A PROTEST WITHOUT A PURPOSE ISNT A PROTEST, IT’S A TANTRUM The Birmingham News – October 13, 2017
By State Rep. Rich Wingo (R – Tuscaloosa), who serves House District 62 in the Alabama Legislature. Wingo was a member of the University of Alabama football team from 1974 to 1978, and played for the Green Bay Packers from 1979 to 1986.
As a former linebacker for the NFL’s Green Bay Packers and the University of Alabama, I had the opportunity to play for two of the finest men to ever serve as head coaches – Paul “Bear” Bryant and Bart Starr.
One of the most important lessons Coach Bryant and Coach Starr taught me was plain and simple respect — respect for ourselves, respect for our coaches and teammates, and respect for our great nation. They also stressed showing your class in every situation and being humble.
The current “protests” being staged against our nation’s flag and anthem by players throughout the NFL violate every principle of respect those two great men drilled into players like me during their careers. The NFL is currently suffering from a complete lack of good leadership and it hurts me to watch it happen. The two coaches under whom I played simply would not have allowed the current situation to come to pass, and, instead, would demand that their players show proper respect for the patriotic symbols of our nation and its people. Like many Americans, I do not view the act of NFL players “taking a knee” during the National Anthem as an acceptable form of protest.
Most of the players who have chosen to sit or kneel have not outlined a specific reason, stated a goal, or defined what constitutes a victory in their eyes. If they have no goals to achieve by kneeling, how can they know when to start standing again?
A protest without a purpose is not a protest – it’s a tantrum.
The sadness of the situation was only compounded when players for the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars took a knee when the “Star Spangled Banner” was played before their recent game on foreign soil in London, but they stood at attention during “God Save The Queen.”
I do believe that every American has the right to protest or to have their voice heard, but they must be prepared to accept the consequences. Americans are likely to abandon the NFL by the millions if players continue to betray and insult our nation and its enduring symbols of freedom.
There are other, more effective and less offensive methods players may utilize to express their dissatisfaction with whatever is angering them. They could easily stage a rally, hold a press conference to protest, or, more importantly, invest or volunteer in their communities and do something constructive to change lives for the better.
We do not have to look too far into our nation’s past to see where the disrespect for American values and symbols took root. Activist judges and weak leadership in past generations forced the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer to be taken out of our children’s classrooms, and Hollywood has joined forces with the mainstream media to promote a radical social agenda that has turbocharged moral decay. Millions of brave men and women have fought, bled, and died on foreign battlefields across the globe in order to defend our nation and the symbols that define it.
In my opinion, the NFL players’ actions are one step away from burning an American flag on the 50-yard line, and the commissioner, team owners, and coaches need to do what Coach Bryant and Coach Starr would have done by demanding an end to the on-going sideline shenanigans immediately.
note: I would like to add that I remember “Bear” Bryant having a very low tolerance for disrespect, bad behavior or breaking team rules. His players were mostly proud to be held to tough standards and high expectations. It may have been old school, but many have continued on to have successfull and fulfilling careers. -cat-
Category Archives: Reposted
Trump is right, Socialism doesn’t work
Larry Alex Taunton | FoxNews.com
Published on September 24, 2017
On Tuesday, President Trump addressed the United Nations and, shocking to no one save left-of-center news agencies, he expressed his strong belief in his own economic policies; in America—its people, way of life, and the Constitution which governs it; and in business enterprise as a path to freedom and prosperity. Trump’s speech, optimistic and pro-American as it was, falls in the mainstream of American presidential tradition. Indeed, it is the stuff of a Truman or a Reagan.
But you’d never know it from how it was reported.
The Guardian called it “a blunt, fearful rant.”
That is a more apt description for The Guardian itself. (Trust me, I know. I’ve been trashed by them no less than twice for a claim I never made and they never bothered to verify.)
Salon said Trump “careened wildly from some warped form of principled realism to threats of mass annihilation and back again.”
Perhaps Salon, careening wildly from one Trump attack-piece to another, is unaware of the fact that America has been threatened with “mass annihilation” by a declared enemy with an increasing capability to do it. Someone should tell them.
Slate characterized it as “the most hostile, dangerous, and intellectually confused—if not outright dishonest—speech ever delivered by an American president to an international body.”
We live in an age of hyperbole and this is an excellent example of it. I encourage you to read the full text of Trump’s speech and decide for yourself if it was “the most hostile, dangerous … speech ever” or if this is the worst reporting in the history of human civilization. Ever.
Then there is John Haltiwanger’s article in Newsweek titled, “Trump was laughed at by world leaders for dissing socialism.”
This column caught my attention both for its content and lack of content. The title alone intrigued me—as good titles are supposed to do—but for all the wrong reasons. I mean, really? I know we live in the age of 24/7/365 news cycles and the hunger for fresh web content is relentless, but has Newsweek sunk so low that an article that feels like dialogue lifted from the script of “Mean Girls”is now counted as serious journalism?
Let’s consider Mr. Haltiwanger’s argument, such as it is.
As the title indicates, his critique of Trump’s speech centers on the president’s “dissing” of socialism. Haltiwanger writes:
When President Donald Trump criticized socialism during his speech Tuesday at the United Nations, he seemed to expect roaring approval from the audience. Instead, world leaders responded with laughter and weak applause. It was perhaps the most awkward moment of Trump’s speech.
Speaking on the recent crisis in Venezuela, Trump said, “The problem…is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”
“From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure,” Trump added.
In the middle of his comments, Trump paused to take the room’s temperature, but it was apparent world leaders were unmoved by the rebuke of the worker state. The room was silent. It was reminiscent of Jeb Bush’s “please clap” moment…. Video of the [president’s] speech has immortalized the uncomfortable moment.
That Trump would do such a thing is, for Haltiwanger, evidence of the president’s buffoonery, lack of sophistication, and his failure to properly read “the room’s temperature.”
He includes a screenshot of a tweet from someone named Jordan, which reads, “The /#UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] just LAUGHED at Trump for criticizing socialism.”
I laughed at Mr. Haltiwanger’s article, but this is no proof that it is logically flawed (though logically flawed it is). The Left has always been overly sensitive to what the world thinks of America and its president. They need global affirmation, it seems. Obama was, for them, urbane, glamorous, “a gentleman,” as an acquaintance at the New York Times has often characterized him to me, as if these are defining characteristics of great national leaders.
By contrast, Trump is, for them, a national embarrassment with his comb-over, trademark scowl, and unfashionable patriotism. How are we to stand toe-to-toe with France and Canada when they have socialist beefcakes like Macron and Trudeau? Winston Churchill, who was neither a gentleman nor glamorous—and whose scowl was likewise perpetual—seems to have worked out rather well as Prime Minister. Moreover, Churchill biographer Paul Reid has said that Churchill, ever a reactionary, “would out-tweet Trump.”
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Trump expected, as Haltiwanger maintains, “roaring approval from the audience.” According to a 2015 Freedom House study of 195 nations—and, at the moment, there are precisely 195 nations in the world—only 46 percent of them are deemed free. Worse, that same report says the world is trending away from freedom — 193 of the countries included in this report are member states of the United Nations, North Korea and Venezuela among them. Trump “seemed to expect roaring approval”? Please. Ann Coulter will sooner get applause at Berkeley than Trump before such an audience as this one.
Of course, the reason the author tells us that UN “leaders responded with laughter and weak applause” is because he is, in the spirit of an adolescent, inviting us to join in the mockery and scorn of this president.
Mr. Haltiwanger, who is clearly infatuated with the undeliverable promises of socialism, concludes his argument with what he apparently thinks is his article’s mic-drop moment, proving once and for all that socialism works and that Trump is an idiot for thinking otherwise:
Most industrialized countries, for example, have implemented universal health care. Moreover, Norway was recently ranked the happiest country in the world, and it pointed to its strong state-support programs as crucial to achieving this accolade…. Several other Scandinavian countries, including Denmark, Iceland and Sweden, were also among the top 10 happiest countries in the world, according to the most recent figures…. The U.S., however, can’t even make it into the top 10 happiest countries. It’s ranked at No. 14.
Icelandic and Scandinavian happiness.
Let’s drill down on this a bit and the inference that socialism is the reason for it. Norway’s designation as the “world’s happiest country” is based on a United Nations report. You might think that this ranking comes from simple “yes” or “no” responses to the question, “Are you happy?” It isn’t. That is essentially what Gallup did and guess who dominated the top ten? Paraguay and Latin America. Neither Iceland nor a single Scandinavian country appeared in Gallup’s top ten.
So how did the guys at the UN produce entirely different results? After spending an afternoon reading the UN report, that is still is unclear to me. This is because their study is 184 pages of abstruse data and reads like this:
The U.S. corruption index rose by 0.10 between 2006/7 and 2015/6. With a coefficient -0.53 in the happiness regression, the negative effect on U.S. happiness is 0.054. Reversing the rise in perceived corruption would therefore raise happiness by 0.054….
Drilling down still more, we find that this report, as with any UN report I’ve ever read, has a very definite political agenda. It concludes:
To escape this social quagmire, America’s happiness agenda should center on … an expanded social safety net, wealth taxes, and greater public financing of health and education…. [A]cknowledge and move past the fear created by 9/11 … Trump’s ban on travel to the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries is a continuing manifestation of the exaggerated and irrational fears that grip the nation.
So, from a haze of data on global happiness the report makes the illogical leap to America, Donald Trump, and the lack of “a social safety net”—i.e., lack of socialism—as the sources of unhappiness? They could have saved themselves time, money, and the clever use of dubious statistics and just interviewed Maxine Waters—or Kim Jong Un.
Should we really be surprised that the UN, the body that commissioned this report, didn’t like Trump’s speech?
As for the myth that Iceland and Scandinavia are socialist utopias, it is interesting to note that these countries rank highest in the use of antidepressants. Iceland holds the top spot while Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are all in the top ten. It seems they rank high because they are, well, high.
While speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen rejected the idea that his country is socialist even though it has a much larger social welfare system: “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
I am currently going around the world investigating the question of national greatness. In the last month, I have been in Japan, Singapore, and China. Traveling across Asia, you quickly discover that no one outside of Pyongyang has faith in the tenets of Marx and Lenin anymore. Not even China is truly socialistic. That is because they knowsocialism doesn’t work.
No, the people who believe in that naïve, unworkable, utopian ideology no longer live in Beijing, Moscow, or Hanoi. On the contrary, socialism’s modern advocates reside in such places as London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and, increasingly, Washington.
Since we are using happiness as an indicator of socialism’s emotional influence, let’s look at Gallup’s least happy country: Ukraine. I’ve spent a lot of time in that country. Indeed, I’ve written a book on it, and I can tell you that Ukraine has been economically, intellectually, and spiritually assassinated by socialism. Five more socialist (or formerly socialist) countries make Gallup’s bottom ten.
Trump is right to say that “wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”
The failure of socialism is a wholly unjustified confidence in human government. It is, as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky observed long ago, “the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth, but to set up Heaven on earth.”
Larry Alex Taunton is the author of The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist (2016) and the Executive Director of the Fixed Point Foundation. You can follow him at larryalextaunton.com or on Twitter @ LarryTaunton.
©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
It honestly reminds me of the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz, he stands behind the curtain and fools people into thinking that he is greater, smarter and more powerful than he truly is. Mark Levin wrote a book on the history of the Supreme Court which has some fantastic true stories about some of the looney tunes who have maintained a seat on the bench! There are some honestly great and fair minds on the bench who adhere to the Constitution as written. This post has nothing to say about them, but………
A retired teacher (72) who was searching for information on student district enrollment data year 2016 was sued by the Louisiana Department of Education merely because he requested the info. When finally released, the data actually demonstrated that there was an expanding gap in achievement between Louisiana’s poorest students and the majority percentage.A mother in Oregon who was looking into why certain employees at her local school had been paid to stay home for a while (one at least 3 years) was sued by this school her children attended for requesting information that the District Attorney had evidently previously ordered released.
Western Kentucky University filed suit against their own student newspaper after it requested the details of a sexual harassment case against a professor who resigned.
The above details courtesy of Ryan J. Foley – AP
I was skimming through the paper and noticed that educational institutions and governments are fighting FOIA and other reasonable public info requests by suing the people who request the data. Why not? As a weapon of choice it has worked very well for democrats fighting the immigration limits and other Executive Orders that they do not like. Find a judge that leans to your point of view and you are sure to win!
An Executive Order is issued from the executive and has never been intended to be for judicial review absent emergency circumstances. Courts were not established to police and set boundaries for the country. The three branches working together within the dictates of the Constitution are responsible for their own areas and should never be allowed to grab power by encroaching into another’s area of power and responsibility. I know I am being redundant as I must have said this in a dozen posts, but when we get away from the dictates of the Constitution we take on trouble.
Unfortunately, after systematically stuffing the federal courts with radically liberal judges who believe that the Constitution is a fluid living document, subject to loose interpretation according to the beliefs of the day, democrats and liberals of all stripes make use of those courts whenever possible. They use the courts to attempt control of the president, administrative agencies, senators, representatives, educational institutions, churches and now even citizens who ask for public information they are entitled to have. Our judicial system was never meant to be used as a weapon. Neither was it intended to be used to manipulate or control the remaining two branches of government, it is merely a check and a balance as the executive branch and the legislative branch are both also checks and balances against the judicial branch.
This is abuse of process! It is domination and rule by the courts and it must stop now! Like so many other things occurring in society now, this is hard to believe and harder to find a solution for. But, we cannot be free when we must submit to the rule of an unelected mob in mystic black robes operating outside of the Constitution.
By what right or measure does “the media” claim its current self endowed titled of The Free Press? They are in no way free as they are well known to be employed by large corporations who support globalism and are in bed with the Democratic Party. Just to be clear, it would be equally as bad if they were controlled or manipulated by the Republican Party, especially if the Republicans were advocating anti-American policies and working to fundamentally change or make obsolete substantial portions of our Constitution. They have become so obvious about their prejudices that they are even selective about what news items they will actually report! When the media is driving the news and manipulating the dialogue for the entire nation, elevating gossip and hearsay over facts, policies and agendas then things have just gone too far!
Where was this “media” when Obama’s administration was caught up in “fast and furious”? Why were there no continuous interviews targeting the administration for gun running? Why was there no outrage from the press when a border agent was murdered and then later when those guns began surfacing in the US? Why was the press not shocked? Why was there no rumor of an independent prosecutor or an investigative committee? http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430153/fast-furious-obama-first-scandal http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html
Where was “the media” criticism when Obama started bringing in members of the Muslim Brotherhood to work in the White House? Why were there no questions when an enemy organization was allowed to rewrite and revise the procedures and training practices of the military, the FBI, the CIA and those are just the ones we know about! The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization and supports the jihad movement and its activities. Why was there no media coverage of this? Why wasn’t this critical and important information on every front page in America? http://freebeacon.com/national-security/fbi-national-domestic-threat-assessment-omits-islamist-terrorism/ http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/expert-fbi-neutered-by-muslim-brotherhood/ https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/fbi-document-purge/
Why did “the media” cover up for Comey when he made his announcement about Hillary Clinton and the email investigation. He obviously, plainly and clearly deliberately lied about what the statute (18 USC section 793) required. Do you have to be a democrat to tell a bald faced lie on national TV and suffer no consequences? Where was “the media’s” reference to the actual statute? Why did not one reporter check to see if intent was a requirement at all? (Intent is not a requirement, it is deliberately not a requirement) Where were the talk show demands for accountability? How could the exposure of our nation’s secrets be disregarded and unpunished? Where was “the media”?
Why did Obama surveil so many Americans? How many did he collect information on? Why is “the media” talking about White House gossip and attacks on President Trump instead of this? Why did Obama sign that Executive Order right before he left office promoting more sharing of information between intelligence agencies when it allegedly only encourages leaks? Why has there been no editorial questioning this? Where is “the media” on such a topic of true concern, is our government spying on us? Are the intelligence services out of control? Without a decent investigative press we may never know. http://planetfreewill.com/2017/05/28/new-revelations-shed-light-extent-nsa-spying-obama/ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-24/fisa-court-finds-very-serious-fourth-amendment-issue-obamas-widespread-illegal-search http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/ask_james_rosen_and_angela_merkel_about_obama_spying.html
There are other issues that I think should have been brought into the light also. We never did find out the particulars about Benghazi and no one was held accountable. The shameful use of the IRS to handicap conservative organizations before an election was horrendous and once again, no one was held accountable. There are literally mountains of evidence against the Clintons and their foundation and the way they set the State Department up as a “pay for play” deal. That isn’t news? That isn’t important or shocking? It involved citizens, corporations and foreign governments, yet our press barely even gave it acknowledgement. Clinton’s Uranium deal should definitely be investigated. Yet there has been little coverage, not at the time it occurred and not now. Where is “the media”? If they are so afraid of every small interaction with Russia then Clinton’s facilitation of the sale of 20% of America’s uranium reserves to Russia should be the biggest story of the year!
So, we do not really have a legitimate mainstream media, we actually have a propaganda machine. As American citizens we can either be manipulated sheep or we can be intelligent consumers. I can not trust the networks or cable channels since they all push a liberal point of view. I have gone elsewhere…and, either way, I highly recommend fact checking!
Now that Robert Mueller has been appointed special counsel to investigate if Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election it’s worth reiterating his misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamist organizations as FBI director. Judicial Watch exclusively obtained droves of records back in 2013 documenting how, under Mueller’s leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism training material deemed “offensive” to Muslims after secret meetings between Islamic organizations and the FBI chief. Judicial Watch had to sue to get the records and published an in-depth report on the scandal in 2013 and a lengthier, updated follow-up in 2015.
As FBI director, Mueller bent over backwards to please radical Islamist groups and caved into their demands. The agency eliminated the valuable anti-terrorism training material and curricula after Mueller met with various Islamist organizations, including those with documented ties to terrorism. Among them were two organizations— Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—named by the U.S. government as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case. CAIR is a terrorist front group with extensive links to foreign and domestic Islamists. It was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine.
The records obtained as part of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit show that Mueller, who served 12 years as FBI chief, met with the Islamist organizations on February 8, 2012 to hear their demands. Shortly later the director assured the Muslim groups that he had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices nationwide. The purge was part of a broader Islamist operation designed to influence the opinions and actions of persons, institutions, governments and the public at-large. The records obtained by Judicial Watch also show similar incidents of Islamic influence operations at the Departments of Justice and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House.
Here are some of the reasons provided by Mueller’s FBI for getting rid of “offensive” training documents: “Article is highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.” It’s crucial to note that Mueller himself had previously described the Muslim Brotherhood as a group that supports terrorism in the U.S. and overseas when his agency provided this ludicrous explanation. Here’s more training material that offended the terrorist groups, according to the FBI files provided to Judicial Watch: An article claiming Al Qaeda is “clearly linked” to the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing; The Qur’an is not the teachings of the Prophet, but the revealed word of God; Sweeping generality of ‘Those who fit the terrorist profile best (for the present at least) are young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance;’ conflating Islamic Militancy with terrorism. The list goes on and on.
Mueller’s actions have had a widespread effect because many local law enforcement agencies followed the FBI’s lead in allowing Islamic groups like CAIR to dictate what anti-terrorism material could be used to train officers. Among them are police departments in three Illinois cities— Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park—as well as the New York Police Department (NYPD). In the case of the Lombard Police Department, CAIR asserted that the instructor of a training course called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” was anti-Muslim though there was no evidence to support it. Like the FBI, Lombard officials got rid of the “offensive” course. The NYPD purged a highly-acclaimed report that’s proven to be a critical tool in terrorism investigations after three New York Muslims, two mosques and an Islamic nonprofit filed a lawsuit.
Considering Mueller’s role in much of this, it makes him a bizarre choice to lead the heated Russia investigation. The goal, apparently, is to determine of Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and if President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian officials. In the Justice Department announcement, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein describes Mueller as person who qualifies to lead the probe because he exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command. “Special Counsel Mueller will have all appropriate resources to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and I am confident that he will follow the facts, apply the law and reach a just result,” according to Rosenstein.
A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the “Radical Republicans” were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln’s Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn’t we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn’t we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and “ni**er-loving” (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower’s primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never “switched” on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party — which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues — makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties “switched,” and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That’s quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist — at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth — a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater’s vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes “true” simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.
From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ’s Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats — and blaming “racist” Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course — but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it “reverse racism,” but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit “benevolent” white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don’t fall for it.
I ran across this website and liked this post so much I just had to repost it. I don’t know know if I have ever read a better short summary on this issue!
By Patrick Goodenough | February 16, 2017 | 4:20 AM EST
60% of Refugee Arrivals Since Judge Halted Trump’s Order Come From 5 Terror-Prone Countries
(CNSNews.com) – Sixty percent of the refugees admitted into the United States since a federal judge halted President Trump’s executive order designed to prevent “foreign terrorist entry into the United States” originate from five of the seven countries identified by the administration and its predecessor as most risky.
Of the total 2,576 refugees resettled in the U.S. from around the world since U.S. District Judge James Robart’s February 3 restraining order, 1,549 (60.1 percent) are from Syria (532), Iraq (472), Somalia (363), Iran (117), and Sudan (65). No refugees have arrived from the other two applicable countries, Yemen and Libya.
Of the 2,576 refugees to have arrived since Feb. 3, 1,424 (55.3 percent) are Muslims – 817 Sunnis, 132 Shi’ites, and 475 refugees self-identified simply as Muslims, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Of the refugees hailing from the specified countries of terrorist concern, Muslims accounted for the overwhelming majority of those admitted in all cases except for Iran.
Muslims comprised 99.6 percent of the admissions from Syria; 73.5 percent of those from Iraq; 99.7 percent of those from Somalia; and 93.8 percent of those from Sudan. Of the Iranian refugees admitted, by contrast, only 9.4 percent were Muslims, while just under 60 percent were Christians of various denominations. Trump’s Jan. 27 order barred entry to the U.S. of all refugees for 120 days; prohibited entry to refugees from Syria indefinitely; and blocked all entry – immigrant and non-immigrant – by nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen for 90 days. (The order does not itself name the seven countries, referring instead to “countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).”
That law, signed by President Obama in Dec. 2015, required additional security for arrivals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan and any other country designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a source of legitimate terrorism concerns. Two months later Obama’s DHS added Somalia, Yemen and Libya to the list of “countries of [terrorist] concern.”)
In the week between Trump’s inauguration and his Jan. 27 executive order, a total of 2,090 refugees were admitted to the U.S., of whom 918 (43.9 percent) were from the identified countries: 296 from Syria, 218 from Iraq, 211 from Somalia, 155 from Iran, 37 from Sudan, one from Yemen and none from Libya.
The following seven-day period – from the day of the executive order to the day before the judge’s restraining order – only 19 refugees were admitted from the countries of concern (18 Somalis and one Iraqi, all but two arriving on the actual day of the order). Those 19 comprised just 2.2 percent of the total 861 arrivals over that period.
The next week, from Feb. 3 to Feb. 9, saw 1,180 refugees arrive, 882 (74.7 percent) of whom were from the countries of concern.
Last Saturday, Trump tweeted that 77 percent of refugee admissions since Robart’s ruling, which was subsequently upheld on appeal, “hail from seven suspect countries.” (The actual figures at that time, according to the Refugee Processing Center data, were 402 refugees from Syria, 340 from Iraq, 155 from Somalia; 115 from Iran; 38 from Sudan; and none from Yemen or Libya, amounting together to 71.7 percent of the total admissions.)
Since then the proportion of refugees from the countries of concern has declined somewhat, although the countries continue to account for a disproportionate number of the total contingent of refugees admitted since Feb. 3.
While those five countries alone – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sudan – have provided 60.1 percent of the refugee arrivals from Feb. 3 until today, another 22 countries have together accounted for the remaining 39.9 percent.
Those 22 countries are Afghanistan (25), Bangladesh (2), Bhutan (96), Burma (147), Burundi (2), Central African Republic (12), China (1), Cuba (17), Democratic Republic of Congo (347), El Salvador (23), Eritrea (48), Ethiopia (15), Honduras (3), Moldova (10), Pakistan (24), “Palestine”(2), South Sudan (6), Russia (22), Tanzania (1), Uganda (4), Ukraine (213) and Vietnam (8).
Apart from the majority of 1,424 Muslims, other religions represented among the refugees admitted since Feb. 3 include Christians, (including Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and evangelicals, from countries including Iraq, Iran, DRC, Ukraine and Burma), Buddhists (mostly from Bhutan), Hindus (from Bhutan), Baha’i (from Iran), Yazidis (from Iraq) and Ahmadis (from Pakistan).