December 18, 1999

The Citadel Board has now joined the State newspaper in its campaign to take the Confederate flag off the State House dome. A short time ago Bob Jones joined the State in its campaign.

When Beasley turned on the Confederate flag, every single statewide Republican official backed Beasley. Seventy-five percent of Republicans had voted in a recent primary to keep the Confederate flag atop the State House. One politician, without consulting with anybody, had reversed that stand all by himself.

Given a choice between the politician and the conservative grassroots, the Republicans had, as always, backed the politico. They say they love us dearly, but when push comes to shove, the first thing any Republican does is spit in the grassroots conservatives’ faces.

Obviously, they fear no conservative backlash. It never even occurs to them to fear such a thing.

The Afrikaners” Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa stood for apartheid as long as it was profitable. Then, when the pressure was getting really strong, and the Boers needed its support as never before, their church turned and snapped at them like a snake. I remember the same thing happened to us Methodists as the integration movement grew. Our church turned on us like a snake.

When the present Bob Jones turned on us on the flag issue, he, like every conservative when he turns on us, thought he was being Shrewd. He is probably bragging about how he has proved to liberals that he is not unreasonable. Actually, the State is happy to use him. After the flag issue, it will continue its war against Bob Jones University (See March 13, “The State Newspaper Begin to Use Pro-Miscegenation Vote”)

But, for the moment, Bob Jones thinks he is being smart. After all, he can count on blind conservative support, no matter what he does. So he is using this cheap trick to get liberal approval.

Conservatives invest everything in institutions they trust. In the meantime, leftists work at taking over or subverting those institutions.

Somewhere in his public statement, every conservative spokesman always includes a knee-jerk demand for more uniforms, more soldiers, more sailors. If a bunch of men start making loud comments about how they love a guy in uniform, you have to look carefully to see whether they are on a San Francisco street corner or a conservative convention.

Conservatives fell in love with uniforms during World War II and the Cold War. Leftists were all for World War II, and they loved the military then. Even the Communist Party of America was totally in support of America’s fighting men until the middle of 1945. After all, those troops were fighting on the side of our Glorious Ally, Joseph Stalin.

But the second the military ceased to serve the purposes of the political left, the political left ceased to support the American military. When the military stopped supporting leftist purposes and was used against Communism, the left became anti-military. With the left, its principles come before loyalty to any institution.

Not so the right. Since the end of the Cold War, America’s military has consistently been used for purposes no conservative could support. During the Cold War, the left had extended its control over foreign policy and the military. Today, any leftist initiative can count on the support of America’s generals.

The right continues to worship generals, so the left continues to use them.

The blind conservative backing of institutions over principles encourages institutions to back the left. After all, any institution like
the Citadel has the right in its back pocket. It’s got uniforms, and rightists will sell out any principle if someone in uniform asks them to. Any institution that’s got uniforms has rightist support sewed, so they seek the backing of the left. If you want broad support, the ideal combination is uniforms and leftist principles.

So when Clinton made enforcing racial and ethnic balance by military force America’s official doctrine, he got a general to declare it (June 12, “Busing By Bomber”). McCain, an ex-uniform wearer, is his Republican spokesman for this policy of ethnic balance.

And how does the right react to this? The Southern Partisan editorial staff split fifty-fifty on whether to support McCain for president!

The same rule applies in institutional politics that operates in electoral politics — anyone who can take you for granted is not going to do anything for you. The Republican Party kicks conservatives in the teeth on a regular basis. Its excuse is always, “Conservatives have nowhere to go. They HAVE to support Republicans.”

I talked about this blind, completely immoral backing of institutions by conservatives on June 5 in “Blind Loyalty Is the Real Treason.” It was obvious to me when I first got into serious politics in the 1950s.

In the 1950’s, Northern conservatives blindly backed “The Party of Lincoln,” no matter what it did to their principles. At the same time, Southern conservatives just as blindly backed “the Party of Jefferson Davis.” While these dodos were blindly backing their respective institutions, liberals took over complete control of both parties. Rockefeller Republicans, who were an infinitesimal part of the Republican Party, held more power over the platform and the presidential nomination than did the overwhelming conservative majority.

The Democratic presidential nomination and platform was simply owned outright by liberals. And the majority of Southerners gave them absolute, blind, unquestioning loyalty. Can anybody call that “moral,” a word conservatives are always claiming that they own?

So our blind loyalty to uniforms and other institutions gives liberals a free ride in their campaign to quietly turn them into instruments of leftist policy. So Bob Jones and the Citadel, fresh from enjoying our support in their conservative battles, promptly sell us out.

Until we stop substituting blind loyalty for personal morality, we are going to be sold out. In real world politics, when you give your loyalty blindly, you ask to be betrayed. And in the cold, hard world of power politics, you get exactly what you ask for.

December 4, 1999

Bob Novak made a remark on “Crossfire” that seemed to contradict one of the liberal historical myths. Instantly Bill Press and the liberal guest went into a Greek chorus in which they recited — and I do mean RECITED — the required liberal myths. America fought World War II, one recited, because of Hitler’s Hate. The other liberal took up the tale instantly, reciting how the Civil War was fought against slavery.

Novak could have mentioned that the US fought Hitler because Hitler declared war on the United States. He could have mentioned that Stalin represented Hate, too, and he was our Great Ally and Hero. He could have mentioned that Lincoln made it very clear that the war was NOT about slavery.

But we all know Novak could not do any of that, because these are Official Liberal Facts. All conservatives are required to accept them or be convicted as naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.

It is true that Bob Novak is himself Jewish. But being a Jew provides not the slightest protection against being condemned by liberals as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionsjews. Richard Herrnstein, who co-wrote “The Bell Curve,” was a Jew, but he is permanently condemned as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

When I was on Capitol Hill, I was talking to a black school official in Ohio who opposed busing. He sounded very tired. He told me that white liberals had condemned him as a Klan sympathizer. I sort of chuckled, and he said, “It was funny to me too. At first. But I found out that these nuts MEAN it!”

He knew he would never get another promotion for the rest of his career in education. He would be lucky to keep his job.

Just a little while back, anyone who questioned the Official Liberal Fact that ten percent of all men were homosexuals was in DEEP trouble. That figure was arrived at by Dr. Kinsey, himself a bisexual, in a study which said that any man who had ever had a homosexual experience was homosexual. He also included PRISONERS in his study! So a teenager who had been raped in prison was classed in the Kinsey Study as a homosexual!

At that time, everybody had to repeat Kinsey’s ten-percent-of-all-men-are-homosexual “fact” as biblical truth. By now I doubt that one in twenty of the readers of this column even remembers this. No respectable conservative disputed this “fact” at the time. No respectable conservative has ever reminded anyone of this “fact” since it disappeared, and no respectable conservative ever will.

A study finally killed that liberal “fact.” It found that about 1.4% of men were classed as “homosexual.”

So liberals keep on making up “facts” as they go along. I’ve killed a few liberal “facts” myself. In their day, those “facts” were recited in the media thousands of times daily, and every reader of this column saw them. But I am willing to bet no one remembers them.

The best known liberal “fact” that I killed was during the Carter Administration, when the first major effort was under way to declare homosexual households to be “family units.” New types of families had to be accepted, it was said, because ONLY SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICANS WERE PART OF A “TRADITIONAL FAMILY!”

I got the Congressional Research Service to chase down the origin of this strange assertion. They traced it to a Labor Department finding that the stereotype of a traditional family was of 1) a husband working, 2) a wife not working, and 3) the family had exactly one son and one daughter. This became the “traditional family” that had now declined to a mere seven percent of the American population.

It was like magic. I put that finding in a speech for my boss, Congressman John Ashbrook, and it appeared in the Congressional Record. Like magic, that “seven percent traditional family” statement simply DISAPPEARED from the media! No one ever mentioned it again! Certainly no respectable conservative will ever mention it again, to remind us of how liberals make up their “facts.”

But if I had not chased that down and challenged it, liberals would still be saying that only seven percent of American belong to “a traditional family,” and respectable conservatives would still be agreeing with it.

December 2, 2000

There are three Reconstruction Amendments, which were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War.

The first Reconstruction Amendment was the Thirteenth Amendment, which freed the slaves. The second was the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave black people citizenship. That one got through only by open cheating.

The last Reconstruction Amendment, and by far the hardest to shove and cheat its way through, was the Fifteenth, which gave blacks the vote.

As the presidential election went to the courts, there arose a chorus of people who say that voting “is the most basic right of every American citizen.” One of the LAWYERS who is arguing the Bush case before the United States Supreme Court said that “VOTING IS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.” He said that you have as much right to vote as you do to practice your religion, or to free speech.

To repeat, the Fourteenth Amendment gave black people CITIZENSHIP. But it took a real fight to get through the Fifteenth, which gave blacks the VOTE. A lot of people who supported black citizenship did not want all non-whites to be given the vote. This was especially the case in California, with its huge Oriental minority.

In fact, a groundbreaking Federal Court decision was necessary to save the Fourteenth Amendment. It barely squeaked by, cheating and all. Before it was passed, California actually rescinded its ratification. If that had been allowed, the amendment would have failed.

What happened was that Californians suddenly noticed that there was no reference to “black people” in the new amendment. It not only gave Southern blacks citizenship, but it also gave the same rights to Orientals! California tried to pull back its ratification when it realized that the Fourteenth Amendment gave Orientals NON-VOTING citizenship.

California would never have touched the Fourteenth Amendment if they had thought from the beginning that it gave Chinese immigrants the VOTE. In other words, if the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment had thought that voting was the right of every citizen, it would never have gotten into the Constitution.

As it was, in order to save the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court had to rule that no state could back out once it had ratified an amendment.

But when the fight over giving blacks the vote came up, they were already citizens. It never occurred to anybody that they therefore had the right to vote.

Nowadays, it never occurs to anybody that, if you are a citizen, you might not have full voting rights.

Actually, what the Fourteenth Amendment gave blacks was what everybody insists cannot exist. It gave blacks citizenship, but no vote. The Fourteenth Amendment, in other words, made blacks official second class citizens. If it hadn’t, there would have been no Fifteenth Amendment.

In 1954, in Brown vs. Board of Education, the Court changed the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that it forbade any distinction at all, of any kind, being made between white and black citizenship.

Today, it is impossible to explain to anybody why the Fifteenth Amendment was necessary. In 1868, it would have been just as impossible to explain to anybody why it wasn’t.

There is no overlap whatsoever between the thinking of those who wrote the Constitution (even the most radical) and the judges who claim to interpret it today.