SERVICES


Tuesday December 15, 2009

The Unbelievable Harry Reid

Has this man ever read a history book? Does he even know how the Republican Party came about and that it spearheaded every single civil rights achievement in our history? Does he honestly believe that Americans don't know that it was a Republican president who freed the slaves?

By Alicia Colon

Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the dumbest lawyer ever or is he simply the laziest? I'm not an attorney but I know that you never introduce subjects during a trial that you don't want your opposition to exploit, yet that's exactly what Mr. Reid did on the floor of the Senate last week, during the health-care debate. He said, "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said: Slow down. It's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough."

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," the Nevada Democrat added.

Has this man ever read a history book? Does he even know how the Republican Party came about and that it spearheaded every single civil rights achievement in our history? Does he honestly believe that Americans don't know that it was a Republican president who freed the slaves?

The Democrats have successfully conned blacks into believing that they're the only ones who've always been concerned with their civil rights. In actuality, the opposite is true. All one has to do is read the past platforms of the Democrat Party to recognize its opposition to all civil rights of the minority, especially blacks:

1852 Platform of the Democratic Party
"Resolved: That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

1860 Platform
"Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect."

1864 Platform
"... after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war ... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand ... a cessation of hostilities ... to the end that ... peace may be restored ..."

1876 Platform
"Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten states, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and Negro supremacy."

Well, you might say that it was the 19th century and the Democrat Party can't be faulted for following the cultural attitudes of the day. But the racist core of the party continued until well into the 20th century, and it wasn't confined to bigotry against blacks:

1908 Platform
"We are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population, or whose presence among us would raise a race issue and involve us in diplomatic controversies with Oriental powers."

Here's a ripe quote from the Democrat candidate for president in 1900 and 1908, William Jennings Bryan: "Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when - and only when - brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy - it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves."*

Let's not forget that it was a Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, in 1915, who praised the most racist film ever made, D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation," when it was shown in the White House, and ordered government offices to be segregated.

It was Senator Claude Pepper (D-Fla.), in 1938, in a 6-hour speech against an anti-lynching bill, who said, "Mr. President, the crime of lynching ... is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation."*

It was Senator Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Tex.), in 1957 - who'd be returned to office as president by a landslide in 1964 - who said, "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."*

Mr. Reid had the audacity to imply that it was Republicans that filibustered against civil rights legislation when it was Southern Democrats who filibustered unsuccessfully against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's right. The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., and Robert Byrd.

When race baiters such as Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and the Rev. Jesse Jackson dare to bring up the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, they fail to mention that the Jim Crow laws and its enforcers such as Theophilus "Bull" Connor, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace were all Democrats.

Much of the myth of the Democrats' civil rights domination began in 1963 when President John F. Kennedy supposedly helped the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. get out of jail, when he was imprisoned for protesting for civil rights, but it was a presidential advisor, Harry Wofford, who made the calls without JFK's knowledge. In fact, JFK ordered his brother, the U.S. attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy, to wiretap Dr. King and have him investigated by the FBI. Rumors that Dr. King was a Republican have been disputed by liberals but were confirmed by his niece, Alveda King.

The hypocrisy of the Democrats in Congress is unsurpassed even in the 21st century when, in 2002, aided by the mainstream media, they blasted Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), for praising a former segregationist, Senator Thurmond (D-SC): "When Strom Thurmond ran for president [on the States' Rights Party ticket], we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

Mr. Thurmond was given a free pass by the press despite defending racial segregation with the longest filibuster in history by one senator, speaking for more than 24 hours straight in a shameless effort to destroy the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

The Democrats and the mainstream media also conveniently ignored Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's praise, in 2004, of Senator Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter who once held the titles "Exalted Cyclops" and "Kleagle": "I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment.... He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."*

Did he really say that? Of course, because he could get away with it. He's a Democrat. Trent Lott on the other hand was rebuked by the Republicans and resigned his Senate leadership position.

My sister is a devout registered Democrat and I don't begrudge her for sending me all those despicable videos, e-mails, and cartoons trashing President Bush on a daily basis.

But I'm hoping that deep down she's not being fooled by the lies and rhetoric spewed by Congress about the health-care and cap-and-trade bills.

One thing I'm sure of is that Harry Reid is neither dumb nor lazy, but he certainly thinks that we are.

* Bruce Bartlett, The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 24, 2007.

Alicia Colon lives in New York City and can be reached at aliciav.colon@gmail.com and at www.aliciacolon.com

Follow irishexaminerus on Twitter

CURRENT ISSUE


RECENT ISSUES


SYNDICATE


Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]

POWERED BY


HOSTED BY


Copyright ©2006-2013 The Irish Examiner USA
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
Website Design By C3I