The Democrats’ Fear Of An Incipient Black Revolt in 2012

By Norman Berdichevsky via Florida Political Press

This is the first time since the early 1920s that a realistic chance exists that both the Black and the Jewish vote will fall outside the Democrats’ pocket where it has been safely kept under lock and key.

The enormous Black and Jewish majorities in the 2008 presidential election of 95% and 78% respectively will undoubtedly tumble in the upcoming 2012 race.

How far and how fast remains to be seen but as all too few so called ‘pundits’ and young voters are aware, both the Black and Jewish vote from the mid-19th century until after World War I were predominantly Republican.

A recent PJ Media poll of 800 conducted during Feb 21-22 gave support to hypothetical Republican presidential candidates of from 14% for Mitt Romney to 23% for Condi Rice. The recent highest vote share in the African American community for a GOP presidential candidate was for George W. Bush in 2004, with 11%. Although this may appear as trivial, it is obvious that even this glacier like movement is likely to incite panic as a harbinger of things to come.

Similar even greater movements towards the GOP by Jewish and Hispanic voters are also viewed with alarm among the Democrats and pose the possibility that any brief examination of the past will reveal that ethnic loyalties are not etched in stone.

Few young blacks about to vote for the first time are aware that Martin Luther King Jr. was a lifelong Republican. But such a fact , equivalent to the displays at the Ripley’s Believe it or Not Museum, could lend weight to the gathering avalanche of a reversal in the future, enough in any case, to change the political map.

The issue came to the fore with the recent clashes between Congressman Allen West (R-22, Florida) and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-20 Florida) in a heated exchange of views, made all the more poignant and media-worthy because both are from Florida and both are recent migrants to the state.

WASSERMANDebbie Wasserman-Schultz

As a Black and a Jew, their constituencies represent the two strongest components of the Democratic coalition in Congress.

Their conflict reflects a much deeper cleavage – one between No-Nothing Northern carpetbagger ultra-liberal ignorance and deeply held prejudices against the South on the one hand, and West’s symbolic image as a return, after a gap of a hundred years, of the historic ties of common interests between African Americans and the Republican Party.

On the eve of the Civil War, countless editorials in Southern newspapers referred to the probable election of Abraham Lincoln as the candidate of “The Black Republican Party” using “Black” as a symbol of evil and as a sign that the black slaves looked to that party and its candidate Abraham Lincoln as the source of eventual betterment. During Reconstruction, 1865-77, the term was used with even greater vehemence by white Southerners at the spectacle of liberated slaves serving as Republican Congressmen in Washington.

The Dispute Between West and Wasserman Schultz

The DNC chairwoman’s remarks linking the Republican Party to “Jim Crow” caused an immediate double take among anyone familiar with American history but not among all those totally and willfully ignorant liberals, Northern Democrats and many Jews, for whom the period of Reconstruction, the Republican fight against the three S’s that characterized the Democrat Party for the first hundred years of its existence – Slavery, Secession and Segregation- are just a blank page. Only someone as colossally brainwashed or willingly ignorant as Democrat Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz could make the statements that…

“You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws – and very transparently-block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. Photo I.D. laws, we think, are very similar to a poll tax.”

This remark came from a woman whose 20th Congressional District in Florida is the most gerrymandered in the country.  Nobody has since ventured to ask the question why it is that the Democrats continually suppress the military vote by not allowing ballots counted even though they were legal in the states that received the ballots yet always agitate for convicted felons in prison to have the vote.

The Democrats feign ignorance about their own history in instituting and institutionalizing poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, tolerating lynch mobs and simple strong armed tactics to prevent blacks from voting in most Southern states for almost a hundred years after the end of the Civil War.

Wasserman-Schultz made her incendiary comments on June 6, 2011 during an interview on TV-One. She half-retracted her comments the next day after someone probably referred her to an elementary book on the history of the United States.

The National Republican Committee Chairman released a statement in response charging that …”Wasserman Schultz will literally say anything,” and called the congresswoman’s statements “absurd accusations” and “offensive remarks” leading her to admit that she had “used the wrong analogy” (foot in mouth disease).

Why the Angry Words?

Wasserman-Schultz has been carrying on a campaign of invective against Alan West since he was elected, accusing him of old fashioned prejudice against women, a lack of care about Florida’s senior citizens and failure to protect voting rights for minorities.

On July 19 on the House floor after Congressman West had left, Wasserman Schultz made these critical remarks and poured oil on the fire… “The gentleman from Florida. who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, unbelievable from a Member from South Florida.”

Alan West was painted with the broad brush of callousness toward the elderly, women and – get this – “minorities.”

But the real reason to defame West is obvious. It is not because she is the protective angel of the poor and elderly and West wants to deny them a remedy because he is heartless. He is a next door neighbor in Broward County and a proud BLACK REPUBLICAN whose name causes panic among Democrat campaign hustlers like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel and challenges the entire Democratic monopoly on the “minority voters” and the constant appeal of the Democrats to elderly voters posing as their protector. They are assumed to be wards of the state whose welfare benefits need to be safeguarded from the grasp of evil Republicans.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, like defeated demagogue Alan Grayson, pervert Anthony Weiner and, of course, the President, have always idealized the support of Blacks, Jews, women, and senior citizens for the Democrat Party.

West upset the applecart. This was his unforgivable sin. He has challenged the old monopoly of the ruling Democrat puppets – the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Congressman Charlie Rangel. These three have presided over the African-American community as “leaders” and led their followers into an ever deeper hole of dependency on the federal government.

Contrast the media’s obeisance to this triumvirate of scoundrels with the almost total silence towards the man who is without a doubt the country’s most prominent, distinguished and honored African-American outside of government – a philosopher, economist and historian whose record of achievements is buried and hidden by the media apart from Fox News.

I refer to Thomas Sowell, undoubtedly also the most prominent black critic of the policies of Barack Obama, of affirmative action and the whole range of welfare and educational policies designed by the Democratic Party during the last fifty years. He has been a senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University since 1990 and is the recipient of the highest awards including the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship in history, economics and political science and the Bradley Prize for intellectual achievement.

Wasserman-Schultz’s remarks stem from the traditional avoidance of attracting blacks of this caliber and retaining their hold on a population dependent on government programs of dependency. The allegiance of the black and Jewish vote in the pocket of the Democrat Party for the past three generations since the Depression must not be challenged (witness the expulsion of Senator Joe Lieberman) and from the fact that anything that does not support that political alliance is absolutely beyond the pale.

Joseph_Rainey-thumb-400xauto-10834Joseph Hayne Rainey

The first county in the United States to directly elect a Black congressman and accord Jews full equality as voters and as candidates for all public offices was…… Georgetown, South Carolina!

Yes, in deepest Dixie in a county which was the center of the rice growing plantation economy where blacks (mostly slaves) outnumbered Whites in 1860 by a ratio of 10:1. Of course, under Reconstruction, blacks, as citizens, would obviously elect a fellow black.  Joseph Rainey from Georgetown was the first black representative elected who was not unseated in the aftermath of a white backlash and even enjoyed some white support.

He was a moderate Republican and not one of the ‘Radicals’ determined to punish the South. Rainey was of mixed race. His father had been a barber who had earned his freedom. In Representative Rainey’s inaugural address, he vowed to improve the lives of all South Carolinians and to benefit the state he loved.

During his term in office, Rainey supported legislation to protect the civil rights of Southern Blacks and promote the economic reconstruction of South Carolina. In May 1874, he became the first African American to preside over the House of Representatives. By 1878, Reconstruction was ended when the white Democrats regained control of all southern state legislatures and used paramilitary violent groups such as the Klan and the “Red Shirts” to suppress black voting.

All the early black congressmen and senators elected during Reconstruction were members of the Republican Party. The Democrats objected to many of the newly elected black officials and managed to unseat several of them who had been elected in 1870.

Colonel West’s anger is both justifiable and understandable. He was told in effect to remember that, as a Black, he should “know his place” (i.e. the Democrat Party). Other “traitors” who arouse the same ire and passions among Democrats are black Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, newly elected Florida Senator Marco Rubio of Cuban origin, Jewish Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor (from Virginia), conservative women like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, and the Indian-American Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.

Nikki Haley, the Indian-American female Republican governor of South Carolina, is also a first generation American, the child of immigrant parents and also a member of the other Democrat constituency on which a monopoly is claimed – immigrants – thus effectively throwing three strikes against her.

Allen West refused to have more called strikes against him by a partial umpire and warned the pitcher he was about to throw the bat at her.

For more go here.

America’s Cold Civil War

By Lawrence  Sellin, PhD via Family Security Matters

On November 19, 1863 during the Consecration of the National Cemetery following the July 1–3, 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, a clash with the largest number of casualties in the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln pondered whether a government of the people, by the people and for the people could long endure.

It hasn’t.

We continue to have elections, but we no longer have representative government.

In prepared remarks delivered on Feb. 7, 2012 in Denver during the Colorado Caucus, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in reference to the 2012 election, stated:

“…this campaign is about more than just replacing a President – it’s about saving the soul of America. We all know in our hearts that soul is corrupted by a Washington culture of reckless spending, voting to raise your own pay, and saying you support term limits but always running for re-election. It’s that Washington that we must change.”

As many before him, as well as his major competitors for the Republican nomination, Romney accurately described the symptoms, but like the others, he offered no genuine and lasting cure beyond a redistribution of power in Washington D.C. between the Democrat and Republican political establishments.

Repeating the same empty promises of the past brings Americans no closer to saving the nation’s soul and restoring a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

In a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire on June 22, 2007, then Senator Barack Hussein Obama declared;

“We need a President who sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American.”

Yet once obtaining power, the Obama Administration proceeded to institute its own version of crony capitalism.

After signing Obamacare, the healthcare mandate imposed on all Americans, Mr. Obama granted hundreds of waivers to himself, labor unions, large corporations, financial firms and local governments with strong Democratic connections. Among those waiver recipients were upscale nightclubs, bars and hotels in then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district.

CBS News recently identified 11 green-energy companies in addition to Solyndra that got billions of tax dollars and then declared bankruptcy. It has been claimed that 80 percent of the $20.5 billion in Energy Department loans for “green” energy went to Mr. Obama’s top donors, such as oil billionaire George Kaiser, whose family-foundation investment fund was a major stakeholder in the failed solar energy company Solyndra.

In the same 2007 New Hampshire speech Obama pledged:

“I will end the abuse of no-bid contracts in my administration. In the last six years, the unprecedented use of these contracts has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars and outsourced critical government services to friends and supporters who are more connected than they are qualified.”

According to a recent editorial, the pharmaceutical firm Siga Technologies, headed by Obama intimate Ronald Perelman, received a $443 million sole-source, no-bid, no-questions-asked government contract for an unnecessary anti-smallpox pill. Siga previously had been awarded a $3 billion contract after placing former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) boss and frequent White House visitor Andy Stern on its board.

There is a Cold Civil War underway in the United States to determine who should control the federal government. It is not a contest between Democrat and Republican ideologies, but a battle between the power of the two political establishments and the rights of the American people.

The Cold Civil War is a fight to restore adherence to the Constitution or continue the political expediency practiced by the two major parties. It is a choice between a government of the people, by the people and for the people envisioned by the Founding Fathers or something akin to a “managed democracy”, where a governmental cartel, composed of the two political establishments, funded by their affluent left- or right-wing financiers and buttressed by a compliant media, stages elections every few years to obtain voter acquiescence for a continuation of the corrupt status quo.

During his Denver speech, Mitt Romney said:

“This is not a moment when we can continue to do business as usual. This is not a moment when we can expect those in Washington to realize suddenly that they have been wrong and next time they will get it right.”

He is correct, but neither the Democrat nor the Republican establishment can achieve what is right as long as they are solely focused on exercising political power in conflict with the Constitution and against the will and well-being of the American people.

America’s Cold Civil War will not remain cold forever because a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership“ and “Political Establishments and the Culture of Dependency”. He receives email at

What Barack Obama Could Learn From Our 16th President

By Daniel Doherty, Web Editor, Townhall   

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth Presid...

Two hundred and three years ago, one of the greatest presidents in American history was born in Hardin County, Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln, who had little formal education and spent his entire childhood in abject poverty, learned from an early age the importance of hard work and perseverance.  Not unlike many of his contemporaries, however, his life was beset with tragedy. During his adolescence, for example, he witnessed the death of his mother and older sister. And shortly thereafter, during his mid-twenties, he suffered the death of his first romantic interest – Ann Rutledge – which was attributed to typhoid fever.

Yet despite – or perhaps even because of – the enormous hardships he faced as a young man, his rise from poverty and his determination to be successful is an inspiring (and quintessentially American) story. Lincoln, of course, is hardly a president who has escaped our collective imagination. The New Yorker estimates that there have been at least 15,000 books written about him since his death in 1865.  An intensely private man – he never kept a formal diary – and historians for generations have struggled to understand his enigmatic life.

As Pulitzer-prize winning historian Eric Foner explains in his award winning book, The Fiery Trial, one of Lincoln’s greatest qualities as a statesman was his ability to change. Indeed, following Lincoln’s post-assassination apotheosis, the ensuing legend that the late president was a congenital champion of black rights captured the hearts and minds of a bereaved nation. History, on the other hand, teaches us that as an elected official Lincoln supported both colonization and gradual emancipation. In fact, he did not support total and uncompensated emancipation until nearly halfway through his first presidential term.

The purpose of highlighting such unsavory facts is not to disparage his legacy, but to cast light on his greatness. Though Lincoln once asserted “if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong,” it was exceedingly difficult for him (or perhaps any public figure living during the nineteenth century, for that matter) to imagine the United States as a multiracial society. Moreover, during the antebellum period, racism was in many ways as pervasive in Illinois as it was in Mississippi. To be sure, most Northerners and Southerners at the time opposed black enfranchisement and the amalgamation of the races.

And yet the reason Lincoln is remembered today is because his views regarding the “slavery question” did change. Indeed, the courage of former slaves who served unofficially in the Union army during the early years of the Civil War was a major catalyst in changing public perceptions and altering deeply held convictions that blacks were inherently inferior. This, in effect, is what gave Lincoln the political green light to draft and subsequently sign the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. And, perhaps, permitted the commander-in-chief himself the opportunity to reflect and reconcile his own views regarding slavery.

As a result, Abraham Lincoln is considered the paragon of American statesmanship. And his greatest literary achievement, the Second Inaugural Address, ranks among the finest speeches ever delivered by a U.S. president.  The reason, in my view, is because his peroration eloquently argued that the only way to rebuild America — after four years of civil war — was through unity and reconciliation.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Of course, given Lincoln’s ultimate triumph in suppressing the insurrection, he could have used the occasion to flaunt his own political and military achievements. Or, given the nearly 625,000 soldiers who lost their lives, he could have demonized his Southern compatriots for instigating the conflict.  Instead, with extraordinary humility, he explicitly asserted that the Civil War was punishment not for Southern antagonism or aggression, but for the collective sin of American slavery.

In our contemporary situation, there can be no doubt that we live in trying and difficult times. Millions of Americans are unemployed and thousands more have stopped looking for work. And, perhaps worst of all, our nation is deeply divided and resentful. Despite these realities, however, the current occupant of the White House continues to engage in the politics of class warfare and envy to enhance his own reelection campaign.

As President Obama said during his State of the Union address last month:

“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

The allegation in this short excerpt is that the reason for America’s dismal economy is that a small group of unscrupulous bankers exploited a flawed system for personal gain.  While this is in some respects true, what he fails to grasp is that the wealthy in fact account for a highly disproportionate amount of taxes paid. In 2008, for example, the top 10 percent of income earners paid 70 percent of all federal income taxes. By contrast, the bottom 50 percent paid less than 3 percent.  In other words, by pitting Americans against one another on national television, the president is exacerbating tensions between income groups and further dividing the country.

The 2012 presidential election may be the most important contest of our lifetime.  The American people desperately need a leader who understands how to grow the economy and create jobs.  Unfortunately, the president’s refusal to modify his own positions or support job creating legislation that Americans overwhelming support is one reason for the nation’s high unemployment rate and sluggish economic recovery.

While Abraham Lincoln never lived to see the Union fully restored, his vision and leadership were paramount to its ultimate survival and prosperity.  President Obama need only look at the annals of history – and in particular at our sixteenth president – to realize his own administration has taken a vastly different and inflexibly divisive course that posterity I suspect will judge severely.