Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Would Have Voted For Strom in '48
David Yeagley

Posted on 12/22/2002 1:01:33 PM PST by Bad Eagle

By David Yeagley

As an Indian, I believe in segregation. Segregation helps a people preserve themselves and their culture. Modern America should take a lesson from Indians.

Problems in any national culture start with uncontrolled immigration. In the case of white America, it was actually the mass Negro imports that comprised the first such immigration. That led finally to forced integration, and integration results in intermarriage.

When your people are few, like Indians, intermarriage leads to racial annihilation.

But blacks don't have to worry about that, nor do Mexicans (Hispanics), Orientals (Asians), or Arabic people. These are the largest racial/cultural groups in the world.

American black leaders want integration because they see equality as economic parity and sexual acceptance. They don't see either except through racial integration. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had to pass laws to insure integration only demonstrates emphatically that most white people didn't want it, and apparently still don't.

After all, white people globally and historically (especially in parts of the Antebellum South) have always been a minority. Segregation was their natural defense, or their instinct for self-preservation, despite the fact that they brought the Negroes here.

But in America's 19th century 'adolescent' period, the government lost this global perspective of race, and made idealistic decisions based on political theory which it applied within America's own borders. Leaders believed everyone living within America's borders must be equal, economically. America has never really matured beyond this political solipsism.

When Indians became vastly outnumbered by whites however, we were subjugated as a minority race, and truly segregated--by land. We were put on "reservations."

Well, Indians were separate nations from America. Indians didn't seek "equality" within the American system. Though Americans dominated our land, we wanted no part of their society.

The white man did not at first try to make economic use of us. He just wanted us out of the way. Reservations kept the warring Indians together, away from white people. We were promised sustenance, forever, so long as we stayed there, and stopped killing white people.

As a result, we Indians still have our cultures, languages, and religions. Much has eroded, but the core is still there.

Now white men see vast economic opportunity on Indian reservations. This will bring forced integration, and that will destroy us. The critical issue of "Who Is Indian?" already demonstrates the need to preserve our race. Today there is so much at stake in being Indian, one really has to "prove" he's Indian. And Indians are the only "ethnic group" whose members must prove their claim.

Indian culture itself can be mimicked by non-Indians. Theoretical "wannabe's" abound, for obviously economic reasons. The casino industry, for instance, is doing terrible harm to Indians, and it deeply insults our dignity of being. Our race is a marketable fantasy.

But a culture without a race is like a country club with open membership. Soon, everyone joins. There's only an economic prerequisite. If you benefit the club, you're in. If not, you're out. The "casino cultures" will eventually destroy the Indian race.

Is the American culture also without a race?

Those who formed the American colonies, and later created the American government, were White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In the beginning there was a race, a religion, and a land, (albeit with developing borders). The essential elements of a nation were all there. Never in history did a "nation" exist otherwise.

Today, America has become an ambiguous society. The WASP Weltanshauung still lingers as a cultural drone. However, Americans must today question whether a nation can long exist without definition of race, religion, and land.

National identity itself, at some basic level, requires some kind of segregation.

Otherwise, who's country is it? Is America up for grabs?

As an Indian, I hope not. When I look on America's cultural malaise I can only remind America of its WASP roots. These white people are the ones that fought Indians. I feel a strange, abiding connection to the white man.

I'm not concerned about the other races, cultures, or religions. I would have fought them too, and would have wanted to remain segregated. Yet they couldn't have defeated me, so I feel no special respect for them.

But I'm concerned now that the American roots are dying. Strom Thurmond's historical sentiments on segregation could have been implemented differently, and might have been better for everyone.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last

1 posted on 12/22/2002 1:01:33 PM PST by Bad Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Why doesn't he just build a casino?
2 posted on 12/22/2002 1:05:13 PM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Ideas such as built America into what it is today are more important than a few genes; segregation is not a concept that has any future in an ever-integrating World.
3 posted on 12/22/2002 1:14:21 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Why doesn't he build a casino? It may be because he thinks other things are more important, namely the preservation of his way of life, his people.

I don't begrudge his desire for segregation. And I don't begrudge blacks' desire for it, either. It's hypocritical, however, to demand that whites abide by the universalist rule of human culture while demanding that ethnic identity be preserved among minority cultures.

That is the great double standard at work today. There are one set of universalist principles for whites and another set of particularist principles for everyone else.

4 posted on 12/22/2002 1:15:45 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Those who formed the American colonies, and later created the American government, were White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

True. And one of them was Benjamin Franklin, who was sufficiently interested in the Iroquois Confederation to write a scholarly paper on the subject. I often suspect that more than one modification proposed by Franklin to the Hamilton-Madison document at the 1787 Constitutional Convention had its roots in his study of the Iroquois.

5 posted on 12/22/2002 1:18:05 PM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Are you Prof. Yeagley?
6 posted on 12/22/2002 1:19:41 PM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
LOL!
7 posted on 12/22/2002 1:19:50 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
It appears from David Yeagley's website that he is Bad Eagle, so this may be a slightly dishonest vanity. As far as the post's contents go, it's about as sensible as a Bantu pining for apartheit (which means 'separate development', incidentally).
8 posted on 12/22/2002 1:21:35 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Ideas such as built America into what it is today are more important than a few genes; segregation is not a concept that has any future in an ever-integrating World

The BIG question is: what did and how did the Creator make this world for us to live, did he not separate the races to start with and IF so there was and is a VERY good reason for that. We integrate to our own hurt, and we will rue the day that we went down this 'modern' road of integration. The author has a good point that they had to make a LAW to make it happen, we as a people did not want it by instinct.

9 posted on 12/22/2002 1:31:08 PM PST by Phyto Chems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Great find.

I need to absorb this before I attempt a reply.

10 posted on 12/22/2002 1:31:30 PM PST by reformed_democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
I'm bigoted towards those without decency and values.
11 posted on 12/22/2002 1:34:18 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle; aculeus; general_re; Poohbah; Grut; rdb3; mhking
Applying David Yeagley's own logic, so far as I can follow it, why should he have been allowed to vote in the '48 election?
12 posted on 12/22/2002 1:38:58 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Thanks for the post. I think that all the races have very strong traits that they bring to the table for the betterment of society and when we de lute them by integrating we hurt our own society, we need to respect each other's race and strong points they offer us as a whole.
13 posted on 12/22/2002 1:40:36 PM PST by Phyto Chems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
I have no problem with segregation..of the voluntary type..its one thing to dispossess a people an its another to go to a land of little if any population and set up a community of those who share the same values..beliefs..etc..

I have no problem with the sending out of missionarys to proselytize or evangalize...but allowing every type of every person to move into your community and give them not equal rights but rights that superceed those of your own people is cultural suicide..

Of course a saprocytic race living off of a particular culture doesnt want their cash cows to run off and build a society that insulates them from such paracitism...and as such would indeed be very opposed to "segregation" and label it a vile thing..and call lt "sin"....when the real sin imo is the anihlation of the host organism...if only from a pragmatic view
14 posted on 12/22/2002 1:41:30 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Well said! I've long maintained that segregation is the ultimate expression of free association, and a vital component of individual liberty. Of course, when I speak of "segregation," I mean barriers WILLINGLY erected, not forced on one by the State.
15 posted on 12/22/2002 1:43:12 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phyto Chems
The BIG question is: what did and how did the Creator make this world for us to live, did he not separate the races to start with and IF so there was and is a VERY good reason for that. We integrate to our own hurt, and we will rue the day that we went down this 'modern' road of integration. The author has a good point that they had to make a LAW to make it happen, we as a people did not want it by instinct.

Do you believe that the White Man should never have come to the Americas? The laws to that point in the South prevented integration and that is what Srom wanted to prerserve.

16 posted on 12/22/2002 1:47:32 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
segregation is not a concept that has any future in an ever-integrating World.

Your argument is circular. Because the world is "ever-integrating," segregation has no role. What strength do we derive from the integration? Has it evolved to our advantage? I can cite numerous cases of its deleterious side effects, but am quite at a loss to find corresponding benefits. That it's happening doesn't mean it SHOULD happen.

17 posted on 12/22/2002 1:51:39 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
That is the great double standard at work today. There are one set of universalist principles for whites and another set of particularist principles for everyone else.

The so-called 'white culture' IS the universal culture. It has the best many cultures had to offer: Greek, Judaic, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Anglo-Saxon, French, German, Russian and whatever was worth taking from other minor ones. The fact that nothing or not enough of whatever some inferior cultures might have produced it usually because their contribution was just that - inferior.

The multicultural/diversity drive is that of forcing the civilized world to accept the products of inferior cultures as if they were as valuable as the those who found themselves a place within the 'universal' one. The only way 'barbarians' can participate is by first asimilating. There is also the option of them (the barbarians) trying to destroy that which is superior so that only the inferior products are left (see the Talibans bombarding the Buddha statues).

18 posted on 12/22/2002 1:57:22 PM PST by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
It is an intersting view and it merits debate. Did you write this yourself?
19 posted on 12/22/2002 1:58:53 PM PST by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
I think Dr. Yeagley would have a stronger case if, instead of declaring himself "for segregation," he were to take a stand "against mongrelization." But even that is fraught with peril.

Political segregation -- segregation by force of law -- is intrinsically wrong. The last thing America needs is anyone telling us where we may live, or with whom we may marry. On the other hand, I have no bone to pick with a man of any race who wants to live among his own, provided he concedes all others the same privilege, not to be undone by force of law. It is just as wrong to force people together as it is to force them apart.

Immigration? A more complex subject. I'll get back to it after the New Year.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://www.palaceofreason.com

20 posted on 12/22/2002 2:04:50 PM PST by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
That it's happening doesn't mean it SHOULD happen.

Do you see a lot to be gained by debating the inevitable and attempting to prevent it?

21 posted on 12/22/2002 2:06:07 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Do you see a lot to be gained by debating the inevitable and attempting to prevent it?

Yes. The heros of history have done just that. Leonidas made a stand at Thermopylae; the "noble 500" rode into the Valley of Death at Sebastopol; the defenders of the Alamo died to a man. Is there a value? Of course. It's in the statement made to the enemy, that victory will always be qualified, never fully theirs as long as the memory of great deeds lives on.

Your concession to "inevitability" is the product of either myopia or something vastly more sinister.

22 posted on 12/22/2002 2:13:48 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Kind of a "horns of a delima" thing. The human right to be free to associate or not associate with whom ever he chooses, individually or as a group of like minded individuals as opposed to state forced association. But is that what happened?

I could never go for the kind of segregation that this nation engaged in at one time, it needed to be brought down. On the other hand, I don't think we should have allowed the cheese eating French to define our nation via the Statue of Liberty, come one come all, it's up for grabs.

One thing is for sure, if America were not rich it wouldn't even be a problem to be asked, if America were not wealthy who would want to come here and horn in, oh, make that, seek opportunity. I think as decendents of the founders we have an obligation to be very careful about who we do allow to live in our home and under our system, or it will not remain our system, it already isn't our original system. While loving one's culture is fine, stay where that culture is, because the message should be if you move to the USofA it is you that must adjust, not us, because our culture and system has proven far superiour to any other and we don't tend to respect failure here. While we may enjoy and adopt your food and dance, we may not appreciate your political views.

We have a mess on our hands, there is no doubt about that, not just a mess but a dangerous and flamable situation that the political parties and other elements have placed us in. Now your pursuit of happiness has to come at the expense of having the ability to jump every hurdle the government places in front of you. Like immigrant cost, crime, opposing cultures, like Islam, terrorism, losing our culture and sense of law abiding community, and the demand of government that it is the taxpayers responsibility not only to support the entire freaking world, but ignore our sovereignty and risk our survival, which was never mandated in the Constitution.

I don't believe in segregation according to color, I do believe in segregation according to culture and I really think that is what the bottom line is about, not something as silly as skin color. At one time it may have been about something that silly, but I doubt that is the case now. What it is about now is not allowing people to come here ONLY for economic opportunity, but to allow only those that want to embrace our ways, join in, and make them theirs.
23 posted on 12/22/2002 2:19:22 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
...the U.S. Supreme Court had to pass laws ...

This guy needs a civics lesson.

24 posted on 12/22/2002 2:31:27 PM PST by Equality 7-2521
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Kind of a "horns of a delima" thing. The human right to be free to associate or not associate with whom ever he chooses, individually[That Right is protected in the First Amendment] or as a group of like minded individuals as opposed to state forced association.But is that what happened?

I could never go for the kind of segregation that this nation engaged in at one time, it needed to be brought down. On the other hand, I don't think we should have allowed the cheese eating French to define our nation via the Statue of Liberty, come one come all, it's up for grabs.

The problem is that the solution to the state-enforced segregation was a state-enforced integration.

If both are repugnant to the principles on which the country is founded, how can one arrive at a constitutionally acceptable solution?

The answer, IMHO, lies in a limited Federal Government, State's-rights oriented interpretation of what the Founder's intended [each State decides on the solution, without interference from the others - you don't countenance state-enforced segregation, so you make sure you live in a state of like-minded individuals]

- but that leads to the usual flame-war so we won't go there...

25 posted on 12/22/2002 2:38:54 PM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All
Anyone remember Jimmy Carter's ethnic purity remarks during his presidential campaign. His remarks were in response to a question someone asked him at a news conference. I'll attempt to paraphrase. "I suppose that there's nothing wrong with a community wanting to maintain their ethnic purity." This remark created a furor which lasted, if I remember correctly, one complete evening news cycle.

P.S. He's a Democrat, you know.

26 posted on 12/22/2002 2:41:21 PM PST by davisfh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: Abundy
I stand in awe of your wisdom.
28 posted on 12/22/2002 2:58:36 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Phyto Chems
"Be ye not unequally yoked together." Does it apply here? I would point to the problems created by diversity. It is important to note that color of skin hasn't always been the instigator when it came to racial strife. The Irish were frowned upon for quite a while. I believe that an honest and open discussion should see segregation as a componenet. I am not advocating racial segregation. I only think it is something that should not be out of bounds to discuss.

As far as I am concerned, it is evil to look down on races other than your own as inferior. By the same token, I believe that it is dishonest to state that any ethnic group of any monetary status can and should be allowed to enter our nation in numbers too vast to assimilate.

There is another verse in the Bible that says "moderation in all things." I believe this is true with immigration, it is true with trade, it is true with liquor, it is true with food, it is true with sex, it is true with most things in life.

Those who advocate exclusively one idea without any possible compromise on it's full potential, are generally afraid of any challenge to their ideals because they can't support them as well as they claim to be able to.

29 posted on 12/22/2002 3:08:23 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
You're right in saying that European "culture" is universal in nature. Ours is a culture based upon universal principles that apply to everyone. Our "rights" are simply not for white people, for brown people, for Christians or Jews. They apply to everyone equally. And this is true in a political sense, since the Natural Rights tradition is based upon the idea of universal human nature that is the same everywhere, in every culture.

Of course, this tradition has been under attack for well over a hundred years. The latest assault has taken the form of deconstructing the tradition to show that it is, in fact, and oppressive system of control.

The problem, so far as political philosophy is concerned, is to reconcile the natural rights teaching with the demands of modern natural science. Some sort of teleological basis for normative values is what is lacking.

30 posted on 12/22/2002 3:28:11 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fporretto; A Vast RightWing Conspirator; Bad Eagle
" It is just as wrong to force people together as it is to force them apart."

Absolutely! This is an intelligent thread and I hope it isn't pulled as racist by the PC police. It bears discussion.

31 posted on 12/22/2002 3:29:35 PM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Very good points.
32 posted on 12/22/2002 3:33:04 PM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Weltanshauung

There's new one. Little help please, I'm still deconstrucing "Farvegneugen".

33 posted on 12/22/2002 3:33:40 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Do you see a lot to be gained by debating the inevitable and attempting to prevent it?

You mean like the inevitable collapse of America into a dictatorship?
like nuclear war or a major nuclear accident?
like death?

Since they are inevitable and can't be avoided, why try to prevent them? Sorry. Count me on the side that will continue to struggle and hope, even against the worst of odds.

34 posted on 12/22/2002 3:41:28 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
State-imposed segregation was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education and a series of other decisions in the 1950's. Granted, it took years before these decisions were fully enforced, but in time they could -- and presumably would -- have been, as in the end they were in the 1970's.

State-imposed integration was started by the Civil Rights act of 1964. The two steps are quite different, and it was not necessary to proceed from the first step to the second. But that means raising the kinds of objections that Barry Goldwater is now so vilified for raising in 1964.

35 posted on 12/22/2002 3:45:22 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fporretto
It is just as wrong to force people together as it is to force them apart.

That reminds me of a decent zinger I threw at my uber-Liberal Property Professor. We were discussing the history of Racial Zoning in America, and she lamented the fact that as blacks were finally getting the opportunity to leave impoverished urban areas (thanks to FHA programs), that whites would often move away making those new areas segregated yet again. I asked her if she was saying that whites should no longer be allowed to move away from areas for racial reasons. She said "no, of course not" but couldn't explain how else to prevent de facto segregation if whites continued to do so.

36 posted on 12/22/2002 3:54:06 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
The racial identification of the people who created, engineered, implemented and nurtured the remarkable socio-political thing called America has no further relevance. There is a real American "culture", it is powerful and inspired and successful, and it is race neutral. The racial and ethnic tensions we endure in our nation are cultural, not racial, in makeup. Urban black American culture STINKS. It is contemptuous of education, family and community responsibility, health care, work ethic, community safety, investment in the neighborhood and next generation, spirituality and personal accountability. Any white person who adopts that putrid life plan will see equally dismal results. Matriarchal Societies are dysfunctional, because they block males from vitally crucial societal responsibilities as dependable providers, loving, strong male role models for young men to emulate and young women to desire, and it causes sociopathic results like educational and vocational ignorance, slothfulness, crime, murder and reckless and shameless impregnation of girls/women and immediate subsequent abandonment. Urban black culture is valueless, and until we shout that out boldly and fearlessly our society will continue to be split and increasingly at odds.

The lefties are trying to suck Mexican immigrants into the same dysfunctional culture they've ensnared too many black citizens through the lure of easy welfare and unaccountable entitlement. That's evil.

It's not about race. It's embracing a winning game plan leveraging our uniquely American institutions. Black folk who work the program will thrive. A Korean or Sri Lankan girl who has a child as a teenager out of wedlock, shuns any future desire for a man to fill his primal familial role of provider and protector, drops from school, seeks no jobs, provides no vital care and direction for her child and does not PUSH educational achievement is on her way to leading an intergenerational legacy of uselessness and a slot as a societal parasite.

37 posted on 12/22/2002 4:05:00 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
You mean like the inevitable collapse of America into a dictatorship? like nuclear war or a major nuclear accident? like death?
Since they are inevitable and can't be avoided, why try to prevent them? Sorry. Count me on the side that will continue to struggle and hope, even against the worst of odds.

How did you mange to jump from further integration being inevitable to nuclear war or dictatorship being inevitable? The only item on your list that would qualify as inevitable is death and with death the best that you could do is attempt to postpone it. What kind of laws do you propose to use in an attempt to prevent further integration or do you have other ideas to use in your fight?

38 posted on 12/22/2002 4:19:43 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Weltenshauung='World View'
39 posted on 12/22/2002 4:34:14 PM PST by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Aaaa! It's spelled Weltanschauung (Wel tan schau ung)
40 posted on 12/22/2002 4:36:09 PM PST by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
There is also a verse in the bible for all those that think we should give and give and give. "If a man will not work, he should not eat".
41 posted on 12/22/2002 5:30:28 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Like the big zit on your buddies forehead that everyone is painfully aware of but seemingly ignores .. black urban society, politics and economy is Organized Crime. And we're the ones getting fleeced.

The bulk of underemployed, undereducated, overdependent and overimprisoned black community's buying cash is OUR tax money, grabbed by liberals who have their patrons, sent through a myriad of government agencies distributing it to a bevy of "community agencies" then give the money left after their "cut" to their graft and patronage dependents and so on and so on. "No problem, have D.J. stop by the office Friday, we'll send him on some delivery errands and we can get him a couple hundred "bone" cash money to fund the lifestyle a young smoothie of his caliber demands. Just Remember who your boy is, that's all the thanks I ask."

Newt Gingrich admitted perhaps the most startling and unacceptable truth in 1995 or 1996. "We looked at reforming HUD, but to be honest, we would not even know where to start. It is that chaotic." He didn't have the time and resources to try to figure out how this agency spends $31 billion dollars a year.

Oooh ... oooh ... call on me please ... call on me please! Yes. That money funds the criminal patronage and "invisible" cash economy that pays urban Black American parasites to do nothing but swear allegience to their second tier bagmen, who swear allegience to first tier black community church, political and nonprofit social service capos who are working with academic grant recipients and racially identified think tanks who control $tens of billions of tax dollar distribution and who move in and out of Federal and State bureaucracies and just log roll the corrupt system and build powerful race-specific careers. Go to a black baptist church in the poorest part of any urban center and try to conjure any article of business clothing you as a fairly prosperous professional that costs ONE HALF the cost of the getup the Preacher, Deacon and Church leaders are sporting. $800 Cole Hahn and Gucci shoes, $2000 Armani tailored suits, $150 silk ties with their $75 matching silk hankies, $150 dress shirts and Oh, those $750 topcoats. BAH!!! Mobsters basically taking OUR money in a Federal protection racket.

HUD spends $31 billion on housing we provide for parasites. Wow, I bet none of that gets in any deadbeats pocket. The Agricultural Department distributes $22 billion each year in food stamps that we provide for parasites. No black market or embezzlement there. The DOE spends $14.5 billion to fund the educational resources we already pay out our backsides in State and Property taxes to provide a really shitty education, but a pretty nice employment racket, for parasites and unionized teachers respectively. Yep, 172 days making about $250 per day average teaching 3 hourly classes - and we're not paying enough. The HHS Department costs $400 billion a year, and $450 billion annually is going to an agency called the Health Care Financing Agency, which I will bet no more than 1% of Freepers have any idea of what it does and how it is run. The Social Security Ponzi scheme/Pyramid con costs $394 billion just to operate so we can pay 14% of every dollar of gross income to give Grammy her 1.3% historical return on her "investments".

This is a secondary, insidious and market-free economy in our nation. Trillions of tax dollars are in play. Black Americans are knee deep in it, liberal creeps are trying to bribe Mexican arrivals to join the gang. Trial lawyers are there with bells on, the academics are ridiculously fat and arrogant, the Civil service unions are there and so are the biggest Investment houses, non-profit agencies and Farming entities. That's your Democrat voting base, and it is a solid 45%. A group of our neighbors and countrymates are voting to enable a mobster like Tom Harkin to grab money from my hands so that he can give it to some farmer or farming interest in his state that has voted for him so he can steal my money next year too.

When I go out in my business, I create value. Someone pays me a price, that I earn a profit on and which is subsequently taxed and burdened by regulatory demands. The other economy produces nothing but alleged services for American citizens. There is no value created, no profit fought for, no economies of scale, no drive for efficiencies and innovative offerings and there is NO RETURN on investment in useless, careless and frivilous programs and people. Who has fiduciary responsibility and accountability here?

End of rant.

42 posted on 12/22/2002 5:34:50 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Writers of some ability love those German words that embody some socio-political concept: zeitgeist, Kultursmog (sp), now Weltanshauung.

They're good one word packages symbolizing somewhat complex concepts. That must be a German language quirk.

Popular French phrases are two words and usually can be translated in two English words but it shows one to be insufferably urbane and to be avoided in social settings.

43 posted on 12/22/2002 5:42:48 PM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
In the case of white America, it was actually the mass Negro imports that comprised the first such immigration.

That just isn't true. American immigration was "out of control" from the beginning.

It would also be a sign of a very crazy world if we had to choose between integration at home and immigration control. There's no inherent inconsistency between the two. Indeed, it was probably the reaction against segregation that knocked our immigration policies out of control. If we'd gotten rid of segregation earlier the guilt factor would have been less and we wouldn't have gone overboard.

Many conservative voters in the South did support Thurmond -- though it's important to note that his candidacy was a regional one, without much support in other parts of the country. The thing about the 1948 election is that there was no candidate who reflected today's conservative economic views. They were all more or less New Dealers, including Thurmond. They were also all -- including Henry Wallace and Norman Thomas -- socially more conservative than today's Americans since today's decadent options weren't accepted then.

A lot of us might have voted for Thurmond if we'd been voters in 1948 and were people of that era. But few would have voted for him knowing and feeling what we do now.

44 posted on 12/22/2002 6:14:53 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Nice rant but was there a reason it was addressed to me?
45 posted on 12/22/2002 6:44:42 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Abundy
State's Rights bump
47 posted on 12/22/2002 8:26:50 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle; Senator Pardek; Grut
Are you Prof. Yeagley? 6 posted on 12/22/2002 1:19 PM PST by Senator Pardek

To: BCrago66 It appears from David Yeagley's website that he is Bad Eagle, so this may be a slightly dishonest vanity. As far as the post's contents go, it's about as sensible as a Bantu pining for apartheit (which means 'separate development', incidentally). 8 posted on 12/22/2002 1:21 PM PST by Grut

Strictly for the sake of Charity, it should be noted that Bad Eagle has previously identified himself as Dr. Yeagley on Free Republic in the recent past:



Welcome to Free Republic, Dr. Yeagley, "The toughest -- and smartest -- political website on the Net" (Since DonMorgan is no longer around to give his traditional "newbie welcome", I guess I'll hafta sub in).

Incidentally, though, as a product of Oklahoma Publik Edumbukashun, I do have to take issue with your unfair characterization of Oklahoma as "the state with the worst educational system in these United States."

Respectfully, suh, there's always Arkansas...
...AKA "Oklahoma with (much) more inbreeding".

48 posted on 12/22/2002 10:17:23 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Thanks MissAmericanPie. I like that one too.
49 posted on 12/23/2002 3:01:45 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I stand in awe of your wisdom.

Given the current climate around here I have to ask if you forgot your "/sarcasm" tag?

50 posted on 12/23/2002 5:09:26 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson