Allen, Angela and the West Family joined Fox and Friends Sunday 5/12/13 – Video

by:  MichaelSavage4Prez

Published on May 12, 2013

5/12/13 – Former Congressman Allen West on Sunday (R-FL) said that an admission by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it had improperly scrutinized tea party groups was part of a wider conspiracy that included President Barack Obama’s administration forcing Republican-owned car dealerships to be shut down during the auto bailout in 2009.

Fox News host Alisyn Camerota asked West if he had any indications that the recently-revealed IRS practice of examining whether tea party groups were abusing their tax-exempt status was not limited to “rogue, low-level IRS agents in the Cincinnati office who thought that they were going to personally stick it to the tea party.”

“Well, of course,” the tea party-favorite Republican declared. “The most important thing we need to come to understand is your First Amendment rights is you have the right to petition the government for redress of your grievances. If we start to have a government that is targeting certain groups for their political ideology because they don’t believe it is in concert with their beliefs, this is Orwellian, to put it in the least manner.” “We’ve got to come back and have hearings on this,” he continued. “This is something that is criminal.”

Camerota wondered if West knew why the IRS had been asking tea party groups for their donor lists.

“One of the things you have to understand with those donor lists — and this is something that was brought up before the Small Business and also the Oversight Committee when I was there in Congress — they are after those lists because they want to put a lot of pressure on individuals,” West explained. “And there are a lot of folks out there concerned about coming out and being forthcoming about their support to political candidates and what have you.”

“There were a lot of automobile dealerships that were closed down because people found out who they were providing funds and support to, when you go back and look at that auto bailout.”

As part of Chrysler’s bailout deal with the U.S. government in 2008, the company agreed to close about a quarter of its 3,200 dealerships. By 2009, conservative media outlets like The Washington Examiner and Fox News were suggesting that the Obama administration had been disproportionately targeting Republican-owned dealers.

But FactCheck.org looked into the claims in September of 2009 and found that the “best evidence shows that dealerships with Republican donors weren’t disproportionately targeted — auto dealers overall tend to lean overwhelmingly Republican.” And even a Fox News study determined that “the data do not support the charges.”

“Nobody has bothered to look up data for the control group: the list of dealerships which aren’t being closed,” FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver wrote in 2009. “It turns out that all car dealers are, in fact, overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats — not just those who are having their doors closed.”

“Overall, 88 percent of the contributions from car dealers went to Republican candidates and just 12 percent to Democratic candidates,” Silver pointed out. “There’s no conspiracy here, folks — just some bad math.”

179537_10151370341656682_495467829_n

Don’t even think of typecasting or pigeonholing Angela Graham-West wife of Allen West

AGW1

BY  for AdvisorOne.com

Don’t even think of typecasting or pigeonholing Angela Graham-West. The university professor-turned-financial advisor fits no mold whatsoever.

An FA since 1998, she joined Raymond James & Associates five years ago in the firm’s Fort Lauderdale, Fla., branch and manages client assets of more than $30 million in partnership with FA Leon Rehak.

As an African-American female advisor, Graham-West is a rarity. It would therefore be naïve to expect that gender and race have presented no issues for her working in the predominantly white-male financial services industry.

“We’d be kidding ourselves if we didn’t think we have to prove ourselves a bit more. People immediately assume that the older Caucasian male with white hair, before he even opens his mouth, knows what he’s talking about—as opposed to me, a black woman with natural hair. I might even be a little wiser, but that’s not the first thing that comes to mind,” says Graham-West, who is outspoken but chatty, too, in a way that promotes easy rapport.

Her book of business is a mix of clients, both high net worth and middle income. At the upper end, Caucasian individuals predominate.

She aspires to add more affluent African-Americans to her client list and has some promising prospects. But with the population of Broward County—where Fort Lauderdale is located—low in blacks and heavy in Democrats, that’s a challenge for this African-American conservative libertarian.

“I do my own prospecting within my own circles. I attract people I have a lot in common with; but I don’t know a large number of African-American conservatives,” she says. Broward County’s population is 20% black, according to Broward.org.

Reflected in Graham-West’s client base as well is “the way African-Americans view the Republican Party right now,” she notes. “Some clients want to come to an advisor just for their expertise, but others want to identify with you on every level—they view the whole package.”

And Graham-West’s personal life surely plays a role in prospects’ perception of her. She is married to Allen B. West, former Florida congressman and prominent, controversial Tea Party spark who last year lost a bid for re-election. The battle was rancorous on both sides, with West’s confrontational—some charge, inflammatory—style fueling detractors.

“My husband and I have some of the same political [philosophy]. We’re both conservatives—that’s the main thing. But,” insists the FA, wed to West for 23 years and by whom she has two teenage daughters, “Allen isn’t the conservative dragon the media paints him as. That isn’t who he is.”

A former Army lieutenant colonel, West, notes his wife, with a laugh, does not win every argument at their Palm Beach Gardens home.

“He’s a powerful speaker, but I speak as well. My husband is a very logical speaker, though, which can be frustrating. He’ll say: ‘Let’s remove all emotion and look at this rationally.’ As if I wasn’t looking at it rationally before!”

CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE: ADVISORONE.COM

Angela West Discusses – The Party Most Vilified: The Tea Party Movement – Part 1

TPP

The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela’s

The Party Most Vilified: The Tea Party Movement Part 1

The Tea Party movement is a political organization/movement adhering to three tenets: (1) adherence to the United States Constitution; (2) Reduction of Government Spending and thus taxes; (3) Reduction of the U.S. National debt and federal budget deficit.

This movement can be considered in equal measure conservative/libertarian/populist. A relatively new movement, it has supported candidates since 2009. As with anything new, the level of “gnashing of teeth, head banging, weeping and wailing” has been heard throughout the land —- and that is just among the old “checkered pant” Republicans. (smile — I love checkered pants as much as the next person).

While many politicians who have been involved with the Tea Party are registered Republicans, it is argued that they do not have to be. A commitment to the three aforementioned principals are necessary to be a part of this movement. Repeat, it is not a separate Party as such, it is a MOVEMENT.

I got this next area from the Wikipedia:

The Contract from America was the idea of Houston-based lawyer Ryan Hecker. He stated that he developed the concept of creating a grassroots call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009, Tax Day Tea Party rallies. To promote his idea, he launched a website, ContractFromAmerica.org, which encouraged people to offer possible planks for the contract. The top ten planks were decided by online voting at Hecker’s website (approval rates shown in parentheses below):

Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).

1. Reject emissions trading: Stop the “cap and trade” administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).

2. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)

3. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%).

4. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%).

5. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).

6. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: De-fund, repeal, and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).

7. Pass an “all-of-the-above” energy policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
8. Reduce earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).

9. Reduce taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax, and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).

The Tea Party Patriots have asked both Democrats and Republicans to sign on to the Contract. No Democrats signed on, and the contract met resistance from some Republicans who since created “Commitment to America”. Brendan Buck, a spokesman for that agenda explained that the Contract is too narrow in focus, and not exactly what the Republican party would include in its own top-10 list of priorities. Candidates in the 2010 elections who signed the Contract from America included Utah’s Mike Lee, Nevada’s Sharron Angle, Sen. Coburn (R-OK), and Sen. DeMint (R-SC).

Criticism:

As with all new organizations, which buck the establishment, you will find a great deal of opposition. Opposition from the Left is inevitable, but it has been the opposition from the right that is most perplexing. While it is understandable that the fear within the Republican establishment of losing their power as well as their “spot” in line running for president, Good Golly Miss Molly!!!!!! the only demographic they won truly in the last election was middle to older white males. I don’t sense a bumper crop of that demographic coming on.

254133_10150233497084889_6298567_n

TALK TO ME PEOPLE!  This a a REAL President’s Day discussion…….. Not just the barbecue.

CLICK HERE AND TELL ANGELA YOUR THOUGHTS – The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela

The “Parable of the Button” – Angela West

chrome-shortcuts

by Angela Graham-West via The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela

I am always trying to help a number of my older (read distinguished) friends to use the technology that we have. It is amazing because most of the questions that they have can be answered just by “Googling”.

I asked him what button he pushed in order to get to the outcome that he is at. He stated that he did not press any buttons because he was afraid of the outcome. He was waiting for me to tell him what button to push.

So……. I had him press a random button. Nothing dire occurred as a result of this action. We then talked about the “right” buttons to press and the fact that pressing any random button will not result in the computer falling apart or blowing up.

Never be afraid to press buttons, be judicious with personal buttons (the problem of mental health is real), however, choose the forum, be careful of the audience but fear not.

original

Angela West “Is the United States Becoming a Class Based Society?”

200842341

Topic on “The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela”

Over the past year, the new media mention of the “middle class” has gotten me to humming themes from “Evita” . For those of you who are theater buffs you will recall the story of Eva and Juan Perón . It is a modern “rock” opera of sorts concentrating on the life of Argentine political leader Eva Perón, the second wife of Argentine president Juan Perón. The story follows Evita’s early life, rise to power, struggles, and finally her death. Most memorable is her following line:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQvnImS6eqI

A Meritocracy vs. Class Based Society

The term ‘meritocracy’ was first used in Michael Young’s 1958 book Rise of the Meritocracy. Young by no means meant for the term to be used in a complementary fashion. In fact a recent film regarding this idea showed a society in which the rich and talented actually LIVED longer while those who are poor and relatively untalented have shortened life spans. That negative connotation aside, we do, to some extent live in a meritocratic society. One can argue that famous musicians, artists, great thinkers and business people with high acumen have been able are representative of the success of the American meritocracy. Thomas Jefferson, relying upon the theories of John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Government” while crafting the “Declaration of Independence” stressed that the acquisition of property (read wealth) was not inherently wrong if were earned through one’s own labor. The end result is a society stratified not by class but by merit.

Opposing arguments of the concept of meritocracy speak of the inequality of starting points. Whether the starting point is gender, race, immigration status etc….

What do you think?

A class based society, according to Marxist theory, the capitalist stage of production consists of two main classes: the bourgeoisie who are the capitalists who own the means of production, and the much larger proletariat (or ‘working class’) who must work for the wages. Class warfare exists because the proletariat (larger group) feels exploited by the bourgeoisie who are in control of the means of production (read “producers). In addition, through a process “proletarianization “ more workers such as physicians and other professionals become proletariat’s either through industrialization or their business becoming absorbed thus making them simple wage earners — for example a former physician who runs his practice becoming an employee of a government hospital.

Mind you, the argument can become much more involved, and I urge you to explore this further, what signs to you see in our society of each? What do you think? Please refrain from negative strains about the present administration, just a thoughtful ponder….

Personally, I don’t believe that we are a class based society. I prefer the term “lower income”; “middle income” and “higher income” or “wealthy”. The problem with class structure is the continual struggle and friction between the classes that allow people to become satisfied and complacent.

We are defeated when the phraseology we use is dictated by the other side of the coin. This is very similar to the defeated town forced to fly the conquering army’s flag.

The USA represents one of the last places on earth where it is possible for a poor brown skinned immigrant to rise up, get an excellent education, perhaps even a Ph.D. It is truly still the bright and shining city on the hill. Not perfect, but almost….

254133_10150233497084889_6298567_n

PLEASE CLICK HERE AND LEAVE ANGELA WEST YOUR THOUGHTS:

The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela

Angela West “Ain’t I a Woman?” Three conservative women that withstood a personally pejorative evisceration by the media”

truth1
Ain’t I a woman?

A found poem from Sojourner Truth’s most famous speech, adapted into poetic form by Erlene Stetson..

That man over there say
a woman needs to be helped into carriages
and lifted over ditches
and to have the best place everywhere.
Nobody ever helped me into carriages
or over mud puddles
or gives me a best place. . .

And ain’t I a woman?
Look at me
Look at my arm!
I have plowed and planted
and gathered into barns
and no man could head me. . .
And ain’t I a woman?
I could work as much
and eat as much as a man–
when I could get to it–
and bear the lash as well
and ain’t I a woman?
I have born 13 children
and seen most all sold into slavery
and when I cried out a mother’s grief
none but Jesus heard me. . .
and ain’t I a woman?
that little man in black there say
a woman can’t have as much rights as a man
cause Christ wasn’t a woman
Where did your Christ come from?
From God and a woman!
Man had nothing to do with him!
If the first woman God ever made
was strong enough to turn the world
upside down, all alone
together women ought to be able to turn it
rightside up again.

The War On Women

War on Women is a political term, used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are seen as restricting women’s rights with regard to reproductive rights. Some sources have used the phrase to criticize conservative positions. Additional uses refer to legislative initiatives regarding the following: access to reproductive health services, particularly birth control and abortion services; how violence against women is prosecuted; how rape is defined for purposes of public funding of abortion for rape victims; how workplace discrimination against women is treated; and litigation concerning equal pay for women. The term is often used when targeting policies that reduce or eliminate taxpayer funding for women’s health organizations, like Planned Parenthood. Other areas of concern include public funding and mandatory employer insurance coverage of such matters as contraception and sterilization.

This strategy, the War on Women, was successful at least in the sense that it garnered the support of women by over 10 percentage points. The strategy even got some conservative support, most notably Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski who disputed the criticism from her fellow party members, challenging them to “go home and talk to your wife and your daughters” if they did not think there was a war on women, saying “It makes no sense to make this attack on women.”

The biggest mistake was the try to trivialize the issue, by likening it to “the war on caterpillars” or “left handed Irishmen”. Once again, big mistake. A few weeks ago I attended a dinner. One of the guests asked me “What do you do?”. I responded, he broke out into peals of laughter, pursing his lips as though he were humoring me. Very condescending, since I have been in my chosen profession for more than 15 years and probably make more than 3 times as much as he does as an attorney. Male to female condescension is not a winning strategy.

Instead, spend a few moments in thought and recall the three conservative women who had to withstand a personally pejorative evisceration by the media — Sarah Palin; Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle.

sarahpaln
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin burst on the scene at the Republican national Convention to be announced as the Vice Presidential running mate for John McCain in 2008. I did not recognize her from , really, anywhere but I recall the camera following her husband through the stands and I asked my daughter Aubrey which show did he star in. To wit she replied that he was the vice presidential nominee’s husband. I decided to take notice at that time. Sarah Palin is a beautiful, smart (perhaps not in the polished way that bespeaks an Ivy League pedigree but bright nonetheless) and a traditionalist.

What should have been a celebration of this great feat ended up being one of the greatest stories of the lynching of a woman in modern history — unless we experience more Orwellian revisions. Conservative, liberal and in-between feasted upon her as though she were a piece of meat thrown into a pool of piranhas. No tactic was too low, too vulgar, too base.

Nary a word from the feminists when reporters wondered out loud if “she is neglecting her children”; the advocates for the handicapped never once questioned the cruelty of the attacks on her child Trig who was born with Down’s Syndrome; And the advocates for children yucked it up with a late night funny-man as he stated “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game,”during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” The funnyman said that he did not mean to make “funny” of her 14 year old daughter — he was referring to her 17 year old daughter. Oh, I guess that was OK…. That night, the rape of a 14 or 17 year old girl was just alright—– a good funny and not to mention —- real cool.

The final part of the deconstruction of Sarah came with the decision to brand her as “stupid”. Saturday Night Live was relentless in their pursuit with the continual lampooning and Tina Fey turned her marginal comedic talents into a career boon with the farsical renditions of Palin . Then there was Andrew Sullivan, whose hate infested blogs regarding the Palins became a regular on the internet. He was obsessed, the Palins gave him a tick he could not lick.

Finally, the “right” women finished her off. Websites against Palin authored by women, and many women who felt superior pretty much finished her off. Two women in New York felt so strongly that Palin was the wrong choice they created a blog called “Women Against Sarah Palin” and are using the site to post emails from women who write in from all over the country about why they think Palin is the wrong choice for Vice President and the wrong choice for American women. Within a week they received 80,000 responses. At least 3 a minute. Women never need a man to hold them back, they will do it themselves.

What is interesting to me is that I watch the left who have members lying, cheating, saying outlandish things, and so forth — they stick together. We, on the right are waiting for Jesus Christ or Mary anything less goes under the bus.

 
odonnell

Christine O’Donnell

“Christine Therese O’Donnell is an American Tea Party politician, former Republican Party candidate, and long-time conservative activist best known for her stances against abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and masturbation. She is also known for being an outspoken proponent of fiscal responsibility and, accordingly, a critic of reckless government spending and huge federal deficits. With strong financial support from the Tea Party movement, she defeated nine-term U.S. Representative and former governor Michael Castle in Delaware’s September 2010 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. In doing so, O’Donnell caused an uproar among the political establishment. She lost the November 2010 U.S. Senate election in Delaware, to Democrat Chris Coons by a margin of 57% to 40%”

I put this excerpt in quotations because I got it from the Wikipedia. She became branded with the word “dumb”, one article called her “sexually repressed”, “crazy”, and “spooky”. And finally,
sharron_angle_3

Sharron Angle

“Sharron Elaine Angle is an American politician who served as a Republican member of the Nevada Assembly from 1999 to 2007. She ran unsuccessfully as the 2010 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Nevada, garnering 45 percent of the vote. “

One of the controversies that surrounded her was her assertion that the constitution does not mandate the “separation of church and state”. Well, that is true, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution.

“The exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state”, as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.”

So….. was she right? I think so… But it did not stop there, after showing her support for the 2nd Amendment and maybe suggesting something further, Congressman Jim Clyburn said in January 2011 that “Sharron Angle’s endorsement of ‘Second Amendment remedies’ in her losing Nevada campaign against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid contributed to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.”

Angle was branded the “idiot” from “crazytown”. What is the end result of women, especially conservative women speaking out, running for office, or stepping out of their comfort zone —– unless you remain a part of the “establishment”, watch out — there will be swords on the left and clubs on from the establishment on the right. Believe it…

So….. Ain’t these women? And did they not go through a real beat down war? Chilling thought.

254133_10150233497084889_6298567_n

LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS FOR ANGELA WEST BY CLICKING HERE:

The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela

“Do You Believe In God? The Push towards Secular Humanism” Angela West Discusses

mf0sxvS

by The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela

This question —- the belief in God has never been a question in my mind. OF COURSE THERE IS A GOD! I could scream this from the rafters! Strange cliché, rafters…… don’t really know what “rafters” are but…. You get the picture: My faith is very important to ME.

We each have within us a need to believe that there is something better, something higher, something far more grand than our little world and the miniscule things that bother us from day to day. I meet people who tell me that they do not believe there is a God. God is just “make believe” only to have them drop to their knees when a loved one appears to be in trouble. It is a peaceful, calm and rewarding life to understand that, when the chips are down or up so to speak, someone or something greater is looking out for us.

What is religion?

Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Is religion directly correlated with a belief in God? Not necessarily, the definition of religion as included in the Webster’s Dictionary is “cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. You have surely heard many people saying that “football” is their religion or “politics” would be their religion. In this context religion can mean a dedication to ANY cause or principle — even atheism.

The Rise of Secular Humanism

The doctrines of Secular Humanism postulate that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a God. The original signers of the first Humanist Manifesto of 1933, declared themselves to be religious humanists. Because, in their view, traditional religions were failing to meet the needs of their day, the signers decided that it was necessary to establish a religion that was a dynamic force to meet the needs of the day. However, this “religion” did not profess a belief in any God.

Societies with a God based religion were more likely to survive than those without because of the community, compassion, lack of anarchy or murder, family structure, etc. enforced by religious beliefs. Agree or disagree?

Lack of moral values, young people getting wasted, and drugs, increasing violence, disrespect for elders, and sex at very young age, unwanted babies, abortion as a means of contraception, parents not knowing how to parent and not wanting to, depression, loneliness, and adults not wanting to behave like adults? Is the lack of God in religion fueling this? (I found this question on the internet and I could not have phrased it in a better)

254133_10150233497084889_6298567_n

CLICK HERE TO DISCUSS WITH ANGELA: The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela

Speak your truth to this matter……

Angela West “The African American trend of voting for Democrats can be traced back to the 1930s”

voter-rights1

by The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela West 

The Southern Strategy/Lee Atwater and the Chasm

The Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.

Just what was the Southern Strategy?

It was not developed by the Nixon team but was attributed to Nixon’s political strategist Kevin Phillips. Phillips stated in an interview in a 1970 New York Times article:

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

This was the strategy that helped to win the Southern states for the Republican Party during the 1968 and 1972 elections.

Although political scientists have argued that the change in the southern voting patterns from Democrat to Republican had more to do with economic interests than with race, the change was in place. By the way white working class voters in the south still continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s, so the jury is still out about the true success of the Southern Strategy as regards to race.

By the way, in 1976, Jimmy Carter won most of the Southern states without offending northern Democrats, explaining, “I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time.” Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

Democratic charges of racism have been made about Republican campaigns for the House of Representatives and Senate in the South. The Willie Horton commercials used by supporters of George H. W. Bush against Michael Dukakis in the election of 1988 were considered by many Democrats, including Jesse Jackson, Lloyd Bentsen, and many newspaper editors, to be racist.

In 1990 re-election campaign of Jesse Helms attacked his opponent’s alleged support of “racial quotas,” with an ad where a white person’s hands are seen crumpling a letter indicating that he was denied a job because of the color of his skin.

Lee Atwater:

Harvey LeRoy “Lee” Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican Party. He was an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee.

A man of many contradictions, Atwater played guitar in a rock band called the Upsetter Revue in Columbia South Carolina. At the height of his political power he played with B.B. King, and released an album called “Red, Hot, and Blue” featuring among others, the great Isaac Hayes. He was also a husband and father to three children.

All of this being said Atwater possessed An acumen for aggressive tactics. For example, as the campaign consultant to Republican incumbent Floyd Spence in his race for Congress against Tom Turnipseed , a Democrat, Atwater’s tactics included doctored push polls, fake surveys and statements that Turnipseed was not only a member of the NAACP but that he “got hooked up to jumper cables”. Atwater discovered Turnipseed underwent shock therapy as a teenager for depression.

The following is the infamous interview that Atwater gave on the “Southern Strategy”

ATWATER: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Although Atwater was not directly responsible for the Willie Horton Ads, the campaign benefited from it. Atwater’s skills in the 1988 election led one biographer to call him “the best campaign manager who ever lived.”

After the election, Atwater was named chairman of the Republican National Committee. The scope of Atwater’s abilities are far beyond the scope of this page, however, there is one very notable achievement:

In 1989, Atwater became a new member of the historically black Howard University Board of Trustees. The university gained national attention when students rose up in protest against Atwater’s appointment. Student activists disrupted Howard’s 122nd anniversary celebrations and eventually occupied the university’s administration building. Within days, both Atwater and Howard President James E. Cheek resigned.

Atwater collapsed in March of 1990 at a political fundraiser for Phil Gramm. He was diagnosed with brain cancer. He underwent very drastic treatments which left him swollen and unable to move without a wheelchair. In his last written piece, he stated the following:

“My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood.”

Atwater died on March 29, 1991 of his illness.

The infamous Atwater interview: www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

The Chasm:

President Barack Obama received 95% of the African American vote. But even before this, at least 88% of the African American vote.

The large majority of African Americans support the Democratic Party. In the 2004 Presidential Election, Democrat John Kerry received 88% of the African American vote compared to 11% for Republican George W. Bush. Although there is an African-American lobby in foreign policy, it has not had the impact that African American organizations have had in domestic policy.

The African American trend of voting for Democrats can be traced back to the 1930s during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program provided economic relief to African Americans; Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition turned the Democratic Party into an organization of the working class and their liberal allies, regardless of region. The African American vote became even more solidly Democratic when Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for civil rights legislation during the 1960s. This along with the efforts by Truman, Eisenhower and others solidified this block.

THIS IS PART OF A TWO PART DISCUSSION TAKING PLACE HERE:

The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela

Angela West “Why the Democrats virtually own the African American voting block and how deep the reasons run”

533009_10151125323304889_1477158054_n

by The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela West

I am frequently at cocktail parties, private get together’s and so forth where my fellow republicans are mystified regarding the almost total domination of the African American voting block by the Democratic Party. Most people have only a partial history of the dedication because it is far more complicated than one can conceive and as such it is at many times ,contradictory. The fact that we have an African American president aside, the Democrats virtually own the African American voting bloc and the true reasons run very deep. The intentions are full of good intentions, bad intentions, misconceptions, racism and betrayal. The following is a brief synopsis, tomorrow we will tackle the political strategies that were used to achieve the almost total alienation of this voting block which were perpetuated by politicians long gone and have had a lasting effect on the politics of today. We will also discuss the things that can be done to elicit some change for the future.

The term “Solid South” describes the total domination that the Democratic Party had of the southern states from 1877 to 1964. During this period the vast majority of office holders in the federal, state and local levels of government were Democrats. The Republican Party was virtually non-existent. And why was this the case? Because of the the Republican Party’s stance in favor of political rights for blacks during reconstruction and economic factors that were viewed as favoring the Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agricultural interests of the South.

The “Solid South” is defined as the eleven states of the old Confederacy plus Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Missouri. Missouri was the first to break and vote Republican.

In order to understand the almost complete absorption of the African American voting block by the Democratic Party it is necessary to go back in history to the following events:

-The change in the Democrat party was ushered in following the civil rights plank of the Democratic Campaign in 1948; triggering the formation of the Dixiecrat.

During the 1948 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia (July 12-14), liberal Democrats (campaigning with a platform that included advances in civil rights) won by a close vote. In a dramatic exhibition of many Southerners’ deep-held discriminatory beliefs, every member of the Mississippi delegation and half of the Alabama delegation walked out of the convention. This event would soon lead to the formation of the States’ Rights party, members of whom have often been referred to as “Dixiecrats.” was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic party, determined to protect what they portrayed as the” southern way of life”. Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The States’ Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Members of this group of Democrats referred to themselves as Dixiecrats. The greatest long term effect that the Dixiecrats had on the Democrat party was that it weakened the Democratic hold on the south, referred to as the “Solid South”. The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.

Watch video: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/dixiecrats.html

-Civil Rights The Movement
On July 26,1948 Truman, a Democrat, signs Executive Order 9981, which states, “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.” From 1948 to 1984 the Southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states’ rights, which some critics claim was a “codeword” of opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and intervention on their behalf, including passage of legislation to protect the franchise .

-Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (“public accommodations”).
Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who would later sign the landmark Voting Rights Act into law.

-Passage of the Voting Rights Act

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.[

-Desegregation

Desegregation is the process of ending the separation of two groups usually referring to races. In 1948, President Harry S. Truman’s Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II, a major advance in civil rights. Using the Executive Order (E.O.) meant that Truman could bypass Congress. Representatives of the Solid South, all white Democrats, would likely have stonewalled related legislation.

Although these initiatives, movements and laws started quite a bit earlier than many imagine, it was to be an ongoing and uphill battle with the political parties intertwined in more ways than one.

After the Democrat George Wallace was elected as Governor of Alabama, he helped link the concept of states’ rights and segregation, both in speeches and by creating crises to provoke Federal intervention. He opposed integration at the University of Alabama, and collaborated with the Ku Klux Klan in disrupting court-ordered integration of public schools in Birmingham in 1963.
1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act which had been passed by Johnson and the Democrats in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide. Note that Texas went to Johnson due to him being the favorite son.
Many of the states rights Democrats were attracted to the 1984 presidential campaign of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower. Goldwater’s principal opponent in the primary election. Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate (and pro-Civil Rights) Northern wing of the party .
In the 1964 presidential campaign, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign which broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[27] His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.

All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina) since Reconstruction. However, Goldwater’s vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign everywhere outside the South (other than the South, Goldwater only won in Arizona, his home state), contributing to his landslide defeat in 1964. A Lyndon B. Johnson ad called “Confessions of a Republican,” which ran in the North, associated Goldwater with the Ku Klux Klan. At the same time, Johnson’s campaign in the Dep South publicized Goldwater’s full history on civil rights. In the end, Johnson swept the election.

Goldwater’s position was at odds with most of the prominent members of the Republican Party, dominated by so-called Eastern Establishment and Midwestern Progressives. A higher percentage of the Republican Party supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964[27]than did the Democratic Party, as they had on all previous Civil Rights legislation. The Southern Democrats mostly opposed their Northern Party mates — and their presidents (Kennedy and Johnson) on civil rights issues.

In some Republican circles, the election after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was termed, “The Great Betrayal”. Even though some Republicans paid a price with white voters — in some cases losing seats — black voters did not return to the Republican fold. Indeed, in some cases, notably the re-election of Senator Al Gore Sr., a majority of black voters cast their votes for a man who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

As you can see, the history is a bit more involved that simply the Republicans supporting civil rights. Tomorrow we will look more deeply into the political strategies that solidified the support by African Americans for the Democrat party.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO ANGELA’S PAGE AND JOIN THE DISCUSSION:

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SHIFTS WITHIN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTING BLOCK

The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela – Sunday’s Discussion is up Come Leave Your comments

smallRWCC

THIS MORNING’S DISCUSSION COME JOIN IN – The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela

As most of you already know, my husband is Allen West. (I am the “introverted”, side of the duo. That being said, I started this page to address some of the questions and concerns I have noticed being voiced by conservatives who are in dismay constantly with some of the issues going on with this administration…….. I have read and heard the words “ The Constitution is being violated” and “My rights are being trampled”. The raison d’être for this particular question today lies within the context of the following issues:

. Gun Control
. Religious freedom as it relates to companies and their rights pertaining to contraception 

Rules of this discussion: Please refrain from name calling, condemning, judgmental scripture quoting, or other types of vitriol. We get plenty of that in the main stream media and liberal “funny” people who try to stifle you with ridicule. As conservatives we must learn to answer these challenges thoughtfully. We will not solve all the problems of the day but this might be a start…..


There are really three parts to this question, the first was is the Constitution a living document? Not a new question at all. If you think about it, this has been tackled many times in the past. The other two parts of the question this morning pertain each to the first two articles of the Bill of Rights. I know that many of you feel very passionate about each of these so I felt that it is an important beginning. Please keep the discussion within the three current issues. We will expand during the upcoming weeks!

There are two schools of thought regarding the Constitution as a living document, first those who believe it to be a living document say that “The Constitution is a document that explains our nation’s guiding principles and the rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. Many countries have constitutions. But our Constitution is the oldest written national constitution in existence. Because it has passed the test of time, many countries have used it as a model for their constitutions. “ Simply put, the constitution just provides a “guiding principal” which can be adapted to the modern day problems. These people refer to themselves as “pragmatists”, they believe that the interpretation of the constitution according to “outdated” views is unacceptable as a matter of policy At least one of the Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances: Thomas Jefferson wrote “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.”

On the other side of the coin, lies the “originalists” — those who believe that the Constitution should only be changed only through the amendment process and that allowing judges to interpret the constitution “impedes democracy.” In other words, strict interpretation and changes only through amendments.

Let’ s now discuss the three issues current issues — the, there are many more, as we are really in the process of “fundamental change” in the United States as promised in the first term by the President, “ A Bill of Rights is an example of constitutional rights that outline the privileges and freedoms that every American within the jurisdiction of the United States of America is to enjoy and never to be denied of. An example of such constitutional rights include the right of suffrage, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. The United States as a federal government also has state constitutions, which can provide for additional rights or protection to individuals who reside within the state’s jurisdiction. However, it is possible for individuals to be deprived of their constitutional rights if they have committed an offense of a severe nature”.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING AND JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

The Republican Coffee Corner with Angela