The Grand Old White Party?
By Nicholas Stix

In Frank Rich’s February 17 New York Times column (you know, the same one he’s rehashed hundreds of times before, with slight edits), he speaks of the “demographic monotony: all white and nearly all male” of Sen. John McCain’s (Media-AZ) victory “posse” (“The Grand Old White Party Confronts Obama”).

Rich tells us that in victory, “McCain looked like a loser,” and that his white men supporters are an “albatross.”

Imagine if he had said that female or black or Hispanic political supporters were an “albatross” around a candidate’s neck, and made him “look like a loser.” But he wouldn’t dare. He’d be out of a job, and the column would be killed.

If, as Rich says, white men supporters are an “albatross” around McCain’s neck, then the only thing for the Republican frontrunner to do is to tell them, “White men, leave me alone; I only want women and people of color to vote for me.”

That would guarantee Gov. Mike Huckabee (Christian Opportunist-AR) the party nomination. And if the Huckster followed Rich’s advice, it would guarantee the Democrats the biggest landslide in American history.

Rich claims that in being dominated by white men, “A cultural sea change has passed [the GOP] by.” On the contrary, today’s GOP is a response to that sea change.

The Democratic Party began its Northern Strategy in 1964, following Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the U.S. Civil Rights Act. The Party’s leadership decided that promoting racist and sexist hatred towards heterosexual white men was the wave of the future. Millions of heterosexual white men got the message and exited the party. The rich ones stayed, because the party’s policies did not harm them, as long as they mouthed the same racist, sexist slogans, made generous donations to the Party, and harmed working and middle-class white men.

Rich wants the Democratic ticket to win, whoever heads it, because he is a Democratic hack. His pompous, racist, sexist rhetoric is the expression of his party loyalty.

Rich is one of those privileged, white, heterosexual males who still have status in the Democratic Party. He’s probably not even aware that, as Steve Sailer first showed in 2000, the statistical and political key to any Republican victory isn’t in jettisoning white men and pandering to blacks and Hispanics who will never support him, but in reaching out to more whites. As Sailer has shown, were any GOP candidate to get 60 percent of the white vote, he would be guaranteed the White House.

In contrast, the innumerate Rich closes with, “A national rout in 2008 just may be that Republican Party’s last stand.”

But McCain won’t get 60 percent of the white vote, because he’s not reaching out to “that Republican Party.” For the past eight years he’s done everything in his power to appease the Frank Riches of the press corps. He’s consistently screwed over white folks, and given Rich & Co. everything they said they wanted: Unconstitutional campaign finance reform; unconstitutional open borders; opposition to tax cuts.

Rich even acknowledges McCain’s anti-white, anti-Evangelical, and anti-American positions (though not in those terms), but they don’t matter to him, because, at the end of the day, McCain is still an old white man. He’s not cool. Obama is black, and thus cool.

“Black people are cool”? Frank Rich is stuck in a 1960s time warp.

Rich conjures up a couple of wealthy, white male Republicans, including a political operative, who support Obama. In what used to be called rhetoric, this is called “bandwagoning,” and is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. ‘See, they eat Diabetic Shock Cereal; you should, too.’

Similarly, Mark McKinnon, the Bush media maven who has played a comparable role for Mr. McCain in this campaign, reaffirmed to Evan Smith of Texas Monthly weeks ago that he would not work for his own candidate in a race with Mr. Obama. Elaborating to NPR last week, Mr. McKinnon said that while he is “100 percent” for Mr. McCain and disagrees with Mr. Obama “on very fundamental issues,” he likes Mr. Obama and what he’s doing for the country enough to stay on the sidelines rather than fire off attack ads.

As craven and decadent as the elites running the GOP are, the idea that wealthy, influential, white Republicans would vote for a racist, socialist Democrat just because he’s black is still hard to believe. Of course, the socialist MSM, with the Times leading the way, have refused to report on Obama’s racism and socialism, even though yours truly was doing that already in 2004.

Let’s take another look at that title: “The Grand Old White Party Confronts Obama.”

For the title to bear any relation to Rich’s words, he would have had to come up with more than one named political media operative and an anonymous “staunch anti-Clinton Republican businessman” that we’re supposed to believe is a “friend” of Rich’s.

Between the title and the text, this is Frank Rich projecting his hopes. Ever since Times columnist and black, racist newsroom enforcer Bob Herbert began his subliminal liar campaign on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama (Race-IL) in 2004 (‘He transcends race/vote for him because he’s black’), the Times has sunk to new lows in political rhetoric, in its attempts to gin up support for the racist, socialist, sometimes kinda Moslem, sometimes kinda Christian, biracial senator.

In any event, there’s a certain poetic justice to a man like McCain, who has stabbed so many people in the back, getting a dose of his own medicine from his media guy.

I used to be a Democrat; I even considered myself a “liberal,” until I figured out that the word meant socialist/communist/whatever. But after years of Democratic racism, sexism, and heterophobia, I left the party. I never bothered changing my voter registration because, after all, I still live in New York City, and aside from that, at present, it really doesn’t matter what party I register under.

Unlike Frank Rich, I’m not a hack for any party.

According to Rich, the hip thing for white, heterosexual, working and middle-class white men to do would be to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama. But he can’t give a single argument on behalf of his position. All he can do is mock white men Republicans, in the hopes that he will somehow shame them into voting against their own interests.

And he wonders why the majority of heterosexual, white men vote Republican.

Poor Rich. Fifty-eight years old, and never had a thought. Intellectually, he’s still a virgin. He’s always lived in an echo chamber of socialist (or is it communist?) slogans, and never stepped outside. He shows no awareness that Republican politicians were more supportive of the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Does he even know what party Lincoln led?

If Rich left his echo chamber and had a thought, he’d know that the GOP has no more to offer working and middle-class white, heterosexual men than the Democratic Party does.

It’s time for a new party.

A cultural sea change has passed you by, Frank.

Kirkwood Massacre Shooter: Hero, Victim, or Monster?
By Nicholas Stix

Kirkwood, Missouri Police Sergeant William Biggs, 50. KPD Officer Tom Ballman, 37. Director of Public Works Kenneth Yost, 61. Councilman Michael H.T. Lynch, 63. Councilwoman Connie Karr, 51.

All dead, all white.

Mayor Mike Swoboda, age unknown. Suburban Journals reporter Todd Smith, 36.

Both wounded, both white.

Their killer, Charles Lee “Cookie” Thornton, 52, black.

Sergeant Biggs was a “cool, calm” man who had been a cattle rancher in Colorado, before returning home to the St. Louis County area to become a Kirkwood city policeman 20 years ago.

Officer Ballman had been a Marine, a corrections officer for two years, and a Kirkwood city policeman for eight. The old Marine’s ability to defuse prison conflicts was legendary.

DPW Kenneth Yost, known both for his strict adherence to rules, and for his helpfulness towards citizens navigating the city codes, had been married for 41 years to his high school sweetheart, the former Cathy Voss.

Councilman Michael Lynch was an architect and Special Business District booster.

Councilwoman Connie Karr, a former journalist, planned on running for mayor.

Charles Lee Thornton was a local businessman who owned an asphalt and demolition company. He didn’t see why he should have to obey the local parking and business regulations, which he deemed “racist,” and had thereby amassed 150 tickets for illegally parking his asphalt mixing trucks, engaging in illegal dumping, doing work without a permit, and illegally storing materials. He had taken to disrupting City Council meetings, personally abusing Council members, gotten himself arrested twice for disorderly conduct in 2006, with Officer Ballman serving as the arresting officer both times, had twice been convicted for assault and battery for attacks against Director of Public Works Yost, and had a trial pending for an assault on local restaurateur, Paul Cartier. The city had considered barring Thornton from all Council meetings, but decided that he had a right to be there, though it limited his freedom of speech, so that he could no longer disrupt meetings at will, and personally insult the Council members whom he would later shoot.

Thornton filed suit in Federal Court, charging that his First Amendment rights had been violated. His suit had been thrown out of court on January 28, with the judge’s decision saying that “any restrictions on Thornton’s speech were reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and served important governmental interests.”

Although Charles Thornton wasn’t interested in killing any non-whites, the shootings of the February 7 Kirkwood Massacre weren’t racially motivated. Black-on-white mass murders and execution-style murders and torture-rape-murders (see also: here and here) never are. Just ask any expert.

And yet, at a public meeting in Kirkwood’s black community of Meacham Park, where Thornton lived, Ben Gordon said,

To me, Charles Thornton is a hero. He opened a business. He went to court, but the system failed him. … We are sorry, we grieve, but (Kirkwood officials) share in this responsibility.

Gordon was quoted in “Shooting reactions reveal racial divide,” by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Adam Jadhav, Jake Wagman, and Tim O’Neil. At first reading, I thought that the reporter who quoted Ben Gordon had neglected to ask him for whom he was sorry, for whom he was grieving. But then I went back and re-read an earlier section of the story, and got my answer.

Many say they are sickened by Thornton’s brand of vigilantism. But others say they’re left outside the mainstream and oppressed by unfair rules. Those people mourned Thornton and directed their anger back at Kirkwood officials.

In his recounting in “Meacham Park meeting discusses race,” Post-Dispatch reporter Tim O’Neill leaves nothing to interpretation:

“To me, Cookie Thornton is a hero. He was an athlete... He opened a business. He went to court, but the system failed him... We are sorry, we grieve, but (Kirkwood officials) share in this responsibility.”
Ending his speech to loud applause, Gordon called him “a soldier who paid the price for liberty.”

The killer’s (or is it “hero’s”?) brother, Gerald Thornton, said “This was an act of war by my brother. He had people that he was in battle with.”

Gerald Thornton has refused to “judge” his brother. English translation: He condones what he did.

And Gerald Thornton possesses expertise in such matters: He murdered a man in 1996, and did five years in prison for it, yet another victim of racially discriminatory sentencing.

If you’re a Thornton, you’ve got to “represent.” Family and racial traditions are at stake.

Charles Thornton, too, is dead.

Carrying a gun from home, Thornton approached Sgt. Biggs, who was on his way to grab a quick slice of pizza, while on duty, shot him dead, and took his weapon. Before Thornton shot Sgt. Biggs, however, the policeman managed to hit the “alert tone on his radio,” to summon backup. In the City Council chambers, Thornton entered, shouting something about “justice” and “Shoot the Mayor!” and firing away with both guns, killed Officer Ballman first.

Thornton chased white City Attorney John Hessel around the room. Hessel told Post-Dispatch reporter Steve Giegerich that he yelled, “Cookie, don’t do this, don’t kill me. I’m not going to let you do this.’ I picked up a chair and threw it at him.”

Between Thornton having to duck, as Hessel threw one chair after another at him, and stumbling over victim Kenneth Yost’s body, Hessel bought enough time, so that he was still alive when two officers responding to Sgt. Biggs’ distress signal arrived, and shot Thornton dead.

But the massacre wasn’t racial. It wasn’t racial. It wasn’t racial. Just repeat that to yourself a million times. And if that doesn’t work, sign up for some more diversity training—I’m sure you’ve already had some; haven’t we all?—so you can learn that white racism drove Charles Thornton to do what he did, even though what he did wasn’t racially motivated. And if that doesn’t work, try and wash away the contradictions, with a fifth of scotch.

Every white in the world could commit suicide, and blacks would still blame the “legacy of (white) racism” for all of their problems.

Perhaps the oddest thing about the experts and police chiefs and journalists and tenured professors who constantly tell us that these black-on-white atrocities aren’t racially motivated, is that blacks don’t believe that for a second. They know they are racially motivated, they say so, and they celebrate them for it.

As Gerald Thornton said of his brother, he went to war. You may not be interested in race war, but race war is interested in you.