Have I mentioned (recently) that Allen West rocks?

February 22, 2012

I’ve written before about the undeserved pass the Democratic Party has gotten for its dirty history on race in America and how the Republican Party deserves much more credit than it gets.

Not surprisingly, Allen West did it much better with a recent speech on the House floor in honor of Black History month:

Congressman West not only recounted the early history of the Republicans in defense of civil rights (Passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments; sending the first Black members to the House and Senate; and passing the landmark 1875 Civil Rights Act — all over stiff Democratic opposition), he also spoke of recent history:

In the 1990s, it was the Republican-controlled 104th Congress that passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Then-Democrat President Bill Clinton signed it only after reluctantly having vetoed it twice.

This reform changed the face of welfare, ensuring that recipients who were able to work would be required to seek employment. No longer would government checks be seen as an entitlement. No longer would States have a financial incentive to add as many names to their welfare rolls as possible. Finally, there was an alternative to the cycle of poverty caused by years of misguided Democrat policy. And it’s been Republicans who have continued to fight for the underprivileged communities, even as we’re painted as the party of the white upper class.

In 2004, another Republican-controlled Congress under the leadership of Republican President George W. Bush signed an omnibus bill that included a voucher program for school children right here in the District of Columbia. Instead of being shackled to the failed public school system, thousands of students were able to use the first Federal Government vouchers to escape high-performing private schools.

Mr. Speaker, what Republicans have long understood is that poor communities are best served when they’re empowered to care for themselves. The more they come to rely on government checks, the less they learn to rely on their own ability and ingenuity.

Our party firmly believes in the safety net. We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock.

Oh, and that voucher program meant to help poor children in D.C., largely African-American, help themselves? President Barack Obama, an African-American and a Democrat, killed it. Again.

There’s much more. Watch the speech or read the transcript. I guarantee you’ll enjoy it. (1)

RELATED: If you want to know more about the real history of the Democratic Party and race relations in America, have a look at Bruce Bartlett’s “Wrong on Race: the Democratic Party’s buried past.” It’s a thorough, detailed, highly footnoted, and altogether damning indictment.

Footnote:
(1) Unless you’re some sort of reactionary liberal or lefty who can’t handle the truth.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Presidents Day: Remembering FDR’s victims

February 20, 2012

Presidents Day is one of those weird holidays, a conflation of the birthday’s of two of our greatest presidents, Washington and Lincoln, into a nondescript Monday-off that not only honors those two, but the likes of… Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Jimmy Carter? Someone owes George and Abe an apology.

Regardless, today is an apt time to think about the men we’ve entrusted with the highest office in the land and about the good and bad they’ve done. At the Washington Examiner, Tim Carney takes a look at Franklin Roosevelt, nearly a saint in the liberal pantheon and the subject of books that are as much hagiography as they are history, and reminds us that FDR also had a quite a record of demolishing freedom in order to expand state power. Carney presents three examples of the victims of FDR’s statism, but one especially stands out:

Innocent Japanese Americans: Government, ultimately, is force and the threat of force. This is most in view when it comes to imprisonment.

Certainly one of the very worst sins of the U.S. Government was FDR’s creation of internment camps. More than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, none of whom had ever been accused of a crime, along with Italian- and German-Americans, were packed off to prison camps. Think about it this way: FDR’s internment of a hundred thousand Americans was closer in time to today than it was to the Emanicipation Proclamation.

The Japanese-American internment was really one of the worst atrocities against civil rights after slavery ended, up there with Jim Crow, and a president who could approve this order should be harshly criticized for his abuse of power and the cavalier trampling of citizens’ rights at least as much as he should be praised for any good he did.

We entrust our Chief Executives with great power, especially in time of war, and the example of FDR and the Japanese internment is a reminder to us to consider the character of the person we place in office, not just his or her record.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Jim Crow lives in Guam, and the DoJ approves

November 23, 2011

Even though it’s been a US territory since 1898 (1), few of us probably think much about or even know anything of Guam. When we do, it’s perhaps because of the island’s reputation for lots of  snakes, or maybe the danger that it will tip over. But there is a problem there that should demand the attention of anyone concerned with the civil liberties of Americans.

On Guam, if you’re of White, East Asian, or Filipino descent, you aren’t allowed to vote:

“Chamorro” is the racial designation given to the natives who originally inhabited Guam and constitute about 36 percent of the population. Guam is a territory that today has many residents of Western European, American, Asian, and Pacific Islander descent. But all of those other residents are barred by law and the Guam Election Commission from registering and voting on the plebiscite over Guam’s future relationship with the United States.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Arnold Davis, is a former Air Force officer who has been a resident of the island since 1977. When he tried to register for the plebiscite, his application was rejected and marked as “void” by the Guam Election Commission because Davis is white. Bull Connor would have loved the registration form — it required Davis to certify his race under penalty of perjury! Guam is holding a discriminatory election that prohibits certain voters from participating based purely on their race.

Guam’s election restrictions are more extreme than anything that was in place in the South during the height of Jim Crow. Southern states such as Mississippi tried to make it as difficult as possible for blacks to vote through literacy tests, poll taxes, and other obstacles, but some small percentage of blacks were still able to get through this thicket of discrimination to actually register and vote. Guam, on the other hand, bars anyone who is white, Asian, or Filipino from voting in this plebiscite, and even makes it a crime for them to try to register.

It’s bad enough that Guam is resorting to discrimination so bold that it would make the likes of Theodore Bilbo proud. What’s as bad or worse is the reason Arnold Davis, represented by the Center for Individual Rights and Christian Adams, author of Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, had to file this suit against the Guamanian government: the Justice Department refused to act to protect the voting rights of American citizens.

As Hans von Spakowsky, author of the article, points out, the failure to apply civil rights law against minority violators is, under Obama and Holder, DoJ policy:

DOJ declined to file a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act asserting that the deliberate racial discrimination by the “native people” of Guam violated federal law. As we know from the sworn testimony of former Voting Section chief Christopher Coates before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, deputy assistant attorney general Julie Fernandes informed him that it was the policy of the Obama administration that the Voting Rights Act is not to be enforced against racial minorities, no matter how egregious the violation. As CIR president Terence Pell says, the fact that this racial discrimination “continues to take place under the nose of the U.S. Department of Justice is unconscionable.”

Darned right it’s “unconscionable.” This action by Guam violates the 15th amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was written to enforce the 15th amendment. It’s an open and shut case that should lead to the Guamanian government being smacked down hard by the federal courts — if, under Obama, the laws were enforced in a race-neutral manner.

But that’s not the case.

Under Barack Obama and Eric Holder, the American principle of “equal justice under the law” has been perverted to “justice only for those groups we favor; the rest of you can go to the Devil.” We’ve seen this racial favoritism before in the 2008 New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case in Philadelphia, where the new administration in 2009 refused to protect the rights of White voters, and in others Adams details in “Injustice.”

Even though this case takes place in a tiny, far-away territory, let’s not minimize or dismiss the danger it reveals. One of the pillars on which our republic stands is the Rule of Law: the belief that the law is applied equally to all, one reason we’re willing to grant law-enforcement powers to government. It is a matter of trust crucial to obtaining and retaining the consent of the governed. It may not function perfectly, but it’s the ideal to which we hold and it’s the standard we demand of the government.

Turn the law instead into a vehicle for a racial spoils system and the Rule of Men, not Law, as Obama, Holder, and the rest of the racial grievance industry are doing, and you instead knock down that pillar and weaken that trust.

You attack the very legitimacy of the American government, itself.

I’ve no doubt Mr. Turner will win his suit in court, but the only remedy for the “pursuit of injustice” encouraged by Obama and Holder is the 2012 election and a thorough housecleaning at the Department of Justice.

For the sake of civil rights for all and the integrity of our political system, they have to go.

via the Election Law Center

RELATED: See also Terence J. Pell’s article with more background on the Guam case. Here’s a news report from Guam that includes interviews with the plaintiff, Christian Adams, and a Guam senator who supports the exclusion of non-Chamorros from the vote in the belief that rights vest in groups, not individual citizens. Adams writes about the Guamanian “Jim Crow” law at PJ Media.

Footnote:
(1) ¡Gracias, España!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Red-Meat Monday: the truth about the Democratic Party and civil rights

November 7, 2011

I’ve written before about the dirty history of the Democratic Party when it comes to race and civil rights (1), a history that’s largely been swept under the rug as the Party pretends to have always been a virtuous fighter for civil rights and the welcoming home for African-American voters.

Below is a video from Frantz Kebreau, via Flopping Aces, that juxtaposes great moments in the history of the Democrats and civil rights with images of Democratic supporters.

The irony is so thick, you can cut it with a knife:

Like I said, red meat. One can quibble (2), but the basic facts are right; if we’re to be honest about our history and if American Blacks are ever to free themselves from being played for suckers into giving their votes en bloc to just one party –a party that is not serving their interests– then these facts need to be much more widely known.

PS: I haven’t read Kebreau’s book, Stolen History, so I can’t recommend or comment on it. However I do highly recommend Bruce Bartlett’s “Wrong on Race: the Democratic Party’s Buried Past.” Copiously footnoted and deeply researched in both primary sources and academic journals, it should be the standard one-volume reference on the topic. I reviewed it in 2008.

Footnotes:
(1) My apologies to proud average-American Democrats reading this, but it’s the truth and it’s been hidden from you, too.
(2) One can argue that the large blocs in Congress opposing civil rights legislation were “less Democrat” than they were Southern, the legacy of both the region’s history with slavery and the place where Jim Crow originated and was most strongly in force. (Though Jim Crow was not limited to the South, to be sure.) This line of argument also would point out that they were Democratic politicians because of the Civil War, in which a Republican administration first crushed the Confederacy and then imposed the hated Reconstruction. And that would be a fair observation. BUT… it is also fair to note that Northern and Western Democrats continually allied with racist Southern Democrats to win national elections and get legislation passed, each giving the other what it wanted. Which means there is no way around it: the Democratic Party as a whole owns that dirty history.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Undeservedly forgotten

April 4, 2010

At baldilocks, Juliette Ochieng tells the story of real African-American heroes, men who served in the House of Representatives during Reconstruction:

In the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War and during what is known as the Reconstruction period, sixteen black American men—several of them former slaves–served in the US House of Representatives with most being from states of the former Confederacy.  All were quite literate and some were self-educated.  What is certain is that these men saw hardship and racism that most of us 21st century brats of all colors cannot begin to conjure.

What is also certain is that each of these men were Republicans and for a very good reason: the Democrat Party of that time was the self-described Party of Slavery and remained the Party of Black Oppression long after.  (Arguably, this legacy continues.)

Linked here are the fascinating biographies of each congressman and some of the speeches the men gave during the debates for the Civil Rights Act of 1871—also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act—and the  Civil Rights Act of 1875.

The site linked is called Neglected Voices and the voices of these men have indeed been neglected but the title is so…weak.  These men were anything but weak, hence the title of this post.  I’m sure, however, that they’ve been spinning in their graves of late at the words and deeds of those for whom they set precedent.

These men didn’t have to invent tales of racial epithets hurled or of racial violence; such were their constant companions throughout their lives.  Yet they did more than muddle through life, they soared.  These were real men, not victims; our current crop of representatives looks microscopic next to them.

It’s sad that men like these are largely forgotten, but hucksters and race-baiters like Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson are lionized.

(via Ed Driscoll)

RELATED READING: Wrong on Race – the Democratic Party’s buried past.


Voter intimidation is AOK when it’s our guys doing it

December 27, 2009

Holder Justice Department fires the man who initiated the complaints against the Black Panthers who intimidated voters in Philadelphia in November, 2008.

Because some votes are more equal than others.

Video of the apparently unintimidating intimidation:

.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,942 other followers