Election 2016: Bachmann: ‘No plan to run for president’
Why am I not surprised by this?
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will propose a resolution this week condemning racism within the tea party movement.
The resolution, scheduled for a vote as early as Tuesday by delegates attending the annual NAACP convention in Kansas City, calls upon “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”
NAACP leaders said the resolution was necessary to make people aware of what they believe is a racist element within the tea party movement.
“I think a lot of people are not taking the tea party movement seriously, and we need to take it seriously,” said Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City chapter of the NAACP. “We need to realize it’s really not about limited government.”
Love how they talk about the resolution supposedly only being about an alleged “racist element” within the Tea Party but yet in the same breath talk about how the Tea Party wants to “take us back to the pre-Civil Rights days” and how the movement “is really not about limited government.” Um, um – looks like we have yet another gang of self-important nitwits who don’t know their history on the issue of racism. Sound familiar?
Lemme give these folks a friendly refresher: The party that was staunchly pro-civil rights for black people was the Republican party. The Democrat party – including many northerners (no, it wasn’t just a southern thing) – resisted efforts by Republican Congresses and Presidents to tackle various issues related to slavery, like lynching, poll taxes, etc. In fact, up until the 1964 CRA, every major piece of civil rights legislation aimed at restoring freedom to black people was passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican presidents. The ONLY reason the 1964 CRA passed is with Republican help, because the Democrat-controlled Congress couldn’t get everyone on board with supporting the act. Prior to that, liberal hero JFK was very reluctant to be on board with any pro-civil rights for black people legislation. The main reason Republican nominee for President Barry Goldwater opposed the CRA at that time was because he felt it was more of a states issue than a federal issue.
And contra-popular belief, the so-called “Southern Strategy” was more about appealing to the economic/big government concerns of Southerners more so than trying to win them over using “closet racist strategies.” Democrats continually say that they “lost the south for decades” after the 1964 CRA and that Republicans couldn’t break ground in SC until after that vote but neither assertion is true. Republican presidential nominees had won a few Southern states prior to the passage of the 1964 CRA, starting in 1952. Democrat presidential nominees who went on to win Southern states post-1964 CRA (prior to Obama) were Southern Democrats (Carter and Clinton).
Since the mid-1800s, Democrats have essentially controlled the North Carolina state legislature, with only a very few times in our state’s history that the GOP has controlled the House. They have not controlled the Senate ever, as far as I know. South Carolina’s has had a mixture of Republican and Democrat control of their legsilature post-1964 CRA, but I believe Republicans didn’t come into prominence there until the mid-80s/early-90s. And, someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe that Democrats have had much success in the WV state legislature as well as their US Congressional delegation, dominating in both areas – both before AND after the 1964 CRA passed. Those are just a few examples of where the so-called “Southern Strategy” – if it was indeed “racist” and designed to appeal to “racist Democrats” – was not as big of a success as the left has made it out to be. So the idea that Southern Democrats started gravitating towards Southern Republicans after the allegedly “racist” post-CRA “Southern Strategy” is an absolute lie, and one not only perpetuated by white Democrats but black Democrats as well.
Where we find the most potent elements of racism/race-baiting in American politics today still comes from mainly Democrats, from the race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, NAACP “leaders” and (yes, still) white Democrats like Hillary and Bill Clinton (examples). This committed gang of shameless political opportunists never resist the opportunity to demagogue on the issue of race to insinuate or to outright accuse the GOP of being the “party of racism” when it is the Democrat party that historically has the worst record when it comes to “race relations.” Why? Because they have both political and financial interests in keeping people ignorant of the truth.
Are there some racists in the Republican party and Tea party? You bet. But it’s a small minority, and not only that, but the tiny “racist element” within either movement doesn’t make national policy/set the agenda and doesn’t really influence it. On the other hand, the Sharptons, Jacksons, Clintons – and, sadly, the Obamas and Holders of this country very much are in positions to impact policy. For whatever the words of a few racists within the GOP and Tea Party movements, it pales in comparison (no pun intended) to the policies of the Democrat party, which have done more to hurt the black community for decades in terms of the family unit, education, crime, and economic status than any so-called “racist Southern Strategy” ever did.
What we see here, once again, is the same ol’ same ol’ when it comes to Democrats and political disagreement. The Tea Party opposes Barack Obama’s agenda. And a few members nationwide have made derogatory racial remarks about the President. So that means that the entire movement really is against the Obama agenda because he’s a black man, even though some of the same big government policies he has pursued on issues like healthcare were policies that the previous Democrat President – Bill Clinton, a white dude – also pursued, and who was also met with strong resistance from conservatives.
It wasn’t “racism” then and it’s not “racism” now.
But just for grins and giggles, if just a tiny few making nasty racial remarks about our President equates to an entire movement being “racist,” then what does that make the Democrat party, many (not just a “few”) of who routinely demagogue the GOP on the issue of race purely for political gain?