Democrats’ History of Racism

by B. Christopher Agee   -   Western Journalism

Here's a bit of American history guaranteed not to appear in any government-approved history book. The Democrat party has, throughout its existence, represented the bigotry and racism they seek to project onto Republicans.

The informed readers of this article are likely familiar with the racist roots of the political party aptly portrayed by a jackass, but much of the general population, especially outspoken Democrats, are woefully ignorant of any such facts.

Ask the nearest Democrat about Republicans and race and even the mayor of a substantial American city might just respond with, "They are racist."

In reference to their own party, Dems will likely say they led the fight for civil rights throughout the years, though a cursory review of the party will prove this assertion wrong. For instance, this was the party that established the Ku Klux Klan as its enforcement arm. Powerful Democrat politicians have appointed klansmen to high-ranking positions in American government for a century, yet have somehow convinced the vast majority of blacks that Republicans are the bad guys!

The KKK was used to intimidate voters, black and white, into voting Democrat - or not voting at all.

Through violence, property damage, rape, and murder, Democrats were able to secure a huge majority of the black vote comprised of those afraid to cast an alternate ballot. Disgustingly, they have somehow been able to maintain that death-grip on the African-American community to this day.

When these reprehensible strategies, though unquestionably effective, did not satiate their need to keep the black population down, Democrat-supported legislation such as Jim Crow laws made sure these minorities would remain second-class citizens even after the ratification of the 13th Amendment. There are plenty of examples of heralded Democrats, including Presidents LBJ and Truman, expressing disdain for blacks in their own words.

Republicans, thankfully, emerged as the pro-freedom, anti-slavery alternative to the juggernaut that was the Democrat party. Despite the fact that significantly more Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats (and the fact that Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first to initiate the legislation which finally passed and was enacted under Democrat Presidents JFK and LBJ), the party of the left has somehow hoodwinked much of the black community into thinking they are its savior. In fact until the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King was a Republican, re-registering as a Democrat as part of the negotiations, and so were most blacks Republicans (the party of Abraham Lincoln) until that time. Facts like these are part of the reason the Progressives consistently fight to re-write and edit the history that is taught and skew media productions.

Of course, today's Democrats will say, if they concede these points at all, that this is all ancient history, but I respectfully disagree. In much the same way that it did in the late 1800s, the Democrat party needs the black vote and, increasingly, the Hispanic vote to pull heavily for their side in order to win elections.

While paying them mere lip service, liberals pass legislation such as a broken welfare system rewarding poor mothers for having out-of-wedlock children and punishing them for getting married, thus keeping minorities at the mercy of government handouts. This makes them beholden to a party that represents views, such as support for abortion and gay marriage, that are diametrically opposed to those of many in the black community.

Democrats know they cannot intellectually compete with a party that, at its core, simply wants to provide individual liberty, encourage strong families and reduce abortions (which equal approximately the death toll of the 9/11 attack every two days in the black community alone), so they continue to repeat the old diatribe that Republicans are the real racists.

The GOP, which was the first to name a black Supreme Court Justice and Secretary of State, must defend itself against accusations based purely in the imagination of Democrats, often with figurative or literal blood on their own hands.

Each February, Democrats promote Black History Month with a vengeance, hoping to stoke the race war embers and elicit even more loyalty from the black community. I would promote a the study of accurate black history, not just during the shortest month but year round, and it's relationship with a Democrat party that has been patronizing at its best and deadly at its worst.

Unfortunately, I feel that would be the only chance Republicans have of attracting a voting bloc that has continually been misled into hating the wrong political party.

NAACP Furthers Mission of KKK

Black Pastors’ ‘Amen; Turning to ‘Oh My!’

Black Pastors Launch Anti-Obama Campaign to Convince African Americans to Withdraw Support for the President

Republicans: Black America's true friend

The Left’s Race Card

Race and Religion in Obamaland…

MLK’s Niece, Dr. Alveda King to Stand (Stood) With Glenn Beck at ‘Restore Honor’ Event in DC and Against Hate and Racism

GB: Liberation Theology… And How It Affects You – Important to Read and Watch!

Beck’s Founders Friday: African-American Founders

A black man: the progressives' perfect Trojan Horse

Is Obama Socially Rigging 2012?

Political Correctness…

Related Reading:

Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It, Revised and Updated Edition

Bamboozled: How Americans are being Exploited by the Lies of the Liberal Agenda

Liberating Black Theology: The Bible and the Black Experience in America

Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession

White Guilt

Giants: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln

Technorati Tags: accurate black history,black history,knowledge is Power,racism,truth,rewriting history,liberal media bias,educate yourself,Star Parker,Lloyd Marcus,KKK,Democrat history,political correctness,Left's race card,Obamaland,JFK,LBJ,MLK,Dwight Eisenhower,Glenn Beck,Black Pastors,Christianity under attack,black conservatives,black Republicans,Abraham Lincoln,Frederick Douglass,control,politics of division of hate. politics of control,Democrat lies,Alveda King,Black History Month

ED Rush View on the Martin Case "When & Why Now"

by Erik Rush Email | Archive -  WND

Author of Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession

A commie president and the Trayvon tragedy

This past weekend I was asked by my friend and Fox News commentator T.J. McCormack to visit with him on his radio show and comment on a column he’d written concerning the Trayvon Martin shooting. Pretty much anyone with a forum (whether television, radio, online publications or social media) who’s commented on this issue has taken heat either from the right or the left. In this case, it was both.

T.J.’s take on the shooting, subsequent media feeding frenzy and rash of activism was a little different than most being bandied about. It was a sincere appeal for prominent parties on both sides of the issue to unite amicably in light of the incident’s grave potential repercussions.

“Coming together” for the good of the nation would certainly hold the moral high ground, but I opined that this was probably about as likely as my becoming a volunteer at the local Obama campaign office.

There are simply too many agendas in play to hope for such unity to manifest. The radicals are driving the discussion and the response, which in this case is analogous to the inmates running the asylum. Race-baiting career activists are fomenting anger and tension with the full complicity of the establishment press. The former seek continuing relevance and ongoing financial support, while the latter seeks ratings. Both are ideologically aligned with – or rather, part of – the radical element.

And the politicos? Well, Democratic leaders are obviously aligned with the radical element, particularly if they’re part of this administration, and the remainder are close enough. Republican leaders will be in trouble no matter what they do. If they remain silent, they’ll be called cowards; if they speak out and don’t call for George Zimmerman’s boiled severed head, they’ll be called racists. Most would rather have the coward label than the racist one, so have said nothing. Conservative commentators who weigh in are dismissed as party to perceived racist policies, and any reasonable liberal voices are being drowned out by the din of the far-left propaganda machine.

How do we go from a moment to a movement that creates fundamental change? If it’s a moment, we go home. If it’s a movement, we go to war.

– Rev. Jesse Jackson, March 12, 2012

It may surprise some people when I say that the hypocrisy and irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric of career civil-rights activists are hardly the issue here. Neither is the alacrity with which the news media pounce on stories like this while ignoring the 2007 Tennessee gang-rape and mutilation slaying of a white couple by four black men, or the recent attempted immolation of a white Kansas City youth by a gang of black kids. The issue isn’t black Americans’ inability to discern that their political allies have accounted for exponentially more deaths of blacks via their policies than all the confirmed race-related killings of blacks over the last 40 years.

The issues upon which we should focus are the when and the why this is occurring in the way it is occurring. We may never know the truth of what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in the moments before the shooting, but if we examine the when and the why of its aftermath, the truth becomes eerily apparent.

When President Obama commented on the Martin shooting, some contended that he had “acted stupidly” in commenting on something he should have stayed out of for reasons of due process and presidential decorum. I contend that like nearly everything he does, it was quite calculated. While specious as well as gratuitous, Obama stating that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon” was nevertheless calculated to engender an emotional response. The reason it was calculated to engender an emotional response is the same reason many things are transpiring across the political landscape, all at the same approximate time.

That’s the when part … which is, quite clearly, right now.

The things to which I refer that are transpiring concurrently include the aftereffects of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, violence on our border with Mexico, the Occupy movement, assaults on religious freedom and free speech by the administration and activists, and the implausible organization and mobilization of fringe malcontents into politically active groups. These developments can all be traced (as I’ve recently indicated) to Obama’s political roots, which are borne out by his policies, his associations and his affinity for such doctrines as Black Liberation Theology and Critical Race Theory.

The specter of a communist takeover of the U.S. still remains singularly preposterous to millions of Americans who would quickly come to arms if they actually believed it a possibility. I’m not entirely certain how President Obama proposes to suppress those who would rise up against him were his intentions to become widely apparent, but I believe that part of the plan is to factionalize us (such as is occurring over the Martin case and Occupy Wall Street). I believe he’s also counting on deepening economic adversity to heighten Americans’ collective stress. Another element might be to provoke concerned patriots into action that he could point to as a threat to domestic tranquility, thereby convincing a preponderance of Americans to accept fundamental compromises to their civil liberties.

In such a case, Obama could then employ some of the more traditional Marxist tactics, such as mass executions, as cohorts of his friend Bill Ayers once advocated. It’s already apparent that certain factions would be more than happy to aid him in that effort. Quite a few conservatives have pointed to the timeliness of Obama’s executive order of March 16 (on “National Defense Resources Preparedness”) as an overture to just such action. Called a mere “tweak” of the amended Defense Production Act of 1950, many have asked why the president saw a necessity to “tweak” a law with provisions that essentially give exclusive and unlimited power to the Executive Branch in the event of a national emergency, which would necessarily be declared by the president himself.

To those whose assessment of individuals is not predicated upon what comes out of their mouths and the mouths of their surrogates, the truth is clear: President Obama is a communist, laboring with like-minded comrades to actualize a long-embraced communist agenda – and their end game is fast approaching.

That is the why of it.

by Erik Rush -   a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare. His latest book is "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession” In 2007, he was the first to give national attention to the story of Sen. Barack Obama's ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, initiating a media feeding frenzy. Erik has appeared on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," CNN, and is a veteran of numerous radio appearances. More <- <-  Email | Archive

White Guilt

The Race Card: White Guilt, Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth and Justice

Related:

Witness counters Trayvon Martin media narrative

Sarah Palin: I think the president’s comments on Trayvon Martin were orchestrated

What Happened to the Post Racial Dream and Promise?

Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term?

There is a wonderful quote that has been making its way around the internet over the past year. It apparently was translated from an article published in the Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung last April and reads as follows:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency...Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

The first time I saw this, the Tea Party enthusiasm was in full force and Republicans were on their way to taking back the House and gaining ground in the Senate. Optimism prevailed and the light at the end of the tunnel began to appear. But as Barack Obama announces his reelection bid and the GOP has yet to produce a strong, viable candidate for President, it would be prudent to question the present mindset of the electorate who got the country and the world into the current mess and whether it is possible that "the confederacy of fools" will elect him to a second term.

When Obama won in 2008, I wrote an article for AT in which I analyzed the various reasons that people had for voting for a person who was clearly incompetent, unprepared, unpatriotic, and basically void of any substance other than his own ego and disdain for American exceptionalism. The five categories of Obama voters included (i) individuals suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, (ii) followers with a mob mentality of assuming that if everyone liked the guy, he must be wonderful, (iii) socialists, (iv) people with racial guilt looking for a post-racial America, and (v) those suffering from simple ignorance due to a lack of intellectual curiosity to understand the man who would be king.

Now, with over half of Obama's term complete, the only relevant categories of Obama supporters are those falling under items (iii) and (v) -- Americans who reside on the far left of the political spectrum and those who remain completely ignorant about world affairs, economics, and the person who is the current leader of the free world. The far left will continue to support and vote for Obama no matter how many flip flops he makes on closing Gitmo, military trials for terrorists, intervention in Mideast revolutions, and other policies that raise their ire.

However, in the face of a dishonest and complicit mainstream media, it is up to all thinking Americans to make efforts to educate themselves, their neighbors, friends, colleagues, and family as to the dangers of four more years of Obama as President. For while the world can withstand four years of incompetence in the White House, eight years will likely result in a world forever changed, with America reduced to mediocrity and powerlessness, Islamic fundamentalism on an unimpeded rise to triumph over the West, and liberty and freedom replaced in many more parts of the world by tyranny and human rights abuses.

While many Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 have woken up to the fact that it was a colossal mistake, there remain too many Americans who simply do not understand just how incompetent and ideologically driven his administration is. There are too many people who would rather watch Joy Behar's ineffectual interview with Helen Thomas, who continue to watch MSNBC's idiotic news programs hosted by the likes of Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, or who consider Jon Stewart and Bill Maher reliable sources of news. There are also those who read The New York Times without any critical analysis of its editorial board's disconnect from reality and publisher's extreme bias resulting in disingenuous reporting.

And then there is the matter of Israel and the Jewish vote. While having little impact in terms of numerical votes, American Jews' continued monetary support of Obama makes explaining the irrationality of that voting bloc extremely difficult. While Israel was not a voting issue for the majority of American Jews in 2008, it may very well become one in 2012 -- and not necessarily because American Jews have suddenly woken up to the fact that the existential threat to Israel is increasing daily under Obama. I believe that Jews overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008 due to their willful ignorance and lack of interest in his predictable contempt for Israel. Since that time however, Soros-led initiatives such as J Street have led to many American Jews, who have not taken the time to investigate these organizations' missions, to grow contemptuous of Israel and supportive of the least Israel-friendly President since the creation of the Jewish nation.

American Jews are not only living on the left side of lala land, they are blinded by their progressive passions. How else can one explain supporting a President who has spent the better part of the past two and a half years weakening the only Mideast democracy and US ally, the world's only Jewish nation, and a beacon of hope and freedom that welcomes people of all faiths, especially Jews. How else to explain a rabbi who stands before a congregation of thousands and calls Israel "an occupying entity," 900 rabbis who say amen as Obama explains that "We are God's partners in matters of life and death" and orders them to sell his socialist policies to the nation, and hundreds of rabbis who ran a Wall Street Journal ad criticizing Glenn Beck and FoxNews notwithstanding that both clearly stand with Israel.

Just as Richard Goldstone allowed the UN Human Rights Commission to use his name and status as a Jew to demonize Israel in the Goldstone Report, the American Jewish community has allowed Obama to turn them into a bunch of useful idiots. And this combination of stupidity and ideology does not bode well for the future of the Jewish homeland.

So as Obama enters into campaign mode (not that he has ever left campaign mode) and pivots right by agreeing to try KSM in a military court, appearing to care about human rights abuses by striking Libya, and pretending to work with Republicans on a balanced budget, the American people need to wake up. They need to focus on the extremists making decisions and policies in Obama's administration, beginning with Samantha Power and ending with Eric Holder; they need to remember the bipartisanship and dirty tricks used to pass ObamaCare; and they need to recall his abandonment of the freedom fighters in Honduras and Iran, while supporting the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al Qaeda rebels in Libya.

And while they are at it, the U.S. electorate might want to take one more look at Obama swaggering up to the podium for his campaign and post-election speeches and question the intelligence of a man who cannot speak without a telepromptor, who refuses to disclose his college transcripts (let alone his birth certificate), who chose Cairo for his most famous reach-out to a people who hate America, and who appears to care more about enjoying the life of Riley than he does about the free world. If Obama represents the level of intelligence of the American people, then I fear our Republic will not survive the "multitude of fools" who may very well hand the prince a second term.

86 Comments on "Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term?"

Source:  The American Thinker  By Lauri B. Regan