Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

lott.jpg (3206 bytes)

Trent Lott For President

   "I want to say this about my state.  When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." - Trent Lott.

 

The exact same jews who are free to discuss or defend their own race, or to propose that non-jews be excluded from their midst, or to have their children to go to schools free of non-jews, or to test the DNA of immigrants to make sure they're jewish enough, condemned Trent Lott simply for speaking a TRUTH.

This was a TRUTH  which four out of five Americans know, believe, and support, so why would OUR "news media" condemn him for making a responsible and accurate and popular statement, and NOT condemn the Knesset for it's "racist" policy of testing the bodily fluids of immigrants to make sure they contain enough "jewishness" to become Israeli citizens?:

The Knesset Immigration and Absorption Committee discussed the case of a family that was asked to undergo DNA testing to prove that they were eligible for immigration under the Law of Return. Religious representatives said DNA tests are legitimate to prove family ties; secular representatives called the tests invasive  http://fathersmanifesto.net/genealogy.htm#DNA

 

 

December 11, 2002

The Honorable Trent Lott
Republican Leader
S-230 The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Lott:

I was astonished by your remarks at last week's birthday reception for Senator Thurmond. You claimed that the country would have been better off, and "wouldn't have had all of those problems," if other states had followed Mississippi and had supported the Dixiecrat Party ticket in the 1948 presidential election. Your callous comments were incredibly insulting, and outrageous for any American to make - let alone the prospective Senate Majority Leader. The recent revelation of your similar endorsement, during the 1980 elections, of Senator Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign is a chilling confirmation that your remarks last week were not a spontaneous slip of the tongue.

President Bush and the Congress currently seek to promote patriotism and to explain America's basic values to the world. Especially at such a time, your remarks are so un-American that they disqualify you from continuing as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate therefore, I must call on you to resign.

I realize you have apologized to anyone whom you might have offended through "a poor choice of words." That only compounds your slap in the face of all African Americans. Even after you had seen how much you had upset the public, you did not disavow what the Dixiecrat Party stood for. Whatever your choice of words, the plain intent was clear. The Dixiecrat Party's agenda was to preserve segregated schools, segregated public facilities, and segregated armed forces, and to prevent African-Americans from voting.

Were you suggesting that America would have been better off if President Truman had not desegregated the armed forces? Were you suggesting that America would have been better off if the Nation's modern the civil rights legislation had been blocked - if we had no Voting Rights Act, no Civil Rights Act of 1964, no Fair Housing Act and no African-American elected officials in Mississippi?

Even worse, your limited acknowledgment that only some people might have been offended by your remarks portrayed gross insensitivity to millions of Americans.

In addition, a key question for the 108th Congress is whether civil rights laws will be enforced and strengthened, or whether the attempts will be made to undermine them. You no longer have credibility on this crucial issue.

Yours truly,

John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member

 

 

Dear Mr. Conyers,

You asked Mr. Lott:

Were you suggesting that America would have been better off if President Truman had not desegregated the armed forces? Were you suggesting that America would have been better off if the Nation's modern the civil rights legislation had been blocked - if we had no Voting Rights Act, no Civil Rights Act of 1964, no Fair Housing Act and no African-American elected officials in Mississippi?

 

It's now time for you to answer a question:  how do you believe this nation benefitted from these intrusive, unconstitutional federal laws?

To wit, please note that since these intrusive laws were passed:

bulletThe percentage of black children growing up in single mother households quintupled to 78%.
bulletThe percentage of black men imprisoned prior to age 32 quintupled to 78%, putting one million black men behind bars (more blacks in prison than there are in all of Africa, with 800 million blacks).
bulletBlack family purchasing power plunged two thirds.

Is this a legacy you're proud of?  Do you really want a continuation of such conditions?  Or is it time to rethink your position?

Futhermore, the nation as a whole experienced the following social and economic pathologies since these laws were enacted (against the will of we the people, we should add):

 

Since the 1960s:

  1. Fatherlessness octupled to 48% and feminists can't even detect a problem.
  2. Divorce doubled to the highest rate in the world.
  3. Murder tripled to one of the highest rates in the world.
  4. Murders resolved decreased from 92% to 64%.
  5. The US became the only industrialized nation with a negative personal savings rate.
  6. The value of the dollar plunged three quarters (per Consumer Price Index), and by ten fold by the gold standard (from $38/oz to $380/oz).
  7. Welfare cost more than the value of every Fortune 500 corporation and every acre of farm land, combined.
  8. Autos supplied by U.S. manufacturers plunged from 60% to 20% of the world market.
  9. Prison inmates increased ten fold to a rate five times China and South Africa, making American men a third of the men in the world behind bars.
  10. Sexual assault convictions increased ten fold to two thirds of the world's convictions.
  11. DNA proved that one third of convicted men are innocent as charged.
  12. The rate at which men commit suicide increased to five times that of women.
  13. Government spending doubled to 42 cents of each wage dollar, while it remained at 24 cents in Japan
  14. The average body weight of an American increased 29 pounds.

Since the 1970s:

  1. GDP per worker decreased two thirds by the gold standard
  2. Public Debt increased 9 fold to $5.9 trillion, consumer debt increased to $1.2 trillion, and housing debt increased to $3.9 trillion.
  3. The U.S. became the largest debtor nation in world history with an average net worth per household of a *negative* $77,000.
  4. Interest payments on the debts increased to greater than the gross savings rate of 15% of GDP for the first time since the Great Depression, yet Japan continued to save 33% per year with no debts.
  5. Gross savings decreased from $11 trillion to zero as Japan's increased to $22 trillion.
  6. 36 million babies were aborted.
  7. The "drug war" precipitated a 45% increase in cocaine use.
  8. Violent crime increased 560%, illegitimate births increased 419%, and single-parent households increased 3000% (source: The Guardian).
  9. Criminal Justice System expenditures increased ten fold to $360 billion and now exceed national defense by $100 billion.
  10. The trade deficit, once in the black, increased to $173 Billion in the red
  11. Drunk driving arrests increased five fold to 1.6 million per year and the rate of men behind bars for DUI exceeds the total incarceration rate for all crimes in many countries.
  12. The motor vehicle fatality rate increased from 30% lower than Germany's to 45% higher.
  13. Health services costs increased eight fold to 14% of GDP even though many nations with 4 year longer life expectancies spend only 6% of GDP.
  14. Just the paperwork required to meet government regulations in health care consumes 3% of GDP.
  15. Alcohol consumption decreased 18% which costs 35,000 lives/year.
  16. SAT scores declined 98 points leaving the US DEAD LAST in more TIMSS subjects than any other country.
  17. The amount of time PER DAY that children watch TV increased from 5 hours to 7 hours.
  18. US banks in the Top 40 World Banks declined from 22 to 1(with assets of $120 billion) as the number of Japanese increased to 24 (with assets of $5,000 Billion).
  19. The number of lawyers increased to 60 times that of Japan as the number of engineers declined to less than a quarter of Japan.
  20. The ratio of manufacturing employees to government employees declined from 2.5:1 to less than 1:1

Mr. Conyers, if you believe these federal programs are not the specific problem, then what do you believe is, and what do you plan to do about it?

If you have no plan, then please allow Mr. Lott his RIGHT to free speech so that he can propose workable solutions, for a change, rather than the dumbed down feel good quick "fixes" which got us into such a mess in the first place.

JJ Johnson put these problems into perspective:

horizontal rule

            Trent Lott - This Black Man's Perspective
            By J.J. Johnson, Sierra Times Editor in Chief
            Published 12. 11. 02 at 10:24 Sierra Time 
      xxx By week's end, incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) will be politically beaten up so badly that it'll be hard to show his face in Washington, let alone hold on to his majority chair. On the left, the big bats are swinging over remarks made at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration - the story that just won't go away. Even well known Republicans are finding his comments "indefensible".
            But from this black man's ranch, his comments don't need defending. They should be addressed - honestly.

            Here's what started the whole mess.

            "I want to say this about my state," Lott said last Thursday. "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it," he said to applause. "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." - Trent Lott.

            Since Thurmond ran for President in 1948 on the 'segregationist' ticket, the statement makes Lott look like a racist, according to pundits.

            For the record, I do not believe Trent Lott to be a racist, but here's the shocker: Even if he was, I wouldn't care. Since I don't live in Mississippi, I don't have a say in who should represent that state in the U.S. Senate. But it's the last part of his statement that should be examined thoroughly: "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."

            You see, the black loud mouths now clogging the airwaves are calling for his head, which is easier than addressing the fact that 'forced integration' was a seed that did cause many other problems over the years. It's not polite these days to talk about riots, civil-rights demonstrations which in turn gave an excuse for the "women's liberation" movement (assisted in the breakdown of families and turn abortion into an industry), "gay rights" movement, frivolous lawsuits from both sides, legislation that discriminates against white males, turning Supreme Court nominations into circuses, the destruction of large segments of the black community, labor regulations that have crippled the manufacturing base in this country, and an all-knowing, all powerful federal government having no respect for the rights of states.

            That's right - state's rights: The key platform of the defunct 'segregationist party'. Democrats today call this 'racist', yet we still do not see the Republican Party giving an endorsement to a "white congressional caucus", exploiting blacks merely for votes, tolerating avowed black racists to hold seats of power in their party, or having a scumbag of a white house resident and proudly calling him, "The First Black President". Nor do we see most republicans legislating programs that have set the movement for black equality on its ear.

            I won't list many of the ills plaguing the black community at this time, but virtually all of it can be directly related to the Democratic Party - the one now pointing the finger at Trent Lott.

            You will hear the elite among us say how forced integration was a good thing. I remember forced integration. I remember being pulled from my home, away from my friends and family to a strange neighborhood. I remember it being more difficult for my parents to be active at my school - being so far away and all. I remember the race riots. I remember going from one year yearning to get a good education, to a year later wanting only to escape that schoolhouse every day.

            Democrats will rail against the segregationist party, and the media will repeat their platform that "No federal bayonet will force a Negro into our homes." In the late 40's and 50's, it was part of the Southern battle cry. Then again, the south held the greatest percentage of blacks in white homes. The key word in the above statement was the word "force". Sure, maybe they were maids, butlers, gardeners, etc. But they got paid, and they weren't over 50 percent of the prison population while being only 13% of the overall population.

            No, we dare not talk about such things. Let's just beat up on Trent Lott.

            Perhaps the "problem of these years" as Trent Lott said, was the ongoing 'balkanization" of this country due to the new tyranny of 'political correctness'. All of it having to do with the states not having the right to dictate their own affairs. If you didn't like it, you had the right to freely move to another state. Not any more.

            I suspect there are many other blacks who took Lott's comments with a grain of salt. He clearly has the support of many black in his state - a state that voted to keep the confederate banner on their state flag - with the help of black voters last year. But you won't be hearing too many of those voices in the media.

            However, in my opinion Lott's statement has caused problems for the Republican Party, and it is they who should step in to correct the matter. As his apology has been accepted by this black man, but he didn't need to give one. Much more troubling than his statement is the fact that he has now given a cadre of black liberals (and their pandering white counterparts) a platform on which to pontificate. I was just getting comfortable turning on a television and not having to listen them. It is for this reason, and this reason only, that this author feels the Republicans should not give the Democrats what they want - Lott's resignation. They should, however elect a new Senate Majority Leader (from the South or the West), and then reach out to the black community that has been used and abused by the real 'segregationist party' for the last 40 years.

            If I lived in Mississippi, this black man would cast a vote for Trent Lott proudly, but if it's worth getting Jesse Jackson & company off the airwaves, the Republican Senate should choose another leader. After all, aren't there more important issues to be discussed?          

      � 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted) Your Feedback.....Forward This Article...Print Friendly Version..

horizontal rule

So What If Thurmond (Or Goldwater) Had Been Elected?
By Sam Francis

For one brief shining moment, it was beginning to look like Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was taking hormone shots. First he endorsed sending troops to the border to resist invasion by illegal aliens. Then, last week, at a birthday party for 100-year-old Sen. Strom Thurmond, he virtually endorsed the South Carolina senator's presidential campaign 54 years ago-as a segregationist.

Mr. Lott has now apologized at least twice and cringed and groveled appropriately for saying something that deviates from egalitarian dogmas, but whether Mr. Thurmond's distinguished colleague from Mississippi was trying to utter some serious thoughts or had just swallowed too much eggnog at the birthday bash seems an open question.

No sooner had his words escaped the senatorial lips than he was denounced by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Washington Post editorial page, and-the world's greatest expert on What Should Have Been-Al Gore. Alerted by the baying of the leftist pack from which they take their cues, neo-conservatives like the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol and the failed and forgotten Jack Kemp soon chimed in. [VDARE.COM update: THIS JUST IN! President Bush has joined Sharpton, Jackson, Kristol and Kemp in denouncing Lott, although he seems more willing to accept Lott's apology.]

Mr. Jackson demanded that Mr. Lott resign as Majority Leader, while Mr. Sharpton denounced his remarks as "blatant racism" and vowed to wage a national campaign against him. Mr. Gore, in his ponderous way, held that what Mr. Lott said was "fundamentally racist," "divisive," and "divisive along racial lines."

But of course, Mr. Lott said nothing whatever about race. and never even mentioned race at all. What exactly he did say was:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

What exactly Mr. Lott meant by his remarks remains unclear, but several different interpretations of them are possible, and Mr. Lott and his defenders have invoked all of them. Nevertheless, what Mr. Thurmond's States Rights Party mainly stood for was racial segregation, and Mr. Lott knows that. The party was set up in protest of the Truman administration's endorsement of legislation against segregation, and those who supported the Thurmond candidacy-nearly 1.2 million voters-almost certainly did so because they supported segregation.

So, was Mr. Lott right? If the rest of the country had voted for Strom Thurmond in 1948, would we "have had all these problems over all these years"? Well, you never know, of course, but probably not.

In the first place, had Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, such paragons of legal reasoning as Earl Warren and William Brennan would never have seen the inside of the Supreme Court. Not only Brown v. Board but also the Miranda, Escobedo, and several other major decisions that revolutionized American government and tossed much of the Constitution in the office shredder would never have soiled the law books. Judicial precedents that consolidated the Court's immense power today would never have been established.

Mr. Lott should ask his critics if it would be OK to say he wishes Barry Goldwater had been elected president in 1964. Mr. Goldwater, though not a segregationist, voted against civil rights legislation for precisely the same reasons Mr. Thurmond gave-it violated states rights.

Would racial segregation have survived? De jure segregation was eroding in the southern states anyway. De facto, most sociologists will tell you the nation's schools today are at least as segregated as they were in the 1950s. So are housing patterns. So what? People of the same race tend to prefer each other's company.

But what we almost certainly would not have enjoyed had Mr. Thurmond become president are the fruits of forced racial integration as it was imposed in later decades: the tidal wave of black crime against whites that is now commonplace; black race riots from Detroit and Watts to Los Angeles in 1992; the virtual destruction of American cities as a black underclass, protected by the federal government, pushed out whites terrified for their own lives and those of their families; the destruction of American education and the transformation of the schools into day-time prison camps for hoodlums. No forced busing; no affirmative action; no "hate crime" hypocrisy; no "Afrocentric" or "multiculturalist" garbage poured into our children's heads. Probably no mass immigration. No self-hate for whites. No guilt. No fear.

In fact, had the conservatism of a younger Strom Thurmond prevailed, there's little reason to doubt the United States and much of the rest of the world would be better off than they are today under the reign of terror and chaos that prevails as the chief legacy of liberalism.

Instead of denouncing Mr. Lott, Americans-liberal and conservative, black and white-ought to think hard about the important and unsettling truth he accidentally uttered.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

horizontal rule

> Lott's wrong to apologize
> Thurmond fought for states rights, not against civil rights
> TIMOTHY ROBERT WYATT
> Special to The Observer
>
> In the wake of Trent Lott's recent statement of support for Strom
> Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid, and Lott's subsequent apologies,
> the one point on which everyone seems to agree is that Lott has done
> something shameful. Lott's comments are routinely labeled
> as "racially insensitive," despite the fact that his comments did not
> touch on race at all.
>
> Similarly, Thurmond's presidential campaign is roundly acknowledged
> as having been racist, with no evidence for this claim except the
> fact that he supposedly ran on the "segregationist" platform of
> the "Dixiecrat" party.
>
> But simple research would have turned up the fact that Thurmond ran
> on the States Rights Democratic Party ticket. "Dixiecrat" was a
> derogatory nickname coined by the Charlotte News.
>
> And whatever the party's platform may have been, neither the party
> nor Thurmond called for the country to become more segregated than it
> already was. Instead, the position most commonly attributed to
> Thurmond was that integration should not be "forced by the federal
> bayonet." His was a states rights argument: Race relations were to be
> determined by the individual states themselves. The Constitution did
> not grant the federal government authority over these matters, and
> the 10th Amendment specifically reserved all powers not delegated to
> the federal government to the states themselves, "or to the people."
>
> In 1948 the Washington Evening Star wrote that "Thurmond's record as
> a progressive advocate for a better deal for the Negro of the South
> entitles him to a respectful hearing." It is a shame that Thurmond's
> stance no longer warrants a respectful hearing in 2002.
>
> It is true that Thurmond's bid for the presidency was precipitated by
> President Harry Truman's civil rights proposal, but Thurmond did not
> oppose civil rights. At the 1948 Democratic convention, Thurmond
> said, "We do not wish to take away from any American his
> constitutional rights, but we do not intend that our constitutional
> rights shall be sacrificed for the selfish and sordid purpose of
> gaining minority votes in doubtful states."
>
> Thurmond correctly recognized Truman's proposal as little more than
> an election-year gimmick. The three-plank proposal was first outlined
> to Truman by his advisor Clark Clifford in a strategic memo
> titled "The Politics of 1948." Clifford encouraged Truman to win the
> urban black vote by offering a "civil rights" package and to ignore a
> possible Southern backlash. Were it not for Thurmond giving
> Southerners another option in 1948, the South would probably still be
> ignored when it comes to national policy.
>
> The first plank of Truman's proposal was to eliminate the poll tax in
> Southern states. Thurmond did not oppose this measure; he himself had
> recommended that South Carolina eliminate its poll tax during his
> gubernatorial inaugural address in 1947. However, he correctly argued
> that the issue should be decided at the state level. It was clearly
> unconstitutional for the federal government to dictate it out of
> existence.
>
> The second plank was to make lynching a federal offense. Thurmond
> understood this proposal to imply that the states either could not or
> would not adequately prosecute lynch mobs. However, in 1947, as
> governor of South Carolina, Thurmond had directed his state to
> prosecute the largest lynching trial in the history of the nation.
> Based on an anonymous tip, Thurmond directed the state police to
> arrest 31 white men accused of lynching Willie Earle, a black man in
> jail on murder charges. At the time, Thurmond said, "We in South
> Carolina want the world to know we will tolerate no mob violence."
> Thurmond rightfully felt insulted by Truman's implication that
> federal intervention was necessary.
>
> The third plank was to institute minority-hiring quotas through the
> creation of a Fair Employment Practices Commission. Truman justified
> this using the federal government's authority over interstate
> commerce granted by Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
> Constitution. However, Thurmond correctly argued that the federal
> government had absolutely no authority to mandate hiring practices
> for the vast majority of companies that did not participate in
> interstate commerce.
>
> In 1980 Thurmond said those who viewed his campaign as
> racist "misconstrued the whole thing. It was a battle of federal
> power versus state power. That was my fight." The evidence certainly
> backs him up.
>
> So why did Lott feel the need to apologize? He said, "A poor choice
> of words conveyed to some that I embraced the discarded policies of
> the past." Unfortunately, Thurmond's stance in 1948 -- a literal
> interpretation of the Constitution and an acknowledgement of the
> sovereignty of individual states -- has become a discarded policy of
> the past. Lott has become a complicit part of a federal government
> that no longer sees any constitutional bounds to its authority. State
> legislators and governors have become willing yes men who cede state
> sovereignty in exchange for payouts of highway funds and storm damage
> relief.
>
> One has to wonder what Lott meant by saying that if the country had
> elected Thurmond in 1948, "we wouldn't have had all these problems
> over all these years." Could he have possibly meant that we wouldn't
> be saddled with a gigantic national debt, produced by years of
> federal government overspending and overreaching its authority?
>
> If that is indeed what he meant, he should have said so. Instead, he
> compounded his problem by going along with the deceptive claim that
> Thurmond ran a racist campaign. By refusing to defend his colleague,
> Lott proved that he lacked the most important characteristic of a
> Southern gentleman: honor. And that is why he should resign.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Timothy Robert Wyatt, Ph.D., is educational officer of the North
> Carolina League of the South. Write him at timbobwyatt@excite.com.
>

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party