Author: Papa Giorgio
Some Black and White History (A response to convo elsewhere)
BREITBART posted this:
On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: “You must take care of the civil rights bill – my bill, the civil rights bill. Don’t let it fail.” In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.
Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations. Sound familiar? Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
[….]
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader – not President Lyndon Johnson – was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.
In the Senate, Dirksen had no trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for passage. On the Democrat side, the Senate leadership did support the bill, while the chief opponents were Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC), Al Gore (D-TN) and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Senator Byrd, whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate,” filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for fourteen straight hours. At a meeting held in his office, Dirksen modified the bill so it could be passed despite Democrat opposition. He strongly condemned the Democrat-led 57-day filibuster: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
Along with most other political leaders at the time, Johnson, credited Dirksen for getting the bill passed: “The Attorney General said that you were very helpful and did an excellent job… I’ll see that you get proper attention and credit.” At the time, for instance, The Chicago Defender, a renowned African-American newspaper, praised Senator Dirksen for leading passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The struggle for civil rights was not finished, however, as most southern states remained under the control of segregationist Democrat governors, such as George Wallace (D-AL), Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox (D-GA). Full enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not arrive until the Republican political ascendancy in the South during the 1980s.
Another interesting post over at NEWSMAX:
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation’s military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
I brought up the fact that the Left enslaves minorities to depend on their government for sustenance, thus securing votes. Thomas Sowell debates this “subsidizing effect” in this referenced video (must listen all the way to his last response):
One question I asked, after one ingests all the above like I hope my friend did, was the following:
- …So, since the Republicans were historically and into the Reagan revolution less likely to be racists, would the racist arm of the Democratic Party meld into the Republican Party or the Democratic Party that supports virulently — as an example — an organization that still has as its goal American Nazi eugenics in mind, as evidenced by the almost 4-to-1 abortions in some black minority areas? Do racists see that controlling these populations (Democratic policies) rather than allowing them the freedom to become entrepreneurial (Republican policies) more or less likely to attract racism?
Fascism was brought up as well in this conversation (it usually is from the Left), here is my “quick” clarification:
Also, fascism is a leftist doctrine, not a right doctrine: WHAT IS FASCISM
Swamp Draining
Gettysburg Address
EPA versus JOBS and Common Sense
“I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology…. many environmentalists are showing signs of elitism, left-wingism, and downright eco-fascism. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism. The public is left trying to figure out what is reasonable and what is not.” Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace.
School Spending and Union Budgets (Dick Morris and Dennis Prager)
In this first video Dick Morris goes over the legislature control and gubernatorial leadership in about 20 states that Republicans are taking over control of in January. He explains one of the first glaring possibilities of change they will be confronted with and possibly try and truly change (let’s hope so):
Dennis Prager touches on just how much these unions (yes, teachers unions as well) are bankrupting the nation. He references an Economist magazine article that is also referenced in a previous post entitled, “500-Billion Unsecured California Pensions and growing; 3.2 Trillion Nationally” – below, Prager hits the nail on the head in his saying these are deals with the devil:
Con Air-TSA Edition
A Boy Can Dream Right?
A Great Mosque Experiment Underfunded (Reformational Islam)
The CATO Institute deconstructs the white houses presentatation on tax cuts/increases
One of the most powerful media men talk about John Stewart’s take on life (his worldview)
(A Newsbusters h/t) Roger Ailes talks about his frank discussions with John Stewart:
Fox News boss Roger Ailes offered his (negative) opinion of liberal comedian-slash-“fake news” personality Jon Stewart in the overlooked opening of his interview with Howard Kurtz:
When Jon Stewart was appearing on The O’Reilly Factor a few weeks back, he stopped by Roger Ailes’ office for an hour-long chat about politics. “He’s obviously really, really smart,” the Fox News chairman says. “He openly admits he’s sort of an atheist and a socialist. He once told me he would’ve voted for Norman Thomas.”
Ailes was appraising the Daily Show star in a friendly, good-natured tone. But that tone changed when the conversation turned to Stewart’s continuous carping about the excesses of cable news: “He hates conservative views. He hates conservative thoughts. He hates conservative verbiage. He hates conservatives.”
There was more.
“He’s crazy. If it wasn’t polarized, he couldn’t make a living. He makes a living by attacking conservatives and stirring up a liberal base against it.”
I tried to interrupt.
“He loves polarization. He depends on it. If liberals and conservatives are all getting along, how good would that show be? It’d be a bomb.”
But Stewart played clips of MSNBC as well as Fox at his Washington rally last month, casting them as part of the “24-hour politico, pundit, perpetual panic conflictinator.” He says his concern is not the ideology of cable channels but the tone of the discourse.
“Oh, horses–t,” Ailes shot back. “Look what he does to Sarah Palin.” If Stewart wants to go after cable hosts for the entertainment value, fine, “but don’t give me a social speech on the steps of the Washington Monument. Don’t lapse into non-comedy.”