Blacks, Democrats, and Battered Spouse Syndrome

Cain Under Attack Already as

"Unauthentic" Black Man

The Reverend Al Sharpton has already questioned Herman Cain's "African-American credentials", insinuating that because the candidate is a Conservative, he can't possibly be a "real" black man. Harry Belafonte has referred to Cain as a "bad apple", ostensibly for betraying the strange mantra of Black Liberals the land over.

If you're reminded of a woman -- being beaten by her husband -- suddenly fighting her defender alongside her attacker, one could hardly blame you, for the Black population ignores the history of who has been actually fighting for them while remaining fiercely loyal to the party that has been their biggest obstacle to freedom and equality.

Democrats have perpetrated the greatest sleight of hand illusion in the history of Man, turning an abysmal  record of human rights into a facade of benevolence, all the while successfully vilifying the political party that has for centuries been truly friendly to Blacks. While it seems that no level of education will suffice, I remain  committed to the attempt, so let's revisit a bit of history.

An 1860's Democrat Poster

Despite the giddy accusations of the enemies of America that one of our Founders, Thomas Jefferson, was himself a slaveholder, he was a member of a society in a time when the cruelty of the practice was not realized. And despite the societal acceptance of it, Jefferson nonetheless felt the tug of moral injustice without the peer pressure of others to force him. He just felt it was wrong.

Nearly a hundred years later, the Democrat Party was still fighting to save the institution of slavery and proudly declaring their disdain for "Negroes". It was a time that they felt unabashed about such sentiments, as evidenced by the poster to the left, something our children will never see today in a school textbook in spite of its historical significance.

Then there is the recently departed "Liberal Lion" of the Senate, Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940's, rising to the ranks of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops. In eulogy, former President Bill Clinton mentioned Byrd's "brief daliance" with the Klan, but the levels to which the deceased Senator rose in that vile organization suggests otherwise. But Clinton's cavalier excuse for Byrd's transgression was even more telling; Clinton said that Byrd only joined "to get elected". Really? That would suggest that in order to get elected as a Democrat, Byrd had to pose as a raging racist.

Byrd once said in opposition to integration of the U.S. Armed forces, "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.” Lovely fellow, that Robert Byrd. But he did recant and ultimately claim to champion Civil Rights, even though he filibustered the vote in 1964 by holding the floor for 14 hours.

There is also former Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, who famously tried to block the doorway to a school in order to prevent desegregation by keeping Blacks out of the school. Wallace, Democrat. And let's not forget Lester Maddox, who wielded an axe handle at Negroes, and closed his restaurant in Atlanta rather than serve Blacks. The same Lester Maddox who would become Governor of Georgia as -- you guessed it -- a Democrat.

Byrd's Klan Garb

It was Democrats who wrote the Jim Crow laws, who opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, and who opposed anti-lynching legislation for years.

Rush Limbaugh once said that being a Liberal is the laziest, easiest position to take because all it requires is that you notice something and claim that it's terrible. So the Democrats, after decades and decades of oppressing Black Americans, suddenly embraced them and sobbed how sorry they were. And just like a battered spouse -- grateful that the beatings are over -- Blacks fell into that false embrace and spurned the party that had actually been fighting for them the whole time.

Herman Cain answered his Black critics succinctly. He stated that he "left that plantation long ago". Hopefully, he can get a large portion of the Black population to follow suit.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberals' License to Lie Revoked

Time to Expose the Myth

Terrified of the coming storm of the Conservative Renaissance -- most likely in part because of the evidence exhibited in the mid-term melt down of the Democrat Party -- Liberals are preemptively rushing to the forefront of 2012 with charges of racism at the ready.

As President Barack Hussein Obama feverishly chips away at the foundation of this country, and the electorate becomes ever increasingly alarmed, the prospect of a one term presidency becomes more apparent. And Liberals are desperate to maintain power. Meanwhile, the race is on as to whether America survives the onslaught, and the outcome of that race hinges on the rhetorical success of lying Liberals.

Ed Schultz of MSNBC fame recently castigated Donald Trump over his audacity in questioning Obama's legitimacy for office and his academic achievements. Fair enough if that was as far as it went, but Schultz wasn't happy with a mere chance at the high ground; he had to punctuate the attack with the charge of racism.  True to Liberal form, when your argument is weak, bolster it with emotion and -- as is often the case with Leftists -- lies to remove all doubt.

Likewise, Whoopi Goldberg said yesterday on  The View , that she was "playing the damn [race] card now". Howard Dean continues to portray the Republican Party as a racist institution, and Democrats in general use the notion like a leash to retain the minority voting base. In fact, the Joseph Goebbels-like propagation of the right wing racism myth has effortlessly made the Tea Party an automatic target of the Left's ire, and the only way to refute the charge is to have a member of a minority actually attend a rally.

One such person is Carmen Guillermo of Amercan Thinker, who recently wrote of her personal revelation in an article titled  My Journey to Conservatism. Guillermo, of Mexican descent, is a reformed Liberal who shook off the chains of misinformation; a woman once certain that Conservatives hated black people, brown people, yellow people, and generally anyone who wasn't white. She learned the truth first hand by visiting a local Tea Party rally, and became enlightened in the process, now wondering how she could have been so wrong. I wonder the same thing.

The Democrat Party was formed with White supremacy as its philosophy, while the Republican Party was devoted to the abolition of slavery. It was Republicans who fought valiantly to ultimately overcome the Democrats repeated filibusters to adopt the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment, which sought to give Blacks the rights to due process and to vote.

In fact, in the mid 1800's, the Democrats identified themselves as "the white man's party" and criticized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated". Ironically, the south was controlled by Democrats who fought to maintain slavery, and they used every tactic imaginable to retain power. According to a PBS series titled  The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow* : 

Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

It seems some things never change. The Democrats are not only still cheating, they are still slave owners. The only difference between then and now is that the slaves do not realize that they are captives because these days the Democrats use the velvet shackles of false compassion. It is only when these minorities manage to wander off the plantation and personally witness the splendor they have been convinced does not exist that they are freed.

Just ask Carmen Guillermo.

*http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html
*http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_republican.html

Sphere: Related Content

"A Period of Know-Nothingism"

Mr. Know-it-all, John Kerry

For the last two years we have witnessed an incredible surge in Conservatives who have finally decided that faith in the system would no longer suffice, and who have sacrificed valuable time in board rooms, businesses and cubicles to rally and protest for the first time.

According to polling data, there are more people involved in the political process than ever before. Voter turnout is expected to eclipse past elections, and this is only the mid-terms. Yet, according to the Democrats, we've never been quite as clueless as now.

Speaking to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce yesterday, John Kerry continued the Democrats assault on our intelligence, saying that "we have lost our minds", and that we're basically being led by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. This suggests that we cannot believe what our eyes tell us, but rather that we rely solely on what we're told. We know nothing.

Reporting for duty.

And of course, Kerry also felt compelled to engage in the obligatory, "It's not our fault" gibberish, saying:

"It was not Barack Obama, it was not the Democratic Party. It was not us who asked for a bailout, or created the situation that required a bailout. And it was in response to a Republican president that a lot of Democrats stepped up." 

Yes, a Republican president who, for six years had the economy doing quite nicely despite 9/11 and two wars was the the problem. It couldn't possibly be related to the timeline of the Democrats re-taking of the Congress and the start of our economic melt-down in the last two years of Bush's tenure. How could we be so ignorant? 

I just hope that the Democrats, after getting their heads handed to them at the ballot box next Tuesday, don't try to pull a Paul Krugman on us and tell us it never happened.

Sphere: Related Content

Still the Media Swoons

Barack Hussein Obama is worried. He knows he's going to lose his rubber stamp in a week and a half and that he will be forced to deal with a hostile Congress for the second half of his term as president. He's masking his concerns by claiming that he just wants fair elections and transparent campaign funding. Strange talk coming from a hypocrite who promised all of that in his own run for the White House, yet failed to follow through on any of it.

Obama is running around telling his crowd that the Republicans are receiving money from foreign corporations and big business, all with virtually no evidence to back up such absurd notions. And still, his acolytes in the media believe that he can do no wrong.

They forget - or ignore - the fact that Obama was the largest recipient of donations from BP Oil, not only a large corporation, but a foreign one. Obama says that the Republicans are receiving money and that we have "no way of knowing where it's coming from", yet again, the media neglects to mention his own mysterious cash from anonymous online donors. And there actually is evidence that he received cash from foreign interests.

In August of 2008, Aaron Klein of World Net Daily wrote about two Palestinian brothers from Gaza who gave the Obama campaign nearly $30,000. From the article, first paragraph:

JERUSALEM – Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign.

The brothers, Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan, claimed that they merely "bought t-shirts" from Obama's campaign because they - and many others - wanted Obama to be president. That's a strange statement that should have raised a few eyebrows, but elicited little more than a yawn from the media. Equally perplexing is the fact that the brothers, living in Gaza, were able to get a shipment of t-shirts delivered, considering that Israel had in place a tight blockade. More from Klein's piece:

But Edwan could not explain how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the months he claimed to have purchased the merchandise, since Israel imposed a tight closure of the Gaza Strip starting in June 2007 that lasted until June 2008, when the Israeli government agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza.

"We don't want to cause any damage to Obama's campaign," was Edwan's reply.

Edwan said he wants Obama to be president.

"Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great man," he told WND.

The Obama campaign at the time stated that the money was returned, but the Edwans say they never saw any money. Cue the crickets, the media didn't care, yet again. Now Obama, and Biden, are claiming that the Republicans may be receiving some sort of nefarious money?

AP Photo of illegal Maria Gianni

Add to this the incredibly outrageous reports that illegal immigrants are openly canvassing for Democratic votes on the west coast. That is wrong on so many levels, I scarcely know where to begin. The Democrats simply have no shame, although they really have no need for it. No one is saying a word about it on the networks or the major publications, so they are led to believe that it's perfectly fine to break the rules.

I would love to know how bad this electoral bloodbath looming on the horizon would be if the media actually did its job and actually informed the people.

Sphere: Related Content

Knowing the Path

In order to recognize the looming danger, one must be fully cognizant of the path that leads to a particular destination. Ronnie knew the path chosen by Liberals, and knew full well the dangerous conclusions they had planned. Here is a great montage that spells it out succinctly:

Sphere: Related Content

Democrats: Bi-Partisan or Bi-Polar?

The $700 billion bailout vote failed today, and the point-drop in the Dow Jones Industrial matched better than point for dollar. The DJI shed over 777 points on Monday. The only good news thus far is that it was not raining businessmen in Manhattan today.

House and Senate Democrats rushed to the microphones on Friday decrying the presence of John McCain as a force of division they could have done without, but as it turned out, it was Obama's quick tutor-job by the staff of Henry Paulson, through emails, that derailed Friday's "meeting". Obama walked in shooting from the hip and all hell broke loose.

The perplexing part of it all is this, however; Democrats claimed to "have a deal" in place before the arrival of McCain who, according to their accounts, "blew up" the meeting. So why did Indiana House Democrats, to name a few, vote two to one against the bailout? Even more important is the question of why Nancy Pelosi made this speech hours before the vote:

To me, that does not sound like a person trying to get a deal done. It sounds like a person holding a large knife and plunging it repeatedly into the deal.


Then Barney Frank decided to insert his foot into his mouth yet again by claiming that Republicans were to blame.

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.

That was a remarkable accusation by Republicans against Republicans, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee: "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country."

That's a very interesting accusation of its own, considering that 40% of House Democrats also voted against the bill. This is the same Barney Frank, while we're at it, who in 2003 said:

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

And that was in response to a call by none other than President Bush for more regulations on the two institutions to prevent what many others recognized at the time as a potential disaster. How does Nancy Pelosi interpret history? Like this:

"[W]hen was the last time someone asked you for $700bn? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system."

I read these quotes, I listen to the audio and I remember past events, and I am left scratching my head, trying to understand how a modern political party can utter such nonesense and not even be held accountable in the mainstream media.

But I am not alone. Is it any wonder why Congress enjoys an 11% approval rating?

Sphere: Related Content