03/21/2023 REVISED UPDATE for 2025AD America.....
The Democrat Party of 2008-2099AD are proud sponsors of CLOAKED RACISM.
They've mastered this art of deception over the past decades, or rather the past two centuries. BUT let's be fair in bringing this conclusive answer into the public eye. Consider this, always produce legitimate research information when formulating a final and damning result.
Hereto we find indisputable historical facts every American should
know, especially democrat voters.
 |
| THE OLD DEMOCRAT PARTY HOUSE OF RACISM STILL STANDS! |
In this brief historical disclosure you'll notice I've correctly changed and reclassified the identification of "blacks" to FDA's or GOA's. In all truthful actuality "black" is nothing but a crayon color. It's past time for the dominating white liberal [caucasian liberal] to stop insulting Americans [If they are Americans] by calling them blacks, negroes, colored people and labeling them African Americans.
93% of "so-called blacks" in America don't have a trace of "family history" linking them to the continent of Africa. Ask any so-called "black" if they know their uncle or cousin in Africa and you'll get an honest answer of NO! As a matter of fact you'll offend any black with that question. Now don't be confused because there are actually real Africans who have moved to America within the past fifty years who can directly identify with straight blood line relatives living in Africa today.
For a simple majority of "blacks" today in America they are simply far distant descendants of Africa, really really really far distant. This is because their blood line has been totally diffused by other blood lines that are not of African ancestry. Therefore they are correctly identified as FDA's {FAR DESCENDANTS OF AFRICA, or SDA's Simple DESCENDANTS OF AFRICA}. Accordingly the most definitive description of those who are not American caucasians finely fit the human origin of "PRIME MERIDIAN EAST." But so does all original groups of people who settled in early America unless they are descendants of American Indian; "PRIME MERIDIAN WEST" habitants.
We can not dismiss the other under majority of so-called-blacks in America whose blood line does not originate from Africa but of another priority blood line [Russian, Mexican, Italian, Japanese, French, German, etc.....]. The under majority of "so-called-blacks" don't dare identify themselves or attach themselves to the priority race based on skin tone.
Remember, America is still a young stupid country that continues to base race on skin tone color. Such is what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. fought and died for, in order for America not to depend on identifying a person's skin color. In accordance we carry out Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s building block for America by correctly identify people by ancestry not color. America has a combined ancestry of many people. These ancestries evolved from other than Africa, but these ancestries have intertwined with each others easily identifiable blood line. Commonly the chemistry portion [dna] from Africa has assimilated with other chemistry portions [dna] German, Vietnamese, French, etc... Therefore any are properly aligned and identified GFA {GENETICS FAR OF AFRICA, or SGA's SIMPLE GENETICS OF AFRICA} do not fit the mold of being called "black."
FDA's and GFA's are simply to be known as AFRIGENs {modern century approach to identification}. The sad part of this genetic disclosure is that African descendants or African genetics have been brainwashed or propagandize into believing erroneously of themselves as a "color black." These "color black" people unfortunately have a comprehension and false biological assessment of an old pre-civil war identification of Prime Meridian East descendants that "one drop of black blood makes them black." Such ignorance deters them form grasping their true genetic mixture of various cultures.
YOU'RE BLACK BECAUSE WE TELL YOU'RE BLACK: according to liberals and the democrat party in America.
Let's take a serious analysis of how Democrats and the Democrat Party sewed racism into the American culture with the "One Drop Rule" [one drop of black blood] which is clearly racist.
BEST EXAMPLE: BARACK HUSSEIN DUNHAM OBAMA
Americans could not properly assess Barack Dunham mixed genealogy. Whites and blacks were perplexed about how Barack Dunham should he be referred to; should he be “black” or “mixed race”?
The reason many call him “black” can be traced back to the “one-drop” rule. This refers to a series of racist laws passed across America in the early twentieth century, which dictated that any person with as little as “one drop” of “black blood” were to be classified as legally “black”, thereby restricting their rights and entitlements within society. As a result, all people of biracial ancestry had their European ancestry DISCOUNTED involuntarily...
The fiction that Africans possessed a separate blood group to whites was used to explain differences in physical appearance, behavior and culture. The rule was first passed into law in Tennessee in 1910, and was then rapidly adopted across other states.
Although the restrictions were finally abolished by the late 1960s, their original classifications remain very much in use today, despite their roots in racism. While it has been relatively straightforward to reverse the law, it has not been so easy to reverse culture mentality— and so, people of mixed or biracial heritage are still considered by liberals, democrats and the Democrat Party as “black”.... Vanessa Williams, Tiger Woods, etc...
Back to more facts
Fact:
The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and
Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought
them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment,
abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but
only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why
is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries
about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One
can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more
about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that
it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who
opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out
for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had
the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had
fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles
would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Trust me on this one.
Fact:
During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were
given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also
to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and
rights.
These cold hard true facts are very hard for America blacks or I should say American FDA's [indirect FAR DESCENDANTS OF AFRICA to swallow bit.ly/1wXkuK2 . Why is this so hard for FDA's to comprehend? Simple; they've been clearly brainwashed by the Democrat Party since the early times of culture racism in America. That's the cold hard fact, even for today in 2017 it's so true to form.
Fact:
Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union
(but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a
compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was
assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to
recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern
Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a
century.
Fact:
The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed
in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote,
passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support
in congress.
Regardless
of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the
Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't
we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely
opposed it?
Fact:
The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern
Democrat Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and
"ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized
with them.
Why
is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and
depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been
founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated
constantly on those fake news shows.
Fact:
In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US
military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed
through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary
political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than
Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had
voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position
and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact:
The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher
percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress.
In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the
Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the
Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact:
Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched"
on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a
subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on
government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a
cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious
strategy as greedy racists.
Following
the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major
demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many
believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is
certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic
Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the
notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a
century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense
whatsoever.
Yet
virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably
claim that the parties "switched," and most racist
Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju
jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the
Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the
Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending
slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It
is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of
1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican
Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt
racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George
Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and
his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of
states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step
with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to
LBJ in a landslide.
But
Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals
an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have
tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is
now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing
more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If
the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party
even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than
Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights
Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act
trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to
say the least.
Every
political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are
more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing
more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and
assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is
a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply
by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A
more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to
Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not,
that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian
religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its
hard line support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public
schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In
the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with
African Americans [FDA's]. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil
rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political
option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and
proudly segregated and terrorized blacks [FDA's], the national Democratic
Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on
government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous
moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have
those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the
same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and
innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with
racism.
From
a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of
black
dependence [FDA's] has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what
he was doing. African Americans [FDA's] routinely vote well over 90 percent
Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government
benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's
Great Society welfare programs, the black [FDA's] illegitimacy rate was as
low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most
major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats
for decades, and most of those cities have large black [FDA's] sections that
are essentially dysfunctional anarchist Cities like Detroit are
overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every
block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight,
and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even
worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet
they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist"
Republicans for their problems!
Washington
DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for
decades. It spends more per capital on students than almost any other
city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement
anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Hussein Dunham Obama would never had sent his precious daughters to a DC public schools, but the hypocrisy comes clear in that he assured America that DC public schools were good enough for
everyone, but not his children. In fact,
Barack Hussein Dunham Obama was instrumental in killing a popular
and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes
for many poor black [FDA's] families trapped in those dysfunctional public
schools. Barrack Hussein Dunham Obama allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his
concern for poor black [FDA's] families.
A
strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for
perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the
antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society.
Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the
premise that African Americans [FDA's] are incapable of competing in the free
market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the
notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white
supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the
pre-1960s Democratic Party.
The
next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats
are not, don't fall for it, just look at them like they're crazy.
Recommended
Reading
POISONED COLORS http://amzn.to/XPxIKv
by Dr BearClayborn - Political Psychiatrist
Video bit.ly/1c7yyGG
