Ben Carson and The Party of Slavery

American Thinker has yet another brilliant piece.  This time it was inspired by the schadenfreude arising from The Left’s Ugly Hatred of Ben Carson as observed by a writer new to me, one Peter Heck.

You see, from a Tea Party perspective, the Democrats have never changed.  They’re exactly the same party as they were 200+ years ago.  They still believe the black man can’t survive without the white man.  Then, it was a place to live, some food to eat, and a job to do in the form of slavery.  Now, it’s government housing, food stamps, and a jobs program in the form of the government plantation.  In exchange then, as now, they expect absolute fealty. Then in the form of forced labor until you drop dead, now in the form of a vote for your sustenance until you drop dead.

What the hell’s the difference?  Just because it’s been made more palatable doesn’t make it any less evil or paternalistic.  The Democrat impulse to control people’s lives burns just as brightly now as it did then, only now it’s even better: they get to spend other people’s money to do it.  No crop failures for Nancy Pelosi to worry about, oh no…

So herewith are some excerpts from Mr. Heck’s excellent piece, though I heartily recommend you read it in its entirety.


It’s a small man who delights in the misfortune of others, but I can’t help myself. As much as I regret that he is being forced to deal with (it)… I am having a blast watching the left try to deal with Dr. Ben Carson… Liberals are having to come to grips with the reality that Carson is a legitimate contender. And it isn’t going over well.

Why? First, it proves that the annoying habit liberals have exhibited the last seven years of shoving their fingers in their ears and screaming “racist” at any person who opposed the presidency of Barack Obama… (Republicans don’t) mind electing a black president at all -– they just haven’t enjoyed a socialist one.

But the rise of Carson stirs a more primal reaction on the left that shouldn’t be ignored… As the party of big government social welfare spending, liberals have enacted policies that have locked blacks in (all manner of) failing (civic institutions)… Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are disciples of leftist icon Saul Alinsky. It was Alinsky who articulated the strategy that in order to control a group of people they, “must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.” While gutting the black community with their policies, Democrats have managed to successfully portray themselves as that group’s only hope. …

The only thing that upends such a diabolical electoral scheme is the emergence of a self-made member of the oppressed group… Ben Carson, a man born into the crucible of inner-city strife, but who escaped the cycle of poverty intended for him to become a brilliant neurosurgeon.  Carson’s message of a smaller government, self-reliance and Christian faith offer a stark contrast to the grievance mongering, victim mentality that’s been force fed to blacks for decades by Democrats…

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has decided they don’t really want all “colored people” to advance –- just the ones with liberal politics. They’ve even declined to condemn racist slurs hurled at Carson. … When you come to believe that a person must think a certain way simply because of their skin color, and you despise them when they don’t, you are the one with the race problem. That is the uncomfortable truth Ben Carson’s candidacy is revealing, and it’s why the left will stop at nothing to destroy him.


Amen!

Obama, Explained, in ONE PARAGRAPH

Here it is.  You ready?  Because this is Obama, thus the insidious cancer of Progressivism, explained with the most sparkling clarity & brevity as I have ever seen.  Via Kevin D. Williamson at NRO, from whom I always learn something (the highest praise I can offer any writer) Bold text is my addition:


Barack Obama isn’t a policy guy; he’s a personnel guy. An underappreciated aspect of Barack Obama’s politics is that he has been trying to convert the Democratic party from a party that lives in Congress to a party that lives in the White House. The Democrats owned Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, in the postwar era, with unbroken control of the speakership from 1955 to 1995. Until Newt Gingrich came in with the 1994 tsunami, the last Republican speaker had been a man born in 1884 who rode into office on the coattails of Calvin Coolidge. Except for a few brief interludes (January 3, 1947 to January 3, 1949; January 3, 1953 to January 3, 1955; January 3, 1981 to January 3, 1987), the Democrats ran the Senate, too, from the Great Depression until the Gingrich years. That version of the Democratic party was a lawmaking party. (It made a lot of bad laws.) Barack Obama’s Democratic party, the one he is giving birth to, is a different animal. He didn’t give a hoot what was in his signature health-care law — just so long as it empowered him to start putting his people in positions to make health-care decisions. His patron saint is Roy Cohn, who proclaimed the gospel ‘Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.’ Barack Obama doesn’t want to write laws — he wants to appoint judges. He doesn’t want finely crafted legislation — he wants ‘The secretary shall issue.'”


Parenthetically, Mr. Williamson also illuminates why we are $18 trillion in debt. Democrats had the purse at the dawn of the Great Society and did not let go until 1996. That’s not to say Republicans don’t own some of this disaster; they most certainly do. But it wasn’t conservatives who ushered in the welfare state and support it to this day. That’s on progressives. And that’s why we’re $18 trillion in the hole. Every social welfare program they have supported from the New Deal through the Great Society to Obamacare is not just broke, it’s breaking the back of the Republic.  Everything they touch turns to sh*t.

Everything.

I heartily recommend your read the entire thing, here.

Mr. Cruz Goes to Washington

It’s not easy to shock the cynical Washington press corps.

This did.

The tweets I saw after this speech on the floor of the United States Senate by Ted Cruz were uniformly full of shock.  Why?  Because it very rarely happens that someone calls out a member of their own party so publicly.  Add to that the member being called out is the Senate Majority Leader.  Add to that he is being called a liar.  Add to that the one calling him a liar has 53 witnesses.  Add to that the 53 witnesses are all members of the same party.  Add to that the one speaking is the only one who called him out on it.

Oh dear.

He’s put everyone in rather a tough spot, hasn’t he?

Here is the full transcript of Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) floor speech of Friday, July 24, 2015 absolutely scorching the saggy corrupt hide right off Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KS).

I cannot recommend it to you highly enough.

Savor.

Every.

Word.


 

July 24, 2015  Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), on The Floor of the United    States Senate

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, today is a sad day for this institution.
The Senate operates based on trust. Whether we are Democrats or
Republicans, these 100 Senators have to be able to trust that when a
Senator says something, he or she will do it, even if we disagree on
substance–that we don’t lie to each other.

What we just witnessed this morning is profoundly disappointing. I
want to describe the context of two preceding discussions.
A number of weeks ago, when this Senate was considering trade
promotion authority, a group of Senators gathered on this floor and
blocked TPA for many minutes because they were pressing for the Export-
Import Bank. They huddled on this floor and negotiated a deal in front
of C-SPAN and in front of the world. Then, when they had their deal,
TPA had the votes to pass.

Shortly thereafter, we had a Senate Republican lunch, where I stood
and asked the majority leader, very directly: What is the deal that was
just cut on TPA and was there a deal for the Export-Import Bank? It was
a direct question I asked the majority leader in front of all of the
Republican Senators. The majority leader was visibly angry with me that
I would ask such a question, and the majority leader looked at me and
said: There is no deal. There is no deal. There is no deal. Like Saint
Peter, he repeated it three times.

He said: The only thing I told the proponents of the Export-Import
Bank is, like any other Senator in this body, they could offer any
amendment they liked on any amendable vehicle, but I gave them nothing.
There is no deal. I gave them nothing. He was emphatic and he was
repeated.

Following that public discussion, Senator Mike Lee and I approached
the majority leader afterward, in which he emphasized: There is no
deal. I will do nothing. I oppose the Export-Import Bank. All I said is
they can offer an amendment like any Senator can to any bill.

I went back to my office and I sat down and I had a long discussion
with my staff. My staff told me that afternoon: He is lying to you.
That is what my staff said. We have been around the Senate a long time.
He is not telling you the truth.

What I told my staff that afternoon, I said: Well, I don’t know if
that is the case or not, but I don’t see how, when the majority leader
looks me in the eyes and makes an explicit promise–and by the way,
looks into the eyes of every other Republican Senator and says that to
every other Republican Senator–I don’t see how I cannot take him at
his word when he makes an explicit promise.

As a result, I cast my vote in May in support of TPA because I
support free trade, and I felt I had no choice but to assume that when
the majority leader spoke to 54 Republican Senators and made an
explicit promise, he wasn’t lying to us. Well, as TPA moved on and it
went to the House, it became abundantly clear there was a deal. There
was a deal in the House for the Export-Import Bank. So the second time
TPA came up, I voted no because of that corrupt deal.

Now, I will note to the public that the majority leader and the
Speaker of the House had repeatedly said: There was no corrupt deal.
There was no corrupt deal. We made no deal. We made no deal. That is
one element of the background context.

Let me tell you a second element of the background context. A number
of weeks ago, when we were debating the Corker-Cardin bill, the Iran
review act, there were a number of amendments that Senators had filed.
I filed an amendment that would actually put teeth in the Iran review
act by requiring affirmative congressional approval before sanctions on
Iran could be lifted. Other Senators filed very good amendments.
Senator Marco Rubio filed an amendment calling for Iran to recognize
Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State before sanctions could be
lifted. Our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle did not want to
vote on that amendment, and in response, the majority leader cut off
all amendments.

Now, I sat in the majority leader’s office, and I urged the majority
leader: Invoke cloture on Senator Rubio’s amendment. Invoke cloture on
Senator Rubio’s amendment calling on Iran to recognize Israel’s right
to exist and setting that as a precondition of any lifting of
sanctions. I argued vociferously with the majority leader that if the
Democrats were so opposed to voting on that amendment, that was all the
more reason, because it was important substantively. The majority
leader said no, he would not do so, that invoking cloture on an
amendment was an extraordinary step, and he would not do so. So he cut
off every amendment. He filled the tree.

It was striking a minute ago seeing the Democratic leader, Senator
Harry Reid, calling out the majority leader for filling the tree, for
engaging in the same procedural abuse that Harry Reid did over and over
and over again in this body. Now the Republican leader is behaving like
the senior Senator from Nevada.

What we just saw was not, Madam President, what the majority leader
told you and me and every other Republican Senator. What we just saw
was not that the proponents of the Export-Import Bank, like anyone
else, could stand up and offer whatever amendment they like on any
issue. What the majority leader did is, No. 1, he called up that
amendment. He called it up himself. Why does that matter? Because, as
the majority leader, he has priority of recognition. When he calls up
an amendment, no one can stop him. He didn’t just call it up; he filled
the tree. Just like Harry Reid, he filled the tree, blocking everyone
else’s amendment. And, by the way, I agree with Senator Reid when he
says the ObamaCare amendment is a cynical amendment. Of course it is.
It is empty showmanship. We will have a vote on repealing ObamaCare. The Republicans will all vote yes, and the Democrats will all vote no. It will be at a 60-vote threshold. It will be an exercise in meaningless political theater.
Mind you, when we had a fight in October of 2013 to actually stop
ObamaCare and defund it, the majority leader, then the minority leader,
was opposed to doing something with real teeth in it to stop ObamaCare.
But an empty show vote–that is a good way of distracting from what is
going on.

You know, there is a profound disappointment among the American
people because we keep winning elections and then we keep getting
leaders who don’t do anything they promise. The American people were
told: If only we have a Republican majority in the House, things will
be different. Well, in 2010, the American people showed up in enormous
numbers, and we got a Republican majority in the House, and very little
changed. Then the American people were told, you know, the problem is
the Senate. If only we get a Republican majority in the Senate and
retire Harry Reid as majority leader, then things will be different.
Well, in 2014, the American people rose up in enormous numbers and
voted to do exactly that. We have had a Republican majority in both
Houses of Congress now for about 6 months.

What has that majority done?

The first thing we did in December is we came back and passed a
trillion dollar CRomnibus plan filled with pork and corporate welfare.
That was the very first thing we did. Then this Republican majority
voted to fund ObamaCare, voted to fund President Obama’s
unconstitutional Executive amnesty. Then leadership rammed through the
confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. Which of those
decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid were still majority
leader? Not a one. Not a one. This Senate operates exactly the same–
the same priorities. Let me tell you why. It is not that this majority
doesn’t get things done. It does get things done. But it listens to one
and only one voice; that is the voice of the Washington cartel–the
lobbyists on K Street, the big money and big corporations.

If you go to the American people and ask if reauthorizing the Ex-Im
Bank is a priority for you, the standard response for most of them
would be this: The what? They don’t even know what this is. Let me tell
you what it is. It is an egregious example of corporate welfare. It is
the American taxpayer being on the dime for hundreds of billions of
dollars in loan guarantees given out to a handful of giant
corporations. It is a classic example of cronyism and corporate
welfare. By the way, among others, do you know what person had the
clarity of thought on that? Then-Senator Barack Obama, who described it
as a classic example of corporate welfare. That was when he was in the
Senate. Now that he is in the White House, corporate welfare sounds
pretty good. Now, just about all of the Democrats are supporting the
corporate welfare with the exception of Bernie Sanders. I will give
credit to Senator Sanders for standing up against corporate welfare.
But as to every Democrat who rails against big money and the corruption
of Washington, as to every Democrat who styles himself or herself a
populist, their actions on this matter speak far louder than their
words. When it comes to Republicans, Republicans also are listening to
K Street and the lobbyists. Why? It is not complicated. The giant
corporations that are getting special favors from the taxpayers hire an
army of lobbyists who write campaign checks after campaign checks. And,
by the way, these checks go to both Democrats and Republicans. It is
career politicians in both parties who are kept in office by looting
the taxpayer to benefit wealthy powerful corporations.

The single largest recipient of loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank
is the Boeing corporation. The Boeing corporation just had an earnings
call where their CEO said–and I am paraphrasing: We’ll be just fine
without the Ex-Im Bank. It is not impacting us. There are plenty of
private loan alternatives out there. But even though the market could
provide, it is a lot easier to have compliant lawmakers rob from the
public fist to enrich giant corporations.

Do you know who doesn’t have lobbyists? A single mom waiting tables.
Do you know who doesn’t have lobbyists? A teenage immigrant like my
father, washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour, struggling to achieve
the American dream. Do you know who doesn’t have lobbyists? A factory
worker who just wants to work and provide for his or her children. They
don’t have lobbyists, and so what happens? Career politicians in both
parties gang up with giant corporations to loot their taxes to make it
harder for people who are struggling to achieve the American dream.
Coal miners, Madam President, in your State don’t have lobbyists who
are representing them here–the individual miners–while the majority
leader teams up with the Democratic leader to take from their paychecks
to fund giant corporations. It is wrong and it is corrupt.

It saddens me to say this. I sat in my office. I told my staff: The
majority leader looked me in the eye and looked 54 Republicans in the
eye. I cannot believe he would tell a flatout lie, and I voted based on
those assurances that he made to each and every one of us. What we just
saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told
every Republican Senator but what he told the press over and over and
over again was a simple lie.

This institution should not operate at the beck and call of lobbyists
in Washington. This institution, the majority and minority leaders arm
in arm again, should not team up against the American taxpayers. It is
why our children are going bankrupt.

Now we are facing an enormous threat with this Iran deal. A nuclear
Iran poses the greatest national security threat to this country. Yet
the majority leader refused to do what he just did for the Export-
Import Bank on Iran. He refused to invoke cloture. That was an
extraordinary step. If he was telling us the truth when he said there
was no deal, why would he do what he just did? Well, we now know that
when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit
commitment, he is willing to say things that he knows are false. That
has consequences for how this body operates. If you or I cannot trust
what the majority leader tells us, that will have consequences on other
legislation as well, on how this institution operates.

There are a host of amendments that the American people have focused
on–issues such as defunding Planned Parenthood after the gruesome
video. The majority leader doesn’t want to vote on that. That is actually something the American people are focused on.

He brought up his ObamaCare amendment as a smokescreen, because it is
intended to fail. But you know, what he didn’t bring up was my
amendment to end the congressional exemption from ObamaCare–the
corrupt deal that Harry Reid cut with President Obama to exempt Members
of Congress. We ought to live under the same rules as everybody else.
The majority leader doesn’t want to vote on that because he doesn’t
want to end the cronyism for Members of Congress any more than end the
cronyism for giant corporations that enrich themselves at the expense
of the American people.

There are a host of priorities for the voters who elected you and me.
Madam President, I would ask you to think about when you were running
for the Senate not too long ago. Do you recall any of your constituents
ever saying: We want the Export-Import Bank. No, they want other
things. They have other priorities, but those are not the priorities of
the Republican leadership.

Sadly, today we have government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists,
and for the lobbyists. That is not how the Senate is supposed to
operate. A far more important amendment than bringing back this
corporate welfare and cronyism is my amendment that provides that
sanctions on Iran cannot be lifted unless and until Iran does two
things: No. 1, it recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State,
and No. 2, it releases the four American hostages languishing in
Iranian prisons. That is a far more important issue than enriching some
more lobbyists on K Street and getting a few more campaign
contributions. That is what we should be voting on.

###

Dixiecrats = GOP? No.

UPDATE: Hah! Quite by accident I came across another excellent article – brilliant, in fact – on the absurdity of GOP turning racist overnight in the sixties.  This time it’s by Kevin D. Williamson, “The Party of Civil Rights,” at NRO.  Check it out.

Came across this wonderful blog post giving some good, historical detail and sound analysis on why it’s nonsensical that the party of Lincoln, who for the entire nation’s history stood on the side of civil rights, would all of a sudden, in 1964-1965 just POOF turn into a bunch of racists. It’s written by a black conservative by the name of Bob Parks who writes at Black & Right.  Read his About Me page.  He’s an impressive fellow.

So! I recommend it highly.  Click here or read it below.

===

The Dixiecrat Myth

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the same: “we’ve grown”and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.

I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan documentary) for input.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of  Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles.

And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…?

I’m sure the more learned Democrats will have issues with these explanations.

Oh well.

Po’ Obama

Thank GOD for Kevin Jackson.

I’ve been admirer of his since the first time I saw him appear on The Glenn Beck program on Fox early in Obama’s first term.  He’s a fearless black conservative and he has written a piece (just another in a long line) reflecting that.  I heartily recommend it.  It’s at American Thinker (which I have recommended many times before as mandatory daily reading.)  He tackles what I’ve observed for YEARS about Democrats: they’re all STILL the same bunch of racists they were during slavery!  The “soft bigotry of low expectations” undergirds everything they believe in:  blacks are, according to them, less capable, less able, than others of different pigmentation to get a picture i.d., compete with others of different pigmentation without being spotted points, or, monolithically, it seems, able to assume personal responsibility for a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

I have this mad notion that blacks are every bit as capable of thinking, learning, and functioning like everyone else, but that, it seems, make ME the racist.

*sigh*

And makes Kevin Jackson an “Uncle Tom,” a “sellout,” etc… which kinda brings me back to my original point:

Democrats haven’t changed a bit.

::
How the Left Treats Obama Like a Child

By Kevin Jackson
::