Mark Levin gives a mummy a hummer

Our historical understanding was blinded by racism that we didn’t know we had, so we weren’t racist when proposing racist ideals masked behind the concept of “federalism.”

When Bill Buckley wrote this:

The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists

He was offering a principled defense of federalism.

May I fluff your pillow, Mr. Hannity? Perhaps another mojito?

As a native (white hillbilly) Southerner who grew up under Jim Crow in the 50s and 60s and attended segregated schools for the first six years, let me be the first to say: Fuck you Mark Levin and your imaginary fucking principals. Opposition to civil rights legislation and all the bullshit “states rights” blathering were always and only about racism and all your little “principled” conservative heroes were rabid fucking racists (and most of them still are).

Shorter Mark Levin:

“I can’t speak for Mr. Buckley and others who were not motivated by racism but principle (wink, wink), but I can speak for myself when I say that letting one of them coloreds buy the house next door to me is diving head first onto the slippery slope towards tyranny. And if I blather on enough about Federalism, it will soon be acceptable to use the ‘N’ word again. Yay, Federalism!”

OK, I’ll give it a try:

You ever heard Randy Newman’s ”Rednecks”? We’re not all like that…

States Rights = state sponsored racism.
States Rights = Fuck the Union.

Why does he hate America?

Add in all the good ol’ boys that celebrate their souther heritage. They’re celebrating the time when they lost trying to break up the United States. Fuckers. Where’s Gen Sherman when you need him?

Mr. Buckley was also a student of history and understood that the abolitionist movement of the prior century were born mostly from churches and certain northern states, not from Congress — which, after all, had passed fugitive slave laws essentially upholding slavery in the south.

Um . . . not quite. The Fugitive Slave Laws were not about upholding slavery in the South, but overturning the Laws and State Constitutions of Northern States — the Fugitive Slave Laws required every state to capture fugitive slaves and return them to the tender mercies of their slave masters.

Prior to the Fugitive Slave Laws, Abolitionism was a minority fringe movement in the North; the Fugitive Slave Laws radicalized the entire (non-slave holding) nation, which led to the Civil War — John Brown lit the fuse. During the 1850’s, there were at least four occasions when angry mobs stormed jails in Massachussetts, to free the fugitive slaves that had been captured.

The slave holders were for States Rights when they upheld slavery; they were for trampling States Rights when it upheld slavery.

Just like Bill Buckley, Mark Levin, and the modern conservative movement — all of their principles are a sham, nothing more than fig leafs to hide their supremacist agenda.

Looky, way back at the Founding, the Fathers cut a deal–if you boys’ll sign up with us, we’ll let you keep your slaves. On second thought–about a 100 years later–a goodly part of the country decided that wasn’t such a good bargain after all, so the slave-holding states joined together and committed treason.

We had a big fight about it. You people lost. You might have heard by now.

Paging William Tecumseh Sherman. You’re needed in the southern department.
This time, finish the job.

I love how he uses this:

the abolitionist movement of the prior century were born mostly from churches and certain northern states, not from Congress — which, after all, had passed fugitive slave laws essentially upholding slavery in the south. The federal government had a mixed record prior to the election of Abraham Lincoln, including the Supreme Court itself in the Dred Scott case.

But fails to mention the fact that throughout the early years of the United States pre-Civil War, the south had a bit more leverage in Congress due to a little thing called the Three-Fifths Compromise. These fugitive slave laws were passed by slave-owning Congressman. Shocking! But True!

My goodness, if this is true then maybe, just maybe, slave-state born presidents might be likely to make more pro-slave appointments to the Supreme Court.

What Mr. Levin failed to note, but no doubt should have, is that any express GOP concern for ”states’ rights” should in no way be presumed to bear on the matter of the EPA overruling the CO2 standards of the state of California.

Last Gasp of the Sons of the Confederacy

If only it was!

I’m still trying to figure out how the GOP yelps about “state’s rights!!!” while simultaneously cheerleading for a guy who’s entire administration is based on the “Unitary Executive” theory.

Either they are actually for state’s rights, and what Bush is doing is unmitigated bullshit … or they’re for an all-powerful President and just use “state’s rights” as a way to mask their racism.

I mean, it’s gotta be one or the other — they can’t have it both ways, can they?

Yes, they can. And they do, without any apparent problems with the cognitive dissonance it would cause a normal, logica human being.