“First of all, what country does Obama think he is running for president in? Why didn’t the media share the fact that immediately prior to the Obama arrival, they put on several free music concerts in order to get people to show up? Why go overseas and bash this country, apologize for this country? Why go work out at the Ritz instead of see wounded soldiers in a military hospital in Germany? Why cancel your visit and then blame it on the Pentagon when the fact of the matter is that the State Dept told Obama that he could visit but could not take cameras and the media for photo ops? Why go to Iraq and see that we are winning and the surge is working yet refuse to admit it to Catie Couric and say that even though we have succeeded, saving millions of lives both American, Allied, and Iraqi, that you would and do not support the surge? Why go on a fact finding trip and then after it all say that it didn’t change ANY of your views? Why, Obama, would you try to claim credit for Bush’s strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq? And why in the hell Obama would you be trapsing around the world pretending to be the president and insulting our military, giving the enemy credit for the success saying they “stood down”, and pandering to every group you see, when we, Americans, are suffering paying $4.00 + a gallon for gas?”

Like millions of other Americans, I feel no personal shame for the legacy of racism and slavery because my ancestors fought and died to END slavery in America. They were all Republicans.

But to appreciate Obama’s skilled misrepresentation, one must reexamine American History before they read his speech.

Democrats, Slavery, and Jim Crow

Contrary to Obama’s version of our Declaration of Independence, the signatories were divided by states that supported slavery and those that did not. Unless the opponents of slavery accepted the practice within slave states, pro-slavery Congressmen (New York, Pennsylvania) would not have signed the Declaration of Independence. And without unanimous agreement, the United States could not have waged a successful war for independence against the British.

While this compromise perpetuated slavery for another sixty years, it gave birth to the country that outlawed the practice of slavery throughout the Western World – the same country that continues to promote freedom throughout the world today. It would have been pointless to fight a civil war before establishing our American sovereignty.

When the American Revolution ended in 1789, Congress passed (and George Washington signed) a law (Art.6) stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.

Four years later, Thomas Jefferson formed the Democrat Party. By 1808, Congress abolished the slave trade in America although it was difficult to enforce in the Democrat-controlled slave states until imposed by Republicans during the Civil War. When Democrats gained control of Congress in 1818, they used their majority to undo these anti-slavery decisions. The Democrat Party passed the Missouri Compromise (1820), institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories. During the next thirty years, Democrats passed multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law, which ended all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus for blacks (even free men) who were falsely accused of being escaped slaves. Four years later, Democrats passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act that exceeded the limits of the Missouri Compromise by opening up new territories to slavery.

In 1854, the Republican Party was formed specifically to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues. And even after millions of Republicans volunteered to fight and die to end slavery, Democrats opposed every effort to codify and enforce civil rights in America.

From 1866 to 1875, the Republican Congress passed 19 civil rights laws, including the 14th and 15th Amendments that established citizenship for all and the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Democrats oppose them all and, when they took control of the House, Democrats established Jim Crow laws and repealed all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they could not repeal they skirted with poll taxes and literacy tests. Democrats controlled the black vote in the Solid South with this simple admonition – vote Democrat or we’ll burn down your home and kill your family. This was not a racist white-on-black practice, but a Democrat-on-black practice.

Obama’s Big Lie

Hillary supporters dare not contradict Obama’s Big Lie (white racism) because they’ve spent decades creating and promoting it. Since Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Democrats have used public schools, the media, and race baiters to convince Americans that 1) white children and their parents are responsible for the legacy of slavery and racism in America and 2) they will also grow up to be racists unless they help the Democrat Party end white racism (along with other pseudo-educational subjects like collective bargaining, immigration rights, gay rights, and global warming). Like affirmative action, Obama has redirected the Big Lie from Republicans onto white Democrats, who are now forced to choose between the rich white Democrat and the black messiah who will forgive us of our burdensome white guilt.

Obama’s oratory skills notwithstanding, no one corroborates his unsuitability as president more than his mentor and fellow race-baiter Jeremiah Wright. Whether the Obama Family was seated on a given day or not, no one can deny Wright’s enthusiastic congregation or the black talking heads that continue to endorse the Obama/Wright worldview. White Democrats like Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer refuse to discuss it, imploring us to MOVE ON, vernacular for, You’ve caught me in an indefensible position and I want to escape from my responsibility as your elected representative.

Because Obama is not the progeny of slavery or white racism, he bought his own authenticity by joining the most poisonous pseudo-church in Chicago. While the Harvard-educated politician and his affirmative action wife lent credibility to the church, Wright bestowed black authenticity to Obama. But like other fraud schemes, someone always gets stuck with the bag; which is why white Democrats cannot attack Obama without attacking their own mythology.

Obama has defined this racial fraud like no one before him. To be authentically black, must we accept that the United States deserved the attacks of 9/11? What about über-supporter Oprah Winfrey? To be authentically black, must she accept that the US government developed the AIDS virus to kill black people?

I’m not saying that Republicans don’t say whacky things, but I don’t have to accept ex-Democrat David Duke’s venom to be authentically white – even if my Mom’s Brazilian and my children are brown.

Although Democrats have a unique opportunity to free themselves from the tired rhetoric of America’s race-baiters, it’s hard to imagine how they will reform themselves without admitting to their institutional guilt. I suspect that, to most Democrats, buying into Barack Obama’s hallucinogenic lie will be much easier than accepting the truth about themselves.

While they could never achieve the universal equality now celebrated in Cuba and North Korea, liberal Democrats kept racial discrimination alive in America by shifting its historic intolerance from performance-driven black men and women toward performance-driven white men; and by forcing Americans to accept the consequence of mediocrity in silence to avoid indefensible charges of racism.

As lifelong beneficiaries of affirmative action, Hillary and Barak both suffer from delusions of entitlement. Their implacability is fueled by Hillary’s refusal to become Barak’s bitch, which is as unthinkable as Barak becoming Bill and Hillary’s houseboy.

As entertaining as this is for accomplished conservatives of all genders and races, Democrats are correspondingly pained by being forced to examine their own mediocrity. Had they promoted success and achievement without quotas since 1964, they would be choosing their candidate based upon accomplishment and character rather than melanin and menses.

So I for one will grab a beer, don my raincoat, and watch the flying mud, tomatoes, and claws. We’re about to witness the fruition of affirmative action in all its glory.

After Ted Kennedy endorsed Barak Obama, feminist Marcia Pappas (NOW) has excoriated him like a shrew whose husband has left for another man:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger… And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!

He’s picked the new (black) guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton…

Maybe Kennedy just supports the Democrat who he believes is least like Ms. Pappas.

But Americans should not fault Pappas for her tantrum. After all, isn’t her’s the logical argument for the champions of affirmative action and the abandonment of equal opportunity? While conservatives and independents now debate which candidate is most qualified to confront issues of national security, our economy, healthcare, illegal immigration and radical Islam, Democrats are still arguing whether dark skin is better than a vagina.

So much for the “party of change” - unless, of course, they’re referring to diapers.

Word on the street is that Hillary’s staffers are extremely pleased with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer for his softball questioning of Sen. Clinton during Thursday’s Las Vegas debate. Blitzer “was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far.”

Who were the questioners upon whom Blitzer called? According to CNN, they were “ordinary people, undecided voters.”

Plant #1: LaShannon Spencer, whom Blitzer introduced as an “undecided voter”, was tagged by Dan Riehl: in truth, she served as the political director of the Democratic Party of Arkansas… LINK

It was during my 8th grade history class when Ms. Lombardo told us that whites had enslaved blacks. She said that because we had benefitted from generations of slavery, we were racist.

The revelation troubled me a great deal. After all, my Republican ancestors had volunteered to end the slavery of men, women, and children that democrats had argued were their own private property and livestock. Some of my ancestors were injured and killed in the war. News of my bigotry saddened me.

The Drinking Fountain

I hadn’t felt that depressed since I was caught drinking from the middle fountain at Newcastle Elementary School.

One of the wrong girls had sipped from that fountain and, the instant my classmates saw that I’d touched the same knob, they spread the news throughout the entire playground! I wasn’t sure what had happened, but the consensus of laughter and ridicule made it clear that I now suffered a severe case of the cooties.

I rushed home in tears to my mother, only to have her laugh and tell me to go play.

But a strange and wonderful thing happened when I returned to school the next week. I discovered that by joining the anti-cootie coalition and not being friendly to certain classmates, I could inoculate myself against further cootie outbreaks. None of this made sense to me, but I was too desperate for the cure to ask questions.

Growing Up

After graduating high school, I lived and traveled all over the world. I learned other languages, participated in local customs and festivals, and married a Hindu girl from West Bengal. She raised our children while I served as an LA cop in the low-income neighborhoods I felt needed me most.

Sometime after 1994, the LAPD sent us to LA’s Museum of Tolerance for sensitivity and diversity training. After spending most of my life in service of people from all over the world, I was peeved that Democrats, who forced LA’s low income minorities to endure the worst pollution, schools, traffic, crime, and economic opportunities since the 1950s, now required ME to attend THEIR re-education camp.

Happily, the day wasn’t a complete waste. Docent George Brown gave an inspirational presentation of his experience inside Germany’s concentration camps. He spoke of his family’s extermination, his survival and eventual immigration to New York. He described the mobsters who robbed him and the long climb from his days as a penniless immigrant to eventually find success, love, and happiness.

He also described how, in an early act of social extortion, Angela Davis picketed his laundry and accused him of racism because he hadn’t hired enough black employees to satisfy her.

“What do you mean I’m a racist?” he cried. He confronted Davis and the picketers and described his nightmarish childhood. When he showed his tattoo, she took down her signs and left.

I raised my hand from the audience and asked, “What would you have told her if you were just another white guy like me?”

George replied, “I would’ve told her to F— OFF!”

The room erupted in laughter.

Politics of Conflict

To understand why democrats accuse others of racism, it helps to think like a child. Like many children, I sometimes squabbled with my siblings and, sometimes, turned physical. Eventually someone would yell:

“Clark hit me!”

“Clark!” scolded my father, “Did you hit your brother?”

“He hit me first!”

Although I was new to the politics of sibling conflict, I discovered that I could place others on the defense by accusing them of being as bad (or worse) than I was. My brother was bigger and older than me and, because evidence and time prevented a thorough investigation, my false accusation sometimes did more damage than my actual assault – as long as I was careful not to get caught or develop a pattern.

This strategy is similar to that used by criminal defendants, and taught in public schools and universities. With active support of the pro-democrat media, it’s also quite destructive. Juries acquit career predators and award undeserved tax revenues to them, while the falsely accused are forced to attend re-education clinics to change the way they think. Graduates of these clinics behave differently not because they’ve learned anything, but to avoid more torture by insipid liberalism.

The long sordid racist history of America’s Democrat Party is indisputable. In fact, it is so shameful that the DNC’s own website doesn’t mention their promotion of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the KKK, or the MANY other acts committed from 1820 (Missouri Compromise) through 1957, when Senate Democrats again blocked (Republican) President Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Bill.

And if you think Democrats changed their racist ways, ask yourself how democrats who supported segregation and Jim Crow in 1957 suddenly change their minds in 1958 or 1967? Can anyone say that blacks schooled by democrat-controlled union teachers today receive a better education than they did before Republicans forced desegregation in 1954?

That kind of change doesn’t occur in re-education classes. That sudden embrace of Republican ideals is as likely as OJ Simpson establishing a domestic violence think tank.

But it worked! What better way to transfer the Democrat Party’s well-deserved guilt than by forcing young impressionable children and college students to accept blame for centuries of the Democrat Party’s own depravity?

Like most public schools and universities, the University of Delaware program is just the latest scam. Schools and agencies all over America falsely accuse innocent and impressionable young Americans of contracting racial cooties before subjecting them to undeserved ridicule that can only be cured with equally inert placebos.

And as attractive as the placebo may sound, it’s far healthier for Americas to demand an end to the extortion and fraud that perpetuates America’s great cootie outbreak.

His whiney bloggers report that Fox and uber-meanie Roger Ailes are striking back after Edwards pulled out from a scheduled debate.

Fox has already started striking back at John for saying no. (There’s a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate “who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake” and “is impeding freedom of speech and free press.”

If one of America’s premier news agencies terrifies democrats like Edwards, how can we expect them to face REAL threats? When Edwards is confronted by Al Qaeda, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea, does he plan to visit France instead?

Crouch blames gangs and correctly draws parallels between KKK members “who became homicidally enraged at the idea of a black man acting as if he was a free person,” and today’s gangs that “terrorize black communities across the nation… with astonishing levels of murder and mayhem.”

Crouch recoils from “supposedly empathetic liberals” who define gang members as “victims of race and class.”

No such glib hogwash was spewed when the murderers were white and the resultant corpses were black. No one ever explained that the lower-class rednecks who were presenting themselves under peaked sheets while burning crosses, setting homes afire, bombing homes, offices and churches or murdering and mutilating their black victims, did so because they were feeling inferior to the white upper class of the South.

When the killers were white, the issues were justice and injustice, not social status or income. If there were actual justice, as we often heard during those violent Southern years of the civil rights movement, the killers would be punished for their crimes and black people would be able to walk the streets with the safety that should be the right of every citizen of this country.

Crouch writes that when gangs became more active 30 years ago, something changed:

…The opinions of those who had been so ice cold when it came to Southern racists either became quiet or looked for ways of explaining away the corpse after corpse after corpse left perforated by shotgun blasts and automatic weapons. Some were gang bangers, some were innocent bystanders, some were children caught in the crossfire.

Crouch describes the disconnect between liberals who defend gang members, and residents who live in the affected neighborhoods and want gang members “controlled, incarcerated, or removed from the world.” He concludes that the majority of law-abiding low-income residents prove that gangs and their enablers can’t blame poverty or “the system.”

Crouch is partially correct. Although he accurately describes the parallels between the KKK and gangs, he ignores the common source of their pathology.

Winning Elections At Any Cost

Throughout Reconstruction (1876-1964), Democrats had felt threatened by former slaves who, Republicans insisted, were suddenly their equals. Some former slaves were elected or appointed offices, including seats in the US Congress and Senate. The thought of Republicans controlling the South was, to Democrats, a real threat – one that demanded a strong course of action. Democrats relied on sympathetic judges and the Ku Klux Klan to enforce Jim Crow laws that secured The Solid South for nearly a century.

Today’s relationship between gangs, Democrats, activist judges, and misguided policies like Special Order 40 and gun control are strikingly similar to the historical relationships between the KKK, Democrats, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Jim Crow during Reconstruction. Republicans who promoted racial equality faced the same threats, regardless of complexion. Negroes were safe, as long as they weren’t too uppity AND supported Democrats.

To distract us from the parallels identified by Stanley Crouch, Democrats have convinced Americans to believe that the historical antagonism between Republicans and Democrats was not political, but racial. And as long as voters supported their stable of Democrats, they were safe from allegations of white guilt (or self-hatred) often used to coerce behavior.

Planned or not, LA is as controlled by Democrats as the “Solid South” was 80 years ago. And because Republicans forced Democrats to outlaw lynching, Democrats now use intimidation, Oreo cookies, Judas horses and violence to influence elections. Democrats know that, 1) they cannot win national elections without California, 2) they cannot deliver California without Los Angeles, and 3) they cannot secure Los Angeles without union support. And as long as their multi-billion dollar fraud scheme continues to indoctrinate and retard students, LAUSD’s union teachers will continue to deliver fresh laborers whose illiteracy relies on artificially inflated union jobs to feed their families. And once a worker joins, union bosses are free to exploit their membership into supporting Democrats who empower the unions. (diagram)

Enter the Gladiators

Aided by Republicans who favor cheap labor, Democrats welcomed illegal aliens into sanctuary cities like Los Angeles to attract an unlimited source of desperate laborers. With uncontrolled borders, gangs and criminals followed.

Like church-burning arsonists, Democrats ignited ruses like global warming, multiculturalism, and racial profiling to distract voters.

But the greatest distraction plays out daily in the mainstream media. In a virtual coliseum that seats millions, Americans are entertained by an endless procession of modern gladiators: Police officers, immigrants, gang members, and assorted criminals that are both vilified and celebrated by their competing audiences. We are warmed by the multicultural pageantry of colors, badges, uniforms, and complexions as they pass before us. We hurl insults and epithets like tomatoes and trash, while those who distinguish themselves are cheered with equally raucous enthusiasm.

To control the restless spectators, the council and senate continuously tweak the rules. When cops have the advantage, they are blinded by artificial controls that make it difficult to identify gangs from allies. When gangs secure the advantage, injunctions are issued. When a gladiator assaults another, spectators revile him. If the crowd grows dangerous, prosecutors put him on trial which, when convicted, momentarily sates the audience.

From the relative safety of our living rooms, we are mesmerized by the cloudy donnybrook of notorious and anonymous characters. When spectators are sometimes caught like gnats in a web, we are transfixed as their lives are sucked from their convulsing bodies.

This drama does not begin or end, but continues like a one-season soap that is hopelessly looped by reruns. With our social conscience anesthetized by the formulaic spectacle of missing children, gruesome accidents, drive-by shootings, unsolved murders, wild weather, and sports highlights, few of us notice the crumbling walls of our city.

And while Stanley Crouch blames gangs, the ACLU blames police, immigrants blame racism, terrorists blame Zionists, Gore blames global warming, liberals blame America, conservatives blame the media, academics blame the military, Hillary blames swift-boaters, gays blame homophobes, parents blame teachers, Obama blames poverty, teachers blame parents, and cats blame dogs, LA Democrats quietly prepare for the next election. If that’s not a “systematic plan” for political success, I don’t know what is.

Although one essay cannot adequately present proof, these books, this movie, and this Civil War series contain plenty of resources for further study.

Like my antagonist and many other Americans, public schools taught me that white people had enslaved blacks and that their progeny were entitled to relief. I didn’t question this, although it didn’t square with my ancestors who fought to end slavery 150 years ago. If whites were guilty, why did two million of them interrupt their lives to fight the bloodiest war in American history to free slaves owned by Southern Democrats? If this was a white-against-black thing, why did whites fight the Civil War against other whites?

The answer is that the Civil War wasn’t between whites and blacks, but between Republicans who wanted to end slavery, and Democrats who did not. And as ugly as the Democratic Party’s roots and legacy of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and Disenfranchisement is, why does the party still exist today?

The first clue of this information blackout comes directly from Democrats. Although the Republican Party proudly discloses their Abolitionist roots on their website, the Democratic Party (DNC) website ignores their slavery agenda, excluding the entire period between 1848 and the 20th Century. Instead, the DNC boasts the “longest running political organization in the world”, the “Democratic cause” (slavery) and their dominance in urban (e.g., black) politics - as if Democrats had nothing to do with the brutality used to round up blacks.

This is a synopsis of what the DNC website missed.

Failed Reconstruction

This geographical representation contains pre-war information on free states and slave states. The Civil War began when Democrats wanted to spread slavery west and the Republican Party wanted to end it. Five years later, 360,000 Yankees (e.g., Republicans) had died in the struggle to free slaves from Democrat slaveholders.

Democrats weren’t happy with Reconstruction (1865-1877), especially when the Radical Republicans (including former slaves) began to supervise reforms.

Imagine how former slaveholders felt about being supervised by Yankees and black Republicans. These Democrats quickly adopted Jim Crow laws and formed the Ku Klux Klan – a group that “only used force when the forces of the Radical Republicans gave them no other choice.” (With these enforcement tools, its not hard to imagine how Democrats controlled 98 percent of the vote in the South by 1944.)

Former slaves like Congressman John Lynch and Senator Blanche Bruce were both Republican, as were all 23 blacks who entered Congress after the Civil War. Thirteen were ex-slaves. Mississippi’s history illustrates the political ascendancy of blacks from 1865 until 1890, when Democrats used fraud, violence, and intimidation to pass a new state constitution that undid all of the Republican reforms gained during Reconstruction.

Blacks weren’t welcomed into the Democratic Party until 1935, when Congressman Arthur Mitchell (who Democrats supported for his opposition to the NAACP) was elected in Chicago. By 1948, Democrats offered some modest reforms (they outlawed lynching in 1939) and Houston native Barbara Jordan became the first black congresswoman from a southern state in 1973.

Mississippi Burning was NOT about whites who killed blacks – it was about Democrats who murdered civil rights workers trying to implement reforms in 1964 that President Lincoln had secured (and 360,000 Yankees died for) a century earlier. These workers died trying to restore what Democrats sabotaged since 1865 and still undermine today.

Reparations Lawsuit

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is now reviewing Case No. 05-35890 in which a descendant of slavery is suing the Democratic Party.

The Plaintiff alleges:

1. Democrats supported Slavery and its expansion into the northern states
2. Democrats introduced the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act to expand slavery into the northern states
3. Democrats support of the Dred Scott Decision
4. Democrats supported Fugitive Slave Laws
5. Democrats collectively opposed the 13th Amendment to end slavery
6. Democrats collectively opposed the 14th Amendment to give blacks citizenship
7. Democrats collectively opposed the 15th Amendment to give blacks the right to vote
8. Democrats exhausted every efforts to destroy Reconstruction including opposing the 1867 Reconstruction Act and coming up with the Compromise of 1877
9. Democrats opposed the Freedman Bureau
10. Democrats opposed Senate Bill 60 of 1866 to give blacks 40 acres and mule (It was Democratic President Andrew Johnson that vetoed the Bill)
11. Democrats supported of the Slaughter House Case
12. Democrats opposed the 1866 Civil Rights Acts
13. Democrats opposed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and continue to opposed anti-lynching laws up through 1965
14. Democrats passed a multitude of Jim Crow Legislation
15. Democrats passed of Black Codes
16. Democrats establishment of the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist auxiliaries for their Party to keep blacks in their place
17. Democrats promoted White Supremacy
18. Democrats opposed blacks schools and colleges
19. Democrats supported of Plessy v Ferguson legalizing Segregation
20. Democrats were against the decision in the case of Brown v Board of Education
21. Democrats supported, participated and endorsed over 5,000 lynching in states under their control
22. Democrats opposed to the NAACP and other organization designed to help blacks
23. Democrats were in opposition to blacks holding political office and drove many from office during Reconstruction with terror and violence
24. Southern Democrats debated against the passage of the 1964 Civil Right Act
25. Southern Democrats debated against the passage of 1965 Voting Rights Act
26. Southern Democrats fought against Affirmative Action
27. Southern Democrats fought against the integration of Southern schools
28. Democrats supported and participated in burning down middle class black communities like those in Rosewood, Florida, Wilmington, North Carolina and the Greenwood District (Black Wallstreet) in Tulsa Oklahoma
29. Southern Democrats fraudulently took over two million acres of black property according to an investigation by Associated Press
30. Democrats in an effort to keep blacks in their place used sadistic torture, terror and violence including: lynching, mutilations, murder, decapitations and beating and burning to death countless number of blacks.

Although the Plaintiff only wants an apology, the Democratic Party has hired Attorney Dave Burman to avoid even that. Berman does not dispute the allegations, but wants the complaint dismissed because the Plaintiff has not shown the “concrete and personalized injury” necessary to confer standing.

So with all of this (and much more) information available, why are so many Americans ignorant of our own history? I haven’t found a definitive answer yet, but it seems to coincide with the end of segregation. Democrats have learned that by empowering blacks who are willing to marginalize Republican abolitionists, they can tame Judas Horses like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters to control blacks and large populations of poorly educated American voters.

The Myth of Republican Racism

As I Googled my way around the Internet, I found that most news, government, and university websites offer information on slavery and post-Civil War brutality, but inexplicably ignore or defend the undeniable linkages to Democrats. Many sites describe the Civil War, Jim Crow, Disenfranchisement, and the KKK as if unrelated to the Democratic Party’s effort to control black voters.

The Ku Klux Klan justifies its history as a response to persecution by “Radical Republicans” during Reconstruction, but doesn’t mention Democrats. Republicans were considered radical because, to many Democrats, freeing slaves was as radical an idea as freeing their livestock and horses.

Northridge University’s Ronald Davis offers a comprehensive timeline of Jim Crow but doesn’t mention Democrats until the White Primary (1944) decision eighty years later. The University of Michigan shows a 98 percent Democratic vote in the Deep South but doesn’t explain how voting was enforced by Jim Crow, Disenfranchisement, and the KKK. George Mason University does the same thing, implying that blacks preferred the Jim Crow party over Republicans who had freed them. The Colombia Encyclopedia states that organizations like the Ku Klux Klan kept “African Americans and white Republicans from voting” but doesn’t mention the Democrats behind it. Like Wikipedia, Long Island University’s History of Slavery does not mention Democrats either. These slave narrative and photo sites make no mention as well.

Children who click on Discovery.com’s US link will learn that Europeans brought slaves to American and the Lincoln freed them. Children are apparently old enough to learn that racism is wrong, but not old enough to know that truth about Democrats. Slaveryinamerica.org offers educational resources, but nothing on Democrats. Duke University offers some books on the subject, but you have to buy them or visit. Emancipated slave Ida Wells wrote that lynching was used to keep blacks out of the political process, but the website that quotes her doesn’t say why.

Despite the historical evidence against the Democratic Party, why are so many Americans so ignorant about their past? Why do so many American voters still support the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and lynching?

Rewriting History

The media and university biases that have created and enforced this historical blackout are well documented.

Like most unions, the National Education Association (NEA) extorts millions of dollars from taxpayers through union strikes. Union leaders then draw millions from workers in the form of union dues and direct them back to their pockets and the Democratic Party. The NEA is the fourth largest contributor to the Democratic Party (DNC).

I have described the relationship between teacher unions and the DNC that produce millions of undereducated and indoctrinated graduates and drop-outs HERE, HERE, and HERE. Teachers, like the media and universities, have an incentive not to expose the real history of the Democratic Party - for anyone who understands their history will find parallels between their past and how they control black Americans and laborers today. Why haven’t Americans asked why blacks in cities like New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Detroit still suffer after 40 years of almost exclusively Democratic Party leadership? Why do some of these neighborhoods still look like neighborhoods from the Deep South during Jim Crow?

Here are some a number of reasons:

• Democrats have co-opted the media, public schools, and unions.
• Democrats empower union leaders who control teachers, writers, movie production laborers, actors, electrical workers, and so forth to redirect union dues back to Democrats who empower them
• Union teachers and educators write the curriculum taught in public schools, careful not to offend the party that empowers them while marginalizing Republicans
• Union actors, set workers, writers, musicians, and others in the media are careful not to alienate their union leadership and the Democratic Party to avoid workplace retaliation.

As a result of these and other forces, Americans are inundated with propaganda and union pressure that not only rewards acquiescence, but also punishes resistance.

This is why so many people don’t believe Democrats lynched blacks, which is part of the reason why I am now a Republican. Democrats continue to prove that those who do not understand their history are condemned to repeat it.

Subsequent related essays:

Challenging an Unreasonable Doubt (2008)
An Exercise in Futility (2008)