Santorum’s Positions Reminiscent of Jim Crow

It is not farfetched for me to see Rick Santorum living in America some 160 years ago, comfortable in his conservatism appreciative and accepting of the status quo. Maybe this why he resonates so clearly with a large corpus of benighted lunatics that cherish his every word. No doubt, Santorum as his supports would be more comfortable and would prefer to live in a world in which African descendants were in bondage or subjugated by institutional laws and policies that kept us in our place. If not during the time of slavery, then certainly Jim Crow America would have suited him fine. Especially given what he said recently on the campaign rail in Mississippi and Alabama.

His persistent focus on social issues and so called “conservative” values is an attempt to show that he is connected with working class conservatives, especially those in the south, evangelicals and Tea baggers. This is why he always makes hidden remarks associated with the historic racist beliefs of his constituency. Santorum once said that America “was great before 1965″ . If you ask me, seeing that Jim Crow ended in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights act, it can be interpreted that America lost its greatness when Jim Crow ended.

I have written before that: “Historians tend to define Jim Crow and/or the period of Jim Crow as a systematic practice of discriminating against and segregating Black people in the America from the end of Reconstruction to the mid-20th century. More specifically, they tend to focus on the South when it was nationwide….Most or many historians like to start the period in the late 1890’s and like to over dramatize the importance of one man purchasing a single train ticket. In 1892, Homer Plessey bought a first-class railroad ticket. They say by doing such he broke the law since we were only allowed to ride only third class in his home state of Louisiana. You know, ye old separate railway accommodations for the races. To make a long story short, the Supreme Court heard, and rejected, Plessey’s challenge. This validated segregation in public facilities and engendered an atmosphere that promulgated even more restrictive Jim Crow laws.”

It is no wonder that many conservatives always desire to make the connect between themselves, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, who in 1964 associated the civil rights movement with increased lawlessness in America and advised for the nation to get tougher on crime. This was a code phrase basically saying get tough on black folks; after all we were the only one struggling to gain what was proffered by the constitution in particular the thirteenth amendment. A struggle that did not end until Jim Crow was obviated.

Another example of Santorum’s embedded reference to racist political positions are his regular carps pertaining to the role state and federal governments play in running schools. Santorum says he wants to retrench hysterically the power of states and the federal government in public education. In the republican debate in Arizona, he went on the record saying, “Not only do I believe the federal government should get out of the education business, I think the state government should start to get out of the education business and put it back with the local and into the community." For the former senator, US schools are "factories" that are merely "anachronistic" residuals of a past age in American history.

What Santorum has forgotten, or has intentionally overlooked was the need and role of public education in correcting what had manifested as a result of slaver, Jim Crow and the Black Codes. It was under the auspices of the Freedmen’s Bureau created by President Lincoln after the end of the Civil War that aid was provided to former slaves, inclusive of education.

Before the Civil War, no southern state had a system of public education. Former slaves wanted to become educated but whites opposed the idea. By 1866 eleven colleges in southern states had been established for the education of freedmen. More than $5 million to set up schools for blacks which led to more than 90,000 former slaves being enrolled as students in public schools by 1865. So purport that by 1870, there where more than 1,000 schools for freedmen in the South. After this period, when white Democrats regained control of the southern political machine, they reduced funds available to fund public education passed Jim Crow laws in the 1890s that mandated legal segregation of public places.

But this is the hypocrisy of Rick Santorum. On the one hand he states he is misunderstood and that he is for all the people yet his attacks through hidden “white speak” states otherwise. In January 2011, Santorum, addressing President Obama’s denial of personhood to the unborn, stated he was confused of all people, for a “black man to say no, we’re going to decide who people are and who not people are.” Even more strange is that a child has never endured the historical oppression and subjugation proffered either by slavery or Jim Crow? Santorum also conveniently disremembers that black people were considered less than human and subjected to dehumanization since being brought to America against our will.

Rick Santorum is what is wrong with America and not just its politics. It is an overt hypocrisy that focuses on divisive rhetoric of race yet does not have the fortitude to personally admit this is the goal and objective for such inflammatory speech. Thus, it is not unexpected that in Iowa Santorum would boldly assert. “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better” through government aid” and at the same time even with video and audio documentation — conveniently ignoring that only 9 percent of Iowans on food stamps and deny repeatedly he ever made such a statement. He has even stated on Fox News that for Africa Americans "wedlock marriage is an institution... (that is) not desirable for African American males".

These comments are akin to the antiquated statements of David Hume who wrote, “I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences.” It is similar to the belief of Kant who once wrote that being black was “clear proof that” a man is “stupid.” Santorum ascribes to the belief of Abraham Lincoln who said “there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Yes indeed, Santorum along with Romney and Gingrich and many in the GOP long to take America Back to the days before the civil rights act and the times of Jim Crow. Otherwise his white speak would have been something other than saying America “was great before 1965." Santorum knows as Lee Atwater once stated, "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 states rights."


Wake up America, we cannot depend on the media to point out such and make critical observations based on the record. As black folk it seem that we are only occupied with politics simply to protect President Obama. We must be more involved than this because limiting ourselves to responsive behaviors and attending to whether Rihanna is getting back with Chris Brown or How much money Whitney Houston’s daughter going to get.

Severe Conservatives Equal Amero-Facist

In the mid-1930s, Sinclair Lewis once stated that “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” I do not think that he was aware that his words would aptly describe many in the conservative party today from the halls of congress to the GOP presidential candidates.

A while back Willard Romney labeled himself "severely conservative." During the same period, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have been presenting moral-social concerns and tossing out their records to attempt to show who can be considered as being an “authentic conservative” like tennis players stroke that little yellow ball across the net.

Between their imbriferous vagueness of language and finger wagging, all I can say is that to consider the mass of republicans today as conservatives is derisory and misses the point. First, what is a severe conservative? Personally, the use of severe is more appropriate as an adjective for Gout, a limp, hernia or thunder storm more so than conservative. However it does lend itself to the sclerotic, Lilly white polity of the GOP.

For the good of me I cannot place these individuals who claim to be conservative as such just because they are in the GOP. They have no resemblance in conviction, surety or belief or are any were close to the likes of Edmund Burke, John Quincy Adams, Robert Taft, Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr. Unlike these individuals, today’s conservative is just a republican who use ideology as a basis for policy formulation and sound bites. Both of which are idiotic and disastrous since in order to be effective one must take into consideration and account the fact that our world is not static and ever changing – thus people (especially politicians) must be flexible, elastic and pragmatic.

Today’s conservative as a result do not believe in what they say they stand for. They hate the middle class, support big government handouts to corporations, destroy small business and farms for the benefit of the large corporations and even hate the constitution (although they wrap themselves up in the same treasured document). In essence they stand for the systemization of the predatory process and are more akin to “amero-facist” in the image of a Jonah Jacob Goldberg or Glen Beck than a harry Truman.

They do not practice what they preach. Earlier this year Maryland Republican Rep. Andy Harris, of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee had the director of the Oscar-nominated, environmentalist documentary “Gasland,” Josh Fox arrested for filming a hearing on fracking, So much for first amendment and the constitution. At a campaign event in this Detroit suburb on Saturday, Rick Santorum called President Obama a “snob” for wanting all Americans to go to college. But on an archived page of Rick Santorum’s 2006 Senate campaign website, he said he was “committed to ensuring the every Pennsylvanian has access to higher education.”

Gingrich, Romney and Rick Santorum are continuing to pressure President Obama on issues of religious freedom in an attempt to describe the current debate on contraception. But they are quick to forget a similar tone regarding the Catholic Church on divorce (will they say they will not insure divorced women) or pedophilia. Nor will they discuss such on consistent terms regarding Islam or the so-called ground zero mosque, instead promulgating a monolithic view of all Muslims as enemies of the state. Not to mention, one would think that by speaking firmly on religious freedom that Romney would open himself up to polygamy, seeing it is a Mormon belief but he has never espoused religious freedom regarding church and state on this.

They also tend to think that "capitalism" and "America" are synonymous and that anything that serves the interests of the nation over the individual is made to being against capitalism, The despise what they call "crony capitalism” yet often forget In their deluded way of thinking that it is the government-connected like a Romney or a Gingrich Instead of blue-collar workers or farmers being the exploited, who implement and put the C in crony. They are similar in stature to the “catholic corporatist” described by Ludwig von Mise and Trotsky and lecture the world as if we were in Asia Minor in 325 ace.

Ideology as a basis for policy is both idiotic and delusional. In the real world, politics and politicians must be flexible, elastic and pragmatic to deal with the ever changing dynamics and environment of the world around us. It as if these news conservatives (Amerofacist) seem to have forgotten what being a conservative once was. Now it is just Republican when it wasn’t that way. True, I am no conservative but I have studied history. But what do I know; I’m just a behavioral scientist who teaches statistics. True, I am no Henry James, but I can say tersely that severe conservatism as evinced by today’s republicans especially Gingrich, Romney and Santorum mimic more of fascism that what I learned from the writings of William Buckley Jr or Martin Luther King Jr. Too bad most folks don’t notice this, or else they would be in a better position to combat attitudes that are more destructive to our great nation than constructive.

is pig pu**y pork?

I have learned that magic is the art of illusion and that it only works on one species of organisms – humans. Not insects, nor fish, not reptiles. Now with this said, it is not hard to say that we humans can be tricked to believe, accept and follow anything without query. Now I know yawl that read my tractates on the regular will say this mantra is often repeated in my essays, as well as the concept proffered first by Thomas Jefferson that ignorance and freedom are incompatible.

It seems that we have allowed our ignorance to get the best of us for a long time when it comes to politics and politicians. I mean they have convinced us that we have powers that we don’t have, even the current commander in chief. In fact I would imagine that the job description for the President of the United States of America would read “to convince the people that they have powers and rights that they do not have.”

I don’t think it has been this way all the time, but I can likely say some of this shit started with Lincoln and was really put as the status quo under FDR. Now I know FDR is loved by many as is the current President, but the way I see it he was a foul draconian politician, who just like the current leader of our nation, used a banking emergency to tax folks up the azz and pass everything he wanted without question.

See on June 5, 1933, America changed, that was the day FDR took America off the gold standard. It was almost as if he was in the loop beforehand, or was privy to some info the common man aint have. This was to me the greatest trick, well the second greatest trick played on the American people. During this year, under the War Powers act of 1917 and the said banking crisis, he was given basically the powers of a dictator. Only trick greater is the illusion of the IRS. Yes the IRS, for by constitutional authority, we are not required to pay “income taxes” and because the IRS was not created by congress. Tell me I am wrong.

I mean from what I can tell it is a trust operated by the Secretary of the Treasury. After we (the US) conquered the Philippines and Guam, the internal revenue law of 1904 was passed. And not as a Bureau but as a trust that CREATED the Bureau of Internal Revenue. They even did it again when they established the 62^nd trust for the United States in 1940 with respect to Puerto Rico.

Now, I’m not hating, I just don’t believe FDR was the man as they said he was, and that the IRS really aint by constitutional authority required to ask me for my loot. We have seen this before, with Lincoln, and with the Victory Tax Act that was implemented under FDR. But we Americans need to wise up. We can not be so enamored at the person who is president that we forget that it is our country and that to tax and tax and tax when it really aint our constitutional requirement is foul. So let us speak up, it don’t mean we don’t like Obama, it just says that we take our existence or fiscal existence seriously. So don’t ask me if I think The president is pulling the wool over our eyes, and I like the man, but I will say as a question, is pig Pu**y pork?

More like a Copperhead to me

Been hearing a lot of stuff comparing the current president to the 16^th president of these United States of America, Abraham Lincoln. So given this is the 200^th anniversary of the birth of the 16^th president, I would like to exercise the practice of wasting brain cells via self induced rumination.

Now the way I see it, outside of his two short terms in the Illinois senate and being from Illinois politically, and the flamboyantly elevated prose, and don’t forget taking his oath on the same bible Lincoln did, and the mole on the side of his nose, I don’t see it. In fact to me he is more reminiscent of a peace democrat – you know the folks who ran against Lincoln. For Obama after his election, at home and around the globe was lauded and given the accolades of greatness before he even took office. This is unlike Lincoln, who was considered vile, crude and described as “the most despicable tyrant of Modern times “by a major London news paper.

Another reason I say Obama is more like the peace democrats, or as they were called the, Copperheads, is based on there stance of an unpopular war at the time – the civil war. The name Copperheads, from what I recall historically, came from the media who compared the peace democrat’s actions as equal to the venomous snake. Just as the current conundrum in Iraq, as well as prior in Vietnam, the Civil War threatened to divide America based on an either or podium. Just as then, today, an American defeat, just like the implications of the defeat of Union forces were not a stern point for consideration. The Copperheads were basically the opponents of Lincoln.

Thus the strong similarities and unique differences that are prone for me to suggest that Obama is more of the latter than he is akin to Lincoln. Like the Copperheads, Obama has demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities in Iraq and vilified Bush for his position otherwise. And Just like George McClellan, the Democratic nominee in 1864, their main weapon was to attack Lincoln’s intelligence. I guess in this since, Obama would be a neo – Copperhead (LOL). Even the Attorney General of Lincoln’s time said that what the nation required was "a competent leader," just as Obama positioned. I could even say that the leadership of the current democratic party, just as the most popular of the Copperheads back in the day, Democratic Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, are similar, since like Pelosi, Vallandigham introduced a bill in Congress to imprison the President in 1862. Even the present Vice President, Joe Biden sounds like George H. Pendleton of Ohio, the Copperhead Vice-Presidential candidate in 1864, who said that the American public had “been deliberately deceived into” war.

Just like the Copperheads with respect to the civil war, Obama has not opined or articulated any plan for successful getting out the Iraq war, let alone removing all US troops from Iraq. The Copperheads worked against what they saw as Lincoln's war just as Obama contention that the Iraq war was Bush’s war.

All I am saying is that I guess some of the folks are presidential scholars but the majority of them aint. I don’t see in comparison to the two, like I said above, outside of the flamboyantly elevated prose, and don’t forget taking his oath on the same bible Lincoln did, and the mole on the side of his nose. So you tell me, why do folks say or compare him to Lincoln, since clearly back in Lincoln’s time, he would have been a slave, or if free, a copperhead or peace democrat.

Riddle me this #3

I will free your mind today.
thought amnesty. u dont have to think - let me entertain u

1] Is dog toe nail polish different than human, and should I carry it in my store?

2] WORD PROBLEM: Verizion say I get unlimited calls for $99.00 a month, and that they have free calls for verizon to verizon calls, if all my calls from verizion folk, shouldn’t my bill be zero? Pleas express answer in a quadratic equation.

3] Is it just me or do Abe Lincoln and Jefferson Davis look like Twins or brothers?

4] If Iraq has 169K square miles and Afghanistan has 250K square miles, why do we have 170K troops in Iraq versus 60K in Afghanistan, when they say Afghanistan is more important on the war against Terror than Iraq?

5] If folks in Thailand had documented the existence of the Giant Fresh Water Sting Ray for centuries, how can scientist say it was only discovered 18 years ago?

6] Why is that a woman can have pretty azz toes when painted but can look busted than a mug without toenail polish?

7] What gives people the right to get upset when you tell the truth about them?

8] Am I the only Jones in the blogoverse who know a plethora of folks who wear rollers (pink foam) in they hair?

Addendum: Sister Gp drop a C note at my store, good look folk and met some of them black bloggers at the conf folk. Good Look K Ross, my Morehouse class mate and alum.

Will the real Lincoln – Douglass Debate please stand up

Well it would have been easy for me to talk about Wisconsin and Hawaii, and or to pontificate on the first week of March with the Upcoming Texas and Ohio primaries. Just as undemanding, would have been to talk about John McCain’s direct comments toward Barak Obama, or how Obama, is now pulling more voters from women, from whites and from the non college educated folks that Hillary Clinton, which once upon a time ago was suggested to me, was her base.

Instead I am going to take another stab at revising history. I’m certain my folk Badtux will chime in on this. It is well documented historically that Abraham Lincoln had seven debates across the state of Illinois in 1858. In fact the historical record has labeled these the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates.”

The debates were between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. They were battling for one of Illinois' two United States Senate seats. History also tells us that Lincoln lost these debates since he lost the election.

Douglas, a Democrat, was the incumbent Senator was a strong advocate of Popular Sovereignty, and was responsible for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Popular sovereignty suggested that settlers of federal territorial lands could decide the status under which they would join the Union – either free or slave.

Strange thing was that although he lost the Senate race to Douglas, he beat the same man for the 1860 race for the US Presidency. Although these debates framed the issue and difficulty of having a productive union in which some states were slave states, and others were free states, the real debate from my purview was not with the Senator from Illinois, but from another Douglass – Frederick Douglass.

Frederick Douglass was probably the biggest critic of President Lincoln. It was he who got Lincoln to practice what he preaches to move beyond his rhetoric on morality and freedom. Although most would think that these two men were on the same page politically and ideological, they were not. Lincoln believed the primary directive of the North was to preserve the Union and not to end slavery. Douglass was the first to suggest and urge Lincoln to use of black troops to fight the Confederacy. He positioned that by establishing colored regiments in the Union army. Dougless wrote “ every slave who escapes from the Rebel States is a loss to the Rebellion and a gain to the Loyal Cause I need not stop to argue…The negro is the stomach of the rebellion." He urged President Lincoln to urge equal pay for black soldiers.

Lincoln even said on the record that "If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union."

Truth be told, the policy of the Lincoln administration was one of pro-slavery. Douglass unlike Lincoln, incessantly focused on the face of the war and stated "the mission of the war was the liberation of the slaves as well as the salvation of the Union. I reproached the North that they fought with one hand, while they might fight more effectively with two; that they fought with the soft white hand, while they kept the black iron hand chained and helpless behind them; that they fought the effect, while they protected the cause; and said that the Union cause would never prosper until the war assumed an anti-slavery attitude and the Negro was enlisted on the side of the Union."
Douglass was instrumental in getting Lincoln to see that the civil war was a struggle between freedom and slavery. For Lincoln was troubled by the view in the North that it was seen as a war for abolition of slavery singularly. This upset Douglass and in his meetings and dialogue with Lincln made sure he understood that could have never been designed, with its talk of forming “a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,” could not have been made and at the same time promote and maintain “a system of rapine and murder like slavery, especially as not one word can be found in the Constitution to authorize such a belief.”

He had advised President Lincoln in 1862 to free the slaves in Washington, D.C., and understood that this fight was really versus a economic system directly in contradiction to the principles on which the country had been founded.

Now I know this doesn't make much sense, but all this week I have read and heard a lot regarding the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of President Lincoln. In all of this, I have only heard Fred Douglass name mentioned briefly once, but the repeating mantra of the Lincoln-Douglass debates are batted around like the were the real debate of his time. No, the real debate was between he and Douglass, for it was Douglass, in his interaction and dialogue withe Linclon, that had the greatest impact in the long run. rdB