Showing posts with label immoral conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immoral conservatism. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Presidential Hopeful and Full-time Sleazebag Rand Paul (R-KY) is Trying To Launder His Racist Past











Presidential Hopeful and Full-time Sleazebag Rand Paul (R-KY) is Trying To Launder His Racist Past
Jack Hunter, the Rand Paul social media staffer who wrote columns attacking Abraham Lincoln and defending Southern secession under the name “Southern Avenger,” tells the Daily Caller that he’s leaving the senator’s staff and returning to punditry to clear his name and avoid dimming Paul’s rising star. Even though Paul defended Hunter when the Washington Free Beacon broke the news of his long career of neo-Confederate race-baiting, Hunter says he must leave the senator’s payroll “to avenge his own honor,” the right-wing site reports [3].

“I’ve long been a conservative, and years ago, a much more politically incorrect (and campy) one,” Hunter told W. James Antle III of the Daily Caller News Foundation in an email (Antle identifies Hunter as a friend). “But there’s a significant difference between being politically incorrect and racist. I’ve also become far more libertarian over the years, a philosophy that encourages a more tolerant worldview, through the lens of which I now look back on some of my older comments with embarrassment.”

News of Hunter’s resignation broke just as the Washington Free Beacon was publishingmore samples of his racist commentary [4], from a CD he once sold on his own website, “Southern Avenger Smash Tracks: 20 Essentials, Vol. 1.” In one, Hunter compares Lincoln to Adolf Hitler and the South’s Civil War defeat to the Holocaust. “The sadistic policies and tactics of Abraham Lincoln destroyed the America of the Founding Fathers,” Hunter declared in one track. “And as I gaze at the picture on my wall of my great grandfather, who fought bravely against that sick bearded bastard, I still dream of what could have been — our glorious Confederate States of America….The reason we Southerners remember the war is because it does matter — just like slavery, just like the Holocaust.” In another track he says whites deserve a “long overdue” thank you from African Americans for ending slavery. “If it weren’t for white people, who knows how long slavery would have lasted?” he asked. “The very fact that slavery still exists today in African countries like Ghana and Sudan really makes one wonder.”

The Daily Caller’s tenderly written tribute to Hunter, composed before the latest Free Beacon revelations, let the former Paul staffer cast his Southern Avenger persona – in which he frequently appeared in a wrestler’s mask emblazoned with the Confederate stars and bars – as mere radio shock-jock pageantry. It also featured testimony to Hunter’s integrity by integrity-impaired GOP leaders like South Carolina Sen. Mark Sanford. “In all my dealings with Jack Hunter, I have found him to be most impressive, most professional and a committed conservative,” Sanford told Antle. “I think a lot of this has less to do with Jack Hunter than Rand Paul and 2016.”

Lucky Rand Paul gets to have it both ways: He stood up to those Northern aggressors and refused to fire Hunter, but he will carry less of Hunter’s baggage into the 2016 GOP presidential primary than if his neo-Confederate staffer fought on.

Still, he will carry some. Hunter’s editor at the Charleston City Paper, Chris Haire, revealed Thursday that his former columnist recently asked him to take down “dozens” of the controversial posts he’d written over the years, after he’d gotten wind of the Washington Free Beacon’s efforts to expose his pro-secession writings. Haire refused, but offered to publish “a column detailing how he’d changed his mind,” an offer Hunter declined. Calling Hunter’s request “cowardly,” Haire offered this assessment of his former writer’s real views:

    The Jack Hunter of the Charleston City Paper years was every bit as radical as the Jack Hunter of [radio station] 96 Wave. While a member of the City Paper’s stable of freelancers, Jack wrote in support of racially profiling Hispanics [5], praised white supremacist Sam Francis [6], blasted the House of Representatives’ apology for slavery [7], claimed that black people should apologize to white people for high crime rates [7], defended former Atlanta Braves pitcher and racist John Rocker  [8]and Charleston County School District board member Nancy Cook after she said some mothers should be sterilized [8], argued that Islam was an innately dangerous threat [9] to the U.S, professed that he would have voted for a member a British neo-Nazi political party if he could have, considered endorsing former Council of Conservative Citizens member Buddy Witherspoon  [10]in his bid to unseat Sen. Lindsey Graham, compared Abraham Lincoln toAdolf Hitler and Ike Turner [11], and continued to profess the erroneous claim that the primary cause of the Civil War was not the fight over slavery [11], ignoring the decades of American history leading up to war and South Carolina’s very own Declaration of the Immediate Causes for Secession [12], which clearly note that protecting slavery was the preeminent motivation of state leaders….

Funny how pass associations work with conservative-libertarians, they simply go away like magic when they become inconvenient. When those associations keep them from getting more unchecked power and more unearned income via tax payers, abracadabra, gone.

                                                     JASON DEREK BROWN

Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution - First Degree Murder, Armed Robbery

REWARD: The FBI is offering a reward of up to $200,000 for information leading directly to the arrest of Jason Derek Brown.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Wal-Mart Proves They Are Not a Business, They're a Conservative Plantation



Wal-Mart Proves They Are Not a Business, They're a Conservative Plantation

There's a power struggle going on between the D.C. city council and the world's largest retailer, one that Wal-Mart is likely to win.

There's a power struggle going on in Washington right now, not between Republicans and Democrats but between Wal-Mart—which is supposed to open six stores in the District—and the city council, which has a bill pending to require big-box retailers to pay a living wage. As you surely know, Wal-Mart was built on keeping costs as low as possible, particularly labor costs. The model Wal-Mart recruit is someone who has no other employment options and will take whatever they can get. The retail colossus isn't going to let some uppity city council tell it how much it can pay its employees:

    The world's largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

    A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-retailer's Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members.

    The company's hardball tactics come out of a well-worn playbook that involves successfully using Wal-Mart's leverage in the form of jobs and low-priced goods to fend off legislation and regulation that could cut into its profits and set precedent in other potential markets. In the Wilson Building, elected officials have found their reliable liberal, pro-union political sentiments in conflict with their desire to bring amenities to underserved neighborhoods.

For Wal-Mart, this isn't just about these particular stores. They can make money even if they pay a higher wage at these stores, and with over 10,000 stores around the world, the D.C. locations are a drop in their enormous bucket anyway. It's about their relationship both to the people they employ and to the communities they locate in. It's about power, and as far as they're concerned, power has to reside with Wal-Mart. Their employees do what they're told and get paid what they're told, and if they don't like it they can go find another job. By the same token, the city council gives Wal-Mart what it wants, and if it doesn't they can try to find somebody else to open a store there.
Advertisement

My guess is that in the end, either the city council will cave or Mayor Vincent Gray will veto the bill (he says he's considering it). Why? Because Wal-Mart can walk away from the D.C. stores without a second thought, while the council desperately wants both the jobs the stores will bring and the ability for their constituents to have a convenient place to shop. One side has virtually nothing to lose, while the other side has a great deal to lose.

Would Wal-Mart make less money if they paid their employees a little more? Not necessarily. There are other models out there, most notably Costco and Trader Joe's, which believe that by giving their employees higher wages and good benefits, they can reduce turnover and provide better service, which lowers costs and increases sales. And it works: they've achieved steady growth and excellent profits by making their employees happy.

The owners of Wal-Mart, the Walton family have a set in cement attitude about who deserves what. They are worth more than 40% of the population that earns at or below median income, that means they are worth about $89 billion dollars. They could easily pay every employee a living wage, but they believe it is their God given right to run a wage slave plantation. The Waltons and their conservative supporters do not care about American values, they care only about wealth and the power that goes with it..