According to my RNC sources, never before has a seated member of the RNC actually done more than threaten to challenge an elected GOP official. That is, never before, until Buddy Witherspoon, a RNC National Committeeman from South Carolina came along. In the next few days Witherspoon will announce that he is actually going ahead with his threat to challenge first term South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in a primary next summer. My RNC source tells me over the years there have been several RNC Committeemen who have threatened a run, but they were always talked out of it in order to preserve party unity. Unfortunately, Buddy Witherspoon is more interested in pursuing a personal agenda focused on his extreme views on immigration reform than he is in maintaining party loyalty.
Dr. Buddy Witherspoon, a dentist from Columbia, South Carolina is married, has one daughter and three grandchildren. He has been involved in the SC-GOP since 1996. Witherspoon claims to be a “Devout” Christian having been involved with the Westside Assembly of God and a lay leader at the Salem Methodist Church. He has been active against legalized gambling and is a friend of the library. These are the activities listed on Witherspoon’s web site.
Unfortunately, he forgot to mention an alleged previous involvement with the KKK and his membership in the ultra right wing Council of Conservative Citizens. Over the years he has resisted all calls and demands from the SC GOP establishment to resign from the CofCC, which has strong ties to the white supremacist organization, Stormfront. According to an article in the New York Times, “…“…A member of the Republican National Committee told state Republicans that he was severing his bond with the Council of Conservative Citizens. This official, Buddy Witherspoon, told the state party's executive committee on Saturday he would no longer be part of the conservative group. Mr. Witherspoon said: ''I am a Christian. I am a conservative. But one thing I am not is a racist.'' In January, Mr. Witherspoon refused a request by Jim Nicholson, chairman of the Republican National Committee, that he renounce his ties with the group.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
If what you suggest about Witherspoon is true - and I checked up on most of it and was very troubled - we ought to demand more than just that he leave the CofCC. He ought to be kicked out of the national and SC RNC organizations. The GOP needs to purge these former dixiecrat scumbags and Witherspoon sounds like a good place to start.
Reminds me why I'm willing to overlook some of Giuliani's faults, because he might be the one candidate who could force these evil little gnomes out of the party and force them to start a party of their own.
Dave
2 - Sam
Guilani IS a knome....His law firm represented Hugo Chavez, He's pro gun control and abortion, he knows NOTHING about Forign Affairs, his platform is ENTIRELY based on 9/11, And everybody who was there that day says his mangement was HORRIBLE and got lots of people killed, and this idiot DARES to call himself a hero and then run for PResident!
3 - G. Chell
This is why I say that Barrack "on crack" Obama is the most deluded individual in America for thinking this country will elect a black President and his wife has the gall to say that blacks have self hate for not supporting her husband. Many whites might think that the blacks are stupid. Perhaps the polls show they are not at least not today. There is plenty of latent racism in this country.
4 - St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister
Before Miss Reidhead and Mr. Nalle above get too excited, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) was on a St. Louis local TV chat show this morning. The host asked her how HRC could possibly win Missouri by getting the social conservative votes in southern Missouri. She turned the question back on the host by reminding us that on social issues, Giuliani and HRC are "kissing cousins."
Bob Patterson's Second Axiom states that if one of the two major political parties doesn't campaign on racial issues (and when he said this, the "religious right" didn't exist, but the axiom might as well include them too), then the election will be decided on economic issues, and voters voting their pocketbooks tend toward the Democrats. HRC wins if RG gets the Republican nomination.
If RG and Flimsy Grahamnesty both win their respective Republican nominations, then the party will have lost its soul totally. That said, it will never come within a million miles of any serious political power ever again, and it won't deserve to. Talk radio hosts who poodle along with RG/Flimsy, even as used to denounce them, call the latter "the Vice-President of the Media," will have lost all credibility.
And, by the way, S.J., just for full disclosure, I'm not on the Ron Paul bandwagon. The next best way to guarantee an HRC presidency is to nominate Ron Paul, for one reason, and one reason only -- it'd take Clinton, Inc. all of five seconds to dig up a quote he made about getting rid of Social Security in the 1980s, from that, she would win all 50 states.
Romney? Flip flopper. "Fred!"? globalist. Tancredo? NAACP panderer. Huckabee? More liberal on race than Bill Clinton, and the head of the *liberal* faction of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The answer is Duncan Hunter. Notwithstanding the fact that he can be taken credibly as a President, and actually win (no real Social Security ghosts), just analyzing all the candidates based on the (false) assumption they can all win, he comes closest to the gestalt of consummate populism and nationalism
5 - Dr Dreadful
Wow. Looks like somebody fell asleep in 1968 and has only just woken up...
6 - Captain Ahab
Yaaaar, thar she blows! Moby!
Let's see now, we have the charge of "racist" (coming from a "blue-blood" no less); the next unfounded slurs a liberal (even a Moby) must use are "misogynist", "homophobe", and when the going gets tough, "fascist".
Lindsey loves illegal immigrants, because he knows that the Democrats (Hillary in particular) are going to make them a new voting bloc, and he wants in on it.
He ignores the will of his legal constituency (both immigrant and natural born citizens) in an attempt to stay in power, and shows his contempt for the poor already living in South Carolina by destroying their chances of obtaining manufacturing jobs. It's a twofer for Graham - get the votes of the illegal immigrants when they're finally able to vote, and get the votes of all the unemployed citizens who by that time are dependent on the state.
The idea of Graham not getting the nomination is so scary to you leftists that even when you're as far away as Arizona, you're now wringing your hands over what goes on in our little podunk, flyover state.
Tell you what, Moby. You let us handle our part of the country, and you keep ruining yours.
-- Cap'n Ahab
7 - SJ Reidhead
Dave;
Unfortunately every word of it is true. I forgot to post links to the two articles I've been doing on the subject, that has more information. You are going to be spammed by our CofCC friends who are going to attempt to change the subject, but they can't hide from the truth.
SJ Reidhead
8 - Dr Dreadful
Aha.
I'm wondering here if 'white supremacist' is one of those 'bot alert' phrases - like 'gun control' and 'Ron Paul' - which brings the internet soapboxers flocking to an article like seagulls to a bag of French fries.
It's starting to look that way. But we shall see...
9 - troll
...I think it helps the bots if you use bold caps like this: WHITE SPERMATICYST
10 - Dr Dreadful
LOL... Nice one, troll.
11 - ivan
Wow, that's new: white supremnacists don't like immigrants. The whole immigration debate is a reminder as to the fact that Americans are racists and are fighing tooth and nail the changing demographics in the country. Thank God it is a losing battle. Republicans will pay for their racism as early as next November!
12 - RJ
This article is nothing more than a political hit-piece. I lost count of how many times you used the word "racist" or "extremist" to denounce an individual, organization, or website. (I eagerly await your equally-vehement denunciation of former KKK member Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator from West Virginia.)
Oh, and the ADL isn't known as the "Anti Defense League" ... FYI.
13 - Dave Nalle
RJ. I noticed how many times the author used those terms while I was editing it. And I had some concern about the inflammatory nature of some of the language. But you know what, I went and checked out every one of those links and the organizations mentioned. SJ is dead on. All of the groups mentioned are extremist, racist and pure evil.
Seriously, don't make the mistake of thinking that these folks are 'conservative' in the way that you are. They ARE what the left accuses all Republicans of being, and defending them is the wrong way to deal with them.
They do manage a pretty good job of disguising what they are by clothing it in terms of pseudoscience and fallacious logic, but down beneath, they're just racists pure and simple. They are not against immigration because they want to keep our borders secure, but because they want to keep us racially pure. That's a huge difference, and if you ally with them just because you agree on one issue, you're damned along with them.
Make no mistake, these folks are the resurgent remnants of the Robert Byrd part of the Democratic party masquerading as Republicans, so if you dislike Byrd and his politics you should like these folks even less because they are the same people discrediting the GOP the way he discredits the Democrats.
Dave
14 - St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister
Dave Nalle wrote:
Seriously, don't make the mistake of thinking that these folks are 'conservative' in the way that you are. They ARE what the left accuses all Republicans of being, and defending them is the wrong way to deal with them.
How is what Miss Reidhead wrote any different from the typical left-wing paranoia-industrial complex drivel that you supposedly denounce? How are your neuroideological reflexes on race (and Miss Reidhead's) any different than a left-winger?
Seriously, to read both your prose and Miss Reidhead's prose is to think that it's something that came out of the SPLC, ADL, or the People's Weekly World.
15 - Dave Nalle
I can't speak for SJ, but I'll give you my answer, and it's simple.
Regardless of whether there are differences between races, I don't believe that people should be treated differently on the basis of race. I believe in equal opportunity and equal legal protection.
Unlike a typical leftist I don't believe in special privileges based on race or gender or sexual preference or other special group membership, and that's a vital difference.
And if you think anything I believe would fit in the Peoples Weekly World you're too nutty to even talk to.
Dave
16 - Clavos
Hoo boy!!
So now being against racism makes you a "left-winger??
It's to die of laughter to think of Dave Nalle as a left-winger.
I love how white supremacists ignore virtually all of history and mankind's accomplishments therein when they insist that whites (small w) are superior to other races.
Oh, and BTW: "neuroideological" is a neologism, there is no such word. It's not even a good neologism, it doesn't make sense; nerves (and nervous systems) don't have ideologies.
17 - St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister
Dave Nalle wrote:
Regardless of whether there are differences between races, I don't believe that people should be treated differently on the basis of race. I believe in equal opportunity and equal legal protection.
If you believe in the latter things, then you almost have to believe that the races are fundamentally equal, or at least have an egalitarian verve. That said, "equality of opportunity," when it inevitably does not lead to equality of results, will be interpreted by egalitarians that the "opportunity" was truly not "equal."
Unlike a typical leftist I don't believe in special privileges based on race or gender or sexual preference or other special group membership, and that's a vital difference.
Maybe not, but your crusade against "racism" means that they will exist. Have all the Republicans elected since 1980 done anything to reverse those "special privileges" you say you oppose? Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL) tried to push through anti-affirmative action bills through the Republican-run House in the mid-1990s, after the 1994 elections, but Gingrich et al. would have none of it. Canady quit in disgust.
And if you think anything I believe would fit in the Peoples Weekly World you're too nutty to even talk to.
You don't believe it, but it certainly has the same ring in some crucial venues.
Clavos wrote:
I love how white supremacists ignore virtually all of history and mankind's accomplishments therein when they insist that whites (small w) are superior to other races.
So, I guess every piece of useful technology was invented in Africa. Keep a watch out for those spaceships, Clavos...
Oh, and BTW: "neuroideological" is a neologism, there is no such word.
Sam Francis used it.
18 - Franco
#13 â€" Dave Nalle
I too have reviewed it as you have and I concur with your statements. To me, I do not see race as infulanceing my position. I would not want to support a candidate who uses race as a means to gain support, or uses race just to get votes and do not give a hoot about immigrants behind closed doors. Reading between all those lines is the voters need to do homework.
Buddy gets his ass handed to him in this opiniion piece. But I wanted to know more about Sen. Lindsey Graham and to see if all the fuss has any merit but is being over looked and or over shadowed by the noise in this opinion piece.
In the following article Graham is credited with holding a strong positive position on increasing boarder controls.
Graham says border-security measure yanked from defense bill
However this is only one of many issues of debate on immigration and the Americans for Better Immigration provides House and Senate report cards on Immigration issues. Sen Lindsey Graham doses not score well on most of the several immigration categories. But for his stand on stronger boarder controls he reseves a “B” on his report card. He also receives more then one (1) “F” on the other issues.
Immigration-Reduction Report Card - Sen. Lindsey Graham
19 - St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister
Franco wrote:
To me, I do not see race as infulanceing my position. I would not want to support a candidate who uses race as a means to gain support, or uses race just to get votes and do not give a hoot about immigrants behind closed doors.
Provided your "position" is for real border security, then what does influence your position? Why do you oppose open borders?
20 - Clavos
"So, I guess every piece of useful technology was invented in Africa."
Is that what I said? It wasn't, was it?
An asinine comment if ever there was one.
Just to remind you, the math used in science and technology was invented by Arabs.
"Oh, and BTW: "neuroideological" is a neologism, there is no such word.
Sam Francis used it."
It's still a meaningless neologism.
21 - St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister
Clavos wrote:
An asinine comment if ever there was one.
Exactly. See a mirror.
Just to remind you, the math used in science and technology was invented by Arabs.
And some in India, too. But why aren't both the Arab world and the Indian subcontinent the world's superpowers for it? Arabs did make a significant contribution to pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge for a few centuries, but where is it now? Something happened to the Arab-Muslim world (and to India) in the relatively distant past that diminished their relative importance on the world geopolitical scale, but what was it? I have a theory, and I'll give you a hint: See the end of the New Kingdom in Ancient Egypt, and also see modern-day Portugal.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Something happened to the Arab-Muslim world (and to India) in the relatively distant past that diminished their relative importance on the world geopolitical scale, but what was it?
A series of historical accidents.
See the end of the New Kingdom in Ancient Egypt, and also see modern-day Portugal.
What on earth has the New Kingdom - which ended over 1500 years before the birth of Muhammad and had only very loose trade ties with India - and modern Portugal - which hasn't done anything particularly offensive to anyone that I know of - got to do with it?
I have a feeling we're about to be treated to some sort of alternate-universe version of history, not necessarily involving spaceships or large black monoliths. This should be good...
23 - Dr Dreadful
So, I guess every piece of useful technology was invented in Africa.
Quite a few were, though:
- stone tools
- fire
- tents
- cutting implements
- fishing
- spears
- bows and arrows
- counting
- bridges
- carpentry
- sailing
...
24 - Franco
#19 â€"St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister
Provided your "position" is for real border security, then what does influence your position? Why do you oppose open borders?
My position is for real border security. We have immigration laws on the books that are not being enforced. These laws are the written and approved guidelines for legal and illegal entry into the United States. We have designated ports and points of entry into the United States where Customs oversees and conducts the enforcement of these laws.
We not only deed to enforce current law, we now need to intensify securing the “open borders” areas to account for both continued illegal entry into the US and from terrorists infiltration.
Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, and associated legal rights, duties, and obligations of aliens in the United States. It also provides means by which certain aliens can become naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border: it determines who may enter, how long they may stay and when they must leave.
The law purposes, an "alien" is any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. There are different categories of aliens: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, documented and undocumented ("illegal").
Areas of concern to me are.
Tax and Liability Issues
If you’re here on vacation, have a good time. Can your afford medlical attention through our home counrties medical programs you are inlisted with should the need arise? If not, then an extra entry fee should be applied to cover your stay for medical treatment.
If you’re here to work and make a dollar in the US you need to pay some taxes and or split those taxes with your home country.
If you’re here to work and you expect medical attention while exercising a work visas in the US, then you need to pay a tax fee for that service.
Customs Control and Enforcement
Anti-Smuggling
Fraudulent documents and false statements or committing other immigration violations
Terrorism
Do I really need to list these details?
In plan nuts and bolts:
If you are a foreign national wanting to (1) visit, (2) work, or (3) live in the United States, then for each of these measures there are laws that you are required to follow. If you don’t want to follow them by choice then get the fuck out.
Congress has total and complete authority over immigration. They made the laws on immigration and if they are not willing to enforce them, they too should get the fuck out.
What is happing is there is not respect for law.
25 - St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister
Dr. Dreadful:
1. No alternate-universe theories necessary. The answer is racial misecengation with blacks.
2. Do you have or want a lifestyle that relies on just those things? Last I looked, the marginal increase in the human standard of living since those things were invented come from later inventions.
Franco:
Your manifesto is fine as far as it goes, but I was sorta leading you on with my question, and you somewhat came along with me. Your opposition to open borders doesn't seem to be much more than technocratic concern with the law. That said, amnesty for illegal aliens would make all the illegal aliens here legal with one stroke of an ink pen, problem solved. If "the law" is all you're concerned about, you should then support amnesty.
As for some of the other things you said, it sounds to me like a couple of other people that have posted here would accuse you of "xenophobia" if you equated illegal immigration with terrorism.
But backing up to something you said in #18, re Flimsy Grahamnesty and his supposed B-grade on "border security" -- many amnestyaires can say with a straight face that they're for "border security." (Ted Kennedy has.) Even if they took it to the extreme, and drafted every able-bodied young adult in the country for the Border Patrol, and actually used them at both extensive land borders, LG's desire for soft or hard amnesty would make such "border security" moot. After all, if this "border security" is supposed to deter illegal aliens from entering, yet by fiat Congress would essentially declare that every human being on earth is a "legal" immigrant into the USA, then what is this "border security" supposed to do or deter?
And, in reality, the open borders lobby is neutering the border security we have now. See: Ramos and Compean, gradually giving ICE agents duties not relating to apprehending illegal aliens, ICE telling police departments in St. Louis that they're not interested in illegal alien busts unless they bust 50 or more, etc.