U.S. Racial History

The Reason For This Page: this page are links to articles (many by people of color) dealing with the many myths either assumed by persons not familiar with history, or purported as history by people who are trying to warp minds into a way to think against a whole group of people holding a certain view of politics. Herein you will find responses to some of the real history of slavery, the founding and aim of the KKK, myths like a “party change” by Dixiecrats, and the like. Enjoy what is below, and feel free to let me know of any dead links at rpt@r-pt.net.

Jump to Recommended Reads || Southern Strategy || Slavery || 

To download an audio file of the above (96kbps), GO HERE.


History of Slavery, Dixie Crats,
Southern Strategy, Party Switch, etc.


Terrorist Arm of the Democrats

REAL Inconvenient Truths

This is the “Southern Strategy” explained by it’s author at the time he fashioned it. Below that is an adaptation by Larry Elder of what Pat Buchanan was saying at the time.

Translation via Larry Elder:

  • Pat Buchanan, former Richard Nixon speechwriter, invented the term “Southern strategy.” “We would build our Republican Party,” he said, “on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense, and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.’”

Southern Strategy/Dixiecrats Switch

1) The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South, by Joseph A. Aistrup.
2) The Rise of Southern Republicans, by Earl Black and Merle Black.
3) From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994, by Dan T. Carter.

4) A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow, by David L. Chappell.
5) The Emerging Republican Majority, by Kevin Phillips.

Misc. ~ Combined

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;

  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.”

Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

Books Worth Reading


David Barton 3-Part (Video) Series

(Watch now)

Native-American Issues

(Editor’s note: A recent federal bill memorializing as a National Historic Trail what has come to be known as the Cherokee Indian Trail of Tears is based on false history, argues William R. Higginbotham. In this article, the Texas-based writer delves into the historic record and concludes that about 840 Indians not the 4,000 figure commonly accepted died in the 1837-38 trek west; that the government-financed march was conducted by the Indians themselves; and that the phrase “Trail of Tears” was a label that was added 70 years later under questionable circumstances.) The problem with some of our accounts of history is that they have been manipulated to fit conclusions not borne out by facts. Nothing could be more intellectually dishonest. This is about a vivid case in point.

  • “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White HouseLBJ-the-Racist

When I first heard Cliven Bundy’s remarks about the “ghetto” and how he thought “Negroes” picken’ cotton was better than what they have… I was saddened. I had already come to the conclusion that Cliven was not entirely correct with his view of Federalism, but that the Federal government was wrongly pressing an issue of importance for those who wish to shrink government. And remember, Bundy is the last of over 50 ranchers/farmers in his area whom were effectively chased out of business by Federal regulations.

I still think a vested interest in what went on (and is going on in a state where the Federal government is in control of 81% of the land in that state) in the larger sense on the Bundy Ranch deserves our attention. An earlier post explains why we should care: Confused About the Ongoing Bundy Ranch Debacle? Read On…

There are some good (macro) signs coming from this, and that is that the states are eyeballing Federalism in the classical sense. And directly related to the “Bundy Standoff” our side of the country is looking at curtailing Federal control of soooo much property:

Lawmakers from Western states said Friday that the time has come for them to take control of federal lands within their borders and suggested the standoff this month between a Nevada rancher and the federal government was a problem waiting to happen.

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, a Republican, told The Salt Lake Tribune.

The lawmakers — more than 50 of them from nine Western states — made their proclamations at the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands, in Utah, which was scheduled before this month’s standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management….


ALL THAT ASIDE, the statements I heard from Bundy were hard to hear. BUT, I remembered an older article (2009) by Walter Williams called “Race Talk” in which he explains that over the years what “African-Americans” have been politely called has changed:

  • What to call black people has to be confusing to white people. Having been around for 73 years, I have been through a number of names. Among the polite ones are: colored, Negro, Afro-American, black, and now African-American. Among those names, African-American is probably the most unintelligent.

So even though Cliven Bundy was calling a segment of our body-politic, “Negro,” that wasn’t the issue that worried me. But before drawing a final conclusion on the matter I chose to wait a few days to see what would flesh out.

I am glad I did, because the legacy media pushed a narrative (see three good critiques of this narrative: here, here, and here) different from the larger body of evidence. Gateway Pundit, Alfonzo Rachel, Kira Davis, and Larry Elder helped trigger in my mind what Paul Harvey said was “the rest of the story.” So lets start the journey of what Cliven was saying that is no different in its substance (just not delivery) from what Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, C. Mason Weaver, , Star Parker, Carol Swain, Allen West, Deneen Borelli, and others have been saying for a long time. In fact, here are some of the covers I wish to show:


All of the above books and names are people of color saying in a more erudite manner what this po-dunk farmer said. However, many of the above authors call Big-Government what it is to the black community: plantation.

Dr. Sowell made this thinking clear with his debate about the dynamics of welfare with then Pennsylvania Secretary of Welfare, Helen O’Banion (1980). The black family was more intact during the hardest times of our nations history for them, but now 70% of black kids are born to single mothers because the father abandons them because the state will cover his ass. Sowell makes the point that the black family was better during even slavery.

How One Views Events

Changes Perception & Reaction

  • Will You Submit To Life As A Victicrat?
  • Or Will You Attack Life As A Conqueror?

But lets assume the worse fears about Cliven Bundy. Let us posit that he really is racist. What affect does that have on either the issue at hand a) government overreach, or b), your personal life. Government overreach has more possibility of affecting me (all of us), and the guys that can come to your door are carrying AR-15’s. Cliven has no affect on me and will never interfere with my personal well-being.

But I do not think Mr. Bundy is racist like Donald Sterling, if you take all he said IN CONTEXT. Something the left leaning, race-card throwing media does not. So, let us start this journey first with Kira Davis, in all her glory (sorry Kira, looked like a long night with the kids):

Kira makes the point well, that even if Mr. Bundy was a racist… so what. That is a micro issue, the macro issue is whether the law in question that allowed heavily weaponized federal agents to start killing cattle in mass graves is just. This is the point made well by Zo Nation (Alfonzo Rachel) in what I still regard as MachoSauce:

Okay, we have seen that in the BIG picture, even if Cliven Bundy WAS racist, it has no affect on your personal life, and government overreach is much more damaging to the individual. But lets get back to the issue Bundy was making. Larry Elder, in a rather long segment I edited (video included in Larry’s audio), shows that in context, and rather against the New York Times truncating the quote to make Mr. Bundy out as a villain:

You see, in context, we find the narrative to be a bit different than what our handlers want us to see.

Gateway Pundit was stellar in their posting on this matter — NY Times EDITED Cliven Bundy’s Controversial Remarks:

Liberals constant attempts to silence debate and free speech with the caterwauling cries of “racism” were best summed up by this Gateway video posted on George Will.

Liberalism has a kind of Tourette’s syndrome these days. It’s just constantly saying the word racism and racist. There’s an old saying in the law: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table. This is pounding the table. There’s a kind of intellectual poverty now. Liberalism hasn’t had a new idea since the 1960′s except Obamacare and the country doesn’t like it. […] So what do you do? You say anyone who criticizes us is a ‘racist’. It’s become a joke…”

Cliven Bundy scares the Left because the Left has failed at scaring Bundy—who doesn’t scare easily and stands up for what is constitutionally protected. The released EDITED video is more pounding of the table to avoid arguing the facts.

Liberal Media Matters and NY Times brought down Cliven Bundy with the release of this EDITED VIDEO HERE on his controversial comments. Below is the context of the FULL video in which he mentions the Government is the master of enslavement. He explains at the beginning and emphasizes again at the end of the video (which was edited out by the Left because they don’t blame government).

Many conservatives like Sean Hannity were quick to jump in and condemn Bundy’s racist statements, rightfully so. But maybe Hannity missed the discussions on many of the same ideas, admittedly expressed differently than Bundy, shared by great minds such as Walter E. Williams, Ben Carson, Rush Limbaugh, Allen West, and other great conservative minds.

Does the media find Walter E. Williams, Ben Carson, and Allen West ”repugnant” and “beyond despicable” for making similar points as Cliven Bundy? The fact remains this fight is still about GOVERNMENT OVERREACH—not about Bundy.

Here’s a sample of what Walter Williams has said on the subject [I edited the longer video to the relevant remarks]:

And what about Ben Carson who ranted about the massive welfare program known as Obamacare in the video below. Is Ben Carson repugnant, too? No doubt a racist in the eyes of the NY Times.

Read all of Gateways post — well worth it.

So, the conclusion I can come to with all the relevant information is a) Bundy is most likely not racist, but only God can see his heart; b) Mr. Bundy is right about calling a “spade-a-spade,” big government entitlement programs has created what progressive hero said it would do:

How is this a “vote pump”? ~ paying for those to stay unemployed or not worry about their family and continue to vote for the party that pays them:

(CNS News) The top 40 percent of households by before-tax income actually paid 106.2 percent of the nation’s net income taxes in 2010, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office.

At the same time, households in the bottom 40 percent took in an average of $18,950 in what the CBO called “government transfers” in 2010.

Taxpayers in the top 40 percent of households were able to pay more than 100 percent of net federal income taxes in 2010 because Americans in the bottom 40 percent actually paid negative income taxes, according to the CBO study entitled, “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010.

(CNS News) Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.


All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who “received benefits from one or more programs” in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

Paying for failure, and a new type of slavery… Western style.

Facebook Comments