Excerpt

“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.

Intrinsic Benefits [i.e., built in by nature] from Male/Female Heterosexual Marriage ~ Excerpts from `What Is Marriage?`

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is an important set of excerpts from the book, What is Marriage?, and is linked to my Cumulative Case. I highly recommend getting the book and reading chapters three and four, you can also follow up on the many references to the quotes I did not include below:

Against this, some on the libertarian Right say that mar­riage has no public value, and call for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. Voices on the Left say that marriage has no distinctive public value; they say the state may work it like clay, remaking marriage to fit our preferences. Here we show where both go wrong.

[….]

First, as we have seen by reflection that procreation uniquely extends and perfects marriage (see chapter 2), so the best available social science suggests that children tend to do best when reared by their married mother and father. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on the following indices:

Educational achievement: literacy and graduation rates

Emotional health: rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide

Familial and sexual development: strong sense of identity, timing of onset of puberty, rates of teen and

out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and rates of sexual abuse

Child and adult behavior: rates of aggression, attention deficit disorder, delinquency, and incarceration

Consider the conclusions of the left-leaning research institution Child Trends:

[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents. . . . [Fit is not simply the presence of two parents, . . . but the presence of two biological par­ents that seems to support children’s development.

According to another study, in the Journal of Marriage and Family, “[t]he advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents.” Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings Institu­tion, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of intact households for children.♦

Single-motherhood, cohabitation, joint custody after di­vorce, and stepparenting have all been reliably studied, and the result is clear: Children tend to fare worse under every one of these alternatives to married biological parenting. To make marriages more stable is to give more children the best chance to become upright and productive members of society. Note the importance of the link between marriage and children in both stages of our argument: just as it provides a powerful reason to hold the conjugal view of marriage, so it provides the central reason to make marriage a matter of public concern.

But this link is no idiosyncrasy of our view. It is amply con­firmed in our law. Long before same-sex civil marriages were envisioned, courts declared that marriage “is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be nei­ther civilization nor progress.” They recalled that “virtually every Supreme court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institu­tion’s inextricable link to procreation.” In their account, not just ours, “the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation”; “the procreation of children un­der the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two princi­pal ends of marriage.” In fact, “marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.” Examples can be multiplied ad nauseam.

A second public benefit of marriage is that it tends to help spouses financially, emotionally, physically, and socially. As the late University of Virginia sociologist Steven Nock showed, it is not that people who are better off are most likely to marry, but that marriage makes people better off. More than signal maturity, marriage can promote it. Thus men, after their wed­ding, tend to spend more time at work, less time at bars, more time at religious gatherings, less time in jail, and more time with family.

The shape of marriage as a permanent and exclusive union ordered to family life helps explain these benefits. Permanently committed to a relationship whose norms are shaped by its apt­ness for family life, husbands and wives gain emotional insur­ance against life’s temporary setbacks. Exclusively committed, they leave the sexual marketplace and thus escape its heightened risks. Dedicated to their children and each other, they enjoy the benefits of a sharpened sense of purpose. More vigorously sow­ing in work, they reap more abundantly its fruits. So the state’s interest in productivity and social order creates an interest in marriage.

[….]

MAKING MOTHER OR FATHER SUPERFLUOUS

Conjugal marriage laws reinforce the idea that the union of husband and wife is, on the whole, the most appropriate envi­ronment for rearing children—an ideal supported by the best available social science.† Recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages would legally abolish that ideal. No civil institution would reinforce the notion that men and women typically have different strengths as parents; that boys and girls tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways.

To the extent that some continued to see marriage as apt for family life, they would come to think—indeed, our law, public schools, and media would teach them, and variously penalize them for denying—that it matters not, even as a rule, whether children are reared by both their mother and their father, or by a parent of each sex at all. But as the connection between mar­riage and parenting is obscured, as we think it would be eventu­ally, no arrangement would be proposed as ideal.

And here is the central problem with either result: it would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and children, or for men and women having children to marry first. Yet the resulting arrangements—parenting by divorced or single parents, or cohabiting couples —are demonstrably worse for children, as we have seen in chap­ter 3. So even if it turned out that studies showed no differences between same- and opposite-sex parenting, redefining marriage would undermine marital stability in ways that we know do hurt children.

That said, in addition to the data on child outcomes sum­marized in chapter 3, there is significant evidence that moth­ers and fathers have different parenting strengths—that their respective absences impede child development in different ways. Girls, for example, are likelier to suffer sexual abuse and to have children as teenagers and out of wedlock if they do not grow up with their father. For their part, boys reared without their father tend to have much higher rates of aggression, de­linquency, and incarceration. As Rutgers University sociolo­gist David Popenoe concludes, “The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” He con­tinues: “[W]e should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the popular notion . . . that ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ . . . The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.” In a summary of the relevant science, Univer­sity of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox finds much the same:

Let me now conclude our review of the social scientific lit­erature on sex and parenting by spelling out what should be obvious to all. The best psychological, sociological, and biological research to date now suggests that—on average—men and women bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise, that children benefit from having parents with distinct parenting styles, and that family breakdown poses a serious threat to children and to the societies in which they live.

Of course, the question of which arrangements our policies should privilege is normative [should be based on natures/natural conditions]….

♦ Note that for a relationship to be ordered to procreation in this principled and empirically manifested way, sexual orientation is not a disqualifier. The union of a husband and wife hears this connection to children even if, say, the husband is also attracted to men. What is necessary is rather sexual complementarity—which two men lack even if they are attracted only to women. It is not individuals who are singled out—as being less capable of affectionate and responsible parenting, or anything else. What are instead favored as bearing a special and valuable link to childrearing are certain arrangements and the acts that complete or embody them—to which, to be sure, individuals are more or less inclined.

† The need for adoption (and its immense value) where the ideal is practically impossible is no argument for redefining civil marriage, a unified structure of incentives meant precisely to reinforce the ideal—to minimize the need for alternative, case-by-case provisions.

Sheif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage: Man and Woman: A Defense (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2012), 37, 42-45, 58-60.