The Party of Racism is not what most think

This is a back-dated post inserted here to link to for future reference.

The Democrats have PR down to an art. How else do you explain the fact that Republicans are reflexively known as the Racist party that doesn't care about black people?

Let's review....

• Lincoln. - Republican. Martin Luther King Jr. - Republican.
• 1854. Democrats passed the Kansas-Nebraska act that overturned the Missouri Compromise... allowing the importing of slaves into the territories.
• After the Civil War, 23 blacks (13 ex-slaves) were elected to Congress. All as Republicans. (The first black Democrat wasn't elected to Congress until 1935.)
• Democrats opposed the "40 acres and a mule" after the Civil War. Vetoed reversed by Democrat/National Union Party President Andrew Jackson Johnson after Lincoln's assasination.
• A little lesson here... in 1867, 170 people, 150 of them black, formed the Texas Republican Party. Not the "Black" Texas Republican Party. The Texas Republican Party.
• The Emancipation Proclamation? 100% of Republicans voted for it. 23% of Democrats voted for it.
• 14th Amendment? Every voting Republican voted for it. No Democrats voted for it. (Maybe this is why they're not concerned with "equal protection").
• 15th Amendment, guaranteeing Blacks the right to vote? Same scenario as the 14th Amendment.
• In 1872 during congressional investigations, Democrats admitted creating the KKK in an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control of the southern states. Blacks, who were solidly Republican at the time, were the primary targets of the KKK's violence.
• Southern Democrats (such as Al Gore's father, Al Sr.) debated against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• At least a majority of Democrats (64%) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (80% of Republicans voted for it).

There's more.

The deal is, the Republicans as a rule (far, far more than the Democrats) have been for equal treatment, and have been demonized in the past 30 or so years as being racist for not wanting to go beyond that and elevate minorities to a special status. It is not the Republicans being inconsistent. It's the Democrats buying minority votes and convincing them that they are dependent on Democrats to keep those mean Republicans from putting them back under the boot. I am not saying there are not racist Republicans, nor am I saying all Democrats are, or were, racists. Lefties can point to examples But you can't ignore the numbers and the trend over our history.

Democrats went from protecting slavery to rejecting citizenship to blacks, to actively persecuting them and then finally, after figuring that battle was lost, to pandering to them as a permanent voting block. The Democrats are perpetually buying that voting block off.

There was a discussion I had last fall with a couple of co-workers. One a Democrat transplanted here from the Northeast, the other a Missouri boy who isn’t so much a Democrat, but he did vote for our Democrat governor. He’s what I’d call center-right.

At any rate, when I pointed out the things contained in the link in my comment above, the answer came back “well, they switched roles since the 1960’s.”

I don’t buy that.

What happened is that the racists switched parties. Not because the Republicans were suddenly racists, but because A) the Democrats switched to minority advocacy where Republicans stuck to the equal treatment under the law argument, and B) people aren’t one-dimensional, and the racists had other opinions that were more conservative in nature as the Progressives gained dominance in the Democratic party.

So they have come and pitched their tents on the fringes of our camp. We can accept their support where they agree with us, but of course the vast majority of us who tend to vote with the Party of Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr, the party of the first black congressmen — all ex-slaves …. those of us who have always embodied the “All Men Are Created Equal” arguemnent … are kinda stuck with them. We must make it clear to them and to our detractors that that point of view isn’t welcomed in our tent. And it’s up to us to try to change their minds. Remember, these are the holdouts whose minds we couldn’t change when they were Democrats.

And then of course there’s my own anecdotal observation that I know several fairly prominent Democrats in my county who are some of the most racist people I know.

Sister Sonia Moment?

Color me confused.

I'm reading a lot of commentary on both sides of the aisle about Sotomayor. On one side, I see people bringing up relevant facts that are cause for concern, and I see the other side talking a lot about race and negativity and meanness that anyone would oppose their candidate.

I read things like this from Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post:

"The 'activists' -- the ones who want unelected judges to step in and enforce their personal views -- are those who believe that reverse discrimination in any form violates the 14th Amendment and the various civil rights laws."

I guess it's completely irrelevant that those "personal views" happen to line up perfectly with "equal protection". I have to wonder how discrimination based on race and gender does not violate the equal protection clause in 14th amendment? I mean, it's not like nobody's right here. Completely glossed over. It's just one "personal view" vs another, equally valid "personal view" in their eyes.

Only theirs is more valid. Because. It is. Cause yours is mean. And stuff.

But that's the out Lefties tend to take when presented with such dilemmas.... "well, both sides do it" -- and true as that might be it ducks the issue at hand altogether. Yes, both sides oppose each others candidates, but what is the substance of their respective arguments?

"Listening, via the media, to the debate inside the Republican Party, you also have to wonder about the party's commitment to a colorblind society."

Really? How so? Tell me something a Republican has said that suggests the party isn't committed to a colorblind society. I think Judge Roberts said it quite well:

"the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" - Justice Roberts

And what you get in rebuttal is self contradictory "logic" like this:

"I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative-action program in a racially neutral way and have it successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible. In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."- Justice Blackmun

There's the rub, I suppose. Kinsley thinks the government should be shaping a colorblind society. It should not. It should be a color-blind government. It's not the government's job to shape society. It may be yours and mine, by persuasive argument and deed and example. But it's not the government's job. We shape government, not the other way around. Give the government the power to shape society, and watch the abuses flow and Liberty fall by the wayside.

Basically, Justice Blackmun was arguing for affirmative action and his own argument acknowledged why it is such a bad idea for the government to get involved in trying to shape society even if it is to compensate for sins of the past.

When one side starts talking about how the other is "playing politics" or is "racist" the other side is without addressing how and why, you know they don't have an argument. The Democrats' argument is, essentially, "we're in power, we'll do whatever we want regardless of your silly "Constitutional" [spit] arguments." Which is certainly not the Change™ that moderates voted for.

And today I see the same kind of thing in Bloomberg of all places, which looks like a hatchet-job on Cheney ("negative narrowness", "brooding", "throwback", "exclusionary", "scaring people") and saying, basically, that Republicans need a Clintonesque "Sister Souldjah" moment where they denounce some unspecified "wilder rhetoric" over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Today it’s the Republicans who are subsidiaries of a narrow base. They could start broadening their appeal by rejecting some of the wilder rhetoric over President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic selected for the high court.

Could someone point me to this "wilder rhetoric"? Because I, frankly, haven't seen or heard anything but concern over statements about Latino women making better judges than white men and appeals courts making policy. If those aren't cause for concern for anyone who cares about the Constitution and equal protection, then we obviously speak different languages.

And as to his final statement:

As painful as this may be for many Republicans, the Clinton and Obama models are better for them today than those of Cheney and Gingrich.

Again, what has Cheney or Gingrich said that wasn't well reasoned, and calmly argued on its merits? Explain your answer.

Yeah, remember those questions on the tests? The ones where they expected you to back up your answers?

Now we're talkin'!

Great point. Plus... Chicks'n'guns. Seriously Hot.

Incidentally, the web site referred to in the graphic is worth visiting.

Oh, THIS is how it works

I added text to a picture I got in an email today...

Proposition 8

I've said it before. I'll say it again.

The government has no business defining marriage.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's not that government should define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It's that government shouldn't define it at all. It can recognize it as a contract to be enforced. But that's the extent of it.

Ultimately, since this is about social engineering to undermine a religious position, and not legal rights -- gay couples already have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in California. It's about the word. They want "Marriage" to be the defined, legally proper way to refer to a gay union. So that they can then turn around and use it as a hammer. And it'll be used to violate that abridging the freedom of speech bit. "You say it's not marriage? HATER!!!! HATE SPEECH!!!!" That's the next step.

And don't get me started on "hate" crimes. Crimes are crimes.

Dennis Miller Speaks for Me on This

On Gitmo and waterboarding. I really couldn't put this any better myself. So I transcribed this from his show yesterday. I left out a few "uh's", "and's" and other stutters. But my transcription is otherwise, true.

And here is is:

Dennis: I think it is a superfluous question because even if it is torture, we're talking about 'do you ever do it?', and I just happen to think there is a set of circumstances under which I would do it.

Now the second thing is, I don't think that they're strict adherents to the Geneva Conventions, so to give them all the benefits of the Geneva conventions seems a little silly to me. BUT

And I have to throw a third thing in here. I have not read it yet, but Salman told me something to me during the last commercial break that I'm going to ask him to explain. If somebody who I respect enough comes in, and tells me that they think that it is hurting the cause, I would change my mind and ... I'd have to read more about it. But Sal, tell me what you've heard about Patreus. I hope it's direct from him.

Sal: Yes it is.

Dennis: He wrote the piece?

Sal: Well, he's commented, directly, you know, in an interview.

Dennis: Well, it's on the Huffington Post, though, right?

Sal: Yes, it's on the Huffington Post.

Dennis: I don't believe the Huffington post, so it would have to be ... well, tell me what it says.

Sal: Well, let me just pull this up. And, it basically says ...

Dennis: Not basically, what's his quote?

Sal: Ok, getting to it...

Dennis: Well, find it during the break, and when we get back, Sal ... there's a piece on the Huffington Post, and I need his direct quote because quite frankly I don't trust that thing as far as I could throw it.

[Break]

Dennis: Sal has found something out of Huff Po out of Patreus' mouth, and Sal, read that first part of it.

Sal: Ok, this is Patreus interviewed on Radio Free Europe and he says

Sal (quoting article attributed to Patreus): "I think on balance that those moves help us", said the Chief of Central US Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified, and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines."

Dennis: Well, listen, I obviously concur there, I don't think soldiers can get involved in these interrogation techniques, I think it has to be the CIA, and I think it has to be an extraordinary set of circumstances. I'm just saying, you know, I notice that everybody in the world says "well I never say never" -- unless it's about waterboarding. That's the only point where people are willing to say "no, never". And I just ... I'm sorry, it might paint me as a Hessian, but I don't agree with that. I think if somebody comes in and puts together an extraor- but I agree, our soldiers should never get involved, or they're going to end up being crucified. For God's sake, you've got soldiers who watch guys laying on the floor of a building they're going through in Tikrit or something flinch or something and if they shoot them, you know they're going to be called up in a 24/7 news cycle [welieid?] now as the villain. So, no, I think soldiers have to stay way far away from violating Geneva rules visavi interrogation. But does our intelligence agency have to? No, I don't think so.

As far as Gitmo, there was a further quote from Patreus, it sounds like the responsible closing of Gitmo is something that he stands behind. I guess I just have to agree to disagree on that one having been down there and seen it, I just think it works. I hate to say that, I know there's a whole bunch of other considerations that we use to make decisions nowadays, i.e. does it feel good? Does it make other people that we're fighting against feel good? Does it ... you know I don't buy the theory that there was a lot of right-minded people over there who were driven over to the Jihadist side by the existence of Guantanamo Bay. I just don't. I think that they're crazier than that to think that they sit there with a check list and say "well, I was on the right side of this just enjoying my tea this morning, but they haven't closed that Gitmo down. I'm gonna become a Jihadist." I don't buy that. I think they're crazy, I think what runs through their veins is croaking westerners, infidels, and Jews, and they get up every morning and that's their life blood. So, I think think it runs a lot deeper and it's a lot more corrosive, than them, like I said,than them going over a punch list of things that bother them and the indignity of Gitmo is not a big ticket, I think.

I think that -- I'd be surprised if Patreus doesn't change down the road if they start to find that everybody has a reason they don't want this. And indeed, they won't put wind farms in most places. You really want a terrorist out there spinning his 'copter hat? Of course you don't. They're going to end up saying, "Guess what? They might be in the best place right now." As I would be willing to come around if I was presented with enough evidence, and again I concur completely with Patreus that our soldiers should adhere strictly to Geneva techniques when it comes to interrogation. I do think that in 99% of the cases so should our CIA, even though these guys on the other side have not adhered to Geneva at all. I also have to leave open the possibility that somewhere along the line, if it dictates it, if it's going to save lives, that you waterboard them. If you want to call that torture, fine. Whatever you want to call it, I'm just calling it "waterboarding".

[Break]

Dennis: I think I was somewhat inconsistent in the last couple of segments when I queried the caller as to why John McCain's opinion on torture would change his mind and then saying Patreus would change my mind. All I can say about John McCain is, he was tortured so I certainly understand some sort of reflexive aversion to it. I'd be intrigued to find out if John was ever waterboarded, though. I know he was tortured. I have not heard him specify that he was waterboarded. And indeed if he was given the "Torture a la Carte" menu in the Hanoi Hilton, it probably would've been the one that he would have preferred.

Another of my favorite Dennis observations is his feeling that if waterboarding is torture, then it's got to be the Nerf® of torture.

Facebook Shut Uppery

And sometimes they just come out and say it.

Sadly, but not surprisingly ... a very leftist college friend of mine "joined" which is what brought it to my attention.

It has such nuggets of activism as:

"Telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up 100,000 fans of telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up? Looks like we'll hit it tonight. The people have spoken! Why won't Dick listen? Discuss."

Leftist Activism. A lot of yelling and screaming to make themselves feel good about themselves, and as part of a group. And telling anybody they don't agree with to shut the hell up.

The Courts - Where Policy is Made

Here's BO's first Supreme Court nominee in a candid moment a few years ago...

Now in her defense she goes on to talk about how appeals courts need to take more time with their decisions and think about how their decisions will be used in future court cases and what effect that will have. Which is true. That's they way our court system works, for better or worse. We use precedent a lot.

Clearly, she knows she said something wrong, though. One wonders what she would have gone on to say had she not remembered she was being taped.

When you think about how your judicial decisions will be used in the future, you shouldn't be basing it on whether or not it'll likely mean more, say, Latinos, or Purple Polka-Dotted people in jail. You should be ensuring that your decision is consistent with the intent of the law as the lawmakers wrote it, and whether or not it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Not on empathy for any particular group, or what you'd like to see or the direction you'd like to steer society.

The thought of a judge dismissing the facts in a case as secondary to this thought process should scare the crap out of you as a citizen possibly directly subject to a judgment that was handed down -- with a soft focus on the facts of a case.

The cavalier attitude with which it was laughed off is cause for concern, especially when coupled with what I talked about in my previous post.

Blind Justice

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” - Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Sonya Sotomayor

“I would hope that a wise European-American man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life” - Same statment, gender and race reversed.

One is racist and sexist, and the other is not. Apparently. All I did was switch the relative position of gender and race. So obviously, the difference doesn't have anything to do with race or gender. Which is the definition of racism and sexism. And stuff.

No, no, no. Clearly ... since ALL I DID was just reverse race and gender and in so doing I completely changed whether or not the statement was racist and sexist ... 180 degrees... you know, obviously.... there's no racism involved. Or sexism. In one statement. But there is in the other.

What do you mean you still don't get it?

Racist.

Sexist.

Pig!

My latest

A good (female) friend of mine also sent me this picture, which ties in rather well (click to enlarge).

Yes, But

I don't know if the Left will ever come fully to terms with this, especially without coming up with a "but...". Still, I suppose we should be happy with progress.

Mr Obama has conceded, in effect, that the Bush administration was right about this. Where the previous administration went wrong was in resisting all constitutional constraints on its response. Its attitude was: “We will do whatever it takes – and that is as much as you need to know.”

Because drumbeat chanting from the Left aside, I've never seen any credible evidence that Bush ran roughshod over the Constitution in any of this as far as the WOT is concerned. There was clearly a lot of legal consultation within the administration, and whenever the Supreme Court contradicted the administration, the administration ceased the activities in question.

Didja Ever Notice...

Lefties play fast and loose with that word, "lie".

Personally, I think it's projection.

See that straw man over there?

Today, I heard in a Barack Obama soundbite on the news:

I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.

Well, I reject the assertion that anybody has ever made that assertion.

Lies™

So MSNBC commentator Lawrence O'Donnell said of Cheney's grand-slam speech today:

This guy just has to lie from beginning to end through his setup of his opposition's position in order to advance any of his ideas at all, none of which have any proof to them at all.

Sez you.

He talked about "sleaze" and "Spiro Agnew" and mischaracterizes what Cheney said, and to illustrate what Cheney didn't any proof of he then spews speculation that Bush and Cheney "knew" the 9/11 attacks "were coming" and that they were going to use airliners and did nothing.

At best, he's fighting what he has defined as "lies" with what by his own definition are also "lies". I know the memo O'Donnell speaks of. It was some vague information that looked pretty important only in hindsight.

O'Donnell doesn't have any proof that Cheney doesn't have any proof, so I guess he's lying too. Of course, a lot of the evidence (TIK #1) Cheney is talking about is in the memos the Obama administration has selectively decided not to release.

So he's basically saying, "don't go listen to Cheney. Hisssssssssssss!!!!! He's EEEEEEEEEvil. Hisssssssssssssss! He's a Liar™! Hissssssssssssssss!!!" (do I detect indirect shut uppery again? And remember when Gollum convinced Frodo that Samwise was bad? Lotta hissin' goin' on there, too.)

O'Donell is on the level of the "Truthers".

Go read Cheney's words and Obama's words yourself and then watch this rabid guy's reaction and you decide who is "lying".

Glenn Beck and the View

So Glenn did The View today, that bastion of Journalistic Integrity ... wait, no, they're just a bunch of women talking about the issues. Well except maybe Barbara. So they obviously don't do any fact-checking. Well that was basically the gist of Barbara's attack on Glenn, and turnabout's fair play, right?

(Fire can't melt steel? Radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical Muslims? Anyone? Bueller?)

I watched the first segment on Glenn's site, uncut. Glenn correctly said they ambushed him.

On the one hand, it was partially his fault. A week or so ago he recounted a recent meeting on a train between himself and Barbara Walters and Whoopie Goldberg. And he made it sound as if the meeting was uncomfortable for him due to judgementalism he perceived on their part.

Now if you don't believe that the judgementalism he perceived was there and real (which Woopie boldly admitted upfront), I've got some property in the Everglades to sell you -- BUT ... that's not the point. He gave them ammo BEFORE his guest appearance -- and they used it.

When Whoopie saw his characterization of their meeting, she was offended. I'm sure Barbara was, too. This is because in their heads, they were trying very hard to be civil. I'm sure they were. The dual point being a) they had to try very hard, and b) their voices and body language I'm pretty sure (opinion here, I know, but I also know their political views and I know human nature. I don't think I'm stretching credulity here) gave away their feelings. Glenn's mistake was doing the bit in the first place. He may even know that now, especially if he already knows what I'm about to point out.

These women are Progressives. They disagree with him 180 degrees and at high velocity. They think he is a dangerous force in our society. And they know they have a big audience of people who, if they watched Glenn and some of them might, might actually listen to him. Glenn had to be discredited. But he's pretty hard to discredit, because he is, in fact, a pretty reasonable man, he does care about checking his facts, and he's waaaaaay more open minded than the left makes him out to be.

He's a kinder, gentler Rush Limbaugh. And I mean that in a good way.

So what did they do? First, they used his version of the story, his perception of what happened to call him a Liar™. Hitting him from both sides and making sure he didn't really have time to answer their insinuating questions, Barbara came in with prong two -- Glenn doesn't check his facts. She started with "you're an investigative reporter" ... Glenn said "no", and then ... some other kind of journalist. "No", said Glenn. I'm a commentator. "So you don't check your facts." "Liar™", and "you don't check your facts" were repeated over and over again without any time for a coherent response for the first 7 minute segment, over something frankly out of the blue (who walked up to whom when they introduced themselves on the train) so that Mr. Beck would be spending many more mental cycles on "what the heck are they talking about?" rather than have an answer to a substantive but perhaps tough question.

Glenn, that was the game plan from the beginning. Those who aren't familiar with you and weren't paying attention to what was going on ... after that first 7 minute segment had two take-aways. 1) Glenn Beck is a Liar™ . 2) Glenn Beck doesn't check his facts.

Glenn Beck is untrustworthy. Don't listen to this man. (a sublter form of shut uppery. It's don't listen-ery).

Mission accomplished. It doesn't matter that they were full of shit about a bogus "issue". That's what the majority of their audience probably came away with and that was their intent.

The second segment went a little better. After Joy Behar said that she never heard him criticizing Bush and the Republicans (which Glenn quickly pointed out that she never watched his show, and she had to agree -- I know he's right because I have watched and listened to his shows and I've heard him make just such statements and arguments) ... after that, he got to talk about the fact that the parties stand for getting people in their parties elected. And there was much applause.

At one point Barbara said "you cry, it's one of your trademarks", and then asked what his real convictions are. Glenn complained that he was being made fun of "on the quintessential chick show" for crying. Barbara objected, but the show opened with Joy asking him if he was really crying or if he had to pull some eyelashes to cry. I don't blame him for being defensive.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

---

Does Sarah Palin think Africa is a continent or a country?

I don't know, does Barack Obama think there are 50 states or 57? Does Barack Obama think there is an Austrian language? Does he think a tornado in Kansas really killed more than three times, almost four times -- as many people (10,000) than were killed in the WTC on 9/11? Does he think Iraqis and Afghans speak the same language?

And let's not get started on Biden. Ms. Behar.

Don't Pass It On

If it ain't true.

Like this one:

Obama to have military pledge oath to President rather than to Constitution.

Apparently satire. I don't think he's that stupid. But it was worth checking out. Just don't "pass it on". Stuff like this doesn't help anybody's credibility. Always check first, or at LEAST say you haven't checked it out if you haven't.

I got it in a private email from someone who was asking me if it was true. That works, too.

The "S" Word

I've noticed that the Socialists have an interesting way of counter-attacking us when we use the word "Socialist". They treat it like it's just name calling, like calling someone a "jerk", or an "ass".

Thus they completely duck the issue that the word "Socialist" actually means something, and it's not just mindless name calling. Thus they try to duck the argument.

Once again, by getting you to ... "Shut Up".

Should I Call Homeland Security?

Noticed a couple of interesting recent hits that were the results of google searches that landed on my blog...

Hmmm. Well, I'm afriad they didn't find what they were looking for.

Not When We Do It

I believe via the Rott as well:

More Shut Uppery

It occured to me in the eleventy-jillionth story I read about how Cheney ought not criticize "the new administration" because, hey, nobody else ever did .... when I read these words at the Rott referring to this WaPo article

Rarely has an official from one administration moved so quickly and aggressively to criticize a new president.

I had to respond.

Rarely has a new administration and it’s lackeys in congress spent so much of their "Progressive”, “MoveOn”, Hopey, Changey time sniping at the previous administration while making rumblings about proscecution.

Well not here anyway. Happens a lot in third world countries. Which is where we seem to be headed.

Besides, I thought Dissent is Patriotic™.

Isn't Cheney just being a Patriot?

Oh, that's right. We went through a Change™.

Shut Uppery in action.