Monday, January 15, 2007

Keeping Everybody Down On the Plantation

It is amusing that the same editorialists who were writing long and hard arguments during the last election about how everybody “should know their place and stay in their place, and maybe one day they’ll get their proper chance,” are today writing odes on how everyone should "live their dreams."

The Martin Luther King Day is the inspiration for a lot of platitudes for people who have no idea what they are talking about -- but think they ought to make solemn pronouncements indicating the politically correct sentiments -- that everybody has the right to be the same, no matter what their skin color, or country of origin,” rather than the more meaningful and profound understanding that everybody has the right to be different, no matter what their skin color or country of origin -- which is the celebration of diversity.

There’s a huge difference in that distinction -- because the universal theme being observed, is that of subjugation and not skin tone, which makes it a very trivial matter. Once one makes something very trivial, then it is a very easy matter to make it arbitrary -- but seeing the significance of the matter, makes it impossible to trivialize. And if we are to observe and honor anything or anyone, surely we must seek deeper into its significance and not its trivial aspects forgotten the next day -- to do them really any honor.

So I think it is very important that those who think that rigid social hierarchies by which nobody in “inferior” positions should ever be allowed to challenge more “senior” (superior) authorities, should realize the hypocrisy and inconsistency in their views -- and try to capture the larger significance of these observances and reflections, rather than running these self-conscious odes to themselves as the highest authorities in the land on these matters that turns these days into just another excuse for self-indulgence and overconsumption.

The beginning of every year now, begins with this kind of ambivalence and confusion that loses the sense of national purpose very quickly with these confused and hazy pronouncements of what is important.

In the newspapers that are the record of the entrenched status quo, many think that national holidays is just one more day to abuse others about how they are not as noble as themselves -- who surely if they were President of the United States, would act differently -- rather than being chief editor at the embarrassment that has become the “mainstream media,” all prostrating and ingratiating themselves until the day they are the head luna, or master over all.

I don’t think these people quite get it.

Their abuse or tolerance of abuse to any other, including the president or the servant, is the template of intolerable and abusive behavior that continues to enslave the minds of those who would be kings. The observance of the day, is about this mentality to denigrate another (and every other), that they do daily, as the calling and defining expression of their lives here on earth that should rightly revile and repulse them -- as it does every other right-thinking citizen.


At January 15, 2007 11:02 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

At January 15, 2007 11:15 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The preceding article was written by Francis Rice, and published on Human Events.

It's amazing isn't it, how history has been rewritten by the liberal press? That's why the mainstream media doesn't like the virtual storage capabilities of the Internet.

It used to be that since they were the record of history, they could say anything they wanted to and nobody could know the difference -- because they controlled the storage capacity. Now that everything moves into the public domain whether one wants it to or not -- they're up Shit Creek without a paddle, and not liking the view and the lack of absolute control they formerly wielded.

At January 15, 2007 11:38 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Of course the latest rewriting of history by the liberal press is that Saddam never killed anybody because he had no weapons of mass destruction.

At January 15, 2007 11:46 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

That's the real failing of the schools -- that so many people believe them unquestionably.

The teaches defend by saying they have no time to teach these things because they're too busy teaching English and math.

Well then, explain it to them in plain English instead of teaching them to read and understand nonsense.

And even when one kills a lot of people one by one, those are weapons of mass destruction.


Post a Comment

<< Home