Before I even get started let’s make a few things clear.

1.  While I’ve lived my whole life in Massachusetts.  I have no dog in the Confederate Battle Flag fight, my people came here in the early 20th century.  I have no ancestors who fought on either side of the Civil War and I don’t give a damn what South Carolina does or doesn’t decorate the grave of their ancestors with.

2.  Anyone who tells you the Civil War was not about slavery is lying to themselves.  Simply read the Newspapers of the time and you will see this was issue #1.  If twitter existed in the 1850’s you would find Democrat using the same language to defend slavery that you see them use to defend abortion today.

3.  There are a lot of holier than thou people here in the North who look down on Southern Whites, in fact it’s my experience that the only people they look down further on than southern whites are blacks .

4.  The only thing more delusional than pretending the civil war wasn’t about slavery is to act as if Black Americans do not have a legitimate reason to consider the Confederate flag offensive.

5.  That being said this entire flag issue is not about justice it’s about taking advantage of a murderous rampage to score political points by opportunists who need to engage their base prior to an election.  It’s Trayvon Martin circa 2016. If the left thought there were more votes in keeping said flag they’d be marching to protect it.

 

All of the above notwithstanding it’s clearly apparent that the Confederate Flag is coming down from the monument on the Statehouse grounds in SC but the real story will be the pressure that will come to have it removed from anywhere it appears.

That being so I have a modest suggestion for those who don’t want to give the left an easy win.

If we are rightly going to say that the Confederate Battle Flag should be removed because of its connection to the propagation of slavery I submit and suggest that we go a step further.

I think that any ban on the confederate flag at, for example, a school or a state location should also be expanded to ban the flag of the old Soviet Union which was directly responsible for the murder of tens of millions of people.  I would also call for a ban of Che T-Shirts and any other communist symbols.

I would go so far as to say that all of these symbols should be banned together, after all what kind of message is it for us to embrace one symbol of slavery & murder while embracing others?  Particularly since unlike slavery when ended 150 years ago in the US the acts of the Soviets & Che are still in living memory in fact people are still being tortured, oppressed and slain under communism in this present day.

I think I would really enjoy watching Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders hedge on Che and the Soviets, and I think it would be a lot of fun to watch the same academics who are self righteously beating their breasts over the rebel flag start making excuses for the Soviets and the other mass murders that they have cheerfully embraced.

If you’re going to ban one racist symbol, ban them all, it’s for the children.

Update:  A pretty good speech by Nikki Haley but it hit me.  The flag is flying over a monument not over the statehouse.  why don’t they just move the monument that the flag flies over?

by baldilocksbaldilocks

I’m guilty of many things, but one is talking about race and Things Black too much.

The reputational demise of public astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson elicited a great deal of Schadenfreude, but it depressed me for one reason: I liked seeing a black person talk about something other than race, being black, or crime–the last of which is all too often a byproduct of race. Finding out that Mr. Tyson is a bit of a charlatan made me sad.

That said, in this post, I will be again guilty of discussing race, but only to point to three pockets of hope on the subject.

The mindterm election this past week saw the turning of the U.S. Senate to the GOP and GOP gains for the House. Among these are Senator Tim Scott (SC), Representative-Elects Mia Love (UT-4), and the much-less heralded, but no less significant Will Hurd (TX-23). That these three people are black and Republican is remarkable in itself, but some might also find it equally remarkable that the majority of each constituency is non-black. (Mr. Hurd’s district consists of mostly of Americans of Mexican ancestry.) However, this shouldn’t be surprising at all.

Most (all?) U.S. congressional districts represented by black Democrats–Congressional Black Caucus members–have long been carved out for them. I contend that each one of them has been planted by the Democrat Party and the party heavily funds all of their campaigns.

It is a method of keeping each of these districts voting Democratic, keeping the voters quiet about economic progress, and it feeds on the indoctrinated notion that having a representative who looks like you somehow elevates you. That same notion explains why virtually all black American voters voted for Barack Obama, especially in 2012. And I need to repeat: it keeps each of these districts voting Democratic. This is how the fallacy of black=Democrat was born.

An inverse anecdotal example: I live in a district with a majority-black voting base–formerly represented by Maxine Waters and recently re-carved in order for Karen Bass to retain her place at the table–and have watched, cycle after cycle, as Republicans–usually black, but not always–have haplessly run, including the locally famous homeless activist Ted Hayes in 2008. These brave people get no publicity and, usually, little funding, though Mr. Hayes got a great deal of the latter.

Also related: the National Association for the Advancement of Communist Principles (NAACP) ignored the elections of Scott, Love and Hurd while nattering on about voting rights in its November 4 election statement. This omission is the very embodiment of the aforementioned indoctrination. Take a bow, LBJ!

Back to the newly elected black Republicans, the demographics of these pockets of post-racialism is the real progress: that three people who do not look like the majority of their constituents can be elected by them and that three black politicians can base their campaigns on issues other than race.

And, please, save it about the election of Barack Obama. We all know that his election and his subsequent two terms have not represented the onset of post-racialism. Remember, being black equals being a Democrat, according to the brainwashing.

However, I think that the ascent of these three legislators will make a difference. Maybe.

After all, wasn’t that what the Civil Rights Movement was really about, conflating public and private property notwithstanding?

(Thanks to Instapundit and to Twitchy)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2009; the second edition in 2012. Her second novel, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2015.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects: Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or contribute to Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

 

On Wednesday I spoke to Glenn McCall from SC concerning day 1 of the RNC meetings in Boston.

That message of persistence is something the GOP needs to take to heart

*********************************

Olimometer 2.52

Remember unlike the MSM reporters here all of the coverage of this event is paid for by me and you. If you think the coverage is worth your investment consider hitting DaTipJar below

.

One of the appeals (especially of the US version) of Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares is watching chef Gordon Ramsey bring reality to clueless restaurant owners whose paid staff either can not or will not speak up for themselves.

The result, at least for that week. is the owner turning things around. Sometimes Ramsey’s advice takes root after he leaves, sometimes it doesn’t, but for at least that small window people see things as they are.

And that brings us to South Carolina and Mitt Romney.

One of the themes of the Romney campaign has been a sense of inevitability. Romney was going to be the nominee so you’d better d— well get on board because once he IS the nominee it would be remembered what side you were on.

It was a powerful argument, and people from Senator Kelly Ayotte to Governor Nikki Haley bought it.

What a difference a week makes, Newt Gingrich has made the lie out of that argument in a single election and everybody has noticed it:

Newt Gingrich’s victory Saturday took away what was always Romney’s strongest argument: That the former Massachusetts governor’s well-funded campaign machinery made him the odds-on favorite in the Republican field, capable of clinching the nomination early in the primary process, thus uniting the party for the battle to defeat President Obama. The perception of Romney’s inevitability — as the “It’s His Turn” candidate whom GOP voters have so often chosen as their presidential nominee — helped him pile up a huge fundraising advantage over his rivals. Inevitability also helped Romney garner endorsements from eminent pundits like Ann Coulter and popular politicians like South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Despite his relatively moderate record, Romney was endorsed by the conservative editors of National Review, who last month mocked Gingrich with a cover story illustrated by a cartoon depicting the former Georgia congressman as a ludicrous space alien.

And he has done it in the South where being a Catholic could be considered as big a liability as being a Mormon. (It’s worth noting that the only mainline protestant left in the GOP race finished last.)

The question is why? While Ann Coulter remains in denial but Byron York get it.

Romney stages perfect events. For example, on the eve of the primary, Romney’s rally in North Charleston was perfect from a production point of view: stage just right, big flags, big Romney signs, smooth introductions from South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, all topped off by a showy entrance by Romney, who arrived in his big campaign bus that drove right into the room.

It was perfect in every sense but engaging with the voters. Romney’s stump speech was a clipped — some would say dumbed down — list of generalities, concluding with this: “I love this land, I love its Constitution, I revere its founders, I will restore those principles, I will get America back to work, and I’ll make sure that we remain the shining city on the hill.” Romney offered his supporters very little to chew on. In this primary race, voters are hungry for substance, and Romney didn’t give them much.

This is exactly right, there is a reason why I wrote the following the at the Scott Brown victory party

8:59 p.m. I asked Gov Romney if the republicans can exploit the victory tonight, he didn’t like the word exploit but said that republicans can win if they support lower taxes, less government blah blah blah… Re-asked the question saying how do we make this Berlin 1991 instead of Hungary 1958, same generic answer, before I could press on how to recruit candidates etc the national media started to swarm.

I asked Joe Malone later that night if he would work to elect more republicans in the state, he said “Yes.” That why I wrote the next day:

If you want to get real answers to real questions ask Joe Malone, not Mitt Romney.

This could just be temperament, and Jay Nordlinger comments:

I keep reading that Romney is complacent, or was complacent: a “complacent frontrunner.” This strikes me as untrue, because Romney has been campaigning his butt off, night and day, for many months, pressing the case for his candidacy. I think what people mean, when they say “complacent,” is — he doesn’t emote, doesn’t beat his breast, doesn’t melt down. He is, for the most part, polite. He has an even temperament. He doesn’t make his campaign a personal melodrama.

Therefore: “complacent.”

What I think is that each candidate should be himself — his essential, straightforward self — whatever that may be. And then the people take their choice, as at an ice-cream parlor. (Some nights, it’s true, you want fudge ripple, and other nights you want raspberry swirl.) (Fred Sanford wanted just plain ripple.)

That may be true and perhaps his temperament would be very good in the job but part of the job is salesmanship and inspiration. You have to sell yourself to the American People to be elected and you have to sell your policies to them so they will support you afterwards.

It doesn’t matter how qualified you are, it doesn’t matter how content you are, if you can’t sell yourself you can’t win…PERIOD!

Newt Gingrich has played the Gordon Ramsey for him and made it plain. Romney should send him a “thank you” card. Mitt Romney and the GOP needed to learn this lesson BEFORE the convention. It remains to be seen if Mitt has learned this lesson or if his likely victory in Florida (due to organization and early voting before the Newt surge) will cause him to ignore this problem.

This will be the best test of both the Romney organization and of Mitt Romney himself. Let’s see if he can pass it.

It took four months for “Howdy thank you Eric” to become “A pundit sitting behind a desk.”

It took 24 hours for Erick Erickson to go from “A pundit sitting behind a desk.” to Erick the prophet.

Rick Perry is telling supporters that he will drop his bid Thursday for the Republican presidential nomination, two sources familiar with his plans told CNN.

I’m watching it live now, this is really killing him. I guess giving up is different for a Texan, the Alamo instinct dies hard for someone from the lone star state.

Seven days ago Stacy McCain asked this question:

Maybe Erick Erickson can explain what purpose is served by Perry’s continued candidacy, other than spending the rest of the millions the Perry campaign collected in August and early September, before the wheels fell off that bandwagon.

Apparently he can’t

Barring a miracle, this is Rick Perry’s final act in the 2012 elections. On Saturday, he will come in last in South Carolina. It will be only the third time in a generation Rick Perry has lost an election, with the only other two times being Iowa and New Hampshire this year.

For a generation, Rick Perry was undefeated. Now he will go back to Texas and everyone who ever lost to Rick Perry will seek to settle old scores. It will be a tough, bloody fight. He will have to be ready for it.

At Hotair they note the change from Howdy thank you Erick to well

“The governor’s focused on the people of South Carolina and their votes, not a pundit sitting behind a computer somewhere.”

Remember Erick is not dependent on the millions Gov Perry has raised for his pay but those consultants determined to keep him in the race should remember this as well:

I think Perry’s decision to stay in and his likely spectacular rejection by southern voters will not only be the final nail in the coffin for a Perry 2012 run, but will preclude any chance of a successful Perry 2016 run.

Now as a Santorum man I’m not in favor of the whole “Endorse Newt” business, but just as Perry is higher on my voting order than Newt (2nd & 3rd behind Santorum) so is Newt higher on my order than Romney.

I don’t fault those who like Gov Perry for sticking with him, he would make a fine president, but with almost certain humiliation in the cards for him ask yourself this question: Do you want him to stay in for his sake or for yours?

…and I’ll believe that it’s a question of discrimination when people start suing banks for requiring ID to cash checks or for hotels for checking IDs. In fact my supermarket checks my ID when I use my credit card to pay for groceries.

That being said let’s make something clear about the lady in this story:

Multiple marriages have played havoc with Massachusetts transplant Andrea Tangredi’s hopes of getting a South Carolina driver’s license.

By her count, Tangredi has spent at least 17 hours online and in person since July trying to get a license here, only to face hurdle after hurdle tied to her several name changes.

On Monday she asked aloud that if it is this hard to get a South Carolina driver’s license, how much more difficult is it to get documentation for a voter ID?

“I’m educated,” she said during a forum sponsored by opponents of the state’s new voter ID law. “I don’t know how someone who isn’t would want to ever start this process.”

Andrea is a personal friend of mine, she is one of the finest people I know. If she has had bad luck with marriages it is an incitement to the men foolish enough to lose her (and perhaps her being too trusting). Her move to South Carolina is Massachusetts loss and South Carolina’s gain.

Disagree with your all you want on this issue but won’t have a word said against her personally.

check out the first paragraph from The Brad Blog’s report on the ruling concerning Allan Greene’s election in SC:

The South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Board rejected Judge Vic Rawl’s protest to the results of last week’s U.S. Senate primary, despite no evidence presented that the results were accurate, and despite Alvin Greene having not even shown up to the protest hearing.

Let that rolls through your head. A statewide election takes place, the democratic party doesn’t like the results and appeals based on the fact that…they didn’t like the results, and what is their argument? No evidence presented that the results were accurate.

Poor Brad, maybe he doesn’t understand the concept that you don’t simply overturn an election that your man has lost by 20 points because you don’t like your chances in the fall. It is YOUR burden to prove that the election was fixed, not the other way around. The people have the right to be wrong, or foolish or horror of horrors have an opinion contrary to the democratic leadership!

The argument that there was “no reasonable explanation” for the results is an argument that our friends on the left would make for the election of any republican. You want to overturn a 20 point election how about some actual you know evidence? From the CNN story:

The forensics expert hired by Rawl said it was possible the voting machines were tampered with and theorized that a hacker could have uploaded a “malicious code” into the machines to alter the results. But Rawl’s team had no evidence that any machines were meddled with.

Hay who needs physical evidence that the machines malfunctioned? We are liberals we know what the result should be.

Now I’m a big fan of paper ballots and I don’t like touch screen voting myself, but if you are going to overturn an election you need more than theory and to the credit of of the democratic party officials that wasn’t enough for them. CNN again:

Ludwig, Rawl’s campaign manager, rejected the theory that Greene picked up votes because he has an African-American sounding name in a state where the majority of Democratic primary voters are black.

After all it’s not like the democrats use race as a club during elections do they? Nah we’ve never seen that done before. As we might say live by the race card, die by the race card.