Some more pertinent news on the subject of race relations comes in these two gems. Maybe just a coincidence that they come to us during Black History Month.
Apparently, calling for the hanging of Justice Clarence Thomas is no big deal. What?
Obama Cuts Heating Aid to Poor While Raising Energy Prices
Black Activist Speaks Out Against Agenda that Assures Suffering.
BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY
NOTE: All answers are “b.”
1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and 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?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history and who spent record money education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party
BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY
NOTE: All answers are “b.”
10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
13. What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
14. What is the Party of the late Senators Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina while governor, and Ted Kennedy who called black judicial nominees “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
15. What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
16. What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not denied the right to vote?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
17. What Party is against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party
Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Fox News host and sanctuary city apologist Geraldo Rivera still believes that, despite being elected by people of all races (that includes white people) and backgrounds two years ago, the dissatisfaction with him now is due to his being black. President Jimmy Carter, CNN, Bill Moyers, Hank Johnson, much of the Washington and New York press corps, Newsweek Magazine said the same thing two years ago.
Does opposition to President Obama’s policies and agenda exist because of his skin color? Don’t know. Let’s examine this proposition a little closer.
If Geraldo is right, he would have you believe of Americans right now:
Upon further examination, I may be going out on a limb, being conservative and all, but I’d say that Geraldo is wrong. 
Because if there were a white president trying to do all the above, most of America would still be against him, or her. I feel better about myself now. No white guilt or anything.
But I do weep for where this President and his party has taken this country. His party using the race card against any and all opposition to advance their agenda is a disgrace. Which may explain to some extent why the media has been more a cheerleader than an inquisitor when it comes to the President and his policies. Otherwise they would have to characterize themselves as being racist.
There is nothing post-racial about Obama’s administration, Democrats in Congress, and Geraldo Rivera. And every second that passes where Obama himself does not talk it down and put an end to it, is just digging their racial hole deeper.
On November 2, 1983, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the bill in the White House Rose Garden making the Birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr. a national holiday. The bill first came up for a vote in 1979, but the Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives refused to pass the legislation. The first national celebration of the holiday in honor of Dr. King took place on January 20, 1986 and is celebrated on the 3rd Monday in January. In his remarks on signing the bill Reagan said: “Dr. King had awakened something strong and true, a sense that true justice must be colorblind, and that among white and black Americans, as he put it, ‘Their destiny is tied up with our destiny, and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom; we cannot walk alone.'”
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday 
Commission with the mission of overseeing the observance of the MLK holiday was created in the bill signed by Reagan.
In May 1989, Coretta Scott King was made a member of the commission for life by Republican President George H. W. Bush.
Democrats today are trying to usurp Dr. King’s legacy, when it was the Democrats who Dr. King was fighting. See the below article for details.
* * * * * * * *
By Frances Rice
Character assassination. That’s the tactic used by Democrats in the 1960’s to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican who was fighting the Democrats and trying to stop them from denying civil rights to blacks.
The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, 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.
Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King’s home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.
An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963. With the approval of Democrat President John F. Kennedy, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy – President Kennedy’s brother – authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King’s telephone by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on the telephones in Dr. King’s home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King’s hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.
The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings’ criticism of the Kennedy Administration, according to the author David Garrow in his book, “Bearing the Cross”. The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly was that two of Dr. King’s associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King. However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.
The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King’s reputation continued for years after his death. To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats’ smear campaign and made Dr. King’s Birthday a holiday.
Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still trying to tarnish his image by making remarks that diminish his civil rights achievements and continuing to claim that Dr. King embraced Communism – a system that is secularist and socialist.
In reality, Dr. King was a Christian who held deeply religious beliefs and was guided by his faith and his Republican Party principles in his struggle to gain equality for blacks. He did not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democrat Party today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and banning God from the public square.
An understanding of who the real Dr. King was can be gained from a glimpse of Dr. King as a young man who participated in an oratorical contest when he was 14 years old. The title of his speech was “The Negro and the Constitution” which had the following sentences: “We cannot have an enlightened democracy with one great group living in ignorance…We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flout the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule….”
If Dr. King were still alive, he would be slandered by Democrats in the same way that they smeared him in the 1960’s and demean all black Republicans today.
Bio: Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info/
There is a lot of anger toward President Obama, this time from Democrats and the far Left Progressives. They vehemently disagree with his posture over not increasing taxes on ‘the rich.’ Well, if what was said about Republicans’ anger at Obama’s policies is any indication, isn’t it now obvious? These Democrats are all racists. They’re just objecting and are angry at him because he is black. Oh, and they’re haters too!
related link: Is Jimmy Carter Right?
The NAACP has been down this road before. So has the President and his advisors. So has Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. But the more dire the political future looks for the Democrat(ic) Party in the upcoming mid-term election, the more we’re going to see the worst in them and their supporters like the NAACP.
Now the NAACP leaps into action and puts out the call for all black Americans to get back on their plantation with the accusation that Tea Party supporters, over half the nation, are racists. Get out there and vote for the Democrats. Keeping their power is that important to them. What they’re not saying is wear our chains, not theirs. The way this party and this group continually use the race card to obfuscate the real issues is disgraceful. Taking blacks for granted and treating them like mind-numb robots is even worse.
David Almasi of the Project 21 Black Leadership Network calls out the NAACP’s fraudulent accusations . . .
“Looking at the research that comprises this report, I find it interesting that it appears not a single leader of the mentioned tea party groups was asked for its background,” noted Project 21 member Coby Dillard, a co-founder of the Hampton Roads Tea Party in Virginia. “Had this research been conducted, the facts would show that two of the mentioned groups are simply capitalizing from the tea party movement and that two others are for-profit enterprises. I fail to see, just as I did this summer when their resolution was voted on, how this report ‘advances’ black Americans or those of any color. The longer the NAACP stays on this path, the more they show themselves unable to provide solutions to the issues most Americans care about.”
But don’t worry about the heightened racial tension the NAACP is fomenting. President Obama said that his administration was going to be post-racial. I guess that means we will see him on the network news tonight denouncing the NAACP for their ridiculous accusations. Or, maybe not.
Link: NAACP Fails to Disappoint with the Failure of Its Latest Tea Party Attack
Saying stuff like this used to be a resume enhancement for media types. Is CNN really serious or is this what happens when your ratings get down to friends, family members, and employees? Maybe he would have been OK if the target of his comment was a conservative?
CNN fired news anchor Rick Sanchez on Friday, a day after he called Jon Stewart a bigot in a radio show interview where he also questioned whether Jews should be considered a minority.
Intramural sniping like this is interesting to watch though. It does put Sanchez between a rock and a hard place. If CNN fired you, where else is there to go? Or to put it another way, who else would want you?
Other than possibly Rick Sanchez and his family, who cares?
No doubt that Rev. Terry Jones, the minister of a so-called church (in Florida no less) is out to get some publicity. Regardless of the fact that doing so will only stir up emotions among the good Muslims or those ‘on the fence’ in being on the right side of the war on terror, this fool is hell-bent on doing it. There is also no doubt that he can do it, legally. The same as that Imam Rauf guy can build a mosque in a building that was hit in the 9/11 attack, making it actual ground zero. But in both cases it would be wrong and insensitive to do it. Chaulk it up to having a secular government with inherent freedoms.
Gen. David Petraeus expressed concern that this Quran burning party would endanger U.S. troops in theater. More than they are already in danger. Also no doubt, the General has a point. But let’s face it. The enemy there is and always will be our enemy until they either surrender or die. Not burning a Quran is not going to change that fact. And given the motivation of those radical Islamists, who betray Islam, the best thing the General can do is kill them. War is about killing people and breaking things. The responsibility to ‘finish them’ belongs to the Commander in Cheif. Think that will happen?
Also, have you noticed the same people who ran in front of the camera in support of that Imam are missing with respect to Rev. Jones? Same issue, rights and freedom. But like the proposed ground zero mosque, just because it could be done, doesn’t mean it should be done. Rev. Jones needs to get a grip, same as Rev. Wright needs to get a grip. Both are preaching and fomenting hate. One is a race bigot, the other a religious bigot.
There is an opportunity and a role that the media could play in this sick display planned by Rev. Jones. They could flat-out ignore him. Ignore him in print and on TV. That would be acting responsibly.
Also acting responsibly would be to deal with the real issues of oppressive Muslim society where it comes to stoning a woman in Iran. THAT ought to be front-page, above the fold. Not this jerk in Florida.
This undated file image made available by Amnesty International in London on Thursday, July 8, 2010, shows Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a mother of two who was sentenced to death by stoning in Iran on charges of adultery. Ashtiani is now facing a new punishment of 99 lashes because a British newspaper ran a picture of an unveiled woman mistakenly identified as her, the woman’s son said Monday. (AP Photo/Amnesty International, File)
Related Links: EU decries ‘barbaric’ plans to stone Iranian woman | Holder: Quran burning idiotic and dangerous
Black activists with the Project 21 leadership network support the right of talk show host Glenn Beck to hold his “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 2010. Because Beck’s event takes place on the anniversary and at the location of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 “March on Washington” rally, leaders of the establishment civil rights groups oppose the event.
“It’s my understanding from reading the Constitution that the First Amendment applies to all. And nothing better exemplified that than when Dr. King exercised his First Amendment rights nearly 50 years ago,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “This isn’t about Dr. King or the day and venue itself. It is about a contempt for the message. It is about those who trade on race as a means of notoriety and income fomenting discord for the sake of keeping those who are loathe to realize they are free imprisoned on a plantation of resentment and bitterness.”
Continue reading Black Conservatives Support Glenn Beck Event
by Ann Coulter
Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.
The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.
In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.
Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”
But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.
Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.
Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:
“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.”
In the Silverios’ munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.
It’s bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of “anchor babies,” America is being governed by Brennan’s 1982 footnote.