Myth Of GOP's "Southern Strategy" Useful For Dem Enablers Like Jon Stewart To Attack GOP "Racism" & Rand Paul

Jon Stewart  http://www.thedailyshow.com/ in conjunction with his "Senior Black Correspondent" lampooned Rand Paul's visit to Howard University which was part of the GOP's new outreach policy.

Clearly this is a defensive move on the part of the left and of course highlights the hypocrisy of their call for  a co-operative social/political environment. Instead of applauding Paul's move, they found all the faults, real or imagined, they could with it.

The two "faults' they highlighted were the supposed condescension  in Paul's speech, and what they determined was the GOP's adherence to their supposed "Southern Strategy." This they claim is an indication of White racism, or rather cynicism by the GOP hierarchy in enlisting the support of White voters (former Dem's) in the South by toning down the admitted historical Republican support of Blacks to ensure those states Electoral College votes.

"You can't cover-up 50 years of racism by a supposed outreach" is their current meme. let's see how "50 years of racism" stacks up in reality. Yes there was an announced "Southern Strategy" by a GOP insider years ago, but whether such an announcement had any basis in reality is another matter.

Firstly, if we take the election of 1972 as the commencement of this so called "strategy" the time frame is 40 years. The time frame for Republican commitment to Blacks-including the ending of slavery, if we accept it ended in 1972 (which it didn't), ran from 1854 to 1972 that is 118 years or nearly three times as long as the purported reversal.

If the Electoral College map from 1972 to 2012 is considered without bias, and with logic, it will be seen that there is no "Southern Strategy' based on a prejudicial attitude to the Black community. For this exercise the 11 states of the Confederacy, plus the two states claimed by it, are reviewed for their collective voting history.

* South Carolina * Mississippi * Florida 
* Alabama  * Georgia * Louisiana  * Texas 
* Virginia * Arkansas * North Carolina * Tennessee 
   Kentucky and Missouri. 


1972 To talk of a victorious "Southern Strategy" when the entire country rejected McGovern's radicalism and incompetence is ludicrous.

1976."No evidence of a "Southern Strategy as Democrat Carter sweeps the entire south bar Virginia

1980.Ludicrous to refer to a Southern Strategy in GOP's triumph as the nationwide reality was rejection of Carter

1984 Almost the entire country showed confidence in Reagan. Southern Strategy concept is meaningless in this scenario

1988 An all sector landslide against the incompetent Democrat Dukakis

1992 The South splits 7 states GOP 6 states Dem. If there were a Southern Strategy it failed.

1996 7 to 6 split again-another Southern Strategy failure as Clinton increases Electoral College support in the South over 1992

2000 An election more to do with a general revulsion against moral turpitude than any specific "Southern Strategy"

2004 A "holding pattern" election strongly influenced by the terrorism factor and confirmation of a commitment to conservative social values.

2008 Southern Strategy deceased as Blacks turnout in massive numbers for historical reasons with Obama almost at Clinton's Electoral College levels

2012 Black voting trend remained in force with Florida  detached from the South for the third time out of five elections and Virginia twice in a row.'Southern Strategy" of Black voter suppression and of pandering to supposed White Prejudice doesn't exist except in the minds, or rather strategic analysis planning, of leftists like Stewart and other propagandists.

Brilliant,Challenging Analysis: "THATCHER, AND GOD, ARE OF ANOTHER ERA" But There Is Hope For A Return To Values With Palin

This article from New Zealand is significant in that it goes to the very heart of the looked for conservative revival. At first glance it could be considered a cry of despair but it is instead a call to action.

 If on reading one is inspired to seek out and support those, like Sarah Palin, who can effect a conservative Reagan-ite revival then the undeniably negative changes in society can be reversed. This is a must  read and should be widely disseminated. I have included Sarah Palin's moving Facebook tribute to Margaret Thatcher at the endof the article.

 Posted at Family First 

BRUCE LOGAN: THATCHER, AND GOD, ARE OF ANOTHER ERA

Posted by Denise on Monday, April 15, 2013

NZ Herald 12 April 2013

Bruce Logan says the death of Baroness Thatcher comes as the state expands its power inexorably.  The death of 

Margaret Thatcher is symbolic as much as it is real. It’s almost the last breath of a dying vision; the end of an era. The Iron Lady was a Christian and patriot who believed in personal responsibility and the freedom which flowed from the expression of that responsibility. In spite of her weaknesses, she really believed in the old virtues such as courage, justice, prudence and temperance. 

One suspects she, like many of us, coveted faith, hope and love as well. The replacement vision, which has been winking at us for some time, is really humanity’s second oldest religion; the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is seductive and luscious. “We shall be as gods!” Evolutionary rational intelligence will now liberate the human mind and redirect the future. God, we have discovered, with no new evidence, did not make man in his image after all. He did not give us our dignity. 

The freedom we once enjoyed and the demise of absolute government was a mere quirk of history. The notion of dignity, it would seem, is founded on a mere tautology. We possess dignity because we are human: we are human because we possess dignity. But just a minute, a tautology will not do. If we cannot appeal to God then there is only one alternative; the state. 

By nature men and women serve; it’s simply a matter of who’s the boss. Once it was God, now it has become the law embodied in the state. Without God in the wings the state will be absolute. That is inevitable; the lesson of the 20th century. That lesson should have been clear in the failure of the great communist experiment. No doubt it was an exciting experiment that seemed practical to the worker and visionary to the academic. Communism failed because, like its current acolytes, it misunderstood freedom. It did not understand that exterior freedom is a consequence of interior freedom. 

Freedom is the first need of the soul before it is a need for the body. Communism was reductionist; it reduced the human being to a body to be fed, kept warm and amused. It did not understand that without the soul there is no justification for freedom. It could never understand that God alone is the guarantor of freedom. Few New Zealanders seem to understand but there are but only two visions possible in life, albeit many versions of each. There is the old Western vision of God and humanity and humanity’s relationship to God. That is now passing away from us to be nurtured in more fertile soil. 

The vision of the God who is not there will soon be force-fed to us here in Aotearoa. Without God the human mind alone possesses the necessary creative intelligence to rule the world. We are now experiencing the reverse of what happened in third-century Rome. The absolute power of the state gave way to the new faith; Christianity and its declaration that the state is answerable to God. It’s been a mixed bag and a bit of a mess from time to time but it’s only in the past few decades that God has been banished from the public square. 

The historical and theological irony should be obvious. Same-sex marriage is the consequence and symbol of that banishment because it is in harmony with the new religion. Marriage, an institution shaped by nature and reinforced by history, will become the product of social evolution as soon as same-sex marriage becomes law. Natural marriage once based on real sexual difference is to become a bastard child of the state. So we can make marriage what we like. No longer will it make us. 

Marriage which was once a basic institution of civil society will become a contract between any two people for their assumed bliss and benefit. It will have very little to do with the protection of children or social order. Children will be trophies rather than the cement of inter-generational connection. It is not that natural marriage is essentially a religious phenomenon. 

Marriage transcends religion and politics but not, it would seem human desire to manipulate to its own short-sighted end. And that’s the problem. That desire which has become a demand makes it necessary for the state to legally redefine marriage. The state cannot resist. Having lost the foundation it discovered in the third century it has become an authority yielding to the demands of fashion and relevance. 

Bruce Logan, formerly of the Maxim Institute, is a former Auckland school teacher who divides his time between Auckland and France.
****************************************************************************************

facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/...

A friend sent me a recap of this mornings beautiful funeral service for Margaret Thatcher. How fitting that they read from Ephesians 6:10-18 imploring us to put on “the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” Certainly Margaret Thatcher wore such armor in her many battles.

It is so very sad that in this sensitive time of needing to show respect for humanity in general and for “the good guys” in particular our White House did not even send an official envoy to her funeral. Salt in the wound is learning that Senator Menendez, who was recently in the news because of allegations of corruption and even possibly a prostitution scandal, gutted the Senate Resolution honoring Mrs. Thatcher’s world changing achievements. So very sad. Not only is this an insult to our British allies, it’s an insult to women.

Margaret Thatcher admirably never styled herself as a woman leader. She regarded herself as simply a leader, and got the job done regardless of her sex. But the fact remains that she was the most important female leader of the 20th century and will be remembered as one of the most important leaders of all time. Where is the outrage from American feminists at the obvious official snub of this iconic woman who was one of our country’s most loyal allies? (I guess maybe the American sisterhood is too busy at the moment trying to enforce the media blackout of that Philadelphia mass-murderer’s trial for killing our youngest sisters in the womb.)

Margaret Thatcher was the epitome of everything feminists claim they support – a self-made woman who rose to power on her own merits without the patronage of any man. It’s time these liberal hypocrites showed her and women in general the same respect conservatives have all along. It’s disgraceful that America’s politicians snubbed her achievements, as Mrs. Thatcher helped secure our own union while setting a mighty example for women around the world. Like all great leaders, she belongs to the ages now, and I trust that time will only burnish the Iron Lady’s shining legacy when all these petty slights are long forgotten.

- Sarah Palin

Celebrating "Hillary Is 44" A Wonderful PUMA Site;We May Meet In A Battle Of Ideas & May The Best Woman (Palin) Win!

UPDATE:Today (Friday 19th April) Is Hillary is 44's Birthday (although she is not 44 but the big 40).Welcome all "Big Pink" people. As Churchill said "The enemy of  my enemy is my friend"

I really really love the "Hillary is 44" site. I see the site as a sort of reversed mirror image of my Palin4President2106 site as we both support a person who has been pilloried by the media/misogynists/loonies and the Democratic Party.

I respect honest debate, and highly prize encountering pure passion, no matter where it comes from if it supports a legitimate, ethical and sane point of view. "Hillary is 44" meets all those criteria and then some. The contrast between the small and narrow minded Hillary can do no wrong, anti-Palin, ultra-leftist Taylor Marsh is striking

"Hillary is 44" is different from me/my site in the level of pure passion. She lays into all and sundry-Biden/Martin O'Malley/Michelle Obama/current leftist darling Elizabeth Warren, but most of all her absolute bete noire President Obama. I take a more sedate style into my Palin support, but the depths are no less deeper than hers I believe, and perhaps we suit our audiences better with mine perhaps having more of a religious emphasis in their world-view.

An example of this laying into can be found at a recent post "The Madness Of Hillary Clinton 2016". I won't reproduce any of it it can be found HERE as to do so would take away from the blunderbuss or cannon effect and the readers enjoyment. "Hillary is 44" in full sail is a wonder and joy to behold.

It will immediately become apparent to the visitor that President Obama is the villain of the piece and, as I read it, only the election of Hillary will reset the Democratic Party and America back to its centrist, co-operative course. That there is a massive sense of loss and righteous grievance at the site is obvious, and no detail as to how Hillary was robbed of her presidency and who did it is spared.

I believe we share a common  bond in both reflecting on the terrible injustice done to both Clinton and Palin as women, and the backstabbing done to them by their respective "support" teams during and subsequent to their campaigns. 

For Hillary is 44, there is the concern that a Clinton run will be sabotaged by the Obama inheritance, the country being in such a poor state presumably in 2016 that Hillary will be destroyed politically by Obama for a second time.

I have found the site to be supportive of Palin on a number of occasions, as have other PUMA sites been, and have the feeling that should Palin run, and Hilary doesn't, that the site will support Palin as a person of unwavering ethics. 

If Hillary and Palin do run, a prospect I thoroughly look forwards to as it would be a campaign of ideas and complete contrasts which is absolutely to be welcomed, I would also enjoy the philosophical battle with "Hillary is 44"-and may the best woman of the two, i.e. Palin, win!

N.B. I supported Hillary through the primary campaigns
and if she had won the nomination and Palin was not on the GOP ticket would have voted for her. In 2016 if Palin is not the nominee, and Hillary is the Dem's I will vote only down ticket GOP no matter who the GOP nominee is. As much as I respect Hillary the pro-life and religious aspect of Palin's life and philosophy is the supreme factor for me which precludes my supporting Clinton.

Rats!

My son arranged 30th birthday treat for one of his condor charges at The San Diego Zoo.Tastefully arranged rats/mice Yum!

Is 24 Consecutive Years Of A Democrat In The White House The Acceptable Price Of The Demise Of Leftist Media Like Wonkette?

The election to the presidency of a junior senator with no foreign policy experience, no major domestic policy achievement, an association with a felon, initiated into politics by a Weatherman, an admitted drug user in his youth, a member of a church, (where he saw nothing of such ravings in 20 years) whose Pastor was raving, was utterly improbable. 

Under normal circumstances the idea of his election would have not only been impossible, especially with Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee, but laughable.

Only the most extraordinary of circumstances, in this case the utterly abysmal war policy of the previous administration, and a conspiratorial "Journolist" media in tow in slobbering obeisance, made such an otherwise rise to power possible.

The reality is that President G.W. Bush, was the major factor in making candidate Obama's election possible, as I set out in a brilliant analysis of the fall of the conservative ethos in America

On Tuesday November 2nd 2004, President G.W. Bush was re-elected by more than three million votes than his Democratic Party opponent John Kerry received, with Bush winning nearly 51% of the vote. 

President Bush carried 31 states, and the GOP won a 30 seat majority in the House, and picked up four seats in the Senate to have a a 9 seat majority 55 to 44, The Republicans also had 28 state governorships, as well as there being a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

If there ever was a time when it could be truly said "America is a center-right country", it was on election night 2004. The GOP was seen as the party of economic stability, of a prosperous, broadly contented America, and the rock of security in the face of the radical Islamic terrorist threat.

Election night 2008, just four years later, it was all gone. 


Not only has this disaster for conservatives punished them, and the country, with eight years of morally regressive leftism, but it has set the scene for a minimum of 28 straight years of a Democratic presidencies. 

Not that that matters very much as regards policy, as with the GOP certain to control either the House or Senate or both for substantial periods, little in the way of radical leftist economics or infringements on personal liberty can be effected. As regards foreign policy, with the end of the Iraq and Afghani wars, there is little to be exercised about.

It is in the only thing that that really matters, and can be affected by a presidency, the moral ethos of the country, that the prospect of 28 years of a leftist/Hollywood/media/Gay agenda will be a concern to conservatives.

There is, unfortunately  a mechanism now win place which will lead to this "permanent Democratic majority".

The "It's time for a Black to be president" meme need not have had any force in 2008, just as it didn't when Jesse Jackson was running for president. Only the disastrous Bush administration through its wars gave the theme momentum. Even then, it took an economic cataclysm just before the election to ensure candidate Obama's victory. Once elected, the concept became an integral part of the prevailing mood of the country.

In 2016 the next meme will be "It is time for a woman" and with Hillary as the standard bearer for the Dem's she would have every chance of winning. Then, as sure as night follows day, it will be "It is time for a Gay or lesbian to be president " (or even "a Gay and lesbian ticket" whichever way round it works). 

At that point, after 24 years of leftist "it's time" candidates, the well will have, thankfully run dry. I don't consider any "it's time for an Hispanic" (or whatever ethnic minority is flavor du jour) as the GOP has a stable of such, and either party can run whatever minority takes the public's fancy at that time.

Is their any saving grace for conservatives from this disastrous scenario? There is a small grace, with which one has to make do with scraps in the light of overwhelming circumstances. All the radical leftist blogs which bubbled up from the sub stratum, some from the deepest hell during the Bush years will finally have exhausted their hate, seen their agenda in place, and their audience having advanced into sensible middle age with mortgages and the like.

The likes of Kos Moulitsas, Charles Johnson, and other assorted oddballs like Andrew Sullivan, will have seen their audience depart and they will return, with suckers money unfortunately, into the obscurity from whence  they arose. Hopefully at that point utterly ridiculed and lampooned by a new generation of conservative bloggers untouched by the Bush miasma. 

Does the "mainstream media" and the likes of Politico and Slate deserve such a fate too? If it was still operating in the type of leftist foment of the Bush years, then yes, in fact into Dante's last circle of hell where Newsweek currently resides, they would go. 

But under the kinder gentle new editorship of Wonkette in the eventual conservative environment maybe, just maybe, there will be a place for traditional political social comment and political satire of the Shelley Berman/Mort Sahl type. 

But conservatives will be watching, and woe betide Wonkette if it strays into the world of Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars and the "journolist" conspiracy again.