Andrew Klavan - Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats

The Democrat party has always been the party of racism, so why do black people vote for Democrats? Today, Andrew Klavan has the terrifying answer.

And for more information about the racist past of the Democrat Party, check out Ann Coulter's newest bestseller, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America - http://amzn.to/lxcQiT

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Liberal Racism - KKK formed by Democrats

Democrats founded the KKK, fought the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, instituted Jim Crow Laws, fought the 1965 Civil Rights Act and continue to keep racism alive and blacks on their liberal plantation. This is an excerpt from the award-winning documentary Emancipation Revelation Revolution.

In 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill supported and put forward by Republicans.

The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the "Klanbake convention", a minority of delegates attempted to condemn the presence of the Klan but was rebuked by the Klan supporting Democrat Majority.

On April 20, 1871 the Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-Affiliated terrorist groups.

Ronald Reagan, a Republican, made history on November 2, 1983 by signing into law Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a National Holiday. This is the first and only Federal Holiday that recognizes a Black American.

Albert Gore, Sr., a Democrat, played a key roll in the 74-day filibuster that delayed and intended to undermine The Civil Rights Act.

Albert Gore, Sr. voted against The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

President Bill Clinton's political mentor, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas also a Democrat, voted against The Civil Rights Act.

A search on The Clinton Presidential Center Web Site yielded 102 matches when searching for Fulbright.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

When LBJ nominated Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1967 he was opposed by 10 Democrats and only 1 Republican. The lone Republican had switched parties from Democrat to Republican only 3 years earlier in 1964. Why would 10 Democrats oppose a Democrat Presidents Supreme Court Nominee?

Robert Byrd (Democrat) is the only Senator to oppose both black Supreme Court nominees.

Former Klansman Hugo Black (Democrat) was appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat) in 1937. This liberal icon, who served on the court until 1971 also defended and helped acquit Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham.

Hugo Black was also a senator that received substantial support in his first senate election victory from the Klan.

Many Democrats referred to Robert Byrd as the "Conscience of the Senate"

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Bill Whittle - Racism - Democrats and Republicans switch sides?

Bill Whittle - Tea Party explain the facts on being a Conservative Republican and how many people defend their liberal beliefs by saying that they 'switched sides' with Republicans. He also addresses racism, Nazis and communism.

Originally Published February 2012

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

PolitiChicks - Kira Davis - Liberal Hypocrisy Toward Black Conservatives

Blogger/CA PolitiChick Kira Davis was "banned for life" by MSNBC for holding a sign that read, "I am a Black Conservative" outside their studios. Out of everyone holding signs, only Kira was singled out. Where was the outrage?

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Lurita Doan - Do Democrats Own The Terms 'Racism" and "Lying"?

Democrats have run a number on Republicans.

They have skillfully captured certain words in the American lexicon and redefined them, applying Democrat-themed meanings for the specific purpose of cowing Republicans into silence and submission. I have watched the escalation of this vocabulary abuse for almost a decade, and I am sorry to say, this particular Democrat scheme is working.

Republicans seem afraid to speak the unvarnished truth about Democrat party leaders for fear of reprisals in the mainstream media, an organization that has repeatedly proved that it is indisputably in the tank for Barack Obama.

What are Republicans afraid to say?

Republicans seem afraid to say that Barack Obama, 44th president of the United States, seems to be a racist and a liar whose clumsy, inexperienced efforts at leadership have put our nation’s economy and our citizens’ safety in jeopardy and has proven incompetent and unfit for office.

Meanwhile, Democrats seem quite comfortable throwing labels of “racism” and “lying” about freely when they attack Republicans, comfortable in the knowledge that no Republican dare do the same. With full support and acquiescence from a compromised media that long ago lost its objectivity, charges of “racism” and “lying” have morphed into an Orwellian fog, becoming purely political terms to browbeat Republicans, allowing Democrat leaders to dodge the discussion of tough issues.

Americans have seen “racist” tendencies from Democrats who reflexively jump to the assumption that any white Republican who disagrees with Obama’s failed policies is doing so because Obama is a Black man. Meanwhile, many Democrats openly support Obama for the simple reason that he is Black. Furthermore, Obama’s surrogates are quick to circle the wagons and level accusations of “racism” should anyone point out their obvious, raced-based prejudices.

When Obama was elected president by a majority of Americans, it sure seemed that the race-baiting which went on during the 2008 campaign would finally have to be put to rest. But, in the past three years since Obama’s election, the “racist” moniker seems to be flung about with even more frequency than before the election.

In addition, too many Democrats have shown that they do not understand the definition of racism and, instead, seems to think that racism is a one-way street—that it only exists as a White against Black issue. In reality, any person who immediately assumes that a person’s actions towards them are solely based on one’s ethnic origin may be exhibiting symptoms of racism.

Still, almost anyone who criticizes Obama and the Democrats’ failed policies is labeled as a “racist”. When Black Republicans, such as me, criticize the president’s failed policies, Democrats know that the “racist” moniker won’t work, so instead, we are attacked as “traitors to our race”, or the media tries to portray us as stupid or corrupt.

But if a president’s policies are bad, if they fail to achieve their objectives (such as Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, green energy investment initiatives, the “summer of recovery” or the Stimulus) is it really “racist” to criticize the policy or to think that the American people deserve better—even if the policy is advocated by a Black man? Is it “racist” to criticize the president because he has failed to submit a viable budget to congress for the past four years, or just incompetence on the part of the president?

The president also seems to be a liar. According to Webster, a liar is “a person who tells lies”, who deliberately “makes an untrue statement with the intent to deceive; to create a false or misleading impression.”

Isn’t that exactly what Obama has done when he says: he didn’t really know or hear the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preach anti-American sentiments, or when he writes about events that are patently untrue in his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, or when Obama deliberately tells lies about Romney and Bain Capital, or when Obama deliberately lies about the debt ceiling, or when Obama tries to claim the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya was not terrorism?

What about other Democrat leaders? Such as when Harry Reid claims that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes? Or when Eric Holder says he knew nothing about Fast and Furious? Or when Elizabeth Warren claims she is part Native American so she can game a hiring system which is tilted in favor of quotas and minorities?

In the past three and a half years, Republicans have worn out the pages of the thesaurus looking for euphemisms for lying. Republican punditry, speeches and writings are chock full of alternatives: mislead, mischaracterize, misrepresent, untruth, misspeak, prevaricate, fabricate, story, taradiddle, fairy tale, inaccurate, falsehoods, dishonest, distortion, whopper, canard, deceit, stretching the truth.

Supposedly, according to Republican “strategists”, using the word “lie” is too direct, too brutal, too hostile and might coarsen the dialogue between political parties. Using the word “liar”, they contend, would lead to vicious attacks from the mainstream media and would cause Republicans to lose respect or votes or the moral high ground. But, I would hate to hear what these Republican pundits think is too coarse or too harsh, if they think that the attacks from Democrat leaders over the past few years have been friendly banter.

When did our country slip so far, fall so low, that we have become so handcuffed by political correctness that we are unable to call a thing by its true name? Socrates understood that watering down one’s language does not change the truth or make it more palatable, just more confusing.

Our founding fathers understood that too. Our founding fathers were some of the most courageous and least politically correct folks of their century (think Ben Franklin).

Their willingness to speak the truth as they saw it may be one of the reasons why they had the courage to attack tyranny and hypocrisy and hold up the flawed policies of a greedy and ignorant king for the world to see, and in doing so, lay the foundations for the greatest free government in the history of the world.

Republicans need to stop being cowed by rants of “racism” and they need to stop trying to find ways to soften the reality of Obama’s widespread and repeated deceptions.

Perhaps Wednesday’s debate might be a great place to start.

Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Ann Coulter on President Obama's Disastrous Debate

Bestselling author Ann Coulter joins talk radio host John Phillips to discuss her new book "Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama". In this preview, hear what the conservative icon has to say about Obama's debate performance and why she is concerned for the mental health for the staff at MSNBC.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

PJTV Trifecta - Does Michelle Obama Think You Are You a Racist? First Lady Injects Race into Campaign

Michelle Obama made it clear that the 2012 presidential race is about race. In a recent speech, she invoked images of slavery, and essentially accused America of being a racist country. Is she right? Is America a racist nation? Find out on this Trifecta.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - Racial Politics Thicker Than Justice

When the House voted last Thursday (6/28/2012) to find Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress, members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked out.

Why is the Black Caucus trying to make this about race?

It’s about Holder’s refusal to turn over Justice Department documents requested by the House Oversight and Government Committee in its investigation of the “Fast and Furious” operation.

“Fast and Furious” was a “gun-walking” operation conducted by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). ATF would allow known smugglers to purchase arms from dealers in Arizona with the idea that they would trace them to their destination to operatives in drug cartels in Mexico.

Before the vote, Black Caucus chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) appeared on CNN calling the House contempt vote “....silly and detrimental to one human being.” On MSNBC he told Al Sharpton, “This is partisanship at its most base level.”

Sure, it’s an election year. And if you had to stretch to appreciate the complaint against Holder being made by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif), chairman of the House committee doing the investigation, you might buy Cleaver’s claim that this is just Republican political grandstanding.

But you don’t have to stretch to appreciate the case against Holder.

It seems pretty clear that “Fast and Furious” was a botched operation. The ATF lost track of some two thousand weapons that disappeared into the hands of criminals in Mexico. In December 2010, weapons traced to this operation were found on smugglers who murdered U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry. Others were tied to the murder of at least 200 Mexican citizens.

The investigation into these ATF activities began with inquiries by ranking Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) after Agent Terry’s murder.

The Justice Department, in a letter to Senator Grassley, initially denied the existence of gun-walking operations. But this picture changed when ATF whistleblowers brought facts to the contrary to light. Subsequently, Justice withdrew its letter, saying its denial of the existence of these operations was mistaken.

Inconsistencies in Holder’s testimony before the House committee produced further reasons for suspicion. And then Holder’s stonewalling for months, refusing to produce the documentation that the House committee requested.

Whether there is a fire here remains to be seen. But there is plenty of smoke.

Yet Cleaver calls the House vote holding Holder in contempt “silly?” The chairman of the Black Caucus should have the opposite reaction if only for concern for his own community. Illegal drugs smuggled into the US from Mexico cause havoc among black youth. According to the Center for American Progress, there have been more than 25.4 million drug convictions in the US since 1980, and one third of them were black.

To grasp what’s really motivating Cleaver, I apply what I call the “A Time to Kill” test.

In the 1996 film “A Time to Kill”, a black man in a town in Mississippi hires a white lawyer to defend him after he kills two white racists who raped and mutilated his daughter. When the lawyer makes his closing argument to the jury, he asks them to close their eyes. He describes the atrocities that were done to the girl and concludes by saying “now imagine she’s white.” His black defendant is acquitted.

So close your eyes. Consider the details about “Fast and Furious” and then picture that the Attorney General is not Eric Holder but John Ashcroft (first Attorney General of President G.W. Bush) and that the murdered border agent, Brian Terry, is black.

Would Emanuel Cleaver now call this contempt vote “silly?” Would the Black Caucus have walked out?

For the Black Caucus this is about racial politics.

Fortunately for us, for Darrell Issa (who happens to represent my home district in California) this is about shedding light on what might be broken in ATF operations.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.