States Against Obama - racist?

An open section to speak about anything on your mind from News, politics, Conspiracy Theories, and any random street or urban event.
Post Reply
User avatar
alexalonso
Founder
Founder
Posts: 9011
Joined: May 12th, 2003, 7:56 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Los Angeles
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by alexalonso » October 2nd, 2008, 12:54 pm

If you look at the polls by State, forget about the national polls. I noticed that there are two states that Obama will absolutely not get, Utah is 28% for Obama, and Idaho is 33% for Obama. Does that mean that Utah and Idaho are the most racist states in our country.


http://www.electoral-vote.com/

User avatar
AllhoodPublications
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1206
Joined: October 8th, 2006, 12:58 pm
What city do you live in now?: Montreal
Location: West Coast
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by AllhoodPublications » October 2nd, 2008, 1:03 pm

I'm not sure that it indicates racism.

I think there are a number of other reasons such as fear of change, lack of trust in a young president, lack of trust in a black president, or they could simply be happy with the direction of this country.

Are these states mostly republicans? That could explain the vote as well.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Azure9920 » October 2nd, 2008, 1:17 pm

Not at all.

Both states have voted overwhelmingly for Republicans the last 4 elections, possibly even further back.

Kara Ben Nemsi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 72
Joined: June 5th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Kara Ben Nemsi » October 4th, 2008, 11:00 am

A lot of the reason is those voters simply disagree with Obama's platform for change as the solution for the change needed to restore the country back to the de facto standard the rest of the world can envy. They see Obama as a multicultural radical left BIG government socialist who willing to nationalize the failures of the private sector. Just a few of the many reasons why they don't vote for Obama. Simply calling them racists because they disagree with Obama is to show the extent of liberal brainwashing you have endured and it's effect on your ability to reason. Sort of a liberal lobotomy if you will.

User avatar
alexalonso
Founder
Founder
Posts: 9011
Joined: May 12th, 2003, 7:56 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Los Angeles
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by alexalonso » October 11th, 2008, 9:41 pm

AllhoodPublications wrote:I'm not sure that it indicates racism.

I think there are a number of other reasons such as fear of change, lack of trust in a young president, lack of trust in a black president, or they could simply be happy with the direction of this country.

Are these states mostly republicans? That could explain the vote as well.
yeah, you are right, i looked at the 2004 electoral map when John Kerry was running against Bush and those 2 states were just pro republican. Kerry was getting similar numbers from Utah and Idaho.

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by StillNoScript » October 12th, 2008, 12:09 am

Kara Ben Nemsi wrote:A lot of the reason is those voters simply disagree with Obama's platform for change as the solution for the change needed to restore the country back to the de facto standard the rest of the world can envy. They see Obama as a multicultural radical left BIG government socialist who willing to nationalize the failures of the private sector. Just a few of the many reasons why they don't vote for Obama. Simply calling them racists because they disagree with Obama is to show the extent of liberal brainwashing you have endured and it's effect on your ability to reason. Sort of a liberal lobotomy if you will.
And, I'm sure you've learned this spending a lot of time with white people from Utah and Idaho, being white yourself, and thus having them open up their views to you.

I have relatives from both of those states and let me tell you, I'm ostracized and no longer invited to hang out with them because I confront their racism. They tell me they're just joking, etc. When I ask them if they'd say it to a black person's face, they say that black people talk the same way about them so they have the right to do it. How they know black people talk the same way about them when they haven't been around a black person for more than two minutes at any given time in their life is beyond me.

Now, of course, this could all be a delusion from my liberal lobotomy, but I doubt it.

Not all people in Idaho and Utah are racists but I will go out on a limb and say that most white people from those states are, and that's certainly why they won't vote for Obama. One of the primary reasons they vote anti democratic in every election to begin with is because the Democratic Party is the party of civil rights and affirmative action.

MidwestMind
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 61
Joined: October 2nd, 2008, 11:23 am
What city do you live in now?: SO. ILL.
Location: Illinois

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by MidwestMind » October 12th, 2008, 12:51 am

Actually, the Republican Party has historically been the Party of civil rights...who do you think freed the slaves? Some people just get sucked into the Liberal media. It's a shame.

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Azure9920 » October 12th, 2008, 8:32 am

MidwestMind wrote:Actually, the Republican Party has historically been the Party of civil rights...who do you think freed the slaves? Some people just get sucked into the Liberal media. It's a shame.
The Republican Party of the 1800's share little to nothing with the current GOP, same with the Democrats.

$outhPhillypuppet
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2277
Joined: April 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Oregon
What city do you live in now?: over there
Location: home or something

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by $outhPhillypuppet » October 12th, 2008, 10:12 am

Azure9920 wrote: The Republican Party of the 1800's share little to nothing with the current GOP, same with the Democrats.
this mans speaks the truth

Mcminister
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2900
Joined: July 4th, 2006, 4:15 pm
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Mcminister » October 12th, 2008, 2:34 pm

i heard florida black are mostly on mccain side in the polls ,. ?

Azure9920
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2284
Joined: March 7th, 2008, 5:47 pm
What city do you live in now?: --

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Azure9920 » October 12th, 2008, 2:57 pm

Mcminister wrote:i heard florida black are mostly on mccain side in the polls ,. ?
Not even close. Recent polls show Obama at anywhere from a low of 79 to a high of 95% among blacks.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/po ... n_flo.html

Mcminister
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2900
Joined: July 4th, 2006, 4:15 pm
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Mcminister » October 12th, 2008, 3:18 pm

yea my sources were way wrong......i don understand how obama is even behind with republicans..they must be some hard headed selfish fucks

Kara Ben Nemsi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 72
Joined: June 5th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Kara Ben Nemsi » October 12th, 2008, 3:56 pm

StillNoScript wrote:
Kara Ben Nemsi wrote:A lot of the reason is those voters simply disagree with Obama's platform for change as the solution for the change needed to restore the country back to the de facto standard the rest of the world can envy. They see Obama as a multicultural radical left BIG government socialist who willing to nationalize the failures of the private sector. Just a few of the many reasons why they don't vote for Obama. Simply calling them racists because they disagree with Obama is to show the extent of liberal brainwashing you have endured and it's effect on your ability to reason. Sort of a liberal lobotomy if you will.
And, I'm sure you've learned this spending a lot of time with white people from Utah and Idaho, being white yourself, and thus having them open up their views to you.

I have relatives from both of those states and let me tell you, I'm ostracized and no longer invited to hang out with them because I confront their racism. They tell me they're just joking, etc. When I ask them if they'd say it to a black person's face, they say that black people talk the same way about them so they have the right to do it. How they know black people talk the same way about them when they haven't been around a black person for more than two minutes at any given time in their life is beyond me.

Now, of course, this could all be a delusion from my liberal lobotomy, but I doubt it.

Not all people in Idaho and Utah are racists but I will go out on a limb and say that most white people from those states are, and that's certainly why they won't vote for Obama. One of the primary reasons they vote anti democratic in every election to begin with is because the Democratic Party is the party of civil rights and affirmative action.
Well I'm not ostrasizing anyone if it's any consolation. We all run across racism. I run across it from blacks and latinos and whites and asians. It is what it is. But most whites are not racists imo. They are just labled that if they disagree with a non-white by the non-white. It's total BS but that's the way it is.

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by StillNoScript » October 14th, 2008, 2:05 pm

MidwestMind wrote:Actually, the Republican Party has historically been the Party of civil rights...who do you think freed the slaves? Some people just get sucked into the Liberal media. It's a shame.
"Liberal media"....lol. You're clueless. The mainstream media is owned by conservatives.

Many Democrats that were racist during the Civil Rights era moved to the Republican Party when the Democratic Party fought for civil rights.

As far as the Republican Party freeing the slaves...got anything they've done for civil rights in this century? And, it was more Abraham Lincoln than the Republican Party.

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by StillNoScript » October 14th, 2008, 2:06 pm

Mcminister wrote:i heard florida black are mostly on mccain side in the polls ,. ?
LOL.

Funniest joke I've heard all day.

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by StillNoScript » October 14th, 2008, 2:08 pm

Kara Ben Nemsi wrote:Well I'm not ostrasizing anyone if it's any consolation. We all run across racism. I run across it from blacks and latinos and whites and asians. It is what it is. But most whites are not racists imo. They are just labled that if they disagree with a non-white by the non-white. It's total BS but that's the way it is.
It's obvious you've never been to Idaho or Utah. Let's just put it that way.

Kara Ben Nemsi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 72
Joined: June 5th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Kara Ben Nemsi » October 14th, 2008, 8:40 pm

StillNoScript wrote:
Kara Ben Nemsi wrote:Well I'm not ostrasizing anyone if it's any consolation. We all run across racism. I run across it from blacks and latinos and whites and asians. It is what it is. But most whites are not racists imo. They are just labled that if they disagree with a non-white by the non-white. It's total BS but that's the way it is.
It's obvious you've never been to Idaho or Utah. Let's just put it that way.
I lived in Boise for a couple years once and traveled the state. I know it just fine. It's obvious you don't want to hear that an entire world exists outside your gangsta fantasy and they aren't interested in being called racists by you or anyone else simply because they have a different (e.g. better) value system.

MidwestMind
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 61
Joined: October 2nd, 2008, 11:23 am
What city do you live in now?: SO. ILL.
Location: Illinois

States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by MidwestMind » October 14th, 2008, 9:03 pm

StillNoScript - Read these articles homie. They'll kick some REAL knowledge for you. Not that garbage you hear and see on CNN. These are FACTS. I would have found more knowledge for you, but I don't have the time to search or bold all the main points. So read these and see how very wrong you are on everything you just said. It's okay though. I don't blame you for believing what you hear on the liberal news programs.



History of the Republican Party

Many, perhaps even most, ordinary Democrats and Republicans have no idea of the relative histories of their parties. They know only what has been fed to them by a media intent on showing Democrats in only the best light, and by a school system even more biased.

Democrats believe that their party has always been the "party of civil rights"; that theirs was the side that fought against slavery, and for equal rights, citizenship, and the right of blacks to vote, even women's suffrage. In fact, they have been on the wrong side of every single one of these civil rights issues, and more--much more.

The fact that ordinary Democrats believe that their party is the party of civil rights, though incorrect, is grounds for a significant amount of forgiveness. Their hearts are in the right place (on this issue) and they are, after all, being duped by a gigantic system designed to do just that. I myself was once among their number.

The Republican Policy Committee of the United States House of Representatives, to celebrate 150 years since the founding of the Republican Party, have put together a calendar that tracks their achievements in advancing individual freedom.

Al Franken, feeling the need to respond to the calender, yet unable to refute any of the items in the calender by factual means, resorts to childish means: he makes fun of the fact some of the dates of the achievements listed on the calender are old. Why this seems relevant to Franken, in view of the fact that the calender celebrates 150 years of achievements, is not immediately apparent. Franken's intellectual powers seldom seem more limited than they do in this opinion piece. He, unlike the rank and file of his party, is part of the misinformation machine.

Now, it is true that Republicans have been involved in civil rights issues for a century and a half. For the first 100 or so years, they were the party that was "for" civil rights.

Then they switched sides with the Democrats, and for half a century they've been more involved on the "against" side.

The first paragraph is right, the second is what he wants you to believe; there was no switching of sides--the Democrats merely switched their rhetoric. Much like Hillary Clinton is doing today by cynically espousing conservative values in a transparent effort to convince voters that she is not a liberal, but a moderate.

While neither party has been even close to perfect in their support for civil rights, the Republican's record is immeasurably better than the Democrat's--long ago and today. In addition to the calendar, Republicans also offer the following history of their party. Because their side is seldom told, it should be read regardless of which party you think you belong to. It begins... at the beginning:

To stop the Democrats’ pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists founded the Republican Party, starting with a few dozen men and women in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854. The party spread across the northern and western United States like a prairie fire of freedom. The first Republican state convention was held in Jackson, Michigan in July 1854. The Republican National Committee met for the first time in 1856, followed four months later by the first Republican National Convention.

In the election of 1860, Republicans swept to victory in the White House and won majorities in both houses of Congress. Just six years after the party’s founding, the Governor of every northern state in America was a Republican. That phenomenal progress was possible only because the Republican Party was based on the powerful idea that our nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to equality, must live up to its founding principles.

Despite fierce Democrat opposition, Republicans passed constitutional amendments banning slavery, extending the Bill of Rights to the states, guaranteeing equal protection of the laws and due process to all citizens, and extending the right to vote to persons of all races and backgrounds.

Republicans in Congress also enacted the nation’s first-ever Civil Rights Act, which extended citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds.In 1875, the Republicans expanded these protections to give all citizens the right of equal access to all public accommodations. Struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, this landmark legislation would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Republicans led the fight for women’s rights, and most suffragists were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged about how, after voting (illegally) in 1872, she had voted a straight Republican ticket. The suffragists included two African-American women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great Republicans, both of them.

Republican Senator Aaron Sargent wrote the women’s suffrage amendment in 1878,though it would not be passed by Congress until Republicans again won control of both houses 40 years later. It was in 1916 that the first woman was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Jeannette Rankin. The first woman mayor was elected in 1926, the Honorable Bertha Landes of Seattle, another great Republican.

Democratic opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans lasted not only throughout Reconstruction, but well into the 20th century. In the South, those Democrats who most bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which operated as the party’s terrorist wing.

Every single African-American in Congress until 1935 was a Republican. Among the Republican pioneers were South Carolina’s Joseph Rainey, the first black member of the House of Representatives, in 1870. Republican Hiram Revels of Mississippi became the first black U. S. Senator the same year. Two years later, Pinckney Pinchback of Louisiana became the nation’s first blac Governor.

Californi was the first state to have a Hispanic governor, Republican Romualdo Pacheco, in 1875. The first Hispanic U. S. Senator, Octaviano Larrazolo, came to Washington from New Mexico as a Republican in 1928. The first Jewish U.S. Senator outside the former Confederacy was a Republican from Oregon, Joseph Simon, and the first Jewish woman to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives was a California Republican, Florence Kahn.

In 2004, America marked the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which began with the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That landmark decision was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the three-term Republican Governor of California appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. The author of Brown was also the 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee.

Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster.

The first Asian-American U.S. Senator was a Republican, Hiram Fong from Hawaii. The first African-American Senator after Reconstruction was a Republican, Ed Brooke from Massachusetts. The first Asian-American federal judge was a Republican, Herbert Choy. The first woman on the Supreme Court was a Republican, Sandra Day O’Connor. The first Hispanic presidential Cabinet member was a Republican, Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan.

The longest- serving African-American in a leadership position of the U.S. House of Representatives was a Republican, J.C. Watts. The first women elected to the majority Leadership in both the House and the Senate were Republicans, Jennifer Dunn and Kay Bailey Hutchison. The highest-ranking women ever in the majority Leadership in Congress, both currently serving, are Republicans: Kay Bailey Hutchison and Deborah Pryce.

Today, the Republican Party continues its historical commitment to civil rights at home and around the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honoring 150 Years of Republican Civil Rights Achievements

This year marks an important anniversary -- and it’s a big one. Our party is a century and a half old this year. That is a big, big event: after all -- a 150th anniversary doesn’t come along but once … every 150 years.

It was 150 years ago this year that our party was founded in a small midwest town. Take a moment to think what was going on 150 years ago: John Phillip Sousa was born. Sacramento became the capital of our state. The San Francisco Gas Company illuminated its first gaslights. That’s the world in which a few people in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin came together to map strategy and to form the Republican Party.

The history of our party is as remarkable as it is untold, and it is under-appreciated for that reason. Just in the area of civil rights, there is no way in these brief comments that I can do anything like a comprehensive presentation. But I can tell you that for the last two years, the Republican Policy Committee in the United States Congress has been working to chronicle the Republican civil rights history, gathering thousands of facts, dates, and events. And today we are proudly issuing the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar.

Unfortunately, the Republican Freedom Calendar has only 365 days. And so we have had to pick 365 out of hundreds and hundreds of additional civil rights accomplishments. It is truly impressive to go through this. I have learned an extraordinary amount about our party as a result of this project.

The Republican Party, I am absolutely confident in saying, is the most effective political organization in the history of the world in advancing the cause of freedom. Frankly, we haven’t had any competition.

The mission of our party was clearly stated by Abraham Lincoln: “to lift the artificial weights from all shoulders, and clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all.” His use of the word “pursuit” recalls Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence. Just as America’s founding document declared our right to pursue happiness, the Republican philosophy has always been focused on opportunity -- not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. The “artificial weight” that Lincoln is talking about is, of course, the weight of the state. In the
most egregious form of statism, the government imposed slavery on millions of Americans.

Today, the animating spirit of the Republican Party is exactly the same as it was at its founding: free minds, free markets, free expression, and unlimited opportunity. Leading the organized opposition to these ideas 150 years ago, just as today, was the Democratic Party -- in the form, then as now, of politically correct speech; a preference for government control over individual decision making (and of course slavery was the most extreme form of government control); government control of enterprise; and an insistence on seeing people as members of groups, rather than as individuals. It was that refusal to see the unique value of every individual that
was at the heart of the Democrats’ support of slavery.

So on this 150th anniversary, it is useful to look back. This morning, I will speak briefly on four of the significant accomplishments of the Republican Party in the area of individual rights and freedoms:

First, the role of our party in bringing an end to slavery in the United States.

Second, the role of our party in extending the right to vote to men and women of all backgrounds, of all races, and of all creeds.

Third, the leadership role of our party in ushering in the modern civil rights era.

And fourth, the leading role of our party in establishing an American policy of peace through strength that has freed hundreds of millions of people around the world from slavery and brought freedom, democracy, women’s rights, and minority rights to the former Soviet Empire and across central and eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

From President Lincoln’s victory in the Civil War, to President Reagan’s victory in the Cold War, to President Bush’s liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the policies of the Republican Party have brought freedom to a major portion of the planet’s population that previously lived in slavery.

These astounding achievements are the result of our party’s establishment with a fundamentally different vision than the Democrats whom we formed to oppose 150 years ago.

We started our party with the express intent to protect the American people from the Democrats’ pro-slavery policies that made people inferior to the state. The Democrats didn’t just oppose Republicans, or merely tolerate racial discrimination; they were aggressively pro-slavery -- so much so that they were alternately referred
to as the “Slaveocrats.”

So on March 20, 1854, our founders decided to take them on. They drafted plans and platforms, and in the space of a few months, put together Republican Party organizations across the Northern and Western portions of the United States.

The first Republican state convention was held in Jackson, Michigan just a few months later in July. The first meeting of the Republican National Committee was two years later. Three months after that, the first Republican National Convention was held in Philadelphia.

That first Republican National Convention nominated our first presidential candidate, who -- as everyone here knows -- was a former U.S. Senator from California, John C. Fremont. He didn’t win, but just four years later, a former member of the House did win, carrying the Republican standard. And not only did Lincoln win the presidency, but his coattails were so long and so broad that Republicans won majorities -- big majorities -- in both the House and in the Senate.

In fact, after the election of 1860, every single governor in every northern state in the United States was a Republican. This was phenomenal progress in the space of just a few years. It was possible because our party was based on such a powerful idea. We know now that we don’t win elections unless we have ideas behind us. The history of the Republican Party is an amazing example of how much can be accomplished if your ideas are big enough.

These Republican majorities, and the strength of our ideas, enabled us to fight and win the Civil War. This same Republican commitment to individual freedom led our nation through Reconstruction, and guided our policies to the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, to make the United States of America what it is today: a beacon of hope and freedom for the entire world.

Military histories of the Civil War are commonplace. There is an enormous industry dedicated to producing DVDs, videos, movies, and books about the military aspects of the Civil War. But all too little attention is paid to the political aspects of the Civil War. For many years after the Civil War, the history books accurately described the Republican Party’s leading role in preserving the Union and ending slavery. But as history faded, and college professors became more partisan and politically tendentious, the facts were lost. “History” changed. The facts didn’t change, but our history books did.

Today, students are taught that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an eccentric individual act, and that Lincoln rose above politics in issuing it. In fact, the opposite was true. This was a profoundly political act, which had been expressly authorized by the U.S. Congress in a hotly debated law. Both the House and the Senate had solidly Republican majorities, which -- over strong Democratic opposition – had passed the Confiscation Act.

That law stated very clearly that slaves belonging to rebels were free. By signing the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln was implementing that statute. Freeing the slaves was thus a political question that every Republican in Congress voted for, and every Democrat voted against.

At the end of the war, despite their strong majorities, Republicans in Congress knew they wouldn’t have a majority forever. Anticipating that the Democrats might someday come back into power, Republicans unanimously voted for what became the 13th Amendment to the Constitution -- thereby putting an end to slavery.

The Republicans in Congress went on to pass the nation’s first ever Civil Rights Act, extending citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds. Notice that Republicans didn’t take the political approach that they might have, limiting themselves to saying that former slaves would now be treated equally, or only blacks or African-Americans would gain their civil rights. We said all people, all colors, all creeds -- because that’s the way Republicans think. The founders of the Republican Party were simply putting in force the stated ideals of the Founding Fathers, so that our government would finally recognize that all people are created equal, and that all should enjoy the right to pursue happiness.

Republicans have always believed that every man and woman is created equal. This is not a choice that can be made for us by others. It isn’t up to our government. So we required our government to fulfill that promise.

The same year as the first Civil Rights Act, Republicans in Congress wrote another constitutional amendment to extend even further the scope of our civil rights legislation. We extended the concepts of due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, to every state. Now, every state -- even those where Democrats held sway -- would have to implement these principles. No longer just at the federal level, but at the state level as well, the civil rights of every American individual would be protected.

This major civil rights advance -- what we now know as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- is a purely Republican achievement, because every single Democrat in Congress voted against the 14th Amendment. That is another fact deftly omitted from American history textbooks these days: we owe our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws and due process to Republicans, and this bedrock of American civil rights was unanimously opposed by the Democrats.

Three years later, in 1869, the Republicans proposed yet another constitutional amendment, this one specifically guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. The same partisanship was in evidence: 98% of Republicans voted for it; 97% of the Democrats voted against it.

Seven years later, Republicans in Congress authored what was then, and what remains today, the most sweeping Civil Rights legislation ever enacted. The 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteed the right of equal access to all citizens in all public accommodations -- whether or not owned or controlled by the government. Now that phrase, “public accommodations,” is very familiar to us today, because it was at the heart of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which became the focal point of the 1960s civil rights movement. The reason that this question was before the Congress again in the 1960s is that the 1875 Civil Rights Act only lasted for eight years before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. What finally became law in 1964, therefore, was the original Republican legislation of 90 years earlier. Not surprisingly, in 1964 a significantly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Democrats’ opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of African-Americans lasted not just through the Reconstruction era, but well into the 20th Century. In the South, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan, virtually destroyed the Republican Party -- which did not recover enough to become a force in the region until President Reagan’s message of freedom and equality for all prevailed in the 1980s.

Every single African-American in Congress, House and Senate, until 1935 was a Republican.


In 1872, the first black governor took office in Louisiana. I love his name: Pinckney Pinchback, a great Republican. Our own state of California was the first to have a Hispanic governor. Can you guess his political party? Republican Romualdo Pacheco became governor in 1875, long before anybody had ever heard of Cruz Bustamante.

The first Hispanic U.S. Senator was elected from New Mexico in 1928. You guessed it -- he was a Republican, Octaviano Larrazolo.

Republicans led the fight for women’s voting rights -- and the Democrats, as a party, opposed civil rights for women. All of the leading suffragists -- including Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged, after leaving the voting booth, that she had voted for “the Republican ticket -- straight.”

The suffragists included two African-American Republican women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great leaders of our party, both of them.

The first women delegates to a national party convention did not go to the Democratic National Convention, they went to the Republican Convention. In fact, for years Democrats kept women out, while Republicans were letting women in. The goal of the Republican suffragists, including their male Republican elected official friends, was to add an amendment to the Constitution that would give women the right to vote. Sadly, there is not a single California schoolbook in use today that tells students it was a Republican U.S. Senator from California, Aaron Sargent, who authored the women’s suffrage amendment -- or that he named it in honor of another great Republican, Susan B. Anthony.

Senator Sargent introduced the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1878, but it didn’t become the law of the land until 1920. Why? Because Republicans did not have majorities in both the House and the Senate at the same time, and the Democrats kept voting against it. But, in the meanwhile, in 1916, Montana -- which had by state law given women the right to vote -- elected Jeannette Rankin to be the first woman to serve in the United States Congress. She, of course, was a Republican.

In the national election two years later, in 1918, Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate. We then swiftly passed the Women’s Suffrage Amendment. And 1920, therefore, was the first presidential election in which all women could vote. What do you think most women in America did? They voted for Warren Harding. In fact, I remember having a conversation with my grandmother about this. I talked to her about the first time she was able to vote, and I asked her, “Who did you vote for?” She looked at me as if I were crazy. “Of course,” she answered, “I voted for the Republicans. They gave us the vote.” That’s why the Republican
landslide for Harding was so big that year.

Meanwhile, in the face of the Democrats’ continued terrorizing of Republican organizational activity in the South, many courageous Republicans were standing up nonetheless. One of the great Southern leaders of that era who was openly calling himself a Republican and drawing attention to his cause was Booker T. Washington, the famed educator and founder of Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute. But even a man as distinguished as this, and even in the 20th century, was opposed by a still-racist Democratic Party. When Republican President Teddy Roosevelt had the temerity to invite Booker T. Washington to dine with him in the White House, the Democrats raised holy hell through the media. They said it was a scandal, and outrageous, and an atrocity.

Republicans led the integration of pro sports. Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, was a Republican businessman who hired his fellow Republican, Jackie Robinson. Together they integrated Major League Baseball when Jackie Robinson took the field in 1947 for his first game. In addition to being a great athlete, a great Dodger, and a great American, Jackie Robinson was a great Republican -- and a very outspoken one.

This year, 2004, is the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which most people date to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That opinion was written by a Republican Chief Justice appointed by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. And of course that Republican Chief Justice had been our three-term Republican Governor here in California, and he’d been our Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 1948: Earl Warren.

Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Now remember, the nation had just ended a long stretch of Democratic administrations -- nearly four terms of FDR, and seven years of Truman -- and yet there had been no civil rights legislation at all. In fact, the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first U.S. civil rights legislation in eight decades.

Another great Republican, U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act. It was also he who was most responsible -- more than any other individual -- for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As Republican Leader in the Senate, even though his party was in the minority, Dirksen crafted the strategy that overcame long odds and tenacious Democratic opposition.

The Democrats weren’t just internally conflicted about the 1964 Civil Rights Act; a significant number of them actually filibustered it -- preventing an up or down vote on the bill. Eventually, however -- thanks to Dirksen’s leadership -- this landmark legislation did get the vote it deserved. As with all of the previous civil rights legislation in our nation’s history, it passed with significantly more support from Republicans than from Democrats. The same was true for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which became law the following year.

Which political party gave our nation the first Asian American Senator in the United States Senate? The Republican Party -- and it was the esteemed Hiram Fong of Hawaii. The first African American Senator after Reconstruction? Republican Ed Brooke from Massachusetts. The first Asian American federal judge? Republican Herbert Choy, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, by President Nixon, for whom I served as law clerk.

The first woman on the Supreme Court? Everyone knows that. But you may not have known that before she became a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Arizona Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be Majority Leader in the legislature of any state.

The first Hispanic member of the President’s Cabinet? Republican Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under President Reagan.

It was President Ford who, in 1976, repealed FDR’s notorious executive order interning 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

We can be proud of Republican appointments such as Justice Clarence Thomas, the former Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Colin Powell, the first African American to be National Security Advisor or Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor; and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, the first Asian American woman in any president’s
Cabinet.

This remarkable, unbroken 150-year string of civil rights achievements is the reason that, this year, we are so proud to publish the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar. Our party has a great story to tell. There is also much work still to be done to secure the God-given rights of all men and women, and the Republican Party is
leading the way.

Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that the United States of America is the only country on Earth, now or at any time in history, that was founded not on race or nationality, but on an ideal. Republicans, from the founding of our party to this very day, have been carrying forward this ideal of individual freedom.

Now, in our 150th year as a party, we have not only an opportunity to reflect, but also a chance to advance our cause of promoting freedom. This is a presidential election year, and the choice could not be more stark.

Today, our nation is carrying the torch of freedom to oppressed people across the globe. President Bush and the Republican Party have led America to throw off the “chains of oppression” in Afghanistan, and to free millions of women from the shackles of Taliban rule. Afghan women can now vote; they can go to school; they can practice their professions; and women are no longer required to be fully covered from head to toe when in public. In response to this American victory for human rights, Michael Moore, John Kerry, and John Edwards have only criticism.

President Bush and the Republican Party have led America to liberate Iraq, freeing more than 24 million people from a brutal, murderous dictator who piled more than 400,000 men, women, and children in mass graves -- and who killed more than one million of his fellow citizens. Iraqi men and women are now building their own democracy, as a free people. But John Kerry, Michael Moore, and John Edwards say that spreading democracy in the Middle East is a fool’s errand unworthy of America.

Republicans disagree, as we have for 150 years. We believe that governments have no right to enslave people, and that our own liberties are at risk when racists, theocrats, terrorists, and murderers go unpunished and unchecked. That is why, in the end, our Republican commitment to civil rights and individual freedom undergirds our policies of limited government and peace through strength.

Kara Ben Nemsi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 72
Joined: June 5th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Kara Ben Nemsi » October 16th, 2008, 10:00 am

That's the history true. I'd say though that both parties are long past their original roots and shells of what they once were. Shells the elitists use to exploit our government and the people for short-term gain. I am an independent as a result.

MidwestMind
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 61
Joined: October 2nd, 2008, 11:23 am
What city do you live in now?: SO. ILL.
Location: Illinois

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by MidwestMind » October 16th, 2008, 8:30 pm

That's cool. I can respect that, for sure.

User avatar
alexalonso
Founder
Founder
Posts: 9011
Joined: May 12th, 2003, 7:56 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Los Angeles
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by alexalonso » October 17th, 2008, 3:01 pm

MidwestMind wrote:Actually, the Republican Party has historically been the Party of civil rights...who do you think freed the slaves? Some people just get sucked into the Liberal media. It's a shame.
that was along time ago. The racist southern democrats from back in the day are now republicans. The slave were freed about 150 years ago and a party will change over time. Today the republican party is no where supportive of civil rights as they were in the past.

but what does this have to do with Idaho and Utah?

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by StillNoScript » November 2nd, 2008, 1:40 am

Good point, Alonzo. But they already knew that. They were just bringing up the whole "Abe Lincoln was a Republican" argument to distract people from how racist the Republican party has become today.

Mcminister
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2900
Joined: July 4th, 2006, 4:15 pm
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by Mcminister » November 2nd, 2008, 1:52 pm

MLK was republican too

YUNGHUSTLE1000
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 30
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 10:34 am
What city do you live in now?: PALMDALE

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by YUNGHUSTLE1000 » April 24th, 2009, 2:19 pm

OBAMA GOT U.S. ON LOCK DOWN

CheGuevara
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2842
Joined: January 13th, 2009, 3:26 pm
What city do you live in now?: Nunaya

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by CheGuevara » April 25th, 2009, 9:59 am

alexalonso wrote:If you look at the polls by State, forget about the national polls. I noticed that there are two states that Obama will absolutely not get, Utah is 28% for Obama, and Idaho is 33% for Obama. Does that mean that Utah and Idaho are the most racist states in our country.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
yes, of course. any state that doesn't support obama is totally racist. everybody who didn't vote for obama is a nazi. that's why there were riots in those states right? because they're racist. alonso, you seriously put up dumb threads at times.

User avatar
razbojnik
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3154
Joined: June 13th, 2008, 3:13 am
What city do you live in now?: Belize Nicaragua
Location: Everywhere

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by razbojnik » April 25th, 2009, 11:28 am

CheGuevara wrote:
alexalonso wrote:If you look at the polls by State, forget about the national polls. I noticed that there are two states that Obama will absolutely not get, Utah is 28% for Obama, and Idaho is 33% for Obama. Does that mean that Utah and Idaho are the most racist states in our country.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
yes, of course. any state that doesn't support obama is totally racist. everybody who didn't vote for obama is a nazi. that's why there were riots in those states right? because they're racist. alonso, you seriously put up dumb threads at times.
The n1gger admin's threads aren't dumb, they're just media hyped. I think being a reporter has made him a bit too cliche'd.

User avatar
StillNoScript
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 914
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 1:27 am
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Sacramento
Location: Alta Califas
Contact:

Re: States Against Obama - racist?

Unread post by StillNoScript » June 30th, 2009, 1:20 am

roy wrote:you should check out stillnoscripts newest blog
http://stillnoscriptsworld.blogspot.com/
This is NOT my blog. I don't know who this punk coward is but please ignore him, everyone.

Post Reply

Return to “Open Section for Other Random Topics & Controverisal issues”