Why we fired Eric Cantor.


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Why we fired Eric Cantor.

Share

14 comments

  • Cotour

    Now we will be witness to how the big money Republican powers that be intend to respond to this humiliating defeat and rejection of the status quo, go along to get along politics by the people. A couple of weeks ago I read in the media how the “Tea Party” was dead in the water. I guess they celebrated a little too soon?

    Will the Marxist American president and his followers double down in their push to destroy our country’s foundation now that the Republicans are out of sync for the moment? Will the rest of the Republicans now realign their thinking out of fear for similar voter feed back in their own political races?

    All interesting questions.

  • Cotour

    Dave Brat won because he is a reasonable Conservative that can articulate his position and his philosophy, then you get people running like this:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-candidate-supports-stoning-gay-people-to-death/

    If indeed this person in this article, who identifies as being a Libertarian and I would assume a Conservative / Tea Party person actually said what is reported in this article then he and people like him are not doing anyone that believes in our country and our Constitution any good. Are these people strategic plants that are placed to discredit the Conservative movement or are they really that stupid and ignorant?

    Which ever it is they are a problem.

  • Joe

    Seems like if a republican says something stupid, the msm are very quick to pounce on it, a democrat can say almost word for word what this idiot said and it gets swept under the rug. Republican politicians need to start figuring out social media is not their friend.

  • Hugh Mann

    Blah blah blah blah. Who gives a flying shit about these parasites? They are ALL cut from the same mold. There’s no difference between the two parties, merely two sides of the same fiat coin. It doesn’t make any difference who we vote for because what one party doesn’t accomplish, the other will. If you think your vote counts, perhaps you should watch the following YouTube video of an election fraud hearing. This comes from the horses mouth about how votes are being manipulated with electronic voting machines.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9WVuKGwOM

    The government is broken beyond repair, run by criminals that would make the mafia look like cub scouts.

  • Cotour

    I think what you might mean is that the Media is not the friend of the Republican / Conservative and not social media. The people in the media for the most part have abandoned their objective fiduciary responsibility as journalists and become agents for this particular administration. Social media, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. etc. can be very powerful and is what YOU make of it. It can be positive or it can bite you in the ass because you are unable to properly communicate your message in a genuine way that people recognize that you are fair, reasonable and respectful.

    For example: http://www.mediaite.com/online/rick-perry-compares-homosexuality-to-alcoholism-you-can-decide-not-to-do-that/

    In an interview, Rick Perry, who it can be argued is a very successful Conservative Governor makes this analogy between alcoholism and homosexuality. He says that “you can decide not to do it”. While that may well be true and a person can choose not to do something, but like being addicted to alcohol, loving alcohol is in your nature. Tell a heterosexual man not to love the woman that he is in love with. It sounds logical, just make a choice, but is it really something that an individual wants to do or really can do, something against their nature? Rick Perry does not need the media to spin his words, he does it for them. It would be amplified if he chose to Tweet such thoughts.

    So Mr. Perry’s analogy, religious beliefs aside, falls apart and only accomplishes one thing, it pisses off gay people and probably the people who love them, both men and women, and it reinforces the thought that he is their existential enemy and they can never support such a person. Does that move us positively into the future?

    Do I think that Mr. Perry “hates” gay people? I would probably say no, he, like many others may be uncomfortable about the life style but I would have to assume that as long as they did not force themselves on him or his family that he would be respectful of their choices and how they chose to live. And THAT is what needs to be communicated not some unsophisticated polarizing analogy about a free American citizen choosing to not to be what they naturally are. Try choosing not to breath.

    Please remember to post the results of your “choice” of not breathing here. I await your results.

  • Cotour

    PS: His intent may well not primarily be to pander to or seem reasonable to the homosexual community which is loud but relatively small but to pander more to the larger heterosexual, religious community. Either way I think that he has created a net negative image because he is seen as being unsophisticated, inflexible, in the past, divisive, and most importantly disrespectful of an individual who lives in a country with a Constitution that specifically enumerates an individuals naturally born rights choices.

    The Constitution includes ALL Americans, whether you personally like them and their personal choices or not. The Constitution objectively says what it says and the American culture may over time evolve and make its comments related to that objectivity.

  • Hugh,

    What a hopeless look at life. With this approach, I am surprised that you simply don’t kill yourself.

    I think things are bad right now, but I also think that they can be fixed. All politicians are not the same. They are individuals, like everyone else. We can replace the bad ones. It will just take time.

    By the way, if you said this about blacks or orientals (“They all look alike.” “They are all stupid.”) we would call you a bigot. Saying that “all politicians are bad” is as meaningless and as bigoted. It is also lazy thinking. It excuses you from the hard work of looking at each closely to see the differences. For example, it is ridiculous to think that Rand Paul is the same as Barack Obama. They are quite different, and a government controlled by Paul would be very different from the one controlled now by Obama.

    That doesn’t mean you should trust either. They are politicians, which means they want power and have big egos. The second they do something you don’t like, you vote against them.

  • Joe

    O K, all of the media! Breathing is not a cognitive choice Cotour, you know that. You are correct about the constitution protecting all citizens without regard to orientation, ethnicity or gender.

  • Cotour

    That’s the point, being straight or heterosexual, for the most part is not an option, like breathing is not cognitive, it is what you biologically are. The controversy arises due to how culture judges an individuals behavior based in religious beliefs and the accepted morality of the day.

    The question is how does our culture balance the objective individual protections in our beautiful Constitution and the subjective judgments of individuals who live in our country and inhabit our government?

  • Joe

    Cotour, I never advocated this politicians views about stoning gays, I think that could turn into a slippery slope,’I merely was trying to say that a person needs to check his thoughts before he publishes them in some open format like social media or a comment page where he could have things taken out of context.

  • Cotour

    Joe, I never for one moment thought that you were in any way supporting what that guy said, I do not see where you get that from. Who would not agree with you about checking ones written words on social media before you push the enter button? That’s part of my point. Slippery slope? Do you think?

    Lets define terms:

    Media = News coverage on TV, the internet, radio, new papers, periodicals, movies etc, etc. all opinions generally shaped and to more or less degrees controlled by large corporate interests with agendas.

    Social media = Information created and posted by an individual on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, commenting on blogs, etc., etc.

    What that guy chose to say is about what he says that he thinks about a consequence that a fellow human being should pay (being stoned and I don’t think that he meant in the good way) for being different than he is is outrageous, ignorant and dangerous! You do not have to go any further than that.

    Yes, social media can be an asset or it can reveal a person to be an ass, a bigot, a non critical thinker, a fascist, intolerant etc, etc.

  • Hugh Mann

    ” I am surprised that you simply don’t kill yourself.”

    What a horrible thing to say! What kind of person are you?

    “I think things are bad right now, but I also think that they can be fixed. All politicians are not the same. They are individuals, like everyone else. We can replace the bad ones. It will just take time.”

    The system has been corrupted beyond repair. No one is going to enter that system of corruption and make changes to end the corruption. One of two things will happen. The system changes them or they end up dead. JFK bring back any memories?

    “They are politicians, which means they want power and have big egos. The second they do something you don’t like, you vote against them.”

    Oh yeah? You think our votes matter? How that voting been working for you so far? If choosing between two evils is a choice, what do you end up with? Another psychopath in office.

    “It is ridiculous to think that Rand Paul is the same as Barack Obama. They are quite different, and a government controlled by Paul would be very different from the one controlled now by Obama.”

    They are not different. Both dump huge sums of money to get a job that pays a tiny fraction in return. You think they are doing that so they can help the masses? They’re bought and paid for by mega corporations and banks. They’re in it for themselves.

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. So keep on voting for your parasitic government officials and see what changes take place in the prison you call the USA.

  • Edward

    Wow, Hugh. It’s hard to know just how to reply to this one. First you tell us that “All politicians are not the same. They are individuals, like everyone else. We can replace the bad ones. It will just take time.” Then you say that Rand Paul and Barack Obama “are not different. Both dump huge sums of money to get a job that pays a tiny fraction in return.” Strangely, our system is built upon the dumping of huge sums of money to get that job that pays a tiny fraction in return. There may be a better way, but right now we are stuck with this one. That is probably why they use other people’s money. Or, they may believe that there are other things that are more important than money (which is where I’m placing my bet for both of them).

    And also strangely, that was your reply to an essay on an election where only one of the two politicians mentioned dumped a lot of money. The other one ran less on cash and more on policy, so maybe the voters of Virginia believe, too, that there are things that are more important than money.

    “Oh yeah? You think our votes matter? How that voting been working for you so far?”

    Well, in Virginia, it went pretty well, thank you for asking. That was the point of Robert Tracinski’s essay; perhaps you should read it. It gives me hope that my vote may make a difference after all, even in my navy-blue state. I just have to be that one vote above the 50% mark. Or, as Tracinski noted, I can “put a little fear into” my incumbent, and put a little fear of the voter into her party.

    You, on the other hand, may or may not be as hopeless as Robert Zimmerman thought after reading your original comment. It is difficult to be sure, after reading your second, mixed message, comment.

  • Edward,

    One correction: The first quote in your comment above was not written by Hugh but by me in reply to him. Thus, he was not as inconsistent as you think. Otherwise, your comment is in my opinion right on the money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *