THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

archives
articles

A MESSAGE TO RESPECTABLE CONSERVATIVES: APOLOGY IS NOT OPPOSITION | 2001-11-10

Republicans are so pathetic. When liberals attack them they only know how to whine about how that they are not whatever it is the left has decided to call them, which is usually some kind of naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

After the whine, conservatives say that whatever it is the liberals are for, they are even more for it.

Liberals accuse Republicans of being against changing the population of America by massive immigration. Conservatives respond that they want to change the American population by massive immigration. Conservatives tell liberals that their "conservative" capitalist approach will use greed to bring in and integrate more waves of third worlders than the liberal programs will.

With all their money and media access, Republicans simply cannot truly oppose liberals. Even when liberal criticism is pure hypocrisy, respectable conservatives cannot look liberals in the eye and call them on it.

That is why they are labeled "respectable" by the media. "Respectable" means "harmless to the long-term liberal agenda".

For decades liberals declared that "so-called criminals" were actually just people oppressed by Society. As the 1964 leftist film starring Anthony Perkins put it in the title, "We are All Guilty." Self-hate is the basis of all leftism.

As liberals took over America in the 1960s crime went through the roof. One of the things that caused a nationwide reaction against the left was their love of criminals. Leftists said if you treat felons nicely they won't commit crime.

Coddling criminals was a disaster. No idea that is fashionable with the left ever WORKS.

Even so, Republicans did not want to make a big thing of crime because liberals said that the crime issue was just a front for racism. Everybody knows how high the black crime rate is, so to mention crime was what we now call profiling and they used to call racism. Either way it means anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

In the early 1970s a group of leftist women featuring Bella Abzug called together their pet media and announced that they were the Women's Movement. So everybody left and right said that women's rights were now represented by this solidly leftist "Women's Movement."

One of the main things this Women's Movement was screaming about was the enormous increase in the number of rapes in the 1960s. Every woman standing there was a lifelong liberal. Every woman standing there, until the moment they announced the Women's' Movement, had been a best friend to rapists and other felons.

Until that moment these women had called rapists victims of society, and they had pushed Eldridge Cleaver's book that encouraged blacks to rape white women as a legitimate expression of black rage.

No conservative ever mentioned any of this. They went into their usual fetal position and whined they were not really against women the way the Women's Movement claimed they were. They said they were more for whatever the left was for than the left was.

The fact that until the day they became leaders of the Women's' Movement its leaders had been on the side of the rapists was never mentioned by a single respectable conservative.

It still hasn't.

LIBERALS ARE GETTING HURT AND THEY ARE ORDERING RESPECTABLE CONSERVATIVES TO HELP THEM | 2003-12-27

St. Thomas More gave us an invaluable lesson on the most effective weapon to use against Evil. He said, "The Devil, Proud Spirit, cannot bear to be mocked."

Nobody is allowed to laugh at the left. They see themselves as brilliant and radical. You can accuse them of anything you want to, but if you point out that they are just plain ridiculous, they go ballistic. Exposing liberal silliness has become such a habit that even Jay Leno has made it a regular part of his opening monologue.

Leftism is SILLY.

The idea that a whole country run by bureaucrats will be efficient, a.k.a. socialism, should be laughed at, not debated. The idea that criminals are basically sweet kids should have been ridiculed away before liberals ever had the chance to kill thousands of people by putting hardened killers back on the streets.

Like Satan, the left cannot bear to be mocked. So every respectable conservative treats every liberal spokesman with deep respect and regards every word of his drivel as serious stuff.

Like Jay Leno, who is a liberal, grassroots anti-liberals have begun violating the rules that govern conservative spokesmen. We are laughing at them, ridiculing them.

Another thing no respectable conservative is allowed to do is to have a memory or talk about the liberals' pattern of behavior. The last ten liberal policy disasters are quickly forgotten as conservatives gravely discuss the latest leftist proposal.

We are beginning to call leftists what they are, in plain English. That is something else that no conservative spokesman ever does.

In the Iraq war, the left is once again on the side of anybody but Americans. Ann Coulter wrote a book about them called Treason. She goes into detail about a pattern we all know: that liberals are always on the side of America's enemies and detractors.

The left is being hurt by the very weapons respectable conservatives are supposed to protect it against, a sense of humor and a memory. For decades, any time a conservative hit them where it really hurt liberals simply called him a racist or something and the respectable conservatives ate him alive.

Liberals are screaming "Wolf!" and "Hitler!" but anti-liberals are having too much fun and too much effect to listen.

Where are the liberals' conservative protectors?

CNN DISCLAIMER | 1999-07-03

You can tell Bosnia was a liberal war from the solid support it got in the press. Reporters would always begin a report from Serbia by saying Serbia limited their freedom to report. They would have a standard announcement that Serbian authorities limited where reporters could go and what they could say.

You know, it's funny, but they never said a word about any limitations when they were reporting from a COMMUNIST country. There were a lot of restrictions on reporting from Communist countries, but no reporter ever mentioned them.

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn spent many years in Siberia facing Communist guards, guns, barbed wire and guard dogs. He laughed at the fake courage of the American press. He said that the American press acted very brave when it was dealing with American authorities. He said they didn't act so brave in Communist countries. He pointed out that these brave American reporters hopped to attention and obeyed when some nasty little Red Guard in China told them to.

Now that's odd. I never heard any reporter talk about problems in Red China, from the the Red Guard or anybody else. They never complained about the ever-present travel restrictions in any Communist country. The press didn't want to make the Communists look bad. Liberals did want to make Serbia look bad.

American media are only interested in freedom of the press when it serves the liberal cause.

MORALS: THE CONSTITUTION AND GOD | nationalsalvation.net

Our constitution refers many times to God; we have our God given rights, laws and so forth. The great men who wrote the constitution were well aware of the depravity of pagan law; rights afforded to a society by the grace of god could never be taken away or usurped by a tyrant.

This worked fine for a period of time. Human secularists and Marxists believe in rule and rights derived by man, 60 million human beings lost their lives in the 20th century because of this fraud.

So where does this all fit in today. PC, multiculturalism and racism are three parts of that new religion that is destroying our white race. This religion is based upon rule and law derived by man; they warp all our concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If brown skin immigration is not worshiped we are called racist, we are denying their right to liberty. If we do not tolerate their alien customs, we are denying their right to liberty. If we refuse to accept them with open arms and fail to provide them with benefits beyond what we possess, we are denying their right to a life on easy street.

When man replaced god, we ended up with this sick and twisted logic, few question how prejudiced this is against our people. Our rights and our liberties were God given; from there it was up to each individual to make the best of it, that's what freedom is all about.

The church in America today has sold out each and everyone of us; they only preach what is in style. The church has lost faith in god and turned to man for guidance, how else can we explain their refusal to fight the PC crowd, god never takes sides, if only these religious idiots would open their eyes and see how used and abused they have become.

Comment by Alan B.

ME:

I corrected Alan and told him that the Constitution does not MENTION God a single time.

That is a common misconception, and the rest of what Alan said was, as usual, thoughtful and worth reading.

What he is talking about is generally IMO accurate, but we must always remember that the name of God is just as good an excuse for evil as secularism is.

Better, actually, because at least the secularists are not committing BLASPHEMY.

I was outraged when Bob Jones IV suddenly switched sides on the Confederate flag in South Carolina. It had been flying over the state capitol over thirty years and he had never objected. Then the businessmen objected to it, the moneymen, fearing an NAACP boycott.

So the Citadel and Bob Jones suddenly decided the flag was bad.

What is funny is that there is STILL an active NAACP boycott against SC, but nobody notices. They panicked over nothing, as those who follow in the steps of The Greatest Generation so often do.

But what enraged me was Bob Jones's REASON for switching sides. Like Governor Beasley, he picked a very convenient time to do it and said GOD told him to. He quoted some scripture that had been there two thousand years before the flag went up. He said it offended blacks. If it did that, why hadn't he said so thirty years earlier?

I have not abandoned my Bible Belt rearing. A person who switches sides for money is bad, but a person who says GOD told him to do it is EVIL. He is claiming to speak for God to people who TRUST him for the well being of their souls.

If you speak for God, then you are to that extent claiming to BE God. Unlike Jesus, you don't take responsibility for what you are saying. Right or wrong, Jesus Christ is a HERO to me. He told the Jews,

"***I*** am the way the truth and the light. NO ONE goes to the Father BUT BY ME." You can't get less subtle than THAT. But preachers keep telling us he didn't mean the Jews. So whom the hell was he talking to in Roman Palestine, Buddhists?

I taught Constitutional Law, but I resented that TITLE. There is nothing constitutional about Constitutional Law.

Judges say they just speak for the Constitution. But if you say, "All the states that ratified the Constitution had and ENFORCED laws against miscegenation, but I don't like them, so the Constitution says they're unconstitutional" you are not interpreting anything, you are not speaking for anything but yourself. What they call "Constitutional Law" is Judge Law.

When preachers and priests and rabbis get together and declare that all of them agree that their purpose is to help the poor that is not charming to me. That is not just a statement of good intentions. They say they are speaking for GOD.

Jesus said "the poor we have always with us" and it said it for a REASON. He said very, very specifically after that that the poor we have with us always but he was here only once, and for the salvation of souls.

When Jesus told the rich young man to give all he had to the poor, the important point was, AND FOLLOW ME. Jesus always spoke, not of the harm to the poor, but of the damage to the souls of the rich and greedy that, in his opinion, sent them to a place far worse than all the suffering all the poor on earth combined could ever suffer in THIS world.

So the churches get together and say Jesus was worried about social justice for the poor. This does NOT charm me. The simple fact is that, like Bob Jones IV and Beasley, they no longer BELIEVE in that heaven-and-hell stuff and they want to be "socially relevant."

I RESENT that. If they want to help the poor, stop spending church money left to the church by believing Christians in their wills for social causes and get into SECULAR welfare work. They would be decent people if they WERE open secularists. But they want their nice, safe jobs. Bob Jones wants his family business to keep bankrolling him.

It is not HONORABLE to claim to speak for God or the Constitution if you are not doing it. I believe in Jesus maybe 1% but I believe in HONOR 100%.

I believe in the Constitution but I would spit in a judge's face. Jesus is a hero to me, but I would throw most preachers and priests, and especially bishops and Bob Jones IVs, into the sewer where they belong.

Alan has it right. What he has to learn from Bob is the other tricks of the evil trade he is talking about.