Has this Presidential Election Become about Race?

The New York Times covered in detail the Romney camp plans to use Welfare and Medicare against Obama even though on Welfare their ads and comments have been declared completely false and on Medicare half false.  What kind of a campaign uses outright lies which have already been proven as lies to attack another candidate?  A campaign that is losing big is the only answer to take this risk.

The Washington Post fact checker is used by both parties for fact checking  ads.  Earlier in the summer the Washington Post fact check went after an Obama ad giving the ad four Pinocchios.  From what I can tell, they are non-partisan and only looking for the facts:

The Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, gave the welfare ads his lowest rating, four Pinocchios. The Tampa Bay Times’s Politifact was equally harsh, describing the ads as “a drastic distortion” warranting a “pants on fire” rating. The welfare commercial, according to Politifact, “inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance.” 

Politifact described the Medicare ad as “half true”:

Romney’s claim gives the impression that the law takes money that was already allocated to Medicare and funds the new health care law with it. In fact, the law uses a number of measures to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Those savings are then used to offset costs created by the law — especially coverage for the uninsured — so that the overall law doesn’t add to the deficit. We rate his statement Half True.

Politifact also rated a claim Romney made later on the stump — that “there’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare” — as “mostly false.”

Even though Romney has been hit with using false facts, his campaign intends to continue on this road of lies and deceit.  Is Romney also going to keep inferring that Obama is not a real American with a real birth certificate like he has been doing?  I find that line of attack offensive along with a lot of other people.  The Romney ticket is quickly driving people from the Republican Party who are not part of the hard right culture into supporting Gary Johnson, the former two-time Republican Governor of New Mexico, running as a Libertarian, or actually supporting President Obama for re-election.

There is a real problem in the Republican Party and this Convention is not going to heal the split when seven of the speakers are birthers who have made comments against Obama about his birth certificate and not acting American which includes Romney.  From the GOP Platform, the Rules, the Credentials, and seating of delegates, the evidence has piled up that this GOP Convention is going hard right which is going to drive even more Republicans to either stay home or vote for other candidates.

This may be the year that the split in the GOP is permanent and a new party arises from the ashes.  Too many Republicans with common sense don't like the direction of the party with the attacks on minorities and immigrants that we are witnessing.  Jeb Bush has warned them numerous times alienating minorities especially Hispanics but the GOP Platform is using the AZ Immigration Policy which means this Platform Group led by Gov McDonnell (R-VA) is not listening to the more reasoned voices of the Republican Party.

Since the Ron Paul supporters have been placed in the nosebleed section, and a lot of their delegates who won fair and square have not been credentialed from the caucus states, I would expect a lot of them will be going to Gary Johnson to support him after the Convention.  That is a chunk of people deserting the ticket.  Note that Ron Paul did not endorse Romney at his rally with 10,000 supporters.  Many of his supporters are mad at his son, Sen Rand Paul, for endorsing Romney earlier this summer and are not sure they would back him if he ran for President.  The chances for a split in the Republican Party between the hard right and the rest of us is growing with all the splinters to the Party.

Many Republicans in the last four years have essentially been told to sit down and shut up or leave as the Party has moved hard right.  The door might have to be widened after this election.

This article from the New York Times details what is happening with the Romney campaign and the Republican Party.  When I first posted sometime ago from former Florida Governor Jeb Bush about his worry on today's Republicans not reaching out to minorities especially Hispanics, that article drew a lot of negative emails telling me to leave the Party.  Before this election is said and done there is a good chance they will get their way.  The way minorities unless they are part of the Hard Right are treated today is an embarrassment to long time Republicans who have worked to make the GOP the home of the big tent going back to the years of pushing for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act legislation.  Maybe my problem is that I come from the North having grown up in Ohio.

Now some in the GOP have called for abolishing those acts starting with the Texas Convention who voted for an overturn the Voting Rights Act.  Then you had an amendment submitted in the House to use no federal money to enforce the Voting Rights Act in the states which turned out badly for Republicans:

Lewis (D-GA), who marched with Martin Luther King Jr., took to the floor to denounce Broun's amendment. 

"It is hard and difficult and almost unbelievable that any member, but especially a member from the state of Georgia, would come and offer such an amendment," Lewis said, recounting the history of struggles over voters' rights. "It's shameful that you would come here tonight and say to the Department of Justice that you must not use one penny, one cent, one dime, one dollar to carry out the mandate of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act." 

“People died for the right to vote -- friends of mine, colleagues of mine,” Lewis said. "I speak out against this amendment."

Broun (R-GA), chastised, gave in. "I apologize to my dear friend from Georgia if he's gotten angry with this amendment. It was never my intent to do so, and I'm going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment," he said.

What was Broun thinking?  I find the whole debate about race in 2012 to be incomprehensible.  It is like returning to the 1950's, but then we had a President Dwight D. Eisenhower who supported Civil Rights and integration of colleges and schools which at that time Southern Democrats were very opposed to his policies on Civil Rights for minorities along with Voting Rights.  Is this part of the problem in the Republican Party today that some of those southern Democrat bigots, KKK, and their families became Republican?

All I know is that this not the Republican Party that I grew up in and supported all these years.  I don't recognize the hate I see daily out of the GOP ticket and this group of hard right against a black President especially since it is clear he is not some hard left President.  His biggest mistake IMHO was listening to then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi instead of the more reasoned Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid.

Obama in the past few years has reached out more to the more reasoned voices of the Republican Party as he did on the budget deal and has been trying on the farm, jobs, and infrastructure bills which are being blocked by the Hard Right in the House and Senate.  No one wants to go against them and face a challenge in their upcoming elections.  How about some Republicans in Congress grow a backbone and actually do what is best for all Americans not just the hard right?

This article takes a look at how race is driving this election and how white the Republican Party has become with their march to the Hard Right.  One thing the author missed is how this Hard Right shift by the GOP has disenfranchised women voters in the Republican Party.

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortion.   Why would common sense Republican women, support a ticket with a Vice Presidential candidate that calls rape a "method of conception?"  The answer is  we will NEVER support Romney/Ryan.  In fact, we  will work to defeat such ideology aimed at women that is repulsive.  This comes on top of the attacks on minorities, veterans, teachers, fire, police, and white collar Federal Civil Service by this Republican ticket and the hard right that the GOP has become today.  So who is going to vote for the Republican ticket besides the hard right and the gun clinging white males who support the anti-illegal immigration laws -- tougher the better even when it affects children?  

This article confirms what a lot of us have been hearing about the Romney/Ryan campaign that they are going to get dirtier and nastier against Obama to get more white voters to go to the polls.  Two hours ago it came out that the Romney camp is aiming to get 61% of the white vote now and will be pushing the whiteness of the ticket.  Despicable and repulsive is all I can think of to describe this current thinking out of Romney/Ryan.    Looks like the real Romney is emerging as his Mormon Church he grew up in did not allow minorities to become full members.  This article from the NY Times is correct:

August 27, 2012, 12:43 am
Making the Election About Race
By THOMAS B. EDSALL 

The Republican ticket is flooding the airwaves with commercials that develop two themes designed to turn the presidential contest into a racially freighted resource competition pitting middle class white voters against the minority poor. 

Ads that accuse President Obama of gutting the work requirements enacted in the 1996 welfare reform legislation present the first theme. Ads alleging that Obama has taken $716 billion from Medicare — a program serving an overwhelmingly white constituency — in order to provide health coverage to the heavily black and Hispanic poor deliver the second. The ads are meant to work together, to mutually reinforce each other’s claims. 

(snip) 

The Romney campaign’s shift of focus toward welfare and Medicare suggests that his strategists are worried that just disparaging Obama’s ability to deal with the struggling economy won’t be adequate to produce victory on November 6. 

The importance to the Romney-Ryan ticket of two overlapping constituencies — whites without college degrees and white Medicare recipients — cannot be overestimated. Romney, continuing the Republican approach of 2010, is banking on a huge turnout among key white segments of the electorate in order to counter Obama’s strengths with minority voters as well as with young and unmarried female voters of all races. 

There is extensive poll data showing the depth of Republican dependence on white voters.
On August 23, Pew Research released its latest findings on partisan identification, and the gains that the Republican Party has made among older and non-college whites since 2004 are remarkable. 

Just eight years ago, Pew reports, whites 65 and over were evenly split in their allegiance, 46 percent Democratic, 46 percent Republican. In the most recent findings, these voters are now solidly in the Republican camp, 54-38, an eight point Republican gain. Elderly women were 9 points more Democratic than Republican in 2004, 50-41, the opposite of where they are now, 51-42 Republican. Older men, who were 51-41 Republican in 2004, are now 59-33 Republican. 

Similarly, white voters without college degrees, of all ages, have gone from 51-40 Republican in 2004, to 54-37 in 2012, according to Pew. 

Most importantly, the Pew surveys show that 89% of voters who identify themselves as Republican are white. Faced with few if any possibilities of making gains among blacks and Hispanics — whose support for Obama has remained strong — the Romney campaign has no other choice if the goal is to win but to adopt a strategy to drive up white turnout. 

The Romney campaign is willing to disregard criticism concerning accuracy and veracity in favor of “blowing the dog whistle of racism” – resorting to a campaign appealing to racial symbols, images and issues in its bid to break the frustratingly persistent Obama lead in the polls, which has lasted for the past 10 months. 

The result is a campaign run at two levels. On the trail, Paul Ryan argues that “we’re going to make this about ideas. We’re going to make this about a positive vision for the future.” On television and the Internet, however, the Romney campaign is clearly determined “to make this about” race, in the tradition of the notorious 1988 Republican Willie Horton ad, which described the rape of a white woman by a convicted African-American murderer released on furlough from a Massachusetts prison during the gubernatorial administration of Michael Dukakis and Jesse Helms’s equally infamous “White Hands” commercial, which depicted a white job applicant who “needed that job” but was rejected because “they had to give it to a minority.” 

The longer campaigns go on, the nastier they get. Once unthinkable methods become conventional. 

“You can tell they” — the welfare ads— “are landing punches,” Steven Law, president of the Republican super PAC American Crossroads, told the Wall Street Journal. Law’s focus group and polling research suggest that the theme is not necessarily going to work. “The economy is so lousy for middle-income Americans that the same people who chafe at the rise of welfare dependency under Obama don’t automatically default to a ‘get-a-job’ attitude — because they know there are no jobs.” 

As the head of a tax-exempt 501(c)4 independent expenditure committee, Law cannot coordinate campaign strategy directly with the Romney campaign. Nonetheless, he is sending a warning. The welfare theme, Law said, “needs to be done sensitively. Right now it may be more of an economic issue than a values issue: In other words, more people on welfare is another disturbing symptom of Obama’s broken-down economy, rather than an indictment of those who are on welfare or the culture as a whole.” 

Will the Romney campaign heed Law’s advice to keep it subtle? The principle media consultant for the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, which will be running many of the anti-Obama ads over the next ten weeks, is Larry McCarthy, who produced the original Willie Horton ad. 

Thomas B. Edsall, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, is the author of the book “The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics,” which was published earlier this year.   

Excerpt:  Read more at the NY Times

Why would anyone be surprised at what a person from Karl Rove's Crossroads would have to say about this line of attack knowing it is based on lies?  Rove, himself, is not Mr. Honesty.  The fact that Fox News treats him like a non-partisan when he comes on the air to discuss the election, should also tell you all you need to know about Fox News.  Karl Rove is a partisan hack who used George W. Bush to get to where he is at so he can take out people he doesn't like , e.g. Rick Perry in the primary, with all the millions that have been donated to his two organizations one of them where donors are kept secret.  

Republicans are using Super PACs and non-disclosure donor non-profits to spread the lies so I ask you "Why would anyone vote for the ticket of Romney/Ryan if you believe in honesty and ethics in elections?"  Will the hard right shift this election of the Republican Party be the final nail in the coffin?  The jury is still out.

More on Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case from Politico: Prosecutor alleges DOJ bias ...

This article from Josh Gerstein, Politico, is one of the best reports we have seen by anyone on the testimony by the former DOJ Prosecutor Christopher Coates on Friday concerning the dropping of the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case by the Obama DOJ leadership.  The first whistle blower, J. Christian Adams, the DOJ attacked as being partisan after his allegations and testimony but the same cannot be said for Christopher Coates who testified on Friday:

Coates’ highly-charged testimony before the Civil Rights Commission echoed those allegations, as well as the testimony of J. Christian Adams, one of Coates’ colleagues in the voting rights section. However, Coates’s charges may carry greater weight because he worked decades ago as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, has won awards from civil rights groups and lacks the partisan GOP resume of the department’s harshest opponents.

We now have a US Prosecutor Coates who is leveling the same charges and more against the DOJ for dropping these charges.  In fact the head of the Civil Rights Commission thanked Prosecutor Coates for the risk he was taking to testify when he defied his superiors.  The DOJ ordered him not to testify but he declared himself a whistle blower and testified on Friday.  Is Holder and and other Obama political appointees in DOJ using intimidation themselves to try to shut down the truth?



A Justice Department prosecutor says it discourages
 equal civil rights enforcement.  Reuters

Prosecutor alleges Department of Justice bias..

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 9/24/10 10:52 AM EDT Updated: 9/25/10 9:01 AM EDT

A Justice Department prosecutor defied his superiors by testifying at a U.S. Civil Rights Commission hearing Friday, where he leveled an explosive allegation: top officials in the department gutted a voter intimidation case against a fringe African American militant group because the suspects were black and their alleged victims were white.

The prosecutor, Christopher Coates, also said the downgrading of the case against the New Black Panther Party was evidence of a Justice Department culture which discouraged “race neutral” enforcement of civil rights laws, frowned on prosecuting minority perpetrators and folded under pressure from black and Latino rights groups. After President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder took office, the culture intensified, Coates told the panel, ultimately leading to his departure as chief of the voting rights section early this year.

“They have not pursued the goal of equal protection of the law for all people,” he said.

Justice department officials, however, have vigorously defended their management of the Panthers’ case, in which two members of the small group allegedly attempted to intimidate voters at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 general election. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler in a statement Friday derided the Civil Rights Commission for its “so-called investigation” that is “thin on facts and evidence and thick on rhetoric.”

"The Department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved,” Schmaler said. “We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation.”

But activists on the right have complained that Holder and the White House did not vigorously pursue the case because the victims were white – a claim that has now become a widespread talking point among Obama’s conservative critics. The right cried foul last year when Justice officials dropped the case against the NBPP and two defendants for lack of evidence and sought a watered-down injunction against the bearer of a nightstick who allegedly carried it to threaten whites.

Coates’ highly-charged testimony before the Civil Rights Commission echoed those allegations, as well as the testimony of J. Christian Adams, one of Coates’ colleagues in the voting rights section. However, Coates’s charges may carry greater weight because he worked decades ago as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, has won awards from civil rights groups and lacks the partisan GOP resume of the department’s harshest opponents.

In July, Adams told the commission that the pattern of prosecuting white suspects while ignoring minority ones was part of a “lawless” atmosphere, and the handling of the New Black Panther Party case led him to resign in 2009. Since leaving the department, Adams has been an outspoken critic on the right, appearing on Fox News and writing withering articles for conservative publications.

Commission Chairman Gerald Reynolds said Coates “appears here at great personal risk to himself. I’d like to thank Mr. Coates for his courage in appearing today.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42676.html#ixzz10Yk5QPBy

This was clear cut case of voter intimidation from the video but because they are black some pundits seem to think that it was okay to drop the case.  After all, blacks suffered through years of voter intimidation in the south according to some pundits.  Even if true in the past, it doesn't give them the right to intimidate any voter today.   Wonder how pundits would react if they went to vote and had these two guys standing in front of the polling place?  Might be singing a different tune of voter intimidation.




This wasn't the only case of voter intimidation in 2008 -- the intimidation against voters supporting Hillary has been documented in "We Will Not be Silenced" documentary by Gigi Gaston. Fox News has an interview with Gaston about the documentary that depicts the voter intimidation and fraud by the Obama Administration in the primary especially at the caucus level.  Video and stories have been sent in by Democrats from all over the Country detailing the intimidation and fraud.




On their website,We Will Not Be Silenced is a longer preview cut of this documentary.

Is voter intimidation what lies ahead in 2010 since it has been sanctioned by the DOJ in 2008 or are they waiting for Obama to run again in 2012? Cannot fathom showing up to vote and seeing some guy holding a night stick dressed all in black -- not sure I would want to go into that polling place to vote. If that is not voter intimidation nothing is.

The bottom line of Obama and this Administration seems to be if it is voter intimidation against whites that is okay because it is payback.  With that mentality it looks like whites do not have the same equal voting rights now as blacks according to Obama and the Holder DOJ.  Blacks are permitted to do whatever they want to keep whites from voting is how we view their action.  Will the Obama thugs be out in full force in 2012 to silence any potential candidate like they did to Hillary in 2008?

Every voter needs to be aware of their surroundings when they vote on November 2nd.  If there any hint of intimidation they need to contact the authorities and document what happened.  This voter intimidation in 2008 by the Black Panthers in the general election and the Obama thugs in the Democrat primary cannot be tolerated.  Do we need foreign poll watchers now to make sure our elections are honest.  After ACORN, SEIU, and the Black Panthers, it sure sounds like it. 

Why do Blacks vote 90% Democrats?

When we read Cong Paul Ryan's speech, Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom? Cong Ryan talked about the term "Progressives" started out around the turn of 20th Century. Today we believe you could safely say that the term "Progressive" has done a 180 and has turned into a synonym for Socialist. Few Progressives at the turn of the 20th century were socialists but today the Progressive movement is made up of socialists across the Country including in our Congress who work under the umbrella of the Democrat Party.

That one word started us thinking about another topic that is along the same lines -- Why do Blacks vote 90% Democrat? Republicans are the ones who have supported the Civil Rights movement and equal treatment for all not just in words but with actions. What happened along the way to make blacks be so loyal to Democrats? Why the change?

After doing research, have come to the conclusion that liberal members of the media have had as much influence as anyone in keeping blacks voting Democrat at close to or over a 90% rate. Freedom of the Press doesn't seem to matter to them as long as they can push their agenda. Do members of the mainstream media write the stories about how blacks have had $7T, yes that is trillion, thrown at their poverty in the inner cities since the LBJ War on Poverty started? Have they ever bothered to ask why with $7T they still have such poor schools and deplorable living conditions in the inner cities and the poverty chain goes on generation after generation? Why do members of the media attack Black Conservatives who are successful? It all adds up to many members of the media recycling Democrat Talking Point papers for years.

These are all questions that need answers because for all their fawning over the 'first' black President, they have refused to acknowledge his background preferring to use his time as a community organizer in the inner city of Chicago where he moved after he was an adult. They never bothered to look at he was raised in his formative years in Indonesia as Barry Sorento,the adopted son of Lolo Sorento who took him to a Muslim Church for worship. Only later did his Mother send him to Hawaii to live with her parents and his named changed back. In Hawaii he was mentored by the Communist Franklin Marshal Davis who introduced him into the Chicago community where Davis lived prior to moving to Hawaii. If the Mainstream Media cannot acknowledge and look into Obama's background why would anyone think they would provide a fair and honest background on how much money has been wasted in the cities with a many blacks no better off or worse today then they were before the War on Poverty.

It all fits together that no matter the background if the person is liberal, the media will give them a pass and if conservative, especially a black conservative, many members of the media will go after them with a vengeance. Look no further then in 1994 when Oklahoma's 4th District elected J. C. Watts to Congress. Cong Watts attempted to join the Black Caucus but the "Not Welcome" sign was put out because he was a Black Conservative Republican. Where was the outcry from the media about this discrimination?

The true liberal agenda of many members of the media was proven during the Presidential election when they expected 100% of blacks to vote for Obama and were extremely disgusted if any black Conservative spoke out against his agenda. Some of the more liberal media have never been able to separate the 'agenda' of a person versus a personal attack on the person. To them it is all the same as they follow the mantra of the Democrats -- use 'racist' to describe anyone disagreeing with Obama's policies/agenda because they are only against it because he is black.

That has never been the case in Republican opposition to the policies of Obama. Many Republicans have said they like Obama personally but they are 180 degrees opposed to his agenda and ideas. That doesn't make any difference to the media who goes right along spouting the Democrat Talking Points against Republican Conservatives who they declare are racist since they oppose Obama. Shame on Republicans for wanting to elect a Republican as President. By some Democrats and Media calculations we should have run no one in 2008 and anointed Obama as President.

How did we get here today where disagreeing with someones agenda is 'racist'? Time to look back at history to see what happened from the early days where Africans were brought to the colonies as slaves until today where conditions in the inner cities have improved little in last 30-40 years. Do we have all the answers, not even close but without the history, the lies of the media will continue against Republicans and especially Black Republican Conservatives.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana, Life of Reason, Volume I

By 1619, the use of indentured servants brought the first Africans to America at Jamestown, Virginia. Poor whites also worked alongside blacks during this period as indentured servants with a "contract" saying that this service would last from four to seven years. During the early years Africans and poor whites were able to work hard and complete the contract to become free tradesmen and own property in America. By 1770 there were about 40,000 free slaves throughout the colonies.

It wasn't long before the need for additional slaves grew not only in the south to work the plantations as more crops were planted, but also needed were the dock workers, factory workers of the north both skilled and unskilled and slaves to work smaller family farms in the north. By 1750 over 200,000 African slaves were in the colonies as their numbers increased rapidly. A short 50 years later after the Revolutionary War and Independence had been cleared there were 700,000 slaves at the turn of the new century.

For the next 60 years debate raged on in the new America about the ownership of slaves and the moral dilemma it created. Slavery was no longer viewed as as a state's rights but had become a national issue. Abraham Lincoln because the first Republican President and on January 1st, 1863, Lincoln freed the slaves by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation which declared: "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the entire nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom. Source: Archives

Following the Civil War, Reconstruction began and with that came the founding of the Ku Klux Klan throughout the South which eventually worked its way into the North.

The original Ku Klux Klan was organized by ex-Confederate elements to oppose the Reconstruction policies of the radical Republican Congress and to maintain "white supremacy." After the Civil War, when local government in the South was weak or nonexistent and there were fears of black outrages and even of an insurrection, informal vigilante organizations or armed patrols were formed in almost all communities. These were linked together in societies, such as the Men of Justice, the Pale Faces, the Constitutional Union Guards, the White Brotherhood, and the Order of the White Rose. The Ku Klux Klan was the best known of these, and in time it absorbed many of the smaller organizations.

The Klan was particularly effective in systematically keeping black men away from the polls, so that the ex-Confederates gained political control in many states. Congress in 1870 and 1871 passed legislation to combat the Klan (see force bill ). The Klan was especially strong in the mountain and Piedmont areas. In the Lower South the Knights of the White Camelia were dominant. That order, founded (1867) in Louisiana, is reputed to have had even more members than the Ku Klux Klan, but its membership was more conservative and its actions less spectacular. It had a similar divisional organization, with headquarters in New Orleans.

Source: "Ku Klux Klan." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Retrieved April 06, 2010 from Encyclopedia.com: Columbia Encyclopedia

Even though blacks were free and the 14th Amendment was passed on July 9, 1868, granting the slaves rights of citizenship in the United States they were still refused the right to vote in many areas as Democrats consolidated power. The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to recognize substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights, and procedural due process rights. Certain steps are required before depriving a person of their life, liberty, or property. This amendment also called the Equal Protection Clause eventually was used in the historic Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

For years the KKK remained small in mostly rural areas of the country as America moved into the the 20th Century. Following the disastrous election where William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt decided their egos were too big to get along and split the vote when Roosevelt ran as the nominee of the Bull Moose Party electing Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, as President who fired all the black Civil Service workers.

The second Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1915 by William J. Simmons, an ex-minister and promoter of fraternal orders; its first meeting was held on Stone Mt., Ga. The new Klan had a wider program than its forerunner, for it added to "white supremacy" an intense nativism and anti-Catholicism (it was also anti-Semitic) closely related to that of the Know-Nothing movement of the middle 19th cent. Consequently its appeal was not sectional, and, aided after 1920 by the activities of professional promoters Elizabeth Tyler and Edward Y. Clarke, it spread rapidly throughout the North as well as the South. It furnished an outlet for the militant patriotism aroused by World War I, and it stressed fundamentalism in religion.

Professing itself nonpolitical, the Klan nevertheless controlled politics in many communities and in 1922, 1924, and 1926 elected many state officials and a number of Congressmen. Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Oregon, and Maine were particularly under its influence. Its power in the Midwest was broken during the late 1920s when David C. Stephenson, a major Klan leader there, was convicted of second-degree murder, and evidence of corruption came out that led to the indictment of the governor of Indiana and the mayor of Indianapolis, both supporters of the Klan. The Klan frequently took extralegal measures, especially against those whom it considered its enemies. As was the case with the earlier Klan, some of these measures, whether authorized by the central organization or not, were extreme.

Source: Columbia Encyclopedia

By 1930, the members of the KKK were estimated to be near 30,000 compared to the millions they claimed (never proven) in the mid-20's. With the depression the Klan shrunk to almost nothing but their beliefs stayed with Klan members ready to make a reappearance.

Before President Truman left office, he ordered the American military desegregated but never carried out his own order. That task was left to President Dwight David Eisenhower who was born in a small Texas town and raised in Kansas part of the Heartland of America. President Eisenhower enforced the desegregation of our military and he didn't stop there.

During the Eisenhower Administration on May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled using the 14th amendment in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and ordered that U.S. public schools be desegregated "with all deliberate speed."

In 1957 an Executive Order September 23, 1957, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, sent Federal troops to maintain order and peace while the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, AR, took place. This happened after the Arkansas Governor, Orval Faubus called out the state's National Guard to surround Little Rock Central High School and prevent any black students from entering. The AR Governor by his actions set off riots and for what? He didn't want blacks attending school with whites? He didn't have a choice because of the Supreme Court ruling not to mention it was fundamentally wrong to have very good white schools and very poor black schools.

President Eisenhower was also responsible for pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and another one in 1960 which a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats passed, and he signed into law with the help of the Republican Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson who wrote much of the legislation.

Once again the KKK tried to revive itself after WWII but didn't gain much traction until the 1960's when it reared its ugly head again.

The beginning of the media coverup on Presidential candidates we believe started in full force in 1960 with the Presidential Candidacy of John R. Kennedy. He was lauded as a proponent of civil rights but voted against the 1956 Civil Rights Act while he was a Senator along with Al Gore Sr. Yet the media had JFK as single handily taking up the plight of every black in the 1960 race. As President, JFK's tune changed from championing the equality of blacks. He thought he had bought off Martin Luther King but he hadn't. JFK was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

Following the assassination of JFK, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson became President and with him every 'feel good' bill you could think of to spend the American taxpayer dollars was passed at his request. Runway spending knew no end under Johnson when he not only spent huge sums on domestic programs but decided to escalate the Vietnam War micromanaging every move. The War on Poverty which has spent $7T to date may be one of the most unsuccessful programs ever as all it has managed to do is keep inner city residents in poverty still today. Shocking that $7T was spent and there is little to show for the expenditures except more of the same level of poverty in rundown conditions.

In 1964 when LBJ ran for his first full term, the Democrats were relentless in their attacks on Barry Goldwater distorting what he had to say and of course the willing liberal media went right along with the attacks.

Was the real reason for these attacks the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation? Goldwater successfully predicted that LBJ would escalate the war, but LBJ, Democrats, and the liberal media blamed Goldwater as the war monger. We can still remember that little girl picking the daisy ad which turned out to be a lie but very successful for LBJ.

After winning the election by an overwhelming number after painting Goldwater as a radical, Johnson, in his State of the Union Address on January 4, 1965, devoted only 35 words to civil rights. Only 35 words when he campaigned as the champions of the blacks in America and promised how he would take care of them. In 1967, LBJ showed his true colors over his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, as LBJ referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher." Following the LBJ decision not to run for reelection in 1968 because the Vietnam War was going so bad, Richard Nixon became President.

Republicans started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans

Excerpt: Read More at: ERR.com

For years Republicans have been putting up with how the racist "Dixiecrats" became Republicans throughout the South. That is blantantly false -- many of them stayed Democrat and became the "yellow dog" Democrats as they would rather die then vote for a member of the Republican Party who they considered the Party of blacks. How ironic that today 90% of blacks vote for Democrat including for "yellow dogs" which makes zero sense.

Anyone who was ever associated with the KKK should never be in Government but today we have a sitting Democrat Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia who is a 'former' Klan member. In March of 1968, Byrd commenting on Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Byrd wasn't finished with his 'racist' comments in public. Cannot fathom his comments in private. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News's Tony Snow: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." Note: Why have National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge for this 'former' member of the Klu Klux Klan or put pressure on him to resign. In fact why hasn't the mainstream media led the way?

Yet the Democrats have always praised Robert Byrd while trashing Strom Thurmond who left the Democrats to become Republican. Take a look at the two men and then ask yourself what was behind the trashing of Thurmond:

Senator Byrd rose to the rank of Exalted Cyclops in KKK while Senator Thurmond was NEVER in the Ku Klux Klan. Not only was Thurmond not a member of the KKK but he defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. There may be some truth in the statement we have heard before that if Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched. Once again we had the media not only tar and feathering Thurmond but also Trent Lott who was honoring Thurmond. Seems to us the MSM left out a few details about Thurmond at the request of their Democrat allies who wanted rid of Lott.

From PoliticalHotwire.com comes this timeline which we found extremely iinteresting and puts everything in perspective:

May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party's birth, U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.

July 30, 1866: New Orleans's Democratic government ordered police to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.

September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.

October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats' national slogan: "This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."

April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act, banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.

October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.

September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana's statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg's racially integrated administration; 27 are killed.

August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.

February 2005: The Democrats' Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia's logorrheic U.S. senator and, having served since January 3, 1959, that body's dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK's Imperial Wizard: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988.

What have blacks gotten over the years for loyally voting the Democrat ticket? For the past 30-40 years Democrats have been controlling the inner cities. Even before that Democrats have been throwing money at blacks in the inner cities since the days of LBJ and circumstances they find themselves in today have gotten worse not better after all the money. Some of the worst schools in America are in the inner cities. All you have to do is look at Chicago schools which we have discussed on here several times. They throw plenty of money at the Chicago Public Schools but the problem is a lot of the money ends up in contractor's pockets not in the schools where students can take advantage of good schools. Go into their libraries and see the lack of books for them to use as reference material. How are they supposed to get a good education with the tools? Would bet that the amount wasted in Chicago schools making others wealthy over the years is well into the billions and more.

Every election we get the same mantra that Republicans caused the problems in the inner cities because they want to cut taxes and government and thus give less money to states/cities for the 'poor.' The MSM willingly goes along printing the press releases of the Democrats as facts knowing full well they are lies. Where are the investigative journalists who are brave enough to look into what has been happening to our tax dollars in the inner cities in the last 30-40 years and why people cannot break out of the poverty cycle with all these money floating around. Republicans want accountability and know where their money is spent which doesn't fit the Democrat agenda.

Better schools require parents to be involved. Why don't some parents want their children to get a good education? Why are Democrats opposed to vouchers and charter schools as a way to educate children from the slums/poor schools and give them a chance at a real future? Are Democrats afraid if a new generation of blacks are educated, that maybe they will start to lose their hold on their largest voting block?

Democrats have tried it with Hispanics as well but the more properous Hispanics become and start their own business, the more they become Republican. We need to start making even more inroads in the black community not just ignore them. They need to understand that Republicans are not keeping them down but that in fact Republicans have been pushing 'equal' rights since the Civil War.

Republicans do not believe in quotas but in giving every person the opportunity to be successful so they can compete on their own merits. Democrats, on the other hand, prefer to have bad schools and place minorities in jobs they are not qualified to have just because they are a minoritiy and they want their vote. That is a fundamental difference in the two parties and why Republicans need to make voters understand that we are not elitists -- we are people from all walks of life who believe that everyone has a right to fundamental freedoms. We believe that education forms the backbone of America as students complete their educations and become participants in The American Dream. We believe good, honest work is the key to success and that handouts over a period of years will harm not help people. People are going to need a hand from time to time as illustrated now with the lack of jobs but that doesn't mean for the next 15-20 years that person should be on unemployment.

Every child in this Country has the "RIGHT" to expect a good education and it is up to each State and local School District to see they get that education. It is up to the parents to make sure their elected school board who hire the administrators and teachers are providing their child a first rate education they need to be successful. When that isn't happening, they need to make their voices heard. Politicians are not going to fix inner city schools because it is not in their best interest to keep their job by keeping blacks tied to the Democrat Party. That is why Democrats routinely vote against vouchers and charter schools.

With an education the sky is the limit on what anyone can do. That doesn't mean everyone should go to college but it does mean that every last student should know how to read, do math, and understand the history of this Country. Knowledge is a precious gift that we need to bestow on every student in this Country so they can make informed decisions and not be led around or told what to do.

Frances Rice, Chairwoman of the Black Republicans, said it best in her essay about Martin Luther King was a Republican:

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

This is the message Republicans need to take into 2010 and 2012 and in the years beyond that. We need to show the youth of America there is a better way and that way is through Education. No matter if you come from the inner city, suburbia, or rural America, you have the right to expect a first class education from your local community whether big or small.

Maybe in ten years, we will no longer be asking "Why do Blacks vote 90% Democrat?" but will be welcoming more Black Conservatives into the Republican Party to join the ones we have today who are so welcome and can give us such an insight on how we grow as Conservative Republicans.

We can become a mighty force for capitalism and democracy once again as we look to Ronald Reagan's 'Shining City on the Hill.' It is going to be tough at times along the way as we are fighting Democrat Socialists and their handouts for votes along with their lapdog media members who cover for them every day. It is too important to the future of America to quit. We have to keep pushing forward and win one battle at a time until we have driven the socialists and their corrupt allies from power.

_________

Would like to thank Frances Rice for her writings which inspired me to explore this question along with Walter Williams, Dr. Alveda King, Rev Jesse Lee Peterson, and others who have become Republican Conservatives and have taken the shots the liberal Democrats give them and they are still standing tall today.

Scott Brown Goes to Washington Today!

What a week it has been so far for the Nation. Today the newly elected Senator-Elect Scott Brown makes his first trip to Congress to meet his colleagues. We hope that he will be sworn in very shortly as the Senator from MA and no more of the games that Reid wants to play.

The election of Scott Reid has brought the Senate full circle after Reid, Franken, and the Democrats stole the election in Minnesota to get their 60th vote. If anyone doesn't think that election was stolen, I have some swampland for sale in Arizona you might like.

Our hats are off to Massachusetts and their pulling off a fair election like New Jersey did for Governor Christi. When the MA Secretary of State threw out the bogus allegations of the Coakley campaign, you knew that for once the peopla of a state had gone to the polls and the old saying one man, one vote held true.

In this morning's email was an interesting article from Michael Zak, author of Back to Basics for the Republican Party , a history of the Republican Party. We found his history of the "People's Seat" from MA very interesting and surprising. It has been talked about around the Internet and on here how Scott Brown's victory was the 2nd shot 'fired round the world," but now that we are learning the history of this MA Senate seat, we might want to say the 3rd shot.

Scott Brown won the Charles Sumner seat in the U.S. Senate

As the new senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, said: "It's not the Ted Kennedy seat. It's not the Democrat seat. It's the people's seat."

Instead of Ted, let's remember an honorable and courageous Republican senator who once filled the seat to which Scott Brown was elected.

Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) was one of the founders of the Republican Party. Angered by Sumner's denunciations of slavery, a Democrat congressman beat him nearly to death on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Sumner responded with a classic denunciation of the Democratic Party for promoting The Barbarism of Slavery.

During the GOP's 1860 election campaign, Senator Sumner gave a speech that speaks to us today:

"If ever there was a moment when every faculty should be bent to the service, and all invigorated by an inspiring zeal, it is now, while the battle between Civilization and Barbarism is still undecided.

Happily, a political party is at hand whose purpose is to combine and direct all generous energies for the salvation of the country. The work must be done, and there is no other organization by which it can be done. A party with such an origin and such a necessity cannot be for a day, or for this election only.

If bad men conspire for slavery, good men must combine for freedom. And when this triumph is won, securing the immediate object of our organization, the Republican Party will not die, but, purified by long contest with slavery, and filled with higher life, it will be lifted to yet other efforts for the good of man.

Others may dwell on the past as secure; but to my mind, under the laws of a beneficent God, the future also is secure, on the single condition that we press forward in the work with heart and soul, forgetting self, turning from all temptations of the hour, and, intent only on the cause."

The day he died, Charles Sumner urged Republicans to stay true to the principles of our Grand Old Party: "My bill, the civil rights bill - don't let it fail." The Republican-controlled 43rd Congress honored his memory by passing the 1875 Civil Rights Act.

After reading this, we are reminded of the Republicans who stood up for Civil Rights over the years and how President Eisenhower sent the federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., to enforce integration of a city high school in 1957. The true Civil Rights movement came from Republicans not the Democrats who co-opted it for votes for John F. Kennedy. Since then the Democrats Party has paid lip service to the Civil Rights movement to get votes by using handouts to keep their votes.

The National Black Republican Association Chair Frances Rice in speaking out on the election of Scott Brown had this to say about those handouts for votes:

So, how did Obama and the Democrats respond to the Massachusetts earth-shattering vote that reverberated around our nation? They resolved to double down and cram down ObamaCare, gambling that Americans love entitlements more than they love freedom. A lesson Democrats learned from black Americans who consistently vote for Democrats in exchange for government handouts, even though the Democrats’ socialist policies have turned black communities into economic and social cesspools. A video posted on the Internet “Detroit in RUINS! (Crowder goes Ghetto)” provides a look at the type of devastation all of America will face, unless the voters in around the country rebel as urged in the video “America Rising: An Open Letter To The Democrats” and repeat in November the Massachusetts Miracle of January.

Excerpt: Read more at: NBRA Massachusetts Message

Once again this MA seat is filled by a Patriot who is bringing his beliefs and ideas as an Independent Scott Brown Republican to the Senate of the United States. Senator-Elect Brown is the Independent voice for the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All our Senators, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, should be the voice of the people from their district/state and not the voice of the special interest groups.

One surprise from this special election campaign was the #1 issue for voters in MA was not healthcare althought it was ranked high but the National Security threat to this Country from terrorists. Brown has been outspoken critic of the Obama Administration's plan to bring the enemy combatants from GITMO to try them in federal court in the United States giving them rights, rather then trying them in military tribunals in GITMO. Brown is adamantly against closing GITMO and is also for tough interrogation methods for the terrorist who want kill us which resonated with the people whose ancestors were the Patriots of our Revolution.

From the towns and villages of the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, the patriotism of Massachusetts once again has come to the forefront. The voters of the Commonwealth of Massachuetts sent a clear message that they want our National Security as a priority and elected Scott Brown as their messenger to the United State Senate.

Our Nation's thanks goes to today's Patriots in Massachusetts for sending a clear message to the Country and the World.

Republicans also need to learn a lesson and return to the basics of the Repubican Party with fiscal conservatism and national security at the forefront on where we stand as a Party.

High taxes and other laws from the English King that were detrimental to the colonies (sound familiar?) finally created an uprising starting with the Boston Tea Party which led to the militia face-off with the British troops at Lexington on April 19, 1775, and the shot 'heard round the world' that began the Revolutionary War.

On July 4th, 1776, the Declartion of Independence was adopted by representatives of the 13 Colonies announcing the separation of the 13 Colonies from Great Britain. With that Declartion, the United States of America was born.

Scott Brown fired that 3rd shot 'heard round the world' with his win on April 19, 2010, and now it is up to all of us to make sure it is heard loud and clear in the halls of Congress, in the White House and in the November election.

Justice Department to Recharge Civil Rights Enforcement

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: August 31, 2009

WASHINGTON — Seven months after taking office, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is reshaping the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division by pushing it back into some of the most important areas of American political life, including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending practices and redistricting after the 2010 census.

As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.

To bolster a unit that has been battered by heavy turnover and a scandal over politically tinged hiring under the Bush administration, the Obama White House has also proposed a hiring spree that would swell the ranks of several hundred civil rights lawyers with more than 50 additional lawyers, a significant increase for a relatively small but powerful division of the government.

The division is “getting back to doing what it has traditionally done,” Mr. Holder said in an interview. “But it’s really only a start. I think the wounds that were inflicted on this division were deep, and it will take some time for them to fully heal.”

Few agencies are more engaged in the nation’s social and cultural debates than the Civil Rights Division, which was founded in 1957 to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
The division has been at the center of a number of controversies over the decades, serving as a proxy for disputes between liberals and conservatives in matters like school busing and affirmative action. When the Nixon administration took office, it sought to delay school desegregation plans reached under former President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Reagan administration dropped the division’s policy of opposing tax-exempt status for racially discriminatory private schools. And former President Bill Clinton withdrew his first nominee to lead the division, Lani Guinier, after her writings about racial quotas were criticized.

Excerpt: Click for Full Story

NOTE: New Black Panther voter intimidation thugs were allowed to skate, but now they want to give people like that special privileges. Does this mean we are going back to a quota system so industries are required to hire so many minorities whether they are qualified or not. If Martin Luther King were alive today, he wouldn't believe what is happening. This Administration is setting civil rights back years with their favoritism and special privileges instead of expecting all races to work and earn their own way in life. As for voting rights, white precincts don't vote over 100% of their residents. This is an outrage that he wants to grow the DOJ in a time of cut-backs in private industry. Just what the Government doesn't need -- more lawyers.