Die Triomf van Huigelary: Misleiding in die Inligtingsera | Fifteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution | Democratic Party (United States)
Description: 'n Ondersoek na die wanindruk oor Amerikaanse politieke partye wat deur Amerikaanse nuusmedia, Hollywood en sekere TV-programme in die gemoed van die gemiddelde Afrikaans- en Engelssprekende Suid-A...
'n Ondersoek na die wanindruk oor Amerikaanse politieke partye wat deur Amerikaanse nuusmedia, Hollywood en sekere TV-programme in die gemoed van die gemiddelde Afrikaans- en Engelssprekende Suid-Afrikaner geskep word, met verwysing na die geskiedenis van die Demokratiese Party. Dié verwronge beeld word deur die massamedia in stand gehou deur opsetlike disinformasie, verdraaiing en verswyging van feite, selektiewe beriggewing en sorgvuldig gekalibreerde opinie-artikels. Dit word deur vermaaklikheidsmedia soos films en TV-programme en deur populêre vermaaklikheidsterre oorgedra deur middel van karikature, beskimping, veralgemening en demonisering. Die onvermoë van veral jongmense om tussen styl/glans en substansie te onderskei, die algemene publiek se onkunde oor die geskiedenis van die VSA, self-haat onder Afrikaners en die behoefte om dit op 'n sondebok te projekteer, is die vernaamste faktore in die verspreiding van hierdie bedrieglike en ahistoriese narratief.
Die Triomf van Huigelary
Misleiding in die Inligtingsera
Die volgende aanhaling van die Spaans-Amerikaanse filosoof George Santayana (1863-1952) is al oorbekend, self in sy foutiewe vorm waar die woord ―history‖ die woorde ―the past‖ verplaas: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (uit Life of Reason I).
‗n Verwante gedagte van Santayana is die volgende: “A man's memory may almost become the art of continually varying and misrepresenting his past, according to his interests in the present." (uit Reasons and Places I) Onkunde oor die geskiedenis het ‗n skadelike uitwerking op die psige van die individu en van hele gemeenskappe. Maar dit sou onredelik wees om van die gemiddelde Suid-Afrikaner te verwag om die geskiedenis van ‗n ander land in detail te ken. Onkunde is dus ‗n faktor wat tot neutraliteit aanleiding behoort te gee. As die redelike mens weet dat s/hy nie weet nie, sal s/hy eers self die feite nagaan voordat s/hy ‗n opinie vorm. Daar is egter ook doelbewuste beïnvloeding, wat in sy ergste graad as ―breinspoeling‖ bestempel word. Wanneer geskiedkundige feite heeltemal omgedraai word sodat die held die skurk word en die skurk die held, is daar doelbewuste manipulering aan die gang. En leuns of valse indrukke word op velerlei maniere oorgedra, byvoorbeeld die Halwe Waarheid, Verswyging (van selektiewe feite) en Herhaling, om maar drie te noem. Onkunde + Manipulasie kan sterk oortuigings met emosionele resonansie skep. Sulke diepgesetelde oortuigings (geplante meem-komplekse) kan na ‗n lang tydperk ontkiem en begin groei in die individuele psige maar word eers merkbaar wanneer dit in die individu se uitsprake manifesteer. Wanneer mense op ander kontinente doelbewus mislei word oor die feite van die Amerikaanse geskiedenis sodat dit tot ekstreme partydigheid, veroordeling en selfs emosionele uitbarstings aanleiding gee, gaan daar ‗n stel alarms af. Die insigte van die Franse filosoof Jean-François Revel in sy boek: The Flight from Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information is baie waardevol in dié verband. Oordrag van ‗n valse meem-kompleks aan ‗n groot gros mense buite die VSA geskied deur een indirekte en twee direkte media. Hierdie essay ondersoek nie die redes vir die Amerikaanse massamedia, akademie (geesteswetenskappe) en vermaaklikheidskunstenaars (Hollywood/gewilde musikante) se onkritiese omhelsing van ‗n spesifieke narratief nie. Die wyse van oordrag of die ontvanklikheid van die Suid-Afrikaanse individu daarvoor word ook nie in detail behandel nie maar die vanselfsprekende speel hier ‗n rol: a Hollywoodsterre/musikante as rolmodelle b Rol van die Suid-Afrikaanse media c Skuldgevoelens oor Apartheid d Portuurgroep-druk e Goedgelowigheid/naïewiteit
Liewe Leser, wat is jou onmiddellike emosionele reaksie op die volgende drie stellings?
1. Die Demokratiese Party in die VSA was nog altyd die party van slawerny, segregasie en rassisme, en het vanaf sy ontstaan tot in die 1960s elke poging van die Republikeine om burgerregte na Afro-Amerikaners uit te brei, hand en tand beveg. 2. Daar was só ‗n hegte verband tussen die Demokratiese Party en die Ku Klux Klan dat dié afskuwelike organisasie selfs as die ―terreurfaksie van die Demokratiese Party‖ beskryf is.
3. Dr Martin Luther King Jr was ‘n Republikein.
Ja, ek weet dis onaangenaam om hiermee gekonfronteer te word, maar jou eie integriteit is op die spel. Hier volg nou onweerlegbare bewyse van die eerste twee stellings en redelike getuienis ter stawing van die derde – omstandigheidsgetuienis en die getuienis van ‗n familielid.
NOTA OOR BRONNE EN (ON)PARTYDIGHEID
Om beskuldigings van partydigheid of eensydigheid sommer uit die staanspoor die nek in te slaan, steun ek sterk op die werk van die Linkse geskiedkundige, Professor Eric Foner van Columbia Universiteit, en spesifiek sy boek Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. (1988)
en die verkorte weergawe daarvan (1990) http://www.harpercollins.com/browseinside/index.aspx?isbn13=9780060964313 wat gratis hier afgelaai kan word: http://open.salon.com/blog/ipasidym1971/2012/10/07/a_short_history_of_reconst ruction_download_pdf_torrent_free
Verder maak ek ook gebruik van die bekende Liberale webwerf www.salon.com Andersins is hier skakels na bronne waarvan die reputasie bo verdenking is, soos die Wall Street Journal en Brittanica. Wikipedia is nie altyd korrek of volledig nie maar sy onskatbare waarde lê daarin dat sy blaaie volop verwysings na ander bronne aangee. Ten slotte is hier skakels na die webwerf van die National Black Republicans; ‗n groep by wie mens partydigheid kan verwag, soos deur die naam weerspieël. Daar is by hulle geen intensie om te mislei deur hulself byvoorbeeld as ‗n liberale groep te probeer voordoen nie. Dink bietjie: Is dit deesdae maklik om ‗n swart Republikein in die VSA te wees? Maak dit jou gewild of ‗n uitgeworpene? Laastens word daar verwys na die getuienis van Dr. Alveda C. King, broerskind van Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
LESER SE REAKSIE
Indien jy onder die wanindruk verkeer wat hierbo uiteengesit word, mag jy op hierdie stadium die sielkundige proses van Ontkenning, Verplasing en Projeksie begin ervaar. Ek reken dit behoort op die volgende manier te manifesteer: Gedagtes aan dom, absurde, haatlike of pleinweg dooslike uitsprake deur spesifieke lede van die Republikeinse Party soos deur die massamedia gerapporteer. En my antwoord daarop is: Die Amerikaanse media hamer op sulke voorvalle maar verswyg soortgelyke uitsprake van lede van die Demokratiese Party.
Om maar twee voorbeelde van glipsies te noem (ek verkies om liewer die haatlike en dooslike te vermy), President Obama se verwysing na die 57 state van die VSA… YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
… en sy stelling dat die taal van Oostenryk ―Oostenryks‖ is YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c
Die Demokratiese Party is die ouer een: beide sy stigters, Thomas Jefferson en Andrew Jackson, was slawe-eienaars. Die Republikeinse Party of G.O.P. (―Grand Old Party‖) is in 1854 deur anti-slawerny aktiviste gestig en is die party van Abraham Lincoln. Doen gerus navorsing oor die Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog (1861 – 1865).
Bewyse vir elk van die drie stellings word hier voorsien.
Die Demokratiese Party in die VSA was nog altyd die party van slawerny, segregasie en rassisme, en het vanaf sy ontstaan tot in die 1960s elke poging van die Republikeine om burgerregte na Afro-Amerikaners uit te brei, hand en tand beveg.
Ek beperk my skrywe tot die laat jare vyftig en sestig; die tragiese rekord van hoe die Demokratiese Party die Republikeine se strewe na gelykheid en universele burgerregte sedert die Burgeroorlog tot die laat 1950s teengestaan en ondermyn het, kan hier onder gelees word in die artikels van Bruce Bartlett en Jeffrey Lord in die Wall Street Journal. Die Burgerregte Wet van 1957 se tande is getrek deur die Demokratiese leier van die senaatsmeerderheid, (die latere President) Lyndon B Johnson, omdat hy besef het dié wet kon sy party in twee skeur. Die Burgerregte Wet van 1960 is aanvaar met 311 teen 109 stemme. Teenstemme volgens party: 93 Demokrate daarteen – 179 daarvoor
1 Onafhanklike Demokraat daarteen 2 Demokrate het buite stemming gebly
15 Republikeine daarteen – 132 daarvoor
1 Republikein het buite stemming gebly
Die Burgerregte Wet van 1964 het die hoofvorme van diskriminasie op grond van etnisiteit, ras, geslag en teen religieuse minderhede onwettig gemaak. Rassesegregasie in skole, die werkplek en openbare fasiliteite is afgeskaf. In die Huis van Verteenwoordigers is die Burgerregte Wet aanvaar met 290 stemme daarvoor en 130 daarteen. Republikeine het oorweldigend daarvoor gestem. 80 persent (138 stemme daarvoor en 34 stemme daarteen). Die Demokrate was minder entoesiasties. Net 61 persent het dit gesteun (152 daarvoor en 96 daarteen). In die Senaat was die resultaat soortgelyk. Republikeine 82% daarvoor (27 daarvoor, 6 daarteen). Demokrate 69% daarvoor (46 daarvoor, 21 daarteen). Al Gore se pa, Al Gore Senior was een van die 21 wat daarteen gestem het. Die Stemreg Wet van 1965 het diskriminerende praktyke getakel wat verantwoordelik was vir die gebrek aan stemreg onder swart Amerikaners, dit onwettig verklaar, en federale toesig ingestel om sulke praktyke uit te skakel. In die Huis van Verteenwoordigers is die Stemreg Wet aanvaar met 333 stemme daarvoor en 130 daarteen. Republikeine: 82% daarvoor (112 teen 24) Demokrate: 78% daarvoor (221 teen 61) In die Senaat: Republikeine 94% daarvoor (30 teen 2) Demokrate 73% daarvoor (47 teen 17). Senator J. William Fulbright van Arkansas, „n mentor van President Bill Clinton, het daarteen gestem.
Daar was só ‗n hegte verbintenis tussen die Demokratiese Party en die Ku Klux Klan dat dié afskuwelike organisasie selfs as die ―terreur-faksie van die Demokratiese Party‖ beskryf is.
Die Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog het letsels in die Konfederasie, die suidelike state, gelaat. Na afloop van die oorlog het witmense daar oorweldigend vir die Demokrate gestem en die Republikeine met groot bitterheid bejeën. Hierdie tendens is besig om te vervaag deur demografiese veranderinge maar het steeds ‗n rol gespeel in die verkiesing van beide Jimmy Carter in 1976 en Bill Clinton in 1996. Deesdae staan die oorblywende konserwatiewe suidelike Demokrate as ―Blue Dog Democrats‖ bekend. In sy bovermelde boek ondersoek Eric Foner die oorsprong en geskiedenis van die Ku Klux Klan. Die teks bevat skrikwekkende beskrywings van gruweldade wat die KKK teen Republikeine, beide swart en wit, gepleeg het. Hier volg aanhalings: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a reign of terror against Republican leaders black and white.” “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party‟s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.” Lees maar self: http://open.salon.com/blog/ipasidym1971/2012/10/07/a_short_history_of_reconst ruction_download_pdf_torrent_free
Dr Martin Luther King Jr was ‘n Republikein.
Hierdie stelling kan nie bo alle twyfel bewys word nie want daar bestaan geen skriftelike of dokumentêre rekord nie. ‗n Felle woordestryd woed daaroor op die Internet. Dr King Jr. het nooit ‗n openbare aankondiging daaroor gemaak nie. http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1014/101449.html
Daddy King; Why he keeps on keeping on; Daddy King: An Autobiography, by the Rev. Martin Luther King Sr., with Clayton Riley. New York: William Morrow & Co.
Die redes waarom dit waarskynlik waar is:    Sy pa, Dr Martin Luther King Sr. was beslis ‗n geregistreerde Republikein en ‗n hegte vriend van die republikein Nelson Rockefeller Die meerderheid swart Amerikaners het tot in die vroeë sestigerjare hoofsaaklik die Republikeinse Party ondersteun Voeg daarby die volgende stelling van ‗n familielid van Dr Martin Luther King Jr. wat in alle opsigte vir my na ‗n eerbare persoon lyk:
In die 2008 artikel “A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK’s Legacy,” beweer Dr. Alveda C. King, broerskind van Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: “My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or „Daddy King‟, was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.” Voorts bied die artikel ook insig in hoe dit gebeur het dat Afro-Amerikaners van 1960 af al hoe meer vir die Demokrate begin stem het. Die artikel is hier, op bladsy 2: http://images.nbra.info/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/Alv eda%20King%20article.pdf
VERWYSINGS DEEL EEN
―According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate — 69 percent of Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of Republicans (27-6). Gore‘s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., D-Tenn., was one of the 21 Democrats who voted against it. So was Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., himself a former member of the Ku Klux Klan — as former RNC Chair Haley Barbour was quick to mention, two times, Thursday on ―Crossfire.‖ It was pretty much the same for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the House, 82 percent of the Republicans backed the bill; in the Senate, 94 percent of the Republicans backed it. Gore Sr. voted for the bill this time, but 17 other Southern Democrats voted against it — including Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, a mentor to President Bill Clinton.‖
―Everyone knows this, but it's worth repeating: The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln and was established in 1854 to block the expansion of slavery. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery: Its two founders, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, owned large numbers of slaves, and every party platform before the Civil War defended the institution unequivocally. After the war, it was the Republican Party that rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution over Democratic opposition. Republicans also enacted a series of civil-rights laws that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which basically did what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 accomplished. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, as well as a number of other civil-rights measures enacted by Republicans to protect the freed slaves. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the court gave constitutional cover to segregation, effectively prohibiting federal efforts to tackle racial inequality until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. And any federal civilrights laws left on the books were repealed by Democrats once they got control of Congress and the White House in 1893. Nevertheless, Republicans continued to make strenuous efforts to aid AfricanAmericans. In 1890, they passed a force bill in the House of Representatives to send federal troops into the South to protect the voting rights of AfricanAmericans. These rights were being violated everywhere in that region by laws, practices and violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan and similar groups allied with the Democratic Party. In 1900 (under President McKinley) and again in 1922 (under Harding), Republicans tried to enact an antilynching law. Coolidge asked for legislation again in his 1923 State of the Union message. Unfortunately, Southern Democrats in the Senate routinely filibustered every Republican effort to aid African-Americans. Even Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't challenge the Senate's Southern caucus. Despite a landslide re-election victory in 1936, including overwhelming majorities in every Southern state, he refused to lend any support to another antilynching bill. Nor would he end the segregation of the armed forces established by Democrat Woodrow Wilson during World War I. While Harry Truman deserves great credit for ending racial segregation in the military and the civil service, his efforts to pass civil-rights legislation also died from Southern Democratic opposition despite strong support from Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1947 and 1948. This makes Dwight Eisenhower's success in passing civil rights bills in 1957 and 1960 all the more remarkable, since Democrats then controlled both Houses of Congress.‖
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6) is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S. Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. The two numbers in each line of this list refer to the number of representatives voting in favor and against the act, respectively. Senate: 77–19
Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%) Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)
Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%) Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)
Conference Report: Senate: 79–18
Democrats: 49–17 (four Southern Democrats voted in favor: Albert Gore, Sr., Ross Bass, George Smathers and Ralph Yarborough). Republicans: 30–1 (the lone nay was Strom Thurmond; John Tower who did not vote was paired as a nay vote with Eugene McCarthy who would have voted in favor.)
Democrats: 217–54 Republicans: 111–20
VERWYSINGS DEEL TWEE
―What else to make of the official party history as presented by the DNC on its Web site? It is a history so sanitized of historical reality it makes Stalin look like David McCullough. The DNC Web site section labeled "Party History," linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats' political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then--poof!--the next sentence says: "As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly." It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.
There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860. There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861 There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948. There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party." There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote. There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding. There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations. There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed." There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state." There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics. There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore. Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.‖
―History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.‖
BrookesNews.Com 19 May 2008 ―Did you know...Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican? Every civil rights law, beginning in the 1860s through the 1950s and 1960s, was fought against by Democrats? Or the KKK had links to the Democratic Party? Not only are these questions addressed by the National Black Republicans Association (NBRA), but also more surprising facts. A few months ago, we had the privilege to meet the chairwoman of NBRA, a brave and gusty woman named Frances Rice. "The double standard looms large when Democrats practice racism," says Rice. "Those who search in the Republican Party haystack for the racist needles, ignore the mountain of evidence about racism in the Democrat Party." Rice does not initially appear to be the type of person who would strike out and dare to challenge a giant, but that's just what this modern day "David" has done. Rice said her organization is working to set the record straight and "wake up" black voters and "shed the light of truth on the racist past and failed socialism of the Democratic Party." Little did we know Rice would soon be feeling the intense, sizzling heat of the national spotlight for reminding people and speaking the truth that the Democratic Party wishes we would all forget.‖
Joseph Farah covers party's history of murdering Republicans, blacks
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-295412 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/633044/Voting-Rights-Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
VERWYSINGS DEEL DRIE
Dr Martin Luther King Jr was ‗n Republikein.
A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK‟s Legacy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33756359/Alveda-King-Article ―Banished from memory was the fact that the Democratic Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and in 1894 overturned the civil rights laws of the 1860‘s that had been passed by Republicans, after the Republicans also amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote. Forgotten was the fact that it was the Republicans who started the HBCU‘s and the NAACP to stop the Democrats from lynching blacks. Into the dust bin of history was tossed the fact that it was the Republicans led by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who pushed to pass the civil rights laws in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Removed from memory are the facts that it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent 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 the1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation.‖
See the video of Dr. Alveda C. King affirming her uncle was a Republican at: www.NBRA.info YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZWXmoC5CYw
Why Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican
by Frances Rice 18
"In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism."
―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.‖
Dr. Alveda C. King (niece of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.) with Rev. Melita Scott & Frances Rice (photo provided by Andre Harper).
Let asseblief op die self-benaming van die Links-Liberale stroming in die Amerikaanse politiek. In die eerste drie dekades van die 20ste eeu het hulle na hulself as ―progressiewe‖ verwys. Van die 1930s tot die 1980s was hulle ―liberale.‖ Nou verkies hulle weer die term ―progressiewe.‖ Jonah Goldberg se boek waarvan hier onder ‗n resensie verskyn, bied ‗n deeglike analise van die filosofiese wortels en geskiedenis van die links-liberale-progressiewe stroming in die Amerikaanse politiek. Om balans te handhaaf, moet daar ook gewys word op die toksiese faksies in vandag se Republikeinse Party. Eerstens is daar Christen Fundamentalisme wat oor verskillende denominasies heen strek, van Evangeliese groepe tot ‗n Katoliek soos Rick Santorum. Dié mense se blaf is gewoonlik erger as hul byt en die bespotting en demonisering wat hulle van die massamedia ontvang, is ‗n gegewe. Die oorgrote meerderheid Amerikaners sal nooit hierdie faksie se kompulsiewe puritanisme aanvaar nie terwyl die meerderheid Republikeine ook maar soms op hul tande byt. John McCain, die 2008 Republikeinse presidentskandidaat, een van dié wat min geduld vir dié groep het. ‗n Numeries heelwat kleiner maar potensieel meer destruktiewe denkrigting word deur die kommentator Patrick Buchanan en die sogenaamde ―libertariër‖ Ron Paul verteenwoordig. Eintlik staan hierdie tipes net met een voet in die Republikeinse Party. Buchanan was in 2000 die presidentskandidaat vir die Reform Party en het 449,895 stemme (0.4%) ontvang. ―Tradisionalisties‖ is ‗n toepaslike term vir hulle. Hierdie mense hunker na ‗n ―goue verlede‖ wat nooit bestaan het nie. Die toksiese kenmerke is die volgende: (a) Fanatiese volgelinge (enigeen wat al ‗n Ron Paul bewonderaar as Facebook vriend/in gehad het, sal weet wat ek bedoel). (b) Verdraagsaamheid teenoor of aktiewe deelname aan samesweringsteorieë. (c) Anti-Semitisme en/of Anti-Sionisme wat wissel van openlik tot subtiel. (d) Ondertone van rassisme of geïmpliseerde rassisme. Dit is hierdie spektrum van faksies wie se retoriek aanleiding gegee het tot Timothy McVeigh se terreurdaad in 1995: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh en tot aanvalle op byvoorbeeld aborsieklinieke.
Secular salvationist ideology with a smiling face
In the intro, Goldberg discusses the confusion surrounding the term 'fascism' with reference to Roger Griffin, Emilio Gentile, Gilbert Allardyce, Ernst Nolte, Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell et al. The phenomenon has many variants & names whilst the manner of its expression is influenced by the national culture. Nowadays the term is loosely applied to 'anything not desirable.' The author investigates the characteristics of the movement, its roots in American Progressivism of the early 20th century, the New Deal and similarities with the agenda of what is today called Liberalism in the USA. First, he examines Benito Mussolini, in his day a favorite of the New York Times, New Republic, Hollywood and many intellectuals, until his invasion of Ethiopia in 1934. This chapter includes sections 21
on Jacobin Fascism with observations on the French Revolution, JJ Rousseau, Georges Sorel and Napoleon; and War, which deals with populism and pragmatism as forms of relativism. National Socialism predated Hitler, competed with communism for the same support base, used identity politics and was not identical with Italian Fascism as Goldberg points out in the 2nd chapter. Further information on the similarities, differences and the danse macabre of shifting alliances in 1930s Europe is available in Sinisterism by Bruce Walker. There's selective amnesia as regards Woodrow Wilson during whose presidency censorship, economic regulation, militarism, propaganda & corporatism dominated the USA. Unimaginable crackdowns on the media, restrictions of civil liberties & other outrages took place. During Roosevelt's New Deal the term Liberalism replaced Progressivism; it was the leftist author HG Well's who first promoted 'liberal fascism.' Goldberg shows how closely the programmes of Roosevelt, Mussolini & Hitler resembled one another. The third fascist movement exploded in the 1960s with the student riots, assassinations and terrorism of groups like the Weather Underground & Black Panthers. This tumult flowed from the writings of European academics like Paul de Man, Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault, Carl Schmitt and Derrida whose 'deconstruction' was a direct offshoot of Heidegger's variety of existentialism. The Reckless Mind by Mark Lilla takes a closer look at these intellectuals and what they promoted. They in turn influenced Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin & Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky. A wide chasm separates the aforementioned from the classical liberal, conservative or libertarian thinkers like Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke, Locke and Hayek. Classical Liberalism focused on the individual whilst its collectivist opponents favored the group, whether based on race, gender or whatever. Identity politics, in other words, Multiculturalism. The author traces the seeds of the 'god-state' idea from Hegel, Darwin and Bismarck's Prussia through the Frankfurt School and the marriage of psychology & Marxism through to Adorno, Marcuse & Fromm. Its chief propagandist was Richard Hofstadter. The Kennedy Myth underpinned Lyndon B Johnson's idea of the 'Great Society.' In truth, the 1960s tumult was a spiritual phenomenon that transpired 22
simultaneously on campus and in government with its vast spending sprees that resulted in family breakdown, the escalation of crime and street violence. The notion of 'unity', neutral in itself, is easily hijacked for the purpose irrational groupthink. Earlier in the 20th century, Eugenics was promoted by progressives like the Fabians, George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells & Maynard Keynes and opposed by traditionalists like GK Chesterton. The author quotes Nietzsche on eugenics and investigates Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood & the birth control movement. In the economic sphere, the Italian & German collectivist states enforced corporatism (co-ordination) and the New Deal was the same. Government meddling, regulating and corporate lobbying limit competition, are detrimental to small businesses and consumers, and resemble the corporatism of the European Axis powers and Prussia before that. Hillary's 'politics of meaning' is a theocratic concept since it claims that the collective can solve all problems via the state, leaving no room for voluntary associations. Today's culture wars echo Bismarck's Kulturkampf, with liberals as the aggressors. Then as now, the enemy is traditional religion and the battlefields are identity, morality, the family and nature, including environmentalism and the cult of the organic. By undermining truth, tradition and reason, ideologies like deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, pragmatism and relativism pave the way toward dystopia as Stephen Hicks argues so eloquently in Explaining Postmodernism. Liberalism in the USA is really Leftism, a secular salvationist ideology. No matter how 'nice' or ‗compassionate‘ it appears on the surface, it has been subverting Enlightenment standards for many decades. And without those standards, society eventually decays into the Nietzchean where brute force supplants reason. In the Afterword, Goldberg looks at the tempting of American conservatism which is a blend of cultural conservatism and classical political liberalism. The most notorious champion of tribalism on the Right is Patrick Buchanan, whose writings are examined. The author also looks at 'compassionate conservatism,' a well-meant policy that nevertheless extended state powers. Finally, Goldberg observes that transforming the USA into a European welfare state is not the end of 23
the world (although there's plenty of evidence that the real thing is unsustainable, nearing implosion and civilizational collapse). He warns against what might come beyond a europeanized, welfarist America. The Western European utopias so beloved of American liberals will show the way in the next two decades. Claire Berlinski's Menace in Europe and Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept offer intriguing glimpses into the continent's current mindset & possible future. The causes and undesirable trends are highlighted by the philosopher Chantal Delsol in her illuminating books Icarus Fallen and The Unlearned Lessons of the Twentieth Century. This well-researched and brilliantly argued book concludes with an appendix titled The Nazi Party Platform, 54pp of bibliographical notes and an index. For further reading, I recommend United in Hate by Jamie Glazov and A Conservative History of the American Left by Daniel Flynn.
Documents Similar To Die Triomf van Huigelary: Misleiding in die Inligtingsera
At Odds Again on Wiretapping (T)
The Difference Between Parites
Lessons Learned From the Last Election
Documents About Fifteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (2000)