Blog-Repost: Republicans and Democrats Did Not Switch Sides On Racism

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: "the parties switched sides", a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

Flip the "switch"

A history of legislation, the Republican party, and racism:

---

Republican party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party.
Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 as a pro-slavery, pro-segregation, and white power organization. (Coincidence?)

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. - History Channel

The Dred Scott decision was in 1857. President-elect Buchanan (a Democrat) wrote to Supreme Court Justice John Catron (a Democrat) about settling the case before his inauguration. Chief Justice Taney (also a Democrat) delivered the Court's opinion that a slave could not be a citizen of the United States.

The Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1861.

Switching the narative

I just want ANYONE to answer me this.

When former KKK member and Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd, who wrote a friendly letter to the Grand Wizard of the KKK in 1946, was first elected in 1950 to the West Virginia Senate as a Democrat, had he "switched sides"?

When he was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1953 as a Democrat, had he "switched sides"?

When he was elected to the US Senate in 1959 as a Democrat, had he "switched sides"?

When he filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours as a Democrat, had he "switched sides"?

In his filibuster, he said, "Men are not created equal today, and they were not created equal in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written." Had he "switched sides"?

When he remained in office, re-elected continuously from 1959 to 2010, when at age 92 he died, each time being re-elected by the same Democrats of West Virginia who first elected him sixty years prior, had he "switched sides"?

And the more important question is, when did the people who elected him "switch sides"? Democrats have controlled the WV state Congress since 1931 until 2014, four years after Byrd's death. Democrats have since 1933 until today (2016) held the Governorship of West Virginia 67 of 83 those years. In which year did they "switch sides"?

---

source:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/06/what_does_an_exalted_cyclops_do.html
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2001/03/democratic-sen-robert-byrd-ex-klansman/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105_3.html
http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/756
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/byrd/
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/article_bea0ee78-82a8-11df-8e4d-001cc4c03286.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/28/obit.byrd/
http://wvmetronews.com/2014/11/04/gop-makes-historic-gains-in-state-legislature/
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/governors/past-governors-bios/page_west_virginia.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_West_Virginia

Miss. the point

Mississippi lawyers and "legal scholars" responded to HB1523, the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act"... which is ironic in itself, as it was drafted by Mississippi lawyers and legal scholars... principally authored and introduced by Speaker of the House, Gunn; juris doctor from MS School of Law... co-sponsor Gipson; juris doctor from MS School of Law... but the fact that we are to take "legal scholars" opinions about this is simply an Appeal to Authority.

however, let's address the scholar's argument against:

We share the view of Justice Kennedy when he expressed that “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest,” and would add that neither can such a desire be justified in the name of religious liberty.

well let me retort with another Supreme Court Justice, referring to the same case [Romer v. Evans] as quoted by the above Justice Kennedy:

The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "'bare ... desire to harm' " homosexuals, ante, at 634, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws.

do you see what he said?... it is an attempt by a religious community to protect their Constitutionally guaranteed right to practice their sincerely held beliefs and traditions against a "politically powerful" group which wish to revise their religious practices through the cudgel of law-fare... and that is what HB1523 is precisely trying to accomplish... now, we can argue as to the effectiveness of said law to accomplish that weighty task, however what we cannot deny is the concerted attempt by those outside of a religion to force their own mores onto the religion by use of legal pressure and threat of governmental intervention... if there was ever a greater threat to "Separation of Church and State", i surely don't know of one.

and these scholars are using a statement from a case [Romer v. Evans] which fought against discrimination of a "politically unpopular group", in that case the homosexuals... here, we have it turned upon it's head, where the "politically unpopular group" has become not the minority but an entire religion... and HB1523 is saying that "a bare desire to harm" someone who acts in a manner consistent with their religious practices should not "constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from favoring or disfavoring any particular religion or religion in general.

this statement flies in the face of what the legal scholars just said in their own previous statement... here we have numerous cases of the government disfavoring religion in general, yet when HB1523 attempts to remove itself from the fray, suddenly these legal scholars want the government to take sides again!

In Cutter v. Wilkinson, the Court upheld a broad religious accommodation law while explaining that accommodations need not be granted where they “impose unjustified burdens” on third parties or the State. Most recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court granted a religious accommodation to an employer but repeatedly emphasized in the opinion the fact that employees would, according to the Court, not be harmed.

and then the legal scholars quote two cases where religious liberties were upheld, but they want us to believe that HB1523 will cause government to "tend to express support" by not allowing homosexuals to punish religion for following their beliefs... this is twisted logic... two cases uphold the rights of people and companies to practice their sincerely held beliefs, HB1523 goes out of its way to secure the rights of both homosexuals and religion, yet by passage of this law the government has "expressed support" for one over the other... by supporting the rights of one group, you are not de facto denying the rights of another group... you can, in fact, allow both parties their rights, which is what HB1523, albeit clumsily, tries to do.

Those who will be most harmed by this law are LGBT Mississippians, intersex persons, persons who defy sex and gender stereotypes, and persons who have had sex outside marriage—the most easily-identifiable of whom are unmarried parents and pregnant persons.

oh my God (pun intended).

In many different contexts that will be enumerated below, the law strips Mississippians of applicable antidiscrimination protections in order to accommodate the preferences of religious individuals and institutions.

so what are the "enumerated" contexts which protections will be removed?

Several Mississippi municipalities have passed resolutions opposing discrimination against LGBT people, or protecting LGBT people from some forms of discrimination. As acceptance for LGBT rights continues to grow, other municipalities are likely to follow suit. In addition, some administrative agencies and courts have held that sex discrimination laws are properly interpreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex stereotyping, sexual orientation, or gender identity. In 2013, for example, the 5th Circuit found that the prohibition of sexual harassment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protected a male employee whose male co-workers called him “kind of gay” and a “faggot.”

 i'm just going throw a flag here.

By exempting certain religious entities from an obligation to treat all Mississippians equally, HB 1523 effectively sacrifices the equality rights of many in order to accommodate the religious preferences of a few. In some cases, accommodations will also intrude upon Mississippians’ privacy rights. Allowing discrimination based on sexual practices and gender identity could lead employers, housing providers, businesses, and even the state to demand intrusive and unnecessary information from citizens about their sexual histories, practices, and even their private anatomies.

now, i will agree that HB1523 makes a faux pas when it comes to religious organization housing providers... Section 3(1)(c) of the law states that:

The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization [m]akes any decision concerning the sale, rental, occupancy of, or terms and conditions of occupying a dwelling or other housing under its control, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.

but i don't know of a case where a religious organization has property which is for public sale, rent, or occupancy which it could then discriminate against someone who is LGBT... most religious property is for private sale, rent, or occupancy by persons of the same religion... can someone who does not agree to the Christian regulations of Homes of Grace, a faith based addiction recovery organization, force them to provide them with services?... only by the protections of HB1523 is Homes of Grace protected.

Several provisions of HB 1523 allow government employees—who represent the state and have sworn to uphold the law—to discriminate against LGBT and unmarried Mississippians based on their religious beliefs.

well that's only partially true... the government employees, who have the same Constitutionally guaranteed rights as private citizens, are able to recuse themselves from taking part in activities which they are morally or religiously against... however, HB1523 specifically provides relief to the people who seek those activities... and it provides language which allows those people, generally LGBT persons, if impeded or delayed... Section 3(8)(b) specifically says:

The person who is recusing himself or herself shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the authorization and licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal.

see?... the person who is recusing themselves from the process must personally ensure that their recusal does not impede or delay the person seeking relief... the onus is upon us if we wish to recuse ourselves.

Further, it’s unclear what will happen if all clerks at a particular location exempt themselves.

the fairy-tale scenario of "what if everyone recuses themselves" is forcibly denied by the requirement that those who recuse themselves must personally ensure that someone will provide the service!... in fact, Section 8(2) says:

Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the state government from providing, either directly or through an individual or entity not seeking protection under this act, any benefit or service authorized under state law.

so they are trying to provide religious freedom on one hand, and protection from discrimination at the same time!

Section 3(4) prohibits the government from taking “discriminatory action” against persons who decline to provide counseling or other medical services based on their religious beliefs about sex, marriage, and gender identity.

the legal scholars' example is "For example, a mental health counselor employed at a public school, whose salary is paid by the government, could refuse to work with LGBT students because of her religious beliefs and keep her job."... aside from the sexist pronoun (how about them apples?), i would argue that this is an extremely unlikely proposition, which could be simply remedied by the school in question by having the counselors make their objections known upfront, and the school would then provide a counselor who does not have that particular objection... but i'd have to throw a flag against myself:

and i'd be right... just because it's improbable, that does not make it impossible... so i will concede that HB1523 falls short on the side of government employees and complete coverage of remedies... the law should have provided the same protections provided in Section 3(8) to those in Section 3(4)... but i would argue that the reverse side of the coin would be just as offensive:

"For example, a doctor employed at a public hospital, whose salary is paid by the government, could refuse to perform abortions because of her religious beliefs and lose her job."

however, a poorly constructed law does not negate the truth which stands behind the need for such a law... there are numerous examples of intolerance of religion by those who are promoting LGBT causes... this law was crafted not to deny rights, but to protect the rights of individuals who are being assailed... simply acting in accord to one's faith has become punishable by extremists who disagree with the tenets of the religion.

but all of this misses the point of HB1523... if religion were not under attack, this type of legislation would not have been necessary.

---

source:
Mississippi Lawyers, Legal Scholars Respond to HB1523 | JFP Mobile | Jackson, Mississippi
HB1523 - Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act
Romer v. Evans
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Homes of Grace

the politics of expediency

[The Bush] administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
- Senator Barack Obama, 2007

so... what you're saying is that you will uphold the Fourth Amendment, about being secure in their persons, papers, and effects, and about searches shall not be made without warrant based on probable cause... your for that... is that what you're saying?

---

But I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. And the fact that they’re under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and that they do not involve listening to people's phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of U.S. citizens or U.S. residents absent further action by a federal court that is entirely consistent with what we would do, for example, in a criminal investigation -- I think on balance, we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about.
- President Barack Obama, 2013

warrantless seizures of personal records, and i'm supposed to "feel comfortable" about that?... i hardly think so... comfort is far from the word i'd use.

abject terror comes much closer.

---

source:
Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center - Council on Foreign Relations - August 1, 2007
Transcript of President Obama's statement on ACA (and answering question on NSA) in San Jose, CA - June 7, 2013

banning effectiveness

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Year:	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Five Year Totals
Total Murder Victims	14,965	15,087	14,916	14,224	13,636	72,828
Not banning handguns	7,400	7,251	7,518	7,424	7,184	36,777
Assuming "Firearms, type not stated" are also handguns	5,912	5,897	5,813	5,599	5,350	28,571
Not banning knives	3,992	4,067	3,996	3,711	3,525	19,291
Not banning clubs	3,384	3,449	3,349	3,108	2,914	16,204
Not banning fists	2,479	2,608	2,480	2,233	2,113	11,913
Assuming "Other weapons" are type of weapon not banned	1,521	1,468	1,475	1,234	1,218	6,916
Not banning poison, explosives, fire, etc.	1,105	1,035	1,026	903	860	4,929
Not banning shotguns	583	545	569	461	442	2,600
Congratulations, you are this effective:	3.9%	3.6%	3.8%	3.2%	3.2%	3.6%

---

source:
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles on Breitbart by AWR HAWKINS on 3 Jan 2013

crazy is as crazy does

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) took an opposing view, arguing that had someone else in the Aurora theater been carrying a weapon, “maybe, maybe they could have prevented some of those deaths, some of those injuries, and that’s just the truth.”
Feinstein retorted: “And maybe you could have had a fire fight and killed many more people.”

not "many more"... just ONE more.

gun control is being able to hit your target the first time.

---

source:
Few signs Colorado shooting will make gun control a campaign issue - latimes.com

abort your teenager

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

yes... we used to call those people Nazi's... ever visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.?

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

which "properties" are these?... supposedly, they can't ascribe a "basic value" to their own life, therefore cannot be a "loss" should that life be deprived... i believe that even a fetus recognizes a "basic value", or why else would there be a pain response?

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

so, what are they saying?... we can ascribe rights as we see fit?... well, what if i say we grant personhood at age 18?... can i abort my teenager?
"I brought you into this world; I can take you out!"

However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

nice trick, that... redefine the term harm into something that agrees with your argument... how many times have we seen this tactic?

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

so... if, as a parent, my child becomes a burden (or a punishment, as President Obama calls them), such that i believe the social, psychological, or economic cost is too great, then i have the right to dispose of them?... this will change my kid's Christmas lists, dramatically!

to all the Pro-Choice people... is this what you wanted?... because this is the natural course for the ethics you support... if such a basic right as life can be granted on such a subjective basis, what right do you have to say someone can't abort a child when it becomes a burden to the parent?

follow this thought down the rabbit-hole, and humans only have the right to life as those around them see fit... cancer patients are a burden to healthcare... elderly have outlived their useful life... children are not persons, but property... the mentally retarded have less rights than "normal" people... if someone is in an accident and gets brain damaged, should we just kill them outright before they inconvenience anyone?

how far do you let this go?

---

source:
Australian Ethicists Argue the Right to Kill Babies After They’re Born - Liberty Counsel March 2, 2012

JME Online First, published on March 2, 2012 as 10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

born free... pay for everything else

Obama Health Care Lawsuit Rejected By U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler:

She also said that anyone who objects to having health care for religious reasons can choose to pay the penalty instead – as the lawsuit said all five plaintiffs plan to do.

so, people have to pay the Federal Government to practice their religion... interesting reading of the Constitution, comrade.

Kessler also expressed doubts that they can really determine whether they will never require health care. "Individuals like plaintiffs who allege now that they will refuse medical services in the future may well find their way into the health care market when they face the reality of illness or injury," she wrote.

do they get a refund when they die if they didn't use medical services?... what if they die having paid for their own medical care out of their own pockets?... what part of the Constitution allows Big Brother to think for us?... all this time, i was under the impression this was a free country.

it's not free anymore... you have to pay to breathe the air.

I WANT MY FREE ICE CREAM!!!!!!?

Talk Back on Economics: The Right to Free Ice Cream RIGHTNETWORK