Updated date:

Three Essays on Politics and Freedom in America

Expository critical essays in literary, political, historical, philosophical, and spiritual topics remain part of my literary toolkit.

Introduction

The three essays offered here focus on three slightly different aspects of the natural rights of citizens of a nation that is guided by founding documents, which claim that all members of humankind are born with natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The first essay, "The First Amendment and Same-Sex Lifestyles," addresses the issue of the first amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which guarantees American citizens the right to follow their own religious convictions and also guarantees the right to free speech. While each right may sound obvious and reasonable, there are always those citizens who would abrogate the free exercise of religion and speech of their fellows. Court cases fill up the jurisdictional dockets year in and year out, in the attempt to settle the issue of religious exercise and free speech vs the desire to foist on others the private proclivities of protected classes. The likelihood of permanently settling such issues remains quite bleak. But the attempt to settle them must and will continue as thinkers continue to speculate about the issue.

The second essay, "Marriage and Government," examines the issue of governmental intrusion into areas of life where it clearly has no appropriate legal function. The conclusion then is that the issue of "same sex marriage" would never have become an issue if the government had not interfered with marriage in the first place. Marriage is a private affair, and at every stage of its existence, it should remain private between the parties involved and their spiritual faith. Marriage is a sacrament; thus, it should remain in the purview of religion/spirituality not under government/legal control.

The third essay, "The Big Lie: Republicans and Democrats Switched Sides on Race," debunks the freedom quashing lie that the two major American political parties switched sides on the issue of freedom for racial minorities. The highjacking by vote harvesting Democrats of the Republican stance that black citizens deserve to be treated fairly and equally along with Americans of other races has not served well those very communities that the Democratic Party claims to support but instead has resulted in increased poverty and the eventual cancel culture that today is resulting in a reversal of racial discrimination, now targeting whites and Asias as inferiors whose lives need to denigrated, even destroyed.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court

Essay 1: The First Amendment and Same-Sex Lifestyles

Is there a way for speech and religious freedom and the same-sex life style to share a harmonious co-existence? I suggest that there is. The Golden Rule is involved.

Pastries, Pretty Posies, and Pictures

Wedding cake bakers, florists, and photographers who do not wish to employ their art in celebration of a same-sex wedding because of their religious tenets have every right to make that exclusionary decision without government inference and without societal harassment.

Self-Realization Fellowship's "Perspective on Marriage and Same-Sex Unions," offers a statement that is relevant to the current clash between the religious freedom of artists and those same-sex couples who seek to marry, particularly this excerpt:

SRF ministers perform only the wedding ceremony originated by our founder, which is specifically for the union of a man and a woman. However, there is no requirement that SRF members who wish to marry do so in an SRF ceremony. (my emphasis)

Just as there is "no requirement that SRF members who wish to marry do so in an SRF ceremony," there is no requirement that same-sex individuals who wish to marry engage any particular cake baker, florist, or photographer. Instead the same-sex couple is free to choose any cake baker, florist, or photographer who is open to performing that service for them.

Yet zealots, seeking to punish the religious for simply practicing their faith, are attempting to abrogate constitutional protections of the basic human rights of religion and free speech. Those zealots are claiming freedom for themselves but not for others with whom they disagree.

The case of cake baker/artist, Jack Phillips, demonstrates the harassment of a religious man by the zealots who wish to destroy him simply because of his religious beliefs. In 2012, the Colorado cake artist refused to bake a wedding cake celebrating the union of a gay couple. He was taken to court—all the way to the Supreme Court—which found in his favor, but whose indecisive ruling left open the possibility that such cases would continue, and now Jack is the target of another lawsuit. Clearly, the issue is not illegal discrimination against a protected class but an attempt to quash religious freedom.

Cake artists are not the only group targeted by litigious zealots using same-sex union to further their social justice goals. In 2013, florist, Barronelle Stutzman, of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, found herself the target of a lawsuit filed by her two long-time customers, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. This case remains ongoing after having reached the U.S. Supreme Court once and being sent back to the Washington State Supreme Court.

In 2019, Louisville photographer, Chelsey Nelson, filed a pre-emptive lawsuit—Nelson has yet to become the victim of a lawsuit seeking to force her services to a gay marriage—against the city’s Fairness Ordinance, claiming that being forced to service a gay wedding would violate her free speech rights. The U.S. Department of Justice agreed. According to Eric Dreiband, an assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division,

The First Amendment forbids the government from forcing someone to speak in a manner that violates individual conscience. The U.S. Department of Justice will continue to protect the right of all persons to exercise their constitutional right to speech and expression.

The Supreme Court with a decisive ruling that the rights delineated in the U.S. Constitution are applicable to everyone, not just a protected class, would help to stem this rising tide of societal misconduct being directed at the religious and at those who wish to engage their right to free speech.

A Daunting Societal Task

The personal choices of artists based on religious views or issues of free speech do not prevent same-sex couples from celebrating their weddings as they so choose. Society can remain harmonious, however, if both sides, the artists and the same-sex partners, respect each other's decisions. There are artists, who will happily perform the desired service for same-sex partners; therefore, there can be no complaint that the same-sex wedding cannot benefit from such artistic service.

It is furthermore incumbent upon the religion-influenced artists to continue to demonstrate that they respect the rights of the same-sex partners and individuals by continuing to sell their other goods to them. And in all the cases thus far elucidated, the artists gladly sell their products to same sex individuals. Both Phillips and Stutzman gladly sell their cakes and flowers to gay people, and Nelson states, "Of course, I serve everyone regardless of who they are. I just don’t photograph every wedding requested of me."

A wider issue comes into play when social engineers via government intrusion attempt to quash religious freedom in order to accommodate same-sex individuals: the attempt to bring the acts of same sex into the realm of valid, moral behavior. Only time can perform that daunting task. If emphasis on sexual orientation is eventually proven to benefit society as a whole, it will become part of the cultural tradition and no longer require debate about the issue.

Apart from the pandering done by the political class to assure a voting block, most members of society want to accept all of its members into a law-abiding, peaceful culture. Most religious people know in their hearts that loving their neighbor as they love themselves includes loving and respecting all who may not think and act as they do, including the same-sexed, bisexual, pansexual, queer, as well as the transgendered and the myriad other groups that exist or may, in future, come into existence, whether based on sexuality or some other human feature.

Sweet Freedom and at the Golden Rule

While freedom of speech and freedom of religion are basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, new ways of squelching the rights of others continue to be fomented as long as people of ill-will continue to press their animosity.

Humanity consists of individuals who have a penchant for coming up with new ways to stand out from the herd, or to express a deep-rooted, even if novel, urges. With the exception of sheer criminality—lying, stealing, murdering—that impinges on the lives of others, those urges need to be respected and made a part of society in the most balanced and harmonious fashion possible.

However, government mandates that seek to divine the thoughts of individuals for the purpose of punishment or censorship are not permissible according the Constitution. American society has no place and no tolerance for a thought police. The idea that a business owner can lose his business because a government official thinks he knows what the business owner is thinking is unconscionable.

The only way to assure equanimity is through adherence to the Golden Rule: the same-sexed do not want to be shamed and/or mandated against by law for their orientation, and the religious do not want to be shamed and/or mandated against by law into violating the tenets of their belief system. This same desire holds for those who wish to engage in free—not forced—speech.

If the government can compel an artist to make statements with which the artist disagrees for reasons of religion or speech, then freedom of religion and speech no longer remain American values.

Sources

Essay 2: Marriage and Government

Marriage should retain a private, unregulated status between the individuals involved—no government federal or state has any business controlling marital status.

Controlling Marriage

Although it currently does so, the United States government does not have the authority to exercise power to control marriage. The U. S. Constitution takes no position on marriage. Each state has its own requirements for obtaining a marriage license, which citizens must acquire in order to become legally married. For example, in Indiana couple of first cousins can marry—but only after each is 65 years of age or older. In Illinois, those first cousins can marry, if they are only 50 years old. In Tennessee, first cousins 18 or older can obtain a marriage license and marry.

Until June 26, 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right in all states, a struggle for same-sex marriage legality state by state continued take up time and resources. At the time that the Supreme Court handed down its decision, roughly 33 states still retained a ban on same-sex marriage. Thus, an issue that should have never been on the table had been wasting the time and resources of government officials for many decades.

Having gone from the legislative branches of governments state and federal to the supreme judicial branch, the issue of same-sex marriage remained a focus of attention, distracting lawmakers and court officials from attending to business for which they were originally elected and intended. Constitutionally, the fact of the matter is that marriage should never have become a purview of state: marriage is a private issue involving only the marriage partners and their religious faith, and the state has no business wielding power over it.

Get Government Out of Marriage

No government, at any level, has the authority to exercise power to control marriage. The United States Constitution takes no position on marriage. Therefore, any Federal law on marriage is, in fact, unconstitutional, for example, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Each state also has its own Constitution, and as there are variations in requirements for a marriage license, there are variations from state to state regarding a whole plethora of legal issues, but the U. S. Constitution takes no position on marriage, and neither did state constitutions. Nevertheless, since 1970, various issues regarding same-sex marital status have arisen with varying responses until in 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

Simplify the Marriage Process

Individuals desiring to marry are required to appear together in person before their local county clerk to fill out the paperwork for a license, which is then issued by the state after a short waiting period that again varies from state to state, possibly even county by county.

Marriage governance could be greatly simplified. People who wish to marry should be allowed to do so without any government oversight whatsoever. In effect, they would do what currently many individuals do, simply move into a residence together and get on with their lives.

Categories of Marriage

If, however, no legal oversight seems too radically simple for the body politic, the state could allow the marriage-seeking individuals to simply register their relationship with the county clerk; it might also be acceptable to establish several categories of relationships: traditional marriage, domestic partnership, mutual financial partnership, civil relationship, each with certain contractual agreements—offering enough paperwork to keep bureaucrats busy.

What would not be acceptable is limiting any individuals because of race, religion, sex, gender, nationality, age, number of partners, status of health, or any personal trait that might be seized upon to serve as a basis for denial of the individuals seeking the status of marriage.

And all categories would qualify as marriage, that is, the same full benefits that now belong to a traditionally married couple would be available to any individuals coming before the clerk to seek the marriage status.

Eliminate Government Red Tape and the Same-Sex Battle

Such an arrangement would eliminate much government red tape and at the same time eliminate what is likely to remain a battle over same-sex marriage. Just as the government has no authority to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to marry, it has no constitutional authority to control any citizens’ choices in marriage.

Equal freedom for all citizens should always be the goal of a democratic republic. Marriage is a relationship that can be controlled and managed only by the individuals involved, not by a bureaucratic hierarchy of government. As Thomas Jefferson averred, "That government is best which governs least."

Sources

President Abraham Lincoln - the Great Emanipator

President Abraham Lincoln - the Great Emanipator

Democrat "Party Switch" Myth Debunked

Essay 3: The Big Lie: Republicans and Democrats Switched Sides on Race

The Republican Party’s failure to refute the Democrat’s false claim that the parties switched sides on race has allowed that falsehood to become widely accepted. Republicans need to counter the Democrats’ big lie to reclaim for their Party its history in fighting slavery and racism.

Introduction: Debunking a Pernicious Myth

In his article, “The Myth of the Republican-Democrat ‘Switch',” Dan O’Donnell offers a clear introduction to the issue:

When faced with the sobering reality that Democrats supported slavery, started the Civil War when the abolitionist Republican Party won the Presidency, established the Ku Klux Klan to brutalize newly freed slaves and keep them from voting, opposed the Civil Rights Movement, modern-day liberals reflexively perpetuate the rather pernicious myth—that the racist southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s became Republicans, leading to the so-called "switch" of the parties. This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked.

Revising History

Because the Republican Party was founded to abolish slavery and has always been the party of Civil Rights—including women’s suffrage—in the U.S.A, the Democratic Party seized the issue, turning racism into a Republican problem by claiming that the parties switched sides of race.

The big lie of the parties switching sides on race, however, is not the only falsehood that litters the political landscape. Various factions have filled historical reportage with inaccurate claims that persist; for example, a fairly recent 2015 Washington Post headline blares, “We used to count black Americans as 3/5 of a person.”

Political ideologues and agenda-driven academics often claim that in establishing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers thought that blacks were only three/fifths human because of the ⅗ compromise; however, the "Three/Fifths Compromise" focused on representation to congress not on the humanity of each person.

Even Condoleezza Rice, an educated, accomplished former secretary of state, fell for this lie: "In the original U.S. Constitution, I was only three-fifths of a person.” Such a misstatement by a sophisticated and knowledgeable person just shows how widespread and deep some errors have been carved into the culture.

Then there is the false assertion that "Nazis" are right wing. The term "Nazi" is short for National Socialist German Worker Party, translation from the German, "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei." The political right has never endorsed "socialism." Along with "fascism," the term by definition includes statism or government control of the lives of citizens—the antithesis of the political right’s stance.

Confronting an Inconvenient Past

When confronted with inconvenient history of their party regarding the issue of race, the American Democratic Party members and its sycophants insist that the Republican and Democratic Parties simply switched positions on race, after the Republicans had ushered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This ludicrous claim can easily be laid to rest with a few pertinent facts.

On January 1, 1863, Republican President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which stated "that all persons held as slaves are, and henceforward shall be free." The country had already been suffering two years of a bloody Civi War to end slavery. Democrats had been lobbying for and passing legislation such as the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes for over a century—all designed to keep the black population from enjoying the fruits of citizenship.

President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the civil right bill in to law; however, Johnson himself had labored tirelessly against earlier civil rights legislation. By signing that bill, Johnson merely demonstrated that he had come to understand that the way for Democrats to acquire and maintain power in future was to pacify and humor blacks, instead of denigrating them and segregating them from whites as the Democrats had always done in the past.

Allegedly, Johnson had quipped, “I'll have those ni**ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” That infamous statement clearly reveals where Johnson's loyalties lay: with acquiring power for the Democratic Party and not for recognizing African Americans as citizens. In a feeble endeavor to deconstruct Johnson's racist position, David Emery at snopes.com labels the claim regarding Johnson's remark "unproven." But then as he continues his biased analysis, Emery reveals other suggestions that make it clear that Johnson's beliefs rendered him the consummate racist. For example, Emery offers the report, in which according to Doris Kearns Godwin, Johnson quipped:

These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.

After much useless bloviating, David Emery admits, "Circling back to the quote with which we started, it wouldn't have been entirely out of character for LBJ to have said something like, 'I'll have those ni**ers voting Democratic (sic) for 200 years'"; however, Emery doubts it, of course.

House and Senate Vote Tally for the Civil Rights Act 1964

The following is a breakdown of the voting tally in the House and Senate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Democrats: House 153 out of 244 = 63%
Republicans: House 136 out of 171 = 80%
Democrats: Senate 46 out of 67 = 69%
Republicans: Senate 27 out of 33 = 82%

While 80% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only 63% of the Democrats voted aye. Also while in the Senate, 82% percent of Republicans voted for the bill, only 69% of Democrats did.

Attempt to Rehabilitate by Geography

In order to try to rehabilitate the Democrats' negative voting record on civil rights, Democrat apologists point out that when one accounts for geographical positioning of the members of the house and senate, the voting tallies this way:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%) (Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted yea)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%) (John Tower of Texas voted nay)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98%–2%) (Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted nay)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84%–16%)

This set of votes shows that no southern senate Republicans voted for the act, but there was only one southern Republican in the senate. And also no house Republican voted for the act, but again there were only ten southern Republicans in the house. This low number of Republicans in the house and senate when converted to percentages skews the reality of the fact that the overall vote, which is the vote that counts, clearly outs the Democrats as opposers of the act.

And the Democrats' main reason for voting against the act was based on race, especially in the south; however, all of the Republican senators, both north and south, who voted against the act, did so because they favored Senator Barry Goldwater's position, who remained against the act, not because of racial animus but because of his belief that it was unconstitutional in usurping states' rights, especially in the area of private business.

The Republican Party was founded, primarily in order to abolish slavery. Yet over a century later, modern-day Democrats such as former house member, Charlie Rangel, are spreading the big lie that the Republican and Democratic parties simply "changed sides" in the 1960s on civil rights issues. That facile excuse is widely exercised by Democrats when confronted with their own undeniably racist past. However, the facts do not support but rather reveal that claim as a big lie.

Three Misrepresented Issues

The persistent fantasy of the two parties switching sides is partially based on three significant issues that have been twisted and spun by Democrats and their sycophants in the biased liberal media:

1. Barry Goldwater’s position regarding the Civil Right Act of 1964. Goldwater did oppose that bill in its final form because he argued that it was unconstitutional, in that it usurped state and individual rights. Goldwater had helped found the Arizona’s National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and he had voted for earlier versions of civil rights legislation. Thus, Goldwater's opposition was not similar to the Democrats' opposition based on racism; Goldwater's opposition was based on the interpretation of the Constitution that guarantees basic individual rights.

2. The Southern Strategy. With this strategy, the Republican Party was attempting to demonstrate to southern Democrats that by continuing to vote for racist/socialist Democrats they were voting against their own economic interests. What gave Democrats the opening to use this strategy against Republicans was that the Republicans utilized racist political bigots, who were, in fact, Democrats themselves, to help win votes for Republicans. This strategy prompted the GOP opponents to misrepresent the Republican's purpose and thus label it primarily racist, when it was, in fact, based on economic growth, not racism.

3. The American South turning to Red from Blue. This claim falls apart with the fact that the “Deep South”—Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana—took 30 years to begin changing from Democrat to Republican. It was only in the peripheral South—Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas—that many working-class transplants, relocating from the northern states as well as from other parts of the United States, understood that the Republican Party offered policies that promoted business, commerce, and entrepreneurial success. Those transplants, after all, had relocated south to improve their financial status through their new jobs.
Gerard Alexander explains in his review, "The Myth of the Racist Republicans: The Truth About the Southern Strategy.”

The myth that links the GOP with racism leads us to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most strongly where and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. The GOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites and only later in the Periphery. The GOP should have appealed at least as much, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-class whites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but who were George Wallace's base. The GOP should have received more support from native white Southerners raised on the region's traditional racism than from white immigrants to the region from the Midwest and elsewhere. And as the Southern electorate aged over the ensuing decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era.

Each prediction is wrong. The evidence suggests that the GOP advanced in the South because it attracted much the same upwardly mobile (and non-union) economic and religious conservatives that it did elsewhere in the country.

Racism at this point in the country's history had begun to wane as a political force. But the Democratic Party has continued to foment and fabricate unrest between the races in order to employ racism as an issue against their opponents in the Republican Party.

Poverty Producing Policies

The main reason that the Democratic Party concocted the idea that the parties simply switched positions was to gain power. Reverend Wayne Perryman explains:

Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the Democrats didn’t fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket into the White House.

Economist Thomas Sowell has also shed light on the subject: "some of the most devastating policies, in terms of their actual effects on black people, have come from liberal Democrats." Sowell emphasizes that the "minimum wage laws" everywhere they have been established have a "track record of increasing unemployment, especially among the young, the less skilled and minorities."

According to "How the Liberal Welfare State Destroyed Black America," the "War on Poverty," the programs established by the Johnson administration, brought about conditions which furthered the rise of poverty among black families. By discouraging marriage, these policies have resulted in out-of-wedlock birthrates that have skyrocketed, "among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans.” The U.S. out-of-wedlock birthrate in the 1960s hovered around 3% for whites and close to 8% for all Americans; that rate was around 25% for blacks.

But, by the mid 1970s those rates had increased to 10% for whites, 25% for all Americans, and over 50% for blacks. Then by late 1980s, the birth-rate of unmarried black women had become greater than for married black women. Currently, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has climbed to almost 75%. The Census Bureau maintains that poverty is closely associated with out-of-wedlock births ("Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births").

By formulating a system that keeps blacks at a disadvantage, the Democrats have a captive audience to which to pander for votes. The Democratic Party stations itself as the protector of blacks and other minorities, not with policies that assist those demographics but with policies that keep them dependent on government.

Unfair Race Policies Unsystematized

There is no argument that can refute the fact that racism as an issue of public policy has been unsystematized since the passage of the civil rights acts of the 1960s. No more Jim Crow laws or Black Codes anywhere call for racial discrimination as they had before the passage of those civil right laws. Before the passage of those bills, not only did racist laws exist, they were enforced by legal authorities as well as the Ku Klux Klan, which functioned as a "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party" to oppress black citizens. Still, leftist historians such as Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, continue to employ the "party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today" bromide to attempt to separate the Democratic Party's engagement from the Ku Klux Klan, in the same breath as admitting, “that various 'Klans' that sprung up around the South acted as a 'strong arm' for many local Democratic politicians during Reconstruction.”

Democrats continue to employ the fallacious claim that racism is still a "systemic" problem. They peddle this fiction so they can insist that only the Democratic Party is willing to fight against that fantasized systemic blight on society. But again and again, the Democratic Party's policies have been used as Lyndon Johnson used them to placate blacks by making them think they are getting something that no political party even has the power to give: financial security and equality with guaranteed outcomes. Political parties, when in power, can help the voting public only by instituting policies that encourage financial success and individual freedom. They cannot guarantee that success. They cannot legislate individual success through identity politics.

Strategy to Gain Power

The Democratic Party and its allies continue to employ the big lie that the two parties exchanged positions on race, in an attempt to gain power and to rehabilitate the party's racist past. Party members and its minions continue to tie most issues to race because that tactic seems to have worked for gaining power. But when voters look at the basic facts, that claim begins to lose its strength.

For example, citing the voter ID issue as a racist Republican strategy simply bolsters the evidence that Republicans are, in fact, not racist. A majority of black citizens and voters also are in favor of the voter ID laws. However, the Democrats continue to rail against voter ID laws because they know that those laws would impede voter fraud—a staple in the machine to elect Democrats to government.

Democrats have been attempting to whitewash their racist past for decades; to do so, they often fabricate history. For example, as a candidate for the presidency in 2000, Al Gore falsely stated to the NAACP that his father, Al Gore, Sr., had lost his senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But Gore, Sr., voted against that act, as he supported and joined in the filibuster against that act. Gore, Sr. then sponsored an amendment that would take the teeth out of the enforcement power of that bill, just in case it passed.

Dixiecrats Became Republicans?

Democrats also point to the rise of the Dixiecrats that supposedly shows racist Democrats becoming Republicans. However, only two Democrats-turned-Dixiecrat left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party: Senator Strom Thurmond traded in his party alliance with the Democrats to join the Republicans in 1964—not because he continued to support racism, but because he began repudiating it. Frances Rice explains: "Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats."

Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. of Virginia abandoned the Democrats for the Republican Party in 1974. But again, like Thurmond, Godwin abandoned his racist past and served as Virginia governor first while a Democrat and then as a Republican.

Hypocrisy About Racist Past

West Virginia's Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops and long serving Democratic senator, did renounce his earlier support for segregation and racism; however, Byrd was the only senator to vote against confirmation to the Supreme Court of Justice Thurgood Marshall, a Democrat. Byrd also joined 47 of his fellow Democratic senators as he voted against Justice Clarence Thomas, a Republican. Neither a black Democrat nor a black Republican could pass muster with the former Klansman.

Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd highly by stating that Byrd would have been "a great senator for any moment." To this potentially inflammatory remark, the Democrats remained silent. Then later after Senator Trent Lott spoke kind words of Senator Strom Thurmond, the Democrats with their usual hypocrisy lambasted Lott unmercifully. It made no difference that Thurmond had never served as a member of the Ku Klux Klan while Byrd had risen to the high position of Exalted Cyclops.

Regarding Democrat hypocrisy, Alex Knepper has remarked: ". . . being a Democrat means that you can promote segregation, join the KKK, vote against both black Supreme Court nominees, and use the word “ni**er” on national television — and still be remembered as a promoter of black interests." The Democratic Party has raised hypocrisy to an art form in its pursuit of power.

Policies Harmful to Everyone

No doubt, the majority of the members of the Democratic Party are not racists today. Yet, it remains unconscionable that so many Democrats label Republicans racist and bigot in pursuit of political power against their opponents. Democrats cannot legitimately deny the many studies that offer support to the argument proffered by Republicans that Democratic policies are detrimental not only to black citizens but to all citizens.

The current theoretical philosophy of Democratic Party consists of seizing through taxation the financial rewards from "the rich” and giving those rewards to the "the poor." In practice, this Robin Hood scam ultimately means taking from those who earn and redistributing it to friends and allies of the redistributors. Such a system cannot possibly succeed. It can only create victims whose ability to produce becomes atrophied by the false promises of pandering politicians.

Democrats will likely continue to play the race card because they have become utter failures at convincing the majority of the electorate that their policies work. Citizens have become dissatisfied with the actual theft of their earnings, as they have watched while decade upon decade has demonstrated that their shabby, crime filled cities are, in fact, the result of Democrat policy fecklessness and fraud.

Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution Thomas Sowell has pointed out repeatedly that the policies of Democrats have prevented the black population from rising out of poverty. Many of the poorest cities in the USA have been run by Democrats for decades. According to Investor's Business Daily,

When Democrats are in control, cities tend to go soft on crime, reward cronies with public funds, establish hostile business environments, heavily tax the most productive citizens and set up fat pensions for their union friends. Simply put, theirs is a Blue State blueprint for disaster. ("How Decades Of Democratic Rule Ruined Some Of Our Finest Cities")

Surely, it is time that African Americans adopt a different mind-set and realize, as Rev. Perryman avers, that the Democratic Party is interested only in their vote, not in their welfare. As President Donald Trump asked as a candidate during his 2016 presidential campaign, "What do you have to lose?"

Planned Parenthood and Black Genocide

"The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb." Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr.

Despite their fervent support for the Marxist movement touting "Black Lives Matter," today’s Democrats, including the current candidate for president, Joe Biden, continue to support the abortion provider known as Planned Parenthood. According to the D. C. McAllister,

Planned Parenthood is one of the greatest perpetrators of violence against African Americans in this country. It is founded on racism, perpetuates racism, and kills more than 850 African Americans every day. ("If Planned Parenthood Thinks Black Lives Matter It Should Stop Killing Them")

While blacks constitute roughly 13% of the USA population, they account for 37% of the abortions. Nearly 80% of all Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority black neighborhoods.

Activists such as Candace Owens and Kanye West have labeled this set of circumstances genocide. According to the educational Web site, blackgenocide.org, blacks are the only declining minority population in the USA, and "if the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant." Those pandering for votes might want to give that claim some serious thought.

Sources

Candace Owens:   "This just in: murdering 800 black babies every single day is now considered 'healthcare'."

Candace Owens: "This just in: murdering 800 black babies every single day is now considered 'healthcare'."

'It's Genocide in Our Community': Black Leaders Say Planned Parenthood Targeting African Americans

This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.

© 2016 Linda Sue Grimes

Related Articles