Was Trump’s July 4th Celebrations Like A Banana Republic?

TRUMP’s July 4th celebration:

ZERO HEDGE notes the media’s slam of Trump’s 4th of July celebration:

“Putin’s America,” tweeted Anand Giridharadas, a pundit who was genetically engineered in a Monsanto laboratory to appeal to NPR listeners on every possible level.

Giridharadas used these words yesterday to caption a short video clip of two tanks being carted through the streets of DC in preparation for their appearance in a parade for Independence Day, a holiday in which Americans gather to eat hot dogs and drink Mountain Dew in celebration of the anniversary of their lateral transfer from monarchy to corporatist oligarchy.

The military hardware parade is taking place at the behest of President Bolton’s social media assistant Donald Trump, and critics have been vocally decrying it as alien and un-American. Pundits like Giridharadas and Steve Silberman have been saying it’s something Russia would do. The Independent said it’s a spectacle you’d see in “authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Iran and China.” Adam Best and Charles Pierce both likened it to something that would be done in a “banana republic”, an interesting choice of phrase for a gratuitous display of American military bravado given that term’s blood-soaked origins in US corporate colonialism.

All of these people are of course being ridiculous. There’s nothing alien or un-American about Trump’s parade at all. Jingoistic fetishization of the military is as American as a deep-fried trademark symbol.

All this parade is, actually, is just one of the many, many, many many times over the last two and a half years that Trump has shown America its true face, and Americans haven’t liked what they’ve seen.

“That’s not my reflection!” the Americans scream at the mirror he holds up for them. “That’s Putin!”

“That’s not my reflection!” they protest. “That’s North Korea!”

“That’s not my reflection!” they say. “That’s a banana republic!”

No, America. That’s you. It’s been you all along……..

FDR’s third inaugural parade:

EISENHOWER’s inaugural parade:

JFK’s inauguration:

George W. Bush’s military parade:

 

Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?

The south used to vote Democrat. Now it votes Republican. Why the switch? Was it, as some people say, because the GOP decided to appeal to racist whites? Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, explains.

No Religious Or Ethical Leader In History Supported SSM

(I am changing some of my “Pages” to “Posts,” so some of this info is older to my site)

I was challenged after I noted that every religious and moral leader of note never endorsed or supported same-sex marriage. Here is the response to this challenge.

A point Dennis Prager makes is that this is the first time in human history where a “liberal elite” thinks it knows better than all previous religious, political, and moral thinkers before them. I have been challenged on this point and so I enter here a response to some of it. But first the audio portion in which discussion took place over:

Here is the small portion of one of the conversations that emboldened me to post this information:

Initial “Religious” Challenge:

Also, this is not just a matter of discrimination based on sex. It is also a matter of religious persecution. There are religious institutions where gay marriage is condoned and officiated just as heterosexual marriage is. To list a few, Buddhism, Satanism, Wicca, Paganism, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Old Catholic Church, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Australia and there are even more!!! Just as they would not dare to tell you what to do with your religion, so should you not dare to tell them what to do with theirs. If you believe in freedom of religion, you cannot be against gay marriage. You cannot control what others do with their religion. That is one of the founding principles of this nation. And that is what this really boils down to in the end. It is a matter of control. You seek to control others. You seek to tell others how they are supposed to live their lives. That is the antithesis of freedom. For someone as obviously intelligent as you are it is extremely disheartening that you cannot see something this simple.

After I refuted the world religious challenge of Buddhism (see beneath this conversational example that took place here), I got this response:

…I listed a lot of churches that condone gay marriage. One of them was mistaken and you spend how long arguing against it while ignoring every other one? I made a mistake on buddhism. What of the rest I listed and the many more that I didn’t?

To which I responded:

I wish to clarify something I said. In the historical past, same-sex marriage has never been accepted. While polygamy, concubines, and the like have been accepted in cultural practice. Homosexuality being on equal footing with other forms of marriage has never, never been a practice accepted by any religion or culture. Wiccan, Satanism, and liberal forms of the world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and the like) have only recently endorsed such a view. Since the “sexual revolution” of the 60’s when radical Marxist ideals were injected into Western thinking, writ large. So even your list is a new phenomenon.

I did mention paganism in the past. What I was saying is that men in historic pagan thinking/actions controlled women so that they were prostitutes at the local temple and a place for men to stop and “give sacrifice” to the gods. Other aspects that paganism and other cultures practiced that were harmful to women that Christianity helped cure were (below — partial list) only made possible by a faith that lifted women up. Something modern day feminism and radical gender equality movements do not do, or cannot do… since Wiccan practices do laud – for instance – the older pagan prostitution practices that subjugated a whole swath of women to serve men in horrible ways:

Paul, who often gets a bad rap for his perceived low view of women, considered at least twelve women coworkers in his ministry.* Paul clearly had a high view of women: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The earliest Christians recited these remarkable, countercultural words as a baptismal confession. Widows, far from being abandoned, were cared for, and older women were given a place of honor. In light of all of this, is it any wonder “the ancient sources and modern historians agree that primary conversion to Christianity was far more prevalent among females than males”?

In recent history, Christians were responsible for the banning of three despicable practices inflicted upon women around the world. Christian missionaries pressured the Chinese government to abolish foot binding in 1912. This practice was done for the sole reason of pleasing men—”it made a woman with her feet bound in an arch walk tiptoe and sway seductively.” In 1829 the English outlawed the Indian practice of suttee, in which widows were burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands, because of Christianity’s teaching regarding widows and women. Finally, Western countries influenced by a Christian view of women and sexuality have condemned clitoridectomy (female genital mutilation), a gruesome practice that is still common in Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East.

Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2010), 230-231.

Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374); outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404); outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315); instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361); stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations; outlawing pedophilia; granting of property rights and other protections to women; banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today); prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829); outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women’s feet in China (in 1912); persuading government officials to begin a system of public schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century); and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.

Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 49-50.

My goal is not to refute every example [you give]. Yes, extreme leftism in Christianity is nothing new. In fact, the term “fundementalist” was coined in the 1920’s. In fact, a free book about this movement by one of its founders is here, “Christianity & Liberalism

And of course Paganism is [against treating people with humanity]. At least historical paganism, [modern paganism in the West adopts the Judeo-Christian ethic]. Of course I deal with this in my book as well.

With that example of a conversation, I wish to officially give my readers an insight in how to refute such thinking (that major world religions supported same-sex relationships). A proper understanding of Buddhism regards all marriages as mundane. In fact, even love in Buddhistic understanding is mundane and is rejected as anything based in reality — which is also key to this discussion. Here are some actual historical cases that the Buddha interacted with as well as more recently the Dalai Lama dealing with the issue.

….there was a case of a gay monk who was overcome by sexual desire and could no longer restrain himself. He was seducing his friends and novices to have sex with him. They rejected him so he left the monastery and had sex with men who were elephant keepers and horse keepers. When news spread around the entire Buddhist community that he was homosexual, the Buddha was alerted to the problem and he issued a rule for the community not to give any ordination to a homosexual, and those ordained gays are to be expelled. (Vin.I, 86).

The Buddha was more tolerant of lesbianism than male homosexuality. Nuns who were caught in lesbian practices were not expelled from the order. They must confess to the fellows about their practice, and then the offense will be redeemed. (Vin. IV, 261)

The monastic rules do not guarantee Buddhist monasticism is entirely free from homosexuals. Indeed, they only say that monks and nuns are required to live a celibate life. Often in history, the monastic community has been plagued by homosexual scandals.

In Thailand, the worst such scandal took place in 1819, during the reign of King Rama II, when a high-ranking monk, a Somdet who was also the abbot of Wat Saket who had just been promoted to take the position of the Supreme Patriarch, one day was found guilty of enjoying homosexual activities with some of his good-looking male disciples.

It was a shock to all Buddhists of the time, and the case was considered the scandal of the century of Buddhism in Siam.

Interestingly, the graveness of the mistake was not severe enough to defrock him, although the King had him removed him from his position of honour and ordered him to leave the royal monasteries.

As for the lay homosexual people, the Buddha gave no rule or advice as to whether they should be allowed to marry or not. The Buddha posted himself simply as the one who shows the way. He did not insist that he had any right to enforce on others what they should do. With this principle, the original teachings of the Buddha do not cover social ceremonies or rituals. Weddings and marriages of all kinds are regarded as mundane and have no place in Buddhism.

(The Buddhist Channel)

Another authoritative source mentions that “in practice, Theravada Buddhist countries are not terribly open to homosexual practice. This has much to do with … the notion of karma, which remains strong in countries such as Thailand. From this viewpoint, a person’s characteristics and situations are a result of past sins or good deeds. Homosexuality and other alternative forms of sexuality are often seen as karmic punishments for heterosexual misconduct in a past life. Thus far, the gay rights movement has not had great success in Theravada Buddhist countries.” So one would have to reject the core of this religion in order to supplant it with a personal view and new model of sexuality. Obviously, ripping the core of an ancient religious belief out in the name of tolerance is what the Left is all about! The article continues:

In a 1997 interview, the Dalai Lama (the leader of Tibetan Buddhism and a widely-respected spiritual figure) was asked about homosexuality. He did not offer any strong answer either way, but noted that all monks are expected to refrain from sex. For laypeople, he commented that the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural. He said that sexual desires in themselves are natural, perhaps including homosexual desires, but that one should not try to increase those desires or indulge them without self-control.

In a 1993 talk given in Seattle, the Dalai Lama said:

  • nature arranged male and female organs in such a manner that is very suitable… Same-sex organs cannot manage well. …

The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, “From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.

(Religion Facts)

So we see in Buddhistic history and theology a firm denial of homosexuality being approved of (or endorsed, like the Left wants done with same-sex marriage). Even at its best there is no universal Buddhist position on same-sex marriage. In other words, it was never endorsed (if forgetting the above) by the Buddhistic religion or state — like the Left wants in this case.

In all religious understanding, if the practice wasn’t frowned upon, it was never endorsed. Bottom line. Nor was it even thinkable until about a generation ago.

This is an excerpt from a larger response to a local author, to which the fuller response and more context, see here.

Very bluntly and plainly, Socrates was not “gay,” per se. He was a pedophile, most pedophiles in Grecian days slept with young boys, a homosexual act. Pedophilia became common practice for the well-ta-do, and it took the Judeo-Christian worldview to shake this “habit” from the world in outlawing such actions. “Many men in Ancient Greece had relations with young teens,” however, “being outright gay and having an equal relationship with a same-sex partner was not something that was socially approved of at all.” Plato speaks to the “mean state” that creates the best “by far the safest and most moderate” a society should promote to enhance its quality of life. One should take note that even Plato’s detractor in the end agrees:

Now, what lives are they, and how many in which, having searched out and beheld the objects of will and desire and their opposites, and making of them a law, choosing, I say, the dear and the pleasant and the best and noblest, a man may live in the happiest way possible

[….]

Speaking generally, our glory is to follow the better and improve the inferior, which is susceptible of improvement, as far as this is possible. And of all human possessions, the soul is by nature most inclined to avoid the evil, and track out and find the chief good; which when a man has found, he should take up his abode with it during the remainder of his life…. every one will perceive, comes the honour of the body in natural order. Having determined this, we have next to consider that there is a natural honour of the body, and that of honours some are true and some are counterfeit…. but the mean states of all these habits are by far the safest and most moderate;

[….]

…but they will not wholly extirpate [root out]the unnatural loves which have been the destruction of states; and against this evil what remedy can be devised?…

[….]

Either men may learn to abstain wholly from any loves, natural or unnatural, except of their wedded wives; or, at least, they may give up unnatural loves; or, if detected, they shall be punished with loss of citizenship, as aliens from the state in their morals. ‘I entirely agree with you,’ said Megillus,…

This is excerpted from The Dialogues of Plato, in 5 vols (Jowett ed.) [387 BC]

Another piece to the puzzle comes from an excellent apologetic about this very subject. In it we find this:

Aeschines (390-314? BC), in his work Against Timarchus, acknowledged that there were laws on the books that prohibited sexual harassment or assault of young boys.5

1. He further records that Greek law prohibited male prostitutes from holding office in civic affairs, or participating in religious observances.

2. He recognized that laws that regulate moral conduct are the best means of establishing and maintaining an orderly society.

3. This work indicates that there were laws prohibiting these things, and that the punishment was fine or death, depending on the severity of the offense.

So, even in Greece, you had a behavior that was rejected as unnatural, and never accepted in a moral category as “the norm.” So nothing John cites or references would support Prop 8 or the peoples will in California to keep marriage what it has been, a relation between a man and woman (specifically, one man and one woman).

“Weapon of A.S.S Destruction” ~ Excerpt (Alfonzo Rachel)

I wanted to excerpt a portion from a book I recommend everyone to purchase. It is a quick and insightful read well-worth your attention. It is linked to Amazon in the photo. Here is the excerpt from pages 3-11 of Weapon of A.S.S. Destruction:

RACIST PAST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Despite what you’ve probably been told your whole life, it was the Democratic Party that fought to keep slavery legal and that worked to impose the Jim Crow laws and the Dred Scott decision. They were Democrats who founded the KKK as a terrorist fraternity against the abolitionist Republicans and the blacks they stood for. Democrats revoked federal office positions held by blacks. Go ahead and look up the policies of Democrats like Woodrow Wilson. I’ll wait…

…You back? See, what’d I tell you? Wilson even had a White House showing of the pro-KKK movie Birth of a Nation.

They were Democrats who fought for segregation in the schools and in the military. They were Democrats who bombed the churches that had a noticeable amount of black members. They were Democrats who hosed peaceful civil rights assemblies and released dogs on them. You’ll probably recognize Bull KKK Connor out there. Yes, he was a Demo­crat and a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

All the things Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting against were inflicted by the Democratic Party. When King was put in jail, who do you think put him in there? Democrats. Who do you think imposed the legislation that forced people like Rosa Parks to give up her seat for whites and go to the back of the bus? Democrats. Black people had been so success­fully disenfranchised by the Democratic Party that John F. Kennedy (a northern senator who opposed civil rights, mind you) had MLK released from jail, and the black community was then so happy with him that they forgot that Democrats jailed MLK in the first place.

They forgot about the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent military support to make sure that black kids could go to school. He also pressed to desegregate the military. He put into action what the Democrat Harry Truman only put on paper. Truman was also a member of the Ku Klux Klan, he just didn’t attend their slumber parties. Or so he says.

I hear sad theories about how blacks feel like the Republicans threw them under the bus in some unwritten deal in the 1877 Compromise known as the Corrupt Bargain. Now I admit, at first glance, it sounds like a harsh deal—but let me explain.

Rutherford B. Hayes emerged from the Civil War as a brigadier general (he later was brevetted major general), a war hero who had been wounded five times, and a member of Congress. In Congress, from 1865 to 1867, Hayes consistently supported radi­cal Republican reconstruction measures which included the Fourteenth Amendment and the setting up of radical Republi­can regimes in the South.

This was the situation: Ruthy B. would get the White House if he would agree to withdraw the union troops from their south­ern occupation, which would leave blacks defenseless. But hold on a second—leave them defenseless against whom? Oh yeah! The Democrats. Democrats were the ones blacks needed the protection from. Even then, it wasn’t like Hayes just handed blacks over to the Democrats by withdrawing the Union troops. The hand-shake deal was that the Democrats would honor the rights of blacks.

Keep in mind, the so-called Corrupt Bargain was an unwritten deal, meaning there is no formal record of it. However, what is on record is that Rutherford B. Hayes was a staunch abolitionist who defended blacks pro bono against the Fugitive Slave Act, signed in by Democratic President Thomas Jefferson.

Ruthy B. also endorsed the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. Remember, y’all, Andrew Johnson was the Democratic president who revoked Sherman’s Field Order No. 15 during the March to the Sea. That’s the forty acres and a mule order that Republican President Lincoln approved. So, for the Afrocentrics that are still demanding their forty acres and a mule, you should be angry only at the Democrats.

Y’all might be wondering why a racist like Andrew Johnson would be Lincoln’s vice president. That’s because, as y’all know, the preservation of the Union was paramount to Lincoln. In fact, it was more important than freeing slaves, because if the Union dissolved, slaves could forget about their freedom altogether. Though pretty much all Democrats were pro-slavery, some of them were not pro-secession. This is where Andrew Johnson comes in: Johnson was pro-slavery, but he was also staunchly in favor of protecting the Union from disintegration. Though Lin­coln was anti-slavery, he was able to use Andrew Johnson’s poli­cies to his advantage. Because of Johnson, he was able to rack up some southern votes. Yes, perhaps a southern strategy of sorts.

In light of all of this, you can see that Rutherford B. Hayes and the Republican Party in general are on record risking their polit­ical careers and their lives for black freedom for years, whereas the Democrats were ostracizing and oppressing black people. So why is it that something that’s not even on record (the 1877 Compromise) convinces us that the Republicans deserve the heave-ho? I understand black people felt as if the heave-ho was what they got, but even if that were the case, why don’t we look at who backed us into a corner in the first place? That would be the Democrats. Democrats have always been ravaging the black community, and Republicans always get the blame for it. Not a single thing has changed in over 150 years.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

Now, after we’ve made the hard-hitting case of the history of Democrat bigotry, the liberals and Afrocentrics will try to use some cockamamie excuse that the Democrats and Republicans switched sides, and the Republicans today are what used to be the Dixiecrats. But even before this so-called switch (and we’ll get to that), blacks had already started voting for the Demo­cratic Party. So come on, y’all. What was the reason they started voting for the Democrats before the so-called big switch?

Divide and conquer, y’all! Haven’t you ever heard of that strat­egy? The Democrats divided blacks from the Republican Party and corralled them for their voting stock by seducing them with entitlements. Blinded by disenfranchisement, the black commu­nity couldn’t even see that their loyalty was being bought ever so cheaply by the very ones who were oppressing them. Look here, Negro: you can’t eat here, and you can’t go to school there, but here’s some food stamps so you can feel good about it. The Repub­licans would never do that for ya! The black community has been sold on the idea that entitlements are more valuable than dignity.

Even when the Republicans had a majority vote ready to pass the civil rights act, the Democrats filibustered the bill. Now the liberals will try to give Lyndon B. Johnson the credit for this, post facto. But LBJ can be credited for another agenda: he said he was dead set on having those n-words vote for Democrats for the next 200 years. You liber­als want to believe there was a southern strategy so bad? Well, there it is. LBJ clearly laid it out for you. Republicans wanted blacks to have civil rights for one simple reason: it’s their civil right. LBJ wanted blacks to have civil rights because he wanted to use them to keep Democrats in power.

This wasn’t the first time blacks were used for their votes. LBJ’s agenda harkens back to the Constitutional patriarchs of the Democrat Party. Even though pro-slavery founders viewed their slaves as property and not people, they would still count them as people in the census in order to gain more pro-slavery repre­sentation. That’s pretty sick, ain’t it? Count the slaves as people only to get more representation for legislation that would ulti­mately make them property instead of people. Yeah, Democrats are sick. LBJ was the same way. He wanted blacks to have civil rights only in order to empower the Democratic Party—to keep the black community as their faithful voting stock.

Now, when you tell backward-thinking liberals all this, they start squirming. They’re losing the game, and like a spoiled rot­ten kid they’ll try to twist the game. And here it comes y’all! Here comes their twisted response to everything you just told them because they refuse to face the truth about the Democrats:

Say it with me: Well, the parties have switched, and the Republi­cans of today used to be the Dixiecrats.

Okay, let’s break this down. First of all, they won’t really acknowl­edge the bigoted history of Democrats. If you’re going to assert that there was a switch, then you have to admit that the Demo­crats had been the racist party in the first place—but you won’t, because you got nowhere to go from there. You’ve got no good explanation for why the black community started voting for Democrats long before the so-called big party switch. But that’s okay. I’ve already told ya why that happened a few paragraphs back. In a nutshell, the black community was bamboozled into voting Democrat and are still hoodwinked and co-opted today.

Secondly, their response begs the question: was the big party switch a mutual switch? I mean, did Republicans get up and walk over to the Democrat side, and Democrats get up and walk over to the Republican side? That would be an amazing display of cooperation between the two parties, wouldn’t it?

Now, it is true that some Democrats were seen as going soft on racism, but the staunchly racist Democrats became known as Dixiecrats, and that’s as far as they went. Those Dixiecrats did not transition over to become Republicans. They returned to the Democratic Party. Dixiecrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote fora Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Let me introduce you to the crowd that returned to the Democratic Party after the so-called switch:

  • Benjamin Laney AR,
  • Frank Dixon AL,
  • Hugh White MS,
  • William Murray OK,
  • Sam Jones LA,
  • Fielding Wright MS,
  • US Sen. James Eastland,
  • US Sen. John Stennis,
  • US Rep. John Williams,
  • US Rep. William Colmer,
  • Walter Sillers MS S.O.H.

Editors Note via Freedom’s Journal Magazine:

The strategy of the State’s Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmond [20-years later]…. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.

Eventually, politics in the South began to change. The stranglehold that white segregationist democrats once held over the South began to crumble. The “old guard” gave way to a new generation of politicians. The Republican Party saw an opportunity to make in-roads into the southern states appealing to southern voters. However, this southern strategy was not an appeal to segregationists, but to the new political realities emerging in the south.

See Urban Legends:

  1. The Dixiecrats and the GOP;
  2. The Southern Strategy.

(More)

There you go—some. It should also be pointed out that those in the Republican Party who showed favor to Dixiecrat ideals got thrown out… *ahem* Trent Lott. However, those who were in high ranking positions in the KKK are just fine by the Demo­crats… *ahem* Robert Byrd.

It should be very evident now that the modern Republican party is not made up of racist Democrats who decided to switch aisles, but even during their death croak, liberals will still try to point to David Duke as proof of the opposite. David Duke was a lifelong Democrat who tried to save his career by running as a Republican as a last resort. He even tried to run as a Populist before running as a Republican. When he finally did get elected it wasn’t because he relied on old Dixiecrat ideals—it was his stance against property taxes that resonated with Republicans. You should take note that Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush did not back old David Dukie.

Even if there were a few Dixiecrats that did switch to the Republican side of the aisle and stayed, they would have been Democrats who no longer agreed with the bigotry of the Democrat party and became Republicans. I say this because the Republican Party is the one that passed the civil rights act. Therefore, if anything, the Republican Party would be including Democrats that had a change of heart.

To sum it up, rabidly racist Democrats became Dixiecrats and walked out on the less-hardened Democrats, but eventually went back to the Democrat party. They did not become Republicans. The ones who became Republican voted on changed principles. Strom Thurman is one of those Democrats that changed his tune on racism and became a Republican. Remember, if he wanted to stay a racist he could have just stayed with the Democrats. Things worked out better for them anyway.

Liberals will try to dig up anything they can to shine their cherry-picked example of Strom Thurman, and present him as the proof that there was this huge adjustment between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats held Strom Thurman in suspicion and maligned his motives for switching; if he would have remained a Democrat, however, the liberals and the Afrocen-trics would have given him a pass, made excuses for him, and overlooked his bigoted history, just like they did with Robert Byrd. Byrd would have been completely vilified by the liberals and Afrocentrics had he become a Republican, but he was given a pass for remaining a Democrat.

THE TRUTH IS OUT

Democrats throughout history are on record proving that their agenda is to control the black population in some form, and that they will approve entitlements for the black community to keep them as loyal Democratic voters. Of course, if you ask a liberal, any time Republicans do anything in favor of the black community, there has to be some sort of angle to it. It’s never because the Republican Party stands for freedom and equality.

So. There’s an examination of the so-called party switch. Liber­als look insane to me as they speed around in illogical circles. They are desperately trying to prove that the Republican Party is racist by using dubious, cherry-picked events—all the while ignoring the full racist tree of the Democrat Party. Hey, liberal! Back up from that tree you’re hugging. You might see the forest. Next let’s take a look at this business about the switch between liberals and conservatives.

Alfonzo Rachel, Weapon of A.S.S. Destruction (Powder Springs, GA: White Hall Press, 2012), 3-11.