Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Challenging black lawmakers from the left

Not content with hectoring Joe Lieberman, the netroots are now demanding purity from members of the Congressional Black Caucus. I sense Karl Rove behind this, because there’s no better way of creating more black Republicans.

Discussions - 17 Comments

The mouth piece of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon has no credibility and no reputable scholar would refer to it.
As far as "creating more black Republicans," most well informed people are all to aware that the current version of the GOP is the party racists like George Allen and George W Bush. As long as the GOP is friendly to racists you cannot expect to see any new black votes.

Get lost, Pain.

I’m much more interested to hear your views on the Laffey - Chafee race, Joseph, since unlike any of the primary battles mentioned in the piece you link to, the RI GOP primary battle might actually result in a seat going to the opposition party. So far this blog has been silent about that race, which is, indeed, surprising, given the likelihood that the Club for Growth will create the conditions for a "left turn" in Rhode Island.

Mr. Frisk: No need to be petulant when confronted by facts that are unpleasant for you. Do you deny the claims I made in my post?

I deny every damned one of them, Pain.

The Washington Times is not a great paper -- I don’t know of any great papers -- but it’s not a mouthpiece of the Rev. Moon. It has at least as much credibility as the establishment papers; I would say more. President Bush and Senator Allen are not racists. You cannot produce a shred of evidence for this. The Republican party is not friendly to racists. Again, you cannot produce a shred of evidence for this.

I sincerely hope you’re not in a position to affect young minds. Your own is a disgrace, and your presence on a site like this detracts from it and from the experience of every intelligent, indeed every decent, person on it.

Take your cheap mudslinging onto a more appropriate site like KOS and leave us alone.

David Frisk shared some of his scholarship by telling us this: "The Washington Times is not a great paper -- I don’t know of any great papers -- but it’s not a mouthpiece of the Rev. Moon."

David, I’d suggest that you read the article here:


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Times

Or if you prefer you can go to Moon’s site and read the text of a speech by Moon himself:

http://www.unification.net/2002/20020521_1.html

As far as George Allen’s racism, you can see his association with white supremacists here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/george_allen

Maybe these "shreds of evidence" are just part of that convenient "vast left wing conspiracy?"

Thanks for your juvenile assessment of my mind -we can always use some humor.

Translation: "I know that the Washington Times is right-wing propaganda, because my left-wing propaganda says so."

It is pretty clear, though, in the wake of the "macaca" thing, that if Allen isn’t a racist, he is at the very least an idiot.

Dear Mr. Tom Pain in the "A",
A question though it may be a moot point.
Were you born an "A"-hole or are you self-made? Just curious. I would think your folks would not sire such an individual.
Please come back to this site when you grow up.
Ya here?

if Allen isn’t a racist, he is at the very least an idiot.

This just in from Captain’s Quarters

...about George Allen’s efforts to assist black colleges to upgrade their telecommunications infrastructure. In fact, his legislative efforts were so successful that the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund planned to give him their Thurgood Marshall Award for his efforts. Those plans got hijacked by Allen’s political opponents....

If forced to choose between racist and idiot, I’ll have to go with idiot, but I really don’t think that a single word which, in some obscure language, means something someone can interpret to be a racial slur should undo the good work the man has done.

If a single gaffe were to cost every politician his chance to run for president, John Adams and all of his successors would have been unelectable.

People like Pain who call George Allen a racist on the basis of this extremely trivial incident either
1) don’t care about the facts of the incident; or 2) they have a totalitarian definition of impermissible speech -- namely speech that someone, somewhere, might find offensive, as long as the right kind of person, like Senator Allen, can be made to suffer for it. If we are to follow such a standard, there is simply no freedom of speech anymore. But then, Pain may not really be interested in freedom of speech, except as communists and fascists are interested in the principle, as a means of clubbing down opposition.

they have a totalitarian definition of impermissible speech -- namely speech that someone, somewhere, might find offensive, as long as the right kind of person, like Senator Allen, can be made to suffer for it. If we are to follow such a standard, there is simply no freedom of speech anymore.

I am amazed that this sort of language is coming from a conservative. Remember when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made that moronic comment several years ago, and the Left complained that she was being victimized for her remarks? Our side responded that no one was denying her right to free speech, but that it was perfectly appropriate for her to "suffer for it" through the refusal of radio stations to play her songs, refusal of consumers to purchase her CDs, etc. How is Allen’s situation any different? If we call out someone for making a stupid and inappropriate comment, how exactly are we interfering with that person’s freedom of expression?

How is Allen’s situation any different?

Well, for one thing, in order to turn Allen’s word, "macaca," into a racial slur, the libs had to change it into "macaque" and then apply some obscure language to translate it into "monkey." Maybe, although I doubt it, Allen meant macaque when he said macaca; maybe, although I doubt it, he knew that macaque meant monkey; and maybe, although I doubt it, he meant to expose himself as a racist and throw away the good work mentioned in post 9 above by calling a tormentor a monkey.Ironically, the libs refer to President Bush as "chimpy" all the time.

The Dixie Chicks, on the other hand said something to the effect of being ashamed of the fact that President Bush is from Texas. Clearly, they meant exactly what they said.

Undeniably, what Allen did was stoopid. He should deal with it by laughing at himself for the stupidity of it,recognizing the stupidity of it, apologizing for it and NOT trying to explain it away.

Allen probably "meant" what he said as much as Mel Gibson "meant" to badmouth the Jews during his bender a few weeks ago. Both undoubtedly regret it.

I like what Ann Althouse has to say about this.

A racist should not be President. And you know what I’m talking about.

Please note: I did not mention Allen’s use of the word "macaca." In fact, I think his use of the word is relatively insignificant. What is not insignificant is his association with southern hate groups like the Council Of Conservative Citizens, which I cited above. The issue of ownership of Wash. Times seemed to go nowhere.

Evidently, the only way of responding to these claims is denial(Mr Frisk), changing the subject(Guido), or childish insults(Little Jesse).

I don’t think the "macaca" remark is exactly insignificant. The Allen campaign’s almost laughable excuse for the remark has been that it’s a variation on the word "Mohawk," which could possibly describe Sidarth’s haircut. I didn’t understand how "macaca" really resembled "Mohawk" until I read the explanation in National Journal given by someone on Allen’s staff, that the term was:

"a neologism created from "Mohawk" and ’caca,’ Spanish slang for excrement. "Said one Republican close to the campaign: ’In other words, [Sidarth] was a shit-head, an annoyance.’"

So, I guess he was either being racist or, if you can swallow his explanation, just incredibly juvenile and rude, in front of a sizeable audience.

In addition to his open association with the racist group Council of Conservative Citizens, his lifelong love of the Confederate flag certainly gives me reason to think that had the annoying cameraman following his campaign appearances been white, blue-eyed and sporting a blonde-haired mohawk, he would have chosen a much different word.

Mr Frisk, (Moser, etc)


You guys gotta be kidding, right?


The Washington Times "...is not a mouthpiece for Moon"?


Don't need to use Pain's left wing sources to ferret this out, just go to Google and enter:


"I used the Washington Times" and "Myung Moon" (explicit terms in quotes as shown)


...and it will take you straight to the Unification Church's own friggin website and Moon's own archives, where you'll learn from the owner of the Washington Times himself (who also owns UPI, and a plethora of your neocon pundits) to see EXACTLY what Moon does with his media empire and exactly how he does it. How he's been killing off the paleoconservatives and replacing them with neocon moonies since about three years into the first Reagan administration

Geez, some of you guys have been so thoroughly neoconned by the Moonies you don't even know who owns your pundits.

Meanwhile, along the way, you might discover that Moon has been subsidizing his money-losing neocon-job propaganda outlets to the tune of about three billion dollars since 1983 with Moonie-church money just so as to keep the neocon propaganda and Straussian lies flowing freely into your oh-so-receptive wetware.

Don't take it from me, ask the increasing numbers of ex-employees of the Washington Times who have managed to free themselves from moonie mind-control, and are returning to their GOP paleoconservative roots.

This guy (for just one example) certainly cannot be called a left-wing propagandist...

http://georgearchibald.typepad.com/

Now, at this point...an intellectually curious type would play around with some search terms and keywords, like "George Archibald" with "Moon", "racist" and a few others, and that person would then discover that Tom Pain's original post up top was pretty much 100% spot on, irrespective of what Pain's ideology is.

http://georgearchibald.typepad.com/george_archibald/2006/12/can_the_washing.html

Now, after reading the link above (I especially love the part where the WT top editor's own White-Supremacist WIFE blows him and the Moonie's cover), and doing the basic algebra by adding in Moon's own words, well...it seems you guys owe Mr. Pain an apology.

Seems like you 'shot the messenger' because the message was an unpleasant surprise...

The Washington Times, UPI, Insight Magazine...and lots more...all part of Moon's "Unification Church" propaganda machine.

If this is really news to you guys...then stop here. DO NOT go off and start reading Moon's "bible" to see what he has in store for the U.S., and why he has been using the wing-nut-version of the GOP to take down the US and what he wants to replace it with.

If you really have been so completely ignorant of Moon for so long, then I'm pretty sure your brains can't handle it yet. Give it a week or so to sink in, then start reading again.

By the way...I'm a paleo-conservative 'party-of-Lincoln" type who is excited about the opportunity to take the GOP back from the straussian-moonie-neocon wing-nuts.

I look forward to you guys getting yourselves de-programmed someday and joining up in the effort.

EJ

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8903