Racist Democrats

“Racism” Invoked in the Classroom

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the viewable or downloadable version of the letter replicated below in PDF FORM

This is a quick intro [in the green box] of this long letter I sent to both the principle and the teacher. (Other letters went to students in sealed envelopes to give to their parents.)

This is in response to a Saugus teacher verbally announcing that a position taken by my son, or by multiple people in the classroom (which included my son), was racist. This is my response.

A quick note from a concerned parent,

During conversation on hot topic issues, which I do not mind in the least, the conversation of immigration came up in the classroom. I wish to address this particular point of the interaction between my son and the teacher, not to bemoan the teacher — although this is worthy of it — but to inspire more fruitful response in the future and better class management.

Firstly, before the “operation” (often which are painful), I wish to administer some anesthesia.

I realize first and foremost that the teacher (in the broad sense) is only human, and may have some days that are not “on the mark” and others where they have had a day “gone perfectly.” Life in and outside the classroom can be demanding. Mistakes will be made and there should be understanding in regards to this. I expect missteps from the people that work for me, and I expect I will misstep in my duties at my job. The challenge is — of course — to learn from them.

Likewise, when a seventeen-year-old talks about immigration, it is a subject they most likely know little about, and in-between homework, XBOX, and eating/sleeping, and friendships as well as family events, this 17-year old may pick up bits and pieces of his older brother and I talking about these macro issues. And in his adolescent mind latch onto (wrongly or rightly) a portion and “run with it,” mischaracterizing the issue. It happens with 17-year olds. (I do wish to note that I realize my son can be strongly argumentative, and taking a position strongly with the barest of knowledge. I acknowledge this and only wish the best for the teachers that encounter this aspect of my son. I tell him often he should become a lawyer.)

So when his brother and I discuss, say, that Hispanic/Latino groups who themselves stand against illegal immigration and write about the deleterious effects on their pay rate and the lowered standard of living they face by illegal immigration by standing in line and following all the rules in order to get into this great nation to better their lives and their families lives. My youngest son may have heard his brother and I talk about past immigrants (an older generation) who tell stories about how they or their parents came to the country not being able to speak a lick of English but teaching themselves quickly in order to succeed in the country. They speak of not being able to read in their native tongue and so “forced” to enculturate[1] themselves into the American culture, which is summed up on our coins, ” E Pluribus Unum.” Roughly,” out of many, one.”

Now, I am sure my youngest son would agree with the above positions. But I have a feeling he latched onto the part about listening to immigrants themselves talk about this generation of immigrants talking about how by learning the English language and all the interactions it took to do so, they were enculturated. You know, maybe we should take a break here and I will share my interpretation a bit about that word, “encuturate,” by me sharing some definitions offered in my seminary classes, taken from a paper or two I wrote. Bear with me a bit… I only write this much for clarity’s sake.

a. – Cultural Anthropology in “missionology” is very important to understand. One author hints at a definition when he says it is “attention to systems of ideas and symbols”,[2] it helps the missionary to “understand the purposes of and differences in the various cultures of the world”[3] in assisting the missionary in understand what the process of cultural differences is about. This process or study of culture is what is called “cultural anthropology.”[4]  A refusal to implement this cross-cultural study can cause a failure in the Gospel being communicated successfully by trying to impose one’s own culture on another culture.[5]

[….]

Enculturation “is the process whereby an established culture teaches an individual by repetition its accepted norms and values, so that the individual can become an accepted member of the society and find his or her suitable role. Most importantly, it establishes a context of boundaries and correctness that dictates what is and is not permissible within that society’s framework.”  This is the best definition I have found yet.[6]

[….]

Acculturation is key for the missionary to approach a different culture “as a child”[7] in order to learn (become accultured) become accepted by the culture the missionary has gone to.

[….]

In the West not self-disclosing parts of your inner-self seems unhealthy.  But some cultures do not view self-disclosure as all that healthy.  The missionary needs to be able to respond to these differences and understand them.  Also, self-disclosure is usually precipitated by friendship, not weekly meetings.

self-disclosure n. the act of revealing information about one’s self, especially one’s PRIVATE SELF, to other people. In psychotherapy, the revelation and expression by the client of personal, innermost feelings, fantasies, experiences, and aspirations is believed by many to be a requisite for therapeutic change and personal growth. In addition, pertinent revelation by the therapist of his or her personal details to the client can—if used with discretion—be a valuable tool to increase rapport and earn the trust of the client.[8]

[….]

“A bicultural approach simply extends the range of potential situations that can serve as behavior settings for the target skills being taught.”[9]  The idea of the “bridge” is the ability of the missionary to somewhat leave his first culture to be able to communicate well in the second culture.  It is a “set of relationships between people from two culture[s]… [making in a sense] a new culture.”[10]  Mainly it is setting up a community through relationships where the mature missionary can connect on a cultural level.

So you can see, for conversation sake, that I know a bit more about cultural differences and similarities and how to merge the two into a working society than many parents (maybe) from Saugus. This is not to toot my horn, but as we transition to the tougher topics, I wanted you both (or whomever is reading this) to understand a bit of where I come from.

Okay, “they were enculturated,” picking back up where we left off. These same people with personal stories from their parents or themselves, talked about how they were forced into our culture. Nowadays, with emphasis on “from many, many” (“E pluribus, pluribus,” celebrating every cultural difference and teaching a distorted view of multi-culturalism [I have taken some accelerated courses for a master’s in education for a friend, I know that which I speak]) we find Classrooms geared towards the native tongue, ballots and signs and other ways of communicating in the native languages of the peoples homeland that slow this enculturation process down. You have now, for instance, a whole generation that both a) cannot speak in our cultures tongue, or b) they do not feel the need to. This is sad. This is a “value” of Europe,” and not ours, historically speaking. Ballots, road signs, and more were always in English, and in order to vote well one had to learn the language which also thrust the new voter into the culture of America. He took that or another topic and in a small sound-bite in a classroom environment probably did not express what he believed well.

Or discussions in our home of the very provable impact on the health system from this very large population that raises health costs and options on legal immigrants and their families.

Now, as I discuss these issues with my boys, I realize that they will take away from these brief interactions aspects that they either misunderstood, miss-emphasized, and the like. Even though I may have clearly annunciated my viewpoint, these are still young minds I am dealing with. Whatever the conversation in the classroom is that stems from the home environment, know that a young person will probably not explain it as well as I would or the teacher might, or the student wished he had.

Which brings me to my main issue. As a teacher, after having such a conversation where kids may have not presented what they thought or have learned from home well (again: XBOX, eating, sleeping homework, friends, and the like), they should not hear from their teacher that these positions are racist. Even in jest. BECAUSE, being that a classroom is full of these “muddled” minds, some may take this as a queue from their teacher that someone in the classroom IS racist or holds to racist positions. Again, because of our recent political election and how the word is thrown around in common vernacular, let us look into what this word means. And it is interesting because I just received a review copy of the book from North Carolina University Press, Chapill Hill, the book, Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. This book, among the many others I have read over the years, goes to great lengths to properly define racism. A word too often thrown around.

  • Webster’s says this: a. belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

So we see that Webster’s main definition (and the one’s that follow) are based on a belief in a genetic superiority of one ethnicity (falsely called race) over another. A more in-depth definition comes from Safire’s Political Dictionary, and reads (in-part):

racism Originally, an assumption that an individual’s abilities and potential were determined by his biological race, and that some races were inherently superior to oth­ers; now, a political-diplomatic accusation of harboring or practicing such theories.

“This word [racism],” wrote Harvard Pro­fessor J. Anton De Haas in November 1938, “has come into use the last six months, both in Europe and this country… Since so much has been said about conflicting isms, it is only natural that a form was chosen which sug­gested some kind of undesirable character.” In fact, racism came into use two years ear­lier, in his 1936 book The Coming American Fascism, Lawrence Dennis wrote, “If … it be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation, deporta­tion, or sterilization of the excluded races.”

Racism, a shortening of racialism, was at first directed against Jews. In the nine­teenth century, anti-Semites who foresaw a secular age in which religion might not be such a popular rallying force against Jews put forward the idea of Jewishness being less a religion than a race. Adolf Hitler, with his “master race” ideology, turned theory into savage practice….

Note also that the above started to get into what Hitler thought. Evolutionary thinking at the time was that mankind evolved in three separate groups, in differing local on our planet. The Caucasoid, the Negroid, and the Mongoloid “races.” This teaching (espoused from higher learning to high-schools) went a long way in fortifying this thinking:

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature.  Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all….  If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”[11]

I think a better word to use (but I do not even think this word applicable to the conversation), since very few today are racists — i.e., believe in the genetic superiority of one race over another — would be “prejudice.”

  • which Webster’s defines as:  an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Now, my son has heard the mainstream meaning and response to our immigration issue from me, from immigrants, and from conservative leaders like Marco Rubio. But these are only in passing. So, while he may even have seemed prejudiced in his repeating of what he latched onto (rightly or wrongly), he was merely being a teenager. As such, should get the grace and understanding that is involved in being such. Maybe even a verbal reinforcement that they may not be addressing the issue as well as they would wish, leading to good in class management.

[SIDE-NOTE: even if presented with a truly racist event in the classroom, much like certain t-shirts not being allowed on campus do to the inflammatory nature that can cause young people to react to it emotionally… so to is it the teachers responsibility to diffuse the situation so that outside the classroom there is less of a chance that issues will be dealt with by young, emotionally driven persons versus reasoning adults. In this case I think the opposite happened.]

Being a person of faith, I will share my personal beliefs and history to make clear my position before going further. I was born and raised in Detroit. the neighborhood I grew up in was almost all black. I was the proverbial “white friend.” All my friends and buddies were black. I have a black grandmother and (obviously then) cousins and the like. So my background is full of people I love from a differing ethnicity.

Also, my theology informs me as well.

In Numbers, chapter 12, we read about Moses marrying a “Cushite” woman (Cushite’s were the early tribal members that founded Ethiopia). So a Hebrew was marrying an Ethiopian. Miriam, Moses sister, spoke out against this interracial marriage and she was struck with a form of disease that turned her skin “ashen.” God only took that curse away till she repented of her sin and recognized what God had already blessed.

I would also be called a “fundamentalist,” in that my personal belief is of a young age of the earth. Now, you may not agree with this position, that is more than understandable. But holding to a position one agrees with or disagrees with does not say anything about whether or not such a position has in it positive or negative societal aspects. So, for instance, what is not often realized about “young earthers” by those who do not study worldviews is that we hold to an aspect of mankind that is the least racial. In other words, the Bible says in Acts 17:26 states: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” We view Genesis and the Hebrew word for “clay” that God used to make man from to mean “red earth” (literally, “red clay” in the Hebrew), which supports the many creations stories from all over the world that mentions the first man and woman being “red” in color. And that much like the genetics in eye-color, the genes turning on and off our cells that produce color/melatonin give us our small differences. Fundamentalists believe that over time culture and familiarity caused people to seek after “like minded” [culture] or “looking” [familiarity] persons. And that as we [mankind] traveled this globe, environment dictated places where one could survive and others not (darker ethnicities by the equator, lighter away from).

So, while I am sure some scoff at the “fundamentalist” ideals I hold to, and talk over with my kids, You can see that from my history and faith I would be the least racial (as well as my kids) in a situation that required a teacher to say “that is enough of the racist comments” in class, after my son struggled to make his point.

Now we enter into an example of a modern day racist to make the point (a non-important point really, but one I feel needs to be hashed out). This is from a recent conversation challenging the use of the word “racist” in dialogue with friends and family in this very political environment. This was in response to a friend saying Karl Rove was racist. And while he [Rove] is not part of the conversation, my response is… because if the teacher is a Democrat that has very liberal biases and see’s her classroom as a place to express these views, then she needs to answer me about the following…

… and let me say something. I have lived a full life, from a drop-out from Bowman Nights at Saugus, to a three-time felon, to a father and husband to a degreed “theologian.” I have accumulated over 5,000 books in my home library, have written a book, and have passions in regards to comparative religious views and philosophies (current and past). I study history, science, philosophy, economics, current affairs, political science, theology, education, world religions, cults and the occult, and more.

I hate racism, and talk to people a lot about changing their life from this muddled thinking to one that is on a firm foundation. What is below should scare the normal individual who would surely be the harbinger of such warnings if a Republican held to these beliefs (as would I). But if one dismisses the following, then that merely speaks to his or her dogmatic views viewed through their rose colored lenses.

[…..]

… our current President went to a church for twenty years that sold anti-Semitic/racist sermons in their bookstore by Louise Farrakhan during the entire time he attended. Farrakhan believes in the genetic superiority of the black race over others. They put him [Farrakhan] on the cover of the church’s magazine (that is mailed to about 20,000 people’s homes) three times and invited him INTO church to award him a “lifetime achievement award.” A man who teaches that the white man was created 6,600 years ago on the Island of Cyprus, thus bringing all evil into the world (via the white man).

Side-Note: They also put on the cover once Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam… who said:

 “…they are a prey in the hands of the white race, the world’s archdeceivers (the real devils in person). You are made to believe that you worship the true God, but you do not! God is unknown to you in that which the white race teaches you (a mystery God). The great archdeceivers (the white race) were taught by their father, Yakub, 6,000 years ago, how to teach that God is a spirit (spook) and not a man. In the grafting of his people (the white race), Mr. Yakub taught his people to contend with us over the reality of God by asking us of the whereabouts of that first One (God) who created the heavens and the earth, and that, Yakub said, we cannot do.”

Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman In America, p. 9

In that same bookstore books like this were sold for the entirety of Obama’s membership. This author in another book wrote this:

  • “White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality.” quoted from James Cone’s book, A Black Theology of Liberation, page 64.

This is eerily similar to Hitlers own writing:

  • “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

This author was regularly pushed by Reverend Wright (who himself was a former Nation of Islam minister) on TV appearances, like this one: YOUTUBE (link set to start at main-point)

Pictures of Michelle Obama hanging out with Farrakhan’s wife, also a racist anti-Semite.

Not to mention that recently “A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.”

Yet you feel it necessary to forgo the righteous indignation of these facts and say that (out of the blue) Rove is racist? Why is he? Did he attend a racist church for twenty years? If Bush attended a church like that (with roles reversed, inviting in “David Dukes” for awards and the like — Christian Identity teaches that the Jew was created when Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden… having sexual relations with the serpent [the Devil] and birthing out the “evil” Jews… not too dissimilar to Obama’s buddy), heck, I would lock arms with you on getting this guy out of office, assuming the media would even allow him into office in the first place.

Apply to your side what you would expect others to apply to theirs.

Thank you for your time and patience, SeanG

FOOTNOTES

[1] A definition for conversational clarity is coming up.

[2] Paul G. Hierbert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1985), 21.

[3] Ray Arnold, The Missionary In Culture (Tacoma, WA: Faith Seminary Publishing House, 1995), 2.

[4] Idid.

[5] Ralph D. Winter & Steven C. Hawthorn, eds., Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader (Pasedena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981) 517.

[6] WIKIPEDIA (last accessed 7-18-08), cf., enculturation.

[7] Ray Arnold, The Missionary In Culture (Tacoma, WA: Faith Seminary Publishing House, 1995), 6.

[8] Gary R. VandenBos, ed., APA Dictionary of Psychology (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007), cf. self-disclosure, 829.

[9] Adrian Furnham & Stephen Bochner, Culture Shock: Psychological Reactions to Unfamiliar Environments (New York, NY: Methuen & Co., 1986), 240-241.

[10] Ralph D. Winter & Steven C. Hawthorn, eds., Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader (Pasedena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981) 381.

[11] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162.

BONUS MATERIALS

An important documentary about this in higher education can be found here on this very same topic:

IndoctrinateU (makes a great present):

9-year Old Boy and His `Field of Dreams`-Pushing Divisionism Based on the Marxist/Liberal `Trinity` ~ race, class, gender

Published by Papa Giorgio

This type of entrenched thinking is what is hurting the black community in America. This young man’s teachers and parents are pushing a story that is untrue.

(side-note: I am really happy [truly am] to see a father for this young man, and the young man trying to throw up the “bunny ears” behind his dad — it brought a smile to my face. I wish only the best for this family.)

Nine year old Brandon is passionate about wanting Barack Obama to be re-elected. While covering the ‘Grassroots Event with First Lady Michelle Obama” in Daytona Beach, FL today (Nov 1, 2012) we asked Brandon (and his father) if he would tell us on video what he was telling his Dad. Brandon told us he wanted Barack Obama to win because if he didn’t “we will go back to picking crops.“

A Challenge On the Southern Strategy [Myth], Via FaceBook

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Reagan’s “Southern Strategy” – 1980)

The extreme leftist (since he classifies me as an right-wing-extremist, as you will see) said this to me:

  • sad, sean, ignoring the well documented southern strategy of the GOP .. and the way it has led to the current, party, no longer Republican in anything but name ….most likely because them thar Dixiecrats fled the dems and signed up as gooperrs

To which I responded with this:

NEWSBUSTERS: Every presidential election cycle, we have to hear about the “Republican Southern Strategy.” In your book, you exposed that there’s really no such thing. It’s actually a media fabrication.

COULTER: The striking thing about that, which I think few people have noticed, is the general and untrue point made over and over and over again that the segregationists were Democrats, but the Republicans decided to appeal to them to win the south. To put it in Bill Clinton’s words, “How Republicans think they started winning the south anyway if it wasn’t through appealing to racists.” We were supposed to have these secret little code words – unlike the Democrats who just actually come out and said racist things like Bill Clinton’s pal Orville Saubus or William Fulbright or Bull Connor or George Wallace – Democrats all. No, they just come out and go straight for the racist jugular, whereas Republicans say, “Let’s cut taxes,” and that’s supposed to be the equivalent of a Klan yelp.

The truth is Republicans didn’t win the Goldwater states. The southern strategy is supposedly based on the 1964 presidential election. But in 1948, Strom Thurmond – the one Democrat segregationist in the Senate to ever become a Republican – ran on a segregationist ticket, the Dixiecrat ticket. Note that was called the “Dixiecrats” and not the “Dixiecans.” This was a spinoff from the Democratic Party. He lost, but he won a handful of southern states. He went back to the Democratic Party, where he was warmly welcomed back, by the way, staying a Democrat for another two decades.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was a strong integrationist but also a little bit of a nutty libertarian and very serious about the Constitution – what Congress could do and what it couldn’t do. He voted for every prior civil rights bill unlike the Democrats who voted against the ’64 act. Goldwater voted against the 1964 civil rights bill on principle, and he lost a landslide election winning mostly the same southern states that Thurmond had won in 1948. So that is the entire theory of the southern strategy, and now, today, of course the south is mostly Republican.

The truth of the matter is Republicans didn’t start winning those Goldwater states for another 30 years, and the reason we did was because the Dixiecrats, aka the Democrat segregationists, died.

NEWSBUSTERS: Yet when a Democrat candidate wins those states, it’s not part of a “racist southern strategy.”

COULTER: No, that’s right, but truth is Republicans had been winning the same Republican states since the 1920s. Allegedly Goldwater was a game-changing election. No, Republicans had been winning the outer south – Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, one of the Carolinas, and Florida – since 1928. You can’t really tell much from the ’30s and ’40s because FDR and Truman dominated the entire country during that period. But then the next Republican to win any presidential election was Eisenhower, and he won basically those same southern states.

I have maps in the back of the book showing how Republicans keep winning the same outer circle of southern states. That is what Nixon picked up in 1960. Same thing in 1968. It’s hard to tell from the 1972 and 1980 elections because the Republicans really had a “landslide strategy.” It wasn’t just a southern strategy, but was a strategy for taking the entire country. In 1972, the entire country voted for Nixon other than Massachusetts – poor Scott Brown. And basically the same thing happened in 1980.

Republicans did not start winning a plurality of votes for the House of Representatives – which is voted on every two years – until 1994. That’s 30 years after Goldwater’s 1964 run. In 1980, Reagan did the worst in the Goldwater states. Even the ones he won, he won by the smallest margin, and lost Georgia outright, whereas he crushed in the southern states Republicans had been winning off and on since 1928. Also in 1980, Reagan won with younger voters in the south. He lost with their elders, i.e. the Dixiecrats.

Part of the evidence of that was from polls taken at the time. At Yale, Reagan got about seventeen percent. John Anderson was crushing in the Ivy League followed by Carter, with Reagan coming in between fourteen and seventeen percent. At Louisiana Tech, Reagan was winning by like 80 percent. So, it was young voters who weren’t alive in 1964 supporting Ronald Reagan in the south in 1980.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/8frfswo

To which John responded:

  • good grief, do you have ANY sources that are not already known as extreme right wing propaganda machines?

Firstly, john wouldn’t know if propaganda hit him like a 64 Buick LeSabre at 60-miles per hour! I respond with more:

Did you read the interview? History is being mentioned… the only person spinning (and are acting extreme) is you. What can I recommend for you John? Maybe instead of tuning into Rachel “Left of Moa” Maddow or other crazy leftist beliefs, you should take a hiatus, pick up a book or two, and learn a bit about history, worldviews, and the like. Stop labeling people and ideas. Like I told a youg person on my son’s FB:

★ I just wanted to point out how easy it is for people to label (what is called S.I.X.H.I.R.B. ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted), rather that engage in dialogue. [http://tinyurl.com/8nvg5ke]

You have once again done this. You rejected Ann Coulter’s stating of facts by connecting her to the right. An easy way to dismiss an argument… which makes my job easy because many on the Cultural Left do this instead of inculcating knowledge. Which is why you seem to merely respond with an ad hominem attack and then get spanked.

And then I ended with this:

Bam!

Governor George Wallace, Democrat of Alabama, sought to exploit the rising racial tensions.’ Along with Governor Lester Maddox, the Georgia Democrat, Wallace hoped to lead a white backlash against integration that would at least slow its advance. In 1964, Wallace had run unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination, leading him to conclude that the deck was too heavily stacked against him to win that way. So he made plans to run for president in 1968 as a third-party candidate opposed to the pro-civil rights policies of both the Republicans and Democrats. Wallace often said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties.

Richard Nixon was well aware of Wallace’s intentions when he made his own plans to run for president in 1968 and, consequently, conceded the Deep South to Wallace right off the bat. According to Theodore White, “Nixon conspicuously, conscientiously, calculatedly denied himself all racist votes, yielding them to Wallace.” Indeed, Wallace often attacked Nixon during the campaign for supporting civil rights. Said Wallace, “It started under a Republican administration in 1954 when they appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren and the [Senate] confirmation was presided over by [Vice President] Nixon.”

Therefore, contrary to popular belief, Nixon had no “Southern strategy” designed to carry racist votes through coded messages about crime and welfare, as is often alleged. It would have made no sense politically with Wallace in the race. Perhaps if Wallace had not been a candidate, it might have paid for Nixon to court conservative Southerners. But with Wallace running, it was clear that the Alabaman was going to get most of the votes of Southern whites concerned about issues such as black crime and welfare. “Wallace split the conservative electorate,” Nixon political adviser Kevin Phillips explained, and “siphoned off a flow of ballots that otherwise would have gone heavily for Nixon, and garnered many of his backers — Northern or Southern, blue-collar or white-collar — from the ranks of 1964 GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.” This meant that Nixon had no choice but to find his votes in the more racially tolerant North and West. As historian Glen Moore explains:

✪ The biggest fallacy in the Southern strategy viewpoint is that it ignores the fact that Nixon had to win in other regions in order to get the 270 electoral votes necessary for winning the presidency. If Nixon emphasized winning southern votes, then he risked losing support in the major industrial states, which would be committing political suicide.

This reality forced Nixon to run in 1968 as a classic centrist-splitting the difference between the ultra-liberal Humphrey and the ultraconservative Wallace. Thus Nixon actually emphasized his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and began his presidential campaign with a strenuous attack on racism!’ As he explained in a 1966 newspaper column: “Southern Republicans must not climb aboard the sinking ship of racial injustice. Any Republican victory that would come from courting racists, black or white, would be a defeat for our future in the South and our party in the nation.”

Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 170-171

The Obama `We` All Know ~ Race Baiter

Published by Papa Giorgio

“White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality.” quoted from James Cone’s book, A Black Theology of Liberation, page 64.

A book that was/is sold in the church’s book store the entire 20-years Obama went to the church and that his pastor promoted on Hannity and Colmes.

(See my post on this)

The Daily Caller broke some video of a 2007 speech via Obama that the legacy media “sanitized” in order to make the Obama look good. The watered down video can be see here, but make no mistake… this is the real Obama… race batting, southern drawls, and the like. Stories related via the Daily Caller:

TUCKER CARLSON: ‘This isn’t a dog whistle — this is a dog siren’
PREACTION: DNC scrambles to deflate Obama video before Daily Caller story published
FLASHBACK: JournoList plotted to kill Wright story in 2008

National Review has the portions that were taken out of the presentation to make him look good:

1. Hurricane Katrina “was a powerful metaphor for what’s gone on [in America] for generations.”
2. “It was also there — at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago — that I met Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who took me on another journey and introduced me to a man named Jesus Christ. It was the best education I ever had.”
3. On his run for the Illinois State Senate: “And the second thing people would ask me gets back to the question about why we can’t seem to take the bullet out in this country and do the works and the deeds and unite this country.”
4. “[The poor] may need help with basic skills — how to show up to work on time, wear the right clothes, and act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there. That’s why I have called for $50 million to begin innovative new job training and workforce development programs.”
5. “We need to give our young people some real choices out there so they move away from gangs and violence and connect them with growing job sectors. That is why I am also going to create a 5-E Youth Service Corps. The ‘E’s’ stand for energy efficiency, environmental education and employment. This program would directly engage disconnected and disadvantaged young people in energy efficiency and environmental service opportunities to strengthen their communities while also providing them with practical skills and experience in important and growing career field.”

Tammy Bruce posted the side-by-side comparisons of two speeches, the now known 2007 speech, with another one from 2008 (where he is not off script, i.e., on teleprompter). Here is some of her commentary:

Daily Caller came out today with a remarkable speech from Obama in June 2007, a short 9 months before Obama’s campaign race speech. Let’s just say the two a very different. Tonight Hannity presented a clip comparing a few elements of the two speeches. Obama’s hypocrisy is astounding. At the end of the clip you’ll hear Hannity and Carlsen wonder which Obama is the real Obama. I suggest neither one–both were theatre. I think it’s become quite obvious in the past 4 years that Obama’s agenda involves destroying everyone’s lives, and will morph into whatever the moment requires of him to accomplish that goal.

Here is the Tucker Carlson appearance on the Sean Hannity Show Tammy posted:

Here is the full video with the Daily Caller’s lead in, and take note that we all knew (know) who Obama IS, this is just another evidence that he is a two-bit race-hustler… like the cultural left:

In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.

“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family.”

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

WATCH:

Some People Cannot Give An-Inch! Conversation About Racism and the Parties ~ Talking to a Partisan Wall

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Click graphic to hear our President)

On FaceBook, a gentleman named John mentioned that the KKK supports and mirrors the Republican party. I will here show here the plethora of evidence I brought to bear in private with him. Why make it public (while protecting his privacy)? Because he refuses to admit that this is a) new information that could add to his views, and b) even allowing for an iota of this new evidence into his thinking. Instead, he offers anecdotal responses that are sold on bumper stickers. I was thinking he was not a lemming and could think for himself.

Here is the first paragraph I came across by John:

… the CURRENT GOP is perhaps the most ungodly party in US history .. it shares the legacy of the KKK and the Birch society and calls for shifting wealth from everyone who works into the hands of a few oligarchs….NOW … is that the message we wish to hear from the pulpit? and do we want every Christian pastor to explain how voting for a Mormon is voting against the historical Jesus of the Bible? Me, i prefer not to have this from the pulpit. in fact, I wonder if that is the TRUTH the makers of this film wish pastors to speak out??

Here is my intro:

I would love to join the conversation by saying that there are a few topics already in this small paragraph. I would like to deal with a topic specifically… and, as we move along… keep to this one topic till we get some clarity or consensus on it. This may take a bit of time, but as these topics are important — I think it will be worth the hard work. With one-hour photo, half-hour pizza, Instagram, and email (vs snail mail), we can get use to not thinking or taking time to really delve into a subject.

The first subject may take some time to deal with, but i guarantee that if one sticks to the facts, that some ideas or understandings of these topics WILL change. Before I continue — and this is my busy season — I always wish to preface these talks with a “legal statement.” Before I paste it, I do wish to say one thing more.

I write and upload on these topics… so if a video is posted and recommended to be watched, I would rather a couple of weeks pass until one is able to work through it than not watch it (or read it).

Much Thought, SeanG:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

[…]

Lets deal with the kkk claim first, yeah.

John reiterated his position:

ok .. no i am on this thread….note i said the GOP shares the legacy or ghe KKK and the Birchers…this would tie into the nation wide movement for voter suppression, the constant attacks on mr Obama ( including several that use the word nigger ) and the tendency to refer to Obama as ‘socialist’ or even communist.

Me:

John, here is a sentence for you, let me know if you agree with it. And if not, tell me how I am going wrong: “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

John:

Do you have a date for this statement… up until the 60s if would be mostly accurate…in fact you can see the shift of racist from the Dems to the GOP by looking at a election map of the old Confederate states…That shift took place about the time Strom Thurmond moved from the Dems to the GOP …along with other racists…

Me:

No, not really. Reagan and the Republican governors implemented the rest of the Civil Rights Act. And in 1972 Wallace was beating McGovern in primaries before he was shot. He was running on an openly racist platform (https://vimeo.com/album/203863/video/25238719). Even today,

That came from a book I just read by Bruce Bartlett entitled “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past” (2009). I brought and read that book and the Rev. Wayne Perryman’s book on a recent Alaskan cruise. Rev. Perryman’s newest book is entitled, “Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats” (2010). [I will post some books and media I have watched below for further referencing for you if you are interested in my reading on this topic.]

First however, I wish to post here what I did on my oldest sons FaceBook:

—————————————————————————-

I would also like to hear a definition of “racist” from people who say such things. “Racism” is a belief that one ethnic group is genetically superior to another. This was popular in the evolutionary field years ago because it was once taught that the races (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid) evolved in separate times and geographical areas.

A literal understanding of the Bible does away with this type of thinking… but that is neither here-nor-there. I would actually like to know what it would take to get someone like myself to work hand-in-hand to remove, say, Bush (“W”) from office — vote him out when he was Pres.

Maybe if Bush went to a church for 20-years that sold white power books similar to Mein Kampf. A church where KKK members and White Power guys felt at home to visit and the pastor (with all this — books in the churches book store and members) was an “ex” Nazi skinhead. I would probably work hand-in-hand with fellow Democrats to remove him from office.

I mean the Rev. Wright is an ex Nation of Islam guy. His church had many visitors from the Black Panthers, the New Black Panthers, and Nation of Islam guys. Outright Racist literature was sold in his church and pushed by his pastor on Hannity & Colmes.

Why wouldn’t they then, work with me? Some quotes for the hard of hearing:

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

“The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.62 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

=======================

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

“There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.63 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“Christianity is not alien to Black Power, Christianity is Black Power” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.38 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“In contrast to this racist view of God, black theology proclaims God’s blackness. Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who black persons are and what they are doing” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.65 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

=======================

“The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

“These new theologians of the Third World argue that Christians [liberation theology accepting Christians] should not shun violence but should initiate it” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.32 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.14 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.151 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

“It [black liberation theology] is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both “anti-Christian” and “unpatriotic.”…. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the American Way” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.55-56 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])

Read more: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/im-not-divisive-the-media-is-divisive-rev-wright-unleashed-again-or-black-racism-good-white-racism-bad/#ixzz26Oe4xzj8

[….]

Oh, I almost forgot! Current KKK’ers are also very supportive of the Democrats because many are very harsh on Israel, or outright anti-Semitic. A case in point, David Duke. David Duke endorsed Democrat Charles Barron because of their shared enmity toward “zionists.”

John responds:

need to get to work ..but … consider …1. David Duke didn’t win as a democrat…2. .Wallace.. check out the American Independent Party …( and also that he at the end of life renounced the racist actions ) 3.go aback to original post of min e. and the words CURRENT GOP….there was a great shift in the GOP since the neo-cons and tea-party ,in my opinion, stole the party from the real republicans in this century… so beware of historical items that do not address the current no longer truly Republican party.

Me:

(Like I said, you can take your time with responses, I work too, so no worries in feeling like an immediate response is warranted)

Wallace ran as an independent in 68. in 72 he was running as Democrat (and winning) as an open racist. Reagan in the early 80’s along with his Republican governors working with him, solidified the Civil Rights Act. David Duke CURRENTLY endorses Democrats, as an example.

Do you have a person you can name that is a racist, currently? Obama went to a church that for 20-years sold books in its church book store that mirror Mein Kampf… is that an example I supported by references and quotes? Yes. Can you give me a similar example, or a name of a racist in the Republican Party? Please, I am asking seriously, this issue is close to my heart as my Grandmother is a black woman and I came from Detroit where ALL my friends were black. I know racism and prejudice, as I was a minority and in fights weekly because I was white.

[…]

You mentioned Strom Thurman… and that many others switched… a quote is coming, but here is some names in concrete for you and not merely non-resources “sayings” you have heard from others:

Please, give a source from a Republican calling Obama a nigger? Was it close to this: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” ~ LBJ (How? The New Deal)

Besides Robert Byrd, who was a recruiter for the KKK as well as an Exalted Cyclops (“top dog” in his local chapter), there is also this interesting cadre of RECENT names in the Democrat Party:

[What is so galling about these episodes to Republicans is the double standard: blatant racism in the Democratic Party usually passes without notice or denunciation from Democratic leaders or the civil rights establishment. Previous chapters have noted the racist records of highly respected Democrats such as Senators Richard B. Russell of Georgia and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who rose to the highest levels of power in the Democratic Party despite their well-known and often demonstrated hostility to civil rights. Byrd, for example, was elected Senate Democratic Whip in 1971 and Majority Leader in 1977 even though he was known to have once been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and had personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Down to the present day, cases of overt racists holding high-level positions in the Democratic leadership are not uncommon—Byrd still serves in the Senate, where he chairs the powerful Committee on Appropriations. And as recently as 2001, he was still making racist remarks, referring to “white niggers” on national television. Following are a few other contemporary cases that people may have forgotten.]

Senator Herman Talmadge, Democrat of Georgia (1956-1980)
The son of infamous racist Eugene Talmadge… was a chip off the old block. Having replaced his father as governor of Georgia in 1946, he publicly attended Ku Klux Klan Id events in his official capacity. In 1955, Talmadge published an entire book devoted to attacking the civil rights movement and defending segregation. He was especially concerned about the degrading effects of intermarriage. Said Talmadge, “history shows that nations composed of a mongrel race lose their strength and become weak, lazy and indifferent.”E Nevertheless, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1956, where, despite his racist past, he rose to the chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Senator John Stennis, Democrat of Mississippi (1947-1988)
Elected to succeed the notorious Theodore Bilbo… Stennis shared his predecessor’s opposition to integration. In a 1955 interview, Stennis asserted that contrary to popular belief, blacks really wanted separate schools. Moreover, he argued that allowing black and white children to attend the same schools would “eventually destroy each race.” Stennis said it was better to abolish public education altogether than permit integration. Nevertheless, he was among the most respected members of the Senate until his retirement, chairing the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees for many years. Stennis was honored by his fellow Democrats by being elected President pro tempore of the Senate during the One Hundredth Congress.

Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina (1966-2004)
Elected governor of South Carolina in 1958, Hollings was a staunch opponent of integration. Among his actions was signing into law a bill that added the Confederate symbol to the state’s flag. After his election to the Senate in 1966, Hollings continued his intolerant ways. In 1981, he referred to fellow Democratic Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio as “the Senator from B’nai B’rith” for his opposition to school prayer. In 1983, Hollings was forced to apologize for calling supporters of fellow Democratic Senator Alan Cranston of California “wetbacks.” In 1986, Hollings used the word “darkies” to describe minimum wage workers in South Carolina. And in 1993, he said that it was good for African leaders to attend international conferences because they would get a good meal instead of having to eat each other. 11.4 Yet despite these and other racially offensive comments, Hollings served without reprimand and chaired the Senate Budget Committee and the Committee on Commerce.

Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut (1980- )
On April 1, 2004, Senator Robert C. Byrd cast his 17,000th vote in the Senate. Many senators rose to congratulate their colleague, but the most effusive was Dodd. As he said that day, “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation. Considering Byrd’s well-known and admitted past membership in the Ku Klux Klan, Dodd’s words could have been construed as endorsing that nefarious group and he quickly apologized. This incident would not be worth mentioning except that the words spoken by Trent about Strom Thurmond in 2002 were very similar and spoken in the same context of honoring a longtime colleague. But while there was a firestorm of controversy about Lott’s comments and he lost his leadership position, Dodd was not punished in any way and the story instantly vanished.

Senator James Webb, Democrat of Virginia (2006— )
During Webb’s campaign to unseat Republican Senator George Allen in 2006, the liberal New Republic magazine dogged Allen for his alleged pro-Confederacy views. These charges were picked up in the major media and contributed heavily to Allen’s defeat by Webb. However, there is no media record of the fact that Webb himself held views even more sympathetic to the Confederacy than Allen’s. On June 3, 1990, Webb spoke at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington Cemetery and talked extensively about the “gallantry” of the Confederate soldiers that is “still misunderstood by most Americans.” He even voiced sympathy for the idea of state sovereignty and the right to secede from the Union. Yet although it is far more supportive of the Confederacy than anything Allen ever said and was easily available on Web’s personal web site, no mention of this speech ever appeared in the New Republic, Washington Post, or other major media outlet.

Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 182-185.

Mmmm, and Nixon fighting (most Republicans) for the Civil Rights Act, and most Democrats fighting it (including JFK).

[….]

What I Have Shown?

• From segregation to separation over race (wanting to create a new — racist — country), from Dred Scott to Bull Connor, to drinking fountains to fighting for the Civil Rights Act wanting to be passed by Republicans since the 1870’s, Democrats were on the wrong side of history. All of it. From Jackson onward.
• The Democrat Party never rejected nor disciplined there members for racist activity, even up until current times. Trent Lott lost all positions or importance and was drummed out by fellow Republicans after praising Strom Thurmond, Chris Dodd in a similar situation was ignored. (Like Democrats getting committee leadership positions and three standing ovations in Congress after sleeping with an underage page… but Republicans drumming out any fellow persons who are similarly caught in these situations.)
• There are examples (as already posted) of Democrats until recently (even a few years ago the word “niggar” used by Robert Byrd and In 1986 Hollings used the word “darkies” to describe minimum wage workers in South Carolina) racial language used by Democrats, in Congress.
• The keynote speaker at the DNC this year is a member of “La Raza” (see: http://tinyurl.com/99ua58z) and has ties to MECHa (so, white power and the KKK respectively… just Hispanic versions).
• I showed Obama’s racist connections to a ethos that teaches racism (the genetic superiority of one ethnicity as well as God blessed, racism), that is a Republican had attended a similar church for 20-years, calling this pastor his mentor, a sort-of-father figure, and putting him in charge of part of his campaign (until under the bus he went), the cultural left would be going ape-shit!
• I showed that the KKK like Democrats because many are anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian… David Duke even coming out and endorsing a Democrat… and they gravitate towards Ron Paul, who sends voters to go vote for a Democrat ex-Rep. who is part of the Black Panthers (a racist organization, as well as supporting The Nation of Islam) and committed Marxist.

How is this different from you? You seem to make grand, unfounded anecdotal claims based in hearsay. “Colloquial” sayings in generalized swaths with no connection to reality, history, or the like. You, like many today on the left, do not know how to define racism (a genetic superiority) or show that Republican leaders — not some group — are prejudiced (like I have shown in Democratic terms, to be RACIST and PREJUDICED). Like the left labeling its opposition with SIXHERB (explained here: http://tinyurl.com/9o6486c), outside of political expediency, there is no truth to this labeling or connection with the KKK, racism, or historical position of the Democrats like Dred Scott or the silly connection to asking for I.D. to vote. The same question asked to get into the DNC this year… I.D.

So, I am curious what your position is on the Republicans and the KKK are. This one topic.

John repeatedly told me that I have proven nothing, and he again mentioned the John Birch Society. Funny, because the john birch society has included Alan Keyes (a black man) as a speaker and Ezola Foster was an integral part of the organization. The conversation ended with this:

John:

you have shown almost nothing about the last 15 to 20 years….

I hate to point the obvious out… but I did deal with the past 15-years. Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina (1966-2004), Senator James Webb, Democrat of Virginia (2006— ), Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut (1980- ). The endorsement of a leader in the KKK was 2012. So his point is proven wrong, and I think he may have ignored them because it showed his thinking was bad. Obama went to an overtly racist church recently, and the DNC had as its keynote speaker a racist. So my examples spread from the past till current times.

As well as recent racial comments by Democrats, like, Bill Clinton (“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”), Joseph Biden (“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”), and Dan Rather (“but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”):

Julian Castro 2012 Democratic/Racist Keynote Speaker

Published by Papa Giorgio

See more here:

“…Pena, openly admitted to RUP’s adherence to socialism: ‘…La raza Unida will continue to organize and present… it’s socialist position’…”

(Armando Navarro, La Raza Unida Party: A Chicano Challenge to the U.S. Two-Party Dictatorship, p. 196).

The question first should be, How radical is “La Raza?”

ANSWER:

….Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.

Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.

One of America’s greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.

This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:

“Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we…should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot…Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas … It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.” (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

MEChA isn’t at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):

“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. … Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”

That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: “For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.”

…read more…

Whatever happened to the days of people like Caesar Chavez, founder of the UFW, who saw these movements now fully integrated into the Democratic Party, as the racist organizations they are:

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told Peter Matthiessen, the co-founder of the Paris Review, for a profile piece in The New Yorker in 1969. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there.”… ~ CHAVEZ

A Professor preaches his la Raza Hate/racism in Los Angeles… he has many students learning this hatred, funded by tax payers:

It is amazing to me that Democrats would support a movement called “The Race.” It solidifies the idea that Democrats are not against racism, but against “Americanism.” Dana Loesch has an article that points to Julian Castro’s radical positions:

…Castro and Obama both had radical parents. Castro’s mother, Rosie Castro, is described as a “firebrand” and helped to found La Raza Unida. Julián Castro and his twin brother are considered “legacies” of La Raza’s mission:

Also among these legacy children: San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro and brother, Joaquín, sons of Rosie Castro, who was also there at the beginning of La Raza Unida. Joaquín Castro is a state House rep and a congressional candidate.  

Said Rosie Castro of The Alamo:

“When I grew up I learned that the ‘heroes’ of the Alamo were a bunch of drunks and crooks and slaveholding imperialists who conquered land that didn’t belong to them. But as a little girl I got the message — we were losers. I can truly say that I hate that place and everything it stands for.”…

…read more…

International Business Times points this connection out:

  • Castro is the son of Maria “Rosie” Castro, a Chicano political activist who helped establish the Chicano political party La Raza Unida in the 1970s.

Charles Johnson puts the nail in the radical’s coffin:

…“[My mother] sees political activism as an opportunity to change people’s lives for the better. Perhaps that is because of her outspoken nature or because Chicanos in the early 1970s (and, of course, for many years before) had no other option. To make themselves heard Chicanos needed the opportunity that the political system provided. In any event, my mother’s fervor for activism affected the first years of my life, as it touches it today.

Castro wrote fondly of those early days and basked in the slogans of the day. “‘Viva La Raza!’ ‘Black and Brown United!’ ‘Accept me for who I am—Chicano.’ These and many other powerful slogans rang in my ears like war cries.” These war cries, Castro believes, advanced the interests of their political community. He sees her rabble-rousing as the cause for Latino successes, not the individual successes of those hard-working men and women who persevered despite some wrinkles in the American meritocracy.

[My mother] insisted that things were changing because of political activism, participation in the system. Maria del Rosario Castro has never held a political office. Her name is seldom mentioned in a San Antonio newspaper. However, today, years later, I read the newspapers, and I see that more Valdezes are sitting on school boards, that a greater number of Garcias are now doctors, lawyers, engineers, and, of course, teachers. And I look around me and see a few other brown faces in the crowd at [Stanford]. I also see in me a product of my mother’s diligence and her friends’ hard work. Twenty years ago I would not have been here…. My opportunities are not the gift of the majority; they are the result of a lifetime of struggle and commitment by adetermined minority. My mother is one of these persons. And each year I realize more and more how much easier my life has been made by the toil of past generations. I wonder what form my service will take, since I am expected by those who know my mother to continue the family tradition. [Emphasis Castro’s]

****

Rosie named her first son, Julian, for his father whom she never married, and her second, who arrived a minute later, for the character in the 1967 Chicano anti-gringo movement poem, “I Am Joaquin.” She is particularly proud that they were born on Mexico’s Independence Day. And she was a fan of the Aztlan aspirations of La Raza Unida. Those aspirations were deeply radical. “As far as we got was simply to take over control in those [Texas] communities where we were the majority,” one of its founders, Jose Angel Gutierrez, told the Toronto paper. “We did think of carving out a geographic territory where we could have our own weight, and our own leverage could then be felt nation-wide.”

Removing all doubt, Gutierrez repeated himself often. “What we hoped to do back then was to create a nation within a nation,” he told the Denver Post in 2001. Gutierrez bemoaned the loss of that separatist vision among activists, but predicted that Latinos will “soon take over politically.” (“Brothers in Chicano Movement to Reunite,” Denver Post, August 16, 2001).

Gutierrez made clear his hatred for “the gringo” when he led the Mexican-American Youth Organization, the precursor to La Raza Unida. According to the Houston Chronicle, he “was denounced by many elected officials as militant and un-American.” And anti-American he was. “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to worst, we have got to kill him,” Gutierrez told a San Antonio audience in 1969. At around that time, Rosie Castro eagerly joined his cause, becoming the first chairwoman of the Bexar County Raza Unida Party. There’s no evidence of her distancing herself from Gutierrez’s comments, even today. Gutierrez even dedicated a chapter in one of his books to Ms. Castro.

…read more…