The Constitution Party Dodges a Lincoln-Lover
This is classic! Listen to John Lofton twist Phil Donahue up in a pretzel. Feminine Phil is all about the Constitution when it will prevent a war he doesn’t like, but when Lofton quotes those who wrote it to the effect that it was only intended for a religious people, the sparks fly. And the best part is Donahue’s first choice of response to the assertion that unbelievers go to hell: "Do Jews go to hell?" In other words, the Donahue test for a Christian worth his salt is the willingness to hurt the feelings of anti-Christs. Wonderful radio. And then Donahue calls Lofton a racist for his anti-Semitic "intolerance." I just love listening to old tapes of R.J. Rushdoony and Otto Scott and John Lofton sitting in a living room chatting with each other. Only one of them is still with us. Don’t miss Donahue’s quote of Tennyson.
You’ll also want to hear Lofton’s interview of Alan Keyes. It’s the first time I’ve really heard anyone try to draw forth the hideous conclusions of staking everything on the phrase "all men are created equal," as Keyes has done for his entire political career. Lofton probes Keyes on his "almost worshipful view of the Declaration of Independence." Our country was founded on the Bible, says Lofton, not a document of secession, as important as it was. Lofton is referring to the pioneers who settled this land over a hundred years before the Declaration was written. Keyes resists him on the point, insisting that "the United States of America" was not founded prior to 1776. And this is fascinating, because blacks can only claim allegiance to the monstrosity that emerged from the fratricide of the 1860s. Keyes, in true Abolitionist form, characterizes Lincoln’s War as "a struggle between the godly principles of the Declaration...and [for the South] merely human, secular, selfish, scientific, materialistic principles. Those principles were defeated during the course" of that war. To which Lofton responds, "What?" Lofton denounces Lincoln as a "murderous tyrant," but Keyes responds that "all the bloodshed was worth it to uphold" the compulsory union. Lofton asks if Keyes thinks secession is ungodly and unconstitutional. Keyes’ answer is almost too bizarre to be believed. He says yes, of course secession is unconstitutional, because the hallowed equality clause is what makes self-government possible. In other words, the South could only have legitimately seceded if there had been no slaves. (Keyes calls slaveholding a “criminal activity.") He digs himself a deeper hole when he explains: "People have the right to act as a community to achieve certain goals and objectives," but not if they cross the line of the sacred equality clause. By the same standard, America should never have seceded from Britain. Some people were not free then! So apparently, our ancestors had no "right to act as a community" after all.
The only solution for the modern-day abolitionist is to revere Lincoln as the Founding Father of a new "nation," lending credibility to the (post-1787) government he inherited, while lamenting that some things were left undone until MLK came along. Throughout it all, murder and theft are justified in defense of ideology. Lofton nails the root of the problem when he rejects Keyes’ idea of "statesmanship" as the substitution of "conscience" for God’s law. This carries over into the debates on abortion and faggotry, where Keyes holds the opinion, in Lofton’s words, that "We can’t enforce God’s law until people are willing to go along with it."
Now, be sure to read this brilliant article from TJH. The Constitution Party dodged a bullet by nominating Chuck Baldwin instead of Keyes, even though Keyes is more well-known. Sadly, I fear this was due to shelf life more than anything else. Ten or fifteen years ago, would the CP have rejected Keyes? I strongly doubt it. Still today, the party has no objection to the equality idolatry he was pushing then. We Southerners view his lies as the praise of genocide and incitement to more of the same. TJH writes: "For Keyes, America is not a tribe consisting of the Founders’ descendants and those that have been grafted in to that tribe. It is not about concrete persons. No, for him America is the abstract principle ‘all men are created equal,’ along with borders within which a government is installed which can exercise power to enforce the abstraction, regardless of what individual persons reside within those borders… [T]here are basically two different models of conservatism. The Tribal view starts with the people that constitutes the nation, regardless of its accidental Constitution. The Wordist view starts with the Constitution (or here, the Declaration), and it is a matter of comparative indifference what people happen to live under it. Lincoln was a Wordist."
By the way, Lofton’s softly-spoken retorts while his guest is pontificating are simply hilarious. Near the end, he says, "If you refuse to repent, there’s nothing I can do about it."
Do you think the Constitution Party would ever agree with these Constitutionalists? "In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 the Supreme Court expressly declared that under the [illegal] 14th Amendment no person was denied any of his rights if the States provided separate but equal facilities." Later, the Supreme Court, under "Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the United States, unanimously declared in 1927 in Lum v. Rice that the ‘separate but equal’ principle is ‘within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th Amendment.’" What is the Constitution Party’s position in returning to Constitutional fidelity? I’m talking to you, Chuck Baldwin.
Michael Hoffman explains (part 1, part 2, part 3) that Whites were not enslaved for a brief period of time, and White "indentured servitude" was nothing less than slavery. "Scotland was a veritable industry for White slavery," he says. (He is careful to exclude apprenticeship.) Blacks only became more popular as slaves when it became evident that they were (ironically) docile. Whites, much like Indians, refused to live under slavery. The history Hoffman presents really helps one to understand the Victorian era popularized by Dickens, and the pre-Victorian era. He explains that many petty offenses in England were criminalized and made punishable by death. The "criminals" were shown "mercy" by shipping them off to America, and then Australia, as slaves. This relieved the upper class of supporting the poor. The fatality rate was higher when transporting White slaves than when transporting black slaves. The idea, says Hoffman, that the concept of "White Supremacy" reigned, ensuring that Whites always had a higher station than blacks, is "a tissue of falsehood." As we all know, the truly dangerous work was done by the Irish because black slaves were so valuable. The point of this should be obvious. Slavery has been the universal experience of humankind, and it’s not going away. Lincoln’s genocide certainly did nothing to curtail it. But even though at least twice as many White slaves were sold to Muslims as the number of blacks transported to America, Whites don’t live with an eternal grudge against the world. They make the most of their lives and don’t beg for handouts. Blacks, on the other hand, are the world’s panhandlers. But in their defense, "subsidized manumission" is drummed into them by "whiter-people" who use minorities as props for their own inflated sense of superiority.
My friends and I are having a hearty laugh at the Democrats, who have lectured everyone on race for 40 years. I especially love Obama’s exhortation that there needs to be "a national conversation on race." The only requirement is to agree with him.
Rosie O’Donnell defends Jeremiah Wright based on his "genetic memory" of the Tuskegee Institute. I also claim a free pass for anything I have ever said due to my genetic memory of being enslaved by Muslims.
"If you are white and racist enough to notice you are not part of Obama’s rainbow, don’t worry. You can still join groups for students, women, veterans or the LGBT crowd."
Obama suggests that blacks who visit Africa are disappointed because it’s not "authentic." No, they’re disappointed because Africa is the armpit of the world, and blacks have made it that way, though it is "rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy" in natural resources. "They go hoping to see what the black man can accomplish without the white man around holding him down, and, well..."
John McCain refused to speak at Bob Jones University until they lifted their interracial {gag} dating ban, and he would never darken the door of an organization called "The White Race," but he has no qualms whatsoever about speaking to "The Race" that seeks to reconquer the American Southwest.
Put July 12 on your calendar!
A Missouri pastor named Thomas McConnell has written a biblical defense of the use of mules. It’s all very strange because he is forced to assume that the word translated "mule" in the Old Testament is what we know as a mule today, and that God approved of its use. Another assumption is that the prohibition against hybrids in Leviticus 19:19 forbids the mating of animals that are closely related, not of animals that are clearly different. Without these two assumptions, the second of which is kooky, the argument falls apart. Let’s look at the second assumption first. McConnell argues that the Law bans the cross of, for instance, the Black Angus with the white-faced Hereford but not of a horse with a donkey, whose offspring is sterile. His belief that the latter’s "hybrid vigor" is somehow biblically acceptable is a mystery. But not really, if the main premise is accepted. So were mules considered acceptable to the Hebrews and to God? In Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary, under the heading for "mule," it says: "It is not probable that the Hebrews bred mules, as this was strictly forbidden in the law (Lev. 19:19), although their use was not forbidden… Mules are not mentioned in the New Testament. Perhaps they had by that time ceased to be used in Palestine." I see a couple of possibilities here. One is that the word "pered," translated "mule," is an unknown equid "set apart" from the horse, the camel, and the ass, but not what we know as a mule today. I think this is very unlikely, because just as surrounding nations ate unclean meats, I can believe that Phoenicians were breeding mules for the very reasons that Reverend McConnell states, and that Hebrews traded with them. But the fact remains that the Hebrews themselves were not allowed to hybridize plants and animals, and in the year 2008 we can see very clearly that God’s wisdom does not fail. Apparently, the Hebrews came to realize this too, since their use of mules evidently came to an end. Call us "legalists" if you will, but detecting the various "kinds" of animals, plants, and human beings is not a difficult task. We think God did it correctly the first time, and we deny that His work can be improved. The only hybrids we like are hybrid engines.
England’s Prime Minister David Lloyd George explaining bud pruning and graft-crossing of apple trees to the House of Commons in 1939: "Unless you are very careful...the old stock breaks out and...destroys the tree. You do not get either a Pippin or a Bramley… [T]he tree is so utterly muddled between the one and the other that it produces only sour desiccated crabs."
"Lions and tigers have been bred to create ligers, the world’s largest cats. And there are also zorses (zebra and horse), wholphins (whale and dolphin), tigons (tiger and lion), lepjags (leopard and jaguar) and zonkeys (zebra and donkey)." Soon, if miscegenists have their way, there will be a humanzee. Progress marches on.
"It was God’s work," said the late Mildred Loving, who was impregnated by a rapist and pretended to be his "wife." And how do you like the spin that she was "courted" as an 11-year-old? Actually, God agreed with the state of Virginia that the two perverts, "cohabiting as man and wife," worked "against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth." Isn’t that something? Just a few short years ago, real men walked the hallowed soil of Virginia, and they wrote laws.
Even if one is not a Christian, he presumably has enough sense to not be an utter pervert. There is an ancient Eastern (and “racist") saying: “A bamboo door should match a bamboo door; a wood door should match a wood door.”
Imagine being charged with "racial harassment" for reading an anti-KKK book.
If you want to see a fine example of semitical correctness, take a look at the ongoing campaign of the Jews to have a fine scholar fired. In the eighth paragraph, you can see an old journalistic contextual trick. And as usual, the one thing you will never see is a logical rebuttal of MacDonald’s arguments. Not even scholars have the guts to attempt such a thing because they know they can’t argue with the truth. The writer of the article considers it a journalistic accomplishment to discredit MacDonald by printing what some commenter at VNN said about exterminating Jews. This cowardice has to place tremendous stress on MacDonald’s family and personal life. "People won’t be seen with me; they won’t talk to me; they won’t have lunch with me." College has become nearly worthless because every professor knows what will happen if he strays too far from the reservation. MacDonald is not tenured, by the way. I wish he were.
It’s hilarious that so-called intellectuals will deny the hand before their face if it challenges their semitical correctness in any way. William Saletan can plainly see the racial IQ and achievement gap, and admits that it really exists, but convinces himself that it must be one of those truths that is truly false, if you follow me. "Even if hereditary inequality among racial averages is a truth, it’s less true, more unjust, and more pernicious than framing the same difference in nonracial terms… To the extent that a social problem is genetic, you can’t ultimately solve it by understanding it in racial terms." Likewise, if balancing your budget is a mathematical affair, it’s important to realize that it can’t be done by adding and subtracting things. "We can’t just be ‘race realists’… We have to be realists about racism." It all makes perfect sense if you partake of methamphetamines.
Behold, it is I, Super-Negro!
Last year’s Juneteenth celebration. Some people get excited just thinking about the Emancipation Proclamation.
A fictional computer user named "Blackie White" has caused "consternation, hurt and distress" among college students. The poor, sweet, hypersensitive darlings. I just want to hug them. Does baby need a binky?
Why we need to be in Iraq for a hundred years.
Reconstructionists exclaim, "Give us more war propaganda!" It’s not just Gary DeMar; it extends to Dapper Doug Phillips and anyone else who treats "patriotism" as a commodity. War sells books.
Doug Phillips has posted some extraordinary quotes from Communists on destroying Christendom by removing women from their families. When he’s not hiring his friends to hack and "investigate" those who are critical of his cult, he does excellent work. I’m not sure if that was a compliment, but it was the best I could muster.
Here’s another good quote that Little Napoleon posted, taken from Paul Johnson and the 29th Congress of 1846: "Early in the 19th century, America was achieving birth-rates never before equaled in history, in terms of children reaching adulthood. The 1800 census revealed a population of 5,308,843, itself a 35 percent increase over ten years. By 1810 it had leaped to 7,239,881, up another 36.4 percent. By 1820 it was 9,638,453, close to doubling in twenty years, and of this nearly 80 percent was a natural increase. As one Congressman put it: ‘I invite you to go West and visit one of our log cabins, and number its inmates. There you will find a strong, stout youth of eighteen with his Better Half, just commencing the first struggles of independent life. Thirty years from that time, visit them again; and instead of two, you will find in that same family twenty two. That is what I call the American Multiplication Table.’" Those were the good old days when White folks could thrive because they didn’t have to subsidize blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Muslims, and North Koreans. They were "racists" who cared for their own, and God blessed their efforts.
"The nation which takes thought for its own genetic future is most likely to have a future." ~ Professor C.D. Darlington of Oxford, 1958
Here’s something very good from Doug Wilson. If it is an evangelical requirement to be "firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society," I can say with confidence that I ain’t one.
A victory for the emasculated! "This disposes of the rule in California that the male surname is the marital name to the same trash bin where dowries were once tossed out," said Mark Jew Rosenbaum, legal director of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU.
This picture really does say it all, doesn’t it? And please notice, if you will, where the agreeable and conscientious may be found.
Some fascinating illustrations of mortgage delinquency.
I truly hate the "National Day of Prayer," the "National Cathedral," and all other forms of idolatry. According to Jorge Bush, the National Day of Prayer is "a chance for people of faith around the world to stop at the same time to pause to praise an Almighty." (Costco was having a sale on Almighties last time I was there.) A union of church and state would be far better than nationalizing a non-faith for fear of offending anti-Christs. Ravi Zacharias, with the collusion of James Dobson’s wife, was scheduled to deliver the opening non-prayer at this year’s event, but Ingrid Schlueter exposed the fraud in advance. You might recall the news from last year or the year before that Lutherans refused to participate in the hatefest because they take the unusual view that one is to pray to Christ, not the Spirit in the Sky or a can of albacore tuna. Ravi’s typically "evangelical" excuse is that Christians must work within the bounds that pagans set for them. His desire to reach the lost with inspirational platitudes did not preclude him from pulling his radio show from Ingrid’s network.
In Bolivia, White farmers are at war with "the impoverished indigenous majority who back Morales, himself an Aymara Indian and the nation’s first indigenous President." Obviously, Bolivia is not the only place on Earth where "10% of the population [Whites] controls more than 90% of arable land." Whenever unhindered by quotas, this will always be the case. And the solution of minorities is always the same: Communism, or some variant of it. They call theft "land reform." In 2004, Miss Bolivia, Gabriela Oviedo, didn’t win many friends in the country’s majority by suggesting that Bolivia should not be considered an "indigenous" (i.e., non-White) nation: "I’m from the other side of the country. We are tall, and we are white people, and we know English." That’s my kind of woman. May her children rise up and call her blessed.
Guadalupe Gutierrez-Juarez should be relieved that he has Christ-haters in the government to protect him with a mere prison sentence. It means that I won’t be able to introduce him to some people I know.
The geniuses in charge of public education consider the tautology that "half the kids are below the median in educability" a "damnable heresy." Hence ridiculous and ineffective programs like No Child Left Behind. The assumption is always that racial IQ gaps can be closed with increased spending, and the fact that it never works has deterred no one.
Evelyn Waugh’s description of Rudyard Kipling’s conservatism evinces the distance I perceive between Kinists and the lying, race-mixing preachers that plague us Sunday after Sunday. Kipling, said Waugh, "was a conservative in the sense that he believed civilization to be something laboriously achieved which was only precariously defended. He wanted to see the defences fully manned and he hated the liberals because he thought them gullible and feeble, believing in the easy perfectibility of man and ready to abandon the work of centuries for sentimental qualms."
"The coming of a world state is longed for, and confidently expected, by all the worst and most distorted elements. This state, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and a community of possessions, would banish all national loyalties. In it no acknowledgment would be made of the authority of a father over his children, or of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror." ~ Pope Benedict XV, 1920
If you recall, we were the first to announce that American Renaissance conference videos would soon be available on YouTube. They’re here, and more are on the way. No need to thank us. We’re just trying to do our part to spread the hate around.
