On May 15, Roy E. Frankhouser died at his home in Pennsylvania at the age of 69. See this story in the Reading Eagle. He had been a KKK leader, and he had been convicted in February 1988 for advising Lyndon LaRouche on how to obstruct a federal grand jury probe into LaRouche’s fundraising. LaRouche himself was convicted in December 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations.
Sounds like he was a total, utter and low down you-know-what. Not too shocking to see that Lyndon would have worked with a KKK leader.
Ya know Richard, I so appreciate your general tone in print and electronically. How ever, I am puzzled by additions like the Frankhouser post juxtapositioned to the neglect of a nearly successful ballot access petition drive to dethrown the worst big town mayor [KCMO’s Mark Funkhouser] since Jerry Springer.
W’sup ??????????
————— Donald Raymond Lake
And the future of the GOP……..
UTAH GOVERNOR SUGGESTS WAY OUT OF WILDERNESS FOR GOP.
One of our readers posted an item in yesterday’s blog thread that I thought intriguing enough to make the focus of today’s posting. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. (R) — a businessman, heir to a billionaire fortune, former US Ambassador, former Reagan White House aide, Mormon, and a father of seven — says the Republican Party must moderate on social issues and abandon the current negativity or risk a slow national political death as a party. And he’s also one of the more intriguing possible GOP White House contenders for 2012, as he wants to push the Republicans in a new direction. Here are some excerpts from Huntsman’s provocative interview with Politico:
Q: What is your take on the stimulus? Will you take all the money?
HUNTSMAN: It’s easy to criticize the bill and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to take the money. It’s pretty simple. … We will take the money.
…
Q: You said the stimulus wasn’t large enough. In addition to the tax cuts that you mentioned, are there other measures you would have liked to see included in the bill?
HUNTSMAN: Well, the size of about a trillion dollars was floated by Mark Zandi, who’s a very respected economist. I tend to believe what he is saying about the size of the package, which didn’t necessarily hit the mark in terms of size.
…
Q: What do you make of the rhetoric coming out of the Democratic Party or the Obama administration on fair trade and “Buy American†laws?
HUNTSMAN: That’s shades of Smoot-Hawley, 1931. When America closes its doors, so does everybody else. We are the primary engine of growth in the world and we are the only beacon of free trade left, and open markets.
….
Q: Are you saying that congressional Republicans are irrelevant?
HUNTSMAN: Well, I’m saying, to a lot of states like ours, there isn’t much guidance coming out of Congress that necessarily impacts anything we do. But I’ll tell you this about the overall debate: we will be irrelevant as a party until we become the party of solutions and until we become the party of preeminence.
Q: Is it a party of “no” right now?
HUNTSMAN: I’m not sure that it can be defined in any way in particular, because there’s nothing there with which to define it. And it won’t be defined until it breaks through with some real, practical solutions. “No” isn’t a solution.
…
Q: You’ve changed your position on gay rights. [Huntsman recently endorsed civil union legislation which would grant identical marriage rights to same-sex couples.] What prompted that?
HUNTSMAN: Well, I’ve always been in favor of greater equality. My first year in office I ran a reciprocal beneficiary rights piece of legislation. It failed, but my first year in office I wanted to see if we could do more in the name of individual rights. And I’ve always thought that we were a little bit behind in terms of equality for people born under the same constitution.
Q: In December you talked about people 40 and under having a very different view on the environment. Is there a similar generational gap on gay rights?
HUNTSMAN: You hit on the two issues that I think carry more of a generational component than anything else. And I would liken it a bit to the transformation of the Tory Party in the UK. They went two or three election cycles without recognizing the issues that the younger citizens in the UK really felt strongly about. They were a very narrow party of angry people. And they started branching out through, maybe, taking a second look at the issues of the day, much like we’re going to have to do for the Republican Party, to reconnect with the youth, to reconnect with people of color, to reconnect with different geographies that we have lost.
…
Q: Why do you think winning back the intelligentsia matters?
HUNTSMAN: I think we’ve drifted a little bit from intellectual honesty in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, for example, where they would use rigorous science to back up many of their policies, and in this case many of their environmental policies. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. We declared the war on cancer. A lot of intellectual rigor went into the policies of those days, and we’ve drifted a little bit from taking seriously the importance of science to buttress much of what we’re doing today.
Q: It sounds like what you’re saying is that Republicans need to win the educated class of America.
HUNTSMAN: Absolutely. … I’m not sure that we have connected fully, meaningfully and in any complete way on the issues of the day.
…
Q: Are we going to see you in Iowa and New Hampshire next year, do you think?
HUNTSMAN: If there are some good motocross races.
Q: Has a presidential campaign crossed your mind?
HUNTSMAN: You know, it’s hard to speak in those terms today, because we just had an election. Politics is a lot of serendipity. You’re in the right place and the right time and you’ve got the right message, and it either connects for you or, or it doesn’t. And I think whoever emerges as the standard-bearer for the Republican cause in four or eight years will have to first prove that they can be a person who delivers results in the incubator or laboratory of democracy, as opposed to someone engaging in gratuitous rhetoric.
Q: Is there a place in a Republican primary who has views on gay rights, immigration, the environment, foreign policy, that are not exactly orthodox conservative?
HUNTSMAN: Well, that will all be determined in the next few years, because it won’t just be me, it will be a whole lot of people who will probably want to expand the horizons so that we include more people into our party. There’s no other way to get it done. And, you know, so long as we always believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and so long as we can hold firmly to the principles that keep entrepreneurs viable – because, in the end, that’s the one thing, other than our constitutional freedoms, that really make us a unique country.
Can someone who believes his party is currently ideologically bankrupt and the GOP base is essentially “a very narrow party of angry people” succeed in trying to build a national movement to fix his party? Agree or disagree with Huntsman — but it’s a very bold political move which sets him sharply apart from Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and the other social conservatives who are seeking to rebuild the Republican Party by moving it further right.
Daily Report by Ron Gunzburger- 02.26.09 | Permalink |
I’m not that surprised that LaRouche had relations with KKK leaders.
With all of this nations problems,we have somthing very redeeming:The Ist Amendment guarentee of freedom of speech,assembly,worship,and of the press.Roy E. Frankhouser perhaps was not politically correct;however,in a long era of growing finance,and growing government power since 1913(the Federal Reserve)and the National Security State(since 1941)Frankhouser,the radical challanged that system.Questioned it,and defied it.He paid the price with many arrests,(Somtimes justified,somtimes not) He suffered,physical abuse,mental anguish,and financial ruin,but still kept going.Madness perhaps,but how many can say they put it all on the line for there own causes and beliefs.
Dante speaka da true. As an Animal Rights person, I’ve done zilch compared to what Roy did. Amd the Humanistic Species-ists who’ve ruined Earth have re-written the books on the concept of “Negative Impact.” Next to Roy’s example, mine is nothing.
Contrasted with the Humanists, I’m the king of all Nobel Prize categories.
HUNTSMAN: That’s shades of Smoot-Hawley, 1931. When America closes its doors, so does everybody else. We are the primary engine of growth in the world and we are the only beacon of free trade left, and open markets
—————————————————
Based on the power of Doublethink, we get this kind of disinformation from Mr Huntsman, from whom we apparently should have expected nothing ese.
Walkie should read the book:IMPEACHMENT OF MAN,BY SEVETRA DEVI.Its about animal rights.See THE SEVETRA DEVI ARCHIVE,website.