The Ku Klux Klan was established by the Democrat Party.
The Ku Klux Klan murdered thousands of Republicans -— African-Americans, Catholics and Jews -- in the years following the Civil War.
The Republican Party and a Republican President, Ulysses S. Grant, crushed the KKK with The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
The Klan was resurrected during the administration of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, an avowed white supremacist. In the White House, Wilson screened the blockbuster film The Birth of a Nation, which was notorious for "promoting white supremacy and positively portraying the 'knights' of the Ku Klux Klan as heroes."
The film inspired a new generation of Klansmen, complete with burning crosses, white sheets and an ideology based upon race supremacy. As recently as the seventies, the Klan was still utilizing the film to recruit new members.
The KKK soon became such a driving force within the Democrat Party that the 1924 Democrat National Convention was known as "the Klanbake".
In 1937 Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed a former member of the Klan, Senator Hugo Black (D-AL), to the Supreme Court.
In the fifties and sixties, members of the KKK who fought the civil rights movement were uniformly Democrats. Infamous police commissioner Bull Connor not only attacked protesters with fire hoses, dogs and clubs, but served as both a KKK member and a committeeman for the Democrat Party.
In the eighties, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) -- a recruiter and executive for the Klan -- was elevated to third-in-line for the Presidency.
In fact, the greatest civil rights activist in American history -- Martin Luther King, Jr. -- was a Republican.
In one of the greatest speeches in American history -- many historians believe it is second only to The Gettysburg Address -- King dreamed of a day when skin color was as meaningless as eye color. He said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
King supported the NAACP of his era. The group's proud tradition included fighting against the diabolical practice of lynching, supporting the civil rights struggle, and driving legislation that advanced the cause of equal rights and individual liberties.
The NAACP historically had strong ties to the Jewish community: "Jews wrote most of the checks that bankrolled the fights of Martin Luther King... the Freedom Rides of James Farmer and CORE (the Congress of Racial Equality). Ever since the early years of the NAACP more than fifty years before, with a Jewish president and, a few years later, a black national organizer, leading Jews on the board of directors, and a vocal black membership, blacks and Jews were linked in the fight to end racial discrimination."
Fast forward a few decades and we find that the NAACP has become the antithesis of King's vision. It has, in the words of the National Black Republican Association, a "racist agenda."
It supports the same party of racism -- the Democrat Party -- that murdered its predecessors. It supports the agenda of dependency and modern slavery, endless big government, and an unconditional loss of liberty.
Today's NAACP unapologetically welcomes Louis Farrakhan, a virulent racist who preaches hatred of whites, Jews and Catholics.
Today's NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond, is a spiteful, bitter racist who despises anyone that opposes his radical Statist agenda. If you believe in the Constitution, if you believe in individual liberty and private property, then Bond's bizarre ideology brands you a racist.
At an NAACP gathering, FDA executive Shirley Sherrod "twice decried present-day racism, as if it was 400 years ago. That suggests a person whose views on race have not truly changed at all. But she doesn't stop there. [Referring to Tea Party activists,] Sherrod says, 'I haven't seen such mean-spirited people as I have seen lately over this issue, healthcare. Some of the racism we thought was buried, didn't it surface.' ...In Sherrod's world, no one is allowed to object to a significant Obama-supported policy change impacting the healthcare of all Americans without being labeled a racist."
The NAACP and Sherrod are illegitimate heirs to King's legacy. Political debate can not occur when proven racists claim that any dispute is the result of racism.
Facts, logic, history and reason are of no consequence. If you disagree with the Obama administration, if you believe in the Constitution, if you believe in American exceptionalism, then you're a racist.
The NAACP, with its embrace of racism and hatred, is a national disgrace. Shirley Sherrod is a government hack with a chip on her shoulder. Both owe Andrew Breitbart an apology.
Martin Luther King wouldn't even recognize today's NAACP, which is eerily similar to the Klan of old. It appears to embrace hatred based solely upon race, an ideology that is closer to Germany of the thirties than King's America.Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!
17 comments:
The rest of the story must include all the programs that bamboozled the American Blacks into voting 99% Dem. The same programs that have severely damaged the Black family structure and created several generations of dependence.
What a great post - Thanks Doug
Excellent post! And I agree 100% that Breitbart is the one who should receive an apology.
I want to testify.
Hallelujah.
What an incriminating and devastating timeline and report. Public Service Announcement is more like it. Awesome job, Doug!
-I was sent this link by a republican who took exception to my schooling him on Nixon's Southern Strategy" and other recent forms of covert republican racism. My how things change! And oh, republicans are so touchy about charges of Racism!
Hey, David ---
Aren't you supposed to be in front of a charter school somewhere, blocking little black kids from breaking the backs of the NEA?
What do you do for a living?
So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:
When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.
First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.
Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two.
Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.
directorblue said...
"What do you do for a living?"
What do you think i do?
-as to blocking school kids at a charter school, why would i want to stop anyone from obtaining an education, since it could be their key to success?
Actually i am a retired surveyor, before that i spent 7 years as a grunt in the 82nd Abn Division.
"-as to blocking school kids at a charter school, why would i want to stop anyone from obtaining an education, since it could be their key to success?"
Dave, my man, then why do you support a politician who'd cut the voucher program? Say, ain't the President one of those opposing the school voucher program?
@David, thank you for your service.
Given your oath to uphold the Constitution, how do you justify the overt power grabs by this administration of our banks, auto companies, insurance companies, drug companies, etc.?
How do you justify jamming a new entitlement program (ObamaCare) down the American peoples' throats when our existing entitlements are roughly $72 trillion in hock?
How can any reasonable person support this economic destruction?
"Given your oath to uphold the Constitution, how do you justify the overt power grabs by this administration of our banks, auto companies, insurance companies, drug companies, etc.?"-directorblue
Article 1, Section8.
"How can any reasonable person support this economic destruction?"
-As i recall, the economic destruction began with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that broke down the firewall between Investment banking, wall street, and insurance established by the Glass-Steagall Act.
@David: see the whole thing:
The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits..
And I wrote an illustrated post called "Compusive Intervention Disorder", which describes the history of the housing meltdown.
Please review and comment.
"Dave, my man, then why do you support a politician who'd cut the voucher program? Say, ain't the President one of those opposing the school voucher program?"-Duncan
I have mixed feelings about school vouchers. In some cases they seem to work. However, there are valid arguments against federal funding of private schools, since many are religious schools and that would violate 1st Amendment separation of church and state. Other problems with private schools involve the quality which varies and there is little rigorous oversight.
directorblue said...
@David: see the whole thing:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr5.html
Artical 1, section 8 is pretty clear. Congress has a wide range of powers to create law. The ""Just Powers" and "Limited government" you refer to are stated in the Declaration of Independence which is not the legal basis for federal law, it is as it says, a declaration of Independence.
@David - you have fallen into the same trap that so many use to make the Constitution "living and breathing".
The founders and framers could not have been more clear:
James Madison 1788 - "The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."
Thomas Jefferson 1791 - "They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider{Otherwise}, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless."
James Madison 1792 - "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
Thomas Jefferson 1815 - "I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words 'general defence and public welfare.'
Thomas Jefferson 1817 - "Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
Chief Justice John Marshall 1819 - "The federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it....is now universally admitted."
James Madison 1831 - "With respect to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."
Simply put, you're wrong. Absolutely, positively wrong.
Furthermore, such federal overreaching not only obliterates the intent of the Constitution, it its patently dangerous -- as proven by the fall of every government, including the Roman Republic, that allowed its government to become corrupt, oligarchical and destructive of the civil society.
"To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."-James Madison 1831
Sounds like Madison had buyers regret. I maybe wrong or you maybe wrong. I take a more literal approach, and you have a different take. However, what we now have, for better or for worse is within the bounds set by the Constitution. The remedy for all un-Constitutional acts is the Supreme Court, and they haven't acted to end the more liberal interpretation of the Constitution, 5 conservative judges notwithstanding. So as you can see now, I can square the solemn oath I took that fateful day.
And speaking of the Founding Fathers, I wonder what they'd make of the "foreign entanglements" we are so bound to these days. Washington is rolling in his grave!
This has been a fun exchange. We'll do more:)
Post a Comment