|
|
| |
WHY THE FLAG IS COMING DOWN
|
|
There are two general reasons that
the Confederate flag comes down off the state house
dome in Columbia on July 1, 2000: The first is the
respectable conservative terror of being called
a "racist" by liberals. The second is
their respect for liberal opinion.
Polls showed blacks were not upset about the flag
until liberals told the black "leadership,"
which they own outright, to act upset. The "leadership"
told blacks to be upset, so they were. So conservatives
sought a "compromise" with this legitimate
liberal opinion -- and to avoid "racism."
People who are looking for great conspiracies or
other obscure origins of our defeats don't see the
simple reality that 1) and 2) above are at the basis
of almost all our defeats.
Below I give more examples from the news where the
exact same combination -- a scream of "racist"
and a "compromise" with "legitimate"
liberal opinion -- led to defeats for traditional
values.
|
|
|
|
Poor John McCain had to disappoint
his liberal admirers during the South Carolina primary
when he had to back down on his words condemning
the Confederate flag as "a symbol of slavery
and oppression." Fortunately, he was able to
repeat that condemnation AFTER the primary, making
him and the media happy. Because he admitted that
had used an outright lie on purpose, the media was
able to declare him a man of perfect honesty.
In the August 14, 1999, Whitaker Online, "Orrin
Loves Teddy," I pointed out the fact that
Orrin Hatch, as Senate Judiciary Chairman, worships
his Democratic vice chairman, Teddy Kennedy. He
even writes poems to him.
Kennedy offered an amendment to begin the federalization
of criminal law in the name of "hate crimes."
We all know that once the Feds are able to prosecute
any case they decide to call "hate," the
old primacy
of states in criminal prosecution will be totally
gone.
Facing his hero's outrageous "hate crime"
bill, poor Orrin had McCain's problem. He couldn't
hold his political followers and back Kennedy's
bill. So he offered a compromise which passed 50-49.
That broke the solid conservative front against
the very idea of federalizing criminal law in the
name of "hate crimes." As a result, Kennedy's
bill then passed the Senate 57-42.
This is the old leftist "two steps forward,
one step back" approach. A liberal demands
that total federalization begin in the name of fighting
racism. Then, a conservative who desperately wants
liberal approval, and who would rather shoot his
children than be called a racist, offers a compromise.
So the liberal agenda asks for two steps and is
given one. Eventually, the liberal gets it all,
and more.
A liberal-worshiper like Hatch or McCain is worth
more to the left than an outright liberal like Kennedy.
|
|
|
WE
CANNOT CRITICIZE FEDERAL COURTS ANY MORE
|
|
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that students
may not have a voluntary prayer at a sports event. Please
don't tell me the courts are abusing their power. They
are using the power we gave them.
In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that no state could have
a law against miscegenation. The Court cited the Bill
of Rights and the fourteenth amendment. Every state that
proposed and ratified the Bill of Rights had anti-miscegenation
laws. Almost every state that proposed and ratified the
fourteenth amendment had anti-miscegenation laws. The
court made no pretense that its decision had anything
to do with the intent of those who wrote the Constitution.
In that decision, the Warren Court set a precedent like
no other in history. It would do what the members of the
court felt they should do, in open defiance of the Constitution's
actual meaning. They justified it by saying that if you
object to the anti-miscegenation law, it makes you a racist,
and nobody dares object to that.
A lot of the people I knew in 1968 were conservative Catholics.
I warned them, with a Southerner's feel for the Constitution,
that this precedent would mean a disaster for everybody
in the near future. They explained patiently to me that
Racism was an evil, evil thing, and that to make an omelet,
you have to crack some eggs. In this case, the egg was
constitutional intent.
Then came the abortion decision in 1973. The same people,
conservative Protestant and Catholic, were outraged. How
dare the Supreme Court invent this kind of "right
of privacy" in the teeth of the meaning of
the Constitution!
I could have explained to them that all the Court was
doing was cracking an egg it had already cracked completely
in 1968. They whine and they moan and they shout and they
talk about the DRED SCOTT DECISION!!
They talk about the Dred Scott Decision because that way
they can sound anti-racist. It was not a Supreme Court
decision in 1857 that gave the Court a license for Roe
vs. Wade or for its recent decision on prayer.
What gives the court the license to decide anything it
feels like deciding is the 1968 decision to which no one
dared object then, and no one but me dares to object to
now. In that decision, I repeat, all precedents and all
the clear meaning of those who wrote the Constitution
was not merely ignored, it was OPENLY DEFIED.
The simple fact of the matter is, for all the shouts about
"baby killers," the life of any child takes
a back seat to these so-called Christians' desperation
to avoid being called "racists." Until they
object to the decision they dare not criticize, all critics
of the Supreme Court should shut up.
National anti-abortion spokesmen and "Christian"
conservatives are happy to shout down all other conservative
issues in the name of "stopping the baby killers."
But they are not willing to openly take on liberal opinion
where it would really hurt, and to risk the label racist
for those same babies.
Which makes them absurd. Unlike the 1973 Roe decision,
the outlawing of anti-miscegenation laws was not merely
a STRETCH of the Constitution, it was an OPEN rejection
of constitutional intent. There is no question of a question
that any of the Founding Fathers or even the authors of
the Fourteenth amendment intended to prohibit states from
having anti-miscegenation laws. If that is valid, the
Roe decision is MORE than valid.
I am sick of listening to cowards bellyache.
|
|
YOU
CAN'T DEFY LIBERAL OPINION, OR YOU'LL BE ANAZIWHOWANTSTOKILLSIXMILIONJEWS
|
|
So the latest bellyache about the courts is the decision
outlawing voluntary student prayer at public school sports
events. The obvious thing to do in the prayer case is
to force the Feds to enforce it. Can you see the impact
of Federal marshals arresting students for praying? That's
how the left wins its battles. But the left has a trump
card on the right that never fails. They would simply
say that the idea of defying the court on this issue reminds
them of George Wallace defying the court for "racism."
Now, the old segregationist George Wallace was actually
in a real war against real Nazis. But that has nothing
to do with it. Liberalism now condemns such attitudes
as just like the Nazis, and if you don't agree, they'll
say you're like a Nazi.
The labels wouldn't scare off the students from defying
the Feds, but it would scare off all respectable conservatives.
They would rather abandon prayer anywhere than be called
"racists."
Which brings us back to why I am making such a point of
the anti-miscegenation decision. Why do you think liberals
are so desperate to keep anyone from criticizing this
one Supreme Court decision? Why do you think this is the
one landmark Warren Court decision that no conservative
dares even MENTION?
I point to it because THEY consider it so important.
If the court can declare that America's constitution must
be openly defied in the name of anti-racism, who can be
surprised that every Southern symbol must now be abandoned
in the name of anti-racism?
When the word "racist" is mentioned, conservative
spokesmen begin an instant grovel. As long as this is
the case, they cannot win a single battle against the
"two step forward, one step back" strategy.
As long as we consider liberal declarations, no matter
how anticonstitutional, as somehow "legitimate,"
we must keep retreating.
|
|
|
| |
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|