Historical Perspectives

"Battle For The Holy Land - Jerusalem" (Full Documentary)

khazars documentary

THE 13TH TRIBE: THE TRUE ORIGINS OF THE ZIONISTS OF THE PRESENT (JEWISH?) STATE OF ISRAEL

MUST WATCH! "Synagogue of Satan" (Full) by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock 1936-2006

Minister Farrakhan goes off at Reparations Conference!

The Great Flood of 1927 & The Treatment of Blacks: This is a historical fact all Black Americans need heed about our sojourn here in the lands of our ( former?

A STARK REALITY FOR THE RECORD: RACIST WHITES SUFFER FROM A MENTAL SICKNESS THAT STILL THREATENS AMERICA'S EXISTENCE, AS A NATION, TODAY.

Right on, Jimmy!

Former President, Jimmy Carter has caused a firestorm of both political and public response as a result of his statements concerning the racist posture of some white Americans in respect to our current head of state. According to Carter, many whites believe that a Black man cannot lead the country. He went on to say that it was true of whites in the northern and southern regions of the country. Well, dig this: President Obama was elected by a majority of white voters. Therefore, it is safe to assume that he is generally supported by white Americans. Those protesters, whom we see waving derogatory and racially motivated signs, don't mirror the overall mindset of white America and President Obama is politically correct by not addressing their foolishness. Still, one sign (in particular) disturbed me deeply. It read: "We came unarmed - this time." That was nothing more than a veiled threat and one African Americans should take seriously; especially accompanied by slogans like "Liberty or death!"

The Ku Klux Klan: A Secret History -- Complete Documentary

WWII BATTLEGROUND 2 / 30: Japanese Invasion of China 1937-1944 (720p)

The Democratic Party (19th - 21st Century)

I was always told that one should make a careful investigation of the facts before making any major decision. That holds especially true in respect to things like political loyalties, and more especially true in a democracy, such as ours here in these United States of America, and the recent ejection of our esteemed sister from a town hall meeting in Hillsboro, Missouri suggests that we African Americans make a serious assessment of our Democratic loyalties.

Turning the clock back to the latter 19Th Century, when former slaves were given a vote for the first time in American history, Republican was their badge of honor. Republican was the party of their liberator, and a natural choice. That choice, however, lead them into direct conflict with southern landowners' interests. To give you an idea of just how much the mindset of southern landowners changed before and after the Civil War, compare the the following two statements:

On April 29, 1861 Democratic President Jefferson Davis told his Democratic Confederate Congress that:

"Under the supervision of the superior race, their [blacks’] labor had been so directed not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South… [which made the South one of the 16th wealthiest places in the world]; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourth of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to wants of civilized man…."

The official campaign poster for the1868 Democratic Presidential campaign read:

"This is a White Man’s Country - Let the White Men Rule."

For more than 200 years (1792 - 2002) the Democratic Party was proud to be dubbed "The Party of White Supremacy." It was during this period that the Democratic party did most of its damage. Their worst means were implemented during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War. It was the Democrats, or "Dixiecrat's" that started the Ku Klux Klan. They also enforced the infamous Black codes and Jim Crow laws, which kept African Americans in the grips of fear and intimidation. I was surprised to find that it was Democratic President Andrew Johnson who signed Senate Bill 60 in 1866. Senate Bill 60 would have awarded every African American family 40 acres and a mule. President Johnson (unlike his counterpart Lyndon Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Bill) vetoed the bill. Congressional records also reveal that he did all in his power to block any legislation designed to assist African Americans in particular. Sources revealed that from 1792-1962 the Democrats, as a party, did not support or pass one law that was designed to give African Americans equality; a period spanning 170 years.

Here's a partial listing, taken from Wikipedia, of the Democratic Party's stances on issues directly impacting the lives of African Americans over the period under scrutiny:

* The Democratic Party opposed the Abolitionists by any means necessary.

* Democrats supported slavery and fought and gave their lives to expand it

· Democrats supported and passed the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 & 1854

· Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery

· Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery

· Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision

· Democrats opposed the Emancipation Proclamation

· Democrats supported and passed Jim Crow Laws

· Democrats supported and passed Black Codes

· Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers

· Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866

· Democrats opposed the Reconstruction Act of 1867

· Democrats opposed the Freedman’s Bureau as it pertained to blacks

· Democrats opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments to end slavery, make blacks citizens and give blacks the right to vote

· Democrats opposed the Civil Right Act of 1875 and had it overturned by U.S. Supreme Court

· Various Democrats opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts

· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts

· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts

· Various Democrats voted against the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

* Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson

· Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas .

· Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration

I may be wrong, but I thought that Senator McCaskill was there to speak to her constituancy about the Health Reform Bill presently being debated in the Senate. That leads me to assume that there was a Democratic majority in the meeting and, since it was reported that Mrs. Johnson was a member of a thirty-man group, it's safe to assume that most in attendance were white Democrates. Their advice - "get out of [our] town" and take that "Nigger Obama" your screaming "Obama! Obama!" for with you. Oh! Rosa Parks? No matter, she's just another "nigger too."

Missouri (1857 - 2009)


I start my commentary about Missouri in the year 1857 because of the historical significance of an event that had, seemingly, sealed the fate of Blacks in the United States - The Dred Scott Decision, decided March 6, 1857, in Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford.

The man known as Dred Scott (an assumed name) was born a slave, in Virginia, around 1799. After a series of owners, he was eventually sold to Dr. John Emerson, a U.S. Army surgeon. Emerson would be transferred from Missouri, which under the Missouri compromise of 1847, had been allowed to enter the union as a slave state, to Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Scott, realizing that his owner had brought him into a free state, where slavery was prohibited, assumed himself to be free and filed for it with his wife in 1846. Scott and his wife were granted their freedom and signed court documents from Missouri to that effect. However, Scotts owners refused to accept the fact that he was a free man; thus Scott was forced to pursue the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that it had no jurisdiction in Missouri; therefore, Congress could not ban slavery in the territories. Scott's appeal was dismissed and he and his wife were reverted back into slavery. The court also held "that persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution" and that "Plaintiff [Scott] is without standing to file a suit." According to their reasoning, slave owners were protected against the loss of their property by the wording of the Constitution itself, in the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of Maryland. It is small wonder that Chief Justice Taney reached such a decision; himself being a former slave owner from a wealthy tobacco plantation family. Although the Supreme Court never overruled its decision, it was later overruled by the 4th Amendment in 1868.

That should give readers a idea of what life in Missouri was in the 19th Century. Today, in these early years of the 21st Century, the racial climate in Missouri hasn't changed very much for Black Americans. This was made evident by the actions of law enforcement officers at a recent town hall meeting held on the outskirts of Saint Louis this past week. The scene was Hillsboro, Missouri, along Rosa Parks Parkway. Maxine Johnson, an outspoken advocate of President Barak Obama's Health Reform Bill presently being debated in congress, was dragged from the meeting, screaming "Obabma! Obama!" amidst the rousing cheers of an estimated 3,000 attendees. The excuse given was that she had broken the directive not to display her sign. That sign, incidentally, was one of Rosa Parks, an authentic African American heroine in the cause of civil rights. Nevertheless, white bigots were allowed to overtly disregard that directive. CNN reporters aired footage of the very same officers, who man handled Mrs. Johnson, collaborating with whites carrying signs degrading Obama and allowing them to continue to exercise their "constitutional rights." I was appalled at the wording of some of them, "Nigger Obama," Obama's like Hitler," "Liberty or death," and "Don't tread on me." Mrs. Johnson stated that she had conversed with police officials, just prior to her entry into the hall, and had agreed to the directive prohibiting the display of her sign. A reporter from a St. Louis newspaper requested of Mrs. Johnson to see her sign, which she was discreetly letting him see, when she was physically attacked by a white man, who proceeded to destroy her sign. Regardless of the fact the she was the victim, police homed in on her. Later, they claimed that they charged her assailant. It remains to be seen how that will play out.

Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill (an avid supporter of President Obama's Health Care Reform Bill) witnessed the whole fiasco from her center stage perch, as moderator; yet saw fit to state that "I'm not sure that it would be accurate to make that about race. The disagreement yesterday was more because somebody broke the rules and brought in a sign when nobody [?] else was allowed to bring in a sign." How could she not have seen that sea of yellow waving throughout her audience? Seems to me that whatever bug that bit Pat Quinn, has winged its way on over into Missouri. Citizens! Beware of the flip-flops! I'm already clear about your position with law enforcement senator. However, just for a point of clarity, how far are you willing bend to condone such actions by your constituents? Remind you now, they're actions were unconstitutional to say the least.

Mrs Johnson's party were again accosted outside the meeting hall by a group of white women, who made it clear that "she was the problem." Mrs. Johnson was quoted to say that the police had strongly advised her to leave town because of the fact that they couldn't "guarantee your protection...you don't know these people, they're nasty." She further stated that one Obama supporter, a white woman, was so frightened that she sat, cringing in a police car, saying "I'm so afraid," while making her report. Lastly, to go back to the advice given Mrs. Johnson by the law in Hillsboro, your town is in the United States of America, its current President is in office by the will of the people, all the little ones who voted for and contributed to his campaign. The fat cats will no longer gorge themselves while the common (little) man cow-tows to his whims. Don't yahl' thank it bout time for "freedom and justice for all?"



"Out of the Mouths of Babes"

I received two short video messages today, which underscored the racial issues currently being bandied about in the press. That's nothing new though, because racial issues have been bandied about in the press in America ever since there's been an America. Historically, race has always been an issue in America, a point made crystal clear in young Reginald Bullock's film, "A War for Your Soul." I experienced an emotional rush when Birmingham, Alabama's Mayor, Larry Langford, introduced the film - a long way from the days of "Bull Connor." The film was a montage of still photographs. The narration consisted of a dialog between the "Grand Master" of evil (Satan) and his young protege. The protege is alarmed by the ascendancy of Barak Obama to the presidency, but the Grand Master calms his fears through an historical overview, illustrating how he kept "this royal people" in "ignorance." Starting with footage directly taken from various speeches of our current president, the Grand Master takes his protege on an historical odyssey, depicting the African American's turbulent history of interaction with the white race and its consequences. Being a university trained filmed maker myself, I can fully appreciate the masterful way the dialog was integrated with the film footage. By the films conclusion, the underling is jubilant at the masterful way that the Grand Master has caused "niggers" to self destruct. He points out the many ways he has duped the "niggers" into "killing themselves with thug life, calling themselves nigger with pride, their women bitches, their children selling drugs in the streets and spending time in prison and wearing "bling" are the hip thing." His masterstroke is getting "niggers" to believe that we are truly "niggers" and his prediction is that President Obama will be disgraced and blamed for not making things better for "niggers," by "niggers" own - "ignorance!"


The second concerned a young (estimate) eight year old brother, by the name of Johnathan Emil McCoy. In a speech, before an assembly of prominent adult African Americans, young Johnathan proclaims that "unfortunately, this misinterpretation ("nigger") of our rich heritage has been perpetuated among our own race. Rather than obliterate this disrespectful term, we have adopted it as a culture phrase. Let me dispel the myth. As a people we are neither politically, economically nor socially disenfranchised." The loud round of applause the statement received was a clear indication of general agreement. That, in itself was shocking for me. Here this kid is, talking to a room full of adults, who agree with the position that we, as a people, are losing out by forfeit - it's our own faults that keep us down. And further, he hammers the point home by running down a list of prominent African Americans whom have overcome the bounds of their race. Young Johnathan pointed out that "embodied with the character of self-dedication" many African Americans have forged a rich heritage for African Americans to be proud of; all this in spite of the seemingly insurmountable odds they faced. I applaud young Johnathan and pray for him in his courageous stand, for "one has to dare to be great." But, I admonish you, young Johnathan, to remember that "it is a sin to forget." 

More by this Author

  • The Frontier Sainthood
    0

    DO YOU REMEMBER THIS HOLY MAN? "IT'S A SIN TO FORGET," AS HE ALWAYS SAID. The time and what must be done!!! A FORMAL APOLOGY AND A PLEDGE A pledge of Solidarity, Service and Re-commitment to our families,...

  • The Socio-Economic Liberation Front
    3

    The Socio-Economic Liberation Front (S.E.L.F), which was formulated in Chicago in March 2008, is an association of professionals, from a myriad of business, medical, political, athletic and varied religious backgrounds;...


Click to Rate This Article
working