Editor’s Note – A couple weeks ago, just prior to Independence Day, Bill Whittle recorded one of his now famous ‘Afterburner’ monologues, this time on the subject of the ‘sordid history’ of the Democratic Party and racism called “Pin the tale on the Donkey.”
In the video below, Bill details something we at SUA have been beating the drum about for years – how the Democrats re-wrote history to claim the high ground in America’s battle over race issues. In his own inimitable manner, Bill covers about 165 years of American history to quickly describe the truth behind the emancipation of the black minority in about 13 minutes
Whittle nails it of course and it is well-timed in these days and months following the events in Baltimore and Ferguson, the Treyvon Martin shooting, and our President’s constant drumbeat about police brutality, voter suppression, ID Cards, The Supreme Court ruling of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, and so much more regarding discrimination in America.
The fact is, as Bill points out, somewhere along the way in our recent history, the Democrats changed tactics and flipped history on its ear and continues to try and hide their past and blame Republicans for everything that ails the black community today.
In the video, Bill asks you to “look it up,” so we are providing a quick way to do just that.
In May of 2012, we published an article that goes into the subject in quite a bit more detail on that hidden history and names the names, and chronicles the events in detail. Here is just an excerpt, but we encourage you to read the lengthy treatise so you can use facts to battle the left’s sophistry:
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes!
These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement. (Read more here.)
At least once a year we like to revisit this subject to continually remind people to check the facts, especially when they are uttered by such trustworthy candidates running for President like Mrs. Clinton. In the coming election cycle, America must educate herself so we do not make such “fundamental” mistakes as we did in 2008 and 2012.
Many others have tried to expose these truths, and in 2014 former Rep. Allen West took a crack at it as well, and like Bill Whittle points a very dark cold stare at those so upset over the use of the “N-word” in one of the most famous racist quotes of the modern era where Democrats flipped the story:
Republican President Eisenhower ordered troops to enforce school desegregation. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen enabled the 1964 civil rights legislation to pass, in opposition to Democrat Senators Robert Byrd (KKK Grand Wizard) and Al Gore, Sr.
As a matter of fact, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs. (Read the rest here.)
Remember these numbers as you watch below:
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. (Read more here.)
Editor’s Note – Four more years! Four more years! Wait, sorry, she isn’t Obama, she’s worse! As America’s media breathless awaits for the Democrat Party “coronation” to officially begin today, we at SUA renew our long held position on Hillary Clinton – HELL NO!
Let the “twitter” trending begin. We predict a backlash on her overly crafted roll-out today – America cannot afford four more years of failed foreign policy, lies, scandals, and “resets.” The last two sets of four have just about destroyed America; “HillNo” would ensure its deep burial!
Thank you again to Michael Goodwin for his insightful and steadfast focus on the Clintons, the Obamas, and all who helped them in their dire deeds. In the best interest of America, we need to stay out of the “Bush” as well – no more dynasties!
“Ready for Hillary” – Hell No!
Oh Hill no! Clinton’s stale presidential plan wrong for nation
More than five years ago, a Clinton confidant matter-of-factly described for me Hillary’s Plan. She would resign as secretary of state after President Obama’s first term, write a book and then run for president again.
Check, check, and, with Sunday’s official launch, check again. Her to-do list is complete.
She stuck like glue to The Plan, which required years of misleading blabber from her and Bubba that she hadn’t decided about 2016. Fish gotta swim, and a Clinton’s gotta run, so there was never an iota of doubt.
But time has marched on and the world has changed, making The Plan, and her, look stuck in the past. What the great Murray Kempton wrote in 1965 of John Lindsay’s first mayoral run — “He is fresh and everyone else is tired” — is not something anybody says of Hillary these days.
She’s been on the national stage for a quarter-century, though because of all the drama, it feels like we’ve lived through several lifetimes with her. Along the way, she’s reinvented herself more often than Madonna. While the spectacle of an aging hoofer trying to keep up with the kids is riveting, the kicks aren’t what they used to be and the odor of desperation is unavoidable.
The sweaty effort to appear fresh reinforces the suspicion that Hillary senses danger in the argument that she’s awfully close to her expiration date. It’s not merely a matter of age, though she will be 69 come next Inauguration Day, which would put her close to Ronald Reagan’s record.
The real issue is Clinton fatigue, a national exhaustion from having been-there-done-that too many times. Her husband’s popularity counts for something, but she’s already milked that cow dry.
She’s got to make a case that goes beyond just wanting the Oval Office. She’s got to earn it and I’m not sure she can.
The arrows, then, all point the same way: Hillary is past her peak and missed her best chance in 2008. Her two elections and eight years in the Senate had made her something bigger and better than a scorned first lady.
She was ready to make history and the country was ready to help her. Then along came that fresh-faced senator from Chicago with a better game plan and a more convincing claim on history, and the brass ring eluded her grasp.
Her pain was understandably acute, and her willingness to join his team couldn’t have been easy. Shuffling off to Timbuktu while the big decisions were made in Washington was another stab in the back. But she endured, and even played along with his cockamamie foreign policies, a mistake that continues to damage America and her reputation.
That bad run of experiences could have forged her character into something admirable, but her performance so far has been a disaster. Instead of re-emerging as a smarter and more focused force rejuvenated by defeat and exile, she seems to have learned nothing and changed not a whit.
She still makes baby talk about breaking glass ceilings and other coded references designed to get her Pantsuit Posse out of their chairs, but it feels like a re-enactment rather than the real thing. After each bad review and each new scandal, the prospect of another usurper emerging from the shadows must give her panic attacks. Déjà vu all over again.
Will the left’s new darling, Elizabeth Warren, jump into the race? Will Martin O’Malley steal Iowa and puncture her balloon of invincibility?
What about Obama — will he help her or dump her? What price will she pay if she breaks with him on Iran or Israel? What mischief is Valerie Jarrett making?
Hillary would be crazy not to consider all those scenarios and a dozen others, but her first steps are depressingly robotic. Raise more money, hire more advisers, parse and calculate, hide behind her Praetorian Guard, rinse and repeat.
She’s older but not wiser and only a groupie could think it’s working. She’s become a gaffe machine and showed a tin ear by continuing to give paid speeches until a month ago. Then came the e-mail debacle, which evoked a universal “there she goes again” quality.
It brought back a souped-up carload of bad memories — her habitual secrecy, arrogance and, most damaging, dishonesty. If she had come out and simply said she set up a private server for government business because rules are for little people, she would have had the virtue of honesty.
But still constitutionally incapable of being straight, she concocted a silly lie about the “convenience” of carrying only one electronic device, which was promptly demolished when evidence emerged that she had both a BlackBerry and an iPad.
We still don’t know the full story of what she’s hiding in those e-mails, but already there are fresh wounds. Although no Democrat threatens her yet, recent polls in six swing states show that, in head-to-head matchups against a raft of Republicans, she is basically tied or trailing nearly all of them. She makes them all look good.
Given her long history, changing voters’ minds on something so basic as trust won’t be easy. Her best hope is to fire a withering barrage of mud against an incompetent Republican. Again, we’d be reliving the ’90s, with her spying a vast right-wing conspiracy behind every tree and playing the victim when it doesn’t work. Oh, what fun.
There is, of course, a long way to go until November of next year, and events, especially the growing world disorder, will likely reshape the campaign and the public mood numerous times. Like all the candidates, she’ll have to reshape her message, too — after she comes up with one.
So far, something about Hillary does not seem right for the present, let alone the future. Aides have been discounting the early going as a false measure, and assuring backers that she’ll right the ship once she launches.
Perhaps, but she is taking on much more water than they had expected, and her margin for error is shrinking fast. The polls suggest there is a tipping point with voters and inevitable stumbles and scandals could make 2016 look like 2008.
It could be that she’s star-crossed, and the gods will conspire against her again. After all, as Mark Twain observed, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
Editor’s Note – Credibility – the term should be on the tip of everyone’s tongue and the question in everybody’s ears as Obama or anyone speaks in DC, on any subject. There simply is no credibility in the Oval Office and in a lot of offices in Congress.
From Fast & Furious, to the IRS Scandal, to the NSA Scandal, to the “Grenade Walking” follow-on from Fast & Furious, to the complete flip flops on the debt ceiling, to the promises broken and the disastrous failure that was the roll-out on Obamacare – credibility?
Ask the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as they have to handle people in all the many scandals like Kathleen Sebelius, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, National Parks Director Jonathan Jarvis, and Hillary Clinton, et al.
Ask the Saudis about credibility, ask the Israelis, ask the Syrian freedom fighters, ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, ask the Brazilians, ask the French – credibility? Ask MG Vallely who wrote on this very subject many times as well.
This is only a short and incomplete list of the administration’s failures, but first and foremost, ask the families of the lost heroes of Benghazi – CREDIBILITY?
Obama and his entire team, including his sycophants, apologists, and surrogates – zero credibility. How can anyone defend anything the Obama administration has done with a straight face anymore – it defies all credulity. These were the very people who blamed the “shutdown” on Ted Cruz and the Tea Party – again zero credibility, but they are not the only ones to question.
What is worse to many including SUA though are the many establishment Republicans who cried that what Ted Cruz did ruined their plan for recapturing the power in DC, it was the wrong tactic. Their credibility is also suspect now. At least in the House there were many votes to keep the government from partially closing, but establishment folks called Cruz and others names, just as the left did.
The abysmal Obamacare roll-out shows that what Ted Cruz and the Tea Party wanted was correct – to save Americans from this imminent train wreck, one aimed at the American citizenry, and now John McCain wants to run for President again – credibility?
And then there are the democrats who are seeking reelection in 2014 now pushing for exactly what Cruz and the Tea Party wanted – a delay and fairness at a minimum – will we see them flip flop more as Obamacare disintegrates before our eyes as well?
Henninger: Obama’s Credibility Is Melting
Here and abroad, Obama’s partners are concluding they cannot trust him.
The collapse of ObamaCare is the tip of the iceberg for the magical Obama presidency.
From the moment he emerged in the public eye with his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention and through his astonishing defeat of the Clintons in 2008, Barack Obama’s calling card has been credibility. He speaks, and enough of the world believes to keep his presidency afloat. Or used to.
All of a sudden, from Washington to Riyadh, Barack Obama’s credibility is melting.
Amid the predictable collapse the past week of HealthCare.gov’s too-complex technology, not enough notice was given to Sen. Marco Rubio‘s statement that the chances for success on immigration reform are about dead. Why? Because, said Sen. Rubio, there is “a lack of trust” in the president’s commitments.
“This notion that they’re going to get in a room and negotiate a deal with the president on immigration,” Sen. Rubio said Sunday on Fox News, “is much more difficult to do” after the shutdown negotiations of the past three weeks.
Sen. Rubio said he and other reform participants, such as Idaho’s Rep. Raul Labrador, are afraid that if they cut an immigration deal with the White House—say, offering a path to citizenship in return for strong enforcement of any new law—Mr. Obama will desert them by reneging on the enforcement.
When belief in the average politician’s word diminishes, the political world marks him down and moves away. With the president of the United States, especially one in his second term, the costs of the credibility markdown become immeasurably greater. Ask the Saudis.
Last weekend the diplomatic world was agog at the refusal of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah to accept a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Global disbelief gave way fast to clear understanding: The Saudis have decided that the United States is no longer a reliable partner in Middle Eastern affairs.
The Saudi king, who supported Syria’s anti-Assad rebels early, before Islamic jihadists polluted the coalition, watched Mr. Obama’s red line over Assad’s use of chemical weapons disappear into an about-face deal with Vladimir Putin. The next time King Abdullah looked up, Mr. Obama was hanging the Saudis out to dry yet again by phoning up Iran’s President Hasan Rouhani, Assad’s primary banker and armorer, to chase a deal on nuclear weapons. Within days, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief, Prince Bandar, let it be known that the Saudis intend to distance themselves from the U.S.
What is at issue here is not some sacred moral value, such as “In God We Trust.” Domestic politics or the affairs of nations are not an avocation for angels. But the coin of this imperfect realm is credibility. Sydney Greenstreet’s Kasper Gutman explained the terms of trade in “The Maltese Falcon”: “I must tell you what I know, but you won’t tell me what you know. That is hardly equitable, sir. I don’t think we can do business along those lines.”
Bluntly, Mr. Obama’s partners are concluding that they cannot do business with him. They don’t trust him. Whether it’s the Saudis, the Syrian rebels, the French, the Iraqis, the unpivoted Asians or the congressional Republicans, they’ve all had their fill of coming up on the short end with so mercurial a U.S. president. And when that happens, the world’s important business doesn’t get done. It sits in a dangerous and volatile vacuum.
The next major political event in Washington is the negotiation over spending, entitlements and taxes between House budget chairman Paul Ryan and his Senate partner, Patty Murray. The bad air over this effort is the same as that Marco Rubio says is choking immigration reform: the fear that Mr. Obama will urge the process forward in public and then blow up any Ryan-Murray agreement at the 11th hour with deal-killing demands for greater tax revenue.
Then there is Mr. Obama’s bond with the American people, which is diminishing with the failed rollout of the Affordable Care Act. ObamaCare is the central processing unit of the Obama presidency’s belief system. Now the believers are wondering why the administration suppressed knowledge of the huge program’s problems when hundreds of tech workers for the project had to know this mess would happen Oct. 1.
Rather than level with the public, the government’s most senior health-care official, Kathleen Sebelius, spent days spewing ludicrous and incredible happy talk about the failure, while refusing to provide basic information about its cause.
Voters don’t normally accord politicians unworldly levels of belief, but it has been Barack Obama’s gift to transform mere support into victorious credulousness. Now that is crumbling, at great cost. If here and abroad, politicians, the public and the press conclude that Mr. Obama can’t play it straight, his second-term accomplishments will lie only in doing business with the world’s most cynical, untrustworthy partners. The American people are the ones who will end up on the short end of those deals.
Editor’s Note – This has been published many times but SUA thinks its time we all read it again. As race continues to be a card the left wants to play, let’s just remind ourselves of some history, and who is who in the race game. Remember Trayvon Martin as you read…Zimmerman had black blood in his veins.
The Democrat Party’s Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism
A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has come to be known as “playing the race card” but is more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things.
They are not only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot Julian Bond’s recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond’s statements went without condemnation from the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.
Not surprisingly, in all the lies and accusations of racism by the radical left wing, the truth becomes distorted not only about the Republicans but also the Democrats who make these accusations themselves. For instance, you may or may not have heard Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the “n-word,” on national television in March of 2001.
Amazingly, this incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any of the other ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders of the civil rights movement.
In contrast, the main source of well deserved criticism for Byrd’s racist outburst came not from any of the so called leaders of the civil rights movement but from from Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (source).
The race hustlers Jackson, Mfume et al turned a blind eye towards this act of racism by one of their own party, at most issuing an unpublicized slap on the wrist, or, as was more often the case, making not a peep. But where the race hustlers turn a blind eye and spew their lies, it is up to conservatives to set the record straight with the truth.
In response to the growing practice of racial McCarthyism by prominent left wing Democrats, it is necessary to expose the truth about the Democrat Party’s record on Civil Rights:
I. Acts of Bigotry by Prominent Democrats and Leftists:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens.
Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt’s internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America’s concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt’s order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that “no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time.”
Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.
Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920’s and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham.
A jury composed of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan audience “I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your counsel.” In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching measure.
Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant in FDR’s court packing scandal. Roosevelt appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the Senate confirmation of Black’s nomination, the issue of his strong Klan affiliations caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following the confirmation Roosevelt claimed ignorance of Black’s Klan past, though this claim was dubious at best. Black’s first Senate election, which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade earlier in 1926. Black’s Klan affiliations were a well known part of his political background and recieved heavy coverage in the newspapers at the time of his appointment.
On the court, Black became a liberal stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring the opinion in favor of FDR’s Japanese internment program in the infamous Korematsu ruling.
Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV: Byrd is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and is currently the only national elected official with a history in the Klan, a well known hate group. Byrd was extremely active in the Klan and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership recruiter.
Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was effective in “promoting traditional American values” (Source). Byrd’s choice of words speak volumes about his bigotry considering the fact that the Klan is a notorious hate group, and the racist “values” it promotes are anything but American.
One of the earliest criticisms of Byrd’s Klan ties came in 1952 when he was running for Congress. Byrd responded by claiming that he had left the Klan in 1943 while noting that “(d)uring the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan.” Byrd was lying, however, as he engaged in correspondence with a Klan Imperial Wizard long after he claims to have ended his ties with the hate group.
In a letter to the Klan leadership (Source) dated 3 years after he purported to have ended his ties with them, Byrd wrote “I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd continued his racist diatribe “It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union” and followed with a request for assistance from the hate group’s leadership in “rebuilding the Klan in the realm” of West Virginia.
Byrd’s racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he wrote on the subject of desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In the letter, Byrd vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting “(r)ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds” (Source).
Byrd’s racist opinions have shown their ugly face in his behavior in the Senate. Byrd led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, according to the United States Senate’s own website, filibustered the legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents to the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass. At the time, Byrd was in the the midst of a 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil rights measure (Source).
Throughout the 1960’s, Byrd was was one of the staunchest opponents to civil rights in the U.S. Senate. Byrd’s racist history drew attention recently when he went on national television and repeatedly used the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in existence, in an appearance on national television. Byrd uttered the slur on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow on March 5, 2001. Despite the appalling nature of the remark, it went largely ignored by the mainstream media and the self appointed “civil rights” leadership. Whereas a similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator would assuredly prompt the likes of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest rallies demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was eerily quiet following Byrd’s remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd should avoid making such bigoted remarks.
In a sickening recognition of Byrd’s appalling political career, the national Democrat party has done nothing but embrace the West Virginia senator with leadership roles and practically every honor imaginable. To this very day the Democrats call former Klansman turned U.S. Senator Robert Byrd the “conscience of the Senate.”
They have embraced him as their party’s central pillar in all ways possible. Byrd has been reelected more times than any other Democrat senator, has served as a Democrat in Congress, a Democrat State Senator in West Virginia, and a Democrat State Delegate in West Virginia. Democrats have made repeatedly elected Byrd into their national party leadership and into the U.S. Senate leadership. He became secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in 1967, and Senate Democrat Whip in 1971.
The Democrats elected former Klansman Byrd as their Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and as their Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986. Byrd was again elected Democrat Majority Leader from 1987-1988. Democrats made Byrd the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until the Republicans won control of the Senate in November 1994.
Following the defection of Jim Jeffords in June 2001, the Democrats again made Byrd the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and elected him to the highest ranking office in the Senate: the President Pro Tempore, a position which also put this former Klansman 4th in line for the presidency. Byrd lost his position when Republicans retook the Senate in late 2002, but continues to serve as one of the highest ranking members of the Democrat Senate leadership today.
Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC: Hollings is liberal Democrat Senator from South Carolina who is also notorious for his use of racial slurs. He rose out of the Democrat Party’s segregationist wing in the 1960’s as governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings personally led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state.
The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor Hollings “warned today that South Carolina would not permit ‘explosive’ manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services.” According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he “challenged President Eisenhower’s contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations” against segregation. In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as “confused” and asserted that Eisenhower had done “great damage to peace and good order” by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters.
Governor Hollings’ support for segregation continued throughout his term and included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement. Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats. The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting, noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to desegregation.
In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made disparaging racial remarks and slurs against minorities. Senator Hollings, who was a contender for his party’s presidential nomination in 1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against Hispanics. After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated “You had wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston,” referring to one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later Hollings reportedly used the slur “darkies” to derogatorily refer to blacks.
He also once disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the “Blackbow Coalition,” and called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who is Jewish, “the Senator from B’nai B’rith.” Hollings gained international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, where he crudely remarked “you’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”
Hollings was also the Governor of South Carolina who raised the confederate flag over the state capitol in the early 1960’s in what was considered at the time to be an act of defiance to civil rights. The press ignored Hollings and his role in the flag issue at the same time the political correctness police were smearing George W. Bush during his campaign after Bush correctly remarked that the flag was a state issue to be decided upon by South Carolina and not the national government.
Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000 Democrat Convention. Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City “Hymietown.” Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed “civil rights leader,” is himself guilty of the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose.
Dan Rather: Rather, the well known television anchor for CBS, is also a liberal Democrat who has spoken at fundraisers for the Democrat party in the past. The notoriously left wing reporter appeared on the Don Imus radio show on July 19, 2001 where he was interviewed about his long term refusal to cover the Gary Condit (D-CA) scandal involving an affair with a missing intern despite the scandal’s national prominence.
Rather noted on the air that CBS had basically forced him to cover the story that was on every other network and on the front page of all the major newspapers, all this after Rather avoided it for months. Rather stated on the air, refering to CBS, that “they got the Buckwheats” and made him cover the Condit scandal. The term “Buckwheat” is considered an offensive racial stereotype that stems from an easily frightened black character named “Buckwheat” on the Little Rascals comedies. It is widely regarded as a racial epithet and has long been condemned as an offensive stereotype by several civil rights organizations.
In several past incidents (see here and here) the use of the epithet “Buckwheat” has recieved condemnation by the NAACP, Al Sharpton and other left wing organizations. These left wing organizations and personalities have demanded that other media personalities be fired over using the epithet, and even staged a protest at a school over the mere allegation that the racist stereotype had been used by a teacher.
Yet these same liberal groups have, to date, remained completely silent now that one of their own, Dan Rather, is guilty of using the same offensive racial stereotype they have condemned elsewhere on a national radio show. It’s just more proof of how the left wingers who cry the loudest with accusations of racism against others turn a blind eye when somebody of their own left wing ideology is the undeniable culprit of a blatantly racist act or statement!
Craig Hines: Hines is one of the most rabidly partisan DC based Democrat editorial columnists to work for a major newspaper, and he makes no attempts to hide it. To Hines, pro-lifers are “neanderthals,” as is often the case with those who differ in opinion with him. Ironically, Hines, a columnist who regularly touts himself as an enlightened progressive, is also known for racial remarks and religious intolerance. He attacked Senator Jesse Helms in an August 26, 2001 editorial with not only the usual liberal name calling, but also with a racial epithet. Hines used the racial slur “cracker” to attack Helms. He used the epithet not only within the article’s text, but he even included it in the piece’s title.
In a sense of heavy irony, Hines’ article accused Helms of bigotry for, among other things, opposing liberal policies like affirmative action. He didn’t seem to object to himself for his own bigotted language in the same article. Hines has also drawn heavy criticism from Catholics including a letter to the editor from the former President of the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s Conference for his seemingly agenda-driven criticisms of Catholicism and its religious leaders, often based on little or no historical evidence, which he has expressed in numerous editorial columns.
Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the rumored candidates for the Democrat’s 2004 presidential nomination, has a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central figure who fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton lieutenant called the store’s owner a “bloodsucker” and declared an intent to “loot the Jews.” A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store, resulting in the death of seven (source).
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton’s former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a “racial contract” between Black and Hispanic Democrats “and that can’t happen.” Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.
Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton’s former drug czar and Democrat mayor of Houston, engaged in racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid. Brown faced challenger Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the runoff, Brown’s campaign printed racist signs designed to intimidate Hispanic voters.
The signs featured a photograph of Sanchez and the words “Anti-Hispanic.” The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic leaders as their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic voters. Around the same time the signs were being used, Brown supporter and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of racially charged attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic voter turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming that Sanchez was not a true Hispanic.
The racist anti-Hispanic undertones of Brown’s reelection bid were so great that liberal Democrat city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his endorsement of Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the final week of the campaign. Following the harsh condemnation of the racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was removing them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the election.
When election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist signs at polling places, despite his claim to have stopped using them. The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured, in Spanish, the word “Danger!” on them followed by Sanchez’s name with a large red circle and slash through it. The signs identified the Brown campaign as their owner on the bottom.
Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an “independent” in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade.Brown’s racially charged reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning 51% to 49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in which the Brown campaign appealed to the fear of black voters by invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd, Jr. and by attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity to declare himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his victory party, many in Houston fear the racial wounds inflicted by his campaign will take years to heal.
Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them,” indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.
Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his daughter’s failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter’s difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy.
McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic sentiments, stating “This is all about the Jews” and spelling out “J-E-W-S.” McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.
The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan members who have served in elected capacity within the high ranks of the Democrat Party, the political party itself has a lengthy but often overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan.
As delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan’s favor, the Klan itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the largest Klan gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field in nearby New Jersey. The event was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat Convention, and ended in a cross burning.Though it has been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of 1924 was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention” at the time, the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute surrounding the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention attempted to condemn the hate group in the party’s platform, but found their proposal shot down by Klan supporters within the party.
II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.
Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
– Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
– J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
– Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
– Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
– Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
– Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
– Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
– Holland and Smathers of Florida
– Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
– Ellender and Long of Louisiana
– Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
– Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
– Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
– Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
– H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
– R. Byrd of West Virginia
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats:It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!” (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.
– Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton’s political heroes
– George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama
– Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia
The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party’s individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright.Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority particip
ation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of “white primaries” unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order.
The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the “Jaybird system” which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a
slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries.
In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat’s “white primary” system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat’s white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.
Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.
The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly accuse Republicans of racial hatred, remember who the historical record up until this very day points to as the real bigots: The Democrat Party. In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the pillars of ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or affiliates of racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today’s heroes and leaders:
– Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment
– Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group
– Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television
– Rev. Jesse Jackson,Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic slurs
– Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City
– Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups
– Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters
– Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent.
– Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast
– Donna Brazile,former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis
The simple truth is that the Democrat Party’s history during this century is one closely aligned to bigotry in a record stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day. Bigots are at the center of the Democrat party’s current leadership and role models. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who dishonestly shout accusations of “bigotry” at conservatives are practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind themselves.
SUA Staff – The mantra is constant from this White House, and throughout the Democratic Party talking points – Republicans are ‘fat-cats’ who just support get-rich millionaires and billionaires. The Democrats are for the ‘working families’.
Everyday it echos throughout the internet and in the media. No speech of late goes without some statement about ‘fair share’ or similar leftist slogans. Even the Occupy Wall Street people echo this, and now they are preparing for a May Day event.
There is one major problem with their mantra – its the left who is in bed with “Big”-this, and “Big”-that, and so on.
When you look at the names that have the most access to the Washington elites and power, including the White House, it’s a far different story. We all know both parties do this, or so that too is part of the mantra, but why, because to a great many of them, its not about ‘public service’, it was always about power and riches. Serve a post in DC, reap the benefits later.
Recently, SUA was shown a set of pictorials called Venn-Diagrams, compiled and posted in January of 2011, but most were updated as late as last December. These are diagrams that show a name, their government association, and also where they came from in industry. Some of the names have changed, but in large measure, it totally de-bunks the mantra, the myth, that the Democrats are for the little guy, and Republicans are for the ‘fat-cats’.
SUA is re-posting them so you can talk with your peers about the truth during this campaign season. Obama and the left paint Romney as that Bain-Capital ‘fat-cat’, but by our count, in these 18 diagrams, 249 people are listed. That is a lot of powerful positions, right up to the White House and the halls of Congress. That is not a surprise, the real surprise is that of the total, 230 are working for, or were appointed by a Democrat after leaving their old posts in one of the 18 categories. Only 19 are on the other side of the aisle.
These 18 industries are common names in politics and include, Big Tobacco, Motion Picture Association of America, Social Network sites, Planned Parenthood, the AFL-CIO union, Disney, Fannie Mae, Green Energy, the Defense Contractors, Enron, Keystone Pipeline, Comcast, Big Media, Big Oil, Big Pharma, General Electric (GE), Monsanto and Goldman-Sachs.
Another set of surprises: the folks at Enron, erroneously associated with former President Bush’s cronies, has more former employees in DC working for or with Democrats. Then there is Goldman-Sachs, where Jon Corzine of MF Global infamy came from.
This phenomenal series of Venn diagrams shows in painstaking detail just how corrupted our political system in the United States has become.
When I look at the the connections of Goldman Sachs, it makes me wonder how anyone thought that people actually had the brazenness to claim that those pointing out the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington conspiracy theorists.
Take the White House’s move to block the release of a Monsanto-linked lobbyist’s e-mail, for instance. This is hardly shocking when one considers the numerous connections the global corporation enjoys on Capitol Hill shown above. Even when the products they are hawking are linked to birth defects and necrosis, these individuals seem to have no problem with actively circumventing everything democracy is supposed to be in order to pursue their corporate interests.
Just like the thoroughly reprehensible activities of the war profiteers who knowingly profit off of death, destruction and suffering, those who lobby for corporations like Monsanto are actively contributing to the problems of the many for the benefit of the few. It’s truly disturbing to see all of this laid out in such an easily comprehensible manner, especially when one observes the high level positions many of these individuals either once held or currently hold.
Of course, this is only a small portion of the individuals involved in the widespread corporatist corruption that has infected so much of the United States.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.