As Obama Spins Anniversary Of Civil Rights Act, Remember It Was The REPUBLICAN Party That Was Instrumental In Its Passage

Right now Obama is on television blathering about how “fundamentally transforming America” is an inherently good thing – such that if it was a good thing in 1964 whatever Obama does to “fundamentally transform America” now is therefore likewise a good thing.  And of course by implication, anyone who doesn’t appreciate or want all of the garbage Obama is pushing is just like the people who opposed Civil Rights in the ’60s.

The key passage below:

“The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. […] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.”

Here’s the facts on Civil Rights:

What is the breakdown by party of who voted for and against the Civil Rights act of 1964?

Answer:

House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34

Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6

Many sources cite numbers provided by an issue of Congressional Quarterly. For example, on the web site of the 5th Legislative District Republican Party for the State of Washington, they state:

“The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. […] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.”

Also, an article on Salon.com states: “According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate — 69 percent of Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of Republicans (27-6).”

Here is the Salon.com article: “Democratic bigots” by Jake Tapper, July 17, 2000.

An excellent article on the CongressLink web site provides a history of the drafting of the bill and the debates within the two houses of Congress. According to the article, this is how the House of Representatives voted: “Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11.”

The article later states how the Senate voted: “[…] the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.”

Here is the CongressLink article:
“Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964″

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party fought a vicious Civil War to keep slavery. Republicans defeated them and freed the slaves. Following that, the Ku Klux Klan – the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party created to attack black AND white Republicans, began its reign of terror to force states to remain Democrat. We get into the 20th century when Woodrow Wilson, the father of the progressive movement, was an open racist who RE-segregated the military and the government. The 1924 Democrat National Convention was so completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that it was called “Klanbake.” And, until last year, it was the Democrat Party who had as their honored elder statesman a former Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle of the Klan in the person of Sen. Robert Byrd.

Obama is pimping Dr. Martin Luther King, a registered Republican who publicly campaigned for Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 50s only to have his civil rights massively violated by the FBI during the Kennedy years.

Mitt Romney’s father was one of the great Civil Rights leaders, but that didn’t stop Barack Obama and his machine from wickedly and deceitfully “fundamentally transforming” Mitt Romney into a racist bigot.

If being black is just like being homosexual, such that if being homosexual is a sin than being black is a sin, then Obama isn’t lying to you.

Otherwise, everything Obama is saying in this pompous self-congratulatory speech he’s giving is pure rhetoric and pure lies.

The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party – the Party of Lincoln, the Party that abolished slavery against a Democrat Party that literally forced America through a brutal Civil War to stop Republicans – has ALWAYS been for legitimate Civil Rights.  It has been the DEMOCRAT PARTY that has consistently been on the wrong side of morality and freedom.

If Glenn Beck Hijacked Martin Luther King, Then Martin Luther King Hijacked Abraham Lincoln

A pretty good (certainly not completely objective, but by today’s horrendous standards of objectivity pretty good) article by Mary C. Curtis sets up the dilemma of Glenn Beck’s “8/28” rally at the Lincoln Memorial:

Glenn Beck Rally in D.C. Saturday: Honoring MLK’s Legacy — or Hijacking It?

Forty-seven years ago today, hundreds of thousands of Americans joined the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and witnessed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his “I Have a Dream” speech, which summed up the hopes of generations.

Today, crowds are repeating that trek – by bus, train, car and plane — to the nation’s capital, with their own hopes and dreams about what America should stand for.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin — two conservative stars known more for their divisive political views than for their King-like stands for social justice — will lead Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally to pay tribute “to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.”

At the same time, the National Action Network plans a “Reclaim the Dream” rally in Washington to honor King and the civil rights movement in its own way. Its leader, the Rev. Al Sharpton, acknowledges Beck’s right to rally, but not his claim to a part of King’s legacy.

One thing all sides and Glenn Beck himself can agree on: Beck is not Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Nevertheless, when Beck and Palin speak to a crowd gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, just like that day in 1963, the symbolism will be unmistakable.

Cindy Spyker, who is driving a group of 10 from Charlotte, N.C, has been to Washington before, for the 9/12 taxpayer rally last year and the protest of the health care reform bill. A member of CAUTION (Common Americans United to Inspire Our Nation), she said Beck is “one of the very few people willing to say what needs to be said, whether people like it or not. America was created on Christian-Judeo values.” The country has “turned away from faith,” she said, and “has to get back to principles like honor.” Spyker, 51, said of today’s rally: “Of course, it’s not so much the civil rights thing. What he’s trying to get across — content of character — is not about what we look like. It’s about who we are and how do we conduct ourselves, especially when people aren’t watching.”

Marette Parker will be taking a bus from Charlotte to a different Washington destination. Parker, 42, who is organizing a North Carolina chapter of National Action Network, is attending the group’s rally, starting at Dunbar High School and followed by a march to the site of the proposed King Memorial, which she said is “long overdue.”

Parker said that if King were alive today, he would “be proud that times have changed,” but would be saddened by problems that still exist. “We all have to come together as a community,” she said, “to mentor and motivate our young people.” She thinks Beck’s rally is “trying to hijack this particular day and steal media coverage,” she said. “We can’t let this happen.”

On his radio show Wednesday, Beck said: “I know that people are going to hammer me because they’re going to say, ‘It’s no Martin Luther King speech.’ Of course it’s not Martin Luther King. You think I’m Martin Luther King?” He said he has prepared only a few talking points so he doesn’t get in the way of “the spirit.” Though he has said the date wasn’t chosen with the anniversary in mind, when he found out he called the coincidence “divine providence.”

Whites “do not own” the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, and “blacks don’t own Martin Luther King,” Beck said on his show in June. “Not only is the event non-political, we have continuously encouraged those attending to avoid bringing political signs, political flyers, ‘I heart the RNC’ T-shirts and other similar partisan paraphernalia. There are plenty of opportunities to talk about politics. This isn’t one of them.”

Like I said, Mary Curtis did fine.  Her only display of bias is her describing Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as harboring “divisive political views” without characterizing Al Sharpton the same way.  Because I can guarantee you that conservatives find Sharpton’s views every iota as divisive as liberals find Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s.  But I can live with that.

What I can’t live with is the notion that Glenn Beck has “hijacked” Martin Luther King, whether he intended to make the great civil rights leader a major part of his event or not.

So-called black “civil rights leaders” are arguing that Glenn Beck has no right to hold his August 28 event in front of the Lincoln Memorial because that hearkens us to Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech.  And that hijacks the legacy of Martin Luther King – who was black.

But if that’s the case, then Martin Luther King himself was hijacking the legacy of Abraham Lincoln – who was white.  Glenn Beck hit that one out of the park.

For those lefties who argue that Glenn Beck should be banned from “hijacking” King not because of race, but because of ideas, then conservatives can argue that King STILL hijacked Lincoln.  Because Abraham Lincoln didn’t stand for the radical race-based crap that the left argues that Martin Luther King epitomized.

The greatness of both Lincoln and King was that they transcended their race and became moral heroes of every people of every color and even every creed.

And like it or not, Glenn Beck has as much right to appeal to Martin Luther King as any black person does.  And it’s frankly racist to argue otherwise.

And speaking of racism, how would blacks have reacted had whites staged a counter-event to compete with, say, Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March?  You don’t think there would have been cries of outrage?  Yet that’s basically what Al Sharpton did today.

One of the interesting issues underlying this debate about “hijacking” comes from the most famous lines in King’s speech:

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

For the most part, that last line almost seems to be an embarrassment of the pseudo civil rights movement of today.  Maybe Martin Luther King said it, but he didn’t really mean it.  And conservatives are determined to hold the civil rights movement accountable to that standard.

As the pro-liberal and pro-Democrat so-called “civil rights leaders” denounce Glenn Beck and conservatives, which side is guilty of refusing to make “the color of their skin” the primary issue?

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white Republican politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

It’s not simply that liberals aren’t advancing a color-blind society; it’s that all they see is color, and they rabidly fixate on color and use color as an ideological weapon in every single imaginable way they can.

And, yeah, for the record, I’m just as sick of this crap now as I was back then.

One of the things that made Martin Luther King a transcendent figure was the fact that he straddled more than just a far left ideology.  He reached out and touched ALL people of ALL races.  Frankly, if he didn’t do so, he really isn’t all that great of a figure.

Some of what King said touched white people.  That was why his movement was ultimately so successful.  And why shouldn’t the white Americans who changed their views because of that movement be banned from it now?

The so-called “civil rights leaders” of today don’t want America to know how profoundly racist the Democrat Party has been throughout its history.  And they certainly don’t want you to know how rabidly racist and even rabidly anti-Martin Luther King the “spiritual mentor” of Barack Obama was.

But here’s a quote from Jeremiah Wright:

The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, “born in the oven of America.”

And why does Jeremiah Wright – Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for more than twenty years – so despise Martin Luther King?  Because Martin Luther King wanted racial equality, and an emphasis on individual character.  Whereas so-called “civil rights leaders” like Jeremiah Wright want the emphasis to be on race-based preferential treatment apart from personal character.

But at least Jeremiah Wright – bigot that he is – had the integrity to honestly represent Martin Luther King’s primary message.  In that, he is far more honest than men like Al Sharpton, who dance around it with racial rhetoric, but never land on the heart of King’s message.  Sharpton will give equality with one finger, and then immediately take it away with the other hand.

The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther King was a registered Republican, as was his father before him.  And the fact of the matter is that:

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Not many people today – black or white – know that we would have had a powerful Civil Rights Act in 1957, but that Lyndon Baines Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, and other Democrats opposed it.  The mainstream media propagandists have really done their job well.

Nor do they know that the often-lauded 1964 Civil Rights Act was largely the result of Republicans’ efforts and support:

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.

Liberals have fought long and hard for racial quotas and preferential treatment for blacks.  But the greatest civil rights leader of all was fundamentally opposed to them.

Let’s listen to Frederick Douglass, escaped slave and greatest of all champions of civil rights, has to say:

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

So, as a Republican, exactly why is it that I should be banned for life from honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King, and why can’t I explain what aspect of his message won my support?

Al Sharpton and those who decry Glenn Beck as “hijacking” Martin Luther King are profoundly wrong for insinuating that nothing Martin Luther King preached supported the Republicans’ message.  Especially when King himself was a Republican when he was teaching those things; and especially when it was Republicans who were hearing his message and responding to the changes he urged on America.

And for the record, given the fact that Glenn Beck specifically focused on honoring our heroic troops and the tremendous Special Operations Warrior Foundation (go here to donate), it’s all the more despicable that demagogic ideologues such as Al Sharpton would demonize it.

I’ll guarantee you whose side our SEALs Delta Force, and other Special Operations warriors are on, whose children will be provided for if they fall fighting for this nation because of Glenn Beck’s event today.  Beck raised more than $5 million today.

Update, August 30: Al Sharpton said this about Glenn Beck:

“They want to disgrace this day and we’re not giving them this day. This is our day and we ain’t giving it away,” said Revered Al Sharpton. He and other civil rights leaders staged a separate rally nearby to mark the dream speech anniversary.

A day for “us.”  Black people.  And specifically, only black people who think like Al Sharpton.

The only racist bigot who “disgraced this day” was Al Sharpton and those who think like him.

Scott Brown Files Lawsuits Against Two Coakley Criminal Tactics

Is it okay for a political candidate to use state resources to promote their election?  No?  Is it okay to transparently lie about a candidate with provably untrue demagogic propaganda?  No?

Well, then Martha Coakley deserves to be behind bars more than she deserves to be a United States Senator.  And the fact that too many of the United States Senators we now HAVE deserve to be behind bars is because too many people tend to overlook blatant garbage like this:

From the Gateway Pundit:

This email was sent out earlier from the Scott Brown Campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Felix Browne
January 16, 2010

MEDIA ADVISORY FOR TODAY

Dan Winslow, counsel for the Scott Brown for U.S. Senate campaign, will hold a media availability to announce the filing of a criminal complaint against the Massachusetts Democratic Party regarding a recent mailing paid for and sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Winslow will make a statement and take reporters’ questions at MassGOP Headquarters in Boston TODAY at 4:00 PM.

Massachusetts GOP Headquarters
85 Merrimac Street, 4th Floor
Boston.

Scott Brown filed this complaint against the SEIU in December.
FOX News Boston reported:

BOSTON – Republican Senate hopeful Scott Brown has filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission after a report that a union backing rival Martha Coakley used state resources to urge workers to volunteer for Coakley’s campaign.

The report by FOX25 said the Service Employees International Union used state computers and e-mail addresses to direct state employees to volunteer for Coakley, the Democratic state attorney general.

UPDATE: Today’s complaint was in response to this horrible Democrat Party mailer:

— Brown filed a complaint against the democratic party for this outrageous attack.
The Washington Post reported:

Republican Scott Brown charged Saturday that a Democratic mailing against his U.S. Senate campaign violates a Massachusetts law prohibiting false statements against a political candidate.

The cover of a four-page mailer sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party says, “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away.”

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: Even some hardcore liberals are upset with the Coakley rape ad.

UPDATE: The penalty is $1,000 or up to 6 months in jail.

A section of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits false statements against political candidates that are designed or tend “to aid or to injure or defeat such candidate,” with a penalty of to $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Brown campaign legal counsel Daniel Winslow said, “People can shade things and spin things, but it has to have some kernel of truth.”

Brown is locked in a dead heat with Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, who is not related to the famed Kennedy family, is also on Tuesday’s ballot.

Winslow called on the Democratic Party and the Coakley campaign to disavow the mailer’s claim. The Brown campaign plans to wait until Tuesday, the next business day, before seeking a legal remedy, he said.

UPDATE: Here’s the video from the press conference this afternoon.

We’ve seen plenty of Democrat cheating through labor unions.  That happens all the time, and while despicable, is not beyond the pale.  But that ad Martha Coakley ran IS beyond the pale.  Way, WAY beyond.

It’s not enough to say that Martha Coakley is dishonest after seeing that ad stating that Scott Brown wanted every single woman who was raped in Massachusetts in 2008 to be “turned away.”  It is rabidly dishonest.  And for that matter, it is ideological kook nutjob dishonest.

It is the dishonesty of a pathologically immoral and mentally unstable person who will stop at absolutely nothing to win.

I’ve written an article on Martha Coakley’s bizarre and frankly dangerous dismissal of the Civil Rights Act in her dismissal of Catholics’ and other Christians’ civil rights.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reads:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.

Martha Coakley had this exchange with a radio talk show host:

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

It has long been realized that many Americans oppose abortion on moral grounds.  But that in no way matters to Martha Coakley, who in hard-core totalitarian-liberal ideology demands that all Americans offer dead babies as sacrifice to the bloody gods of abortion.

This goes beyond the legality or illegality of abortion.  This goes to Martha Coakley wanting to force people to do something they morally oppose, or else forfeit their careers which required years of costly training.

Thomas Jefferson said:

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

If it is “sinful and tyrannical” just to compel someone to subsidize ideas which he disbelieves and abhors with taxes, how much more sinful and tyrannical is it to compel a person to actively perform those “ideas” or lose his or her very livelihood?

It is evil of Martha Coakley to have such fundamentally intolerant views (and that’s not me speaking; that’s Thomas Jefferson); but Coakley then goes way beyond that extreme viewpoint.  She proceeds to accuse anyone who harbors pro-life views as being a kind of monster who would “turn away” rape victims.

Pro-life people do not care about the life of an innocent unborn child; they merely hate rape victims.  And so their careers should be destroyed.

If medical professionals who oppose abortion are so few and therefore protecting their civil rights so irrelevant, then why not merely have one of the OTHER medical professionals who support abortion administer the drugs?

No, Coakley says.  You must ALL offer sacrifice to the gods of abortion or be destroyed.  There can be no exceptions.  Everyone must directly take part in abortion or suffer the consequences.  We can tolerate NO demonstration of individual morality, lest people start to question and the entire religion collapse.

And it is within this dangerous, intolerant, civil-rights-abandoning, hateful view that Martha Coakley proceeds to viciously and hatefully lie about Scott Brown’s record.

Scott Brown did not vote to “turn away” 1,736 rape victims from Massachusetts hospitals.  He did not vote to turn away a single rape victim from a single hospital.  All he did was offer a measure to allow those who personally opposed abortion on moral grounds not to be forced to administer abortion.

To go even further, Brown went ahead and voted for the bill in question after his measure was defeated.

And to go even further yet, Brown even voted to override a veto from Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Now, I oppose Brown’s voting for the bill without the measure on abortion, and I oppose Brown’s voting to override his governor’s veto.  But that just goes even farther to prove that Martha Coakley is a vicious and hateful liar who fundamentally believes in crushing the rights of anyone who opposes her.

Martha Coakley’s Brazen Violation Of The Civil Rights Act

Newsflash: the Civil Rights Act actually protects some groups that the left despise.

Oh, well.  Civil Rights, Cybil bites.  Who cares about the civil rights of religious people?

Martha Coakley apparently hates Catholics, unless they happen to be pedophile priests, in which case they’re okay.

Democrats can easily screw over any class of people they don’t like (like white men, rich people, non-union workers, religious people, and babies for starters).  Because their view is that government giveth rights, and government can taketh away rights whenever it wants.

The following YouTube clip is shocking audio of Massachusetts Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, arrogantly informing Catholics (and, by extension, other Christian believers who might wish to exercise their religious rights of conscience), “You can have religious freedom, you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

Attorney General Coakley, with all due respect to her office, is wrong. Her statement mischaracterizes the law and, if applied, would amount to unlawful religious discrimination. Religious freedom means much more than believers merely being free to voluntarily segregate themselves from certain professions (especially the caring professions which are so often reflective of the very essence of religious faith).

Under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment. This means employers cannot treat you any less favorably because of your religious beliefs or practices, nor can they force you to stop participating in religious activities as a condition of your employment. And this means emergency rooms cannot discriminate against practicing Catholics or others who hold religious values.

That’s okay.  Martha Coakely has already vowed to ignore the Constitution and vote for a profoundly unconstitutional ObamaCare boondoggle that forces Americans to purchase insurance whether they want to or not in a blatant expansion of raw government power.  Why should she worry about an insignificant little detail like the Civil Rights Act?

Or maybe she’s going to tell us that she didn’t SEE the violations of the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution, the way she lyingly claimed she didn’t see her goon violating the civil rights of a reporter who tried to ask her a question about her being in bed with health care lobbyists.

Harry Reid Invokes Slavery To Attack Republicans: The Real Story

Another day, another profoundly dishonest and immoral Democrat lie.

The Democrat Senate Majority Leader had this to say about the Democrats’ health care agenda and its relationship with wanting to own slaves:

“All Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything and start over. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it is too early, let’s wait. Things are not bad enough.’ “

As Republicans erupted into outrage at the ugly and utterly despicable tactic – and presumably after Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called on Reid to apologize for his “disgraceful statement” – Harry Reid spake again through his spokesman:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare.”

Harry Reid conveniently forgets that his Democrat party is trying to strip Medicare of $460 billion in funding at a time when it needs those funds the most, against unanimous Republican objection.  But facts don’t really amount to much with hard-core liars.

Let me try Harry Reid’s trick:

“All Democrats can come up with is this: tell lies, make stuff up and use deception to make the cost of their bills look different than it really is. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right.  When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of child molestation, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, buggering little boys is fine, it’s discrimination to go after them. Things are not bad enough.’ “

And if Democrats become outraged at being compared to being a bunch of child molesters over their takeover of the health care system, I’ll just trot back out and say:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy.”

Because, after all, when I slander you with the most hateful demagoguery, how DARE you respond in outrage?

I tell you what: Joseph Goebbels is just so freaking happy listening to Harry Reid from his special place in hell.  Every demagogue in history has got to be dancing.

If I really wanted to continue with the Democrat tactics, I would make sure that everyone knew that this was hate speech that would incite black people to begin murdering Republicans.  And the moment I found any registered Republican killed by a black guy, I would immediately cite the event and decry Harry Reid as a blood-faced murderer.

Harry Reid wants to talk about slavery.  So let’s talk about slavery.  Democrats fought the bloodiest war in American history to keep blacks in bondage; Republicans under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln won the emancipation of black slaves at the cost of their own lives and limbs.

During the 1860 presidential election, Democrat candidate Stephen Douglas supported the doctrine of popular sovereignty: allowing settlers in each territory to decide for themselves whether abortion – oops, I mean slavery – would be allowed.

On October 13, 1858, During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) stated: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever.”

An article entitled “The African Civil War” has a very simple entry as to how the Civil War began:

Abraham Lincoln was against slavery. When he was elected President in 1860, seven Southern states left, or seceded, from the United States. They formed the Confederate States of America

The Democrat Party: the Party of slavery.

A little history lesson:

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

The above-cited article entitled, “The Democrat Race Lie,” goes on with numerous entries detailing well over a century of Democrat opposition to racial equality, to match their support of the institution of slavery.

So in other words, Harry Reid is accusing Republicans of being so vile, so hateful, so ugly, so despicable, so depraved, so morally evil, that they have become like Democrats.

And those are fighting words.  Because as bad as Republicans are, there’s no way they are THAT loathsome.

After the Civil War, the Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan as a violent terrorist organization which

resisted Reconstruction by assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white Republicans.

So you can understand why I would be deeply offended and appalled that Harry Reid would say that I’m such a nasty piece of work as a Republican that I’m somehow like a Democrat in wanting to continue slavery.

Let’s move ahead to 1924, to see how the Ku Klux Klan still owned the Democrat Party:

The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the Klanbake,^[1] held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It was the first national convention in which a major party had a woman, Lena Springs, placed in nomination for the office of Vice President. It was also known for the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan.

That’s why Martin Luther King, Sr., a major civil rights figure before his son took his mantle, “had been a lifelong registered Republican, and had endorsed Republican Richard Nixon.”  And that’s why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., registered as a Republican in 1956.

The section entitled, “The Modern Civil Rights Era,” from an article, “Republicans for Civil Rights,” is worth reading:

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham let loose dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. In 1963, Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse chanting, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools (using the 101st airborne), and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education (which ended school segregation). Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Conveniently forgotten today are significant facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned discrimination by any establishment receiving federal government funding. The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the Democrat-controlled US Supreme Court in 1883.

In-fact, Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright (credited as Bill Clinton’s political mentor) and Robert Byrd (a former Kleagle for the Ku Klux Klan), filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the bill. When the bill finally came to a vote, the House of Reps passed the bill 289 to 124. 80% of Republicans voted for the bill VS only 63% by Democrats. The Senate vote was 73 to 27 (21 Democrats voting no VS only 6 Republicans voting against). Simply put: Republicans are responsible for the bill being passed, not Democrats as they’d lead you to believe.

Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that abolished literacy tests and other tests used to prevent blacks from voting (a right granted by the 15th Amendment). With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress finally decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the bill came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill. In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is championed as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act as a senator along side Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was also a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.

In a historic apology, issued unanimously on January 20, 2007 by the North Carolina Democratic Executive Committee, composed of over 700 party leaders and activists from 100 counties, resulted from the1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report of May 31, 2006. The report concluded that the Democrat Party was solely responsible for that 1898 murderous rampage against blacks.

“The Democrat Party was soley responsible” become the overarching theme.

The Democrats’ record regarding slavery is a record of abject shame and moral evil.

Democrats might point out that Strom Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act signed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  But they should also recognize that he was a member of the Democrat Party when he did it.  And then they should account for the fact that their very own Robert Byrd – who continues to serve as a Democrat Senator today – not only filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but actively served the Ku Klux Klan in the leadership positions of “Kleagle” and “Exalted Cyclops.” And this now revered Democrat wrote a letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo that said:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

— Sen. Robert C. Byrd, honored Democrat in good standing.

And for Harry Reid to lecture Republicans, using slavery as an example, is an insult to history, in addition to generation after generation of Republicans trying to win first emancipation and then individual liberties for blacks against the bitter and steadfast opposition of the Democrat Party.

How dare he?  How DARE he?

Harry Reid should not only apologize, he should frankly resign in disgrace.  He won’t, only because the Democrat Party wallows in disgrace like pigs wallow in mud.