Frederick Douglass Republicans Can Save Our Republic!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
http://www.boogai.net/top-story/frederick-douglass-republicans-can-save-our-republic/

By Carmen Reynolds

boogai.net
Editor-in-Chief

“I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. ” —Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

Today conservatives, Republicans and tea partiers are blatantly branded as racists. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the Frederick Douglass Republicans want to cut through these racist charges and fast forward to the issues at hand: limited government, fiscal restraint and constitutionality.

The racist labels are something the 40 African-American Frederick Douglass Republicans running for Congress – the most ever since Reconstruction – aim to change. Unfortunately, only 15 of these candidates remain after the primaries, and they need financial help.


Frederick Douglass was a former slave, an American social reformer, orator, writer, advisor to President Abraham Lincoln and statesman, serving as a U.S. senator. Douglass wrote several autobiographies, eloquently describing his life as a slave and his struggles to be free. His classic autobiography, “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass” is one of the most well-known accounts of American slavery. Author James Oakes considers Douglass the leading African-American of the 19th Century. Not many even know about Douglass, however.

In David Barton’s book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” he identifies historical events largely removed from our children’s history books that give the complete story of how the Democrats used race to cripple African-Americans in the United States.

He recounts how history has been rewritten and altered to portray this country’s black history – one so rich with black patriots, who fought, died, and participated in the political life of this country. It’s a pity many of us will have to go back and study this rich history since it’s been excluded from our curriculum.

For example, how many readers are aware of the fact that 16 African-American men served in the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period, many also serving as members of the state conventions by which the 14th Amendment was ratified? http://www1.law.nyu.edu/davisp/neglectedvoices/index2.html, Neglected Voices

Retired U.S. Army officer Keith Carl Smith, of Alabama, inspired a new movement among conservative African Americans. “I’m not a black conservative. I am a Frederick Douglass Republican,” Smith told Christian Broadcasting News.

The Frederick Douglass Foundation was officially started in 2007 to identify, inspire and assist black candidates in running for office. There has never been a black female Republican elected to the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. And no black Republican has served in Congress since the retirement of the Honorable J.C. Watts from Oklahoma in 2003.

Here are the Frederick Douglass Republican candidates running for U.S. Congress. Pick which ones you can help as soon as you can. Their Web sites are located at this link:
http://frederickdouglassfoundation.com/

Star Parker (Calif.-37); Ryan Frazier (Colo.-7); Allen West (Fla.-22); Isaac Hayes (Ill.-2); Marvin Scott (Ind.-7); Robert Broadus (Md.-4); Charles Lollar (Md.-5); Bill Marcy (Miss.-2); Michael Faulkner (N.Y.-15); Bill Randall (N.C.-13); Tim Scott (S.C.-1); Charlotte Bergman (Tenn.-9); Stephen Broden (Texas-30); Chuck Smith (Va.-3); and Vince Danet (Vt. Delegate).

Retired Army LTC West has made a name for himself with his knowledge of history, military operations and articulate and emphatic presentations against the “share the wealth” mandate in Washington.

Star Parker is probably the most recognized Frederick Douglass Republican candidate on the list. A former welfare mom for seven years, she had an epiphany, went back to school, obtained a degree in business and was determined to seek free-market solutions to improve her financial circumstances.

Parker cites the War on Poverty program of the 60s for its irresponsible messages which continue to this day to feed the entitlement mentality, undermining job seeking and facilitating the burgeoning deficit.

“The lie of the Left has crumbled our communities and abandoned us and our children. We must attract businesses and jobs and rebuild toward prosperity.”

– Star Parker
 
Who wouldn't have been a Republican in 1860?

Besides you, Mr. Confederate Flag? You're all the proof I need to know that the New Republican party, the Party of God, is just a rebranding of the old Confederacy, and all of you should be convicted of treason and put to death, just like we should've done with the south a long time ago.
 
Why is it Dix, that every right wing argument always tries to force us to believe lies?

The War on Poverty was successful, and the man that ran the war on poverty, Sargent Shriver hated welfare.

The War on Poverty was a community action program that called upon local leadership and local initiative to formulate long-range, comprehensive plans to eliminate poverty in each community. Sargent Shriver firmly believed that the way to help people rise out of poverty was to help them help themselves. Shriver hated the idea of handouts, which he equated with what he called cheap grace-a kind of charity [that] does not empower people. Describing his strategy for the War on Poverty, Shriver states, "This is no handout program. There are no giveaways in the War on Poverty. We're investing in human dignity, not in doles." While Shriver expressed a belief that individuals are capable of getting themselves out of poverty, he also argued that it is the government's responsibility to provide services that help people in the effort to improve their lives. "Our idea was to discover ways in which people could be helped to help themselves," he explained.

Ref
Ref

http://www.sargentshriver.com/

4.jpg
 
Bfgrn said:
Why is it Dix, that every right wing argument always tries to force us to believe lies?

The War on Poverty was successful, and the man that ran the war on poverty, Sargent Shriver hated welfare.

The War on Poverty was a community action program that called upon local leadership and local initiative to formulate long-range, comprehensive plans to eliminate poverty in each community. Sargent Shriver firmly believed that the way to help people rise out of poverty was to help them help themselves. Shriver hated the idea of handouts, which he equated with what he called cheap grace-a kind of charity [that] does not empower people. Describing his strategy for the War on Poverty, Shriver states, "This is no handout program. There are no giveaways in the War on Poverty. We're investing in human dignity, not in doles." While Shriver expressed a belief that individuals are capable of getting themselves out of poverty, he also argued that it is the government's responsibility to provide services that help people in the effort to improve their lives. "Our idea was to discover ways in which people could be helped to help themselves," he explained.

Ref
Ref

http://www.sargentshriver.com/

4.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't know why you want to divert the topic into a discussion of Sargent Shriver. He was the VP candidate of George McGovern in 1972, after the original VP pick flaked out. McGovern lost in a landslide so significant, he didn't even win a majority of the vote in his own home state. His platform included "guaranteed minimum incomes" which is the same thing as liberals promote today as a "living wage" and is basically socialist welfare. I have no idea why you think spinning Shriver into some kind of anti-welfare advocate now, is related in any way to this thread, but what you are indicating is just a flat out distortion of the facts and history.

The War on Poverty FAILED! Got it? Failed miserably! We spent trillions of dollars trying to bring Americans out of poverty through socialist governmental welfare programs, which literally worked to the detriment of the poor and kept them shackled to government dependence for 60 years. Today, there are more Americans in poverty, as a percentage of the population, than in 1960. To exacerbate the problem, we have allowed generations of Americans to be raised under some false perception that welfare and government assistance is the answer to their situation, when that is simply not the case. Socialism FAILS... it ALWAYS fails, no matter how it is implemented, no matter who implements it. Time and time again, throughout human history, socialist ideas and programs have never delivered as promised. We can discuss why that is, I believe it's because Socialism seeks to effectively stifle and kill the individual spirit. Once that is accomplished, human greed takes over, and the elite (governing/ruling class) becomes corrupt and coerced, and the entire system collapses in strife and chaos. This is the repeated pattern in every socialist system that has ever been attempted, and it will always be the pattern, because humans don't change. The "solution" is not ever going to be found through socialist policies. You can post links to relics of 1972 McGovern politics, or you can try to re-package those ideas in a message of "Hope and Change" but the proof is in the proverbial pudding, pudding head!
 
Dixie said:
I don't know why you want to divert the topic into a discussion of Sargent Shriver. He was the VP candidate of George McGovern in 1972, after the original VP pick flaked out. McGovern lost in a landslide so significant, he didn't even win a majority of the vote in his own home state. His platform included "guaranteed minimum incomes" which is the same thing as liberals promote today as a "living wage" and is basically socialist welfare. I have no idea why you think spinning Shriver into some kind of anti-welfare advocate now, is related in any way to this thread, but what you are indicating is just a flat out distortion of the facts and history.

The War on Poverty FAILED! Got it? Failed miserably! We spent trillions of dollars trying to bring Americans out of poverty through socialist governmental welfare programs, which literally worked to the detriment of the poor and kept them shackled to government dependence for 60 years. Today, there are more Americans in poverty, as a percentage of the population, than in 1960. To exacerbate the problem, we have allowed generations of Americans to be raised under some false perception that welfare and government assistance is the answer to their situation, when that is simply not the case. Socialism FAILS... it ALWAYS fails, no matter how it is implemented, no matter who implements it. Time and time again, throughout human history, socialist ideas and programs have never delivered as promised. We can discuss why that is, I believe it's because Socialism seeks to effectively stifle and kill the individual spirit. Once that is accomplished, human greed takes over, and the elite (governing/ruling class) becomes corrupt and coerced, and the entire system collapses in strife and chaos. This is the repeated pattern in every socialist system that has ever been attempted, and it will always be the pattern, because humans don't change. The "solution" is not ever going to be found through socialist policies. You can post links to relics of 1972 McGovern politics, or you can try to re-package those ideas in a message of "Hope and Change" but the proof is in the proverbial pudding, pudding head!
Click to expand...

The problem is you are confusing helping people with the political/government form of Socialism. Helping people is not the problem. The problem is government interference when helping people and government interference in other areas of society. The demoralizing and stifling of the individual spirit is the result of the way programs are run.

The first problem is a person has to lose almost everything before government assistance is offered. The person is already demoralized and their spirit crushed before they start any program.

Second, the programs barely keep people alive. It's difficult to have a good outlook on life when one is constantly hungry.

The third problem is the number of programs. From food stamps to government housing the government makes the individual dependent on the government. Rather than give the person sufficient funds for food and housing and let the individual budget for themselves the government does their budgeting.

When we start to give children an allowance we teach them how to budget. It would be counterproductive to buy them what they want and just give them money to "play" with.

A guaranteed minimum income is the best solution. When people have to qualify for food stamps or government housing or other programs that is where their focus lies. And who can blame them? They are trying to survive. Their neighbors and acquaintances and the government don't give a damn about them. They are literally fighting for their life.

The problem is some officials don't believe people should be helped at all while other officials believe there should be a minimum standard applied to all who require help. That has resulted in the qualifying for numerous programs. It sets the stage for a "battle".

If one checks the statistics welfare, food stamps, etc. are not a major expense. It's not a question of whether the government can afford it. It's all based on ones philosophy and as far as it having been tried in the past that is not true. Past governments, just like many of today's governments, put conditions on helping. That is the problem.

Receiving help becomes a job in in itself. Rather than cheerfully offering help and honestly trying to help many government programs are structured/run to look for ways not to help.
 
Dixie the only people you have to convince is people of color.

Now why is it so very few see the republican party in a good light?
 
Dixie said:
I don't know why you want to divert the topic into a discussion of Sargent Shriver. He was the VP candidate of George McGovern in 1972, after the original VP pick flaked out. McGovern lost in a landslide so significant, he didn't even win a majority of the vote in his own home state. His platform included "guaranteed minimum incomes" which is the same thing as liberals promote today as a "living wage" and is basically socialist welfare. I have no idea why you think spinning Shriver into some kind of anti-welfare advocate now, is related in any way to this thread, but what you are indicating is just a flat out distortion of the facts and history.

The War on Poverty FAILED! Got it? Failed miserably! We spent trillions of dollars trying to bring Americans out of poverty through socialist governmental welfare programs, which literally worked to the detriment of the poor and kept them shackled to government dependence for 60 years. Today, there are more Americans in poverty, as a percentage of the population, than in 1960. To exacerbate the problem, we have allowed generations of Americans to be raised under some false perception that welfare and government assistance is the answer to their situation, when that is simply not the case. Socialism FAILS... it ALWAYS fails, no matter how it is implemented, no matter who implements it. Time and time again, throughout human history, socialist ideas and programs have never delivered as promised. We can discuss why that is, I believe it's because Socialism seeks to effectively stifle and kill the individual spirit. Once that is accomplished, human greed takes over, and the elite (governing/ruling class) becomes corrupt and coerced, and the entire system collapses in strife and chaos. This is the repeated pattern in every socialist system that has ever been attempted, and it will always be the pattern, because humans don't change. The "solution" is not ever going to be found through socialist policies. You can post links to relics of 1972 McGovern politics, or you can try to re-package those ideas in a message of "Hope and Change" but the proof is in the proverbial pudding, pudding head!
Click to expand...

Hey Dix, nice right wing rant. Thank you for adding dogma to your ignorance. You mention a "living wage" and say it is 'basically socialist welfare'. Isn't a 'wage' something that has an action attached to it, like a JOB? It is not a coincidence that we haven't had a living wage in America since 1973 and it was the beginning of the collapse of the middle class in America.

You did hit on something that has occurred in America; 'human greed takes over, and the elite (governing/ruling class) becomes corrupt and coerced, and the entire system collapses in strife and chaos'

I couldn't give a better description of the failure of the Reagan revolution, voodoo trickle UP economics and the corrupt elite owned conservative era.

Ronbo Reagan was the biggest 'socialist' in our lifetime. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent, the elite (governing/ruling class). Ronald Reagan was the antithesis of the John Kennedys and Sargent Shrivers of this country.


largeextremeinequalitychart-1-1.jpg


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy
 
evince said:
Dixie the only people you have to convince is people of color.

Now why is it so very few see the republican party in a good light?
Click to expand...

Star Parker (Calif.-37); Ryan Frazier (Colo.-7); Allen West (Fla.-22); Isaac Hayes (Ill.-2); Marvin Scott (Ind.-7); Robert Broadus (Md.-4); Charles Lollar (Md.-5); Bill Marcy (Miss.-2); Michael Faulkner (N.Y.-15); Bill Randall (N.C.-13); Tim Scott (S.C.-1); Charlotte Bergman (Tenn.-9); Stephen Broden (Texas-30); Chuck Smith (Va.-3); and Vince Danet (Vt. Delegate).

Now, in a given election cycle, I would say that is a pretty good representation of "people of color" who are running under the Republican banner. They obviously reject your idea of more socialist welfare programs and increasing the size and scope of government. So, why don't you explain to me, how so many "people of color" seem to be seeing the Republican party in a more favorable light these days? Or maybe you want to do like Bfoon, and divert the topic into a discussion of the war on poverty and Sargent Shriver?
 
The problem is you are confusing helping people with the political/government form of Socialism.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is, liberals like you, who think socialist government welfare programs "HELP" people, when in actuality, they HURT people in the long term.

I believe the government should get out of our lives and let us have the freedom to prosper on our own. I am 51 years old, and one of the most disadvantaged and oppressed minorities in America, and I have never taken one dime of assistance from the government. Not because I am not qualified, not because I couldn't have gotten aid, but because my family instilled values in me, which included not accepting charity. If I didn't earn it, I don't want it. I'm not "entitled" to anything, except the freedoms endowed by my creator. Everything I have, is the result of my own hard work, and I am proud of that. Some may say I am "rich" and by their standards, I probably am. I don't think of myself as wealthy, I am comfortable, my family is taken care of, and I don't have to work at this point in my life, although I still do. I'm not bragging here, I'm not saying I am smarter than others, I think I am an average person with average abilities, but I always had faith in myself and what I could accomplish, and I never sat on my ass waiting for the government to "help" me.
 
Oh Lord help me. Frederick Douglass, my historic crush. Along with everything else he was, an intellectual, a man possessed of physical and emotional bravery that few can match, a freedom fighter, a writer, he was also an active feminist.

And now the cons are claiming him as theirs too huh?

Well, at least I can picture the hearty laugh he would have over it.
 
Darla said:
Oh Lord help me. Frederick Douglass, my historic crush. Along with everything else he was, an intellectual, a man possessed of physical and emotional bravery that few can match, a freedom fighter, a writer, he was also an active feminist.

And now the cons are claiming him as theirs too huh?

Well, at least I can picture the hearty laugh he would have over it.
Click to expand...
I read this and thought the same thing. They also want to lay claim to the first black members of Congress that were the last thing modern day Conservatives, many of whom are former Southern Democrats or the children of southern Democrats that HATED the Reconstruction period and fought to maintain Jim Crow tooth and nail.
 
Darla said:
Oh Lord help me. Frederick Douglass, my historic crush. Along with everything else he was, an intellectual, a man possessed of physical and emotional bravery that few can match, a freedom fighter, a writer, he was also an active feminist.

And now the cons are claiming him as theirs too huh?

Well, at least I can picture the hearty laugh he would have over it.
Click to expand...

“I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. ” —Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

:bleh:
 
Socrtease said:
I read this and thought the same thing. They also want to lay claim to the first black members of Congress that were the last thing modern day Conservatives, many of whom are former Southern Democrats or the children of southern Democrats that HATED the Reconstruction period and fought to maintain Jim Crow tooth and nail.
Click to expand...

:lies:
 
Dixie said:
“I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. ” —Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

:bleh:
Click to expand...

This is only relevant if you maintain that the current republican party and the party to which F. Douglas is referring are ideologically the same.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
“I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. ” —Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

:bleh:
Click to expand...

Do you think that the republican party of the party of progress???
 
Dixie said:
Star Parker (Calif.-37); Ryan Frazier (Colo.-7); Allen West (Fla.-22); Isaac Hayes (Ill.-2); Marvin Scott (Ind.-7); Robert Broadus (Md.-4); Charles Lollar (Md.-5); Bill Marcy (Miss.-2); Michael Faulkner (N.Y.-15); Bill Randall (N.C.-13); Tim Scott (S.C.-1); Charlotte Bergman (Tenn.-9); Stephen Broden (Texas-30); Chuck Smith (Va.-3); and Vince Danet (Vt. Delegate).

Now, in a given election cycle, I would say that is a pretty good representation of "people of color" who are running under the Republican banner. They obviously reject your idea of more socialist welfare programs and increasing the size and scope of government. So, why don't you explain to me, how so many "people of color" seem to be seeing the Republican party in a more favorable light these days? Or maybe you want to do like Bfoon, and divert the topic into a discussion of the war on poverty and Sargent Shriver?
Click to expand...




THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GAUGE YOU PARTIES SUCESS IS IN SECURING THE VOTES OF PEOPLE OF COLOR.



How well is the republican party doing at that?
 
Now Dixie wants to lay claim to some sort of historic brotherhood when he said in a post back in March that NO ONE in the south voted for black members of congress and they were all foisted upon the south. This is rich.
 
evince said:
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GAUGE YOU PARTIES SUCESS IS IN SECURING THE VOTES OF PEOPLE OF COLOR.

How well is the republican party doing at that?
Click to expand...

Well they have 15 of them in contention for congressional seats, calling themselves "Fredrick Douglass Republicans" so that's pretty significant, in my opinion.

And I need to correct you on something. Black people make up about 15% of the country, no party could ever win an election based solely on the black vote. The way a party's success is gauged, is by what happens on November 2nd. We shall see!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top