Jesus would vote Democratic

[Trey Brister]

Jesus would vote Democratic

By LINDA VALDEZ
GUEST COLUMNIST

The Democrats turn their lonely eyes to Hillary: Give us a message. Lead us home.

Even for the Wonder Woman of the Party of JFK, this is no easy task. How to decry the excesses of the Bush administration and the GOP Congress without validating the label "The Party of No"?

How to lure enough GOP votes to win elections at a time when Democrat means liberal and liberal is a term of derision?

A Web site set up by a minister and his daughter (www.liveliberal.com) has an answer you can wear on a T-shirt: "Liberal is not a dirty word."

Retired Lutheran minister Daniel Bruch of Live Liberal gets right to the point: "I don't know if Jesus was the first liberal, but he was an important one."

Jesus taught love, tolerance, forgiveness, charity and humility. Don't take my word for it. Read the New Testament. It's not that long. And it's not about fire-and-brimstone fundamentalism, judging one another or dominating the Earth. It outlines a philosophy based on a really radical idea: Love your creator, love yourself, love your neighbor as yourself.

When it comes to following this lesson, the current administration "is walking 180 degrees opposite of the person they call their savior," Bruch said in a phone interview.

On their Web site, Bruch and daughter Sarah offer quotes and essays on liberalism that Hillary Rodham Clinton should work into her speeches. For example, "liberals support changes that increase personal freedom and tolerance, and exercise the liberty to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends."

Instead of trying to make their best candidate, Clinton, into a vanilla-flavored, inoffensive centrist, Democrats ought to boldly point out that liberals provided the impetus to move society toward acceptance of civil rights, women's rights, children's rights, consumers' rights, etc.

Liberals also deserve "family values" mantle because the 40-hour workweek, laws against child labor and other protections for workingmen and women were liberal ideas of old. High-quality childcare is a liberal idea for today's working families.

They should be "for" better wages.

They should be "for" national health care.

They should be "for" being liberals. They should point out that Jesus was a liberal, too.

Somehow, Democrats let others define them as elitist snobs. That label, not the liberal label, is the one Democrats have to shake.

Can Hillary help them do it?

She has the charisma and the intelligence -- and she has infinite patience, or Bill would be toast. She needs the guts to take a proud left turn and loudly proclaim that the United States is not a "Christian nation" in any pinched or exclusionary way. It's a nation that honors the individual rights of pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others, as well as Christians.

It is also nation that acts for the common good in ways that were meticulously outlined by a radical liberal named Jesus.
Linda Valdez is an editorial writer at The Arizona Republic. She can be reached at linda.valdez@arizonarepublic.com.

[Edwin Watson]

great article

thanks trey

[Trey Brister]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

great article

thanks trey

Youre welcome my friend

[Trey Brister]

Republicans, conservatives and constitutionalists always find themselves on the defensive in regard to civil rights issues. No matter what they do, will do or have ever done, the left, Democrats and contrarians demonize them as racists.

By demonizing Republicans and conservatives the left can continue to impose the big lie, which will be accepted as gospel by minorities, whom Democrats believe "owe" them.

Lincoln a republican ended slavery.

Credit Where Credit Is Due: The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
By Michael Zak
August 8, 2003

During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what our Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.

Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Congress he urged Representatives and Senators to do "more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined". Though he shared Johnson's convictions on safeguarding the constitutional rights of blacks, if Nixon had been in the White House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling to see a Republican achieve the victory would have blocked his legislative initiative in Congress.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats. It was a Republican federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama's infamous "blacks in the back of the bus" law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and other Democrat Governors

Democrat = Racist
Jesus != racist
================
Article is false

hahahahaha

[Trey Brister]

Democrats, race pimps
and the right to vote
Posted: August 26, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Last week, civil-rights leaders in America gathered in Atlanta to do a little friendly Bush bashing, issue some nasty statements about blacks who also happen to be conservative, and celebrate the 40th anniversary of the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The observance was rich with irony.

It seems that today's "civil-rights leadership" is completely ignorant of the history of civil rights in this nation, standing with the wrong group of people on the issue, and making hateful statements toward those who truly have worked for genuine equality.

But since Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are more concerned with growing their own power base and enriching themselves – as opposed to say making genuine strides in the areas of racial conflict – who should expect anything less?

Harry Belafonte, Dick Gregory, and the Reverend Jackson were all on their best game for sound bytes to the media in last week's events. Belafonte taking the unique opportunity to show that though he stands tall as a figure in the black community on the issue of criticizing the GOP, he can also show an anti-Semitic streak with the best of them. Apparently the comments he made – in essence, saying that Jews had served at the highest levels of the Third Reich, and furthermore attempting to carry that analogy across to the Bush administration where Secretaries of State Powell, and Rice have served with distinction – didn't really come off very well.

He apologized, sort of, and then went right back to blaming George Bush for the problems of the racial divide in America. Gregory added comments that again invoked Hitler as Bush or Bush as Hitler – to be honest, they all seem to run together now. And Jackson tried his old hand at making a rhyme, in time, on a dime, with a lime, about a crime ... uh, uh, it was sublime.

After all the Bush-hating had been expressed, the gathering of the civil-rights groups involved came together to commemorate the 40 years of equal opportunity African Americans have exercised in the voting booth since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. After which they immediately began to claim all over again that Bush was sending aliens into the homes of black people to hypnotize them and convince large numbers of them to vote against renewing the Voting Rights Act when it sunsets in 2007.

Can you say it with me? "Time, Dime, Lime, Crime, Sublime ..."

My only problem was the reality of what was being celebrated.

For those of you who went to public school, let me explain. (I'll use small words.) In 1965, the Voting Rights Act as signed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, was hailed as the final serving of justice that had previously never seen the light of day. And though I realize that most of you who were educated in public school were never taught this, 1965 was the second time blacks had been legally guaranteed full participation in the political process, and we're not talking about merely the right to vote.

You see, 90 years previous, in 1875, the final of 23 federally protected civil-rights laws were passed that guaranteed blacks total equality in every walk of life – they also banned segregation, guaranteed the right to own property and, perhaps most importantly, guaranteed that blacks would always have a seat at the table of the American dialogue when it came to setting public policy.

So what happened? How did all 23 civil-rights laws get overturned, tossed out, and how did blacks end up as second-class citizens not even a full generation following the end of the Civil War?

Easy answer: Democrats came to power in 1893 and wiped out every one of the laws that Republicans had passed. When the Dems gained the House, Senate, and presidency in 1893, segregation was again made legal, violence against blacks originating from the Ku Klux Klan was no longer banned, and lynchings went into full swing. By the way, are you aware that the KKK was an organization which Democrats themselves started?

Even the civil-rights legislation that was passed in 1963, '64, and '65 originated from the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower – a Republican – but had been killed in Senate committees by Democrats. Finally, facing mounting pressure to do the only just and moral thing, the Kennedy administration began the push and Johnson signed the final law in 1965. But the Democrat-controlled Congress and president were still showing their racists stripes even then. How? They put a sunset provision into the Voting Rights Act of 42 years.

In other words, once their hand was forced to allow blacks to vote, even though they were credited at the time with tremendous foresight and moral courage, the racist Democratic Party didn't believe that the right to vote was something that should have been made permanent, but rather allowed to come up for later review.

It was these race pimps who Jesse and his ilk were bowing at the altar of last week.

It just demonstrates that as long as "civil-rights leaders" care more about themselves than the issue of actual civil rights, they are more likely to lead their followers over a cliff – if it brings them more prestige on a personal level.

Blacks in America don't need leaders "who speak for them" in today's world. All of my black friends are doing quite well thinking for themselves. And if you wish to look at someone who is truly talking about things that blacks are concerned about, try talking to black pastors like Bishop Harry Jackson from Washington, D.C., who has not forgotten that true morality is at the heart of the debate over true equality.

In the meantime, let's at least order some remedial history classes for the Reverend Jackson and the rest of the racial streetwalkers.



Kevin McCullough is heard daily from 1 to 4 p.m. EST in New York City on AM 570 WMCA, and in New Jersey on AM 970 WWDJ. Additionally, you can read his daily postings at The KMC Blog. For information on how to bring "The Kevin McCullough Show" to a station near you, call Dave Armstrong at 201-298-5700.