Civil Rights: DNC caught boldly lying

[_bcspace]

The lies are big, bold and prominent.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been caught. And the website scandal may also impact the Virginia U.S. Senate race that has former Governor Tim Kaine as the Democrats' nominee against ex-Senator and Governor George Allen. Why?

As reported in all manner of media outlets in September of 2010 (here at the Huffington Post, here on The Today Show and here in a 25-minute presentation at George Washington University posted on YouTube) it was then-DNC Chairman Kaine on whose watch the new DNC website was launched.

Now the fibs are the centerpiece of the Democratic National Committee's revamped Obama-saluting website as the Democrats gather for their Charlotte convention. And Wasserman Schultz, of course, is the DNC chair -- succeeding Kaine --by the grace of the Obama White House. Which certainly had the ability to block or change the contents -- and hasn't.

The DNC website in both its history and issues sections is literally wiped clean of any reference that this is the party that spent platform after platform after platform building a culture of racism.

Playing the race card, as it is politely called today.

There is zero indication on the revamped DNC website that not only are those first lines in each section blatant untruths, but that in those "more than 200 years" the party was a ferocious supporter of every race-judging idea imaginable, including slavery, segregation, and lynching.

What might have happened between the time Jefferson left the White House in 1809 -- and the time the video picks up -- in 1920?

Specifically, neither the new history and issues sections of the Obama-controlled, Wasserman-Schultz-run DNC website, not to mention the video, ever whispers a hint that the Democrats:

· Supported slavery in 6 platforms from 1840-1860.
· Opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution that successively wiped out slavery and gave both legal rights and voting rights to black Americans.
· Supported segregation actively or by silence in 20 platforms from 1868-1948.
· Opposed anti-lynching laws, specifically supported by the GOP in four platforms between 1912 and 1928.
· Opposed the GOP-sponsored Civil Rights Acts of 1866, which focused on legal equality for blacks.
· Opposed the GOP on giving voting rights to blacks in the District of Columbia in 1867. The legislation was passed over the Democrats' objection..
· Nominated an 1868 presidential ticket of New York Governor Horatio Seymour and ex-Missouri Congressman Francis Blair. The Democrats pledged they would declare the Civil Rights laws passed by the GOP "null and void" and would refuse to enforce them. They lost to Ulysses Grant.
· Opposed the Enforcement Acts, three laws passed by the GOP between 1870 and 1871 targeting the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and making it a federal crime to block the right of blacks to vote, hold office, serve on juries and have equal protection of the laws with whites.
· Opposed the GOP Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited discrimination of blacks in public accommodations.
· Used the Ku Klux Klan as what Columbia University historian Eric Foner calls "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party." Nor is there mention of the infamous 1924 Democratic Convention -- the "Klanbake" as it is known to history because hundreds of the delegates were Klan members. The Klan-written platform mixed the traditional Democratic message of progressivism and racism in the Klan-written platform.
· Repealed the Civil Rights laws enacted by GOP Congresses and presidents, already damaged by the Supreme Court. When Democrats gained control of both Congress and the White House in 1892, the Democrats' President Grover Cleveland signed the repeal on February 8, 1894.

None of this stark, vicious and frequently violent racial history, much of it detailed in Bruce Bartlett's Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past, is mentioned on the new website.

There is no polite way to put it. This DNC website presentation is a lie.

A deliberate, willful and very big lie. Hiding from the young, the innocent and the unwary the cold, hard and true facts of the Democratic Party's horrific racial history.

The party made another version of this same lie when redoing their website for 2010, saying, as captured by the Romantic Poet's Weblog:

"Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That's why we've worked to pass every one of our nation's Civil Rights laws…."

Now.

Given the sheer boldness of the lie -- literally akin to writing a history of Germany that ends in 1933 and resumes in 1946, neatly skipping those historic trivialities of Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the mass murder of six million Jews (not to mention that small skirmish called World War II) -- why is there any surprise, any surprise at all, at the recent repeated surfacing of the culture of racism -- judging others by skin color -- by Obama media allies and politicians?

This cultural rot has been the backbone of American liberalism and its political party the Democrats -- for 212 years.

No wonder the DNC feels it has to lie.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/04/the-dncs-bold-lies

[_Bob Loblaw]

When the church omits embarrassing or unpleasant information that's just being positive. When the Democrats do it--that's nothing but lies, Hitleresque lies.

You are a damned idiot.

[_Quasimodo]

Hey bc. Your posts are starting to sound a little desperate. You seem to post every day on some anti-Democrat subject that seldom gets any response. Most are a little on the fringe and don't really require a response because they are dubious at best.

I think you may have some serious doubts about Mitt winning. I don't blame you.

[_MeDotOrg]

Now I have read the DNC history at their website, and I have to admit...

...

...wait for it...

bcspace has a point.

While I think the Democratic Party's 19th and early 20th century civil rights record has virtually no relevance to the party of today, I would have to agree that their website tells a fantastic whopper when then say "For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights..."

I must confess, I don't understand it. There are many ways they could have made a statement about their current commitment without stating such a falsehood.

I mean, one recent poll showed Romney with 0% of the African American vote. It's not like you're going to lose anything by telling the truth, or at least not telling such a whopper.

Look at the history of the Republican Party on their website. Okay, it begins with the title "The People's Party", which is not the first description I'd apply. The word 'business' may not appear, but they actually say Richard Nixon. That's brave.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Now I have read the DNC history at their website, and I have to admit...

...

...wait for it...

bcspace has a point.

While I think the Democratic Party's 19th and early 20th century civil rights record has virtually no relevance to the party of today, I would have to agree that their website tells a fantastic whopper when then say "For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights..."

I must confess, I don't understand it. There are many ways they could have made a statement about their current commitment without stating such a falsehood.

I mean, one recent poll showed Romney with 0% of the African American vote. It's not like you're going to lose anything by telling the truth, or at least not telling such a whopper.

Look at the history of the Republican Party on their website. Okay, it begins with the title "The People's Party", which is not the first description I'd apply. The word 'business' may not appear, but they actually say Richard Nixon. That's brave.

My point was that what the Democrats are doing is no different than this statement from Alexander B. Morrison of the Seventy in general conference: "How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations." The only person I know who believes that is bcspace, who believes that there was nothing racist at all about the priesthood ban.

[_Quasimodo]

Now I have read the DNC history at their website, and I have to admit...

...

...wait for it...

bcspace has a point.

While I think the Democratic Party's 19th and early 20th century civil rights record has virtually no relevance to the party of today, I would have to agree that their website tells a fantastic whopper when then say "For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights..."

I must confess, I don't understand it. There are many ways they could have made a statement about their current commitment without stating such a falsehood.

I mean, one recent poll showed Romney with 0% of the African American vote. It's not like you're going to lose anything by telling the truth, or at least not telling such a whopper.

Look at the history of the Republican Party on their website. Okay, it begins with the title "The People's Party", which is not the first description I'd apply. The word 'business' may not appear, but they actually say Richard Nixon. That's brave.

In defense of the DNC, Democrats were divided into two factions long before the Civil War. Northern and Southern. The Northern Democrats were generally in favor of abolition. Lincoln was the first Republican President. It was a brand new political party in those days (despite calling themselves the "Grand Old Party").

Lincoln didn't engage in war to free the slaves. He fought the war to preserve the Union. The emancipation proclamation wasn't signed until September of 1862. It only freed slaves in states that were still in rebellion. Boarder States that were still in the Union were allowed to keep their slaves.

Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

[_MeDotOrg]

Now I have read the DNC history at their website, and I have to admit...

...

...wait for it...

bcspace has a point.

While I think the Democratic Party's 19th and early 20th century civil rights record has virtually no relevance to the party of today, I would have to agree that their website tells a fantastic whopper when then say "For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights..."

I must confess, I don't understand it. There are many ways they could have made a statement about their current commitment without stating such a falsehood.

I mean, one recent poll showed Romney with 0% of the African American vote. It's not like you're going to lose anything by telling the truth, or at least not telling such a whopper.

Look at the history of the Republican Party on their website. Okay, it begins with the title "The People's Party", which is not the first description I'd apply. The word 'business' may not appear, but they actually say Richard Nixon. That's brave.

My point was that what the Democrats are doing is no different than this statement from Alexander B. Morrison of the Seventy in general conference: "How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations." The only person I know who believes that is bcspace, who believes that there was nothing racist at all about the priesthood ban.

I agree with you 100%. My point is simply: Just be straight with people, whether or not it's a church or politics.

In June of 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a 'Resolution on Racial Reconciliation'. In it they apoligized to African Americans for all racism, in thought and action, which they had committed.

When the Mormon Church renounces the racist statements of past leadership, acknowledges the hurt they have caused and asks for forgiveness, it will go a long way towards strengthening, and not weakening, the Church.

[_Droopy]

While I think the Democratic Party's 19th and early 20th century civil rights record has virtually no relevance to the party of today,

Oh, but it does. The Democratic party and the American Left of which it is the institutional face is really the only place left in American life where institutionalized racism and pervasive race consciousness still exists at all. Affirmative Action (institutionalized, federally enforced racial discrimination and granting of preferential status before the law), multiculturalism (intellectual national socialism, in essence), and "diversity" (re-education and mindwashing to instill deeply critical attitudes about certain ethnic and racial backgrounds, but not others) do not emanate from the conservative world but only from the Left.

The Democratic party is the only party containing racially segregated sub-elements such as the Congressional Black Caucus, which does not allow white (or Jewish, or Asian) members. It was Eric Holder who made it clear, years ago, that no Black American, even caught red handed in flagrant violations of American election law (as some New Black Panthers for Self Defense (a left-wing racist, ethnic supremacist group) were caught) would be prosecuted, on no other grounds then that they are black, creating a feudal-like status relation between blacks and the state in which blacks have been granted blanket immunity from accountability for acts that would be criminal for any other ethnic or racial group.

Not even conceivable among conservatives.

I mean, one recent poll showed Romney with 0% of the African American vote.

As I as well as many others (including a number of leading black intellectuals) have long pointed out, this is a chilling reminder of the depth of the intellectual and cultural in-group conformity, all too often grounded in feelings of racial solidarity, that have been holding many black Americans back for so long and have contributed significantly to the disproportionate social pathologies that plague substantial sections of black America.

Look at the history of the Republican Party on their website. Okay, it begins with the title "The People's Party", which is not the first description I'd apply. The word 'business' may not appear, but they actually say Richard Nixon. That's brave.

The idea that the Repubicans are the party of business, and the Democrats of "the people" is, of course, pure myth, but useful for moving the emotions and class resentment-based passions of substantial quantities of the publicly educated masses in their direction.

Lincoln didn't engage in war to free the slaves. He fought the war to preserve the Union.

This is, at best, a half truth. Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union - over the issue of slavery, which was the core issue dividing the Union.

The emancipation proclamation wasn't signed until September of 1862. It only freed slaves in states that were still in rebellion. Boarder States that were still in the Union were allowed to keep their slaves.

All slaves were freed at the end of the Civil War.

Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Stop projecting so much of your own ideological baggage back into prior centuries and contexts. That's a poor way to understand history and an even poorer way to do it.