DEMOCRAT PARTY "One Drop Black Blood Rule"

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

Back to Basics for the Republican Party by Michael Zak

Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett

RussP.us

REPUBLIC or DEMOCRACY; What is America?

What is the difference between a REPUBLIC and  DEMOCRACY?

America needs to know!

In this modern American society the liability of truth is no longer a premise for judging social development or social justice.  Why not, you may ask?   Well, there are conditions that motivate culture priority to accept the standards of social development towards a republic or democracy entity.  What this means is the dominating culture dictates the social protocol.   But, the United States of America is somewhat special in coagulating cultures without setting up a dominate culture.  In so, America was not founded on hopes of social or culture superiority development.  If studied properly you will uncover how the U.S. Constitution has already designed the proper coagulated living concept for citizens.  The United States of America was founded on the principles of GOD [the True and Living God of the Holy Bible].  So you see, it’s like this; the more distance America places itself from the principles of GOD the liability of truth is no longer a premise or threat for judging the United States of America. 

In return, as the United States of America distance itself from GOD’s principles [enactment of 2008-2016 administration] the manifesting results illuminate a society activated by high level immorality, loss of national identity and a judicial system bent on constitutional anarchy.  Therefore the ability for America’s current generation to comprehend itself as either a republic or a democracy is lost, along with its constitutional laws.

Once you’ve understood the foundational principals that America was established upon, then and only then can you understand the difference between a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY!    

The United States of America is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republic under Common Law, and democracy under statutory law).  Please understand this basic principle; Citizens will enjoy their God-given natural rights in a Republic.  On the other side of the coin, in a democracy the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

Whenever a generation of youth can’t identify with its country’s foundation or history, that country is put on notice to be forgotten in due time and history.  As such older Americans have forgotten their pledge of allegiance to America, and their children will never know what a pledge of allegiance is:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

and to the Republic for which it stands,

one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy.  “Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."  There must be a social and public awareness regarding that distinction.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one.  In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person.   In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

FORWARD SUMMARY

Republic:  That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE:  The word "people" may be either plural or singular.  In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think.  USA/exception:  if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy:   That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE:  In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights.  The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one.  It has great legal significance.  The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4).   No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic.  Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all."  Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights.  The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority.  One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.   

In a pure democracy, 51 beats 49[%].   In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority.  Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States.  Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.  Socrates was executed by a democracy:  though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

DEFINITIONS

Government:  The government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness."   [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government:  Republican government.  One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated.  In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.  [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy:   That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.

EXAMPLE

DEMOCRACY form of government:  An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate.  If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine.  Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service.  Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment.  Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment.  Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth.  They argue the pros and cons of the issue.  This great debate is held at town hall meetings.  Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter.  One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and loss of choice!" Election day occurs; the people go to the ballot box to settle the problem.  The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%.  The minority is ignored.  The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment.  Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect.  As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy.  Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy.

REPUBLIC form of government:  An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate.  If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine.  Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service.  Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment.  Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment.  Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth.  They argue the pros and cons of the issue.  This great debate is held at town hall meetings.  Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter.  One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and loss of choice!" Election day occurs; the people go to the ballot box to settle the problem.  The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone.  The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment.  Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect.  As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%.  For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic; bear in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority.  He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule.  The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.

COMMENTS

Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens.  To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act.  Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government.  The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many.  In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem.  Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies.  The government agencies own the citizens.  In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America."  In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own.  (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution)  This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government."  The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People.  The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution).   NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law).  The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic.  In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke.  Hobbes was on the side of government.  He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state.  Locke was on the side of the People.  He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state.  Statists prefer Hobbes.  Populists choose Locke.  Today in the United States of America over half of the states have taken the choice of representation from the people and given to partisan politicians.   But the Government Code sides with Locke; stating "The people do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preamble of the U.S. Constitution affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

The question for the United States of America today is; will the United States of America remain a Republic and continue to value individual freedom, or become a collection of culture groups ruled by a dictator posing as a promoter of freedom via government rule?

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.  Will there be a continuation of the “Pledge of Allegiance” to support the 1776 established Republic [United States of America]?  Will there be a renewing of public knowledge to understand and comprehend the difference between a Republic and a democracy?

WORD of TRUTH

“If a NATION [AMERICA] expects to be IGNORANT and FREE in a STATE of civilization; then that NATION must EXPECT what NEVER WAS and NEVER WILL BE”    Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

These notes are courtesy of LAW NOTES 

GAY RAPE AMERICA 2023

Growing up in America as a youth in 1959 was very special. During that time in American history life was at its best. We as a people were united in loyalty and patriotism towards our country. Of course there were internal social growing pains, but we were still united as a people, American people. We were gay [not homosexuals], we were happy and we were merry. Those days have long accelerated from the grasp of America's heart to hold a high spirit of genuine love and care for one another without being prompted. For some odd reason today sentiments of having high spirits of concern for our fellow American has been lost from our culture. One reason of many is that the majority of the populous has been tainted as obstructionist to the progressive movement of the national liberal media agenda. Such tainting sets up a division among the populous which in turn creates a polarization of the nation. You can't unite when there are deliberate acts of dividing.. 

No longer are Americans united and loyal to their country, maybe because they are not Americans but sub cultures that have relocated from foreign countries. The growing new American populous of today are only loyal and united to their sub-culture. That is a major problem for America today allowing sub culture priority instead of American priority. If sub cultures are so proud of their race and culture why are they not in their own homeland contributing to the advancement of their own country? 

In all honesty real Americans have grown very tired of these sub cultures flaunting their appalling ignorance of American unity.  Real American citizens have come to the conclusion that these sub cultures are enforcing standards that impose some kind of imperative to our American way of life. When will the notice be sent out to these sub cultures that there is only one culture in America that is to be promoted, the American culture. Well, at least that was the social design back in 1959.

Two Encroaching Sub Cultures upon America  

There are two sub cultures that have rapidly taken over America with their agenda to lead America according to their ideology and standard of living; 1] the homosexual culture, 2] the illegal alien culture. Both of these groups have raped America of her best resources. The same sex pairing culture has date raped America of her sustainability to focus on procreation and the survival of the nation. The illegal alien culture has gang raped America of her resources and depleted the net worth of American income [fewer jobs for Americans]. Without getting deep into history we need only look at the prevailing issues of the Roman Empire to see American similarities. Is it not true that the cause and effect of the Roman Empire was due to the culture crumbling from within? The same goes for America today, crumbling within.

The lack of respect for human creation will always be the downfall of a nation, to wit America today. Promoting the cancellation of the human race by same sex pairing is the most powerful and effective weapon that any enemy could inflict upon a nation. Deliberately canceling out your national race by non-procreation is the most powerful and effective way to quickly dismantle a nation from within. Remember, America is a young nation [245 years old  July4,2021], and it only takes a minor infraction of social development to initiate social deterioration. America is very impressionable and immature in social development when compared to elder nations of this earth. America needs to grow up from her adolescent stage of social habitation. The liberal elite in America wants to present herself as a viral and dynamic social system, but I beg the differ for America to check herself for signs of misaligned social development. The best way to check social alignment for the health of a nation is to study history for clues of do’s and don’ts of growing a nation. Today America is doing a lot of “don’ts.”

X-Factor via Same-Sex-Pairing

When checking history the disclosure of same sex pairing reveals a constant ancient approach to curtailing the effort of "canceling out the human race movement." Taking a closer examination of this social issue unveils same sex pairing as being very hostile to the promoters of procreation. This should spark some concern for preserving this society.  Those who support same sex pairing make claims that war and criminal activity enacts the death of many people everyday in this country, so how can same sex pairing be equated in reducing the human population? For sure war killings and criminal killings threatens the existence of any society. But war and criminal activity can be corrected or reduced through the effort of knowing that neither participant of such wants to be willfully eliminated. A truce can take place between waring factions and killings will stop, because of the will to live and procreate.

On the other hand same sex pairing runs contrary to having the will to procreate because of the inherent desires to satisfy their perpetual sexual identification.  The priority and focus of same sex pairing is truly based on  preserving the right to identify their sexual identification without being hindered with procreation as a factor in their life. It is an American right for same sex pairing to partake in the portfolio of American freedom, but same sex pairing is a violation of human creation. Equating same sex pairing acceptance into society with the likes of African citizens struggle for civil rights is an appalling ignorance of imperative mandating. You can not equate a sexual desire with skin color. Sexual desires are from within and controlled from within [internal oscillation]; contrary to skin color being a permanent physical boundary of the body [external non-oscillation]. What is absent in discussing the impact of same sex pairing is the X-factor. What is the X-factor? The X-factor is canceling out the human race by choice; which is what same sex pairing does.

All Americans have Rights

In America you have that right to choose not to participate in procreation. That’s what makes America so unique and great, at least for this short time span in World History. Every American has the right to not participate in furthering a new generation of Americans for the future; sounds crazy, but this is called freedom in America. But there is a dark side to free-floating freedom; it's called ignorant freedom.  Ignorant freedom can crumble a society simply by selecting liberal so-called virtues of "anti-procreation" which automatically ends any society. One has to wonder why America should have a military of any sort since this new modern liberal American society does not honor the production of human life itself [ABORTION and homosexuality]. Liberal groups will come out in droves with flame throwing bad breath to preserve the reproduction of animals and insects; but for liberals to stand for procreation of humans is taboo.

Supporters for the same sex pairing agenda have grown in political power to force an escalation of dishonoring those who believe in procreation. The ideology of selective procreation and canceling the human race has been in the social engineering design for over 60 years. The “Ruling Liberal Elite Social Class” in America currently has full authority to enact laws and policies that promote selective procreation and the advancement of same sex pairing practice, to which cancels out of the human race.

Same-Sex-Pairing does not equate with African Civil Rights! 

This is a reality check on life in America. I admonish you only to study history to confirm the outcome of America’s decision making today. Those of same sex paring make claim that America is in need of social change like it once did in the old civil rights days when African descendants [now called blacks] were not allowed to assimilate in society because of their skin color and now homosexuals demand equal civil rights. Such is a serious fallacy of comparison because same sex paring falls far from the value of human design. Africans can not hide their skin color which in some cases may be offensive to others of a different pigmentation. On the other hand you can sit by a homosexual or pair of homosexuals and not know their social status of sexual orientation unless they force it out upon the public that they enjoy anal sex.    

It is impossible to make comparison of Africans in America and same sex pairing in America. I’ve never known any African that can change his race by choice, but I have known same sex paired individuals who by choice changed and reversed their same sex social behavior and became Christians. No African can flip a switch and change pigmentation, due to the biological permanency. It is unfortunate by their false premise, same sex pairings believe they have right to preserve their existence by promoting homosexuality.  They believe that as long as they don't pair with another homosexual couple with direct linkage to contracting the aids virus they will preserve their human progression. What homosexuals and same sex pairings fail to understand is they are promoting their own demise or suicide.  Yes, heterosexuals have viruses and diseases that impair their existence, but heterosexuals do not deliberately self inflicted the act of spreading deadly diseases with conscious upon themselves.  Unlike the same sex pairing who deliberately self inflict and promote their diseases upon themselves with pure conscious of filthy anal sex.

The Reality of playing with Same-Sex-Pairing

The crux of these notes is to establish a well known fact that homosexuals and their same-sex-pairing-culture have forced themselves upon America. All rights and entitlements as an American already belong to every same sex paired individual. But when same sex pairing enforces their will and way of canceling out the human race that produced them, then the conclusion becomes a permanent social dilemma and a critical national problem.  The telling sign that a nation is falling or has fallen is indicative of the ruling hierarchy enforcement of legislation to promote the homosexual culture.  In America's case less than 3% of the population [homosexuals] rule the nation through fallacy driven theories of political correctness. 

The question returns; what is the reason for America to have a military? 
Should America have a military to protect the preservation and procreation of life in America? 
Should America have a military to protect the rights of individuals in America who boldly act to cancel out the human race?

America can't have it both ways!

Choices for America!  Choices for YOU! 

Dr BearClayborn -Political Psychiatrist-Editor in Chief-ACB Newspaper International 

Color Coding America

For decades Liberals have been screaming racism on every corner of the city. Little did we know they are actually the culprits who will not let racism die in America. Have you ever noticed that all the major media networks never identify a Chinese man in the news as "a Yellow Man robbed a bank today," or a Mexican woman in the news as "a Brown Woman stole a car today," or a Russian woman as "a Pink Woman shot her husband today." You will never hear any color identity reference made to no other race but the African race in America.

Keeping the old stereotypes alive!

For some reason there is a perpetual lock on coloring an African descendant. Its as if though to belittle or diminish their worth or reduce them down to the color of a burnt out cinder. Maybe there isn't any intent to colorize anyone, but where is the effort to identify a person as an entity of content and character first? Instead there is the continuous mocking of their skin color.  

You must remember that all of main stream media is totally liberal [no exception]. It is not withheld that liberal main stream media set the protocol for identifying every individual reported in the news. With a preliminary injunction on the table for investigation let us broaden our scope of confirmation as to how the liberal media and even conservative talk shows can not or will not decease [stop] the color application for American Africans in the news.

In this "post" Christian society we have a serious problem, actually we have many problems. One main problem today is our belly button continues to pop open with the ever expanding problem of liberals playing with racism. In past history of American culture racism was limited basically between European Americans and African Americans. The laws of the land were paralleled with the sentiments of the majority rule by which of course African Americans were excluded. This was to be expected because a democratic society dictates that the majority rules however they want; as such is real life,,,, case closed.

Liberal Color Coding America!  Today we have a major problem with the good intent of majority rule because of the manipulation of ruling by liberals. Remember, this is a "post" Christian society, where as before a Christian society had meaning of moral values. There may have been a color preference plastered in prior generations of America but there has been added colors today compiling a change of heart. Unfortunately liberal European Americans didn't get the message of America changing from "color coding" people to identifying people by their character.

If only a few of today's liberal European Americans had an ounce of common sense they would cease emphasizing that racism is alive with vengeance in this country. If they had an ounce of common sense they could very well see that this country has outgrown the shadows of slave property ownership. Given a new insight for liberals in this country we could actually become a color blind society to human skin. Such a new concept of socialization would be the envy of the world if only the mad liberal media would just leave the dead racism dog alone.

More damage has been done by liberals drowning our culture in color identification than has been expected. Now today’s immigrants have caught on to the color identification spirit of racism and they have become proponents of racism themselves. Russians, Koreans, Australians, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Frenchmen, Germans, India immigrants, Iranian and Iraqi immigrants have all caught on to using color calling in America. Why have all these new American citizens caught on to using color identification of an African in America? When have you ever heard other cultures identifying other cultures in color terms?

Continuous Color Coding by Liberals!

Only in America is this application of color coding enforced. The reason for the enforcement of coloring Africans in America is because the liberal media has continued to announce through their bull horn effect the color coding of an African American in every aspect of social identification. Haven’t you noticed that every time a liberal or anyone else who tries to identify an African descendant will stumble in uttering their political correct awareness when they fragmentally say “African American” in their sentence structure? Now that the damage has been done by the liberals continuing to pound the racism drum all legal immigrants and illegal aliens now use with belittlement the color identification of black in their depicting an African descendant. And so the training of racism by liberals continues to expand to legal immigrants, illegal aliens and most importantly all elementary school children and preschool children.  

THE ANSWER TO STOP RACISM IN AMERICA

A “Special Note” to CNN CBS ABC PBS FOX NBC NPR, but especially to MSNBC.

Excerpt From Dr BearClayborn Political Psychiatrist -ACB Newspaper -Editor in Chief:

“STOP TALKING ABOUT UNSUBSTANTIATED RACISM AND LET PEOPLE LIVE WITHOUT BEING BEATEN OVER THE HEAD EVERYDAY ABOUT SHALLOW INSINUATIONS OF UNPRACTICED RACISM BEING PRACTICED….… YOU WANT REAL RACISM, GO BACK TO 1910,1920,1930,1940,1950,1960 AND LIVE IN IT.”

How many DOA’s [blacks] did you see lynched today, yesterday, last year or 30 years ago? If so, that would be real racism that need to be reported. If DOA [black] liberals along with the most ignorant group in congress [congressional black caucus] and white liberals would stop antagonizing the public with fake racism news there would be very little mention or thought to carry out thoughts of racial implementation. The liberal European Caucasian has benefited greatly from racial agendas forwarded through black democrat representatives. It takes generations to weed out people who want to continue to scream “racism” and strip the nation’s unity.

Here’s a true value of what is to come in America if America believes in itself and not race identification. It will take 8 years from now for America to understand that racism is only being sustained by people who want racism to continue and exist through social verbiage. It will take another 25 years from now to eradicate individuals like Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), Rep Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Rep Barbara Lee (D- Ca), fake rev Al Shar;ton, fake rev Jesse Jackson and the entire Congressional Black Caucus ….  These are America’s historical black community pimps that have produce nothing substantial for descendants of Africa living in America. Hopefully It will only take 16 years from now for blacks to understand they are not a color black BUT humans like Chinese, Germans, Mexicans, Iranians, etc….. So what are blacks if they’re not blacks? Well let’s use common sense, they’re truly not full blooded or even half blooded Africans and the truth is real Africans detest Americans calling themselves Africans in any instance. American blacks are not a color black, even though that’s the only color they see, but they are GOA’’s or DOA’s. The identification of GOA is “Genetic of Africa.” The identification of DOA is “Descendant of Africa.” 

Other than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How many blackkk state or congressional representatives over the past 60 years ever help blackkks in America comprehend and identify they’re not blackkkkk, but humans?

The wonderful liberal actor Morgan Freeman made a true statement a few years ago about killing or halting racism in America. Mr. Freeman made sense in solving racism in America with his statement of "IF PEOPLE WOULD STOP TALKING ABOUT IT AND THE MEDIA STOP PIMPING AND PROPAGANDIZING RACISM ON THEIR NETWORKS, RACISM WOULD EVENTUALLY DIMINISH TO A POINT THAT ONLY "A FOOL" WOULD BE RECOGNIZED FOR ENCOURAGING RACIAL REPORTING WHEN THE NEWS BEING REPORTED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.”

Dr BearClayborn – Political Psychiatrist http://bit.ly/1St7jNl ACB Newspaper International  

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6376845285112&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a></noscript>