Author: Papa Giorgio

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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.

The Constitution Does Not Allow For Social Programs

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is Walter William’s article Larry Elder mentions:

Now that we’re about to decide the White House’s next occupant, let’s speculate about how previous presidents might fare were they standing for election in today’s America. What would be the presidential prospects of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, our third and fourth presidents? Here’s my bet: They’d go down in an unprecedented landslide defeat. I could see the likes of a Joseph Stalin or a Mao Zedong winning long before a Jefferson or Madison. Let’s look at it.

In 1792, Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Even though our Constitution hasn’t been amended to authorize Congress to spend on the objects of benevolence, I can’t imagine today’s Americans electing a president who’d share Madison’s view. Such a candidate would be labeled mean-spirited, racist, sexist and homophobic.

Today’s politicians might argue that James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, is all wrong. They’d say spending on the objects of benevolence (legalized theft) is authorized by the Constitution’s “promote the general welfare” clause. James Madison spoke to that argument saying, “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers [enumerated in the Constitution] connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Today’s Americans wouldn’t elect Thomas Jefferson either. He’d be labeled an extremist and a gun nut. Jefferson warned, “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Today, he’d be referring to the White House, Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal regulatory agencies. Because of elite proclivities, Thomas Jefferson urged, “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Jefferson wasn’t referring to just any old government; he was referring to the U.S. federal government.

Franklin Pierce, our 14th president, took actions that would be political suicide today. In 1854, he vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill saying, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity,” adding that to approve such spending, “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

In 1887, President Grover Cleveland, our 22nd and 24th president, said when vetoing an appropriation to help drought-stricken counties in Texas, “I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds . . . I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.”

Today’s politicians can’t be held fully responsible for our growing constitutional contempt. We might blame them for not being statesmen. The lion’s share of the blame rests with 270 million Americans. Our elected officials simply mirror our contempt for constitutional principles and our desire to live at the expense of our fellow American. It’s unreasonable to expect a congressman, or a president to live up to his oath of office, to protect, defend and bear true allegiance to the Constitution, if doing that means political suicide.

 

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Forgotten Warning to America (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

“I would like to call upon America to be more careful with its trust and prevent those wise persons who are attempting to establish even finer degrees of justice and even finer legal shades of equality – some because of their distorted outlook, others because of short-sightedness and still others out of self-interest – from falsely using the struggle for peace and for social justice to lead you down a false road. Because they are trying to weaken you; they are trying to disarm your strong and magnificent country in the face of this fearful threat – one which has never been seen before in the history of the world.” ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn

…found in Larry Elder’s book, Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies and the Special Interests That Divide America (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2003), 64.

(Book 1)

BigGovernment has this article (GONE! Now found at found at Virtue Online) to which I will only post a small portion of here. It is nice to see this level of deep thought over there!

The fact that moral relativism, multiculturalism, and political correctness are failures hasn’t prevented us from adopting these self-destructive concepts as the basis upon which we interact with others, at home and abroad. The failure to prevent the jihad treason murders at Fort Hood is perhaps the most obscene and obvious culmination of the damage that moral relativism has done to us all.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines moral relativism as something that one accuses another of, rather than something to which one proudly admits. Reasonable people know that some cultures, ideologies, and political systems are better than others, but most now lack the courage and clarity to declare it.

Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘Moral Relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 “A World Split Apart” speech at Harvard was both an appreciation of and a warning to the West that rejection of definitive truths will lead to our decline and eventual fall. He identified the abandonment of the concept of evil and the rise of “humanism” that today is moral relativism and post-modernism as the cracked egg from which failed cultures are born.

Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected.

(Solzhenitsyn, “A World Split Apart,” 1978)

Without a firm concept of identity and a clear understanding of and belief in concepts of right and wrong, good and evil and the ability to resolve similar dichotomies our society will fall to more absolutist ideas. We will fall because we lack the moral willpower to resist.

And yet — no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal…

[…..]

It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become an experience of moral growth; so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to review the table of widespread human values. Its present incorrectness is astounding.

A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.

And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.

(Solzhenitsyn, “A World Split Apart,” 1978)

“I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality…. We will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence — imperious, relentless and cruel.”

Hitler, from a plaque hung on the wall at Auschwitz; in Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God (Nashville, TN: W Publising Group, 1994), 23.

“Poverty, Despair, and Big Government” ~ Larry Elder

Published by Papa Giorgio

In the above audio, Larry Elder reads from the below article via National Review entitled: “Poverty, Despair, and Big Government“

…For example, Maryland has one of the most generous welfare systems in the nation. A mother with two children participating in seven common welfare programs — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, housing assistance, Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), energy assistance (LIHEAP), and free commodities — could receive benefits worth more than $35,000. Yet, nearly a quarter of the people in Baltimore still live in poverty. In 1960, Baltimore’s poverty rate was just 10 percent. While some of the increase since then is a result of demographic and other structural changes, we’ve clearly been throwing a lot of money at poverty in the city without much result.

And while Baltimore’s high welfare benefits haven’t reduced poverty, they may well have exacerbated other social problems. For example, some studies have long shown that high welfare benefits correlate with high out-of-wedlock birth rates. It should not come as a surprise, then, that two-thirds of births in the city are to unmarried mothers, and almost 60 percent of Baltimore households are headed by single parents.

The unemployment rate in Baltimore in February was 8.4 percent, compared with just 5.5 percent nationally. In the Sandtown–Winchester/Harlem Park area, which is near the center of the unrest, more than half of the people did not have jobs, according to a February 2015 report from the Justice Policy Institute and the Prison Policy Initiative.

One reason for this is the city’s — and the state’s — unremitting hostility to business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that only seven states and the District of Columbia have a worse business climate than Maryland. The state’s tax burden is huge and growing. According to the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index, Maryland ranks a dismal 40th in terms of business taxes, and an even worse 45th in terms of personal-income taxes. According to this report, Maryland is one of just a few states where the personal-income tax creates “an unnecessary drag on economic activity.” The state’s small businesses face the nation’s seventh-highest marginal tax rates.

As if that were not bad enough, the city of Baltimore adds one of the highest property taxes among comparable cities. Despite a recent modest reduction in property-tax rates, Baltimore still has a tax rate more than twice the rate of most of the rest of the state. A recent study by the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ranked Baltimore twelfth out of 53 major cities in terms of high property taxes. When the city taxes are combined with state taxes, Baltimore ends up with the ninth worst tax burden out of 50 major American cities.

[….]

The city’s schools represent another failure of government. Teachers’ unions are among the most powerful special interests in Maryland. To cite just one example, even as other states were enacting right-to-work laws for public employees, Maryland passed a law mandating that all teachers pay fees to the Maryland State Education Association.

Although Baltimore ranks fourth among major cities in per-pupil expenditures for districts with more than 40,000 students and spends $16,578 a year per pupil — roughly 52 percent above the national average — more than a quarter of Baltimore students fail to graduate from high school. Fewer than half of Baltimore high-school students passed the last Maryland High School Assessment test. SAT scores for Baltimore students are more than 100 points below the national average.

Yet Maryland has one of the nation’s most restrictive charter-school laws. There are just 52 charter schools statewide. In neighboring Washington, D.C., 44 percent of the city’s public-school students are educated in the District’s 112 charter schools, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Even within the public schools, choice is extremely limited in Maryland; parents are not generally allowed to send their children to schools outside their assigned district. Needless to say, any larger efforts to give parents more control over their children’s schooling — such as vouchers or tax credits — have gone nowhere.

…read it all!…

Dennis Prager Interviews a Political “Thug” ~ Larry Elder

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder was interviewed by Dennis Prager and the discussion went — naturally — to Baltimore and the foundational issues. It is NOT black and white, but left v. right.

As only Larry can, he dismantles the Left’s racial rhetoric… quote-by-quote.

For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/ ~AND~ http://www.elderstatement.com/