Republicans: Black America’s true friend vs. Suppression and Victimology (Democrat Party)

======

================

From Canada Free Press:

All you blacks who think the democrats are your friends, wake up and smell the betrayal.

Republicans: Black America’s true friend

By Lloyd Marcus

March 22, 2012

Black pundits say that to be black and Republican makes one a despicable race-traitor worthy of no-holds-barred punishment. As a black conservative Republican, I’m not frightened by this; it just angers and frustrates me.

My frustration comes from the knowledge that those claiming to have black America’s empowerment and best interest at heart are the “elephant-in-the-room” problem. They lie to black America. Who are “they”? They are democrats committed to keeping blacks viewing themselves as victims. They are racist bitter black politicians with huge chips on their shoulders, seeking eternal “payback” for America’s original sin of slavery. These black politicians are rewarded by the democrats for delivering black votes.

So there you have it, black America: these are your so-called advocates. And how do they help you? They lie to you. They tell you that 70% of black youths dropping out of high school is not your fault. They tell you that prisons filled with black males is not their fault. They tell you that 80% of black kids growing up without a father is not your fault. They tell you that black genocide — half of black pregnancies ending in abortion — is not your fault.

They tell you English is too difficult to learn and that standards must be lowered. They tell you that blacks who speak correct English are traitors trying to be white. They tell you that despite the fact that showing proper ID is required to board an airplane and a za-gillion other things, requiring ID to vote will disenfranchise blacks. Thus, their message is that blacks are too stupid to acquire ID.

When I was growing up in the black ghetto of east Baltimore, several corners had grocery stores owned by Jews. Later the Jews were replaced by Asians. Huge families lived upstairs, and their store was down stairs.

The community resented Jewish and Asian store owners in black neighborhoods. I always thought, “Why?” These people did not receive a start-up check from the government. They took a risk. They rented in the black ghetto because it was cheaper. They worked long hours. Experience taught them to install a wall of bullet proof glass, separating them from their customers. Fourteen, fifteen family members lived above their businesses. These Jewish and Asian people were pursuing the American Dream the best way they knew how. What was stopping their black customers from doing the same thing? Answer: In many cases, blacks were relying on democrat welfare programs.

I hear you — democrat brainwashed fellow blacks yelling at me: Lloyd, you Uncle Tom SOB! America is racist, and blacks did not have a fair shot in those days!

Yes, racism was an issue in those days. But how do you explain the entrepreneurial success of black millionaires in Harlem in the 1920s?

Blacks have been congressmen and business owners in America since the 1800s. And yet, democrats continue to tell us that we are incapable of finding our way to acquire an ID.

Democrats and bitter, small-minded blacks insist on forcing blacks into their “black box.” They say authentic blacks must have had a “ghetto experience.”

When the Bill Cosby Show first hit TV, it was highly criticized because the sitcom black father was a doctor and his family lived in a nice home. I heard the same criticism of Diahann Carroll in her TV sitcom, Julia, in which she played a successful black nurse — not reflective of the black experience. The Cosby Show and Julia were outside of the democrat-promoted “black box.”

In my youth, I met a black Master Swordsman. Excited, I carted him around to black community centers because I wanted black kids to see that blacks could be successful in fields beyond entertainment and sports.

Despite blacks succeeding today in almost every area of American life, democrats continue to portray black Americans as still getting-the-short-end-of-the-stick. Democrats promote an image of the authentic black experience as a majority in need of government entitlements, as people who can’t find their way to acquire ID — sitting at home watching Maury on TV, anxiously awaiting for the results of the DNA test to discover the name of Keysha’s baby’s daddy. This is the democrat’s black America.

This is not black advocacy or empowerment. It is demeaning, humiliating and crippling. Why can’t my fellow blacks see this obvious truth?

I am a Republican because the Republican Party respects my intelligence — no special concessions or lowered standards.

In the 1950s, my dad was one of the first blacks to break the racist color barrier into the Baltimore Fire Department. The white firefighters rejected my dad and made conditions horrific for him. Still, dad won “Firefighter Of The Year” two times. That’s what I am talking about!

Given the opportunity, in their typical denigrating of black intellect, democrats would argue that requirements for Firefighter Of The Year be lowered to give my dad a “fair” shot at it. Lowered standards would have robbed dad of the dignity and pride of his achievement. Thank God such was not the case.

Dad, a black man, won Firefighter Of The Year because he was the best! Yes, I am a black conservative Republican and proud of it. All you blacks who think the democrats are your friends, wake up and smell the betrayal.

***Written by Lloyd Marcus****

=======================

===========================

ADD THIS:  From WND

Abortion: Black Genocide

by REV. JESSE LEE PETERSON

Most of my life I had considered myself a Christian. Yet 18 years ago as I sat quietly and prayed, I experienced a deep realization – I harbored resentment in my heart. The realization caused me to repent and forgive. Forgiveness set me free from within, and I began to see with a clarity I never had before.

Soon after that life-changing experience, I started BOND to help black men overcome their resentments and find freedom. Soon I was helping men of every race as I saw mankind’s problems were universal.

I began to counsel young and older women as well. Many of the women I spoke to were having or have had at least one abortion. During the counseling sessions, I discovered that most of these women had guilt and low self-esteem. Often they had considered suicide.

I realized that this problem was not being dealt with by the black clergy or black politicians. In fact, to my surprise, abortion was often actually encouraged by these “leaders.”

Abortion was first popularized by Margaret Sanger, a white woman who was the founder of the National Birth Control League (now Planned Parenthood). Sanger was a lifelong champion of birth control and eugenics (the movement devoted to “improving” the human species by control of hereditary factors in reproduction).

Margaret Sanger called for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.” In 1939, she organized her “Negro Project” and wrote: “The poorer areas, particularly in the South … are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.”

Sanger’s plan has worked extraordinarily well over time – today numerous black religious leaders defend the “right” of women to kill their unborn children. It’s ironic to me that black leaders complain about racism, yet they promote one of the most racist practices in this country – abortion.

Abortion propagandists have dehumanized the unborn baby just as was done with the Jews in the Holocaust. In his book “Abortion Practice,” Warren Hern, M.D. compares the unborn child to a “parasite,” which was the exact word Hitler used to dehumanize Jewish people in his infamous “Mein Kampf.”

The alarming numbers on abortion:

  • Since 1973, when abortion became legal there have been more than 14 million black babies killed in the black woman’s womb;
  • Since 1973, more than twice as many blacks have died from abortion than from heart disease, cancer, accidents, violent crimes and AIDS combined;
  • More than 1, 450 black children are aborted each day in the United States.(Source: U.S. Center for Disease Control)

Over the years I have counseled and picketed at abortion clinics across the country.

I will never forget the story of a 13-year-old black girl I met at an abortion clinic in Los Angeles one Saturday morning. My organization was protesting near the clinic when I saw the young lady approach the front door. I talked to her, and tried to encourage her to put her baby up for adoption. She said it was too late. She had gone into the clinic that Thursday and the doctor had injected something into her womb. For three days the baby KICKED AND GASPED FOR LIFE. On the third day, the baby died. The girl told me she was encouraged to do this by her mother and boyfriend.

Those employees in the clinic told her she wouldn’t feel anything. They said that she was carrying a fetus and not a baby.

Abortion has also given black men one more way to be irresponsible. Because of the weakness of the father and the lack of morality in the black community, many black women feel they have no other choice but abortion.

[...]

It is time for America, but especially the black community, to come out of its state of denial and realize that true racism is the attack on the black unborn baby, started by Margaret Sanger and carried out by the liberal elite in this country. The solution to this problem is a strong belief in the Creator, strong families and self-respect.

Read more here……

============================

Republicans and Civil Rights

Diane Alden

Dec. 14, 2002  <<<Note Date***

Republicans on the Record

What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?

Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.

In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America’s politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.

The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.

Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.

In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.

The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation’s military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.

Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]

It was appalling the other day to watch former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry totally gloss over Republican efforts in the name of civil rights. He implied that Lott’s foot-in-mouth statement was representative of Republican views about civil rights since forever.

Kerry knows better. Yet being a loyal and predictable Democrat, Kerry can create the big lie with the best of them. The media are so in sync with that effort that they don’t challenge him.

Kerry also maintained that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton’s mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.

I know. I was there.

When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first “outsiders” to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.

In fact, very few party switches came about right after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Some exceptions who did switch were Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

Democrats like Bob Kerry will lie about Republicans but won’t tell you some facts about the heroes and icons of their own party. One of their major icons was not always Sir Galahad jousting in the name of civil rights. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President

JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.

His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.

His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.

The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.

For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.

After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.

Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.

As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.

When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.

The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.

The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.

The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act

When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.

Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.

Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill’s final success.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Man From Illinois

In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.

He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.

Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.

Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.

Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen’s offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that “people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters” in protest.

Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: “When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.”

Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill’s seven sections.

The Republican “swing” votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.

As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as “first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.”

In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a “clean bill” as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.

This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the “swing” Republicans.

On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:

“There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, ‘Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.’ The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.”

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen’s reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: “I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.”

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

Read the above in entirety HERE……..

==========================

***A MUST WATCH VIDEO**

Black Conservatives Blast Al Sharpton Protesters in DC 8/28

LINK to VIDEO

=============================

Allen West says: “I am the Modern Day Harriet Tubman”

Link to Video HERE…….

======================

Black Conservatives Rebut Tea Party Racism Claims

LINK TO VIDEO

===========================

===========================

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 367 other followers