Tag Archives: Republican Party

Did You Know Republican Party in the Post-Civil War South Was Founded by Freed Slaves?

This video documents the political formation of the Ku Klux Klan as a terorist  arm of the Democratic Party to regain political power after the Civil War. 

Democrats founded the KKK, fought the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, instituted Jim Crow Laws, fought the 1965 Civil Rights Act and continue to keep racism alive and blacks on their liberal plantation. This is an excerpt from the award-winning documentary Emancipation Revelation Revolution.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95aQshvaAII]


After The Civil Rights Act was passed Democrat President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming support.

The Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to combat the pro-slavery Democrats

The Ku Klux Klan was formed by radical Democrats who opposed equality for blacks.

In 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill supported and put forward by Republicans.

The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention”, a minority of delegates attempted to condemn the presence of the Klan but was rebuked by the Klan supporting Democrat Majority.

On April 20, 1871 the Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-Affiliated terrorist groups.

Ronald Reagan, a Republican, made history on November 2, 1983 by signing into law Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a National Holiday. This is the first and only Federal Holiday that recognizes a Black American.

Albert Gore, Sr., a Democrat, played a key roll in the 74-day filibuster that delayed and intended to undermine The Civil Rights Act.

Albert Gore, Sr. voted against The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

President Bill Clinton’s political mentor, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas also a Democrat, voted against The Civil Rights Act.

A search on The Clinton Presidential Center Web Site yielded 102 matches when searching for Fulbright.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Full  90 minute film, Emancipation Revelation Revolution here.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ben Swann Lays it on the Line – No Delegates are Bound!

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWsU93fFsk&list=UU1h3bqESVdqkwm123Ce4ZmA&index=1&feature=plcp]

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Mark Levin's Speech at Defending the Dream Conference

This is awesome:

It is just too bad he will not run for POTUS.
-Dave
(h/t: Noel Sheppard)

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

White Americans Abandon Democratic Party

In the 2010 midterm elections, a trend that’s been happening for some time now accelerated.
There is a growing gap between how whites and non-whites vote, and among white voters, between the working class and the college-educated, between men and women, between the older and the young, and between the heartland and the coasts.
In each contrasting pair, the latter group (college-educated, women, young, coasts) is mainly Democratic, pro-Obama and pro-big government, whereas the former group (working class, men, older, heartland) is abandoning the Democratic Party, increasingly skeptical of government as the solution, and turning conservative.
It is now clear that the Democratic Party of old is no more. The party’s new base is a coalition forged of non-whites, and white women, college-educated, young, and coastal. Conservatives won on November 2 because typically there’s a low voter-turnout among non-whites and young people in mid-term elections. The bad news is that America’s demographic trend is on the side of the Democratic Party’s new coalition, due to legal and illegal immigration, as well as the leftwing propaganda that is fed to college students. 
This is sobering news, with troubling implications for race, class, and gender relations. America’s politics will get even nastier.
~Eowyn

Here are excerpts from Ronald Brownstein‘s White Flight,” National Journal, January 7, 2011:

By any standard, white voters’ rejection of Democrats in November’s elections was daunting and even historic.
Fully 60% of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives; only 37% supported Democrats, according to the National Election Poll exit poll conducted by Edison Research. Not even in Republicans’ 1994 congressional landslide did they win that high a percentage of the white vote.
Moreover, those results may understate the extent of the white flight from the Democratic Party, according to a National Journal analysis of previously unpublished exit-poll data provided by Edison Research.
The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party’s priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.
…These results, however, could carry profound implications for 2012. They suggest that economic recovery alone may not solve the president’s problems with many of the white voters who stampeded toward the Republican Party last year. “It comes down to that those voters are very skeptical of the expansion of government,” says Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams, a veteran strategist. “The voters who went with Obama in 2008 did not know what they were going to get with that vote. Now that they’ve seen the health care bill, the stimulus bill, the bailout, the cap-and-trade proposal—issue after issue, they don’t like what they see.”
That resistance could, in turn, increase the pressure on Obama to accelerate the generation-long transformation of the Democratic electoral coalition that he pushed forward in 2008. With so much of the white electorate, especially working-class whites, dubious about the president’s direction, to win a second term he will likely need to increase turnout and improve his showing among the groups that keyed his 2008 victory—minorities, young people, and white-collar white voters, especially women….
THE NEW COLOR LINE
After Election Day, several media outlets released exit-poll data breaking down the contrasting level of support among white and minority voters for Republican and Democratic congressional candidates. But they did not publish results that separated by race the responses to questions that measured attitudes about Obama’s performance, the state of the economy, the national agenda, and the way voters described their own ideology. It was those additional race-specific results that National Journal recently purchased from Edison Research, the organization that conducts the exit surveys…. From every angle, the exit-poll results reveal a new color line: a consistent chasm between the attitudes of whites and minorities. The gap begins with preferences in the election.
After two years of a punishing recession, minority support for House Democrats sagged in this election to the lowest level recorded by exit polls in the past two decades, according to calculations that Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, provided to National Journal. The Hispanic vote for Democrats in House races slipped to 60%, compared with about two-thirds for Obama in 2008 (although some Hispanic analysts say that other data indicate a better showing for Democrats last year). But even so, a solid 73% of all nonwhite voters—African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and others—backed Democratic House candidates in the midterm election, according to the new analysis.
Meanwhile, Republicans, with their 60% showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling. Media exit polls conducted by Edison Research and its predecessors have been tracking congressional elections for about three decades. In no previous exit poll had Republicans reached 60% of the white vote in House races….
November’s gap between the voting preferences of whites and minorities was at the wider end of the range over the past two decades but it wasn’t the absolute widest. More striking was the disparity between the two groups’ views on other questions with implications for the 2012 election.
First among those was Obama’s performance. Exactly 75% of minority voters said they approved; only 22% said they disapproved. Among white voters, just 35% approved of the president’s performance, while 65% disapproved; a head-turning 49% of whites said they strongly disapproved. (Those whites voted Republican last fall by a ratio of 18-to-1.)
The racial gulf was similar when voters were asked whether they believed that Obama’s policies would help the nation in the long run. By 70% to 22%, minorities said yes; by 61% to 34%, whites said no…. The vast majority of minority voters said they wanted lawmakers to expand the health care law (54%) or maintain it in its current form (16%), while only 24% said they wanted Congress to repeal it. Among white voters, the sentiments were almost inverted: 56% said that lawmakers should repeal the law, while much smaller groups wanted them to expand it (23%) or leave it alone (just 16%).
The gap was also wide in attitudes about two fundamental tenets. Minorities were almost exactly twice as likely as whites to say that life would be better for the next generation than for their own; whites were considerably more likely to say that it would be more difficult. And on a question measuring bedrock beliefs about the role of government, the two racial groups again registered almost mirror-image preferences. 60% of minorities said that government should be doing more to solve problems; 63% of whites said that government is doing too many things that would be better left to businesses and individuals….
SLIVERS OF SUPPORT
Measured both geographically and demographically, these new exit-poll results show that Democrats maintained openings in only slivers of the white electorate. In House elections, the bottom fell out for Democrats in both the South (where they won just 24% of whites) and the Midwest (37%). The party remained relatively more competitive along the coasts, capturing 46% of white voters in the East and 43% in the West….
Democrats have been losing support among blue-collar white voters since the 1960s, but in this election, they hit one of their lowest points ever. In House campaigns, the exit poll found, noncollege whites preferred Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 with virtually no gender gap: White working-class women—the so-called waitress moms—gave Republicans almost exactly as many of their votes as blue-collar men did.
These blue-collar whites expressed profound resistance to Obama and his agenda. Just 30% of them said they approved of the president’s job performance (compared with 69% who disapproved). Two-thirds of them said that government is doing too many things. An approximately equal number said that Obama’s agenda will hurt the country over the long term. Only about one-fifth of these voters said that the stimulus had helped the economy, and 57% wanted to repeal the health care law—even though they are uninsured at much higher rates than whites with more advanced education.
In Senate races, the story was no better for Democrats: They won majorities of white voters who don’t have a college education in just three states and garnered at least 45% in only two more. Even Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Michael Bennet of Colorado, each of whom ran well among upscale whites, won only about one-third of working-class white voters. In Wisconsin, those blue-collar whites doomed Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold: He carried most minority voters and a thin 51 percent of college-educated whites, but he was crushed among working-class whites, who gave him only 40% of their votes.
Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University, says that blue-collar disaffection from Democratic candidates reflects not only immediate economic distress but also a longer-term process of alienation from the party. “The noncollege whites … see themselves as a declining minority within the national Democratic Party, where they have very little control or influence on the policies,” he says. “The party is controlled by the coastal elites and nonwhites, and that is a very different kind of Democratic Party” than a generation ago.
Compared with 2008, Democrats lost ground among college-educated whites as well, but they maintained more support in this group than among blue-collar whites. Democratic Senate candidates won at least half of the votes of college-educated whites in 10 races and at least 45% in two others. Almost all of those states are along the East or West coasts or in the Upper Midwest, the regions that have been the foundation of the Democrats’ Electoral College map since Bill Clinton’s time. In heartland states such as Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and even Illinois, Democratic support cratered among college-educated whites.
White-collar men and women also parted ways much more significantly than their blue-collar counterparts did. College-educated white men backed Republican House candidates and registered negative views of Obama’s job performance as overwhelmingly as blue-collar whites did. College-educated white women, though not immune to these trends, displayed more resistance. Although traditionally the most liberal portion of the white electorate, even these women cooled toward Democrats last year. In contrast to the majority support they provided Obama in 2008, they voted 55% to 43% for Republicans in 2010 House races. In the exit poll, most of them agreed that government was trying to do too much, and a slim majority of them said they wanted Congress to repeal the health care law.
In key Senate races, however, especially in culturally more liberal states, these women backed Democrats in substantial numbers. Both Bennet and Boxer, for instance, carried about three-fifths of this bloc, which proved essential to their victories. Obama’s popularity among these college-educated women deteriorated, but in the exit polling, 45% of them still said they approved of his performance, far higher than the rate among most other whites.
Even in the tide of discontent that propelled almost all voters toward Republican candidates, relatively more of well-educated white women remained loyal to Democrats. The same was true among all young white voters. Fewer of them backed Democratic congressional candidates than voted for Obama in 2008, but whites under 30 gave Democrats a much higher share of their vote than did older whites. Those two groups—young people and college-educated women—are the splintering foundations on which Obama will likely have to build any hope of a recovery in the white electorate for 2012.
THE NEW COALITION
These emphatic 2010 results represented another shovel of earth on the grave of the New Deal electoral coalition, centered on working-class whites, that long anchored Democratic politics. But the decline of that coalition began long before Obama or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. No Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976 has captured as much as 45% of white voters, according to exit polls. And not since 1992 have whites given half or more of their votes to Democratic congressional candidates. The erosion has been especially pronounced among the white working class: No Democratic presidential nominee since 2000 has won more than 40% of its votes.
Despite that decline, Democrats have survived, and at times thrived, by building a new coalition. They have won the overall popular vote in four of the past five presidential elections, and they recaptured Congress in 2006 with a coalition that now revolves primarily around young people, minorities, and college-educated whites, especially women. That so-called coalition of the ascendant offers Democrats long-term advantages because all of those groups are growing as a share of the population.
Minorities, most important, more than doubled their share of the vote from 12% in 1992 to 26% in 2008. In his victory that year, Obama won only 43% of the white vote (and merely 40% among noncollege whites). Yet he captured a larger share of the overall popular vote than any Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 by winning 80% of that growing pool of nonwhite voters, along with majorities among whites under 30 and college-educated white women.
But if 2008 demonstrated the possibilities of that new alignment, the 2010 election demonstrated its limits. It has proven to be a boom-and-bust coalition because turnout in midterm elections usually declines modestly among minorities and sharply among young people; both groups fell off even more than usual in 2010, producing an older and whiter electorate that compounded the GOP’s advantage. “We have gotten to the point where we have two different electorates: presidential and nonpresidential,” says veteran Democratic consultant Bill Carrick of California.
Equally significant, although racial diversity is spreading and education levels are rising, these trends are not evenly distributed across the country. As a result, the Democrats’ coalition of the ascendant is much more potent in coastal states than in most interior states still dominated by white voters, many of them older and working-class. In 137 House districts, at least 80% of the population is white; after November, Republicans control a crushing three-fourths of those seats. And, as Feingold discovered, there are not enough minority and well-educated white voters to win Senate races in many interior states if Democrats cannot remain competitive among blue-collar whites….
Partly because the minority share of the vote will almost certainly rise again in 2012, Obama probably won’t need to match his 2008 percentage of the white vote to win a second term. But all of these considerations suggest that he and the party’s congressional candidates must nonetheless improve on their historically low 2010 showing to avoid further losses in 2012. “At the levels of [white discontent] you are talking about, no amount of surge voting [from minorities and young people] is going to overcome that,” says Mike Podhorzer, deputy political director of the AFL-CIO.
So one critical question is how much of the white disaffection from Democrats evident in 2010 is rooted in irrevocable ideological alienation and how much will dissolve if the economy improves. According to veteran conservative strategist Jeff Bell, all signs suggest that Obama has permanently antagonized much of the white electorate (nearly half of which this year identified itself as conservative in the exit poll). “The significance of the tea party is that it is not a situational vote,” says Bell, the policy director at the American Principles Project, a right-leaning advocacy group. “They are going to be militant even if, or when, the economy improves.… It’s significant if you have more voters who are willing to vote with the conservative coalition regardless of what’s going on with the economy.”
…To the extent the economy rebounds, that would also boost Obama with some of the white voters who embraced the GOP in 2010. But short of a roaring financial recovery, many analysts in both parties believe that Obama will find it difficult to fully reconnect with most of the white voters who have drifted away from him. “I think a large majority of those voters are gone for good; I don’t know what he can do to change their impression of his view of government,” Wadhams, the Colorado GOP chairman, says. But Wadhams quickly adds that Obama might be able to persuade some of those voters to support him anyway in 2012 if Republicans select a nominee they find unacceptable, particularly on social issues….
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama Eligibility Is Now a Conspiracy


A conspiracy is a secret agreement by two or more persons to perform an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Somehow, conspiracy theories have become synonymous with kooky nutcases, sneered at by the MSM. But there are real conspiracies, for example, the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Dreyfus Affair, Nixon’s Watergate scandal, and the Iran-Contra Affair.
It is now incontrovertible that there is a massive conspiracy about Obama’s eligibility. Every branch and institution of our government is covering up for Obama.
First, it was the Democratic Party at both the state and national levels who looked the other way in 2008, choosing not to vett Obama’s birth documents to ensure he indeed is constitutionally eligible for the presidency. This was followed by the McCain campaign and the Republican Party acting like the eunuchs that they are in not questioning Obama’s eligibility.
Then, it was Congress that failed to screen his eligibility, using the lame excuse that no law requires them to do so, conveniently forgetting that the Constitution itself is the highest law of the land.

Next, the courts failed us. Beginning in 2008 even before Obama was elected president, American citizens brought one lawsuit after another challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility. But judge after judge in state after state refused to even grant a hearing to the lawsuits, using the lame excuse that the litigants “lacked standing” and in so doing, effectively said that the constitutional eligibility of the President of the United States is not a matter of concern or interest for We the People.
Last Monday, November 29, 2010, the judicial branch of the American government completed its surrender to Obama when the Supreme Court denied the Kerchner v Obama’s petition for a writ of certiorari (translated into ordinary English: SCOTUS refused to review/hear the case). Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., the lead plaintiff, is a retired Commander of the US Naval Reserve.
Then there’s the United States Army. It, too, capitulated to the Mighty Obama when the top military brass decided to court martial decorated (Bronze Star) Army surgeon Lt. Col. Terry Lakin who defied his deployment orders on the grounds of the dubious constitutional eligibility and authority of the top of the command chain — his Commander In Chief. To complete the Army’s self-castration, the military judge in Lakin’s court martial, Denise Lind, refused to grant the defense’s discovery request of Obama’s concealed documents (original long-form birth certificate, kindergarten and college records…), thereby making impossible Lakin’s defense.
The latest government agency to join the Conspiracy of Silence and Coverup is the Social Security Administration.
Last May, private investigators discovered that not only are multiple social security numbers associated with Barack Obama (when we are all supposed to have only one number each), the social security number that Obama is presently using is one that’s set aside for residents of the state of Connecticut — a state in which Obama has never lived and with which he has no association. As I explained in my post of May 13, 2010, Obama Uses Dead Connecticuter’s Social Security Number“:

The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number. (See Q. 18 of “Frequently Asked Questions” on the Social Security Administration’s website, HERE.) Connecticut’s SS numbers begin with 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, or 049. Obama’s SS number begins with 042.
The most plausible explanation is that Obama’s Connecticut SS number once belonged to a Connecticuter, born in 1890, who is now diseased. This means that Obama is using that number illicitly because the SS administration says a SS number is never re-issued or re-used. (See Q. 20 of “Frequently Asked Questions” on the Social Security Administration’s website, HERE.)
Furthermore, since Obama’s first job was in a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii, when he was 14 or 15, he would have obtained a SS number then as a Hawaii resident. Hawaii’s SS numbers begin with the prefix 575 or 576. This means that he has used at least TWO different SS numbers, which is against the law, because the law says a person can have only one SS number in a lifetime.

Now, the Social Security Administration is introducing a new policy in an attempt to conceal, obfuscate, and evade Obama’s curious Connecticut social security number. Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily reports on November 30, 2010: 

Without addressing questions regarding the apparent assignment of a Connecticut-based Social Security number to President Barack Obama, who reportedly spent his growing-up years in Hawaii and Indonesia, the federal agency now is moving quickly to make certain such questions never come up again about political figures.
The administration is starting down a path that is intended to randomize all future Social Security numbers – a move critics allege is designed to make it impossible to tell where any future Social Security number is issued.
In a notice currently published on the Social Security Administration website, the SSA announces Social Security numbers issued in the future will be randomized starting on or about June 25, 2011.
A spokeswoman in the Social Security press office confirmed to WND the plan is moving forward.
“In an effort to increase the number of Social Security numbers (SSNs) available for use by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and in order to help reduce identity theft, SSA plans to change the methodology by which SSNs are issued. In June 2011, we will begin to issue SSNs randomly, regardless of the address on the application. As a result, we will have the ability to continue to issue SSNs in all areas of the country for many more years without having to make additional changes,” said Trish Nicasio….
Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels says the government policy change is an attempt to cover up in retrospect the controversy over Obama’s Social Security number by making it impossible in the future to trace where a Social Security applicant lived at the time the person applied for a Social Security number.
“Now all the Social Security Administration has to say is that they have been experimenting with randomized numbers for some time,” Daniels said. “How would anybody prove differently?”
She continued, “With Obama, there is obviously a case of fraud going on here. In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

The White House has refused to answer queries about Obama’s social security number.
If Diogenes were alive today, he’d be consigned to an eternal and fruitless wandering in his search for just one honest man in the U.S. government. Sadly, there is none.
H/t beloved fellows Tina & FS.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0