The Original Racists, "Pin the Tail on the…"

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 minutesDemoAssLogo

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.)

%CODE%

Obama and revisionist history – McCarthy on "You didn't build that"

Editor’s Note – Like many groups in this crazy world, history started at different times apparently. Revisionism is rife, and that skews opinions wildly. Obama appears to be one of those revisionists.

Of course, his history is what he says it is, and we have no clue what is real and what isn’t, and he applies that to his external world. Apparently Henry Ford never existed, the Wright Brothers, Colonel Sanders, Steve Jobs, and Benjamin Franklin never existed.

In today’s dollars, Franklin would be a billionaire – did any paved roads exist before he became rich of his own endeavors, before there was a US Federal Government?

“You didn’t build that!” … Oh yeah?

by Andrew C. McCarthy – PJ Media

One of the many great things about Paul Johnson’s magisterial A History of the American People is that he begins that history in the Sixteenth Century. There was an identifiable, culturally distinguishable American People long before there was a Revolutionary War, a Constitution, or a central government. The American People, by their industry and ingenuity, didn’t just build successful businesses … they built the most successful nation in history — and all, somehow, without HUD, Fannie, Freddie, the EPA, OSHA, …

In one of a thousand vignettes, Johnson tells the story of the founding of Springfield:

Elijah Miles, who moved to the Sangamon River country in 1823, left a record of how he founded Springfield. It was then only a stake in the ground. He marked out an 18-foot-square site for a store, went to St. Louis to buy a 25-ton stock of goods, chartered a boat, shipped his stock to the mouth of the Sangamon, and then had his boat and goods towed upriver by five men with a 300 foot tow-rope. Leaving his goods on the riverside — “As no one lived near, I had no fear of thieves” — he walked 50 miles to Springfield, hired waggons and teams, and so got his stuff to the new “town,”where his store was the first to open. It was the only one in a district later divided into fourteen counties, so “many had to come more than 80 miles to trade. Springfield grew up around him.

The president can try telling Americans they can’t build businesses, careers, communities and lives without his broke and broken Leviathan, but history and common sense prove him wrong every time. I’ve listened to some of this debate with fascination. Not at Obama — there is nothing surprising about his cockamamie claim that individual Americans could not have built their successful ventures without his central-planners providing the infrastructure of roads, bridges, police, firemen, schools and the like. What surprises me is the response of some on our side who argue that it was the other way around — that it was the successful ventures that prompted all the infrastructure.

Why would we concede the infrastructure to Obama?When it comes to human beings living in society and helping each other, why do we allow the president to treat we/us as if it were synonymous with the federal government. We built roads and bridges, policed our communities, put out fires, taught our children, and built our businesses before there ever was a federal government.

It is certainly true that, in modern times, the government has gotten itself involved in the infrastructure business. Very often, that has not been a positive development. At Reason, Matt Welch has a very interesting column about the building of the Golden Gate Bridge — which Obama likes to cite as a federal government success story that “benefitted everyone” and, so the story goes, made possible the success of the evil one-percenters.

The story is fiction. As Welch shows, the federal government did everything it could to prevent the Golden Gate from being built. The local people and businesses wanted it; but the Defense Department did not want it built and owned the land on either side of the channel, which it refused for a long time to sell. When it finally agreed to sell, it would not sell to the developers, only to a state commission. And the feds did not participate … other than to try to derail the project. That is, federal contractor unions held up the works, trying to extort their piece of the pie. Finally, because of the market’s collapse and the Great Depression, the bond financing ran into trouble, resulting in more delay until, finally, private capital — the personal wealth of A.P. Giannini — came to the rescue. The bridge was completed $1.7 million under budget, Welch recounts, “using non-union labor and private contractors.”

Matt Welch ends with a fabulous point. In today’s dollars, the $35 million cost of the Golden Gate Bridge translates into $530 million. That’s “far less than one percent of Obama’s stimulus package. So,” he asks, “where the hell are our new Golden Gates? What exactly has been the return on all this added ‘investment’?”

Human beings are social beings who act in their individual self-interest — which, common sense tells us, is often but far from always personal gain. Obama thinks the individual American, particularly if he is an entrepreneur, compares unfavorably to the noble federal government — as if the government were some altruistic “we” just looking to help. When the feds “help,” however, they are often an overbearing presence that depresses individual initiative. Those who run government are in it to wield power, mainly redistributing benefits to their favored, connected cronies. Government stifles the individual more than it empowers him.

The president should not be able to get away with equating such a self-interested behemoth with “us” — the people who help each other and make their communities, and ultimately the country, work. And the thought that the behemoth has become benevolent under Obama, and that we somehow would not have  infrastructure without it, is laughable.

Revising history & moving the goal posts for Obama

Editor’s Note – SUA has been stating this fact over and over – who do you believe? The numbers game is not a game anymore. The media and the left twist everything. Then the talking heads race with it – and the common citizen has no way of knowing the voracity of the numbers.

Its all political – say and do anything to get re-elected, lies are now fair game, and the media not only fails to call them out on these lies, they add to them.

In Rex Nutting’s case, he just re-writes history. Apparently Obama did not take over as President in January of 2009, he waited until October of 2009. That’s like lining up for a field goal from 60 yards, and the referees move the goal post up to make it a 25 yard chip shot. There is ZERO that we can trust coming from this administration and the MSM.

Numbers don’t lie, but Democrats do

By Ann Coulter – Daily Caller

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

______________________________________

Here are Rex Nutting’s numbers as posted at Market Watch:

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

  • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
  • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
  • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
  • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
  • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

______________________________________

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush’s spending.

Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?

Ann Coulter is an author and political commentator.