Steve King faces new storm over remarks about white supremacy

Yep, and not a single republican is standing with him. Wonder if the same can be said about all the anti-Semitism coming from the left?

 

Nope the Union did when it occupied Fort Sumter which was South Carolina and Confederate territory and engaged in a blockade of Confederate ports and took measures to reinforce Fort Sumter breaking and agree to negotiate it's disposition.

"Fort Sumter is most famous for being the site of the first shots of the Civil War (1861-65). U.S. Major Robert Anderson occupied the unfinished fort in December 1860 following South Carolina’s secession from the Union, initiating a standoff with the state’s militia forces. When President Abraham Lincoln announced plans to resupply the fort, Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard bombarded Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. After a 34-hour exchange of artillery fire, Anderson and 86 soldiers surrendered the fort on April 13. "
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

Those were acts of war on the part of the Union and Lincoln.

It was the North that invaded the South in order to bring down it's government and force those slave states back into the union. That was the agression. The South just wanted to be left alone.

 

What did King say that was a lie?

 

Instead of calling foreign invaders "illegal aliens" or "immigrants" or "refugees" in the near future they will be referred to as "future Americans." Then in a few decades the word "American" will be banned and replaced with ______.

 

So is that a "No, none of the Germans I supposedly knew were members of the Nazi Leadership"?

It was the only legal party in Germany after they came to power.

No, they were not. The Nazis ran on "traditional morality" and opposing liberals, such as the Weimar Government.

No, they were always more comparable to the Republican Party, contaminated by white supremacists.

Inside every Conservative is a theocrat screaming to get out. See, we can both say nonsense.

Except that the Nazis were hyperconservatives.

The SS was opposed to socialism and being a socialist barred one from joining.

Every member of the Wehrmacht was required to make an oath to Hitler from 1934 on. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichswehreid) Seriously, if you are this ****ing ignorant of history, just bow out now.

More massive ignorance. The Wehrmacht most definitely did round up Jews and murder them on the Eastern Front.

 

What were King's comment exactly? Funny how that is missing from the OP.

 

I'm going to withdraw the claim. I was misreading the article I based that claim on.

 

Ford hated progressives. He did everything in his power to lobby against progressive interests and used violence to make sure progressives couldn't organize in his factories.

 

Fort Sumter was made the communal property of the United States when it was built as a Federal military base. When South Carolina unilaterally withdrew from the Union without any negotiations on shared property, they abrogated any claim they had on that shared property.

Source for your claim that Ft Sumter was engaging in a blockade against South Carolina?

 

And it was within the international borders of the Confederacy and was occupied and was being reinforced and resupply in order to blockage, an act of war. There were negotiations ongoing when the Union committed those acts of war. And then the Union invaded the Confederacy in order to bring down their government, another act of war.

 

International law covers national enclaves. Freedom of navigation laws also allowed the US to supply military bases in their territory even if they have to pass through narrow territorial waters. Owning Fort Sumter and resupplying it were not acts of war anymore than Russia resupplying Kaliningrad is.

If South Carolina wanted Fort Sumter, they should have negotiated with the rest of the Union for it before they unilaterally seceded. What they should not have done was launched a war of aggression by firing on and invading sovereign US territory.

 

I can't get a sense of your intent, so I will simply ask are you equating the labels of race to the labels of nationality?

 

I am impressed with your honesty. Yes, Arendt died before that creep was even born.

 

He certainly opposed any interference with his management decisions, but he was a progressive if not a saint.

Ford was initially very supportive of FDR celebrating his election: "We have made a complete turn around and at last America's face is to the future...Thanks for that belongs to President Roosevelt. Inauguration day he turned the ship of state around." From a series of Ford ads run on May 8, 1933. Henry Ford, The Wayward Capitalist, p. 324.

Ford was also an antiSemite, like many progressives, but he did call for granting German Jews asylum after Kristallnacht.

"Sorel raised the question of the distinctions between right and left. Lehman questioned whether - at least on the French scene, which was in many ways exemplary - an intellectual at any given moment might not have associated with an extreme left-wing or an extreme right-wing movement, had the circumstances been satisfactory." S. J. Woolf, "The Nature of Fascism," Random House NY 1968, p. 248.

 

Ford's support for FDR ended the instant the New Deal came into the picture.

Are you confusing anti-Israel for anti-Semite?

 

GOP leaders step up pressure on Steve King, saying he should leave Congress.

www.msn.com

 

FDR was The New Deal. Ford and Coughlin both supported FDR.

AntiSemitic is inaccurate shorthand for anti-Jew. Ford like many progressives, was hostile to Jews. He published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
He apparently snapped out of it after Kristallnacht and tried to save the German Jews. FDR was less sympathetic. Alas.

 

The details of the New Deal did come out fully until after FDR was elected. Ford and Coughlin (a hyperconservative) opposed the New Deal and FDR after the New Deal's details came out.

The only Anti-Semites I know of are Conservatives, not Progressives.

 

Coughlin and probably Ford opposed the New Deal because it was not radical enough.


"Father Coughlin & The Search For Social Justice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Father Coughlin first took to the airwaves in 1926, broadcasting weekly
sermons over the radio. By the early 1930s the content of his broadcasts had
shifted from theology to economics and politics. Just as the rest of the
nation was obessesed by matters economic and political in the aftermath of
the Depression, so too was Father Coughlin. Coughlin had a well-developed
theory of what he termed "social justice," predicated on monetary reforms
and leavened with a healthy dose of his take on Christian values. He began
as an early Roosevelt supporter, coining a famous expression, that the
nation's choice was between "Roosevelt or ruin." Later in the 1930s he
turned against FDR and became one of the president's harshest critics. His
program of "social justice" was a very radical challenge to unbridled
capitalism and to many of the political institutions of his day. In the
three broadcasts reproduced here he outlines his program and responds to his
critics."

Father Coughlin was a militant anti-capitalist progressive.

 

Coughlin was not anti-capitalist. He was anti-"Jewish bankers". He absolutely supported non-Jewish white capitalism.

 

In fact, he was very hostile to property rights in general and capitalism.

"To organize for action, if you will! To organize for social united action
which will be founded on God-given social truths which belong to Catholic
and Protestant, to Jew and Gentile, to black and white, to rich and poor, to
industrialist and to laborer.

I realize that I am more or less a voice crying in the wilderness. I realize
that the doctrine which I preach is disliked and condemned by the princes of
wealth. What care I for that!" Coughlin

And he was not at all subtle about it.

 

When Coughlin talked about "princes of wealth" he was talking about the international Jewish conspiracy he believed in.

 

International law was that a countries borders extend out to sea. AFTER South Carolina succeeded the Union moved onto the island in an attempt to use it to blockade the port, an act of war. Then during negotiations the Union attempted to reinforce and South Carolina could not allow than with their border. The Union didn't have to do that, it was a provocation and an act of war. THEN the Union Armies INVADED the South. The South just wanted to be left alone it was not threatening to invade the Union and take over the capital and arrest it's leaders. Lincoln wanted those slave states back in the Union, WITH their slavery intact, and he went to war and invaded the South to accomplish that. And his forces engaged in a acts to utterly DESTROY the South and DESTROY it's peoples and everything they had.

 

International law also covers national enclaves (sovereign territory of one state within the borders of another) and freedom of navigation laws allow military bases in national enclaves to be supplied.

It is good that you note the North did not invade the South until AFTER the South launched a war of aggression by attacking and invading sovereign US territory.

You claim Ft Sumter was used to blockade the port. Give me a list of vessels fired on by the Fort prior to the southern attack.

 

Coughlin very hostile to capitalism, industrialists and bankers.

"Thus, at the outset of this discussion, let me rehearse for you a few facts
relative to the history of labor and of industry, of production and of
unemployment. As we turn back the pages which tell us the story of the World
War, we are convinced that it was one organized and operated for commercial
purposes and commercial gains. Every cannon forged, every shell exploded was
trade-marked with the sign of decadent capitalism."