Margaret Sanger, a Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, or whatever name the Democrat Party is using at the moment was an evil woman who along with her operatives believed in and supported a strong eugenics program here in America.
(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)
How Planned Parenthood Duped America
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.
While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.
Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy."
Blaming Families
Sanger's obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that "I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families." Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, "free-thinking" views of her father, whose "anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity" in a predominantly Irish community.
The fact that the wealthy families in her hometown of Corning, N.Y., had relatively few children, Sanger took as prima facie evidence of the impoverishing effect of larger families. The personal impact of this belief was heightened 1899, at the age of 48. Sanger was convinced that the "ordeals of motherhood" had caused the death of her mother. The lingering consumption (tuberculosis) that took her mother's life visited Sanger at the birth of her own first child on Nov. 18, 1905. The diagnosis forced her to seek refuge in the Adirondacks to strengthen her for the impending birth. Despite the precautions, the birth of baby Grant was "agonizing," the mere memory of which Sanger described as "mental torture" more than 25 years later. She once described the experience as a factor "to be reckoned with" in her zealous campaign for birth control.
From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the "unfit." Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.
To Sanger, the ebbing away of moral and religious codes over sexual conduct was a natural consequence of the worthlessness of such codes in the individual's search for self-fulfillment. "Instead of laying down hard and fast rules of sexual conduct," Sanger wrote in her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, "sex can be rendered effective and valuable only as it meets and satisfies the interests and demands of the pupil himself." Her attitude is appropriately described as libertinism, but sex knowledge was not the same as individual liberty, as her writings on procreation emphasized.
The second edition of Sanger's life story, An Autobiography, appeared in 1938. There Sanger described her first cross-country lecture tour in 1916. Her standard speech asserted seven conditions of life that "mandated" the use of birth control: the third was "when parents, though normal, had subnormal children"; the fourth, "when husband and wife were adolescent"; the fifth, "when the earning capacity of the father was inadequate." No right existed to exercise sex knowledge to advance procreation. Sanger described the fact that "anyone, no matter how ignorant, how diseased mentally or physically, how lacking in all knowledge of children, seemed to consider he or she had the right to become a parent."
Religious Bigotry
In the 1910's and 1920's, the entire social order–religion, law, politics, medicine, and the media–was arrayed against the idea and practice of birth control. This opposition began in 1873 when an overwhelmingly Protestant Congress passed, and a Protestant president signed into law, a bill that became known as the Comstock Law, named after its main proponent, Anthony Comstock. The U.S. Congress classified obscene writing, along with drugs, and devices and articles that prevented conception or caused abortion, under the same net of criminality and forbade their importation or mailing.
Sanger set out to have such legislation abolished or amended. Her initial efforts were directed at the Congress with the opening of a Washington, D.C., office of her American Birth Control League in 1926. Sanger wanted to amend section 211 of the U.S. criminal code to allow the interstate shipment and mailing of contraceptives among physicians, druggists and drug manufacturers.
During January and February of 1926, Sanger and her co-workers personally interviewed 40 senators and 14 representatives. None agreed to introduce a bill to amend the Comstock Act. Fresh from this unanimous rejection, Sanger issued an update to her followers: Everywhere there is general acceptance of the idea, except in religious circles. . .The National Catholic Welfare Council [sic] (NCWC) has a special legislative committee organized to block and defeat our legislation. They frankly state that they intend to legislate for non-Catholics according to the dictates of the church.
There was no such committee. But 20 non-Catholic lay or religious organizations joined NCWC in opposition to amending the Comstock Act. This was not the first time, nor was it to be the last, that Sanger sought to stir up sectarian strife by blaming Catholics for her legislative failures. Catholic-bashing was a standard tactic (one that Planned Parenthood still finds useful to this day), although other Christian groups now also come in for criticism.
Eight years later, in 1934, Sanger went to Congress again. Reporting on the first day of the hearings, the New York Times noted:
... the almost solidly Catholic opposition to the measure. This is now, according to Margaret Sanger. . . the only organized opposition to the proposal.
Sanger wrote a letter to her "Friends, Co-workers, and Endorsers" that portrayed the opposing testimony as the work of Catholics determined ... not to present facts to the committee but to intimidate them by showing a Catholic block of voters who (though in the minority in the United States) want to dictate to the majority of non-Catholics as directed from the Vatican in social and moral legislation ... American men and women, are we going to allow this insulting arrogance to bluff the American people?
For Sanger, the proper attitude toward her religious critics featured character assassination, personal vilification and old-fashioned bigotry. Her Birth Control Review printed an article that noted: "Today by the Roman Catholic clergy and their allies . . . Public opinion in America, I fear, is too willing to condone in the officials of the Roman Catholic Church what it condemns in the Ku Klux Klan.
A favorite Catholic-baiter of Sanger's was Norman E. Himes, who contributed articles to Sanger's journal. Himes claimed there were genetic differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.
Are Catholic stocks . . . genetically inferior to such non-Catholic libertarian stocks and Unitarians and Universal . . . Freethinkers? Inferior to non-Catholics in general? . . . my guess is that the answer will someday be made in the affirmative. . . and if the supposed differentials in net productivity are also genuine, the situation is anti-social, perhaps gravely so.
Sanger sought to isolate Catholics by creating a schism between them and Protestants, who had held parallel views of birth control and abortion for centuries. She welcomed a report from a majority of the Committee on Marriage and the Home of the General Council of Churches (later the National Council of Churches) advocating birth control. This committee was composed largely of social elite Protestants, including Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. A number of Protestant church bodies publicly repudiated the committee's endorsement.
The Rev. Worth Tippy, council executive secretary and author of the report, told Sanger in April 1931 that: ... the statement on Moral Aspects of Birth Control has aroused more opposition within the Protestant churches than we expected. Under the circumstances, and since we plan to carry on a steady work for liberalizing laws and to stimulate the establishment of clinics, it is necessary that we make good these losses and also increase our resources.Could you help me quietly by giving me the names of people of means who are interested in the birth control movement and might help us if I wrote them.
Sanger immediately wrote Tippy that she would be "glad to select names of persons from our lists whom I think might be able to subscribe." Tippy replied to Sanger a week later, offering to give her some names for fund raising and thanking her for the offer of "names of people who are able to contribute to generous causes and who are favorable to birth control." He also related that they had expected some reaction from the "fundamentalist groups," but nothing like what had happened.
Protestants repeatedly stated their unity with Catholics in opposing Planned Parenthood's initiatives. During Sanger's attempts to reform New York state law, another Protestant stood with Catholics. The Rev. John R. Straton, Pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church of New York City, said: "This bill is subversive of the human family . . . It is revolting, monstrous, against God's word and contradicts American traditions."
Sanger's attack on Catholics appeared to be an attempt to divert attention from the class politics of Planned Parenthood. The Rev. John A. Ryan wrote: ... their main objective is to increase the practice of birth-prevention among the poor . . . It is said that the present birth-prevention movement is to some extent financed by wealthy, albeit philanthropic persons. As far as I am aware , none of these is conspicuous in the movement for economic justice. None of them is crying out for a scale of wages which would enable workers to take care of a normal number of children.
Sanger's sexual license was another motivation for her Anti-Catholic sniping. A Sanger biographer, David M. Kennedy, said her primary goal was to "increase the quantity and quality of sexual relationships." The birth control movement, she said, freed the mind from "sexual prejudice and taboo, by demanding the frankest and most unflinching re-examination of sex in its relation to human nature and the basis of human society.
Sannger's Gamble
It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.
Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in chargeÑas it was at an Atlanta conference.
It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.
Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.
Birth control was presented both as an economic betterment vehicle and as a health measure that could lower the incidence of infant mortality. At the 1942 BCFA annual meeting, BCFA Negro Council board member Dr. Dorothy B. Ferebee–a cum laude graduate of Tufts and also president of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the nation's largest black sorority–addressed the delegates regarding Planned Parenthood's minority outreach efforts : With the Negro group some of the most difficult obstacles . . . to overcome are: (1) the concept that when birth control is proposed to them, it is motivated by a clever bit of machination to persuade them to commit race suicide; (2) the so-called "husband rejection" . . . (3) the fact that birth control is confused with abortion, and (4) the belief that is inherently immoral. However, as formidable as these objections may seem, when thrown against the total picture of the awareness on the part of the Negro leaders of the improved condition under Planned Parenthood, or the genuine interest and eagerness of the families themselves to secure the services which will give them a fair chance for health and happiness, the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed.
Birth control as an economic improvement measure had some appeal to those lowest on the income ladder. In the black Chicago Defender for Jan. 10, 1942, a long three-column women's interest article discussed the endorsement of the Sanger program by prominent black women. There were at lease six express references, such as the following example, to birth control as a remedy for economic woes:" . . . it raises the standard of living by enabling parents to adjust the family size to the family income." Readers were also told that birth control" . . . is no operation. It is no abortion. Abortion kills life after it has begun. . . Birth Control is neither harmful nor immoral."
But the moral stumbling block could only be surmounted by Afro-American religious leaders, so black ministers were solicited. Florence Rose, long-time Sanger secretary, prepared an activities report during March 1942 detailing the progress of the "Negro Project." She recounted a recent meeting with a Planned Parenthood Negro Division board member, Bishop David H. Sims (African Methodist Episcopal Church), who appreciated Planned Parenthood's recognition of the extent of black opposition to birth control and its efforts to build up support among black leaders. He offered whatever assistance he could give.
Bishop Sims offered to begin the "softening process" among the representatives of different Negro denominations attending the monthly meetings of the Federal Council of Churches and its Division of Race Relations.
These and other efforts paid off handsomely after World War II. By 1949, virtually the entire black leadership network of religious, social, professional, and academic organizations had endorsed Planned Parenthood's program.
National Scandal
More than a decade later, Planned Parenthood continued targeting minority communities, but without much success.
In 1940, nonwhite women aged 18 to 19 experienced 61 births per 1,000 unmarried women. In 1968, the corresponding figure was 112 per 1,000, a 100 percent jump. What other factor could account for the increased rate of sexual activity than wider access to birth control, with its promise of sex without tears and consequences?
Alan Guttmacher, then president of Planned Parenthood, was desperate to show policy-makers that birth control would produce a situation whereby "minority groups who constantly outbreed the majority will no longer persist in doing so. . . "
Despite claims that racial or ethnic groups were not being "targeted," American blacks, among whose ranks a greater proportion of the poor were numbered, received a high priority in Planned Parenthood's nationwide efforts. Donald B. Strauss, chairman of Planned ParenthoodÑWorld Population, urged the 1964 Democratic national Convention to liberalize the party's stated policies on birth control, and to adopt domestic and foreign policy platform resolutions to conform with long-sought San gerite goals: [While almost one-fourth of nonwhite parents have four or more children under 18 living with them, only 8% of the white couples have that many children living at home. For the Negro parent in particular, the denial of access to family planning professional guidance forecloses one more avenue to family advancement and well-being..
Unwanted children would not get the job training and educational skills they needed to compete in a shrinking labor market; moreover, unwanted children are a product and a cause of poverty.
Surveying the "successes" of tax-subsidized birth control programs, Guttmacher noted in 1970 that "[Birth control services are proliferating in areas adjacent to concentrations of black population." (In the 1980's, targeting the inner-city black communities for school based sex clinics became more sensitive than expected.)
Guttmacher thought that as long as the birth rate continued to fall or remained at a low level, Planned Parenthood should certainly be introduced before family size by coercion is attempted."
Reaching this goal, he thought, would best be accomplished by having groups other than the PPFA preach the doctrine of a normative 2.1-child family, as doing this would offend Planned Parenthood's minority clients. He suggested that family size would decrease if abortion were liberalized nationwide and received government support. In this prediction he was right on target.
But Guttmacher did not completely reject forced population control: Predicting 20 critical years ahead in the struggle to control the population explosion, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, president of Planned parenthoodÑWorld Population, continues to urge the use of all voluntary means to hold down on the world birthrate. But he foresees the possibility that eventual coercion may become necessary, particularly in areas where the pressure is greatest, possibly India and China. "Each country," he says, "will have to decide its own form of coercion, and determine when and how it should be employed. At Present, the means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible.
Coerced abortion is already practiced in China, with the International Planned Parenthood Federation's approval.
Extreme Irony
Despite its past, Planned Parenthood has managed to present the image of toleration and minority participation through the vehicle of its divorced, telegenic, African American president, Ms. Faye Wattleton, appointed titular head of the PPFA in 1978, a post she still holds. Though paid in the six-figure range, she has impeccable minority credentials that would have fit the public relations criteria for both Margaret Sanger and Dr. Clarence Gamble.
Wattleton's PPFA biography touts her as a friend of the "Poor and the young"; a nurse at Harlem Hospital; and the recipient of the 1989 Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Humanitarian Award and the World Institute of Black Communicators' 1986 Excellence in Black Communications Award. It further states she was featured in a national photography exhibit, "I Dream A World: Portraits of Black Women Who Changed America"; interviewed in Ebony; and was the cover story in Black Enterprise magazine. (Time published a profile of Wattleton in 1990 entitled "Nothing Less Than Perfect.")
Her ideological orientation has received certification in the form of the Better World Society's 1989 Population Model, the 1986 American Humanist Award, and others. But surely, the spectacle of the Congressional Black Caucus awarding its humanitarian award to the black woman who presides over the organization that has hastened and justified the death of almost eight million black children since 1973 and facilitates the demise of the black family is ironic in the extreme.
Killer Angel
In his book, Killer Angel, George Grant says: "Myths, according to theologian J. l. packer, are Ôstories made up to sanctify social patterns.' They are lies, carefully designed to reinforce a particular philosophy or morality within a culture. They are instruments of manipulation and control.
Killer Angel tells the real story behind one of the biggest myths that controls our culture todayÑthe life and legacy of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Grant exposes "the Big Lie" perpetuated by Sanger's followers and the organization she started.
Through detailed research and concise writing, Grant unveils Sanger's true character and ideology, which included blatant racism, revolutionary socialism, sexual perversion and insatiable avarice. Grant includes direct quotes from sources such as Sanger's Birth Control Review to support his findings. His biography spans Sanger's disturbed and unhappy upbringingÑwhich Sanger said contributed to her agitation and bitterness later in lifeÑto her eventual fixation with drugs, alcohol and the occult.
Particularly shocking was Sanger's involvement in the Eugenics movement. Grant says: "[Sanger] was thoroughly convinced that the Ôinferior races' were in fact Ôhuman weeds' and a Ômenace to civilization.' . . . [S]he was a true believer, not simply someone who assimilated the jargon of the timesÑas Planned Parenthood officials would have us believe."
Sanger died September 6, 1966, a week before her eighty-seventh birthday. Grant says: "[She] had nearly fulfilled her early boast that she would spend every last penny of Slee's [her second husband] fortune. In the process, though, she had lost everything else: love, happiness, satisfaction, fulfillment, family, and friends. In the end, her struggle was her naught."
The truth uncovered in grant's book has proven to be a threat to those who follow the cult of :Planned Parenthood. In fact, Killer Angel was recently banned from a public library in Toledo, Ohio. A library manager stated in a letter that, "The author's political and social agenda, which is strongly expoused throughout the book, is not appropriate even in a critical biography of its subject."
In response, Grant pointed out that "The question at hand is whether librarians should be making subjective judgments about my political beliefs and the beliefs of other authors."
By censoring Killer Angel, the library appears to be violating its own policies, which state that, "the Library collection shall include representative materials of all races and nationalities, and all political, religious, economic and social views." Except Christian views, apparently.
While the Toledo public library may not be interested in the information put forth in Grant's book, pro-lifers will find this biography useful and enlightening. It serves as a powerful tool in dispelling the myths surrounding a womanÑconsidered a heroine by manyÑwho began an organization that is responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn children.
Grant states that, "Margaret SangerÑand her heirs at Planned Parenthood . . . have thus far been able to parlay the deception into a substantial empire. But now the truth must be told. The illusion must be exposed." Killer Angel does an outstanding job in doing that.
Sanger's Legacy is Reproductive Freedom and Racism
Despite Margaret Sanger's contributions to birth control and hence women's freedom and empowerment, her legacy is diminished by her sympathies with eugenics. This writer says that, like many modern feminists, Sanger ignored class and race.
(WOMENSENEWS)--Margaret Sanger opened the nation's first birth control clinic in 1916. For the rest of her life she worked to establish a woman's right to control her body and to decide when or whether to have a child. In 1921, she founded the American Birth Control league, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood.
Her impact on contemporary society is tremendous. Enabling women to control their fertility and giving them access to contraception, as advocated by Sanger, makes it possible for women to have a broader set of life options, especially in the areas of education and employment, than if their lives are dominated by unrelieved childbearing.
A recent reminder of Sanger's impact on our society came when the Equal employment Opportunity Commission found that it is illegal sex discrimination to exclude prescription contraceptives from an otherwise comprehensive health benefits plan. Sanger's efforts to provide access to contraception are at the foundation of decisions to provide equal access to prescription contraceptives and other prescriptions.
Still, especially with the Bush administration, activists will have to fight to maintain access to contraception and to abortion. In April, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would establish criminal penalties for harming a fetus during the commission of a crime. While proponents of the bill say it does not include abortion, some see fetal protection legislation as an attempt to undermine abortion rights. The passage of this legislation is a reminder that the rights Margaret Sanger worked so hard to establish are tenuous rights that many would challenge.
For all her positive influence, I see Sanger as a tarnished heroine whose embrace of the eugenics movement showed racial insensitivity, at best. From her associates, as well as from some of the articles that were published in Sanger's magazine, the Birth Control review, it is possible to conclude that "racially insensitive" is too mild a description. Indeed, some of her statements, taken in or out of context, are simply racist. And she never rebuked eugenicists who believed in improving the hereditary qualities of a race or breed by controlling mating in order to eliminate "undesirable" characteristics and promote "desirable" traits.
Sanger: We Must Limit the Over-Fertility of Mentally, Physically Defective
"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism," she wrote in the recently republished "The Pivot of Civilization." This book, written in 1922, was published at a time when scientific racism had been used to assert black inferiority. Who determines who is a moron? How would these morons be segregated? The ramifications of such statements are bone chilling.
In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. "The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind," she wrote.
Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the insane and feebleminded." Although this does not diminish her legacy as the key force in the birth control movement, it raises questions much like those now being raised about our nation's slaveholding founders. How do we judge historical figures? How are their contributions placed in context?
It is easy to see why there is some antipathy toward Sanger among people of color, considering that, given our nation's history, we are the people most frequently described as "unfit" and "feebleminded."
Many African American women have been subject to nonconsensual forced sterilization. Some did not even know that they were sterilized until they tried, unsuccessfully, to have children. In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them. While one cannot blame Margaret Sanger for the actions of these physician, one can certainly see why Sanger's words are especially repugnant in a racial context.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger's reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist. They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger's work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.
Like Many Modern Feminists, Sanger Ignored Race and Class
Would the NAACP's house organ, Crisis Magazine, print articles by members of the Ku Klux Klan? Would Planned Parenthood publish articles penned by fetal protectionist South Carolina republican Lindsey Graham?
The articled published in the Birth Control Review showed Sanger's empathy with some eugenicist views. Margaret Sanger worked closely with W. E. B. DuBois on her "Negro Project," an effort to expose Southern black women to birth control. Mary McLeod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. were also involved in the effort. Much later, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and complimented the organization's efforts. It is entirely possible that Sanger Ôs views evolved over time. Certainly, by the late 1940s, she spoke about ways to solve the "Negro problem" in the United States. This evolution, however commendable, does not eradicate the impact of her earlier statements.
What, then, is Sanger's legacy?
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has grown to an organization with 129 affiliates. It operates 875 health centers and serves about 5 million women each year. Planned Parenthood has been a leader in the fight for women's right to choose and in providing access to affordable reproductive health care for a cross-section of women. Planned Parenthood has not supported forced sterilization or restricted immigration and has gently rejected the most extreme of Sanger's views.
In many ways, Sanger is no different from contemporary feminists who, after making the customary acknowledgement of issues dealing with race and class, return to analysis that focuses exclusively on gender. These are the feminists who feel that women should come together around "women's issues" and battle out our differences later. In failing to acknowledge differences and the differential impact of a set of policies, these feminists make it difficult for women to come together.
Sanger published the Birth Control Review at the same time that black men, returning from World War I, were lynched in uniform. That she did not see the harm in embracing exclusionary jargon about sterilization and immigration suggests that she was, at best, socially myopic.
That's reason enough to suggest that her leadership was flawed and her legacy crippled by her insensitivity.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Say Goodbye to Prosperity Oregon
Oregon voters passed measures 66 (higher taxes on the rich) and 67 (higher taxes on business) yesterday!
Hey Oregon, can you spell MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA! Oregon is a Progressive Socialist State that believes by simply raising taxes all the states problems will be solved!
Truth is; People with wealth (business owners and investors) will leave the state or decide not to move to Oregon to avoid paying higher taxes! Oregon; Say goodbye to your good for nothing RICH GREEDY FAT CATS! Businesses too will relocate, hire fewer people, or outsource (oh, that terrible word the Progressives love to throw around) to another state or country!
In the long term the end result is predictable. Loss of jobs, loss of the industrial base and loss of tax revenue!
Prediction: Years from now the Progressives will blame this failure on the RICH GREEDY FAT CATS and Businesses that "outsourced" the jobs or moved away! History being repeated again... Funny, the States with the worst economic conditions are those being lead by the Progressive (Democrat) Party!
One word regarding outsourcing for you Progressives! Businesses must remain competitive to stay in business! Raise taxes results in higher prices. Higher Prices results in a loss of your consumer base to companies that can produce at lower overall costs! Companies must lower their costs to remain in business; so they "OUTSOURCE" to remain profitable! YES, China and India can make it for less!
Profits! Another evil Progressive term! Without profits businesses will fail in the long term! Without Businesses you have NO TAX BASE!
Hey Oregon, can you spell MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA! Oregon is a Progressive Socialist State that believes by simply raising taxes all the states problems will be solved!
Truth is; People with wealth (business owners and investors) will leave the state or decide not to move to Oregon to avoid paying higher taxes! Oregon; Say goodbye to your good for nothing RICH GREEDY FAT CATS! Businesses too will relocate, hire fewer people, or outsource (oh, that terrible word the Progressives love to throw around) to another state or country!
In the long term the end result is predictable. Loss of jobs, loss of the industrial base and loss of tax revenue!
Prediction: Years from now the Progressives will blame this failure on the RICH GREEDY FAT CATS and Businesses that "outsourced" the jobs or moved away! History being repeated again... Funny, the States with the worst economic conditions are those being lead by the Progressive (Democrat) Party!
One word regarding outsourcing for you Progressives! Businesses must remain competitive to stay in business! Raise taxes results in higher prices. Higher Prices results in a loss of your consumer base to companies that can produce at lower overall costs! Companies must lower their costs to remain in business; so they "OUTSOURCE" to remain profitable! YES, China and India can make it for less!
Profits! Another evil Progressive term! Without profits businesses will fail in the long term! Without Businesses you have NO TAX BASE!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the
knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
THINK CAREFULLY AND THEN SCROLL DOWN:
Democrat's
Answer :
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knockthe knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about
this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
....................................................
Republican's
Answer:
BANG!
................................................... ...................................................
Redneck's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG !
Click . . .. (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hydrashocks?
Son: Can I shoot the next one?
Wife: You ain't taking that to the taxidermist!
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the
knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
THINK CAREFULLY AND THEN SCROLL DOWN:
Democrat's
Answer :
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knockthe knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about
this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
....................................................
Republican's
Answer:
BANG!
................................................... ...................................................
Redneck's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG !
Click . . .. (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hydrashocks?
Son: Can I shoot the next one?
Wife: You ain't taking that to the taxidermist!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Health Care and Our Deficit
Congress claims their one trillion dollar health care bill is deficit neutral over ten years. Taxes and fees start immediately and benefits begin four years from now! Okay, I will bite, lets take a look at Congresses figures. The graph below breaks down the taxes/fees collected each year, benefits paid, and deficit in Billions of dollars. Notice after 10 years Congress is right; the balance is nearly zero which clearly indicates the program is deficit neutral after ten years.
BUT; notice how the deficit increases every year starting with year 11. This is why Congress calculated this program in this manner; to make it appear their plan pays for itself!
YR Taxes/Fees.............Benefits Paid.........Deficit
1 $100.................$ 0....................$100
2 $100.................$ 0....................$200
3 $100.................$ 0....................$300
4 $100.................$ 0....................$400
5 $100.................$166...................$334
6 $100.................$166...................$268
7 $100.................$166...................$202
8 $100.................$166...................$136
9 $100.................$166...................$ 70
10 $100.................$166...................$ 4
11 $100.................$166..................-$ 62
12 $100.................$166..................-$128
13 $100.................$166..................-$194
14 $100.................$166..................-$260
15 $100.................$166..................-$326
BUT; notice how the deficit increases every year starting with year 11. This is why Congress calculated this program in this manner; to make it appear their plan pays for itself!
YR Taxes/Fees.............Benefits Paid.........Deficit
1 $100.................$ 0....................$100
2 $100.................$ 0....................$200
3 $100.................$ 0....................$300
4 $100.................$ 0....................$400
5 $100.................$166...................$334
6 $100.................$166...................$268
7 $100.................$166...................$202
8 $100.................$166...................$136
9 $100.................$166...................$ 70
10 $100.................$166...................$ 4
11 $100.................$166..................-$ 62
12 $100.................$166..................-$128
13 $100.................$166..................-$194
14 $100.................$166..................-$260
15 $100.................$166..................-$326
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
(UPDATE) Is Senator Sherrod Brown an anti-constitutionalist?
Last September I wrote Senator Brown a email because his staff compared the actions of ACORN to those of the Catholic Church. I wrote asking Senator Brown what his official position regarding the Catholic Church and ACORN was? I received a personal reply in a matter of days.
More recently, I email Senator Brown a question regarding Constitutional Law and health care. I received the standard cut and paste response to a generic health care question. Senator Brown chose not to answer my questions so I now assume Senator Brown believes Congress has the power to over-ride Constitutional Law. Senator Brown also must believe our country did not have health care during the writing of our Constitution.
(I cut and pasted the following into an email to Senator Brown)
After several attempts to get two questions answered by Senator Brown via email, yesterday I called his office to ask my questions directly. 1). I asked, “Will Senator Brown please provide the Article and Section in the Constitution that grants the Federal Government authority to regulate and pass laws regarding health care?” 2). “Where in the Constitution is authority established to compel citizens to purchase health insurance or any other commodity or service as part of being a law-abiding United States Citizen?”
The person in Senator Brown’s officer told me the Constitution does not give government authority to regulate health care; BUT, congress has the authority to pass any law as long as the law was “for the good of the people”.
Following these anti-Constitutional statements I was told by Senator Brown’s representative, that health care was not addressed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers because our nation did not have Medical Care back then.
Really! Senator Brown, is it your position that this nation did not have health care during the writing of our Constitution? And, Congress can pass any law as long as the law “is for the good of the people?”
Please Senator Brown; will you respond to this letter?
(Response from Senator Brown;)
Dear Mr. Smiley:
Thank you for sharing your views regarding health reform.
Deliberations are ongoing and the issues you have raised are included in these discussions. In particular, there is continued debate related to provisions that would establish a public option, insurance reforms, tax credits, and an excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans. Additionally, the Senate continues its dialogue on Medicare issues, including provider payment rates, program eligibility, patient access, medical malpractice, and further improving Medicare benefits for the more than 44 million current enrollees.
Ensuring that the health reform legislation is budget neutral is a firm commitment that Congress will continue to uphold now and in the future. These issues won’t be resolved until a merged bill is agreed upon by both the House and Senate. As Congress moves forward on health reform, I will certainly work to address the issues contained in your letter.
If you wish to learn more about my work on health reform as well as the most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that Ohioans have posed to my office, please visit my website at:
http://brown.senate.g....
Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
United States Senator
Below is a post I made on Columbus/Central Ohio 912 Project Message Board. Please notice that Senator Brown wrote me a "personal" reply to my allegations. Apparently he wanted to set the record straight regarding his position on the Catholic Church/ACORN comparison his staff made during a phone conversation.
I called Sherrod Brown's office a few days back. I wanted to known if Senator Brown supported ACORN, and I also wanted to know what the senator thought of the undercover investigation and what was uncovered.
Senator Brown's spokesperson compared ACORN with the Catholic Church which made me mad as hell.
I wrote Senator Brown asking if he truly believed ACORN was on par with the Catholic Church when it came to community organizing.
Seems he is backpedaling quickly; I received the following. (First Personal Reply to date; I usually get a cut and paste reply)
Dear Mr. Smiley:
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I was disturbed by your comment relaying your conversation with a staff person in my Columbus office. I certainly do not equate ACORN with the Catholic Church, and in fact I voted yesterday to bar ACORN from receiving any funds, directly or indirectly, from the appropriations bill under consideration that will fund federal transportation, housing, and urban development efforts.
A number of Ohioans have contacted me concerned that ACORN may be receiving tax dollars for voter registration efforts or to promote affordable housing as a result of the recent Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA). Many have also expressed concerns regarding the current situation involving the organization’s practices in Baltimore and Florida.
I certainly understand these concerns, however, ACORN is not receiving federal funds for voter registration or as a result of EESA. The federal government does not fund voter registration drives by any group.
As a former Secretary of State, I understand and value the importance of the integrity of the voting process. I strongly support efforts to investigate and prosecute voting fraud. For the most part, these law enforcement efforts are carried out at the state and local level. This is why local authorities have jurisdiction in the investigation of the 11 individuals accuse of fraud in Florida and Baltimore.
I will continue to monitor this situation. Should legislation regarding this matter come before the Senate, I will keep your views in mind.
Thank you again for getting in touch with me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
United States Senator
More recently, I email Senator Brown a question regarding Constitutional Law and health care. I received the standard cut and paste response to a generic health care question. Senator Brown chose not to answer my questions so I now assume Senator Brown believes Congress has the power to over-ride Constitutional Law. Senator Brown also must believe our country did not have health care during the writing of our Constitution.
(I cut and pasted the following into an email to Senator Brown)
After several attempts to get two questions answered by Senator Brown via email, yesterday I called his office to ask my questions directly. 1). I asked, “Will Senator Brown please provide the Article and Section in the Constitution that grants the Federal Government authority to regulate and pass laws regarding health care?” 2). “Where in the Constitution is authority established to compel citizens to purchase health insurance or any other commodity or service as part of being a law-abiding United States Citizen?”
The person in Senator Brown’s officer told me the Constitution does not give government authority to regulate health care; BUT, congress has the authority to pass any law as long as the law was “for the good of the people”.
Following these anti-Constitutional statements I was told by Senator Brown’s representative, that health care was not addressed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers because our nation did not have Medical Care back then.
Really! Senator Brown, is it your position that this nation did not have health care during the writing of our Constitution? And, Congress can pass any law as long as the law “is for the good of the people?”
Please Senator Brown; will you respond to this letter?
(Response from Senator Brown;)
Dear Mr. Smiley:
Thank you for sharing your views regarding health reform.
Deliberations are ongoing and the issues you have raised are included in these discussions. In particular, there is continued debate related to provisions that would establish a public option, insurance reforms, tax credits, and an excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans. Additionally, the Senate continues its dialogue on Medicare issues, including provider payment rates, program eligibility, patient access, medical malpractice, and further improving Medicare benefits for the more than 44 million current enrollees.
Ensuring that the health reform legislation is budget neutral is a firm commitment that Congress will continue to uphold now and in the future. These issues won’t be resolved until a merged bill is agreed upon by both the House and Senate. As Congress moves forward on health reform, I will certainly work to address the issues contained in your letter.
If you wish to learn more about my work on health reform as well as the most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that Ohioans have posed to my office, please visit my website at:
http://brown.senate.g....
Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
United States Senator
Below is a post I made on Columbus/Central Ohio 912 Project Message Board. Please notice that Senator Brown wrote me a "personal" reply to my allegations. Apparently he wanted to set the record straight regarding his position on the Catholic Church/ACORN comparison his staff made during a phone conversation.
I called Sherrod Brown's office a few days back. I wanted to known if Senator Brown supported ACORN, and I also wanted to know what the senator thought of the undercover investigation and what was uncovered.
Senator Brown's spokesperson compared ACORN with the Catholic Church which made me mad as hell.
I wrote Senator Brown asking if he truly believed ACORN was on par with the Catholic Church when it came to community organizing.
Seems he is backpedaling quickly; I received the following. (First Personal Reply to date; I usually get a cut and paste reply)
Dear Mr. Smiley:
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I was disturbed by your comment relaying your conversation with a staff person in my Columbus office. I certainly do not equate ACORN with the Catholic Church, and in fact I voted yesterday to bar ACORN from receiving any funds, directly or indirectly, from the appropriations bill under consideration that will fund federal transportation, housing, and urban development efforts.
A number of Ohioans have contacted me concerned that ACORN may be receiving tax dollars for voter registration efforts or to promote affordable housing as a result of the recent Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA). Many have also expressed concerns regarding the current situation involving the organization’s practices in Baltimore and Florida.
I certainly understand these concerns, however, ACORN is not receiving federal funds for voter registration or as a result of EESA. The federal government does not fund voter registration drives by any group.
As a former Secretary of State, I understand and value the importance of the integrity of the voting process. I strongly support efforts to investigate and prosecute voting fraud. For the most part, these law enforcement efforts are carried out at the state and local level. This is why local authorities have jurisdiction in the investigation of the 11 individuals accuse of fraud in Florida and Baltimore.
I will continue to monitor this situation. Should legislation regarding this matter come before the Senate, I will keep your views in mind.
Thank you again for getting in touch with me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
United States Senator
Monday, December 7, 2009
Civil Rights
Following the Civil War the Democratic Party did everything within its power to disenfranchise African-Americans and to “put them in their place”. Following the death of President Lincoln, his successor, Vice President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed Republican Controlled Congress’s Civil Rights Bills. Beginning in 1874, there was a rise in Democratic white paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and Red Shirts, a group of racist Democrats that supported Wade Hampton III’s political ambitions (Prelude to the Ku Klux Klan), whose political aim was to drive out sympathetic Republicans and terrorized blacks to bar them from the polls.
If the Democrats are so PROUD of their heritage and history why does their official website (www.democrats.org) have a gap between 1848 and 1912? Are they not proud of their party’s heritage during this period? Are they not proud of the Jim Crow laws they put into place? Or, the lynching of blacks? The actions of the KKK? Democratic sponsored terrorism towards blacks and whites supporting black rights? I have sent numerous emails to the Democratic Party asking why their website abandons this period of Democrat History. Democrats choose not to reply to my inquiry.
I will fill in the Democrats missing heritage for them since they themselves find it unpalatable;
The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. As you read the following Democratic atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.
March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party.
May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party.
June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party.
July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet.
February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover.
March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”.
June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks.
October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee.
October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation.
June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery.
April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade.
April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.
July 2, 1862 U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver.
July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”.
August 19, 1862 Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation.
August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army.
September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation.
January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect.
February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery.
June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War.
June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts.
October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”.
January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition.
March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves.
April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.
June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation.
November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.
December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified.
February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.
April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.
April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery.
May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no.
June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.
July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights.
July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen.
July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150.
January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.
March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.
May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors.
September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress.
September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress.
September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor.
October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.
October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan.
November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation.
December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office.
February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race.
May 19, 1870 African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies.
May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.
June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.
September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.
February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.
March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.
April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.
October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands.
October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.
November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.
January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government.
September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed.
March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.
September 20, 1876 Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”.
January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919.
July 14, 1884 Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery.
August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South.
June 7, 1892 In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates.
February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote.
December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans.
May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”.
December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools.
May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans.
January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans.
October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country.
May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%.
February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP.
June 18, 1912 African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions.
The only Civil Rights issue the Democratic Left has championed during its racist history was the hijacking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act of 1965. Much like today’s congress’ the Democratic Party had total control of Congress, and could pass any legislation it wished. It was Republican leadership that championed the historic civil rights acts of the 1960’s while many prominent Democrats, i.e. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), fought to stop this historic event.
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of the 311 Democratic Congressmen, merely 64 percent supported passage of the Bill; while 80 percent of the 204 Republican Congressmen supported passage. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was the ONLY Northern Democrat to oppose this historic Act!
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually the brain-child of President Eisenhower (Republican) and was introduced seven year earlier! Why didn't civil rights pass under Eisenhower? Then Senator Johnson blocked it's passage!
National Voting Rights Act of 1965. Of the 346 Democratic Congressmen, just 77 percent supported passage of the Bill; while 86 percent of the 168 Republican Congressmen supported the Bill.
The Far-Left progressives failed to stop passage of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 National Voting Rights Acts so they changed their rhetoric. They reasoned since a Democrat, President Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Bills into Law Democrats could lay claim as “the party of Civil Rights”.
I have news for the African-American community! The Democratic Party throughout its history has had one goal in mind; and that is the control of the black vote no matter the cost! Following the civil war until the 1960’s they used force, intimidation, and voting laws to control the black population and to try to discourage voting.
President Woodrow Wilson, (D) a progressive wrote in his 1890 essay, "Leaders of Men," explained that a "true leader" uses the masses like "tools." He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. "Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader." Wilson once told a black delegation that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." The Progressive movement had in its beginning the ultimate goal of control over the black population. Progressives understood the importance of the black vote and vowed to use blacks as tools to further the progressive agenda.
Subsequent to President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Bills into Law the Democratic Party regrouped and changed their strategy. They started passing laws that would on the surface seem to assist the African-American population while at its core was meant to keep the Black Community poor and in their place! Like crack-cocaine; the Democrat’s ambition is to get all Blacks addicted to government handouts thus ensuring Blacks would vote Democrat at every election!
You hear it during every election! The Democrat Candidate will get up on his soap-box and warn the Black Community, “The evil Republicans want to take away your welfare checks, your free or subsidized housing, and make you all get jobs” and “The evil Republicans will cut funding to all the vital services you have grown to depend upon”.The Democratic Party takes no prisoners; they will promise everything and deliver nothing! When they fail to deliver they always blame the evil Republicans!
Greed! Do you really believe Reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want African-Americans to have equal opportunity? These men are motivated by greed and power. Both are in the pocket of the Democrat Political Machine. Jackson and Sharpton preach equality for all Americans regardless of color! I ask, when was the last time either showed up to support a white person or Asian whose civil rights were violated?
Both Sharpton and Jackson pick their battles carefully and always pick events that will champion the Democrat’s “blacks as victims” campaign. They carefully orchestrate demonstrations, rallies, and give wonderful speeches about equality all the while supporting a political party that has as its primary goal of keeping black-men in their place! Jackson and Sharpton are getting filthy-rich and live wonderful lives promoting blacks as victims! Why would they ever want true equality?
United States History being taught in schools today has been rewritten and/or carefully edited to present a progressive view of history. Strange, history books don’t mention that President Lincoln was the first Republican President. The fact that President Lynden B Johnson was a Democrat is pointed out in every paragraph. History books fail to point out that many more Democrats than Republicans in congress opposed passage of the 1960’s Civil Rights Laws. When children read about the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws it is not mentioned that Democrats were at the helm of these groups and laws; the history books just say “White Southerners”. Even President Wilson’s hatred for blacks has been revised to make him sound like Mary Poppins.
Next time you hear a debate between a Republican and a Democrat notice which candidate brings up race. It is always the Democrat; when they start to stumble on an issue they seem to always find a way to throw in a racial remark. For example; when a Republican brings up school choice as an alternative option to public schools the democrat will accuse the Republican of being a racist and wanting to cut funding to the poor black intercity schools.
Still not convinced the democrats are using the black community for political gain. In an article in The Washington Times President Obama’s justice department headed by Eric Holder ruled that the town of Kinston N.C. could not have non-partisan elections. “Voters in this small city overwhelmingly voted 2 to 1 to eliminate the (R), (D), and (I) from their ballots. President Obama’s justice department’s position is; without party identification how will Black voters know who to vote for? The Obama administration overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.”
According to President Obama African-Americans don’t vote for the best candidate but rather a party! I thought the 1964 civil rights act did away with Jim Crow laws.
Please don’t take my point of view as absolute proof. Do your own research. Seek the truth and support those who truly want a better America for all regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or, pick your issue.
Recently Congresswoman Barbra Boxer made racial remarks towards Mr. Alford the co-founder, CEO/President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
(Quote from the National Black Chamber of Commerce’s Website) “Here we were in the Senate Dirksen building participating in a Congressional Hearing on the pending climate legislation known as the Waxman/Markey Bill. This is a gigantic piece of proposed laws, taxes, regulations that will change the way America does business. There are many costs involved and it appears that the African American community will be paying a disproportionate share of the job loss and increased energy costs. No surprise as this is usually the case because we have no political apparatus that addresses that when it happens. The Congressional Black Caucus will go with the flow or, in other words, receive the orders from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and act obediently. If we allow business as usual: we lose.
So, it is with great fervor that the National Black Chamber of Commerce attempts to change this bill or contribute to its demise. The right way to do this is through debate. We got our act together by commissioning a very thorough study on the Waxman/Markey Bill analyzing the economic impact on urban and rural communities. The study done by the reputable Charles River Associates clearly points to our concerns. We, the last hired and first fired, will face the brunt of the costs and there will be little or no benefits achieved for it. So when the time came for me and Senator Barbara Boxer to go face to face about this important issue, she did something that I would have never expected. She began getting racial. Utilizing that old Jim Crow tactic of trying to pit my Black group against another – thus destroying ourselves, she went on an embarrassing rant.
First, she wanted me to attack the NAACP. That didn’t work so then she pulled out the 100 Black Men. Still, I didn’t take the bait. Finally, I went on the offensive and blasted her for her condescending manner replete with racial innuendo. I challenged her to argue against the study not wander off talking about any Black organization that came to her mind. Within a short time, we were yelling at each other on national television and the Internet. In fact, there have been over 500,000 views on YouTube showing the verbal match. Radio shows and television stations have been covering it. Yes, Barbara Boxer showed her racial animus. A persona that probably has not been detected by the general public until now and that is mysterious. Her overall inference was, what is a Black organization doing with a sophisticated study? This is white folks business and I got my Black groups to counter your Black butt. It was Bigotry 101.
This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Let us remember the political game that brought her into prominence. She is the mastermind behind the “Anita Hill attack Clarence Thomas scenario”. Remember that, it pitted a Black female against a Black male and distracted us from the main issue – his legal talents. This modus operandi (M.O.) also appeared in the 2004 election in Ohio when she went after another Black male, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell using the late Elaine Tubbs Jones to do the fighting. Let us not forget that totally degrading attack on the Honorable Condoleezza Rice. The personal and heartless smears she put on her own constituents were less than moral. Yes, when it comes to Black folks Senator Barbara Boxer turns into a monster. So it is an easy question: Why did Senator Barbara Boxer go racial? That is what racists do. When they get up against the wall, their racial persona takes over and all of the ugly comes out like a gusher.
How does a state like California whose population is over 54% minority have such a person representing them as their Senator? Something is going to have to give. California is in a state of financial ruin and social upheaval. What the people of my native state need is leadership that is inclusive, positive and certainly productive. They need to start looking for new leaders and cultivating a process that will yield good “fruits”.
In my 16 years of testifying before Congress, I have never had to deal with racial animus, direct or indirect, until now. It is a “bump in the road” if we all deal with it now. If we ignore it, it will turn into a cancer and fester throughout our political apparatus to the detriment of America. Former Senator Trent Lott made a verbal slip and paid dearly. What Senator Boxer has done is a major revelation and we must act accordingly. God does not like ugly nor should the American people.”
Barbra Boxer is the perfect example of Democratic Leadership. As long as the Black Man tows the line, does as he is told, and votes Democrat he will be rewarded with welfare payments and the promise of a better future.
What has the Republican Party done for the Black Population in the last 100 years?
Here is a list of Republican Accomplishments for the Black Population. It can’t be denied any longer!
1. 1863 Emancipation Proclamation
2. 1865 The 13th Amendment- Abolishing Slavery
3. 1866 Civil Rights Act of 1866-Ending Slavery
4. 1868 14th Amendment- Giving Citizenship to former slaves
5. 1870 15th Amendment- Right to vote
6. 1871 Civil Rights Act of 1871-Anti KKK Act
7. 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875- Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Accommodations
8. 1909 NAACP founded by 3 “White” Republicans
9. 1909 Over 200 Anti-Lynching Bills were introduced since that time. They were all defeated by Democrats
10. Democrats reigned supreme in Congress for the entire first half century.
11. 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957-Established a Civil Rights Commission
12. 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960-Federal Inspections of Voter Registration Polls
13. 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964-Anti-Discrimination-Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
14. 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965-Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
15. 1968 Fair Housing Act -Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
16. The following is a list of some of the black schools and colleges that were founded by prominent Republicans in the face of opposition from Democrats.
Morehouse College 1867 Atlanta, GA
Howard University 1867 Washington, DC
Spelman College 1881 Atlanta, GA
Shaw University 1865 Raleigh, NC
Fisk University 1866 Nashville, TN
Atlanta University 1867 Atlanta, GA
Virginia Union University 1899 Richmond, VA
Straight University 1869 New Orleans, LA
Talladega College 1867 Talladega, AL
Clark University 1870 Atlanta, GA
Meharry Medical College 1867 Nashville, TN
Morgan College 1867 Baltimore, MD
New Orleans University 1873 New Orleans LA
Philander Smith College 1883 Little Rock AR
Rust College 1883 Holy Spring MS
Samuel Houston College 1900 Austin, TX
Prominent Black Republicans
Michael Steele-RNC Chairman
Martin Luther King Jr.
Frederick Douglass
Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas Sowell
Dr. Condelezza Rice
Alphonso Jackson
Kenneth Blackwell
Col. Alan West
J.C. Watts
Denzel Washington
Herman Cain
Walter Williams
If the Democrats are so PROUD of their heritage and history why does their official website (www.democrats.org) have a gap between 1848 and 1912? Are they not proud of their party’s heritage during this period? Are they not proud of the Jim Crow laws they put into place? Or, the lynching of blacks? The actions of the KKK? Democratic sponsored terrorism towards blacks and whites supporting black rights? I have sent numerous emails to the Democratic Party asking why their website abandons this period of Democrat History. Democrats choose not to reply to my inquiry.
I will fill in the Democrats missing heritage for them since they themselves find it unpalatable;
The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. As you read the following Democratic atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.
March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party.
May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party.
June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party.
July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet.
February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover.
March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”.
June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks.
October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee.
October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation.
June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery.
April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade.
April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.
July 2, 1862 U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver.
July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”.
August 19, 1862 Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation.
August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army.
September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation.
January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect.
February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery.
June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War.
June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts.
October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”.
January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition.
March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves.
April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.
June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation.
November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.
December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified.
February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.
April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.
April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery.
May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no.
June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.
July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights.
July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen.
July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150.
January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.
March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.
May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors.
September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress.
September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress.
September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor.
October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.
October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan.
November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation.
December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office.
February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race.
May 19, 1870 African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies.
May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.
June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.
September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.
February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.
March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.
April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.
October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands.
October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.
November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.
January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government.
September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed.
March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.
September 20, 1876 Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”.
January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919.
July 14, 1884 Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery.
August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South.
June 7, 1892 In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates.
February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote.
December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans.
May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”.
December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools.
May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans.
January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans.
October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country.
May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%.
February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP.
June 18, 1912 African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions.
The only Civil Rights issue the Democratic Left has championed during its racist history was the hijacking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act of 1965. Much like today’s congress’ the Democratic Party had total control of Congress, and could pass any legislation it wished. It was Republican leadership that championed the historic civil rights acts of the 1960’s while many prominent Democrats, i.e. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), fought to stop this historic event.
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of the 311 Democratic Congressmen, merely 64 percent supported passage of the Bill; while 80 percent of the 204 Republican Congressmen supported passage. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was the ONLY Northern Democrat to oppose this historic Act!
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually the brain-child of President Eisenhower (Republican) and was introduced seven year earlier! Why didn't civil rights pass under Eisenhower? Then Senator Johnson blocked it's passage!
National Voting Rights Act of 1965. Of the 346 Democratic Congressmen, just 77 percent supported passage of the Bill; while 86 percent of the 168 Republican Congressmen supported the Bill.
The Far-Left progressives failed to stop passage of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 National Voting Rights Acts so they changed their rhetoric. They reasoned since a Democrat, President Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Bills into Law Democrats could lay claim as “the party of Civil Rights”.
I have news for the African-American community! The Democratic Party throughout its history has had one goal in mind; and that is the control of the black vote no matter the cost! Following the civil war until the 1960’s they used force, intimidation, and voting laws to control the black population and to try to discourage voting.
President Woodrow Wilson, (D) a progressive wrote in his 1890 essay, "Leaders of Men," explained that a "true leader" uses the masses like "tools." He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. "Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader." Wilson once told a black delegation that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." The Progressive movement had in its beginning the ultimate goal of control over the black population. Progressives understood the importance of the black vote and vowed to use blacks as tools to further the progressive agenda.
Subsequent to President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Bills into Law the Democratic Party regrouped and changed their strategy. They started passing laws that would on the surface seem to assist the African-American population while at its core was meant to keep the Black Community poor and in their place! Like crack-cocaine; the Democrat’s ambition is to get all Blacks addicted to government handouts thus ensuring Blacks would vote Democrat at every election!
You hear it during every election! The Democrat Candidate will get up on his soap-box and warn the Black Community, “The evil Republicans want to take away your welfare checks, your free or subsidized housing, and make you all get jobs” and “The evil Republicans will cut funding to all the vital services you have grown to depend upon”.The Democratic Party takes no prisoners; they will promise everything and deliver nothing! When they fail to deliver they always blame the evil Republicans!
Greed! Do you really believe Reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want African-Americans to have equal opportunity? These men are motivated by greed and power. Both are in the pocket of the Democrat Political Machine. Jackson and Sharpton preach equality for all Americans regardless of color! I ask, when was the last time either showed up to support a white person or Asian whose civil rights were violated?
Both Sharpton and Jackson pick their battles carefully and always pick events that will champion the Democrat’s “blacks as victims” campaign. They carefully orchestrate demonstrations, rallies, and give wonderful speeches about equality all the while supporting a political party that has as its primary goal of keeping black-men in their place! Jackson and Sharpton are getting filthy-rich and live wonderful lives promoting blacks as victims! Why would they ever want true equality?
United States History being taught in schools today has been rewritten and/or carefully edited to present a progressive view of history. Strange, history books don’t mention that President Lincoln was the first Republican President. The fact that President Lynden B Johnson was a Democrat is pointed out in every paragraph. History books fail to point out that many more Democrats than Republicans in congress opposed passage of the 1960’s Civil Rights Laws. When children read about the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws it is not mentioned that Democrats were at the helm of these groups and laws; the history books just say “White Southerners”. Even President Wilson’s hatred for blacks has been revised to make him sound like Mary Poppins.
Next time you hear a debate between a Republican and a Democrat notice which candidate brings up race. It is always the Democrat; when they start to stumble on an issue they seem to always find a way to throw in a racial remark. For example; when a Republican brings up school choice as an alternative option to public schools the democrat will accuse the Republican of being a racist and wanting to cut funding to the poor black intercity schools.
Still not convinced the democrats are using the black community for political gain. In an article in The Washington Times President Obama’s justice department headed by Eric Holder ruled that the town of Kinston N.C. could not have non-partisan elections. “Voters in this small city overwhelmingly voted 2 to 1 to eliminate the (R), (D), and (I) from their ballots. President Obama’s justice department’s position is; without party identification how will Black voters know who to vote for? The Obama administration overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.”
According to President Obama African-Americans don’t vote for the best candidate but rather a party! I thought the 1964 civil rights act did away with Jim Crow laws.
Please don’t take my point of view as absolute proof. Do your own research. Seek the truth and support those who truly want a better America for all regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or, pick your issue.
Recently Congresswoman Barbra Boxer made racial remarks towards Mr. Alford the co-founder, CEO/President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
(Quote from the National Black Chamber of Commerce’s Website) “Here we were in the Senate Dirksen building participating in a Congressional Hearing on the pending climate legislation known as the Waxman/Markey Bill. This is a gigantic piece of proposed laws, taxes, regulations that will change the way America does business. There are many costs involved and it appears that the African American community will be paying a disproportionate share of the job loss and increased energy costs. No surprise as this is usually the case because we have no political apparatus that addresses that when it happens. The Congressional Black Caucus will go with the flow or, in other words, receive the orders from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and act obediently. If we allow business as usual: we lose.
So, it is with great fervor that the National Black Chamber of Commerce attempts to change this bill or contribute to its demise. The right way to do this is through debate. We got our act together by commissioning a very thorough study on the Waxman/Markey Bill analyzing the economic impact on urban and rural communities. The study done by the reputable Charles River Associates clearly points to our concerns. We, the last hired and first fired, will face the brunt of the costs and there will be little or no benefits achieved for it. So when the time came for me and Senator Barbara Boxer to go face to face about this important issue, she did something that I would have never expected. She began getting racial. Utilizing that old Jim Crow tactic of trying to pit my Black group against another – thus destroying ourselves, she went on an embarrassing rant.
First, she wanted me to attack the NAACP. That didn’t work so then she pulled out the 100 Black Men. Still, I didn’t take the bait. Finally, I went on the offensive and blasted her for her condescending manner replete with racial innuendo. I challenged her to argue against the study not wander off talking about any Black organization that came to her mind. Within a short time, we were yelling at each other on national television and the Internet. In fact, there have been over 500,000 views on YouTube showing the verbal match. Radio shows and television stations have been covering it. Yes, Barbara Boxer showed her racial animus. A persona that probably has not been detected by the general public until now and that is mysterious. Her overall inference was, what is a Black organization doing with a sophisticated study? This is white folks business and I got my Black groups to counter your Black butt. It was Bigotry 101.
This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Let us remember the political game that brought her into prominence. She is the mastermind behind the “Anita Hill attack Clarence Thomas scenario”. Remember that, it pitted a Black female against a Black male and distracted us from the main issue – his legal talents. This modus operandi (M.O.) also appeared in the 2004 election in Ohio when she went after another Black male, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell using the late Elaine Tubbs Jones to do the fighting. Let us not forget that totally degrading attack on the Honorable Condoleezza Rice. The personal and heartless smears she put on her own constituents were less than moral. Yes, when it comes to Black folks Senator Barbara Boxer turns into a monster. So it is an easy question: Why did Senator Barbara Boxer go racial? That is what racists do. When they get up against the wall, their racial persona takes over and all of the ugly comes out like a gusher.
How does a state like California whose population is over 54% minority have such a person representing them as their Senator? Something is going to have to give. California is in a state of financial ruin and social upheaval. What the people of my native state need is leadership that is inclusive, positive and certainly productive. They need to start looking for new leaders and cultivating a process that will yield good “fruits”.
In my 16 years of testifying before Congress, I have never had to deal with racial animus, direct or indirect, until now. It is a “bump in the road” if we all deal with it now. If we ignore it, it will turn into a cancer and fester throughout our political apparatus to the detriment of America. Former Senator Trent Lott made a verbal slip and paid dearly. What Senator Boxer has done is a major revelation and we must act accordingly. God does not like ugly nor should the American people.”
Barbra Boxer is the perfect example of Democratic Leadership. As long as the Black Man tows the line, does as he is told, and votes Democrat he will be rewarded with welfare payments and the promise of a better future.
What has the Republican Party done for the Black Population in the last 100 years?
Here is a list of Republican Accomplishments for the Black Population. It can’t be denied any longer!
1. 1863 Emancipation Proclamation
2. 1865 The 13th Amendment- Abolishing Slavery
3. 1866 Civil Rights Act of 1866-Ending Slavery
4. 1868 14th Amendment- Giving Citizenship to former slaves
5. 1870 15th Amendment- Right to vote
6. 1871 Civil Rights Act of 1871-Anti KKK Act
7. 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875- Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Accommodations
8. 1909 NAACP founded by 3 “White” Republicans
9. 1909 Over 200 Anti-Lynching Bills were introduced since that time. They were all defeated by Democrats
10. Democrats reigned supreme in Congress for the entire first half century.
11. 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957-Established a Civil Rights Commission
12. 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960-Federal Inspections of Voter Registration Polls
13. 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964-Anti-Discrimination-Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
14. 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965-Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
15. 1968 Fair Housing Act -Written by Everett McKinkley Dirksen
16. The following is a list of some of the black schools and colleges that were founded by prominent Republicans in the face of opposition from Democrats.
Morehouse College 1867 Atlanta, GA
Howard University 1867 Washington, DC
Spelman College 1881 Atlanta, GA
Shaw University 1865 Raleigh, NC
Fisk University 1866 Nashville, TN
Atlanta University 1867 Atlanta, GA
Virginia Union University 1899 Richmond, VA
Straight University 1869 New Orleans, LA
Talladega College 1867 Talladega, AL
Clark University 1870 Atlanta, GA
Meharry Medical College 1867 Nashville, TN
Morgan College 1867 Baltimore, MD
New Orleans University 1873 New Orleans LA
Philander Smith College 1883 Little Rock AR
Rust College 1883 Holy Spring MS
Samuel Houston College 1900 Austin, TX
Prominent Black Republicans
Michael Steele-RNC Chairman
Martin Luther King Jr.
Frederick Douglass
Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas Sowell
Dr. Condelezza Rice
Alphonso Jackson
Kenneth Blackwell
Col. Alan West
J.C. Watts
Denzel Washington
Herman Cain
Walter Williams
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Tolerance
The Progressive Left has driven Christ from Christmas in the name of "Tolerance"
Merriam-Webster defines Tolerance as:
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
Our schools have banned Christmas in the name of tolerance. Really?
What group or groups are being taught tolerance by the practice of banning Christmas? Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews?
No, if the true goal was to teach tolerance we would invite every religious group to celebrate their holiest of holidays. We would then teach other religious groups to be "Tolerant" of others beliefs.
The true goal of the Progressive Left is to drive all religion from the public square to be replaced by the religion of "Government Control". Look to history; Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union are great examples of this practice! Drive out religion and replace it with Government sponsored programs.
Progressive's do everything in the name of compassion. Or, do they have other plans?
Merriam-Webster defines Tolerance as:
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
Our schools have banned Christmas in the name of tolerance. Really?
What group or groups are being taught tolerance by the practice of banning Christmas? Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews?
No, if the true goal was to teach tolerance we would invite every religious group to celebrate their holiest of holidays. We would then teach other religious groups to be "Tolerant" of others beliefs.
The true goal of the Progressive Left is to drive all religion from the public square to be replaced by the religion of "Government Control". Look to history; Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union are great examples of this practice! Drive out religion and replace it with Government sponsored programs.
Progressive's do everything in the name of compassion. Or, do they have other plans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)