The Ku Klux Klan, also known as the Klan, is a hate group that was formed after the Civil War. It's sole purpose is to advance the interest of whites using intimidation, violence and other means to do it. However, their violence is not only directed towards blacks, they also attack Jews and other minorities and oppose the Roman Catholic Church. Even though their numbers have steeply declined, there are neo-Nazi offshoot groups that serve the same purpose.
And it was created by the Democrat Party.
After Lincoln was assassinated, the Republican led Congress amended the 13th (Abolishing slavery), 14th (Giving freed slaves equal rights) and 15th amendment (Giving freed slaves the right to vote) in the Constitution. For the next 100 years, Southern democrats tried to thumb the foreheads of freed slaves through segregation laws, poll taxes and let's not forget that KKK past time of lynching. No Republican that I am aware of has EVER been a member of the KKK.
Come to think of it, the Democrat Party was formed in the first place to expand slavery. Their 1840 platform stated in part:
Resolved, That Congress has no power ... to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states ... that all efforts by abolitionists ... made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery ... are calculated ... to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union.
In June of this year, Senator Jim Larkin (D. Iowa) was the lead sponsor of a resolution that apologized for slavery. He stated:
"You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago. It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."
Well, it's actually quite simple. 100 years ago the Democrat Party was enforcing the Jim Crow segregation laws, poll taxes and lynching blacks while wearing white sheets and pointy hats. The reason why it's "important to have a collective response..." is because the democrats want to bury the origins of the KKK and racism.
The democrats used the same language on their political platform in 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856. In 1860, the Democrat commitment to slavery took a more sinister tone. In 1850 the Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress and during this year the Republican Party was created, in part, as a reaction to this unjustified law.
During the 1860 Democrat National Convention, democrats responded to some Northern states that were passing laws to skirt around the Fugitive Slave Law by adopting language in their platform that said:
Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.
So yes, Democrats do have a lot to apologize for when it comes to slavery.
Have you ever wondered why democrats take a stance of "Why can't we just get along?" when it comes to foreign policy? Even though Southern democrats separated from the North, it was during the Civil War that some Northern democrats broke away and formed their own party that was against the war. After this separation, these Northern democrats adopted a "peace" platform which stated in part:
after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war ... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand ... a cessation of hostilities ... to the end that ... peace may be restored ...
Now you know where the origins come from in regards to the democrats and their foreign policy stance. Not only was the Civil War started by democrats, the Northern democrats wanted to preserve the South and slavery through "peace" talks. Needless to say that this tactic would have undermined Lincoln's victory over the South.
In 1868, the democrats went further by trying to demonize the Republican party during reconstruction:
Instead of restoring the Union, it (the Radical Party) has dissolved it, and subjected ten states... to military despotism and negro supremacy.
Fast forward to 1964 and the debate over the Civil Rights Act. Southern democrats, including Al Gore's father, voted NO, however, the Civil Rights Act was ultimately pushed through by Republicans. To paint a broader picture, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
In May of 1993, President Bill Clinton presented former senator William Fulbright the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian medal in our country, on his 88th birthday. What many people don't know is that William Fulbright was a segregationist and Clinton's mentor. Here is a brief list of Fulbright's voting record:
- He signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
- He joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
- He voted against the 1964 Voting Rights Act.
It's also noteworthy to add that Clinton interned for Fulbright in 1966 and credited him for becoming the 42nd President of the Untied States.
In 1985 as governor of Arkansas, Clinton signed into law Act 985. This law made Martin Luther King Jr and Confederate General Robert E. Lee's birthdays state holidays ON THE SAME DAY.
During his years as governor, Clinton made no effort to repeal Arkansas Code Annotated, Section 1-5-107, which states:
(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as 'Confederate Flag Day' in this state.
(b) No person, firm, or corporation shall display an Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America. [Emphasis added.]
(c) Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
In her 1998 book, Lift Every Voice, Lani Guinier wrote of an incident that occurred in the late 1980's involving Bill Clinton. In her book, she states in part:
In the late 1980's, in a particularly tense meeting in southeastern Arkansas — a section of the Mississippi Delta region where antebellum social relations are still in many respects the order of the day — Dayna Cunningham and a local NAACP Legal Defense Fund cooperating lawyer were part of a handful of black people there to discuss remedies for a highly contentious Legal Defense Fund voting rights suit.
The meeting turned sour when one of the local whites demanded to know why, in his view, the whites were always made to pay for others' problems. Other whites in the group began to echo his charge. . . .
Bill Clinton, the lead defendant in the case, took to the podium to respond. In a tone of resignation, Clinton said, "We have to pay because we lost."
What the Hell does that mean? What it means is that the "We", in his comment was referring to the South losing the Civil War. How can this be construed any other way?
Moving on, we turn to another person in Congress. Who made the below statement in a letter dated 1944:
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather 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."
If you said Senator James Byrd of West Virginia, you'd be correct and he wrote those words in a letter to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo. Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1924 to "make a strong stance against Communism..." These are his words in 2003, not mine. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops and held the title of Kleagle (aka recruiter).
In 2005 he said,
"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
Yeah, democrats have a lot to apologize for when it comes to racism.
However, the senator's claim of joining the Klan doesn't hold up under even the mildest of scrutiny. As a World War II veteran pointed out in a 2003 interview with NewsMax.com, the Soviets were our allies. He added that FDR was still calling Stalin, "Uncle Joe" in 1943 and recalling U.S. military maps that showed the Red Army's advances toward Berlin.
Continued...
In 1995, Bill Clinton said this:
"Let me make this clear: Affirmative action is good for America... Let's mend, not end it... When affirmative action is done right, it is flexible, it is fair, and it works."
I am of the opinion that affirmative action is racist by its very nature. Think about it for a minute. Democrats are historically linked to racism in this country and do their utmost to erase and bury that history. And let's face it, affirmative action isn't something new, it goes back before Kennedy, yet it's another government program that attempts to further erase the history between the democrat party and racism. What this program really says, while wagging their finger, is: "You blacks and other minorities can't make it anywhere in this country without the guvament, so we put in place this thing called affirmative action to help ya."
Recalling Bill Clinton's words, "We have to pay because we lost." The picture starts to become clearer.
Then there is the mainstream media. Somehow and at some point in history, they managed to rewrite history and link racism in this country to the Republican party. I do know that they used one way of doing it by constantly referring to hate groups, like the Aryan Nation, as right wing extremists. However, when you peel the layers off, you discover soon enough that these hate groups espouse more liberal democrat tenants than they do republican ones.
Take Israel as an example. Many Liberal democrat bloggers and some democrat politicians rail against our ally in the Middle East. Remember the history below:
- Charles Rangel stated, 'the Iraq war was the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country just as bad as six million Jews being killed' (Democratic Senator Durbin also made facile and insensitive comparisons of the torture and murder meted out by the Nazis to the actions of a few wayward guards at Abu Ghraib). Rangel has a history of tangling with the Anti—Defamation League but blames his problems with the ADL on their desire to create controversy to raise money.
- McKinney's colleague Alabama Democratic Earl Hilliard had a history of anti—Israel positions and used anti—Semitism to appeal to his constituents. His opponent was Artur Davis. Hilliard's campaign slogan was 'Davis and the Jews, bad for the black belt'. Hilliard was defeated a few years ago, as was McKinney. However, McKinney was re—elected in the next cycle. She continued her anti—Israel activities in the current term, but was defeated and will not be serving in the next Congress. One can speculate 'she will be back'.
- James Moran (D—Va.) felt free in 2003 to state that the leaders of America's Jewish community sent America into war in Iraq to benefit Israel. These comments were echoed by Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings (now retired) who, on the floor of the Senate, said that Bush had sent the country to war in order to win 'Jewish votes' — this despite the fact that American Jews opposed the war by greater percentages than the rest of America and that they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. This is the type of high—level analysis popular on neo—Nazi websites and Arab terror group. Oh, and on leading Democratic blogs, too.
- Cynthia McKinney ran a stridently anti—Semitic campaign in 2002; when she was defeated in that campaign she blamed the Jews for her defeat (her father, who also has a history of anti—Semitism, spelled out publicly who was responsible 'J—E—W—S'). She had also objected to the Bush Administration pull out from the Durban Conference against racism when it became clear it had turned into an anti—Semitic hate—fest. She has also been the recipient of a high level of Arab—American political donations, some linked to terror—supporting groups or individuals.
And the list keeps growing, such as these from a couple of liberal and progressive blogs:
- "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an American who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).
- "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).
- On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews [sic] ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).
- "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).
"Right wing extremists", as the mainstream media calls them, hate the Jews just as much as the above do. They seem to conveniently forget the original source of these hate groups and how these people can look at someone and claim they are the party of tolerance, without blinking, is beyond me.
Remember James von Brunn? The mainstream media jumped all over that story and was quick to link this reprobate as a right wing extremist. Of course, what MSNBC (Contessa Brewer), CNN and their ilk failed to do was simple background research. If they did, they would quickly discover that he was just a white supremacist and nut (and we've already discussed where the origins of this came from), however, I doubt very seriously that they would have reported it anyway.
Lastly, I would like to point out what got me started on this essay.
Contessa Brewer at MSNBC.
Remember when she reported on the protester that was carrying an AR-15 on his shoulder and had a handgun on his hip at an Obama town hall? Recall the video that she was referencing and how the camera didn't quite pan up to the protesters face, yet when you watched the entire video, you notice that man was an African American.
Now, why do you suppose she did that?
PS. I almost forgot to mention that infamous memo from the Department of Homeland Security.
No comments:
Post a Comment