>Whitaker Online, 0.7.1
>by Robert W. ("Federal Troops") Whitaker.
>Bob welcomes your comments. E-mail him at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Source: www.palmetto.org/whitaker.htm
>
> WHY THE FLAG IS COMING DOWN
> July 1, 2000
>
> 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.
>
>
> ORRIN STILL LOVES TEDDY.
> July 1, 2000
>
> 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
> July 1, 2000
>
> 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.
>
>
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon
is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of
the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by
the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist
Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While
inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will
endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation
of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in
every walk of life, in the professions and in the
world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro
will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process
which will deliver America to our cause."
(Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912) quoted by
Congressman Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559)
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
