Here's the Horse Sense: While most Americans have moved past racism, it is still a huge problem today but not from where the left claims it is. The problem is the left who are the source of racism in our nation.
While most Americans have felt for some time that we have made progress dealing with racism, accusations of racism have grown in recent years, particularly regarding white attitudes towards blacks. The accusations have become commonplace towards conservatives whenever they say something that disagrees with the leftist progressives, even if race is not mentioned. While claiming to be against racism, the left denies the fact that they are actually the perpetrators of it. Stealing the moniker of fighters for civil rights, their history and actions expose them for the true racists that they really are. Whether it's fighting to keep slavery in the early years of our republic or as recently as the past few days, they use their power to do damage to American racial minorities with blacks being the foremost recipients of the left's efforts to maintain inequality.
The efforts of leftist progressives (Democrats) to use race as a dividing factor among Americans have sadly been successful. This is all part of their plan to take down the American system and replace it with a system based on a failed ideology that gives them total control and steals freedom from all Americans. They do this by creating division through fomenting racial and class dissent by claiming inequality and unfairness.
This all starts by the left claiming they are the heroes of the fight for civil rights while covering for their hypocritical members like the late Senator Robert Byrd who was a Ku Klux Klan member and local chapter leader. Listening to them you'd conclude that the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Democrat when in reality he was a Republican like the vast majority of blacks were up until the Democrats hijacked the credit for the civil rights movement by promising more and more government programs to "help" minorities, but in reality simply created a dependency on government. That same dependency causes people to continue to support those politicians so that they don't lose those government benefits. By doing this the politicians create a locked-in voting base.
The leftist ranks are filled with racists who try to claim the higher ground of open-mindedness and tolerance, but they are the lowest, most disgusting of all things human. They are the racists who, like a person with severe mental illness, projects their guilt upon those with whom they disagree in an effort to vilify them and cover their own sins. To keep people from focusing on their moral failure they accuse others of those things they themselves are guilty. And much to the detriment of America, too many people buy those false claims instead of seeing through them and seeing those who make those accusations for what they really are.
So, let's take a look at some things most Americans don't know because true history hasn't been taught in our schools in generations.
There has been a division about race since long before America became a nation. Long before the United States won its independence from Britain, people came to North America seeking freedom and opportunity. My own family came from Britain to New England in the 1620s seeking those very things.
Way back in 1619 the first slave ship arrived in Jamestown, VA and there were fierce disagreements about slavery even then. Those disagreements carried on until 246 years later, well after the United States was formed, the Civil War ended finally granting freedom to blacks who had been treated in such a depraved and inhumane manner.
But the left always makes up their own history, and in most cases they try to convince people that all white people supported slavery while conveniently forgetting the abolitionist movement and its rise that led to Civil War. Such things as the Quakers in Pennsylvania passing a resolution against slavery in 1688 as the first formal protest against slavery in the New World has long been ignored when history is mentioned. They conveniently forget to mention things like the legislation passed by colonies in 1711 to outlaw slavery (that was 65 years before the Declaration of Independence). But those laws were invalidated by the King of England, of which the colonies were still under control at that time. The King's invalidation doesn't change the fact that the majority of people in the colonies voted for equality and freedom, not slavery.
We don't hear much about the fist fights that broke out in the Senate about slavery. Or the deaths that occurred as whites fought each other over the issue. The division was so great that during the Constitutional Convention it created huge problems that almost kept America from establishing its early government. Unfortunately these disagreements went on for generations instead of immediately being settled once and for all. But finally they were fought out in the Civil War that gave freedom to an important and significant part of our population. America didn't stop at the end of the war, though. We went on to pass 3 constitutional amendments to end slavery, give blacks citizenship, and the right to vote. The amendments were ratified with the approval of ¾ of the states, something that couldn't have happened if the voters were predominantly racist.
To understand what is going on in America today, we need to understand the history that has brought us here. In his eye-opening book, Whites, Blacks, and Racist Democrats, Rev. Wayne Perryman shares the untold history of race and politics in the Democratic Party. Knowing the true history should give you a better understanding of who the leftists really are. Here are a small number of the things he unveils in this amazing book:
- During the 1787 Constitutional Convention the pro-slavery members argued that slaves should be counted as citizens when considering the number of congressional seats their state would receive. But they would not give slaves the same rights as the white citizens of their states. These were the same people who eventually became the Democratic Party. The anti-slavery members opposed this measure. To come to agreement a compromise was agreed upon granting each slave recognition as 3/5 of a person when determining how many congressional seats their state would receive. The anti-slavery folks didn't agree that a black person wasn't a whole person, but they knew that by agreeing to this method for determination of congressional seats it would benefit the anti-slavery movement. If they had allowed the pro-slavery members to define the slaves as a whole person for these calculations, then that would have given the pro-slavery states control of Congress and thereby weaken the chance of eliminating slavery in the future. It was not a great solution, but it was seen as the better choice on a path towards eventual victory in abolishing slavery.
- In 1793 the southern state's pro-slavery members of Congress introduced the Fugitive Slave Law which included a clause to impose fines on anyone interfering with the slave master's right to re-claim runaway slaves. The northern states' anti-slavery members countered by passing personal liberty laws to protect free blacks from being kidnaped or mistaken as slaves. Then, in 1819 Missouri asked to join the union and the pro-slavery southern states pushed to get them in as a slave state, which would give the pro-slavery members control of Congress. The northern states countered with Maine's application for statehood as a free state.
- In 1844 the anti-slavery members of the Democratic Party joined with the abolitionists to form the Republican Party with the main goal of ending slavery and giving blacks the same rights as whites.
- In 1860 the Republicans won the presidential election for the first time with Abraham Lincoln winning the presidency. The Democrats didn't like it and the Democrat state of South Carolina seceded from the Union and other Democrats threatened to assassinate Lincoln. By early 1861 six other Democrat-controlled states also seceded from the Union. They formed the Confederate States of America and on April 12, 1861 attacked Fort Sumter starting the Civil War.
- The end of the Civil War and the assassination of President Lincoln both came in 1865. Republicans established the Freedmen's Bureau to support reparation efforts made by General Sherman who had ordered that each black family would receive 40 acres of land and a mule to work that land. Democrats were incensed and passed the Black Codes which established whom blacks could and could not work for, the type of employment they could have, restrictions on travel and curfews. The Black Codes forced many blacks to work for their former slave owners as apprentices.
- In 1866 the order of General Sherman to give black families 40 acres of land and a mule was introduced as Senate Bill 60 and passed the Republican-controlled Congress. But Democrat President Andrew Johnson vetoed it, which forced black families to return the acreage and mules to their former owners.
- That same year Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull (IL) introduced the 1866 Civil Rights Act challenging the Democrats' Black Codes by declaring that "... all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding...."
- Democrats argued against the bill by trying to use the terrible pre-Civil War 1857 Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court that defined blacks as property and not citizens. The Democrats claimed it was proof that the proposed law could not apply to blacks. The bill passed, President Johnson vetoed it, and the Republican-controlled Congress overrode the veto making it law.
- These types of acts on the part of Democrats continued as they opposed the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to blacks, opposed the Reconstruction Act which would assign military officers throughout the South to oversee reconstruction and assure fair and equitable treatment of blacks, opposed the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote, opposed the Enforcement Act of 1870 which would enforce the rights of blacks to vote (specifically in the South where they were still being treated immorally and illegally), and on and on.
- In 1871 the Republicans introduced the Ku Klux Klan Act to deal with the terror the Klan was inflicting on blacks and on white Republicans for supporting black freedom and equality. Senate investigations had found that the KKK had a political purpose and was composed of members of the Democratic Party. One Klan member, James Boyd, told the Senate Investigative Committee that he was "initiated into the Ku Klux Klan as an auxiliary of the Democratic Party."
- In 1875 Tennessee Democrats introduced Jim Crow laws that confined blacks to separate sections of trains, depots, other facilities and public locations. To counter this the Republicans introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1875. In describing the bill Republican Senator Frederick Frelinghuysen (NJ) said, "The object of the bill is to destroy, not recognize the distinctions of race."
- When the Democrats first won back the presidency and control of Congress they moved to undo much of the civil rights legislation that the Republicans had passed since the Civil War with the Repeal Act of 1894.
- The efforts of Democrats continued over the years. When Democrat Woodrow Wlson was running for the presidency W. E. B. Dubois endorsed him and asked him to support black education, black rights to vote and own land, and to help stop the black lynchings that were plaguing our country. After Wilson took office he ignored Dubois and allowed 3 of his cabinet members to segregate their departments.
- Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt was no better when his federal government agencies discriminated against blacks trying to obtain relief benefits from the Agricultural Administration. When the landlords of blacks kept their relief checks the Federal Housing Authority, who had guaranteed loans for home building and home purchases, would not get involved to help the people claiming that they had no jurisdiction. Roosevelt also banned black newspapers from military bases (He claimed they were communist, but didn't seem to dislike them so much when he had run for office and those same newspapers had supported his campaign.).
- Many Democrats continued to fight against black rights and equality. In 1957 they opposed Republican President Dwight Eisenhower's 1857 Civil Rights Act. Then again in 1960 many Democrats opposed the 1960 Civil Rights Act. And still many Democrats opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and some even opposed the 1968 Civil Rights Act. Success in the passage of civil rights would not have been possible if it hadn't been for Republicans.
This racist mindset that has permeated the Democrat Party since its early days has not subsided. They have learned well the progressive process of dividing the public using race, class, and anything that will turn people against America to become receptive to the lies and deceptions they promote. They claim to stand for fairness, but they are the definers of what is fair and it is never what most Americans think. To them fairness is when things are the way the progressives want them to be. There is no true equality in their plans.
J. Christian Adams, the former Department of Justice attorney who left his job because of the racist attitudes and approach to enforcing the laws in the DOJ under this administration tells about it in his must-read book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department. Adams also wrote about it in a Washington Times article titled ADAMS: Inside the Black Panther Case on June 25, 2010 saying: "The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Departmet of Justice (DOJ) attorney."
What Adams witnessed was a clear case of voter intimidation but, as he has brought out since his resignation from the DOJ, the entire mindset of the nation's top law enforcement agency is one that believes that prosecution of crimes against whites by other races are not to be pursued because, in their view, whites cannot suffer discrimination like other races can. In fact, what it boils down to is a belief that only whites can be racist.
Some have even said that this administration believes that whites need to pay for their racism and that this nation was founded by racist white men who stole their wealth from other races while leading our nation to steel its wealth from other non-white nations.
Common among progressive Democrats are racially dividing rants against those who disagree with them. Having learned well the Saul Alinsky tactics that they use, they are out to demonize their opposition as I pointed out in an earlier post here last December called Racism: Not What The Progressives Claim It Is and also in my book No Tomorrows, How to Halt America's Imminent Collapse and Return to the American Dream.
In just the past few days there have even been examples of this from the Democrats. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (NY) is reported by the Washington Post to have said in a broadcast interview that parts of the Republican Party base are moved by racism.
That topped off a week in which Republican Representative Louie Gohmert confronted Democrat Attorney General Eric Holder during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about his lack of compliance with subpoenas. Gohmert said this showed Holder's lack of concern for the House holding Holder in contempt (click here to read report about the contempt charge) and Holder tersely responded telling Gohmert, "You don't want to go there, buddy!" Holder went on to say that Gohmert shouldn't say that it didn't matter to him because it did.
But that wasn't the end of it. Later, during a speech at race-baiter Al Sharpton's National Action Network Conference, Holder expressed to the audience his outrage at how he was treated by Gohmert. (click here to learn about the exchange and Holder's comments later during a speech at the NAN Conference)
When Holder challenged Gohmert's assertion that he didn't care about being held in contempt, Holder didn't mean that he cared about being held in contempt. Rather, at Sharpton's NAN Conference Holder made it clear that what he cared about was that Gohmert had the audacity to challenge him. His comments also reflected an attitude that the House Committee holding him accountable was only because of his race.
This is the kind of thing that has become commonplace in America today. Racism in America is alive and well right at its source, which is the Democratic Party. It's time for Americans of all races and ethnicities to reject the false mantra of the Democrats and come together as Americans. We must not let the progressive Democrats divide us and destroy our nation. We have a choice. Ben Franklin said "Join or die." We must unite. United we will stand but divided we will fall.
Update: Eric Holder has been asked about his comments at the NAN Conference and he insists they were not about race, but about incivility in Washington (click here to read about it). And maybe that is what he meant, but the question of whether he was referring to race is only raised because of the history of his Justice Department and this administration. The way he replied to Rep. Gohmert in what came across as a threatening tone said a lot about incivility. My suggestion is he look at the log in his own eye before he criticize the speck in someone else's.