http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/m-democrats_responsible_for_black_culture_of_anger.html
Posted from WordPress for Android
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/m-democrats_responsible_for_black_culture_of_anger.html
Posted from WordPress for Android
Posted from WordPress for Android
This is just one of the reasons I love Allen West so much. He is fearless. And in this floor speech commemorating Black History Month, West seeks to correct the lies and propaganda from those on the left by telling the real historical account of how Republicans have always stood up for the rights of African Americans, from the past all the way to the present.
Allen West says that Republicans have always been the party of free men, and starting with Josiah T Walls, he tells of how Republicans have always been on the side of freeing the slaves, giving them equal protection under the law and giving them the right to vote. Here are just a few things he notes:
Regarding the fourteenth amendment, he says a little known fact is that every vote in favor of granting citizenship to blacks were by Republicans and every vote against were from Democrats.
And when it came to the 15th amendment that guaranteed blacks the right to vote, he concedes that a few Republicans didn’t vote for the proposal, abstaining because they felt it didn’t go far enough. But once again, he says Democrats voted against it and when it passed anyway, it was the Democrats who used poll taxes and literacy tests to intimidate blacks from voting.
And there’s a whole lot more. This is a MUST WATCH:
—
Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats | “We the People”.
Family Security Matters
Comment by Jim Campbell
This will be a very interesting suit to follow. The plaintiffs, Rev Perryman and The National Black Republican Association are very well equipped to make this happen. It seems they might have had an equally compelling case demonstrating how democrat policy and the Black Caucus and Obama have used the same progressive policies which are actually regressive in nature; hurting blacks and the poor disproportionately. Obama’s promise to not raise taxes not one dime on those making under $250,000 was the tip of that he was a liar as taxes were immediately raised by those who could less afford it. Oddly they have picked grievances going back to the days of slavery and Jim Crow Laws.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and i approve this message.
Seattle. On September 11, 2011, blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast joined together and signed one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared on racial discrimination, then filed their brief yesterday, September 12th, at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time in US District Court in Seattle (Case No. C11 – 1503). The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as “Father of Racism,” allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011.
Rev. Wayne Perryman, a former Democrat himself and the lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, said he was inspired to file this action after seeing the recent movie The Help. The movie takes place in the region that was exclusively controlled by Democrats for more than 150 years (the South). Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mrs. Rice is a resident of Sarasota, Florida and has lived in the the South most of her life.
The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case-law, research from our nation’s top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat’s National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excerpts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.
Will Austin conservatives follow this trend?
Democrats defect: Conservative Democrats switch to GOP across the South – latimes.com
via Democrats defect: Conservative Democrats switch to GOP across the South – latimes.com.
For Democrats, Ashley Bell was the kind of comer that a party builds a future on: A young African American lawyer, he served as president of the College Democrats of America, advised presidential candidate John Edwards and spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.
But after his party’s midterm beat-down in November, Bell, a commissioner in northern Georgia’s Hall County, jumped ship. He joined the Republicans.
Bell, 30, said he had serious issues with the healthcare law and believed that conservative “blue dog” Democrats in Congress who shared his values had been bullied into voting for it.
Bell’s defection is one of dozens by state and local Democratic officials in the Deep South in recent months that underscore Republicans’ continued consolidation of power in the region — a process that started with presidential politics but increasingly affects government down to the level of dogcatcher.
“I think the midterms showed you really can’t be a conservative and be a member of the Democratic Party,” Bell said.
Since the midterm election, 24 state senators and representatives have made the switch in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Texas.
In some cases, the ramifications have been profound: In Louisiana, defecting Democrats gave Republicans a majority in the state House for the first time since Reconstruction; in Alabama, they delivered the GOP a House supermajority. Republicans have 65 votes to the Democrats’ 39, enough to pass constitutional amendments over Democratic opposition.
The trend continued through late January — when nine officials in Lamar County in northeastern Texas left the Democratic Party — and into last week, when Louisiana Atty. Gen. James D. “Buddy” Caldwell switched parties, leaving the GOP in control of every major state office in Baton Rouge.
Democrats may remain competitive in some parts of the South in 2012. The Democratic Party’s announcement last week that it will hold its national convention in Charlotte, N.C., may help President Obama’s chances in what has become a Southern swing state — and one that he narrowly won in 2008.
But peering farther South, he will face a sea of red that is increasingly deep: Republicans hold every Southern governor’s mansion except in North Carolina and Arkansas, and control most of the state legislative chambers.
Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said the party-switching — in addition to big Republican legislative gains in the South in the November election — reflect an ongoing “top-down realignment” of the region’s white voters from old-school conservative Democrat to Republican.
Decades ago in the South, he said, “the issues that hurt the Democrats were issues first introduced in national politics.” In other words, “the increased liberalization of the Democratic Party.”
Republican presidential candidates made inroads in the South beginning in 1964 with Barry Goldwater, who won a number of Southern states because he opposed the Civil Rights Act. Many local offices, however, remained in Democratic hands, even if the officeholders were conservative and white.
Over time, traditional Democratic support has eroded at the local level, a decline aided by the Internet and 24-hour cable news, which have allowed Republicans to “more easily connect local politics with what’s happening nationally,” said David Avella, president of GOPAC, a Republican group that supports state and local politicians.
Many of the defectors have echoed Bell’s assertion that Democrats have become too liberal.
“The truth is that this change of party is in line with thousands of everyday people who simply feel more comfortable with most of what the Republican Party represents locally and nationally,” Caldwell said in a statement.
Caldwell is up for reelection as Louisiana’s attorney general this year. But switching sides isn’t always a winning move: Former U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama moved to the GOP in 2009, and then lost in a Republican primary.
The party-switchers also leave behind hurt feelings among stalwart Democrats. Jim Taflinger, head of the Hall County Democratic Party in Georgia, said it was sad that a promising figure like Bell would walk away from an “incredible resume” as a Democrat.
“You know, there’s been a lot of party-switching going on,” Taflinger said. “I think it’s not so much policy driven … so much as environment driven. The business environment is such that you have to be careful up here calling yourself a Democrat — there’s a stigma to it.”
In his part of the world, Taflinger said, a big part of his job is to “let people know it’s OK to be Democrats again.”
President’s ineptness quite clear after a year – KansasCity.com.
What happened to the bright dreams, the hope and change? A year ago, fate handed President Obama one of the most tantalizing political opportunities in history.
His party enjoyed a blowout election. The Republicans were leaderless and devoid of ideas. The Democrats had hefty majorities in both houses of Congress. Obama had stratospheric approval ratings and the support of a nation profoundly fearful of the future.
And then he threw it all away. He outsourced chunks of his job to a left-wing congressional leadership that has learned nothing and forgotten nothing for the past 35 years.
What came next was one appalling legislative blob after another: the stimulus package that hasn’t stimulated, the cap-and-trade monster, the health care power-grab.
When Obama assumed office, he was still something of an enigma. Many asked: Who is this guy?
Well, now we know a lot more. The bottom line: He isn’t a good politician. Politics is an art, and Obama’s basic competence is highly suspect. He lacks the personal radar an effective politician must have — the instinct to know when you’re on solid ground and when you’re tilting at windmills. Obama has spent a year tilting at windmills.
The “art of the possible” isn’t static. With steady accomplishments, an effective leader can expand the zone of the possible. A winner draws new adherents, builds coalitions, acquires new strength for the next challenge.
For a weak leader, the opposite applies: His credibility shrinks, and so do the ranks of his followers. His ability to accomplish anything becomes doubtful.
This is the vicious circle that now ensnares Obama. He has succeeded mainly in uniting his opposition and dividing his own camp. House and Senate Democrats are openly sniping at one another. The hard left — Obama’s base — is writing him off as inept.
The sense of disarray was only reinforced by his State of the Union speech.
Let’s give a cheer or two for the proposed cut in the capital gains tax for small businesses and the spending freeze plan — while noting that the latter applies to only a small part of the budget, doesn’t begin until next year and comes only after spending was recklessly accelerated. Obama wants to “freeze” outlays at stratospheric, stimulus-package levels.
If Obama is serious about two of his main points — a second stimulus package and his renewed call for Congress to pass health care reform — then he has learned nothing from the last year and the political earthquake in Massachusetts.
Despite its enormous cost, last year’s stimulus package has failed to live up to expectations. So, his response is: Do it again?
On health care, he offered no suggestions to deadlocked Democrats as to how they should pass a bill disliked by most Americans. The House can’t pass the Senate bill and the Senate couldn’t pass the House bill. Obama’s advice: Keep trying what isn’t working.
Like Jimmy Carter, Obama squandered much of his political capital in his first year. Before last week’s speech, it was possible to argue that it wasn’t too late for him to adopt a new approach and move toward the center. Now it’s clear he has no such intention.
A big clue to Obama appeared long before his election, when he was still a senator.
He’s stubborn. With the tide indisputably turning in Iraq, he remained opposed to the troop surge and claimed it was bound to fail. When he took office, the economic landscape was completely transformed. But he refused to put off health care and cap-and-trade, even though voters thought the economy was a much higher priority.
He has another problem, most evident in his handling of foreign policy.
He sold out the Czechs and Poles on missile defense to appease Russia — and got nothing in return. He stuck with “engagement” on Iran, missing an opportunity to voice full-throated support for the Iranian opposition. In dealing with China, he shrank from the topic of human rights.
The question raised by French President Nicolas Sarkozy — “Is he weak?” — must be answered in the affirmative.
The media portrait of Obama during the campaign made much of his cool, unflappable temperament. But that ignored his most telling qualities. Stubborn and weak is not what you want in a president. No wonder he’s already talking about the prospect of a single term.
To reach E. Thomas McClanahan, call 816-234-4480 or send e-mail to mcclanahan@kcstar.com.
Read more: President’s ineptness quite clear after a year – KansasCity.com
Document sheds light on ethics probe in Congress – washingtonpost.com.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 2, 2009
The 22-page document revealed that the ethics committee, as of late July, was looking into the activities of at least 19 lawmakers, including reviews of home mortgages and interviews about corporate-backed trips for members of Congress to Caribbean resorts. Combined with the inquiries being conducted by a new ethics office, the document showed a far more robust set of investigations than previously revealed.
But the document also brings potential political peril for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose party claimed the majority in November 2006 after she promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption on Capitol Hill. Two and a half years into Pelosi’s reign, more than 25 Democrats have been targeted for ethics reviews by the two ethics bodies, while just seven Republicans appeared to be under scrutiny, according to the document.
Republicans have criticized Pelosi for declining to take away power from close allies such as Reps. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Both are powerful chairmen who were previously known to be under investigation, but the new document offered greater detail about those probes.
Rangel said in an interview he was interviewed by the ethics committee about a trip he took to a Caribbean resort that may have been underwritten by corporate interests. Such privately financed trips were forbidden under rules Pelosi pushed shortly after taking over in 2007. Rangel said the interview did not cover other allegations about his personal finances.
Release of the document, which was provided to The Washington Post by a source with no connection to the ethics committee or Congress, provided an unexpected window into the inner workings of the committee, which has operated in secrecy for decades.
The scope of its activities provided a counterpoint to critics who have questioned whether the panel — made up of six Democrats, six Republicans and a staff of fewer than 10 lawyers — has taken its work seriously. Ethics watchdogs, who have spent more than a decade pummeling the House and Senate ethics committees, offered rare praise for the House panel and the new Office of Congressional Ethics.
“Both groups are seriously pursuing their ethics responsibilities at this stage,” six groups said in a joint statement.
But the revelations have also triggered new sensitivities for the ethics committee, which is formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Some lawyers have privately wondered whether the disclosures could damage cases the committee was pursuing. And lawmakers questioned the panel’s professionalism for allowing a now-dismissed junior staffer to take the document home and accidentally load it onto a computer that was using peer-to-peer technology, opening all her files to everyone logged into that network.
The leaders of the ethics committee, Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) alerted colleagues Thursday evening and cautioned that some newly revealed cases could just be cursory reviews by staff members. However, the nearly three dozen cases in the confidential report come under the heading “Investigative Issues of Significance.”
Watchdog work
The document covered every activity undertaken by the ethics committee staff for the week of July 27, revealing a hefty workload ranging from complex legal work to mundane requests from congressional staff. One lawyer, for example, fielded 21 phone calls from aides seeking guidance on House rules, reviewed 43 travel requests for staff members or lawmakers hoping to be in sync with chamber rules and reviewed seven financial disclosure forms.
A senior aide to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) asked whether a lawmaker and aide, while visiting a private ranch on a fact-finding trip, could accept horseback rides from the owner so they could traverse the massive ranch. That was ap proved by a committee lawyer.
The chief of staff for Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) asked if it was permissible to use official congressional e-mail to alert citizens outside his eastern Iowa district to lobby other members of Congress on a particular issue. Staff rejected this request, saying it would break the “prohibition on members conducting and assisting outside lobbying of Congress.”
Committee inquiries rarely become public, only at the most serious stages. Some reprimands are private. Only in recent years has the committee published biannual reports documenting the number of ongoing investigations.
The system is meant to protect innocent lawmakers from the political fallout of being identified as under investigation in cases that are not substantial, according to Robert Walker, a former counsel for the House and Senate ethics committees. He rejected criticism that the panel did not conduct enough inquiries.
“The House ethics committee has historically engaged in a number of ongoing investigations on a regular basis. Many groups may not be willing to acknowledge that, but they did occur,” he said.
A new ethics enforcer
Most watchdog groups credited a spike in committee activity to the Office of Congressional Ethics, a semi-independent body that conducts investigations and makes recommendations to the full ethics committee. Only the committee retains the power to punish a lawmaker.
The OCE’s creation came after a more than yearlong negotiation between Pelosi and many Democrats and Republicans who objected to a new ethics body.
Now in its first year of existence, the OCE operates with a mandate of speedy probes and public dissemination of information. It is run by a former federal prosecutor who helped send Enron executives to prison and a former Air Force prosecutor who tried terrorists.
The newly released document hints at the uneasy coexistence of the ethics committee and OCE. That relationship hit a bump last week after the committee dismissed a potential case referred from the ethics office.
OCE investigators had found that a Republican lawmaker probably broke rules by inviting his wife’s business partner to testify at a hearing, but the ethics committee unanimously dismissed the case and rebuked the OCE for misunderstanding House rules.
The most persistent critics of the ethics committee said the decision was more evidence of lawmakers declining to police their colleagues. But they also expressed mixed emotions after release of the document.
“We were pleasantly surprised to learn the ethics committee is investigating so many members of Congress, but starting an investigation isn’t enough. The real question is whether any of the members under investigation will ever be held accountable for their conduct,” said Melanie Sloan, founder of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
You must be logged in to post a comment.