

All the other party will offer you is the opportunity to get a job because they’re trying to make it easier for employers to build businesses and to learn because they’re trying to provide poor children of ALL races with vouchers for private schools to end the blue line union monopoly over “edyookashun.”

But of course it’s easier to sit at home and blame whitey – or blame whoever the convenient target to be blamed is – than it is to work.  And that’s just human nature.

Which party is the party of racism?  The party that hates Clarence Thomas, the party that hates Allen West, the party that hates Condoleezza Rice, the party that hates Dr. Benjamin Carson, that’s who.

I still remember the racist hate that Clarence Thomas received from the party that presents itself as oh-so-uber-un-racist.

In this election cycle, racist politicking was out full force as Democrats pulled out every trick to fearmonger the black community into getting out and voting against Republicans.  And no lie was too outrageous.

And of course there was the War on Women that Democrats just never got tired of playing.

Misogynists are Republican and Republicans are misogynists.  That’s what we’ve been told for the last how many years now from Democrats?

So I run across this story in the Los Angeles Times.  And it’s written by an uber-liberal named Meghan Daum:

The other thing the catcalling video shows: Our detachment issues
Meghan Daum
Los Angeles Times
November 5, 2014, 5:23 PM

If for some unfathomable reason you’re not among the more than 30 million people who’ve already seen the “catcalling video” that started ricocheting through the zeitgeist last week, I’ll give you a brief rundown.

An actress named Shoshana Roberts, unremarkably dressed, is videotaped with a hidden camera as she walks around a variety of New York City neighborhoods. Over 10 hours, men vied for her attention, asking, “What’s up, beautiful?” and demanding to know why she won’t talk to them. Some seem pretty innocuous. Others, like the one who walks next to Roberts silently for five minutes straight, are downright creepy.

What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino. For all the video tells us about race, men and the discomfort women can experience on the street, it also tells us something about a different — and relatively new — kind of cultural discomfort: our awkwardness in negotiating public spaces.

When I watch the video, I see not just a woman being objectified by men but also a woman who, presumably at the behest of her director, is totally unwilling to engage in the world around her. She makes no eye contact, responds to no greeting, registers no interest in the people in her midst. I also see in it a filmmaker who hasn’t bothered to parse the difference between a “good morning” and a “hey, baby.” And in reading women’s reactions, I sense a perception that any of these guys could have pulled Roberts into an alley and assaulted her at any time.

Hollaback, which is committed to the message that a “hello” can easily and quickly escalate into violence, certainly seems to share that perception. But in the context of this video at least, it’s a little tone deaf. As she walked, Roberts was surrounded by hundreds of people, many of whom would surely have intervened if she’d needed help. As odd as the creepy companion walker was, does it fit Hollaback founder Emily May’s description of “a terrifying, terrifying experience”?

Obviously only Roberts can say how she felt about any given interaction. Nonetheless, here’s the thing about life in the big city, especially cities whose identities are rooted in the energy of the street: You can’t live in a vacuum. In fact, most residents don’t want to live in a vacuum. They have boundaries, but they still want to share a nod or knowing glance with a stranger on the bus or subway. They want to weave their individual, day-to-day experiences into the larger tapestry. And nothing about Robert’s disconnected, almost zombie-like comportment in the video reflects that spirit.

We all have our zombie-like days, of course. But I suspect that in real life Roberts handles men who talk to her on the street the same way most women eventually learn to: by saying “thank you” or saying something The Times won’t print, or waving a hand in a way that could be taken as either friendly or dismissive. Hollaback might consider these concessions are themselves symptoms of patriarchal oppression — and that is a fair, if not exactly new, point. I would say what’s missing from the video is that making concessions to strangers, sometimes acknowledging their existence, is part of what it means to share the world with other people — at least the real-life, three-dimensional world.

Of course, that world increasingly takes a back seat to the digital sphere, where ignoring unwanted communications is standard protocol, where many, if not most, conversations take place via text or email. Dating and sexual conquest belong largely to the realm of online dating sites and Tinder feeds. Moreover, most people when they do find themselves in public spaces, spend more time looking at their phones than looking at what’s around them. Little by little, we’re losing our instinct for joining the larger tapestry.

And maybe that’s the ultimate lesson of the catcalling video. It’s not just that men can be boorish or that race and class issues can be thorny but that walking down the street can be more complicated than hanging out online. Not to mention a lot more interesting.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: is this the tone this leftie would have decided to take if the woman victim had been a racial minority and the creepy catcallers had been white men???

Daum makes this point early on:

What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino.

And then proceeds to drop that point entirely as if it were a radioactively hot potato.  You never see the racial angle mentioned again.  It’s almost like she waved her hand at it, and that’s more than enough.  From that moment on, her article actually became a DEFENSE of the black and Latino men – i.e. the core members of the Democrat Party racial constituency – who sexually harassed the white woman for ten hours.

Now, I must confess that there have been a couple of times that Meghan Daum – who in the past was just so over-the-top lefty-moonbeam that she maxed out the measurement apparatus – has surprised me of late.  It’s possible that she actually is able to realize that the identity politics game the left keeps playing is as dangerous as it is toxic.

You know, the way Bill Clinton just did:

“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity,” he told the crowd of activists, celebrities, and lawmakers.

But no matter: the REST of the Democrat universe plays it as their first card, their second card, their third card, their fourth card and their fifth card in every political game of five-card poker.

And it was, as usual, the central card played in this election.

We had the FIRST female elected to the United States Senate from blue state Iowa in American history.  And not only did this Republican woman have to suffer getting sexually trivialized over how attractive she was (you know, for a bimbo) by a career sexist Democrat male senator, but she had to suffer the booooooring whine of three-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu as she complained that she won’t get re-elected to a fourth term because she’s a woman and Louisianans are conservatives who hate women and hate blacks:

“And number two: I’ll be very, very honest with you. The south has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader,” she said.

“It’s not always been a good place for women to present ourselves,” Ms. Landrieu continued. “It’s more of a conservative place. So we’ve had to work a little harder on that. But the people trust me, I believe — really they do … trust me to do the right thing for the state.”

Ms. Landrieu’s comments come as some Democrats are making direct, often visceral appeals to black voters, notably in southern states like Georgia, in hopes of energizing the party base ahead of Tuesday’s election.

A woman who has been elected to the Senate by her state three times blames her state’s hostility to her on her gender and on racism.

You see, there’s one way to play this game: the Democrat way.  If you try to play it in a way that doesn’t politically help the political exigencies of the Democrat Party, it’s because you’re a racist, or you’re a misogynist, or you’re a racist misogynist.

It’s NEVER fascists when Democrats do it.  It’s ALWAYS fascist when Republicans do it.  Every time.  No matter how much of a pretzel you’ve got to twist your brain into to believe the liberal line.

War veteran Joni Ernst is tired of the “war on women” meme the Democrats constantly play (her male Democrat challenger actually had the complete lack of balls to play it on her):

She didn’t want to hear opponent Bruce Braley’s campaign claims anymore that she wages war on women with her positions because, the war veteran said, “I’ve been to war; this is not a war.”

Of course, it IS a war, because it is a vicious attack strategy from the party of hate and division, from the party that pits race against race, income-level against income level, gender against gender, etc.

It’s a war for the soul of America.  And even Bill Clinton admits that the Democrat Party machine is on the side of Satan in the war.

Abortion isn’t a “woman’s issue.”  It’s a CHILDREN’S issue.  If abortion is only a woman’s issue, then men are to be excluded from having anything to do with children and whether they should live or die.  If abortion is a “woman’s issue” as Democrats believe, and if a man and a woman don’t produce a child at the moment of conception, as Democrats believe, then ANY responsibility men have ought to end the nanosecond they roll off of that woman and go to sleep.  Because he DID NOT FATHER A CHILD according to the left and according to the left he has nothing whatsoever to do with the most critical choice involving the “woman’s choice” involving this non-child.

What Democrats want and what they have largely already achieved is the end of fatherhood.  Fathers are not “fathers” any more; they do NOT procreate a child and they are therefore not to be allowed ANY choice or ANY responsibility whatsoever in the MOST important decision involving a child that somehow mysteriously develops at some later time.

And of course homosexual sodomy marriage is nothing more than an extension of liberal thought: marriage is an institution for families; but the party of militant hatred for fatherhood necessarily becomes the party of militant hatred for the family of which fathers are a necessary component.

So Democrats have this twisted, perverted, hateful view toward any woman who loves her family and loves her children and values families and children.

And so your Sarah Palins and any woman who is pro-marriage and pro-family have to be rabidly attacked in the most hateful wayIt’s FINE for Democrats to call Republican women “whores.”  Just try being a Republican white male who calls a minority female governor a whore and see what happens to your career as the media feeding frenzy goes into beyond-rabid mode.

But like what we see somehow happen in Meghan Daum’s piece with black men and Latino men – in other words with Democrats – the left just strips the narrative of the elements they don’t like and then retells the story according to their ideology.  Just as in Daum’s piece what could have – and WOULD have had the sleazeballs been white men howling over a minority woman – been a piece about the racist and misogynistic attitudes about minorities toward women becomes a piece about the snooty way a woman carries herself which of course apparently invites abuse with aforementioned abuse being no big deal.  In any and every story involving the nastiest and most despicable racist and misogynistic behavior of liberals gets explained away by some “narrative” had the political party or the race or the gender of the person or people engaging in the despicable conduct been the politically incorrect sort (i.e. white men).

I’ll grant Meghan Daum credit for taking on the perennially offended feminist left over what they perceive as such a hostile climate that a man who says “good morning!” is tantamount to a rapist.  Believe it or not, she has courage to take on that group of rabid harpies given the instant media access that band of vermin has.  But we’ll know Meghan is truly courageous when it is WHITE REPUBLICAN MEN who act the way these black and Hispanic men acted that she defends.

Doubt very much that it will ever happen.