Posted on 08/17/2019 5:36:49 PM PDT by rintintin
In the wake of a string of horrific mass shootings, one Republican state lawmaker wants the California Republican Party to do more to denounce white nationalism and racism.
Assemblyman Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley (San Bernardino County), said in a tweet this week that he will propose a formal resolution at the party’s next state convention this fall.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...
Sanger was a Republican. A bigwig among Tucson Republican women. American eugenics has roots in the northeastern GOP. The GOP was the original home of progressives before they migrated to the Democrats. Teddy Roosevelt even ran on the 1912 Progressive Party ticket.
Don’t care what party she called herself. Her life was demonstrably not conservative or libertarian. Her world view was progressive.
I am white. I had to swear to protect the country and the constitution as a condition of employment. Am I a white nationalist?
I think I am by definition. Come and get me.
“seeing how they are the party of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, eugenics(abortion & Sanger) and the welfare state”
It’s real easy to correct yourself.
What about the rich lady from eBay or Etrade? Did you vote for her?
How about asking democrats and their islamoleftists to denounce their white nationalist roots? Eff these people
If this helps you - touche ...no desire to wrangle with FReepers
Nope. Meg Whitman. Didn’t vote for Carly Fiorina either.
The Cal GOP has a long history as an anti-conservative cabal of liberals posing as “moderates”. They opposed Tom McClintock for governor. They opposed Tim Donnelly for governor.
Why would he go along with Democrat-Comunist party propaganda? What an idiot!
Ahh, I see, so everyone, regardless of color, race, or nationality is now a "white nationalist". And here I was thinking I was a cool white nationalist and part of a cool club because I happen to be white and I love my country. That makes me a white nationalist in the eyes of these name slingers.
We define who we are. The progs/commies can call us anything they like but it changes nothing except that it defines them as something I can't say on FR. I can sling names too.
“It’s worth a try. What is there to lose?”
There is little to lose in terms of gaining actual legislative seats, because no Republican anybody or anything above a local office of librarian will be elected in CA for the next twenty years.
But it’s a Democrat trap, proffered by a RINO type Republican. because the *discussion* of whether to include the topic as a matter of party debate is a “when did you stop beating your wife” issue which automatically defaults to the Dem position. It welds the issue of “racism” to “white nationalism”, inadvertently making them equivalent. It is a total capitulation to Dem talking points. It is like every other effort in history where the idea was floated for Republicans to adopt positions of “Democrat light” or Me too Democrat” in an effort to sway voters. But it can never work because voters who are so inclined can vote for REAL Democrats. It’s Romney redux.
Playing on their terms is why we lose.
Another false claim regarding Sanger is about abortion. Sanger was actually anti abortion. What she promoted was contraception.
Here's her own words from her 1920 book 'Woman and the New Race':
While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.
The effects of such operations upon a woman, serious as they may be, are nothing as compared to the injury done her general health by drugs taken to produce the same result. Even such drugs as are prescribed by physicians have harmful effects, and nostrums recommended by druggists are often worse still.
Even more drastic may be the effect upon the unborn child, for many women fill their systems with poisonous drugs during the first weeks of their pregnancy, only to decide at last, when drugs have failed, as they usually do, to bring the child to birth.
There are no statistics, of course, by which we may compute the amount of suffering to mother and child from the use of such drugs, but we know that the total of physical weakness and disease must be astounding. We know that the woman’s own system feels the strain of these drugs and that the embryo is usually poisoned by them. The child is likely to be rickety, have heart trouble, kidney disorder, or to be generally weak in its powers of resistance. If it does not die before it reaches its first year, it is probable that it will have to struggle against some of these weaknesses until its adolescent period.
It needs no assertion of mine to call attention to the grim fact that the laws prohibiting the imparting of information concerning the preventing of conception are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year in this country and an untold amount of sickness and sorrow. The suffering and the death of these women is squarely upon the heads of the lawmakers and the puritanical, masculine-minded person who insist upon retaining the abominable legal restrictions.
Try as they will they cannot escape the truth, nor hide it under the cloak of stupid hypocrisy. If the laws against imparting knowledge of scientific birth control were repealed, nearly all of the 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 women who undergo abortions in the United States each year would escape the agony of the surgeon’s instruments and the long trail of disease, suffering and death which so often follows.
“He who would combat abortion,” says Dr. Hirsch, “and at the same time combat contraceptive measures may be likened to the person who would fight contagious diseases and forbid disinfection. For contraceptive measures are important weapons in the fight against abortion.
“America has a law since 1873 which prohibits by criminal statute the distribution and regulation of contraceptive measures. It follows, therefore, that America stands at the head of all nations in the huge number of abortions.”
Just as soon as the Democrats denounce black lives matter, the ‘squad ‘s racial/bigoted stance against Israel, anti white male position, anti conservative women black and gays, and quit supporting antics.
Why would the Republican Party want to allow the Democrats to set their platform. And they wonder why they are such a small part of the legislative body. They are weak as well as stupid. POTUS Trump has shown them the way but they will not follow. They want to return to their usual winning ways of being Democrats-light. It has served them so well in the past
Should have been “antifa “
There already was a CA Repub who denounce White supremacy, Ronald Reagan, twice, in 1980 and ‘84 when David Duke endorsed him. Pres Reagan, in his own way told Duke to Sh*t in his hat and wear it.
That’s one way to never win another election in CA ever again.
Republican should either denounce all racial nationalism and supremacism or just keep their stupid mouths shut.
Why perpetuate the Goebbelesque Big Lie for the DNC and its media monkeys?
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.