Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Blacks Petition UN To Censure Obama and Democratic Party for Racism

BLACKS PETITION UN TO CENSURE OBAMA AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR RACISM

By Frances Rice

The NAACP, acting on behalf of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, launched an attack on Republicans with a false charge of racism because some states are trying to end voter fraud by requiring all voters to present identification when appearing at the polls to vote. The NAACP did their grandstanding in front of the United Nations on December 10th, the day the UN declared to be "International Human Rights Day". The NAACP also announced that in January 2012, they will present a petition to the UN, claiming that Republicans want to "take away the right to vote" from "the elderly and working families of all colors."

Notably, the NAACP has voiced no objection over identification required to do business in a bank, board an airplane, get medicine from a pharmacy, use a credit card in retail stores, drive a car and a host of other things. Even more telling, the NAACP is not targeting labor unions, major donors of the Democratic Party, even though unions require their own members to produce a photo ID in order to vote in union elections. To see an article with more details about unions, click here.

With aplomb the NAACP ignores who actually denied blacks the right to vote—the Democratic Party, the party that instituted those Jim Crow laws and poll taxes. No concern is shown by the NAACP about voter fraud by Democratic Party operatives, such as ACORN that was prosecuted in several states. There was nothing but silence from the NAACP when, on December 12th, two days after the NAACP's stunt at the UN, the head of the Indiana Democratic Party, Dan Parker, resigned as St. Joseph County Prosecutor Mike Dvorak launched an investigation into allegations of election fraud that stemmed from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. According to reports, numerous signatures on petitions that placed then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the party's primary ballot were allegedly forged and then certified by the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office in South Bend. Details about this investigation can be found by clicking here.

In reaction to the efforts by the NAACP to smear Republicans as racist, the National Black Republican Association sent a petition to the United Nations, seeking a censure resolution against President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party for that party's gross violations of human rights in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations' International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. That petition is shown below.

It is time for the Democratic Party to be held accountable for their reprehensible election year strategy designed to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted on the Internet at: www.NBRA.info

------------------------------

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
The United Nations
1st Ave & E 44th Street
New York, NY 10017

Dear Secretary K-moon:

We, African American citizens of the United States,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Recognizing the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations' International Convention on Civil and Political Rights that States must create conditions whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Herewith petition the United Nations to take the necessary measures to issue a censure resolution against the United States' Democratic Party and the head of that party, President Barack Obama, for the gross violations of human rights committed against African American citizens of the United States by the Democratic Party (with charges one and two happening today and charges three through 25 happening in prior years), to wit:

Democrats:

1. Use what President Barack Obama described in his book "Dreams From My Father" as "plantation politics" to keep African Americans improvised and living in dilapidated communities with over 17% unemployment
2. Keep poor African American children trapped in failing urban public schools
3. Beat African Americans to death, cut them into pieces and burned them alive
4. Burned down African Americans communities
5. Bombed African Americans churches
6. Lynched over two thousand African Americans
7. Proudly endorsed the institution of slavery to enslave millions of African Americans
8. Called Republicans "Nigger Lovers" for fighting for civil rights for African Americans
9. Called the original Republican Party "Black Republicans"
10. Killed African Americans outside the voting booth for voting for Republicans
11. Killed white teachers who taught African Americans students
12. Burned down African Americans schools
13. Proudly called themselves "the Party of White Supremacy"
14. Stacked the United States Supreme Court with pro-slavery and racist judges
15. Sponsored racist legislation from Jim Crow Laws to Black Codes and Fugitive Slave Laws
16. Supported Judge John Ferguson in the case of "Plessy v Ferguson" & opposed the case of "Brown v. Board of Education"
17. Praised the Dred Scott Decision that classified African Americans as "property"
18. Fought against the integration of public schools
19. Forced African Americans to sit in the back of buses and restaurants and in the balcony of movie theatres
20. Killed little African American girls in their Sunday school classes
21. Hanged African Americans by the neck until dead without a trial
22. Formed terrorist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize African Americans
23. Denied employment to African Americans
24. Refused service to African Americans in restaurants and other public facilities, such as parks and swimming pools
25. Made reprehensible racist statements, including the following by President Lyndon Johnson: "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they got something now that they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down and 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 to stopping them, we will 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...."

Historical references can be found in the book "Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats" by Wayne Perryman and the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter, copies of which are included with this petition. This petition is submitted on behalf of African American citizens of the United States by Frances P. Rice, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Retired) and Chairman, National Black Republican Association.

Signature: ________________________________ Date: December 13, 2011

Copy Provided To: The Human Rights Council

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Blacks Sue Obama & Democrats For Racial Discrimination

BLACKS SUE OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

By Frances Rice

Courageous aptly describes Rev. Wayne Perryman who has just filed a historic and landmark lawsuit in federal district court demanding an apology from the Democratic Party for centuries of racist oppression. This is Rev. Perryman's second attempt to seek long overdue justice. His first lawsuit in 2005 went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In that case, the Democrats hired an army of lawyers, admitted their racist past, but refused to apologize. The Democrats were let off the hook by the Court on the legal technicality of "standing," since Rev. Perryman had not suffered personally from the Democratic Party's horrendous racism. Different this time are two factors. First, President Barack Obama is a named defendant. Second, this writer has joined Rev. Perryman as a plaintiff since I did suffer personally at the hands of the racist Democrats during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Click here to see my bio with details that is posted on the National Black Republican Association website.

Below is a press release about Rev. Perryman's lawsuit issued by the Frederick Douglass Foundation. Click here to see the entire lawsuit brief.


Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted on the Internet at: www.NBRA.info


_______________

The Frederick Douglass Foundation

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." Frederick Douglass


Immediate Press Release
September 12, 2011
Contact Person: Wayne Perryman
Email Address: doublebro@aol.com
Website: www.wayneperryman.com



Blacks File Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats


Seattle, WA. On September 11, 2011, blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast joined together and signed one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared on racial discrimination, then filed their brief today, September 12th, at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time in US District Court in Seattle (Case No. C11 - 1503). The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as "Father of Racism," allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011.

Rev. Wayne Perryman, a former Democrat himself and the lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, said he was inspired to file this action after seeing the recent movie The Help. The movie takes place in the region that was exclusively controlled by Democrats for more than 150 years (the South). Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mrs. Rice is a resident of Sarasota, Florida and has lived in the South most of her life.

The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation's top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat's National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father. In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology, but no monetary damages.


In the 40-page brief, Rev. Perryman tells the court that the Democratic Party, (the party that is quick to call the Tea Party and Republicans racist), is the same party that refuses to confess and/or acknowledge (in public and on their website) that they are the party that supported the institution that packed millions of black men, women and children in the deep dark hulls of slave ships with just barely enough food and water to keep them alive, and forced them to lie in their own urine, feces, and vomit for the duration of a long trip across the Atlantic.

And after arriving in America, it was the members of their party that forced these poor souls to work from sunup to sundown for the next 70 years and never paid them one dime. And when the black victims were fortunate enough to escape, it was the Democratic Party that passed Fugitive Slave laws to return them to their brutal slave masters. When their inhumane institution of slavery was challenged by the opposing party, Democrats countered by placing threats in their political platforms (1844-1856), - threatening anyone who dared to interfere with what they called, "the sectional issue of Domestic Slavery."

In May 21, 1856, they carried out their threats when they attacked their opposition, Senator Charles Sumner with a walking cane on the Senate floor and when they attacked with guns, freed blacks and abolitionists on the streets of Lawrence, Kansas. Six years later, Democrats called themselves 'Confederates" and went to war killing thousands to defend and protect their racist institution of slavery.

After losing the war, they fought against constitutional amendments and civil rights legislation for blacks, and chose instead to form terrorist organizations, legislate Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws and support every landmark case that was designed to deny blacks their constitutional rights including the Slaughterhouse Case, Plessy v Ferguson, the Civil Rights Cases of 1881 to overturn the 1875 Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. the Board of Education. While many of these cases were pending, Democrats proudly adopted the name "The Party of White Supremacy" and committed every inhumane violent act known to mankind (from 1867 to 1977) to keep blacks in "their place." And to add insult to injury, after killing millions of blacks through their racist institutions, they hired powerful attorneys to keep this information from blacks and to avoid apologizing to blacks.

Perryman said, "Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit. He said, "I guess they feel they have nothing to apologize for." Perryman went on to say that he is "convinced that Democrats will only apologize if the media, or the courts (with public pressure) will force them to do so. The man who authored the book: The Audacity of Hope, now has the "audacity" to refuse to apologize for his political party and their racist institutions, that took the lives of millions of his own people.
Apologies for Racism – Precedent Set

In the 40-page brief covering a period from 1792 to 2011, Perryman makes the following claims regarding past apologies for racism and racial injustices. Perryman said history reveals that an apology or reparation for blacks would not be an issue today had the Democratic President Andrew Johnson chosen to sign Senate Bill 60. Since Johnson's veto of Senate Bill 60, the door for reparations involving racial injustices remained closed for over 120 years.

In 1988, Congress opened that door with the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Under that new bill, Japanese internment victims received an apology plus $20,000 each in reparation pay. In 1993, the victims of the Rosewood, Florida Massacre received an apology and reparations from the State of Florida. On May 16, 1997, President Clinton issued an apology to the victims of the Tuskegee Experiment and paid the African American victims a total of $10,000,000 in reparations.
On February 7, 2005, the 109th Congress issued Senate Resolution 39 and apologized for not enacting lynching laws to protect those who were victims of lynching. In that resolution, Congress stopped short of acknowledging that all of the lynchings took place in regions controlled by Democrats.

And finally on January 20, 2007, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of North Carolina apologized for the 1898 riot and massacre that killed several black Republicans and drove them out of office.

Who is Rev. Perryman?

Rev. Perryman is the same Seattle minister who used his biblical research in 1994 to persuade the world's two largest Christian publishers and the Encyclopedia Britannica to apologize and remove the "Curse of Ham" theory from all of their publications. The curse theory had existed for over 500 years and was used by Southern Christians and Democrats to justify slavery and their mistreatment of blacks.

© National Black Republican Association, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Will America Survive Obama?

WILL AMERICA SURVIVE OBAMA?

By Frances Rice

A war is being waged against America by our own president, Barack Obama. The question is whether our country will survive Obama's socialist wrecking ball being rammed against our nation's economic house. We must wait until the 2012 election to determine who will be victorious—Obama and his fellow liberal Democrats who are seeking to destroy America with their failed socialist agenda, or fiscally conservative Republicans who are fighting to save our country.

In electing Obama to be our president in 2008, most Americans decided to ignore his Socialist/Marxist leanings and vote for him because he is black; thus, sacrifice our country on the altar of Affirmative Action. Now Obama is on a fast track to imposing government supremacy over the people, countering our nation's founding principle where our Constitution made the government subordinate to the people.

Will the majority of Americans now vote to re-elect Obama in 2012 while ignoring how he is doggedly clinging to his well-publicized failed economic policies? Every time Obama speaks, he offers more of the same—a socialist agenda that's anchored on pure absurdity, the ludicrous notion that more spending on an expanding government propped up by a declining or, at best, stagnant private sector will somehow magically produce robust job growth and economic prosperity.

Most Americans voted in 2008 while wearing skin-colored glasses and, in a little over a year, we will see if the majority of Americans have opened their eyes and now see Obama in the same light as does Mychal Massie who described Obama as a congenital liar in his article "Nero in the White House" that can be found on the Internet by clicking on the below title.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted on the Internet at: www.NBRA.info


_______________________________



Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life savings of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com

© National Black Republican Association, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Affirmative Action President

VERDICT - THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT

By Frances Rice

A scathing and absolutely accurate assessment of the Obama Presidency has been rendered by knowledgeable pundits. The following article provides a clear-eyed analysis of the fact that, indeed, Barack Hussein Obama is an Affirmative Action president. To view the article on the Internet, click on the below title.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association.

She may be contacted on the Internet at: www.NBRA.info


______________________

Obama: The Affirmative Action President
By Matt Patterson

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clich├ęs, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?

© National Black Republican Association, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, August 08, 2011

Bill "Bull Connor" Clinton

BILL "BULL CONNOR" CLINTON

By Frances Rice

Playing the race card is no longer working for the Democratic Party. That stunning pronouncement was made by Bernard Goldberg, author of "A Slobbering Love Affair". This momentous turn of events highlighted by Goldberg was welcome news to us in the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) who launched our educational campaign six years ago aimed at stopping the Democrats' race-baiting.

Into the spotlight stepped former President Bill Clinton, brazenly engaging in race mongering by declaring that the passage of voter ID laws by some states was a return to Jim Crow. Clinton told a group of students: "There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the other Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today."

Clinton's racism charge is particularly irksome since it is the Democrats who passed those Jim Crow laws as is explained in detail by Wayne Perryman in his book "Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats" and Ann Coulter in her book "Demonic".

It was gratifying to observe that Clinton's incendiary charge was not echoed to any great extent in the liberal media as was done in the past. Instead, he was lambasted by the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled "Bill Clinton Does 'Jim Crow' " That article can be found on the Internet by clicking here.

Even more grating is the fact that Bill Clinton, himself, engaged in unconscionable racism against black Americans while governor of Arkansas and president, benefiting from the poisonous racial climate engendered by his fellow Democrats. A particularly odious Democrat was Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham who let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators during the 60s. Another racist Democrat was Alabama Governor George Wallace. Michael Barone described Wallace as "a man who really didn't believe in anything—a political opportunist who used opposition to integration to try and get himself ahead." This description aptly fits Bill Clinton, too.

Following in the footsteps of his mentor J. William Fulbright, a staunch segregationist, Clinton refused to enforce a court-ordered affirmative action plan while president and was himself sued for discriminating against his black employees while he was a governor. Clinton also had his Attorney General, Janet Reno, file a class action, reverse discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a group of white janitors at Illinois State University to stop the University from hiring blacks. None of Clinton's inner-circle of advisors was black, and Clinton failed to take action to stop the massacre of over 800,000 Rwandans. Without congressional or UN approval, Clinton sent 20,000 troops to help the white Europeans in Bosnia, but refused to send troops to help the 800,000 blacks in Africa.

Clinton showed the extent of his disdain for black Americans when he praised former Ku Klux Klansman Senator Robert Byrd at his funeral and gave Byrd a pass for being a recruiter for the Klan. Never mind the Klan was responsible for killing (lynching) 3,000 Republicans—2,000 blacks and 1,000 whites.

His anti-black actions and attitude show he clearly deserves the moniker: Bill "Bull Connor" Clinton.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted on the Internet at: www.NBRA.info

© National Black Republican Association, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, August 06, 2011

Obama Devastates Poor And Middle Class Blacks

OBAMA DEVASTATES POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS BLACKS

By Frances Rice

Showing not a modicum of compassion, President Barack Obama is steadily pushing his socialist agenda that is spiraling black Americans into the depths of economic ruination. His unyielding mantra of "tax the rich" is just a smoke screen for his desire to punish job creators, mostly small business owners, who produce the majority of the jobs in this country. Hurt most by Obama's failed socialist policies are the poor and middle class. Below is an excerpt from an article by Chidike Okeem that provides the troubling details about how Obama is devastating the black community. The article in its entirety is posted on the Internet and may be found by clicking on the title below.


___________________


Barack Obama and the Betrayal of Black America
By Chidike Okeem

When Barack Obama was elected as the president of the United States, black liberals dreamily believed that the numerous maladies in the black community would cease to exist. They believed that his election was indicative of a vigorous wind of political and social change that was blowing across the country. Barack Obama himself vowed that his election would demarcate the conclusion of grisly "politics as usual" from the commencement of political and democratic freshness. However, as this administration continues on, it is abundantly clear that Obama has not only failed to deliver in a general sense, but he has also completely betrayed his most loyal constituency -- the black community.

After passing a gargantuan stimulus plan that was supposed to fix the economy, the unemployment rate continued to rise -- until it only recently began falling. Although we are currently at a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, the rate in the black community is at an unpardonably enormous 16.1 percent -- the highest of any ethnic group in the country. It is also important to note that black unemployment was lower under Bush than it has been at any point during Obama's administration. In point of fact, black unemployment was even lower under Bush than it was under Clinton.
More egregious than the high rate of black unemployment is the fact that Obama has been completely disconnected with the black community. He has failed to articulate any policy that would deal with the crisis that is evident in urban America. Rather, Obama is much more focused on articulating and enacting policies about issues that are close to his heart, such as allowing gays to serve openly in the military, as well as becoming a potent mouthpiece for the immoral Arab scam to steal Israeli land and annihilate the Jewish people.

Any intellectually honest person in America must look at Obama's demonstrable disregard for black issues and come to the unavoidable conclusion that black America is the very least of Obama's concerns. So obvious is this fact that even some of Barack Obama's most ardent supporters in the black intelligentsia have begun voicing strident denunciations of the president. The latest assault on Obama from his left-wing compatriot Cornel West is evidence of this phenomenon.

Although West's critique of Obama was partly personal and laden with his characteristically asinine divisive racial rhetoric, there was some substance to his criticism to which left-wing Obama cheerleaders in the black community remain willfully blind. West accused Obama of being "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats."

While West foolishly assumes that support for black issues and being in favor of business are mutually exclusive, the unstated and basic premise in West's critique is that Obama does not care enough about, and expresses no interest in, black people and black issues. As absurd as the rest of his intellectually messy ramblings are, West is right about that fundamental point.

Obama's sycophants are used to writing off all criticism of the president coming from whites as racist, and they are equally used to describing all criticism from black conservatives as being the puerile rants of Uncle Toms obsequiously looking for approval from "the white man"; however, although Cornel West is one of the black left's most revered academics, they would much rather write him off as entirely crazy than to admit that any criticism he has of Barack Obama contains even a scintilla of merit.

Big Government is the Problem, Not the Solution

By arguing that Obama has betrayed the black community, I am not arguing that Obama needs to spend his time carving out black-specific governmental policies. Manifestly, the black-specific liberal policies that have been attempted in the past have done nothing more than stimulate a metastasizing of the very social cancers that they were designed to treat. My argument is, however, that Obama has failed to enact the economic policies that would provide the necessary environment for blacks to fend for themselves independent of government -- despite the fact that he presented himself during his campaign as someone who was inimitably skilled and uniquely well-positioned to do so.

Without attempting to cater to blacks specifically, President Reagan managed to create economic prosperity throughout the entire country which, in point of fact, benefited blacks more than it did whites. The facts cannot be disputed: Reaganomics had a salubrious effect on the black community, whereas Obamanomics is having an unequivocally deleterious effect on black economics and the black community at large.

Obama Is Not The President of African Americans?

One of the talking points formulated by Obama's apologists in the media is the notion that Obama is not the president of black America. They argue he is the president of the United States of America. This pathetically feeble argument exists for the sole purpose of deflecting legitimate criticism of Obama's failure to meet the needs of the black community.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is the president of African Americans, just as he is the president of white Americans. It takes a shocking display of intellectual dishonesty to suddenly release Obama of any responsibility for black America, especially when previous presidents have always been held responsible for their treatment of the black community.

In 1998, the Nobel-Prize-winning writer Toni Morrison gave Bill Clinton the honorary moniker of "America's first black president" because, according to her, he "display[ed] almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."

Leaving aside the recognizably insulting view of what constitutes blackness in Morrison's perverse mind, had white, southern Clinton possessed all these qualities while presiding over 16.1 percent unemployment, I am positive that this endearing nickname would never have been created -- much less believed by black liberals for many years until the emergence of Obama.

By contrast, the left, with unutterable alacrity, vociferously argued that George W. Bush's less-than-stellar handling of Hurricane Katrina was indicative of his incurable allergy toward black skin. Even largely apolitical rapper Kanye West took the time out to accuse Bush of not caring about blacks. The fact that Bush packed his administration with exceptionally well-qualified minorities was completely disregarded when the black left gave Bush his failing report card. One can only imagine the panic-stricken cries of racism that would have been heard for years if Bush had overseen 16.1 percent black unemployment.

It is nothing more than liberal hypocrisy to see the crisis evident in the black community under Obama's watch and simply respond with the contemptible shibboleth stating, "Obama is not the president of black America; he's the president of the United States of America" -- especially when every other president in recent history has been critically judged on their treatment of the black community. Mr. Okeem is a freelance writer and can be contacted at mrokeem@gmail.com . His blog on politics and culture can be read at voiceofchid.com



___________________

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,

The creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery..."

-Winston Churchill

© National Black Republican Association, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

The Truth About Democrat Racism

THE TRUTH ABOUT DEMOCRAT RACISM

By Frances Rice

Contemptible aptly describes the race mongering by Democrats for partisan political gain. No issue, from ObamaCare to Voter ID, escapes being demagogue by Democrats with false accusations of racism leveled at Republicans who disagree with Democrats on policy. With not an ounce of shame, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz went on the African-American network TV One's program "Washington Watch" and accused Republicans of wanting to return America to Jim Crow segregation laws, merely because they are seeking to require photo identification to register to vote.

It takes Weiner-level hubris for Democrats to conjure up the specter of Jim Crow against Republicans since Democrats enacted those discriminatory laws. The roots of modern-day racism rest squarely in the Democratic Party. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Details about the true history of civil rights can be found in the book "Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats" by Wayne Perryman. An excellent summary of the issue of civil rights is contained in Chapter 10 of Ann Coulter's new book "Demonic", an excerpt of which is posted on the Human Events website and shown below.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted on the Internet at: www.NBRA.info


_________________________________________________________


Civil Rights and the Mob: George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus And Other Democrats
by Ann Coulter
June 7, 2011

An excerpt from Ann Coulter's new book, Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.

CHAPTER 10: CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE MOB: GEORGE WALLACE, BULL CONNOR, ORVAL FAUBUS AND OTHER DEMOCRATS

It was the Democratic Party that ginned up the racist mob against blacks and it is the Democratic Party ginning every new mob today— ironically, all portraying themselves as the equivalent of the Freedom Riders. With real civil rights secure—try to find a restaurant that won't serve a black person—modern civil rights laws benefit only the mob, not the victims of the mob, as American blacks had been. Just as fire seeks oxygen, Democrats seek power, which is why they will always be found championing the mob whether the mob consists of Democrats lynching blacks or Democrats slandering the critics of ObamaCare as racists.

Democrats have gone from demagoguing white (trash) voters with claims that Republicans are the party of blacks, to demagoguing black voters telling them Republicans are the party of racists. Any mob in a storm.

The liberal fairy tale that Southern bigots simply switched parties, from Democrat to Republican, is exactly wrong. What happened is: The Democrats switched mobs. Democrats will champion any group of hooligans in order to attain power. As Michael Barone said of the vicious segregationist (and Democrat) George Wallace, he was "a man who really didn't believe in anything—a political opportunist who used opposition to integration to try and get himself ahead."

This is why the Democrats are able to transition so seamlessly from defending Bull Connor racists to defending Black Panthers, hippies, yippies, Weathermen, feminists, Bush derangement syndrome liberals, Moveon.org, and every other indignant, angry mob.

Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat and remained a Democrat except one. Even Strom Thurmond—the only one who later became a Republican—remained a Democrat for eighteen years after running for president as a Dixiecrat. There's a reason they were not called the "Dixiecans."

A curious sleight of hand is required to hide from the children the fact that all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats. In history books, such as Robert A. Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, the segregationists are not called "Democrats." They're called "Southerners."
3

Except it wasn't just "Southerners" voting against civil rights. Not every senator who opposed black civil rights was a Southerner, but every one was a Democrat. In addition to the Southern Democrats who voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the Senate calendar, for example, there were five Democrats from nowhere near the South: Democratic senator Wayne Morse of Oregon—a favorite target of Senator Joe McCarthy—Democratic senator Warren Magnuson of Washington, Democratic senator James Murray of Montana, Democratic senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, and Democratic senator Joseph O'Mahoney of Wyoming.
4

According to Caro, the Western Democrats traded their votes on civil rights for a dam authorization on the Idaho-Oregon border. That's how dear black civil rights were to liberals—they traded them away for a dam.

While Democrats are the party of the mob, Republicans are the party of calm order, willing to breach the peace only when it comes to great transgressions against humanity—slavery, abortion, and terrorism.

After the Civil War, it was Republicans who passed the Thirteenth Amendment, granting slaves their freedom; the Fourteenth Amendment, granting them citizenship; and Fifteenth Amendment, giving them the right to vote. It was Republicans who sent federal troops to the Democratic South to enforce the hard-won rights of the freed slaves.

Then, as now, the Democrats favored the hooligans. The Ku Klux Klan was originally formed as a terrorist group to attack Republicans who had come to the Democratic South after the Civil War to help enforce legal equality for freed slaves.

It was—again—Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867, both signed into law by Re- publican president Ulysses S. Grant. Under the "living Constitution," the Supreme Court upheld fraudulent "separate but equal" accommodations for blacks in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson.

Republicans kept introducing federal civil rights bills and Democrats kept blocking them—a bill to protect black voters in the South in 1890; anti lynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938; and anti–poll tax bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946.

With a lock on the racist mob vote, Democratic politicians won elections and promptly re-segregated the entire South with Jim Crow laws. In 1913, Progressive Democrat president Woodrow Wilson even instituted segregation in Washington, D.C., bringing Jim Crow to the federal workforce. Wilson summarily dismissed black officials from their federal jobs in the South and in D.C.

A friend of Wilson said that with him running the country, "Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race."
7 There's your post- racial Democratic Party.

A crucial part of the Democrats' victim folklore is that they have been losing the South to Republicans over the past half century because the Democrats stood on principle to oppose race discrimination, while the Republican Party pandered to racists in the South—a region of the country liberals believe is composed primarily of Klan members. (That might be your first clue as to why Southerners don't like liberals.) The Republican Party's allegedly racist appeal to Southerners is darkly referred to seventeen times a day in the mainstream media as the "Southern Strategy."

In fact, it was Eisenhower who broke the Democrats' hold on the South in 1952, and if anyone was appealing to bigots that year, it wasn't Eisenhower. Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience "personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes,"
12 chose as his running mate John Sparkman of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist.

And yet the Old South—which according to mainstream media accounts voted Republican solely out of racial resentment—suddenly started voting Republican in 1952. Ike carried Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida outright, and nearly stole Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia from Stevenson. (Eisenhower lost Kentucky by a microscopic .07 percent and lost West Virginia and South Carolina by fewer than 4 percentage points.)

This was just four years after Democrat-turned-Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond won four Southern states. But running with a segregationist didn't help Stevenson in the South a few years later.

Then, in 1956, the Republican Party platform endorsed the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools; the Democratic platform did not, and would not, as long as Democrats were winning elections by appealing to the racist mob. This led the black congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. to break with his party and endorse Eisenhower for president.

Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School with the state's National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend. In response, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to take it out of Faubus's hands. Then he sent the 101st Air- borne Division to walk the black children to school and stay with them throughout the day.

Eisenhower implemented the 1948 executive order President Truman had issued—but then ignored—desegregating the military. Also unlike Truman, Eisenhower hired blacks for prominent positions in his administration.

It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights, to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

During the endless deliberation on Eisenhower's civil rights bill, Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, "Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again." Senator Sam Ervin, another liberal luminary—instrumental in the destruction of anti-communist Republicans Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon—told his fellow segregationists, "I'm on your side, not theirs," and advised them to face up to the fact that "we've got to give the goddamned niggers something."
14

Until 1964, every civil rights act had presented no possible constitutional problems—those federal laws were fully within Congress's enumerated powers to enact because they were directed at government officials (Democrats) who were violating the Constitution by denying black citizens the right to vote.

Federal laws aimed at discrimination by government actors are expressly within Congress's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Democrats opposed these civil rights laws not because of any questions about Congress's authority to enact them—they couldn't care less about the Constitution—but because they wanted to keep discriminating.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was again supported overwhelmingly by Republicans and less so by Democrats. As with the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, it was Republicans who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act by huge majorities, with a distinctly smaller majority of Democrats sup- porting it. In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared with only 66 percent of Democrats. In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the '64 bill, compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.

The only reason Democratic majorities were beginning to support civil rights for blacks was that by 1964—thanks to Republican voting rights acts—more blacks were voting. Democrats couldn't keep winning elections in some parts of the country by appealing to the racist mob.

As Democratic senator Carter Glass of Virginia had explained years earlier, "Discrimination! Why that is exactly what we propose," saying the Democrats sought to "remove every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." The Democrats' position on civil rights depended on where the votes were.

Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans' 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like many other conservatives opposed to a living, growing, breathing Constitution, Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions of the bill—those regulating privately owned housing and public accommodations. But there were other provisions he would have made tougher. For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory that federal funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination, rather than discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.

Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona, donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars to the organization's efforts to integrate the public schools. When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military. As the Washington Post said, Goldwater "ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard."

But he was also a believer in limited government. It was, after all, racist Democratic politicians in the South using the force of the government to violate private property rights by enforcing the Jim Crow laws in the first place. As Sowell points out, it wasn't the private bus companies demanding that blacks sit in the back of the bus, it was the government.

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he be-longed to a party that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism. Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate. But by the time he became president, he had flipped 180 degrees. Appealing to regional mobs wouldn't work with a national electorate.

Unlike mob-appeasing Democrats, Goldwater based his objections to certain parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on purely constitutional principles. Along with other constitutional purists in the Republican Party, Goldwater opposed federal initiatives in a lot of areas, not just those involving race. By contrast, segregationist Democrats routinely criticized the exercise of federal power and expenditure of federal funds when it involved ending discrimination against blacks—but gladly accepted federal pork projects for their states.

It would be as if, after fighting the Democrats for a hundred years over the issue of abortion, Republicans finally got Roe v. Wade over- turned, and then, out of pure political calculation, Democrats jumped on the bandwagon and demanded a federal law outlawing abortion. Some pro-life Republicans would probably object that federal law outlawing abortion is not one of Congress's enumerated powers.

On the basis of Republicans' constitutional objections, Democrats would then reverse the entire history of the pro-life movement and start claiming the Democratic Party alone fought to end abortion in America. That is exactly what they have done with the history of civil rights.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Godless, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America, and the forthcoming Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.

© National Black Republican Association, 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Obama Fights Against School Choice For Black Children

OBAMA FIGHTS AGAINST SCHOOL CHOICE FOR BLACK CHILDREN

By Frances Rice

With not one scintilla of shame, President Barack Obama continuously blocks all efforts to provide school choice opportunity scholarships for poor black children that would help them get out of failed inner-city schools. Obama's total lack of concern about the plight of the poor is stunning, but not surprising in light of his socialist ideology and slavish loyalty to teachers' unions who put their own selfish economic interest above the basic educational needs of poor blacks.

Ignoring the tears and pleas of black students, Obama terminated the school choice program in the District of Columbia in his 2011 budget, sending impoverished children back into the failed DC public school system where they are not even being taught to read, write and do simple math. This lack of basic skills needed for employment and prosperity provides the toxic fuel for the deplorable conditions in black inner-city communities. In those urban cesspools there is staggering school truancy and black-on-black crime, ranging from rape, car-jacking, drug-trafficking, theft and murder. Seventy-percent of black babies are born out of wedlock, the school drop-out rate is over fifty-percent and the unemployment rate is an incredible seventeen-percent.

The documented crisis in black communities stirs no emotional reaction in Obama. Undoubtedly, the disgraceful situation in black neighborhoods is the direct result of the disastrous socialist policies of Democrats who have been running those communities for the past 60 years. Even more contemptible is the fact that Obama and his fellow Democrats have built their power base on the backs of poor blacks and readily engage in the despicable practice of race-baiting and victim mongering to win elections.

While Obama is busily catering to teachers' unions for his own partisan political gain, black parents are frantically trying to elevate the worth of their children's education. Sadly, a low-income mother in Ohio, Kelley Williams-Bolar who got her daughters into a quality school outside of her district of residence, was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced severely because she did not comply with the strict letter of the law. This desperate act by a loving mother, which resulted in her being deemed a criminal, demonstrates clearly that black parents do, indeed, want their children to be well-educated.

The untenable public school status quo has resulted in parents binding together in groups around the country in a quest to obtain educational reform and parental choice. One such organization is the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), and that group can be found on the Internet at: www.baeo.org. The National Black Republican Association supports this effort and urges all concerned citizens to join the cause and help ensure a better, brighter future for all of America's children, especially the disadvantaged.

Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.info

© National Black Republican Association, 2011. All Rights Reserved.