John Wayne, Great Actor, Terrible Human Being

When I was a small child, John Wayne was one of the greatest celebrities in the world. He has been dead for decades, but his movies remain as his legacy. Sadly, he was also an incredibly blind and arrogant bigot.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/johnwayne/indians.asp

Wayne’s World


Claim:   John Wayne once said that the taking of land from Native Americans was justifiable because “there were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.”

TRUE

Origins:   In 1971 John Wayne, the iconic movie star who had “charged the beaches at Iwo Jima, beaten back the Indians at Fort Apache, and often bloodied his fists in the name of frontier justice” was at the height of his popularity: Having appeared in over 200 films to date, he’d been listed among Hollywood’s top ten box-office attractions for two decades straight, had just won a Best Actor Academy Award for his portrayal of Rooster Cogburn (the “fearless, one-eyed U.S. marshal who never knew a dry day in his life”) in True Grit, and had garnered impressive ratings with his star-studded John Wayne’s Tribute to America NBC television special.

In that moment, Playboy magazine interviewed the Western film legend (with the results published in their May 1971 issue) and found that his reputation for being archly conservative in his politics was true to the man himself, not just to the characters he played on the silver screen.

Particularly, Wayne was unsparingly unsympathetic to the plight of real Native Americans (still termed “Indians” in the parlance of the times) who had been portrayed as adversaries in so many of this films, expressing his viewpoint that they deserved whatever misfortunes had befallen them, and that modern Americans bore no responsibility for addressing wrongs done to Native Americans by previous generations:

PLAYBOY: For years American Indians have played an important — if subordinate — role in your Westerns. Do you feel any empathy with them?

WAYNE: I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them, if that’s what you’re asking. Our so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.

PLAYBOY: Weren’t the Indians — by virtue of prior possession — the rightful owners of the land?

WAYNE: Look, I’m sure there have been inequalities. If those inequalities are presently affecting any of the Indians now alive, they have a right to a court hearing. But what happened 100 years ago in our country can’t be blamed on us today.

PLAYBOY: Indians today are still being dehumanized on reservations.

WAYNE: I’m quite sure that the concept of a government-run reservation would have an ill effect on anyone. But that seems to be what the socialists are working for now — to have everyone cared for from cradle to grave.

PLAYBOY: Indians on reservations are more neglected than cared for. Even if you accept the principle of expropriation, don’t you think a more humane solution to the Indian problem could have been devised?

WAYNE: This may come as a surprise to you, but I wasn’t alive when reservations were created — even if I do look that old. I have no idea what the best method of dealing with the Indians in the 1800s would have been. Our forefathers evidently thought they were doing the right thing.

PLAYBOY: How do you feel about the government grant for a university and cultural center that these Indians [occupying Alcatraz] have demanded as “reparations”?

WAYNE: What happened between their forefathers and our forefathers is so far back — right, wrong or indifferent — that I don’t see why we owe them anything. I don’t know why the government should give them something that it wouldn’t give me.

Read this:  http://dalehusband.com/2010/08/03/white-americans-need-to-grow-up/

Now I will quote from Wayne again in red italics and respond directly to his ludicrous statements in green italics.

I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them, if that’s what you’re asking. Our so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.

What evidence is there that millions of white people would have died if they had not grabbed all that land they took from the Native Americans?

Look, I’m sure there have been inequalities. If those inequalities are presently affecting any of the Indians now alive, they have a right to a court hearing. But what happened 100 years ago in our country can’t be blamed on us today.
It is not about blaming the present white people for the atrocities of the past, it is acknowledging that white people (myself included) today are still benefiting from what was done 100 or 200 years ago.

I’m quite sure that the concept of a government-run reservation would have an ill effect on anyone. But that seems to be what the socialists are working for now — to have everyone cared for from cradle to grave.

Absolute bullshit, the idea that something being run badly should be done away with completely rather than improved. And a government of the people, by the people and for the people SHOULD be expected to care for the people! Anyone who disagrees with that is a BASTARD! And government run institutions actually can be run BETTER than private ones, if this is any indication: http://dalehusband.com/2014/11/05/the-ultimate-discrediting-of-libertarianism/
This may come as a surprise to you, but I wasn’t alive when reservations were created — even if I do look that old. I have no idea what the best method of dealing with the Indians in the 1800s would have been. Our forefathers evidently thought they were doing the right thing.
Just because delusions were popular centuries ago does not mean we should perpertuate them forever. And note what I said earlier about present day vs past white people.

What happened between their forefathers and our forefathers is so far back — right, wrong or indifferent — that I don’t see why we owe them anything. I don’t know why the government should give them something that it wouldn’t give me.

Again, it is not about what was done in the past, but what is happening now as a result of what was done in the past. And the government has a responsibility to give back some of what was stolen or at least compensate for the losses.  If I as an individual steal from another individual, I cannot justify it many years later by saying, “The other person was selfishly holding on to the items I wanted. Why should I pay him back or go to jail after all this time?”  And it is the same for governments and races, even centuries later!

Why did the Democrats lose this year?

It seems that everything that could have gone wrong this election cycle, did go wrong. Texas elected yet another Republican governor, Greg Abbott (I am so tempted to tell jokes about the comedy duo Abbot and Costello), Kentucky re-elected Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republicans will control the Senate next year and the House of Representatives actually INCREASED its majority for next year! And that begs the obvious question: WHY?

You see, the Republicans these days have literally NOTHING to offer the American people but bigotry and have nothing to do but express HATRED for President Obama based on that bigotry. Over the past two years, the Republicans running the House tried dozens of times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even while knowing those attempts would fail in the Democratic controlled Senate. Now they may try again next year, but President Obama will simply veto such attempts. As the old saying goes, “To repeat the same action, and expect different results, is madness!” The Republicans may even attempt to impeach and remove Obama from office like they tried to do to President Clinton, and that will most likely fail too.

So why did the Republicans win so massively this year? Because, quite simply, many people assume that anything bad that happens to America must be the fault of the President, so they blame him for those bad events, then they vote for the party that opposes the President, even though he had nothing to do with the issues involved. For example, President Bush Jr was not responsible for the screw ups of federal agencies that followed the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans in 2005. Likewise, Obama was not responsible for things like the ebola scare this year right before the election.  THAT WAS THE MEDIA’S FAULT! Hmmmm….

Part of the problem is that the Democrats as a party are much more diverse than the Republicans. Obama originally ran as a dedicated liberal but over time due to Republican opposition has moved toward the right, but that alienated many liberals who also consider themselves Democrats, resulting in them being reluctant to consistently support the President.

In fact, I would say the only reason Obama got elected at all was because the previous Republican President was so TERRIBLE! If Bush Jr had been half the President Bill Clinton had been, we would have elected McCain in 2008.

And maybe that is just the real issue, sadly. America as a nation just was not ready for an African-American President. We are still mostly racist bigots!

How NOT to rape someone

Here are some rules for men who do not want to be accused of raping a woman:

1. ALWAYS ask the women directly during a date in a private setting, “Do you want to have sex with me, and if so, when?”   If her response is anything other than, “Yes, and now,” drop the issue and do not bring it up again until she does.

2. Never talk about the experience of having sex with anyone other than a licensed therapist, your parents or other guardians (if you are underaged), or a clergyperson in a counseling session. PRIVATE MATTERS MUST REMAIN PRIVATE. Other men do not need to know how you “banged that hot chick last night”.

3. The claim that women claim to be raped because they regret having sex with a man long after the fact is simply self-serving bullshit. Do not repeat that claim, ever.

4. Even if you use protection or any form of birth control, PROMISE the woman that if she gets pregnant, you will either support the child or pay for an abortion, whichever she decides.

5. Do not merely be a woman’s sex partner…..be her LOVER. Be willing to share in anything she does or is involved in or ask her to share in things you enjoy. If you do not want a complete relationship with a woman, you can always masturbate by yourself.

6. Unless your partner is a porn star, you do not need to take or possess nude pics of her. And NEVER post them online!

That is all for now.  If I think of more, or if you have your own suggestions for rules, this list will be added to.

Pamela Geller, pathological liar, hypocrite and bigot

As opposed to radical Islam as I may be, and as offensive as I find many Islamic dogmas to be, I would never lie to try to either discredit Islam or attack Muslims or people who do not hate Muslims. But Pamela Geller, a right-wing extremist who would have been at home in the John Bitch [pun intended] Society of the 1950s (when it accused President Eisenhower of being under Communist influence), would lie and in the worst way.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pamela-geller-obama-says-isil-deceive-and-disarm-americans

Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller believes that President Obama and other administration officials use the translation “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” (ISIL) instead of “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” (ISIS) to describe the Middle Eastern extremist group because he wants to trick Americans who don’t know what or where the Levant is. After telling conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday that Obama aided Islamic extremists, Geller alleged that the president is trying to trick the American people by using the translation “ISIL.”

“He says ‘ISIL,’ and why ‘ISIL’ over ‘ISIS’? In my opinion, because it’s to distract, dissemble, deceive and disarm the American people,” Geller said. “The Islamic State of Levant, if anyone looks it up they see Levant and they are like, ‘What’s Levant?’ He knows this.”

 

If Geller’s analysis is correct, she has also been aiding the group, as she has regularly used the terms “ISIL” and “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” on her blog Atlas Shrugs, where she repeatedly wrote that ISIL, and not ISIS, is the correct name for the group:

The media had amended the name of the Islamic army tearing through Syria and Iraq to ISIS (Islamic State of Syria and Iraq). But the correct name is ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). What is the the Levant? The geographical area they mean to rule. The Levant includes Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus and parts of Turkey.

What else can she say wrong? How about:

http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/obama-sends-defense-secretary-hagel-turkey-supporter-isis-build-coalition-willing.html/

Bush had close to 50 countries in his “Coalition of the Willing.”

Obama has so alienated and abandoned our allies, he has no one.

He is sending Hagel to Turkey to build a coalition to fight the Islamic State.

Note to Obama: Turkey is supporting the Islamic State.

But he knows this, too. Obama says he has no strategy to defeat ISIS. He doesn’t because he has provided tacit support for the Islamic State — especially in Syria.

Really? Is there any evidence for ANY of those above assertions?  If not, why make them?  Oh, because when it comes to Muslims or those who do not hate Muslims as much as Geller does, honor and truthfulness are not issues, are they?

And how seriously can you take someone who names her blog after one of the most notorious writings of the extremist loon Ayn Rand?

To see what kind of people take that nutcase seriously, just listen to this:

http://janetmefferdpremium.com/2014/08/26/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20140826-hr-2/

What if the American Civil War had never been fought?

The election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States in 1860 triggered the succession of most of the southern states where slavery was legal, because the wealthy whites who dominated those states feared that the federal government would force them to give up slavery. The result was the four bloodiest years in all of American history. But what if cooler heads had prevailed and the Civil War had never happened? What if instead the South had remained in the Union?

For one thing, the fact that so many young men had not died in battle meant that the USA would have been able to conquer the western regions much faster than it actually did, and the Native American tribes living on those lands would have been even more brutalized in the process. Anti-immigrant sentiments would have been greater in the late 19th Century then they were, since there would be no perceived need for more people to come to the USA from other parts of the world. States that entered the Union after the 1860s might still have had slaves if they were in the southwest, but the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century would at the same time had made slavery largely unprofitable. Both northern abolitionists and European states opposed to slavery might have succeeded in putting enough pressure on the United States for it to pass a Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery, but the southern states would have been able to block amendments granting citizenship and voting rights to freed blacks. As a result, the Supreme Court of the United States would have had no legal basis to condemn the Jim Crow laws and procedures of the South, resulting in racial segregation continuing to this very day. Many aspects of American culture, such as rock & roll and hip/hop music, would never have become popular among white youths. The United States would have regarded Mexico as an invader due to so many of its people coming undocumented across the border between them and this might have eventually led to another war with Mexico by the end of the 20th Century. The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union would have lasted much longer and been more damaging to the interests of the USA around the world because most other nations would see the Soviets as more enlightened and honorable than the racist Americans. Most black Americans would have been far more supportive of Communism and this in turn would have made capitalist supporting whites hate blacks even more.

.So the ultimate result would have been an America that was even MORE racist than today!