Black History Month Part 6: The Good Part

I’d like to close out Black History Month on a positive note - in a few short days, it will be over! Come Monday, we will get back to normal history and end a month of celebrating segregated information and racism. The best part of Black History Month is March 1st.

We are Americans. Let’s truly live Dr. King’s dream where the content of our character stands center stage rather than what color our skin is. By the way, that is what a Conservative sees. We see the character of a person. Liberals are focused on the “minority groups” – groups they’ve created.

Now, Black by popular demand, here are a few quotes from Dr. Walter E. Williams

Equality before the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty. It is an equality that neither requires nor assumes people are in fact equal. Our attempt to make people equal in fact by rigging law to produce equal results destroys civility and generalized respect for the law. Government cannot create an advantage for one person without simultaneously creating a disadvantage for another.

Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.

No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong

If we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help

President Obama could rise several notches in my book if he refused the Nobel Peace Prize, with a nice letter to the Nobel Committee that might read: Since you did not see fit to award Ronald Reagan, the U.S. president who did the most for world peace in this century, by peaceably shutting down the Soviet Union, I respectfully decline your offer

Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me -- spending the day with your family is worth more than $140. You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs

Black History Month Part 5: The "Party of Minorities"

It is often proclaimed that Democrats favor minorities and Republicans are racists. However, is this true history or just another lie by the Left to try to steal more votes? History once again will shed light on this ignorant position. What preceeds below was taken from http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html so, all the research credit belongs to them. This is great information. Feel free to research it for yourself.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt's order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that "no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time." Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.

Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan audience "I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your counsel." In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant in FDR's court packing scandal. Roosevelt appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the Senate confirmation of Black's nomination, the issue of his strong Klan affiliations caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following the confirmation Roosevelt claimed ignorance of Black's Klan past, though this claim was dubious at best. Black's first Senate election, which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade earlier in 1926. Black's Klan affiliations were a well known part of his political background and recieved heavy coverage in the newspapers at the time of his appointment. On the court, Black became a liberal stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring the opinion in favor of FDR's Japanese internment program in the infamous Korematsu ruling.

Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV: Byrd is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and is currently the only national elected official with a history in the Klan, a well known hate group. Byrd was extremely active in the Klan and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership recruiter. Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was effective in "promoting traditional American values" (Source). Byrd's choice of words speak volumes about his bigotry considering the fact that the Klan is a notorious hate group, and the racist "values" it promotes are anything but American. One of the earliest criticisms of Byrd's Klan ties came in 1952 when he was running for Congress. Byrd responded by claiming that he had left the Klan in 1943 while noting that "(d)uring the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." Byrd was lying, however, as he engaged in correspondence with a Klan Imperial Wizard long after he claims to have ended his ties with the hate group.

In a letter to the Klan leadership (Source) dated 3 years after he purported to have ended his ties with them, Byrd wrote "I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd continued his racist diatribe "It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union" and followed with a request for assistance from the hate group's leadership in "rebuilding the Klan in the realm" of West Virginia.

Byrd's racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he wrote on the subject of desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In the letter, Byrd vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting "(r)ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds" (Source).

Byrd's racist opinions have shown their ugly face in his behavior in the Senate. Byrd led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, according to the United States Senate's own website, filibustered the legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents to the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass. At the time, Byrd was in the the midst of a 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil rights measure (Source). Throughout the 1960's, Byrd was was one of the staunchest opponents to civil rights in the U.S. Senate. Byrd’s racist history drew attention recently when he went on national television and repeatedly used the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in existence, in an appearance on national television. Byrd uttered the slur on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow on March 5, 2001. Despite the appalling nature of the remark, it went largely ignored by the mainstream media and the self appointed "civil rights" leadership. Whereas a similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator would assuredly prompt the likes of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest rallies demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was eerily quiet following Byrd's remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd should avoid making such bigoted remarks.

In a sickening recognition of Byrd's appalling political career, the national Democrat party has done nothing but embrace the West Virginia senator with leadership roles and practically every honor imaginable. To this very day the Democrats call former Klansman turned U.S. Senator Robert Byrd the "conscience of the Senate." They have embraced him as their party's central pillar in all ways possible. Byrd has been reelected more times than any other Democrat senator, has served as a Democrat in Congress, a Democrat State Senator in West Virginia, and a Democrat State Delegate in West Virginia. Democrats have made repeatedly elected Byrd into their national party leadership and into the U.S. Senate leadership. He became secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in 1967, and Senate Democrat Whip in 1971. The Democrats elected former Klansman Byrd as their Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and as their Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986. Byrd was again elected Democrat Majority Leader from 1987-1988. Democrats made Byrd the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until the Republicans won control of the Senate in November 1994. Following the defection of Jim Jeffords in June 2001, the Democrats again made Byrd the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and elected him to the highest ranking office in the Senate: the President Pro Tempore, a position which also put this former Klansman 4th in line for the presidency. Byrd lost his position when Republicans retook the Senate in late 2002, but continues to serve as one of the highest ranking members of the Democrat Senate leadership today.

Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC: Hollings is liberal Democrat Senator from South Carolina who is also notorious for his use of racial slurs. He rose out of the Democrat Party's segregationist wing in the 1960's as governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings personally led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state. The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive' manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services." According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he "challenged President Eisenhower's contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against segregation. In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as "confused" and asserted that Eisenhower had done "great damage to peace and good order" by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters.
Governor Hollings' support for segregation continued throughout his term and included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement. Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats. The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting, noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to desegregation.

In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made disparaging racial remarks and slurs against minorities. Senator Hollings, who was a contender for his party's presidential nomination in 1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against Hispanics. After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated "You had wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston," referring to one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later Hollings reportedly used the slur "darkies" to derogatorily refer to blacks. He also once disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the "Blackbow Coalition," and called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who is Jewish, "the Senator from B'nai B'rith." Hollings gained international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, where he crudely remarked "you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." Hollings was also the Governor of South Carolina who raised the confederate flag over the state capitol in the early 1960's in what was considered at the time to be an act of defiance to civil rights. The press ignored Hollings and his role in the flag issue at the same time the political correctness police were smearing George W. Bush during his campaign after Bush correctly remarked that the flag was a state issue to be decided upon by South Carolina and not the national government.

Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000 Democrat Convention. Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City “Hymietown.” Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed "civil rights leader," is himself guilty of the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose.

Dan Rather: Rather, the well known television anchor for CBS, is also a liberal Democrat who has spoken at fundraisers for the Democrat party in the past. The notoriously left wing reporter appeared on the Don Imus radio show on July 19, 2001 where he was interviewed about his long term refusal to cover the Gary Condit (D-CA) scandal involving an affair with a missing intern despite the scandal's national prominence. Rather noted on the air that CBS had basically forced him to cover the story that was on every other network and on the front page of all the major newspapers, all this after Rather avoided it for months. Rather stated on the air, refering to CBS, that "they got the Buckwheats" and made him cover the Condit scandal. The term "Buckwheat" is considered an offensive racial stereotype that stems from an easily frightened black character named "Buckwheat" on the Little Rascals comedies. It is widely regarded as a racial epithet and has long been condemned as an offensive stereotype by several civil rights organizations. In several past incidents (see here and here) the use of the epithet "Buckwheat" has recieved condemnation by the NAACP, Al Sharpton and other left wing organizations. These left wing organizations and personalities have demanded that other media personalities be fired over using the epithet, and even staged a protest at a school over the mere allegation that the racist stereotype had been used by a teacher. Yet these same liberal groups have, to date, remained completely silent now that one of their own, Dan Rather, is guilty of using the same offensive racial stereotype they have condemned elsewhere on a national radio show. It's just more proof of how the left wingers who cry the loudest with accusations of racism against others turn a blind eye when somebody of their own left wing ideology is the undeniable culprit of a blatantly racist act or statement!

Cragg Hines: Hines is one of the most rabidly partisan DC based Democrat editorial columnists to work for a major newspaper, and he makes no attempts to hide it. To Hines, pro-lifers are "neanderthals," as is often the case with those who differ in opinion with him. Ironically, Hines, a columnist who regularly touts himself as an enlightened progressive, is also known for racial remarks and religious intolerance. He attacked Senator Jesse Helms in an August 26, 2001 editorial with not only the usual liberal name calling, but also with a racial epithet. Hines used the racial slur "cracker" to attack Helms. He used the epithet not only within the article's text, but he even included it in the piece's title. In a sense of heavy irony, Hines' article accused Helms of bigotry for, among other things, opposing liberal policies like affirmative action. He didn't seem to object to himself for his own bigotted language in the same article. Hines has also drawn heavy criticism from Catholics including a letter to the editor from the former President of the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Conference for his seemingly agenda-driven criticisms of Catholicism and its religious leaders, often based on little or no historical evidence, which he has expressed in numerous editorial columns.

Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the rumored candidates for the Democrat's 2004 presidential nomination, has a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central figure who fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton lieutenant called the store's owner a "bloodsucker" and declared an intent to "loot the Jews." A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store, resulting in the death of seven (source).
Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).
Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton's former drug czar and Democrat mayor of Houston, engaged in racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid. Brown faced challenger Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the runoff, Brown's campaign printed racist signs designed to intimidate Hispanic voters. The signs featured a photograph of Sanchez and the words "Anti-Hispanic." The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic leaders as their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic voters. Around the same time the signs were being used, Brown supporter and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of racially charged attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic voter turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming that Sanchez was not a true Hispanic. The racist anti-Hispanic undertones of Brown's reelection bid were so great that liberal Democrat city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his endorsement of Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the final week of the campaign. Following the harsh condemnation of the racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was removing them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the election. When election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist signs at polling places, despite his claim to have stopped using them. The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured, in Spanish, the word "Danger!" on them followed by Sanchez's name with a large red circle and slash through it. The signs identified the Brown campaign as their owner on the bottom. Brown's racially charged reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning 51% to 49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in which the Brown campaign appealed to the fear of black voters by invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd, Jr. and by attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity to declare himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his victory party, many in Houston fear the racial wounds inflicted by his campaign will take years to heal.
Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an "independent" in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them," indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.
Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his daughter's failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter's difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic sentiments, stating "This is all about the Jews" and spelling out "J-E-W-S." McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.

The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan members who have served in elected capacity within the high ranks of the Democrat Party, the political party itself has a lengthy but often overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Though it has been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of 1924 was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the "Klanbake convention" at the time, the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute surrounding the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention attempted to condemn the hate group in the party's platform, but found their proposal shot down by Klan supporters within the party. As delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan's favor, the Klan itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the largest Klan gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field in nearby New Jersey. The event was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat Convention, and ended in a cross burning.
II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia.

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.

Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats: - Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes - George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama - Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.

Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.

The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly accuse Republicans of racial hatred, remember who the historical record up until this very day points to as the real bigots: The Democrat Party. In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the pillars of ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or affiliates of racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today's heroes and leaders:

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment - Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group - Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television - Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic slurs - Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City - Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups - Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters - Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent. - Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast - Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis.

The simple truth is that the Democrat Party's history during this century is one closely aligned to bigotry in a record stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day. Bigots are at the center of the Democrat party's current leadership and role models. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who dishonestly shout accusations of "bigotry" at conservatives are practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind themselves.

Also check out these references:
http://nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=401
http://newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/democratic-racism/2008/02/25/id/323000

You'll enjoy this one. Note at the end the poor attempt to recover from this statement.

Black History Month Part 4: The Conservatives!

Black History month likes to promote a very tunnel visioned view of black people. They celebrate the struggles of Dr. King, Rosa Parks, the Little Rock Nine, etc. and generally anyone who escribes to liberal thought (i.e. Maya Angelou, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.). However, if Black History month is to be fair, let's consider a few in society that are definately worth mentioning.

Our journey begins with the Dean of Economics at George Mason University. Since 1990, Walter E. Williams has been a professor of economics at the university. Williams' takes a firm stand on Free Market Capitalism as well as showing the positivies of the so-called US Trade Deficit. Williams makes regular stand-in appearances on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Walter Williams is a Conservative. http://www.gmu.edu/depts/economics/wew/

One of Williams good friends is Thomas Sowell. Thomas is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover institute and also heavily involved in Economics. In fact, he has written a book Basic Economics that has become a standard text on the subject. Sowell is a Conservative.

Going away from the University, our next stop is the US Capitol. This is where we will find Supreme Court Justic Clarence Thomas. Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall as the second black jurist on the Supreme Court. Thomas prides himself as being a judge that puts the Constitution before him. Thomas is a Conservative.

Remaining in D. C. gives us the rememberance of the former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. She has since returned to Standford University as a Political Science professor. She also is a Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institute. A very interesting tidbit of information came to light at the 2000 Republican Naitonal Convention when she said, "My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did." Condoleeza Rice is a Conservative.

As Chairwoman of the National Black Republican Association, Frances Rice champions the Republican Party platform and desires to see it fulfilled in the lives and homes of the "black community." Frances Rice is a Conservative.

Here is a list of others that you can research on your own.

1. Star Parker

2. Angela McGlowan

3. Alfonso Rachel

4. Joseph C. Phillips

5. Ken Blackwell

6. Homer Plessy

These are just a few of many black conservatives in the country. Black History month just wouldn't be the same without these mentions.

Black History Month, Part 3: Cultural Diversity

Just a quick thought today --

As the age of political correctness continues its path of destruction through each new generation, I’d like for us to stop and consider something – something that has become mainstream in society but yet, society doesn’t realize its harm. Often, in an attempt to avoid so-called “racial” terminology in describing a person, we are forced into using a more acceptable method. This method seemingly demands us to use ethnic heritage. Therefore, we give terms like Asian-American or African-American to “non-white Americans” so we can have an appeasing way to categorize them.

Thus, the problem festers. By thinking we are being “culturally sensitive”, we are actually destroying our culture. The American culture is simply this: it is the many people from over the years that have populated our land and have sought out their dreams under the bountiful protection of freedom. When I say that I’m an American – what factors determine such a statement? Is it my social status? Is it my racial status? No. Being an American isn’t defined by those terms. Being an American is defined by capturing freedom and holding on for dear life. Being an American is defined by letting my abilities take me as far as I want to go. Being an American is looking around at every other American and realizing that we all are equal under the Law and we all have the same right to succeed.

The problem is, we have become far too ingrained into thinking that the American culture is a culture of ethnic diversity – a living UN if you will. The very reason we have different countries in the world is because different cultures do not mix. We do not need a plurality of cultural influences invading American thought and legislation; which serves nothing more than the give favor to “minorities” and take favor from the “majority” because they’ve had it long enough. America will only survive if we stand firm on the American culture (as defined above.) The idea of an African-American cannot exist in the American culture. It is oxymoronic! You are either African or you are American! If you want to see an end to racism, then quit masquerading race under the guise of pseudo-ethnicity! –just be an American! And, I say “pseudo-ethnicity” because those that claim the title “African-American” weren’t born in African and then migrated to America. They were born in America – which makes them an American.

This way of thinking has even infested our politicians. As an American, I’m not worried about the “black vote” or the “Hispanic vote;” I’m worried about the American vote. It wasn’t diversity that gave us our country. It was uniformity. Yes Libs, it is “One Nation, under God, Indivisible!” It was the urge to press on and defeat the British that gave us the greatest nation in history. It wasn’t the urge for cultural diversity. We pressed forward as one people and only as one people will we survive.

Black History Month, Part 2: The Issue of Slavery

For more entertaining drivel on Reparations, check out one of the leading groups for Reparations.

“We want our just inheritance: the trillions of dollars due us for the labor of our ancestors who worked for hundreds of years without pay. We demand the resources required removing all badges and indicia of slavery”

The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in American (N’COBRA)

http://www.ncobra.com/ncobra_info.htm

This week, we'll look at the institution of slavery and some things you probably won't hear in history class. It is not my goal to glorify slavery nor to condone it, but merely to show that the slanted view we get in class doesn't stand up to objective, historical analysis.

"N'COBRA, is a coalition of organizations and individuals committed to the economic, cultural, intellectual, political, social, and spiritual empowerment of black people in the USA. We are the descendants, and thus the heirs, of Africans kidnapped, transported, and enslaved in the Americas"

They claim that they are descendants of kidnapped Africans. It is worth noting that many slaves were slaves before they were sold to Europeans. In fact, many families and tribes betrayed their own people to make a quick buck. African Kingdoms such as the Ashanti, Benin, Oyo, Dahomey, and Kongo played their role in selling their people. But, let's not confine ourselves to a few examples. Let's dig deeper!

In about 1000 A.D., the Songhai state emerged in western Africa. This became one of the largest Empires in West Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries. However, this empire didn't exist forever and many of the people of this empire were enslaved by other West African empires. Hmmm...African slaves and the slave owners were African! Many of the African nations that had a large dependence on trade were also heavily involved in capturing and selling other Africans. (i.e. the Ashanti people of Ghana and the Yoruba people of Nigeria) Later, these sales would be made to the Europeans that were in a triangular trade route between the Americans, the West Indies, and Africa. Thus, many of the slaves that came to America were slaves already - now they just got to enjoy the benefits of life in America rather than what some desert offered in Africa.

Yes, I said benefits. The fact of the matter is, many slave owners in America, nay, the majority of slave owners in America only had 7 to 10 slaves. The slave owners worked in the fields with their slaves and they were treated very well by their "masters." Think about it. A slave, at the time, was a purchased possession. They weren't free. To deliberately torture and beat a slave would be economic suicide for the slave owners. Now, I'm not suggesting that that sort of thing didn't go on. However, history shows us it was far more scarce then we are led to believe.

To summarize, to claim that you are a descendant of such slaves, one is impossible to prove, and two would mean that you might be a descendant of an African who sold out their own people. So, dig in your own wallet and pay your neighbor this "deserved" reparation!

Now, here's the fun part. Without a little censorship from Dixie you'd never know about this. During the Civil War, there were black slave owners in America! Any why not? It happened in Africa, why not here as well! I found a great essay on this issue. Click the link and read more http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm. If you further want to get riled up, read this http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,635175667,00.html.

I'm sorry if this doesn't flow with your PC idea of history, but it is the truth. The issue of slavery is important in our history. But, as history has shown, it isn't someone else's job to try to make me feel guilty for it.

Black History Month, Part 1: Reparations

Alright, don't get your laced-britches in a knot, the State of the Union analysis is still in the works. Normally I can go topic by topic and highlight a few things that were said specifically - but with this guy, it is line by line! I don't want to short-shrift the Address, so be patient!

Now, on to more pressing matters. Today begins a 28 day journey into Black History Month. This is a month where racism is cherished and even demanded. How else am I to view a month that is dedicated to a people and the defining attribute (hence the title of the month) is based on skin color?! If we had a white history month, the ACLU would throw a tantrum. Al Sharpton would be beating down the doors of the network news outlets so he could get on TV. And, Jessie Jackson would still go on speaking his racial hate with a diction that rivals Sloth from the Goonies. Therefore, to begin our celebration of Black History Month, let's tackle some issues of the so-called "African-American community."

One of most absurd ideas to come along in this age of political correctness is the idea of paying reparations to African-American families in order to compensate them for losses incurred as a result of the institution of slavery. Aside from the fact that there is not one African-American alive today that lived under the institution of slavery, the truth is, the federal Government has spent more in money and lives directly related to the African-American population, than any other ethnic group.

Though many may argue that the American Civil War was not fought over slavery, the roots of the war were indeed embedded over the slavery question. Almost every major bill introduced in Congress in the years leading up to the Civil War related in some way to slavery. The earliest law regarding this issue was found in the Constitution, ratified In 1789. The Constitution was ratified with a provision called the 3/5ths Slave Act that allowed for determination of the population of slave holding states to be modified in the following manner. For every 5 slaves that existed in the pro-slavery states, the number of the population of the state was to be increased by 3 persons during Census years. This allowed for additional Southern Representatives to be added to Congress.

This compromise was added in order to pacify the Southern states who felt that due to the Northern States having greater populations, they would in-turn dominate the Congress and could by virtue of their superior number of representatives make slavery an outlawed institution.

Further laws included the Kansas-Nebraska Act (A disastrous piece of legislation), The Missouri Compromise and other laws, all designed to placate the southern states. Yet each law that was passed only seemed to require further legislation in order to bring the Southern states satisfaction. Thus, the split in the Democratic party that occurred in 1859 along geographical lines largely as a result of the issue of slavery, allowed Lincoln to win the Presidency and set the stage for secession.

When the Civil War began, Lincoln saw the war as necessary to reunite the nation. Yet by September of 1862, Lincoln saw the aims of the war as expanding and changing. Since slavery was the issue that led to the War, the slavery issue must be ultimately addressed. This led to the Emancipation Proclamation. This changed the entire scope of the war not only to that of re-uniting the nation, but also ending the evil institution of slavery. What then were the costs incurred to end slavery?

First, there was the cost in human lives. The Union army lost 330,000 dead and an additional 285,000 were wounded. All of the casualties incurred by the United States in every other war fought in our 200+ years of history, when added together, do not equate to the cost incurred by the our nation in lives to end slavery.

In addition, it cost the federal Government approximately 2.5 million dollars a day in 1860’s dollars ($59,222,494/day in today's dollars) to prosecute the war. The interest on the foreign debt incurred during the war was still being paid into Grant’s administration in the 1870’s.

The Freedman’s Bureau was established in 1866 to provide free education and medical care to former slaves and to arbitrate disputes between whites and blacks. Approximately 16,000,000 dollars a year were spent to provide for transition of former slaves into white society (at a time when the average monthly salary for unskilled labor was $30.00 a month, this was a significant sum of money). In addition, millions of dollars were spent to provide occupation forces to enforce the 13^th , 14^th and 15^thAmendments that freed slaves and provided them the right to vote. Through the process of reconstruction, many black families were granted 40-acre plots of ground by the Federal Government to allow them to farm and become self-sufficient.

By the 1960’s, the government was spending millions to provide for desegregation and to fund Johnson’s (not so) Great Society. These expenditures were directed largely toward the African-American population.

In more recent legislature, the Government has a minority preference policy for contract bidding. Minority owned companies are granted preference when it comes to awarding government contracts especially in the construction field. Thus, the government may award contracts to less qualified companies, not based on the low bid, or the level of experience, but whether they have minority ownership and a specific percentage of minority employees.  Most colleges and public employers today have affirmative action policies that provide preference toward minorities regardless of qualifications when it comes to admission to the schools and/or hiring practices.

The issue goes far beyond the costs involved. By 1865, the Union army had organized some 160 Black regiments. Several of these regiments fought with great distinction. Along with the famous 54^thMassachusetts Regiment in it’s assault on Battery Wagner on July 18,1863, several other regiments incurred huge losses in their zeal to fight for freedom. These included 292 Soldiers at Fort Pillow in which all but 62 were killed by forces under Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK) on April 12, 1864 in a controversial battle later described as a massacre. The Black regiments of Grant’s 18^th Corps charged Lee’s positions at New Market Heights on September 29^th, 1864 and also suffered tremendous casualties.

The interesting thing about these regiments in that they were only paid $10.00 per-month in comparison to the $13.00 per-month paid to white regiments. The government then deducted three dollars from the pay of black regiments for clothing. As a result of the pay disparity, many black soldiers protested by refusing to accept pay at all for their services. They never asked for one dollar from the Government in return for their sacrifice and service. They only asked for the same opportunities as whites. ¹

After the War, many black soldiers suffered the indignity of being denied their pensions. Only 75% of the Black veterans were granted pensions while almost 96% of White veterans were granted pensions.²

During the Indian Wars, several black regiments served on the frontier. Two of the most famous served on into the Spanish-American War. These were the 9^th and 10^th Regiments. These regiments served with distinction and not one of the veterans of these regiments asked for reparations for their families. They received the standard pensions paid to their white brethren.

In addition to pensions, many blacks were lynched during the Post Civil War years and into the Jim Crow era. None asked any more from their Government than equal opportunity to vote and function in society. They asked for the right to be educated and to earn a decent living. They had to overcome lynching, prejudice and ill treatment in their attempts to gain equal access to society.

Much of this struggle was successful. In the Post War years, with the help of the Freedmans' Bureau, several Black Colleges were established. Tuskegee University in Alabama became one of the most famous. As of today, there exists more than 100 Colleges that has their roots in Post War Black education.

Today, there has been a marked shift in the mentality of black leaders in contrast to those that existed in the Post Civil War years. Those of the Post War years took pride in the sacrifices they had made for freedom. They saw their struggle not requiring, nor demanding to be coddled by the Federal Government, nor spoiled by living off of Government handouts, but rather they struggled to prove that they could be as successful as Whites in society. Not only did they accomplish this in the extraordinary sacrifices of the Black soldiers on the battlefield, whose heroism in the face of prejudice proved that they could fight to the equal of Whites. This was also proven by the Black veteran’s organizations that successfully petitioned the Government for the right to vote. It was also proven by the willingness to protest ill treatment by such heroes as Rosa Parks, and by the senseless slaying of such Black leaders as M. L. King, all of whom would never have countenanced Government handouts, but only the chance to be viewed equally.

In the end, this sense of pride and self-accomplishment in the face of extreme odds has been largely negated by leaders demanding free money and land from the Government due to some contrived injustice to them that dates back over 130-years, when not one of them has had to live under the bonds of slavery that their forebears fought to overcome. It is as if they are spitting on the graves of those who gave their lives to instill freedom and pride in their African-American brethren.

¹ The last surviving Black Veteran of the Civil War was Joseph Clovese who died in 1951.

² Donald R. Shaffer. After the Glory: The Struggles of Black Civil War Veterans. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004, page 119.