The Battle Flag of the Confederate Army Benefits Republicans

See my “Racial History of the U.S. – Page”

  • In dealing with the left, one must remember that they are a selfish and irrational people. Political Correctness is the outward expression of their piety in their progressive socialist religion. They demonstrate their moral purity to one another through one-upmanship, no demand is so crazy that it cannot be topped be an even crazier demand. It’s a game no one can ever win. Put another way, if you give a monster a cookie, he’s only going to demand more cookies. (Gay Patriot)

I posted the below on a friends FaceBook… thought I would share it here:

The issue I see is almost a “pop” outrage. Democrats feel good in taking down something they put up in the 60’s as a middle-finger to the government telling them to desegregate. (Sort of like them getting rid of trans-fats after they replaced coconut oil and lard with it… they fix the problems they cause… decades later.)

I learned something during this whole thing. This is not the confederate flag. It is specifically Gen. Lee’s Battle Flag and was put up by a Dixiecrat. This Dixiecrat (Ernest Frederick “Fritz” Hollings served as a Democratic United States Senator from South Carolina from 1966 to 2005) stayed a Democrat till his dying day ~ like almost every Dixiecrat!


“…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” ~ Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;

…I am personally glad for this “outbreak” of faux-concern because it allows for discussion of Democratic racist history and hands me opportunity to note campaigners of Hillary Clinton on stage with shirts sporting Che Guevara, a racist homophobe who killed blacks, homosexuals, banned rock music, engineers, priests etc… as well as Obama campaign offices with Che Guevara hanging on the wall behind them.


“…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” ~ Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

While Amazon and Wal-Mart took down the Stars and Bars, campaign pins for Clinton-Gore with the Battle Flag behing them -or- Hillary Clinton with the Battle Flag are for sale on eBay as well (below-left). I love it… it is a giant cesspool of leftist hypocrisy, and when I engage in conversation with people [beyond their bumper sticker beliefs that keep them warm-and-cozy in their political mirage… I get entire Starbucks soo quite you could hear a pin drop.

One girl was shuffling soo much as I pulled out a book that I purchased off of the Akiba bookstore of Trinity United Church of Christ (Obama’s church of twenty years) and read these two quotes [after clearly explaining where I bought the book to my two compatriots… this was the time no one in Starbucks was talking]:

“White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64

And then I read this one from Mein Kampf:

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” ~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

The only noise I could hear is a young college student shuffling to my left. It was as if I was exorcising a demon from her as she was moving soo much after having her protected world inhabited by reality.Hillary

And this is the point a very left-leaning professor makes. To have people in the camp he is in merely label people as ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ makes my job easier. Because one someone is labeled, the person doing the labeling stops learning, refuting, checking facts and history.

And I slice them up one side and down the other like the 1972 movie Shogun Assassin.

Keep this faux outrage coming, I love it. I wake up every morning and look in the mirror and say… proudly, “my party is the party of Lincoln… we set people free. The new plantation keeps them subservient.”

[Well, I don’t say that every morning… I just try to gauge if I am gonna take a dump before or after my cup of coffee.]

The Mosque And Charlie Rangel ~ Ann Coulter

This is an excerpt from Ann Coulter’s, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel, 2012), 78-83.

In 1972, members of the Nation of Islam mosque led by Louis Farrakhan ambushed four New York policemen, badly wounding three officers and murdering one.

The police had received an anonymous—and it later turned out, bogus—phone call, reporting an officer in distress on the second floor of West 116th Street. Unbeknownst to the responding officers, this happened to be Farrakhan’s mosque. The first four cops on the scene either didn’t realize (or didn’t care) that the front doors of the mosque were uncharacteristically thrown open and the usual phalanx of armed “Fruit of Islam” Muslim guards were absent. The officers ran into the building and up the stairs in search of the injured policeman.

Once all four were in the stairwell, the doors behind them were slammed shut and bolted. At that moment, more than a dozen black Muslims, shouting “Allahu Akbar!” charged down the stairs. The Muslims kicked and dragged their trapped quarry to the bottom of the stairs and then out into the vestibule where they beat, kicked and stomped the policemen to a gruesome pulp. With all four officers on the ground and the vestibule awash in blood, the Muslims managed to wrench service revolvers from two of the battered officers. One of them shot Officer Phil Cardillo in the chest at point-blank range.

As all this was happening, the police dispatcher received a call cancelling the original 10-13 (“assist police officer”) call and the policemen swarming toward the building turned back. But Officer Rudy Andre had already arrived and saw his comrade Vito Navarra lying outside the mosque, barely conscious. Andre assumed he was the “officer in distress” who had prompted the original call. Then Andre looked through the windows of the mosque’s doors and saw the three other officers still being stomped by Farrakhan’s Muslims. They were only yards away from him, but Andre couldn’t get to them because the mosque’s front doors were now bolted shut. After putting in an urgent call for backup, Andre shot through the door’s window to unlock the door and disperse the mob.

By now, the ambushed cops were so drenched in blood that Andre didn’t even realize Cardillo had been shot. The assailants all ran to the basement, with Andre in hot pursuit. There was only one way out, so the perpetrators were as trapped in the basement as the officers had been in the stairwell minutes earlier.

As police cars and ambulances arrived at the building, a crowd also gathered to jeer at the police and throw rocks and burning garbage at them. The crowd cheered when the cops were carried from the mosque on stretchers.

Amazingly, Cardillo was still clinging to life when he got to the hospital. Five days later, he would be dead.

Another beaten cop, Victor Padilla, was convulsing so badly when he arrived at the emergency room that doctors and nurses had to hold him down. Blood poured from the socket where his left eye had been gouged out.

Navarra, the officer Andre had found lying in the street, was bruised, bleeding and missing teeth. But, unlike the others, he did not require emergency admittance to the triage unit. So he left the hospital and went back to the mosque to identify the assailants, who were being questioned in the basement where Andre had cornered them.

When Navarra walked in, bloody and tattered, several Muslims retreated to the back of the room. The guilty knew they were moments away from being positively identified. In addition to Chief of Detectives Albert Seedman, who was conducting the interviews, Farrakhan was present. As soon as he saw the pummeled cop, Farrakhan tried to get rid of him, imperiously announcing that he would not be able to guarantee Navarra’s safety “in this house of worship.”

Seedman shut Farrakhan down, saying, “Everyone in this basement, including you, is a suspect in the shooting and beating of New York cops. No one other than me will be making any decisions in regards to this case.”

But just as suddenly, Democratic congressman Charles Rangel materialized and informed Seedman that the police were to leave immediately. Deputy Police Commissioner Benjamin Ward—the first black man to hold that position—was in command, and he had just struck a deal with Rangel and Farrakhan: The cops would vacate the premises immediately, and in return Rangel and Farrakhan promised they would deliver the suspects to the police.

The Police Are Still Waiting.

Seedman refused to believe this was happening. But after a few phone calls, he got the order to vacate the premises directly from Commissioner Ward. He called Chief of Police Michael Codd to supersede the order, but the request was refused. Seedman called again and was told Codd had gone to lunch. With no other options, Seedman ordered the police to leave. One black cop in the basement refused the order, saying, “There’s an attempted murderer down here, and he’s coming out attached to my cuffs.”

But as Rangel had smirkingly indicated to Seedman, the order had been approved by Ward’s boss, Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy. The cops were forced to clear out, walking past Muslims in the vestibule who were busily scrubbing the crime scene of evidence.

With Rangel operating as the mosque’s bouncer, Navarra was prevented from identifying the assailants, and an airtight case vanished into thin air.

Soon the crowd on the street had grown to more than a thousand strong. Burning garbage, bricks and bottles filled the air. A female journalist was knocked to the ground, stomped, sprayed with lighter fluid and set on fire. Reporters were beaten and their equipment smashed. Stores were looted and destroyed. A stalled bus full of terrified passengers was bombarded with rocks and bottles, as hoodlums smashed its windows and tried to stuff burning newspapers inside.

One of the officers at the mosque, Randy Jurgensen, author of the book about the mosque incident, Circle of Six, describes what happened as he exited the building:

We dropped our heads like fullbacks, squared our shoulders and surged forward. . . . They started to punch, kick and claw at us. I felt a horrific sting below my shoulder. Someone had bitten a chunk of skin out of my back…. We made it to [the police car], slamming the doors and locking them. The keys weren’t in the car. BOOM! The windshield exploded, covering us in a million fine pieces of glass. If that wasn’t enough, burning rags soaked in gasoline were tossed in….

 Commissioner Ward responded to the melee by ordering all white cops to leave the scene. He was later made police commissioner by Mayor Ed Koch.

Farrakhan and Rangel’s promise turned out not to be one you could take to the bank. Despite assurances that they would personally escort everyone in the basement to the 24th Precinct, that never happened. A cop killer had been left in that basement on orders from Mayor John Lindsay’s politically correct City Hall.

In response to a murderous ambush of his police, Lindsay apologized to Farrakhan for the officers’ “invasion” of his mosque. The NYPD brass dirtied up the four cops by falsely portraying their entry into the mosque as unlawful and even implying that Cardillo had been killed by “friendly fire.”

Neither Lindsay nor Murphy attended Cardillo’s funeral, which was believed to be the first time a New York City mayor had not attended the funeral of a policemen killed in the line of duty.6 Instead, Lindsay went skiing in Utah. Murphy took a “business trip” to London with his wife.

Murphy did have time, however, to meet with Farrakhan at police headquarters in order to apologize for the police’s mistake in entering the mosque. Murphy would later describe Farrakhan as a man of “clear con­viction, speaking in tones of deep resonance, whose larger style was not entirely confrontational.” Of course, he hadn’t responded to the 911 call.

An open-and-shut investigation into a savage, premeditated cop killing had been shut down by a Democratic congressman. If you’ve ever won­dered how thorough a news blackout can be, and to what extent a politi­cian can skate away from controversy, Rangel’s knee-deep involvement in the Harlem mosque incident is a perfect example.

The New York Times sprang to action decades later by relentlessly flog­ging Representative Rangel on its front page. Not for covering up the mur­der of a policeman but for cheating on his taxes. Tax collection is a serious matter! But don’t expect the Times to go after Rangel for protecting a cop killer.

The Times’s 2011 obituary for Patrick Murphy, the police chief who had conspired with Rangel and Farrakhan to cover up the coldblooded murder of a police officer, hailed Murphy as “a nationally recognized police figure with a track record that extended to Washington and Detroit.” (If you were a police chief, would you put those two cities on your resume?) The Times described Murphy as the man who “steer[ed] [the New York Police De­partment] through one of its rockiest periods as he instituted reforms to root out corruption in the ranks.”

The entire mosque incident was brushed off in a single slippery sen­tence: “The next year, another officer, Phillip Cardillo, was fatally shot in­side a Harlem mosque.” Actually, he was murdered in cold blood and his assassin was protected by Patrick Murphy.

The Times was still dissembling about the mosque ambush in a May 12, 2012 article about a proposal to name a Harlem street after Phil Cardillo. The article described the 1972 ambush thus: The 911 call “turned out to be spurious, and a melee ensued,” adding that mosque leaders “believed they were being invaded by a hostile police force.” No. They set a trap for the pur­pose of killing cops. Everyone knew it—the police, the mayor and, certainly, the “mosque leaders.” (In the Times’s defense, it may not have known.)

The ranks of ordinary cops included plenty of black officers. These were the ones on the street making arrests, at the mosque, visiting colleagues in the hospital afterward, and the ones who would be enraged for the rest of their lives at their betrayal by the mayor and top officials of the NYPD. But black cops were no more respected by liberals than white cops were. Only murderous, cop-killing, brick-throwing, garbage burning, taunting, spit­ting black miscreants at the Harlem mosque counted as “black” for pur­poses of the police brass and the politically correct media.

Phil Cardillo’s murderer was eventually brought to justice, mostly through the indefatigable work of detective Randy Jurgensen. Meanwhile, the top echelons of the NYPD did everything in their power to block the capture and conviction of the murderer. Any investigation might raise questions about their own despicable conduct.

Blocked from using police surveillance equipment, Cardillo’s partner privately said: “[They’ve] got a million motherf—king dollars’ worth of equipment to collar dope heads, but for a dead cop, we can’t get a camera and a roll of film. I wanna vomit . . . This job and those c__ksuckers down­town are a f—king joke. A dead cop, Randy, a dead cop. My partner.”

Do Not Imagine That New York City Was Saved By Anything Other Than Rudy Giuliani.

While Police Chief Murphy and his coterie were throwing every man­ner of roadblock in Jurgensen’s way as he searched for Cardillo’s murderer, a black Muslim from Farrakhan’s mosque, Foster 2X Thomas was the hero of the case. Three years after the mosque attack, Thomas was arrested for using a stolen credit card. The polite young man immediately owned up to his crime and answered directly when asked about the ambush. As Foster explained in repeated interviews, he spoke the truth “because Minister Farrakhan always reminds the Muslims that we must tell the truth.”

Thomas had been working in the mosque bakery during the ambush and only emerged when he heard a commotion in the vestibule. Rushing in to defend his Muslim brothers, he was present when one of them shot the cop. He said it was Lewis 17X Dupree.

When Thomas testified against Dupree at trial, he was subjected to taunting from a hundred angry black Muslims glaring at him from the gallery. But, again, he matter-of-factly explained that he spoke the truth because Minister Farrakhan said Muslims must always be honest.

Unfortunately, the trial resulted in 0J-style justice with the truth com­ing out but with the jury hung, 10-2, for conviction. A black female juror refused to convict Dupree, and a white female juror refused to disagree with her. The second trial, with a less impressive presentation, ended in an acquittal. (Lewis 17X Dupree later ended up in prison on a federal felony conviction in North Carolina.)

For telling the truth, Thomas had to be shuttled about in seedy motel safe houses for three years until the trial and then placed directly into the federal witness protection program after the second trial.

But liberals don’t celebrate men like Foster 2X Thomas. If only he had killed  a cop or faked a hate crime, he would have been celebrated in mov­ies, Hollywood petitions, Anna Quindlen columns and New York Times editorials. That was the chaotic, upside down world that liberals foisted on the nation in the 1970s right up to the OJ trial.

All Gays Should Be Republican! Why?

“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it.  Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”

Dale A. Berryhill, The Liberal Contradiction: How Contemporary Liberalism Violates Its Own Principles and Endangers Its Own Goals (Lafayette, LA:  Vital Issues Press, 1994), 172.


Ann Coulter has a penchant for making controversial statements that often lead to snickers, jeers and plenty of other reactionary responses. In an upcoming episode of Logo’s “A List: Dallas,” the well-known conservative pundit told Taylor Garrett, a gay Republican and a cast member on the show, some things about liberals and abortion that will surely get people talking.

The general premise of her words: Gays and lesbians should become pro-life, because liberals may start aborting their unborn gay children once a homosexual gene is discovered.

“The gays have got to be pro-life. As soon as they find the gay gene, guess who the liberal yuppies are gonna start aborting?,” she said. Watch her comments, below:

As Marriage and Family Decline~Violence Goes Up (This Factor of Failure and Violence Is Subsidized-In other words, Failure and Violence Is `Expected`)

This is an interesting post MercatorNet has done in that it is supported by all the facts and studies done on this topic of the health to society done via the nuclear family. The Tottenham Riots have only been a recent example of this in a geo-political sense. Domestically it is seen in the Flash Mob mentality of violence and theft here in the States. For instance, commenting on the riots in London, Melanie Phillips says that,

…When church leaders stop prattling like soft-headed social workers and start preaching, once again, the moral concepts that underlie our civilisation [i.e., family and hard work], and when our political leaders decide to oppose the culture war that has been waged against that civilisation rather than supinely acquiescing in its destruction, then — and only then — will we start to get to grips with this terrible problem.

One site comments on a Peter Hitchens article making the point Peter does, that,

Left-wing parties all over Europe are losing elections because they are out-of-touch and because their big idea – the welfare state – is outdated. It does not work. Why not? Because it is based on a false view of human nature; it simply does not conform to reality.

It believes that people are basically good, though corrupted by society. These Leftist Utopians read Rousseau and Marx and think they sound like they know what they are talking about when, in fact, they are completely detached from reality. The welfare state ideology assumes that the main problems people face are material in nature, in other words – poverty. “Solve” poverty and we will have a good society, they say. How do they propose to solve poverty? Do they have a way to make people hard-working, educated and productive? No, they propose a short-cut; just take from the rich by redistributive taxation and give to the poor. Problem solved. But moving money from bank account to bank account does not alter human nature. It does not solve depression, sin, pathological behaviour, immaturity, disrespect for the law and lack of care for one’s family.


MercatorNet comes in as well and underlines this idea of family and the deteriative aspect of the welfare system subsidizing failure and violence as it tears apart the marriage ideal… and it is ideal!

It was a traumatic and costly lesson, but the rioting in English cities last weekend has forced “broken Britain” to face where its major social faultlines lie. Without a doubt, family breakdown is one of them, destabilising the welfare class over several decades by robbing children of their fathers and replacing them all too often with their mothers’ transient partners or with the Alpha males who run neighbourhood gangs (Scotland Yard says one in four of the rioters was a gang member).

Of course, as the appearance of the odd grammar school or university graduate in court showed, bad behaviour is not limited to the “underclass”. Neither, as it turns out, is family disintegration. While the attention of the world was riveted on the anarchy in England, two reports were published in the United States warning that family instability is making serious inroads into the working class and lower middle class of that country — as it is in Britain and many others. Both reports are about the erosion of marriage; together they leave no-one, in America at least, with any excuse for ignorance on the subject.

In the first, The Marginalisation of Marriage in Middle America, the problem is outlined by two sociologists: W Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and a conservative; and Andrew J Cherlin, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and a liberal. Their views diverge on the importance of marriage, but they agree about two basic things: “that children are more likely to thrive when they reside in stable, two-parent homes,” and “that in America today cohabitation is still largely a short-term arrangement, while marriage remains the setting in which adults seek to maintain long-term bonds.”

Many social commentators are worried about the widening wealth gap in today’s America. More worrying still is the marriage gap that has opened up between the working class — basically, people with not much more than a high school diploma — and the college educated middle class. Indeed, the latter gap is a significant contributor to the first.

Contrary to the impression you might get from reading the New York Times, college educated Americans are not generally engaged in pushing the sexual revolution to new extremes; they are busy creating what Wilcox and Cherlin call a “neotraditional style of family life”. They “may cohabit with their partners, but nearly all of them marry before having their first child. Furthermore, while most wives work outside the home, the divorce rate in this group has declined to levels not seen since the early 1970s.”

Brittle cohabiting unions

In contrast, working class young adults, who comprise half of the population aged 25 to 34, are defaulting on marriage:

“More and more of them are having children in brittle cohabiting unions. Among those who marry, the risk of divorce remains high. Indeed, the families formed recently in working-class communities have begun to look as much like the families of the poor as of the prosperous. The nation’s retreat from marriage, which started in low-income communities in the 1960s and 1970s, has now moved into Middle America.”

Compared to college graduates, moderately educated Americans are more than twice as likely to divorce in the first 10 years of marriage, and women are more than seven times as likely to bear a child outside of marriage. “Indeed the percentage of nonmarital births among the moderately educated (44 percent) was closer to the rate among mothers without high school degrees (54 percent) than to college-educated mothers (6 percent).”

We need to get the seriousness of this: back in 1960 the marriage gap barely existed; now there’s a chasm opening up between the third of Americans with higher education and everyone else — including the large class of ordinary working people that used to be the backbone of family values.

Many will say it doesn’t matter. We are not looking at a boom in single mothers here, but of cohabiting couples having children, which means the kids still have a mother and father under one roof. Cherlin himself inclines to the view that a stable two-parent home is what matters, not marriage as such. The fact is, however, that cohabiting relationships are much less stable than marriage.

Much less.

US Demographers Sheela Kennedy and Larry Bumpass suggest that 65 per cent of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents part by the time they are 12, compared to 24 per cent of the children of married parents. A British report last December found something similar: unmarried couples accounted for 59 per cent of break-ups affecting children up to the age of five, divorces for 20 per cent, and single parents headed 21 per cent of broken families with young children. Even in Sweden, the fabled home of non-traditional happy families, children born to cohabiting couples are 70 per cent more likely to see parents separate by the age of 15, compared to married parents.

The marriage advantage is a fact

Now, we all come across married families here there is conflict between the parents, where there is poor parenting, where the children are not thriving. Not all married families are healthy. And it may be that the advantage enjoyed by married families on average is due in part to the kinds of people who marry (selection effects). That there is a marriage advantage, however, is beyond dispute. Wilcox and Cherlin note:

“The fact is that children born and raised in intact, married homes typically enjoy higher quality relationships with their parents, are more likely to steer clear of trouble with the law, to graduate from high school and college, to be gainfully employed as adults, and to enjoy stable marriages of their own in adulthood. Women and men who get and stay married are more likely to accrue substantial financial assets and to enjoy good physical and mental health. In fact, married men enjoy a wage premium compared to their single peers that may exceed 10 percent.”

These claims are borne out by data from 250 peer-reviewed journal articles on marriage and family life in the US and around the world which are the basis of the second report mentioned above: Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences. Released this week and updating two earlier reports of the same name, Why Marriage Matters is co-authored by 18 family scholars from leading institutions and chaired by Professor Wilcox.

Among its statistics: 66 per cent of 16-year-olds were living with both parents in the early 1980s, compared to just 55 per cent in the early 2000s. Assuming that no responsible or humane person would say that this trend, bringing insecurity and misery to millions of children, does not matter, we have to ask: Why is this happening? And what can be done to change it?