I began writing a book back on January 1, 2009, called Tough Love: Faith in Politics. I only completed about three quarters of it before I set it down, in favor of dedicating time to the growing Tea Party Movement. The book is sort of a snapshot in time, as I wrote it “in real time.” I really do intend to finish and publish it, but until I do, I’ve excerpted all of the unedited Chapter 2 here, in light of all the recent terrible distortions and mischaracterizations of the Tea Party and of Republicans being racist, fueled by an infectious and extremely biased agenda-driven media. ~Jul Thompson
~ Chapter 2 ~
Two hundred years ago today, February 12th, 2009, was the birthday of two men who greatly impacted the world. One left a legacy of honor, the other of tragedy. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, is credited with ending slavery during America’s Civil War of the 1860’s. It was his outspoken opposition to the expansion of slavery that won him the Republican Party nomination in 1860, and he was elected president later that year. Then there is Charles Darwin, who imagined that through a series of unexplainable processes that defy laws of nature, humans evolved from organisms found in a pond. In stark contrast to Lincoln’s monumental achievement, Darwin wrote The Descent of Man, in which he called people with dark skin “degraded”, noting that he would rather be descended from a monkey than such a “savage.” His main body of work On the Origin of the Species is even subtitled “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” [italics added].1
Today, while the media, scientists and educators celebrate this racist man who promoted and justified racist ideas as Abe takes a back seat, we see Darwin’s ghost haunting us in very prevalent places.
“His ghost is present in empty church pews, in secular science, in revisionist history, in the hallowed halls of art museums, and in the signs, movies, and brochures at zoos and national parks worldwide. Christian morality has all but collapsed in Western society. The culture has been secularized, and young adults who were brought up in church, but with a naturalistic foundation, are turning away from Christianity.”2
I believe much of the violence and killing in schools today can be traced back to Darwinian thinking. Eric Harris, one of the killers in the Columbine massacre that occurred on Hitler’s birthday in 1999, wore a T-shirt inscribed with the words “Natural Selection.” He also wrote on his website,
“YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION. It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.” 3
What value is there to life if we are all just accidents of nature, derived from pond scum?
Learning From History
From a political perspective, there’s an interesting dichotomy that exists in the misnomer that Democrats have always fought in favor of Civil Rights, and Republicans are racist and opposed to Civil Rights. Now, while I feel in many respects that there is virtually no difference between the two parties today, as our RINO (Republicans in Name Only) representatives have sacrificed conservative values on the altar of political expediency, my intention here is only to dispute the widely accepted fallacy that Democrats have always championed civil rights.
A 57-day filibuster was launched by a band of predominantly southern Democrat Senators, to prohibit the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Led by Richard Russell, Democrat from Georgia, the effort failed, with 65% of Democrats and 81% of Republicans in the House and Senate voting in favor of the bill’s passage. Russell had said “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”4
In the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954, the U. S. Supreme Court established desegregation by reversing earlier rulings that provided separate schools for black and white children. As a result, in Virginia, Democrat Harry F. Byrd Sr. organized the Massive Resistance movement whose purpose was to close schools rather than desegregate them; in Arkansas, Democrat Governor Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from entering Little Rock High School; and in Alabama, Democrat Governor George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama, in hopes of preventing the enrollment of two black students, reinforcing his “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” policy that he had stated in his inaugural address.5 Ninety-nine Democrats and two Republicans signed the Southern Manifesto, which opposed racial integration, in an attempt to counter the Supreme Court ruling. These legislators opposed desegregation on the basis of what they called an “unwarranted exercise of power by the Court” and “abuse of judicial power” in which men were substituting “naked power for established law.” They felt it was
“…destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.”6
As a small government conservative, I would normally get all kinds of warm fuzzies learning of Democrats speaking against an overreaching federal authority. But it really seems it was more of an excuse to mask their prejudice. After all, “segregation forever” doesn’t sound like the sentiment of people of goodwill, willing to let integration eventually, naturally take place. In addition, under Byrd’s leadership, Virginia engaged in a campaign to close schools, white and black, that chose to integrate. The courts had previously overreached by upholding the constitutionality of separate facilities for blacks (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) effectively legalizing discrimination. Blacks were free and equal since 1864.(94? Years) How much more patience were the good people expected to endure? Desegregation was a necessary change to overturn the archaic and stupid Jim Crow laws that had mandated separate facilities to begin with. Now, how desegregation was implemented, making requisite what might better have been voluntary, is another subject entirely.
An argument can be made today for some destructive outcomes of desegregation, such as the irreparable harm communities have suffered from disintegrating neighborhood unity and identity, and in some cases, impaired race relations. It would seem then, that the argument behind the Southern Manifesto is not entirely without merit. However, these legislators considered laws that were previously enacted by an abuse of judicial power as legitimate, and tried to use them to nullify this new abuse of judicial power – by citing the law that provided separate facilities for blacks as a legitimate precedent to overturn desegregation law.
KKK: Kooky Krazed Krack-pots
Though it is well-known that southern Democrats were largely responsible for the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, it may surprise some people to learn that the original targets of the KKK were Republicans. Black or white, no matter. For decades they threatened the GOP with lynchings and harm. Approximately 3500 blacks and 1300 whites died at the hands of the KKK from 1882 to 1964. David Barton of Wallbuilders and author of Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White, reveals a long-standing relationship between Democrats and the Ku Klux Klan, which is irrefutably documented in a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872. Democrats of the time not only endorsed the Klan’s program, but often supported it with Congressional votes. Not one Democrat in the House and Senate voted in favor of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves following the Civil War, and the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, Further,
“Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.” 7
Only with the election of Harry Truman in 1945 did the Democrat party begin to properly address race and gender issues. But Truman was largely unsuccessful, due to the hardened holdouts in his own Democrat party. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State under George W. Bush Jr. has said:
“The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.”
Barton’s research has also revealed that “Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser and secretary of state…”7
One might argue that the violent opposition Democrats were the party of yesteryear, and those Krackers only represented a limited faction of the party. I would only agree with the latter part of that, because the Grim Reapers of the party are still here. They’re lobbing anonymous death threats (not unlike Klansmen) at legislators for opposing same-sex marriage bills. They promote genocide to the tune of 50 million Americans since 1973, and mask it behind the guise of nice-sounding names like Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood. They’ve committed untold more deaths under the premise of scientific research.
I do believe the Krackers represent a limited faction of the party, because almost all the Democrats that I know personally are really decent people with a generally conservative bent, which naturally warms my heart. But as Samuel Adams said, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” The Krackers are a very tireless lot, and as a result, my Democrat friends are very poorly represented.
In this past presidential election, many Democrats couldn’t resist the opportunity to accuse anyone who opposed Obama, of being racist. It was strange at first, that they wouldn’t consider the possibility, or the reality that many, if not most people opposed him on ideological grounds. Then it became downright funny. Eventually, the sad realization of what some call “reverse racism” kicked in, and it wasn’t so funny anymore. People were voting for Obama because he was black. A vote for him because he is black, or a vote against him because he is black is still racism, no matter which way you cut it up. Martin Luther King Jr. looked forward to a day when a man would be judged, not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character. Clearly, those that voted for Obama because he’s black, judged him, not on the content of his character, but on the color of his skin. They also fooled themselves into believing that having a black president, despite his lack of wisdom, abiding faith, or capacity for understanding you can’t tax your way to prosperity, would advance the cause of the African American race. It just may have had the opposite effect instead. I believe many Democrats, members of the black community and Christians who voted for him despite his anti-Christian views widened the racial divide, doing a grave disservice to their respective communities, and as a result, lost some respect previously afforded them. But it’s never too late to humble ourselves, pray and receive healing. I only wish Americans embraced Alan Keyes as they did Obama. Now there’s a black man with a silver tongue. He also has the wisdom, understanding, humility and abiding faith befitting a leader of the Western world.
It’s no secret that Congressional Democrats have long opposed Welfare reform.
Among their biggest campaign contributors is Big Labor, who were giving $1.6 billion to Democrat candidates and Leftist political activities every 2-year election cycle, back in 2000 – Lord knows what it is now! Unions are unhappy with the prospect of reform, because if welfare recipients suddenly entered the workforce, there could be over a million new workers, all in the market for low-skill jobs. The competition could cost union workers their jobs and drive down wages.
During the Clinton Administration, Republicans introduced Welfare Reform as part of their Contract With America, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. 8 Moderate Democrats were reasonably in agreement with the President and Republicans, but a large liberal bloc was adamantly opposed to any substantive reform. Examples of reform measures they opposed required mothers on welfare to register the father of each child, and it withheld cash Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) from minors who have children. 9 It’s easy to see the logic of instilling some personal responsibility, if for nothing else, in exchange for assistance. After all, taxpayer-funded assistance required little else. Despite the opposition it passed, and according to the Heritage Foundation,
“Since 1996… welfare rolls have been cut in half, the employment rate of disadvantaged single mothers has nearly doubled, and poverty rates for blacks and children of single mothers are now  at their lowest points in U.S. history. All this despite the whining Cassandras on the left, who warn that reform would force millions into poverty.
What has welfare reform taught us? First, merely throwing money at the problem is counterfeit compassion. Second, a growing economy and a robust jobs environment can significantly help welfare recipients find meaningful employment. Third, encouraging marriage and lowering illegitimacy are critical variables in ending welfare dependency and lowering poverty levels.” 10
But despite this demonstrated success, Liberals in Congress, fearing their monopoly on compassion was being challenged, and evidently possessing the attention span of a goldfish, began to bandy about their own set of reforms, arguing
“…for cash payments to the poor, without any obligation to work or seek training; [they] fostered government dependency; undercut marriage; and promoted illegitimacy. This counterfeit compassion created a welfare culture, trapping women and children on a treadmill of false hopes with no escape.” 10
Clearly, historically and presently, Democrats have been primarily responsible for impeding progress with respect to Civil Rights. Unfortunately, our Republican representation is all but non-existent, as most are more worried about re-election and about “offending people” by taking a firm stand. But conservativism never loses. Even if a politician loses an election to an ignorant electorate, God honors his commitment, which is far better. It’s a win-win. All of this also serves to further illustrate that government just needs to keep its big fat nose out of people’s business.
(The following is an incomplete bibliography)
1:1 Answers Update, vol.16 issue 2
4 A Case History: The 1964 Civil Rights Act
5 Brown v. Board of Education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
“Massive Resistance” to Integration
The Little Rock Nine ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
Standing In the Schoolhouse Door ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis63.htm#1963tuscaloosa
The American Experience; George Wallace: Settin’ the Woods on Fire; Wallace Quotes,
Public Broadcasting System, pbs.org, 2000, accessed February 6, 2007
6 The Southern Manifesto
[From Congressional Record, 84th Congress Second Session. Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956). Washington, D.C.: Governmental Printing Office, 1956. 4459-4460.] http://www.strom.clemson.edu/strom/manifesto.html
7 SECRET HISTORY REVEALED
KKK’s 1st targets were Republicans
Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites
Posted: October 25, 2007
1:00 am Eastern By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295
8 Public Law 104 – 193 – Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996)
GPO – U.S. Government Printing Office
9 The Democrats’ welfare trap – public welfare reform National Review , April 4, 1994 by Joshua Abramowitz http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v46/ai_14987600/
10 Counterfeit Compassion
Republicans offer real help to the poor, and Democrats try to shut them down. By Gary Andres June 04, 2004, 10:06 a.m. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/andres200406041006.asp