Civil Rights: A Look At The History Of The Republican Party

If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. -Malcolm X

Are Republicans racist? With Donald Trump as the face of the Republican party, is there any doubt? The party is without scruples and void of integrity. Their supporters believe white people are superior yet somehow are being persecuted and people of color are to blame.

This racist ideology was not always the case. Both the party makeup and its ideology changed over time. Did you know in the 19th century, the Republican party had little to no support in the South? Or that most black people voted Republicans? A reason we should not get bogged down in semantics, as yesterday’s Democrats are today’s Republicans.

The Republican Party was not always the racist party or the party of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis. The party was founded in 1854 by abolitionists. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican US President,1861-1865, and is best known for the Emancipation Proclamation, an executive order issued on January 1, 1863, freeing slaves. Let’s be clear, the Republican party was not against slavery because they championed social justice or felt slavery morally wrong; no the party’s motives were economic and political. The South had seceded and Lincoln and company wanted to remove their economic advantage of cheap labor. Further, the Republicans wanted the black vote.

In 1793, over a half-century before the Republican Party, the Democratic Party was founded in the South by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. From the beginning, the Democrats distrusted big government and supported slavery. The first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. The Democratic Party was the face of the solid south. The concepts of “state rights” and “traditional” values were code words in support of white supremacy and structural racism.

Following the Civil Rights War and Reconstruction, the South returned to its old ways of exploiting black bodies. By pushing for State rights, the south was able to change the packaging on slavery by creating ‘Jim Crow laws’. These laws employed structural racism to
ensure black people remained at the bottom, serving the needs of white people and working essentially for free. The strategy was ‘Separate but Equal.’ Everyone knew ‘Equal’ was not true. Jim Crow was the law of the South after Reconstruction up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In 1948, the southern democrats separated within the Democratic party and became known as the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats wanted states rights to continue enforcing Jim Crow laws without federal interference.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, signed The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 led the solid south to vote for Barry Goldwater, a Republican. In 1968, the Republicans came up with the Southern Strategy, a strategy to maintain white supremacy by employing structural racism (Structural racism limits access to services and goods based on race). The strategy emphasized, “state rights” and “no integration” to woo southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy worked! The Dixiecrats led by Strom Thurmond officially left the Democratic Party in 1964 and joined the Republican Party. The Southern block of politicians joined the Republican Party because it promised to maintain white supremacy. This was accomplished through laws and policies that targeted or limited access based on race.

Today the Republican party is represented by Trump, who while popular among racists at home and abroad, has come to symbolize racism, lack of integrity, lies, inhumanity, and cruelty.

Does the Republican Party still represent American values?

If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. -Malcolm X



Butterfield, Fox. All God’s Children.

How Republicans and Democrats switched on civil rights

Source of images:  Pinterest

Community Agents: Whose Interests Do They Serve?


Community Agents: Whose Interests Do They Serve?


Designated representatives of communities and patients: Who are these people?  How did these people come to represent large groups of people without being elected by the  members of those groups or without having  basic knowledge (not stereotypes) about those groups?

These so called representatives are paid to sit on boards and make decisions about the best interests of patients and/or communities. Yes, they become the decision makers for patients and communities. They are sometimes called advocates. Do we need them?

Technology could be used to eliminate these positions and allow patients’ own voices to be heard (if that were the intent).  In other words, technology that  enable and empower people to speak their truths can replace these so-called “Agents of the Community.” All programs  for communities should revolve around the communities expressed priorities, not those of  community hospitals or local governments.

Happy Days!
Happy Days!

I once sat in a meeting where community members were angry because they felt left out of the decision-making process. Little did those residents know that across the room on the opposite end was their community representative who made advocated and made decisions on their behalf; yet, these residents never met her or knew of her existence.

How could she make decisions in the best interest of that community? She was not hired to; however; she was expected to vote with those she truly represented:   her employer (BIG GOVERNMENT).

Isn’t this by definition a scam? Deception– let patients believe in representation by patient advocates(BTW, these people are hand selected for their loyalty) paid by hospitals or government. The latter two– hospitals and government– are now one of the same. A great example of this is the State of Massachusetts with Boston Children’s Hospital and Tufts Medical Center.

The solution,  community advocacy and patient advocacy should start in communities. No reason all patient and community voices cannot not be heard, we have the technology. Dispense grants directly to communities through current infrastructures such as faith based organizations, eliminating unnecessary middle people (without knowledge or ties to the communities they represent) and avoiding the trickle down effect to communities of grants  administered to hospitals or local governments.

What do you think? Do we need representatives whose purposes are to bilk taxpayers by facilitating community grants from BIG GOVERNMENT to hospitals? What percentage of this money goes to the community?


Anonymous – Homeless people in US deported to camps


Anonymous – Homeless people in US deported to camps


On Aug. 13, the Columbia City Council approved a plan that effectively makes homelessness illegal in parts of the city. The proposal forces those who sleep outdoors to be sent to a shelter on the outskirts of town. Those who don’t comply will be rounded up and forced to leave or sent to the slammer.

The city is now taking even more steps to criminalize homelessness. On Saturday, it will begin to strictly enforce an old and seldom-used ordinance requiring groups of 25 or more to obtain a permit and pay a hefty fee before congregating in a public park.

But with the new crackdown, Food Not Bombs will have to pay at least $120 per week for the right to feed the homeless, an extremely tall order for a group that’s not even an official 501(c)(3) organization but just serves out of the goodness of its heart.

In fact, stopping groups like Food Not Bombs from serving may be just the point. Since the Columbia City Council approved its exile plan in August, the city has been trying to herd its homeless people to a shelter on the outskirts of town and keep them away from downtown



Preying on the homeless is barbaric yet indicative of our unsympathetic, dispassionate and apathetic culture. South Carolina is one of many southern states pushing the limits, soon the south will be filled with pale faces.

Who lives in South Carolina? Never been there and do not ever want to go there.
However, I wonder about the types of people who live there. Aren’t they ignorant in believing the homeless want to be homeless?

Aren’t they even more ignorant and lacking creativity in their solutions to homelessness and other social problems?

South Carolina’s culture consists of Failure to Listen to ALL Americans.

Full Story:    Anonymous: Homeless people in US deported to camps


NEW FCC Rules Threatens The People’s Internet



 NEW FCC Rules Threatens The People’s Internet

The following articles bring awareness as well as calls for ACTION. The FCC, our government, continues its incestuous relationship with big businesses to the detriment of medium and small businesses and individual users of the internet.

In essence, the new proposed FCC rules will gradually subdue, eventually remove the peoples’ voices by privatizing the internet, giving control of internet content to traditional MEDIA giants. No longer will bloggers or individuals have opportunities to be heard or to protest or increase their readers’ awareness of despiccable business practices, hospital parentectomy and police brutality, unless they are among the 1% Elite and filthy rich. Continue reading “NEW FCC Rules Threatens The People’s Internet”

Supreme Court Authorizes Warrantless Stops & Searches Based on Anonymous Tips


Supreme Court Authorizes Warrantless Stops & Searches Based on Anonymous Tips

Washington, D.C., April 24, 2014- On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that allows police to stop and search a driver based exclusively on an anonymous tip.

In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled that the reliance on an anonymous call is reasonable due to the fact that “a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers.”

“Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving.”

The implications of this ruling will most likely be far reaching. With the current ruling in effect, someone with a vendetta can simply make an anonymous call to 911 and that will be sufficient to pull a person over and search. This ruling is a serious blow to liberty and what was left of the 4th Amendment.


Full Story:

Supreme Court Authorizes Warrantless Stops & Searches Based on Anonymous Tips


There is no justice or recourse when the Supreme Court is on the side of Injustice and against individual liberty and freedom!

The police now have the authority to search without a warrant based on frivolous Anonymous tips. (Tip that will never be confirmed, known or identified and there is no recourse for malicious intent) The police do not need any more tools of abuse. Look at the brutality, and murders committed by police with impunity!

Why hand them the mother of all tools: Carte blanc access to harass innocent Americans without cause and with impunity.

Warrantless Stops and Searches mean more blacks in jail! Was this the intent of the law and the Supreme Court?

How corrupt, cruel and lacking in humanity is this country?

Read more:
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

Delving Beyond Political Correctness Into Social Inequality

Delving Beyond Political Correctness Into Social Inequality

Mic check: Nicci Attfield

Searching for Jack: delving beyond political correctness into social inequality.

by Nicci Attfield

Nicci Attfield
Nicci Attfield

Before I begin, it is probably important to say I don’t believe in rude labels or terms, and I don’t believe in mocking people based on ‘race’ or ‘gender’. If I believed that was okay for a single second, I would leave social justice work immediately and find something else to do. Rude bullying would be a violation of another person’s humanity, and I don’t believe in that.

However, I don’t think it is enough to simply be respectful if we want to properly engage with social justice. Respect may be an important step in the right direction, but it is only a step. Political correctness is just too timid to get into the true heart of the work

Full Story:  Delving Beyond Political Correctness Into Social Inequality