Sen.George Allen's Black Problem??
The Communist magazine "The Nation" has an article on Senator.George Allen of Virginia, a strong candiate for President, which claims he is a closet racist.
The article can be read for free here!
I hope given this article he does not campaign for black votes
in a cow boy out fit!
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060508&s=lizza050806
Below are some comments from other Republicans on this issue
I sincerely do not think Allen is a racist.
Was he insensitive? Yes. Symbols represent different things to different people. To most African-Americans and many whites, the Confederate Flag is a symbol of hate and racism. But, to many white people, they don't automatically associate it with hate. I remember when I was in junior high, I went to Virginia on a historical "pilgrimage" and came home with a confederate flag along with a American flag of the original 13 colonies. I didn't really think anything of it. I just thought the flags were "neat".
I put up both flags in my bedroom, and a couple of years later when I was 15, my friend Will who is black and would become my best friend and "best man" in my wedding, came over to my house for the first time. He saw the flag up, and of course had a very different perspective on it than I did at the time. He advised me that I might want to take it down, which I did. Point is, anyone who knows me knows how much I detest racism, but I did do something insensitive. It doesn't mean I'm racist; just insensitive at the time. Likewise, Allen made some mistakes. I don't think he's a racist. To him as a highschooler he was a bit of a "rebel" who bucked authority and the rebel flag was a way to express that attitude. Was it wrong? Sure, but let's not condemn him forever for it.
Let's give him credit for actively trying to address the "race issue". For example:
1) He's been trying to get more money for historically black colleges, and he spoke at St. Paul's University, an historically black college in Virginia.
2) The last few years have been a civil rights boot camp for him. In 2003, he traveled to Birmingham, Alabama, on a "civil rights pilgrimage", where he listened to "the strategies, the foundations, the tactics" of the civil rights movement. He observed, "I don't see how you can stand being knocked off a stool at a lunch counter and just take it. My reaction is, 'I don't see how you can take it.' And they say, 'You understand, it's all peaceful and nonviolent.' And I say, 'I just don't understand this.'"
On the pilgrimage, Sen. Allen bonded with a former Black Panther who agreed with his take on nonviolence. He later traveled with him and Rep. John Lewis, a heroic civil rights activist on a reconciliation pilgrimage.
3) He sponsored and helped pass the anti-lynching resolution and anti-lynching apology.
4) When he was Governor of VA and a number of black churches were burned down, he convened with then President Clinton and VP Gore on the matter.
Let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
-Jeremy M/33
Ojai in Ventura County, CA ,
CALIFORNIA
He needs to address this issue. Regardless of his father's past that flag represents a plethora of degradation and pain the blacks.
-Roz-B /33
Hebron, KENTUCKY
I love George Allen and desperately want him to win his race in Virginia. I basicallly just say remember he was a young kid when the confederate thing happend. Allen is a good man and I think he can win for all of us, I also think he has a great chance to be president in 2008 if he wins this race. We want one of our own in the whitehouse dont we?? Give the man a chance I know in my heart hes not a racist. You knew his dad was football coach of Washington Redskins and he coached alot of black players. Im sure he didnt raise his son to be no racist.
-Bret
22 years old
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
posted by Libertas @ 6/26/2006 06:25:00 PM
Richard
Marcus
Skelton
Arnold Sidney 
Beautiful
Stranger 
Dell
Gines
bbqchickenrobot
Joe
Ekawu
Nino
Kristina
Alfred
How
You Can Contribute 
4 Comments:
When you call the Nation magazine Communist you starkly undermine your point about people overreacting to George Allen by calling him a racist.
When it was founded in 1865 in the ashes of the Civil War, The Nation magazine had a noble mission statement.
"The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and
social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the vices of violence, exaggeration, and misrepresentation by which so much of the political writing of the day is marred," says an excerpt from the magazine's founding prospectus.
Needless to say, things have changed mightily in the 136 years since this magazine was launched, as have the political ideologies its writers and editors
espouse. No longer is it a bastion of political thought free of so-called "party influence."
In fact, if you heard Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel debating a National
Review magazine editor on Tuesday's "The O'Reilly Factor," which was hosted by
former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich, you should have no
doubt that today's Nation magazine is clearly on the side of Democrats,
liberals and assorted leftist ideologues.
Here is just a smattering of what's being offered by The Nation in its latest
edition:
A hit piece on President Bush, called, "Bush Vs. Green," criticizing the
president's supposedly anti-environment agenda. Author Barbara Kingsolver
echoed a now-infamous liberal-left line in her "call-to-action" letter: "He's not my president. Most of us didn't actually vote for the guy. …" Remember how leftists vilified conservatives who said the same thing about Clinton?
A hit piece on Bush and the GOP, called, "How the GOP Gamed the System in Florida"; yet another leftist whine about how "those nasty Republicans cheated
us out of victory last election." Please, Nation -- can you give it a rest?
A hit piece on big business, called, "Sovereign Corporations"; big business is,
dontcha know, a Republican problem, yet no liberal I know of has ever
questioned "Camelot" holdover Sen. Ted Kennedy, or House Minority Leader Dick
Gephardt, or Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, or any number of other
"economically stable" rich white guy Democrats about their huge big-business
interests, holdings and corporate donors.
Another hit piece, albeit indirectly, against Bush and the GOP for winning the
November election, touting The Nation's involvement in a new "election reform"
effort. Makes me wonder if Nation editors would have given a damn about this
issue if Gore had won.
A hit editorial on Bush, accusing him of giving undue consideration to "former
Iran-Contra operatives." In the piece, writer Peter Kornbluh says those
appointments "resurrect the ghosts of America's scandal-ridden past," leaving
readers the impression that Iran-Contra was the only scandal the country
endured over the past 15 years. Hey, Pete -- does the name "Clinton" ring a
bell? Kornbluh also repeated the tired liberal-leftist mantra regarding Bush's
very legitimate election win: "The nomination of Otto Reich to be Assistant
Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere is even more offensive to
international and domestic principles. A longtime anti-Castro Cuban-American,
Reich is backed by Senator Jesse Helms and the hard-line exile groups that want
political payback for giving Bush his real or imagined margin of victory in
Florida."
Get the picture? Today's Nation magazine is anything but the bastion of
independence it proclaimed to be when it first went to ink.
In fact, it is so solidly in the corner of the worst elements of the Democrat
Party -- the extreme leftist-socialist-fascist wing -- that it is evident
throughout most of the work The Nation and groups it associates with are doing.
In case you're wondering how to spot these virulent anti-American leftists,
they are the ones who refer to their political ideology as "progressive." They
call themselves "progressives"; they use the word to describe their side of the
political issues; and, in The Nation's case, the term is spread throughout the
magazine's print and spoken verbiage like a cancer.
During the "Factor" interview, editor vanden Heuvel used the term at least a
dozen times. And on the Web page touting the electoral reform, The Nation
proudly associates itself with the umbrella group spearheading the effort
called "Progressive Challenge."
Involved in that effort, including others, is the House Progressive Caucus, a
collection of about 58 ultra-leftist lawmakers whose policy priorities,
legislative initiatives and political ideology are more representative of World
War II-era fascism than American constitutional republicanism. It is no
surprise to me that this "caucus" is described in detail on the Democratic
Socialists of America website.
These lawmakers have no problems with the vast, powerful and profitable reach
of American business and corporate interests; they just want to control them,
extort them and transfer their wealth to "those who need it most" -- namely,
themselves and groups who sponsor them. Pretty clever, huh?
These lawmakers and the groups they work with support such socialist,
quasi-fascist (and Democratic Party-sponsored) legislation as raising the
minimum wage (again and again); ending corporate tax breaks; the "right" to
"quality child care" (taxpayer-funded, of course); the "right" to "quality
health care" (taxpayer-funded, of course); gun control (as in, ban them all);
higher taxes for "the rich"; no tax cuts for anyone; and so on.
The Nation magazine subscribes to all of this "progressive" stuff. What The
Nation and its like-minded allies don't support, however, is being honest about
who and what they really are.
It's important to note that so-called "progressives" are comprised solely of
liberal Democrats, with the exception of one "independent" -- Rep. Bernie
Sanders of Vermont.
The goal of these fascists, according to the DSA, is reminiscent of Italy's
Benito Mussolini. Progressives want to "advance economic and social justice
through sponsoring legislation that reflects its purpose" -- meaning, "You
create it, make it grow, make it profitable -- and we'll come in and collect
the rewards because only we know how best to distribute and spend it."
But like Mussolini and the rest of history's dictators, though, somebody has to
be in complete control in order for this to work. Remember, however, that none
of these authoritarian scumbags gave a tinker's damn about "the people" in the
end, except to reap what they could from "the people" and exploit their labor
and productivity for selfish ends. Knowing that, why would any U.S. politicians
who ascribe to exactly the same kinds of political ideology be any different?
They wouldn't.
Oh, and by the way, that same "Progressive Challenge" enthusiastically espoused
by The Nation magazine is also backed by the DSA; both the magazine and the DSA
website link to the Progressive Challenge site on the Internet.
It's no coincidence. All of these people and all of these groups are networked.
None of them, though, seem to realize what country they're living in.
I couldn't care less if Nation writers, editors and delivery boys are fascist
losers. That's their business; they should at least have the guts to admit it,
but that's on them.
I do, however, have a real big problem with 58 members of the U.S. House of
Representatives being associated with a group that espouses far left socialism
and fascism.
Just by signing up with such a group, these lawmakers are violating their oaths
to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- which is
anything but a document espousing socialist and fascism.
The Democrat Party, like The Nation, at one time probably did stand up for
"truth, justice and the American way." But clearly to the progressive, "the
common man" is little more than an asset to be extorted by a group of
modern-day anti-federalists.
That they have to hide behind a misleading phrase like "progressive" should
tell you something, especially after discovering that most of what these people
and their support groups really represent is a regression to tyranny of
yesteryear.
To view the entire article, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22587
Again calling the Nation Communist is akin to calling George Allen a racist. It is a gross overstatement and it makes the other points being made come off a little "kool aide". But as far as some of your other points:
1) Fascism is a form of government that combines the cult of personality, militarism with strong mutual support from the business class. Sound familiar?
2) Interest in quality healthcare is not akin to Kristalnacht, forcing people to wear yellow stars or denying people their civil, human rights or rights under the Geneva Convention.
3) Again you undermine yourself when you overstate your point by referring to "ultra-leftist lawmakers". Is seems your definition of "ultra-leftist" is the result of not really knowing much about history or what is going on outside the US. "ultra-leftist lawmakers" don’t get elected in the United States. No one in the Democratic Party who is in congress is a card carrying Socialist, Communist or member of an Anarchist commune. They simply would not be elected. Sorry dude.
3) When you lament that there are taxes on business when people want the minimum wage raised tells me that you are unaware of a few facts:
A) Corporate taxes in this country have been declining for decades.
link
B) The minimum wage in absolute terms i.e. what it buys you has also been declining for decades. E.g. A minimum wage in the 60's could by much more than the minimum wage in this decade. Hence we have a huge class of people called the working poor.
link
C) There is now more social mobility in parts of "socialist" Europe than in the U.S.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm
So the American dream is alive and well you just have to live in another country to have it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home