Anti-Obama billboard taken down after death threats...

Here is a little food for thought:

In 1789, Congress passes, and George Washington signs into law, a bill stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.

In 1792, the Democrat Party is formed. They are the party that promotes and seeks the continuance of slavery.

In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.

In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo the 1808 and other anti-slavery decisions.

In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.

For thirty years, Democrats pass multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law takes away all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who is so much as accused of being a slave.

In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

In 1854, the Republican party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

In 1857, the Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the anti-slavery Republican Party now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to deny blacks their citizenship rights, so...

In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.

In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of this citizenship, especially the right to vote, so...

In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
98% of Republicans vote for it.
3% of Democrats vote for it.

From 1866–1875, the Republican Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.

In 1875, in order to counter the Democrats' passage of Jim Crow laws, Republicans pass the most sweeping civil rights legislation ever—the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eight years later, the Supreme Court (mostly Democrat appointees) declares the act unconstitutional.

In 1876, Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. No more meaningful civil rights legislation is passed until 1964.

In 1892, Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate, and they keep control of the House. They immediately begin establishing Jim Crow laws and repealing all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they cannot repeal, they skirt with poll taxes and literacy tests.

Beginning after the War, and thenceforward until 1935, ALL blacks elected to Congress are Republicans. In addition to those elected to Federal office, hundreds of blacks—all of them Republicans—are elected to state legislatures in the South.

In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. Democrats admit—under oath in Congressional hearings in 1872—that the Klan is a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carries out this plan by means of a series of massacres at Republican Party meetings.

In 1901, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to the White House. Democrats and the media are outraged.

In the 1920s, Republicans propose anti-lynching legislation. The legislation passes the house but is killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In 1947, Republican businessman Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, hires Jackie Robinson (also a Republican), thus integrating Major League Baseball.

In 1954, Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower) authors the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education.

In 1956, Democrats express their opposition to Brown v. Board of Education in the "Southern Manifesto." One hundred and one members of Congress—all but four of them Democrats—sign the manifesto.

In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authors a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats. When the bill finally goes through, it is significantly weakened due to lack of support from Democrats.

In 1960, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authors a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, Senate Democrats attempt (though in the end unsuccessfully) to block passage of the bill.

In 1964, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is essentially the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including still-serving Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), employ a filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans vote for passage than do Democrats.

In 1965, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster is prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoys support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats.

www.sodahead.com...

reply to post by Quadrivium


Quadrivium, Sorry I could only give you a Star, wish I could also give you a Flag.
Great and Factually Honest Post!

reply to post by guohua

Thanks, brother.
Race in this country would have been almost dead in this country if not for the Democrats (sorry but True) Before the New Deal, around 1932 almost all minorities were republican. After the New Deal a lot of them switched to the Democrat party because of the benefits (entitlements).
Now here is the tricky part, if you ask a lot of liberals they will say that the Democrats had a change of heart in the mid 1960's and voted for the Civil Rights act. This however was not the case.
They actually looked at history and saw what happened after the New Deal. So in 1964/65, they came up with a new way to enslave those they wanted to keep down and ensure their vote in one fell swoop. And I have got to admit, so far it has worked like a charm!!
This is something I try to shed light on when ever I get the chance. If people knew their History I doubt if there would be a two party system now.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

 

This is True . There once was a thing in this Country called " Civil Decorum " . Guess it went the way of the Dinosaurs since , oh , I don't know , the 1960's ?

WOW. Are you REALLY dredging up the culture wars of the 1960's?

reply to post by Quadrivium


explain to me how that directly relates to today or the OP.

HUH,,, HUMMMM. Liberals, are you out there did we run you off with the facts again

Your party has not always been the party of liberty and justice for all. More like, Liberty and Justice for Them and the people they keep in the Hand Out Lines and the Power Brokers they need to pay off with our tax dollars.
Bowing to foreign Leaders and allowing a President from another Country Talk to Trash about one of our States and it Law is not the type of person I want leading our Great Nation.

The Billboard should have STAYED and Obama needs to be taking to task for the condition of America today.
LIBERALS!!!! Don't come here Blaming BUSH! Bush was No Republican, Spent way to much money.
But he hasn't been in office for two years and the unemployment rate a gone from 5% to 10 % lets just round it off, OK? Yes, we could go on, but way turn my stomach so late at night, I still say the billboard was a good likeness of him and his administration.
Come on I know you're NOT:[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cdbbe31c0578.jpg[/atsimg]

Or Shouldn't I ASK: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9abc2c439776.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by guohua


Yes many Democrats voted against the civil rights act as did Republicans and this was because half of the Democrats at that time were social conservatives from the South. The Dixie Democrats had been with Democrats well since the civil war when the Democrats were either directly or indirectly at the time supportive of Southern independence. It would be wise to pick out where the Dixie Democrats stood during those times:

The Dixiecrats were members of the States' Rights Democratic Party, which splintered from the Democratic Party in 1948. The faction consisted of malcontented southern delegates to the Democratic Party who protested the insertion of a civil rights plank in the party platform and U.S. president Harry S. Truman's advocacy of that plank. Before the convention southern delegates were dismayed by Truman's 1948 executive order to desegregate the armed forces. With that backdrop many southern delegates were already concerned as they headed to the 1948 Democratic convention.

www.georgiaencyclopedia.org...

You are arguing that because they were Democrats, automatically they were liberal or progressive, which is not so as history plays it out. 90% of the Democrats who voted against the civil rights act of 64' were states rights southern Democrats who were socially conservative and who felt that the rights and liberty of americans were restricted to those of the state. Gee, imagine having your guns stripped off ya in good ol' Kentucky because that stated prohibited guns. Would that be right or in opposition to the constitution which exceeds or state laws?

Progressives and liberals were the main backers behind the civil rights movement, and at that time the Republican party was dominated by many Northern progressives and Liberals. There were a good faction of liberals leaving the Republicans for the Democratic party after they saw an opportunity to change the party when Lyndon Johnson signed on the civil rights act of 1964. The Dixie Democrats who were strongly resistent to any attempts to desegregate their states saw Johnson as a traitor and in so left the Democratic party fo the Republican party. Along them they took with them Reagan and many other significant republican figures to this day. I think it was Johnson that remarked that he 'lost the South' when he took that step, but he took the right step.

No doubt that there were many Republicans as Democrats that voted for the civil rights act, but these were by the most liberal, progressive and moderate leaning Republicans and Democrats. At that time the majority of conservative voters along with libertarian voters, most notable libertarian figure Barry Goldwater, opposed the civil rights act of 64' and any moves to attempt to end it. This was not based on the 'affirmative action' addition which was added a year following the civil rights act so any libertarian that spouts out that excuse can see for themselves the presence of any libertarian movement for the liberty of all americans at that time. Today the southern conservative block are staunchly red, aside from the few occasions when Clinton and Carter were elected, but then again those were Southern born and bred white men, so no surprise there.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Great Point you've made, If I remember correctly, it was members of the Senate and Congress from the Northern States that made the Greatest Effort to get this bill passed.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

Not any terrorist! An Islamic terrorist! Big difference. You still don't see what I'm pointing out here. Do you?

There's nothing racist about that. Islam isn't a race!

BTW... I haven't seen any Rastafarian terrorists lately... have you? I haven't seen any Buddhist terrorists blowing people up, have you? Hell I haven't even seen any of those terrible Nazi terrorists (pmsl)!

Fact: Majority of terrorism in the last decade comes from Muslims. End of story!

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan


Fact: Majority of terrorism in the last decade comes from Muslims. End of story!

IRM

Well, depends on whose defining terrorism, sir. If I lived in Iraq or Afghanistan or South America, I might think American Christians were doing some serious terrorizing

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by InfaRedMan


Fact: Majority of terrorism in the last decade comes from Muslims. End of story!

IRM

Well, depends on whose defining terrorism, sir. If I lived in Iraq or Afghanistan or South America, I might think American Christians were doing some serious terrorizing

Well lets look at how the United States Government defines Terrorism shall we.
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

As far as American Terrorism in South American, the last I can remember was in 1970 to 1977 or there abouts.
The CIA had some dealings in Chile if I remember correctly but we didn't kill anyone.
I know I'm old, but I would have remembered if we killed any one.

You need to get away from your Liberal Blogs about the CIA and it running all of S. A.
My thoughts on the Obama Billboard Stays The Same. It should have stayed up in every ones sight until we Vote this Clown OUT! You do know Obama has a Good Buddy of his that was an American Terrorist don' you?
You want his name?
William Charles "Bill" Ayers, He is an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in the movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s activism as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s, motivated by U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He is a retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, formerly holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, a controversy arose over his contacts with candidate Barack Obama. He is married to Bernardine Dohrn, who was a leader in the Weather organization.
Yup, Obama He's some ones President. Not My President, put some ones.

reply to post by guohua


i see. so, according to you, violence perpetuated by the US government can't be terrorism because believing so would make me a marxist?

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by guohua

 

i see. so, according to you, violence perpetuated by the US government can't be terrorism because believing so would make me a marxist?

Show me were I said you'd become a marxist?
I simply informed you of the last known dates I know of our Government interfering with any South American Government and you get Marxism from That? War is not really classified as terrorism, Solders wear well marked uniforms not local garb and they don't go into a crowded school or restaurant and blow them selves up for Sh$ts and Grins. But if you wish to call our Government and our men and women or our Armed Forces terrorist, I can not stop you, I'm not a Whining Progressive Liberal who hates all things Conservative. You go ahead, but sense this is my thread, I will ask you to keep your opinions about our Men and Women in Uniform to yourself.
They are not Terrorist, Ask your buddy Obama, he knows Terrorist.
Really, how old are you?

I get why they would use the Mexican stereotype caricature given the recent problem with illegal aliens, and I also get the Muslim terrorist caricature because Obama spoke out in favor of the first amendment, but what I don't get is the gay caricature. Obama has never supported gay marriage, and has no plans to do so.

I also don't get who the the caricature with the white hat is supposed to represent? The corporations? The mob? Mexican drug lords?

well to be a fly in the oinment here the us government isnt christian as we have been told so often on this site

and this country is not a christian nation and therefore any actions by the said government has never been in the name of god........

unlike islamic terrorism everything they do is in the name of allah...........



or are you people going to try to have it both ways.......is the fed christian? is this nation christian or not?

Originally posted by Torgo
I get why they would use the Mexican stereotype caricature given the recent problem with illegal aliens, and I also get the Muslim terrorist caricature because Obama spoke out in favor of the first amendment, but what I don't get is the gay caricature. Obama has never supported gay marriage, and has no plans to do so.

I also don't get who the the caricature with the white hat is supposed to represent? The corporations? The mob? Mexican drug lords?

edit on 16-10-2010 by Torgo because: (no reason given)

Torgo, you asked about: I also don't get who the the caricature with the white hat is supposed to represent?

A PIMP, He's pimped our nation out to China and yes the corporations too, to include big Pharma and the Banks and others. He has sold you and your kids and their kids future. He's PIMPED us out! Don't forget the I WANT MY OBAMA MONEY people, they are getting their hands out and the Americans on SSI for the second year in a row get no cost of living raise.
Obama can KISS MY A$$

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

explain to me how that directly relates to today or the OP.

how it relates today......
Look around you. You do not want to see the ugly monster but it is right there in front of you. As SoutherGuardian said

Progressives and liberals were the main backers behind the civil rights movement, and at that time the Republican party was dominated by many Northern progressives and Liberals. There were a good faction of liberals leaving the Republicans for the Democratic party after they saw an opportunity to change the party when Lyndon Johnson signed on the civil rights act of 1964.

These people looked back over the last thirty years and noticed the minority shift from Republican to Democrat after the New Deal.
That is when they made the choice to back the Civil Rights bill (Yes you had some Dixiecrats that were just too stuck in their ways to change, They would not look at the big picture).
So they helped pass the Civil Rights law, which brought the majority of minorities under their flag. Now they needed a way to keep them there, how do you think that was done? That's right, ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS.
They systematically found a way to hold these folks back and ensure their votes. They are not free, they are still slaves to the state. These programs have been masked as "social reform" and most liberals back them without ever knowing their real purpose. And they do not want to see it, it is a very bitter pill to swallow, but that is no excuse. All one has to do is look at history.
How does it apply to the OP? I have no idea, I can't remember how the subject was brought up.

The billboard is disgusting. Are they really painting him as a suicide bomber? Great. I'm glad they took that piece of trash down.

Ugh.

Although that billboard is possibly the best one i have ever seen, It is disrespectful. I am still a Believer in fear nothing but fear itself.. Come hire someone to kill me cause i have a funny billboard of obama on the highway...."sarcastic". Go hire a 16 year old kid to go spray paint his tag name all over it and ruin it. People love to get a rise out of someone else.

reply to post by guohua


I can see why you're outraged by this, but nobody made him take it down. He took it down after harassing phone calls, which should be investigated by police.

I highly disagree with the billboard but I totally agree with the 1st Amendment right to put it up.