Well, if you are going to rob a player of a catch, at least do it with style. (via @Dodgers) pic.twitter.com/Yw6D9FNV4i
— SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) June 24, 2015
All's I see are flames & jackboots. @MarilynMosbyEsq
@AmPowerBlog @BeccaJLower @MsEBL @smitty_one_each @instapundit pic.twitter.com/giLo8f9nkr
— 0ne Good Gonz0 (@serr8d) June 24, 2015@IAMKELLYBROOK You look AMAZING ! Inspiration to all curvy women .. x pic.twitter.com/rhr9JteDfY
— Models Of Diversity (@ModsOfDiversity) June 17, 2015There is anger among local residents at the authorities because power cuts have restricted the use of air-conditioning units and fans, correspondents say.Wouldn't want to get Allah pissed off or anything, and no doubt the government's cutting power to appease the gods of global warming.
Matters have been made worse by the widespread abstention from water during daylight hours during the fasting month of Ramadan.
Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday praised Wal-Mart and other retailers for refusing to sell products bearing the Confederate flag, as she pushed for a broader conversation about modern-day, institutionalized racism and policies to address it.All lives matter?
Speaking at a black church near Ferguson, Mo., Clinton, who once served on the Wal-Mart board, urged “all sellers” to follow the lead set by the Arkansas-based retailer, as well as eBay, Amazon and Sears. Those companies have announced plans to purge their inventories of the Confederate symbol in the wake of the massacre in a Charleston, S.C., church.
Clinton also praised South Carolina leaders for steps toward removing the flag from the statehouse grounds. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley and other state leaders have recognized the Confederate banner "as a symbol of our nation’s racist past that has no place in our present or our future,” Clinton said to cheers. “It shouldn’t fly there, it shouldn’t fly anywhere.”
The remarks represented Clinton's second extended discussion of racism in America since the shooting in a historically black church left nine black churchgoers dead last week.
As the leading Democratic contender for the presidency, Clinton has jumped into the national conversation that has followed the shooting. It has given her an opportunity to burnish her standing among her party’s liberal core, including African American voters, and to strike a strong contrast with Republicans.
The U.S. and South Carolina flags are seen flying at half-staff behind the Confederate flag, which is erected at a war memorial on the South Carolina Capitol grounds. Controversy over displaying the Confederate flag, which some say is a symbol of white supremacy and hatred, has ensued after the Charleston, S.C., shooting.
On Tuesday, she took her campaign to Florissant, Mo., less than four miles from the spot where Michael Brown, a black 18-year-old, was shot last August by a white police officer, fueling the recent national debate over race and inequities in the justice system.
"All lives matter," Clinton declared, picking up on the rallying cry -- "black lives matter" -- of the movement that grew out of the protests in Ferguson, Mo.
Stogie: Pounding your chest and harrumphing about how you're "winning" the argument is hardly convincing, and actually kind of pathetic.More to come, especially if Stogie's still got game!
I don't think you know what a straw man is. This so-called "myth" you talk about isn't part of the mainstream history and standard interpretations of the antebellum institution of slavery, especially conservative interpretations. You're clearing grasping. Further, I don't think you know what federalism is, and you completely ignore my discussion of congressional action on slavery since 1800. You ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative of the innocent South and the evil North. Just because you hate federalism, and especially the doctrine of national supremacy emerging out of McCulloch, that doesn't mean you can blow off such central historical moments in American political development. In that you're like Livingston, who completely decontextualizes the issues and distorts and lies about what Lincoln believed and actually said.
Plus, it's a false premise that "Congress did nothing" to end slavery. Congress continued to regulate slavery right through the 1850s. Remember, as you say, the North was racist just like the South. Abolition wasn't the burning issue for anyone. What was burning is the balance of power in Congress, and the desire of folks like Lincoln to keep slavery out of the North --- because of political questions of power. They did this, of course, because they simultaneously believed Jeffersonian notions of inalienable rights. Racist ideologies among Northerners do nothing to change that fact. Livingston's argument is lame. It's like name-calling. You're doing the same thing, and it's childish. Both you and Livingston distort Lincoln's views on slavery and you ignore his actual words. That's what leftists do. You're both Gramscian and Derridean in constructing false narratives that bear no resemblance to reality. I quoted Lincoln's own words and contextualized them the way Lincoln himself did in his 1862 address to Congress. Just because you don't like it isn't a justification to be dishonest about not only what he said, but about my analysis as well.
Livingston indeed does discuss "presentist ideological agendas." Talking about Senator James DeWolff of Rhode Island, Livingston writes that "it is difficult for us today to read the expression anti-slavery without importing our own 21st century moral sensibilities into it." That is presentist epistemology, and those who employ it are taking history out of context (see historian Gordon Wood, "History in Context": http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/history-context_850083.html). Unfortunately, Livingston's piece employs the very same kind of presentism to decontextualize the development of slavery in antebellum America. He does this throughout his discussion of moral philosophies. Are you sure you've read this article carefully, Stogie, or is your response just more boilerplate "Lincoln is evil" ideology lifted from the radical libertarian fever swamps?
Well, Stogie, the piece certainly is an "ideological screed," as I've shown throughout my essay, but since you share that ideology, you're forced to desperately defend it. Indeed, despite your furtive attempts to rebut Livingston's lies and decontexualization, you simply declare victory, and write that my comments "are those of someone losing an argument, and knows it." Actually, I don't know it. I'm only going on to say what I think of Livingston's writing, and I don't think well of it. He's a hack historian with an ideological ax to grind.
And by the way, my so called "ad hominem" arguments are not in fact the key arguments against this hack. I noted that I'd append a "bloggy" section simply because there's so much low hanging fruit. You yourself have slammed Lew Rockwell numerous times, so it's no surprise you'd blow off Livingston's fringe connections as "irrelevant." I think you're a good man, and I know you're better that that from reading this blog for 8 years.
In any case, thanks for the discussion. I'm learning a lot, as always!
Uh-oh: @HillaryClinton #ConfederateFlag Merchandise Surfaces on eBay http://t.co/Ph2OGZRvR2 #TakeDownTheFlag pic.twitter.com/TcmqWO1PRm
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) June 23, 2015
Next time #HypocriteHillary try #RollTide
#HillaryShallRiseAgain #ConfederateTakeDown #ConfederateHillary
@rsmccain pic.twitter.com/2JLt7BtSaV
— Evi L. Bloggerlady (@MsEBL) June 24, 2015Stogie, I broke the commentary into two sections. Focus on section one, where I make three augments. You do not contest these? And you're arguing a straw man here. I never said Lincoln didn't think blacks were inferior. I also don't deny that the North was racist. You can't address what I actually said so you attack me as "unethical." Frankly, Livingston's argument is shoddy. It's shit. On top of that he's a crank. I entered into this discussion with good faith. You said you had nothing further to discuss until I read the Livingston piece. I've read it. It's a terrible attempt at historical analysis. Do you want to respond to the points I've actually raised?And I left another response at Saberpoint:
Okay, Stogie, I've read Professor Livingston's piece and I find it to be a terrible piece of historical writing. Here, "Response to Stogie at Saberpoint and 'Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery...': http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/response-to-stogie-at-saberpoint-and.html...I think I know why Stogie's helping the left? He's proud. He's proud of his Southern heritage. I have no problem with that. I just don't think you can whitewash the South while hysterically demonizing the North and Abraham Lincoln as racist.
At your comment you don't respond to my substantive points. You don't respond to them at all. Livingston makes all kinds of juvenile logical fallacies. Frankly, he's arguing against straw men and phantoms. No one denies the North was racist. You yourself continue to point out the North's racism as if this exonerates the South. The entire country was racist. Further, I've never said Lincoln was anti-racist. I said at the post that Livingston completely decontextualizes Lincoln's positions on slavery, and he issues bald-faced lies about what Lincoln actually said (on the 1862 address to Congress, for example). You don't respond to these because you can't. You fall back to the same tired arguments about how racist the North was, to which all I can say is I agree with you. The difference is that the South seceded. It did not secede because of the tariff. The tariff was a smokescreen for the real issue, which was the freedom of Southerners to own slaves. It doesn't matter how well slaves were treated. It's against universal human rights, the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence, to keep and perpetuate chattel slavery. Also, I don't discount the Southern heritage argument and never have. The problem is that those honorable elements of Southern heritage cannot be hermetically sealed off from the deadly and immoral institution of slavery. I'll be glad to continue to discuss the issue. It's not personal to me, frankly. I have no investment in Southern honor. I do have an investment in defending conservatism against the left's diabolical attacks on the right. Why do you insist on helping leftists attack conservatives?
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.I don't know why Livingston would so blatantly distort what Lincoln actually said, other than to chalk it up to dishonesty. Lincoln's views were complicated and developed along with the political necessities of his day.
On his own campus, Abbeville's founder is anything but a pariah. "Mr. Livingston has a great reputation as a professor among his students," says John J. Stuhr, chair of the philosophy department at Emory. "His connection with this institute has not impacted his teaching, research, or campus service by any standard professional measure."I want to discount the article's allegations of racism and its reference to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization to which I have nothing but disdain. I do not know if Professor Livingston is racist. I think it's noteworthy, though, that Livingston's work through the Abbeville Institute is considered way outside the mainstream of historical scholarship and the members of his groups are in fact self-cloistered into an extreme isolation that goes dramatically against the ideal of a universal community of scholars.
The other Abbeville scholars teach history, philosophy, economics, and literature at institutions including Emory, the University of South Carolina, the University of Georgia, and the University of Virginia. They write books with titles like Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture (published by the Foundation for American Education, a nonprofit group "dedicated to the preservation of American culture and learning") and The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, his Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Prima). They say the institute's work, although academic in nature, is really about values. Its members study the South in search of a history of piety, humility, and manners. The scholars acknowledge a history of bigotry and slavery, but they focus primarily on what they say are the positive aspects of Southern history and culture.
To do so, they have created their own guarded society, something of a secession in its own right. Mr. Livingston will not provide Abbeville's entire list of scholars and participants, because he fears "academics who claim to find something valuable in the Southern tradition are sure to suffer abuse." Institute members say they rarely submit work in the field to mainstream journals. Now they are creating a Web periodical, called Arator, as an outlet. The title is taken from an 1813 book by a Virginia planter and senator named John Taylor, who defended "the socioeconomic and political order of an agrarian republic," according to one description.
Still, the outsiders who have heard of Abbeville tend not to like what they hear. One historian, whose research includes the cultural history of racism and white supremacy in the United States, and who asked for anonymity to avoid becoming a target of "Southern identity groups," says the lectures he has listened to on the Abbeville Web site (http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org) are dominated by racialism and are "ideological, through and through." There is the condemnation from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil-rights group. In 2005, Time magazine pegged Abbeville as a group of "Lincoln loathers." Mr. Livingston initially declined to be interviewed for this article, citing bad experiences with the news media. But he eventually agreed to talk, as did a handful of scholars and students involved with the institute...
Washington is once again talking about stationing nuclear warheads in Europe. Russia, too, is turning up the rhetoric. Europeans are concerned about becoming caught in the middle of a new Cold War.Keep reading.
It's been more than three decades since the vast peace protests took over Bonn's Hofgarten meadow in the early 1980s. Back then, about half a million protesters pushed their way into the city center, a kilometer-long mass of people moving through the streets. It was the biggest rally in the history of the German Federal Republic.
Today, the situation isn't quite that fraught, but it seems feasible that a similar scene may soon play out in front of the Chancellery in Berlin. For some time now, the Americans have once again been thinking about upgrading Europe's nuclear arsenal, and in the past week, a rhetorical arms race has begun that is reminiscent of the coldest periods of the Cold War.
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned of an "accelerating spiral of escalating words and then of actions." He described them as "the old reflexes of the Cold War."
Berlin is concerned that Europe could once again become the setting of a new East-West confrontation -- and that Germany might once again become a deployment zone. A source in the Defense Ministry suggested that "more (military) equipment may once again be stockpiled in Germany." Washington plans to station tanks, weapons and heavy equipment for 5,000 soldiers in Germany and the eastern NATO countries. US President Barack Obama hopes that doing so will soothe the fears of the Baltic States and countries in Eastern Europe, which, since the Ukraine crisis, are once again fearful of Russian aggression. He also hopes to quiet his critics in US Congress.
For German Chancellor Angela Merkel, this prospect is not a pleasant one. She shies away from publicly criticizing her American allies, but Merkel is loathe to do anything that might heat up the conflict with Moscow. Furthermore, a new debate on rearmament would hardly be winnable on a domestic front. The chancellor would potentially look like a puppet of the United States, one who not only allows herself to be spied on, but who also stands by as her carefully established link to Putin is damaged.
Larry Carpman has handled plenty of predicaments as an expert in crisis communications. But recently, the 62-year-old partner at Boston’s Northwind Strategies found himself stumped about how to edit his email signature.Meh. I'm not too impressed.
“I knew it was some doohickey you had to click,” he said.
So, he asked a youngster.
He took his question to 23-year-old account coordinator Kate Lagreca, who did the job in seconds. Like many workers her age, she isn’t an IT specialist, but she plays that role at work because older workers, for one reason or another, need help.
Greener workers all over are finding themselves playing the role of tech support as they help their venerable but sometimes confused co-workers navigate an expanding array of contraptions, apps, software upgrades and social media.
Questions aren’t limited to work issues. David Carneal, a 33-year-old who works in marketing for a San Clemente, Calif., company that does billing for optometrists, was recently pressed into action to help an older colleague transfer music from an iPod to a smartphone. Chris Davis, who is 26 and answers the phones at P.J. Callaghan Construction in Clearwater, Fla., assisted a colleague who wanted to text a photo of his car to his mechanic. Sam Raziuddin, 23, who works in marketing near Tampa, has even been asked to explain Instagram.
“We, the 20- and 30-somethings, seem to be the go-to,” said Alison Schurick, 25, an Annapolis, Md., lawyer who clerks at the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. When the court upgraded its computer system recently, Ms. Schurick got the same question about how to adjust font sizes on the new program so often that she wrote out step-by-step instructions for the whole office. The queries keep coming. “When I came in this morning, the first thing my admin said to me was, ‘Hey, since you’re the young techy person, I have a question about Apple TV,’ ” Ms. Schurick said.
Of course, younger people have always helped the older generations adjust to innovations in the workplace. It is a young-brain old-brain problem encountered even by the parents of very young children, who pick things up easily by just pushing buttons. “It’s more prevalent now than ever because technology has changed so dramatically and so rapidly,” said Sharalyn Orr, executive director for generational strategies at Frank N. Magid Associates Inc., a Minneapolis-based consulting firm that advises businesses on demographic shifts.
Millennials, those roughly 18 to 34, are often fearless about adapting to new gadgets and consider life online second nature. They already helped their baby boomer parents become more efficient at technology. “Now, I think we’re seeing a similar dynamic in the workplace,” Ms. Orr said.
Real-life IT specialists aren’t feeling threatened. Many offices still have help desks. Employment in the field is on the uptick, growing faster than the average for all occupations, according to federal labor statistics...
The Council of Conservative Citizens opposes “all efforts to mix the races,” and believes “that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character.” It would severely restrict immigration, abolish affirmative action and dismantle the “imperial judiciary” that produced, among other rulings, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that integrated American education.Well, folks know my views on Dylann Roof and the origins of his racist manifesto, but the GOP's made numerous own-goals here, and it's patently stupid for any Republican to have the slightest association with the group. It's simply too perfect a gift to the Democrats and the leftist press, and frankly there's no defending the CoCC's views.
Those are among the core principles of the council, a Missouri-based organization with a long history of promoting white primacy. Now the massacre of nine black parishioners in a Charleston, S.C., church has propelled the organization, which in recent years seemed in decline, back onto the national stage and embroiled the Republican Party in new questions about its ties to the group.
Many of the themes promoted on the council’s website resonate through an online manifesto apparently written by Dylann Roof, who has been charged in the killings last week in Charleston. The manifesto traced the motivation for the shootings to a twisted epiphany: a Google search that led to the council’s website, where “pages upon pages of brutal black on White murders” were tallied and described.
“I have never been the same since that day,” the manifesto attributed to Mr. Roof said.
Since it rose in the 1980s from the ashes of the old and unabashedly racist White Citizens’ Councils, the Council of Conservative Citizens has drifted in and out of notoriety. But it is clearly back in: Last weekend, three Republican presidential candidates — Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky — announced that they were returning or giving away donations from the council’s president, Earl Holt III.
Since 2011, Mr. Holt has also contributed at least $3,500 to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who is expected to run for president. A spokesman for Mr. Walker said he would donate the money to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund, which is helping families of the Charleston massacre. All told, Mr. Holt, who did not return calls for comment, has given at least $57,000 to Republican candidates for federal and state offices.
But those contributions, first reported by The Guardian, tell only part of the story of the council’s ties to Southern Republican officeholders. In the 1990s, the council counted influential Republican friends from town halls to the halls of Congress. Among those who have addressed its meetings were Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, at one time the Senate majority leader; Haley Barbour, a former national Republican chairman who was campaigning for governor in Mississippi at the time; and Mike Huckabee, the presidential candidate who was then Arkansas’ lieutenant governor. More recently, Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina dropped a council official in her state, Roan Garcia-Quintana, from her re-election campaign’s advisory committee in 2013 after his ties to the group became public.
In 1999, a cascade of reports linking Mr. Lott and other prominent Republicans to the council led the party’s national chairman, Jim Nicholson, to urge all Republicans belonging to the group to quit the organization, calling it racist. Back then, the council claimed 15,000 members, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, and was among the largest such groups in the country.
In the past decade, the council appeared to have lost its old vigor. “We were wondering whether they would survive,” Heidi Beirich, the director of the law center’s Intelligence Report, who investigates such groups, said in an interview. “They don’t hold as many events; they don’t have as many chapters.”
But the manifesto attributed to Mr. Roof, posted on a website called lastrhodesian.com, suggests that the council continues to have influence among followers of so-called white power ideology...
More Democrats: pic.twitter.com/XvcON4onlK
— Adam Baldwin (@AdamBaldwin) June 23, 2015Step Aside, Reverend Al: The Next Generation of Race-Baiters Has Arrived http://t.co/9K2ugvdLQY pic.twitter.com/UE5TX9mjoa
— National Review (@NRO) June 23, 2015
The debate whether to remove the Confederate battle flag from South Carolina's state capitol, touched off by last week's Charleston church shooting, has arrived in Mississippi.The governor's decision was an "insult." A cowardly insult upholding Democrat Party racism, just like in South Carolina where Governor Fritz Hollings, a Democrat, hoisted the Confederate Flag over the statehouse back in 1961.
A moveon.org petition dropped over the weekend seeks the removal of the Confederate emblem from Mississippi's official banner, the one that flies over most every government building. "In the wake of the devastating hate crime perpetrated at Mother Emanuel AME in Charleston, it is time to remove all symbols of hate from state and other government buildings. It is time for us to come together and move into the future in solidarity," the petition's background reads.
As of Monday afternoon, the petition (which can be viewed here) had gotten more than 3,000 signatures.
Jennifer Gunter, a Jackson native and two-time Ole Miss graduate who now pursues a Ph.D in American History at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, dropped the petition Saturday.
"I tell people that the flag that flies in front of the statehouse here, at least that's not your official state flag," she said in a phone interview Monday morning. "It's still a part of mine. I figured if we were going to change it, this would be the time. Are we still going to be the last to take it down?"
Oxford restaurateur John Currence was among the first 100 people to sign Gunter's petition. He called former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove's and lawmakers' decision to put the flag issue to a vote – rather than change it themselves like Georgia's legislature did in the early 2000s – an "insult."
"What's ironic more than anything else is that this simple act would be an enormous change for the state," Currence said in an interview Monday. "Other states, like Georgia, have prospered because of this, and we continue to stubbornly fight it."
Gunter said she would like for the petition to receive a minimum of 100,000 signatures before delivering it to lawmakers and to Gov. Phil Bryant. South Carolina's petition, as of Monday, had earned more than 400,000.
The calls to remove the flag from that state's capitol included a lot of Republicans, and not just state officials. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney made his position known over the weekend, Tweeting from his verified account that the flag was "a symbol of racial hatred." Current GOP contender Jeb Bush called for the flag's removal Monday.
The mood is different among Mississippi Republicans.
""A vast majority of Mississippians voted to keep the state's flag, and I don't believe the Mississippi Legislature will act to supersede the will of the people on this issue," Bryant said in a statement Monday. He was referring to the 2001 vote in which 64 percent of those who voted made the flag with the Confederate emblem the state's official banner. Bryant spokeswoman Nicole Webb said the governor voted with the majority...
Stogie, I've always respected your opinion on this, and I've learned a lot from you.I'm going to leave it at that.
Honestly, though, I find your take on the Civil War and Southern heritage rather bizarre. Of course, I'm not from the South, so it's not a visceral issue for me. My dad, however, was born in Missouri, a slave state. His grandparents were slaves. How am I supposed be sympathetic to the "heritage" argument when that heritage includes proud support for chattel slavery? I'm sorry you get hatred in your heart when others simply don't agree with the heritage argument. I think the culture is to the point, on the left and right, that it's simply no longer acceptable to revere the heritage and discount the racist slave roots of the Confederacy.
See Jonathan Tobin, "A Flag and the Fatal Intersection of Heritage and Hate":
"For those who plan to respond, as they always do, to discussions about this topic with emails regurgitating neo-Confederate talking points about the Civil War being a conflict about state’s rights rather than slavery, let me state up front that I’m not buying it and neither is any other serious student of history. The Civil War did hinge in part on constitutional questions but the notion that slavery was incidental to the outbreak of the conflict is simply absurd. Without slavery, there would have been no war. The south seceded because it feared limits on the expansion of slavery would eventually doom the institution. To protect a heritage built on the uncompensated labor of slaves and their vast investment in human “property,” the states that formed the Confederacy waged a bloody war that costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and left the south in ruins. It would take a century for the region to recover completely."
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/19/confederate-flag/?...
Pres Lincoln - REPUBLICAN
John Wilkes Booth - DEMOCRAT
Raising of flag in SC -DEMOCRAT
REMOVAL OF FLAG - REPUBICAN pic.twitter.com/S6kCje5eWj
— Color Me Red (@ColorMeRed) June 22, 2015Nikki Haley & officials call for Confederate flag to be removed from state capitol grounds: http://t.co/upRhWlRMrK pic.twitter.com/WGxN7OCnnN
— The Situation Room (@CNNSitRoom) June 22, 2015In 1959, Gov. Fritz Hollings appointed Hollis to serve on a commission to plan the state's observance of the 100th anniversary of the War Between the States. President Dwight Eisenhower had commissioned a national Civil War Centennial, and the state centennial commissions were to coordinate activities.The racist Southern Democrats resisted the Kennedy administration's efforts to promote integration during the events:
"I'm the only one on the commission left alive," Hollis said in an August interview. "I tried to get them to call it the `Civil War Centennial,' but they insisted on calling it the `Confederate War Centennial.'
"I was the only Civil War historian. There were three UDC girls on it, and John May was chairman. May was a state representative from Aiken. He called himself `Mr. Confederacy' and wore a Confederate uniform to our meetings. I called May an inveterate Confederate.
"They would argue that the war wasn't fought over slavery but states' rights. That's ridiculous. Without the slavery issue South Carolina would not have seceded. You think they would have gotten angry enough about tariffs to start shooting?
"The ruling elite that ran this state all owned slaves. They denied the war was over slavery, insisting that it was over states' rights. But it was over the states' right to own slaves and enforce white supremacy," Hollis said.
In fact, the 169 men who formed the South Carolina Secession Convention all supported slavery and acknowledged in their "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" that slavery was the central issue.
The day the Confederate flag went up over the State House, the opening ceremonies of the centennial in Charleston were marred by controversy. Newspapers reported the open and ugly feuding between South Carolina and the national Centennial Commission, calling it "the second battle of Fort Sumter."And racist Democrat Governor Fritz Hollings later when on to represent South Carolina in the U.S. Senate, and he spewed vile white supremacist hatred right up until 2005, when he left office.
The centennial delegations from New Jersey and Missouri included blacks who were refused entrance to the segregated Francis Marion Hotel, where the events were to be held. The South Carolina hosts refused to allow the black delegates to participate. In response, the Charleston NAACP organized protests.
The situation was only partially resolved when President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order moving the centennial meetings to the Charleston Navy Base, one of the few integrated facilities in town. South Carolina led the South in leaving the national commission, and holding its own segregated events in the hotel.
With recent controversy surrounding Trent Lott, the leftist media has been woefully negligent when it comes to Democrat senators who have committed far worse offenses. In part, conservatives have responded by pointing out the bigotted past of former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who recently used a racial slur on television. There's another Democrat senator out there with a similarly embarassing past, but also one who has recieved much less attention, even among conservatives: Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC). Like Byrd, Hollings has a recent history of racial slurs. Less known is his history as governor of South Carolina in the early 1960's, when he was a leading segregationist. To fill this gap here's a glimpse of Senator Hollings' segregationist past and history of racial slurs:Folks, the Democrats have racism hardwired into their physiological being. It's who they are.
SEGREGATIONIST GOVERNOR: As Governor of South Carolina, Ernest F. Hollings personally led the fight against lunch counter integration in his state. The New York Times reported that Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive' manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services." The Times reported that Hollings called a news conference on the subject where he "challenged President Eisenhower's contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against segregation. Hollings told reporters at the press conference that Eisenhower was "confused" and had done "great damage to peace and good order" by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters. (SOURCE: "Warning by Hollings." New York Times, March 17, 1960.)
ANTI-INTIGRATION ORGANIZER: Governor Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina is listed as a leading participant at a July 23, 1961 conference of "leading segregationists" in Atlanta to organize a "segregationist bloc" voting lobby to resist pressures for integration. Hollings was one of four governors who attended, with seven more having been invited. The others were Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Ross Barnett of Mississippi, and John Patterson of Alabama. The strategies discussed at the meeting heavily involved using the White Citizens Council, a segregationist organization. (SOURCE: Sitton, Claude. "Segregation Bloc Seeks Vote Lobby." New York Times, Jul 24, 1961.)
RACIAL SLURS: Senator Ernest Hollings has a long history of using racial slurs. Following a poor showing in the 1983 Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings remarked "You had wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston," a reference to Alan Cranston who finished second. Hollings also made derogatory references to an African delegation at a 1993 international conference, suggesting they were cannibals. He stated "Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." He once referred to Sen. Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, who was Jewish, as "the senator from B'nai B'rith." The South Carolina Democrat also allegedly referred to blacks with the slur "darkies" in a 1986 interview and once called the Rainbow PUSH coalition the "blackbo coalition."
Democrats didn't just throw off their racism in 1964 like flipping a switch. It's in their DNA. They'll always be the party of segregation.
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 22, 2015
Taylor Swift will withhold her latest album “1989” from Apple Music, says lack of royalties during three month free trial hurts smaller artists.
While #Charleston citizens gave God the honor and worked together for good of city
The outside agitators did this pic.twitter.com/h1U9aFJIho
— DupreeNation ★彡 (@WayneDupreeShow) June 22, 2015
Continual efforts to blame GOP for tragedies like #CharlestonShooting fall short, ignore history http://t.co/BXqfzjwSx8
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) June 21, 2015So who voted for this guy? pic.twitter.com/lbSpCmQ3PT
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) June 21, 2015The most powerful evidence that the South has definitively rejected slavery, insurrection, and racism is that it stopped voting Democrat.
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) June 21, 2015More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats: http://t.co/gLHwNmRj02
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 22, 2015The assertion that white Southerners began voting Republican in 1964 is simply incorrect. http://t.co/I6dIl6FnQ2 #Charleston
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 22, 2015Democrats didn't just throw off their racism in 1964 like flipping a switch. It's in their DNA. They'll always be the party of segregation.
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 22, 2015Leftism is one big magic fairy tale wrapped in a rainbow and delivered by a unicorn. https://t.co/VjKqOeLgfD
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 22, 2015So you mean this flag? #takedowntheflag pic.twitter.com/Lcnx3Sbvlh
— iPayMyJizyaWith.357 (@SonofLiberty357) June 22, 2015Democrat Bill Clinton Commemorated the Confederacy on Arkansas State Flag in 1987 — #TakeDownTheFlag http://t.co/QjiWMEMNVL @Instapundit
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 21, 2015"White America" doesn't deserve anything better than complete and utter destruction
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015The United States was founded on white supremacist values and the eradication and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people of color.
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015The United States continues its global domination by enslaving and butchering people of color worldwide. White America should be erradicated
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015It took two independent writers working together on Twitter and $49 to make what could be one of the biggest discoveries yet in the case of Dylann Roof. In a South Carolina courtroom on Friday, Roof was charged with nine counts of murder for the killing of nine black parishioners who invited him into their Bible study group. A webpage registered under Roof’s name contains a trove of photos of the suspected killer, and a white nationalist political manifesto.As you can see from her tweets, Ms. Quangel's a proud communist, and as seen at her Daily Beast interview, she's got the perverted propensity to reply to inquiries with the ideological self-identification, "As a communist..."
Emma Quangel, the nom de guerre of writer and Twitter user @EMQuangel, discovered the website that appears to contain Roof’s manifesto. After I congratulated her for her investigative work, Quangel told me that she saw it as her duty. “As a communist,” Quangel said, “it is my duty and obligation to spend at least $49 to help ruin this guy’s insanity plea.”
I’m a red. The people dearest to me in this life are reds. I have immense respect for Mao Tse-Tung, who liberated the Chinese people not only from imperialism, but also from poverty. Maoism inspired millions of people worldwide to struggle towards their own liberation. And I don’t recall Maoists in China kidnapping women and putting heads on spikes, but perhaps this is a part of the story Maz might not want to discuss. Regardless, back to the context – really? Are reds in a position of power as ISIS is? Can we fairly compare the two? Or is this is a smear against reds in the same tradition as the US State Department video mentioned earlier.As any "sane and educated" person would know (to borrow from the commenters at my place), Chairman Man was the most murderous totalitarian leader of the 20th century, if not in world history. Tens of millions died in the revolutionary spasms of Mao's puritanical communist program. As Lee Edwards points out, at the Heritage Foundation, "The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder":
Can you name the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century? No, it wasn’t Hitler or Stalin. It was Mao Zedong.Sixty-five million people. That's more than ten times the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust. That's even more than the number of total lives lost, military and civilian, during World War II (about 60 million).
According to the authoritative “Black Book of Communism,” an estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with -- by execution, imprisonment or forced famine.
The Left habitually attempts to distance itself from its own history and obfuscate any straightforward analysis of its political motives, goals, and allegiances. In so doing, the Left intentionally blurs its own complicity in the greatest crimes of the twentieth century.There is no defending a murderous psychopath like Dylann Roof. But there's not a single person on the co-called "right" of the political spectrum who is defending the murders in Charleston. Not one. Rather, what we've seen is far-left activists and the Democrat-Media-Complex mounting a full-court press to attack conservatives and Republicans for the Confederate Flag (which is in fact a symbol of Democrat Party racism, segregation, and domestic terrorism).
Every time a crazy person shoots up a place, the press demands Republicans -- who had nothing to do with it -- answer for the crime.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) June 20, 2015Flashback: As Governor, Bill Clinton Honored Confederacy On Arkansas Flag http://t.co/NXKhaKfigR
— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 20, 2015You cool with Arkansas flag that flew at Bill and Hillary's house for 12 years and his library today? @chrislhayes pic.twitter.com/8yJ5ExLDzA
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) June 21, 2015#TakeDownTheFlag pic.twitter.com/2053dwVpmA
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) June 21, 2015So you mean this flag? #takedowntheflag pic.twitter.com/Lcnx3Sbvlh
— iPayMyJizyaWith.357 (@SonofLiberty357) June 21, 2015Well, isn't THAT interesting? pic.twitter.com/HBVdnC5h5Y
— Bill Sanderson (@mrgeology) June 21, 2015The designer of the second national flag of the #Confederacy, explaining what it stood for: pic.twitter.com/KY8nlO8mgp
— Jonathan Wilson (@jnthnwwlsn) June 18, 2015
That goofy teasing and hyper play actually help young children develop, according to new research.
"White America" doesn't deserve anything better than complete and utter destruction
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015The United States was founded on white supremacist values and the eradication and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people of color.
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015The United States continues its global domination by enslaving and butchering people of color worldwide. White America should be erradicated
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015Rest in Power: Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, killed June 1953 pic.twitter.com/0FkdfSIMq4
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015"White America" is an identity built on dispossession, genocide and mass enslavement. @DevinRice @PhilGreaves01
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015"White America" is a relation to settler ideology. It's an identity based on racist ideology. Fuck it, end it. @DevinRice @PhilGreaves01
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 18, 2015White Supremacy Continues to Provide Protection for Imperialism
http://t.co/5u1WACHCHx
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 19, 2015Bush Knocked Down the Towers https://t.co/IaG7wdUaFk
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 19, 2015We call ourselves all sorts of things but I'd rather just be called a communist, thanks in advance..
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 20, 2015As a communist it is my solemn duty and obligation to hate and fight racism with every inch of my being!
— Emma Quangel (@EMQuangel) June 20, 2015
