Black Republicans are running with a confidence

[jillio]

It's because many Liberals/Democrats believe in the myth that there is no such thing as a black Republican, otherwise they'd be called a "sellout." Nice. Or for that matter any ethnicity outside the lily white skin can a person run as a Republican. That's been changing over the years despite the fact that black Americans have a long history in the Republican party despite rumors to what many people believe. They've been called "sellouts," "Uncle Toms," "slave," etc... all those derogatory underpinning in the effort to quash their conservative beliefs and how they share the same concerns on issues that affect us today (and into the future).

Maybe....just maybe for once people will read this article. But I doubt some of you people will. Is it because some of ya'll are still clinging to that myth? I hope not.

Black Conservative 'Tea Party' Supporters Are Catching Hell - BCNN1

Many liberals and Democrats believe no such thing. They have an understanding that political philosophy is not dependent upon skin color. Not so, quite obviously, with many conservatives, given their obsession on the topic.

Keep talking. The bigotry becomes clearer and clearer.

 

[kokonut]

All I am going to say is that FINALLY a "non-caucasian" is a president (its about friggin time).

I just wish it wasn't Obama

Also, when are we going to have a female president?

If you look at the history of women's suffrage - the elected presidents are going in the same order (i.e. all white men voted, then black men got the right to vote, THEN women).

The Washington Post reports that 270 women have filed for candidacies in House and Senate races — and over 100 of them are Republicans.
washingtonpost.com

Sounds like 2010 will be the Year of the Republican Woman.

 

[Jiro]

The Washington Post reports that 270 women have filed for candidacies in House and Senate races — and over 100 of them are Republicans.
washingtonpost.com

Sounds like 2010 will be the Year of the Republican Woman.

Red. Blue. Donkey. Elephant. Republican. Democrat. Man. Woman. Trannie. Straight. Gay. Black. Yellow. White. Tan. Pure. Mixed. They all same to me - crooks!

 

[Foxrac]

Red. Blue. Donkey. Elephant. Republican. Democrat. Man. Woman. Trannie. Straight. Gay. Black. Yellow. White. Tan. Pure. Mixed. They all same to me - crooks!

Agreed.

 

[Jiro]

Bruno Avoids Jail, For Now

ALBANY — Joseph L. Bruno, the former Republican Senate majority leader who reigned for more than a decade as one of the most powerful politicians in New York State, was sentenced to two years on Thursday for concealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments he received from a businessman who sought help from the Legislature.

But Judge Gary L. Sharpe of United States District Court in Albany allowed Mr. Bruno to remain free on bail until the United States Supreme Court reviews the federal statute under which Mr. Bruno was convicted. Mr. Bruno was ordered to pay $280,000 in restitution.

Mr. Bruno’s lawyers had asked Judge Sharpe to consider sentencing the former senator to no jail time at all, arguing that financial restitution and a large fine were punishment enough for an elderly man and Army veteran still beloved in the capital region.

Prosecutors had asked that Mr. Bruno, 81, be sentenced to more than eight years in prison, arguing that he had abused the public trust to enrich himself. That is less than the maximum of 20 years that Mr. Bruno faced after he was convicted on federal corruption charges last December.

The United States Supreme Court is reviewing the statute Mr. Bruno was convicted under, which makes it a crime for officials to deprive constituents of their “intangible right to honest services,” and which some have criticized for being overly broad and vague. If the court ruled the law unconstitutional, Mr. Bruno might not serve time in prison at all.

The sentence followed a four-year investigation and legal saga that began when Mr. Bruno was still in office and pulled back the curtain on the sometimes unsavory ways in which Albany lawmakers mix their official duties and private business.

In a month-long trial last year, prosecutors presented evidence concerning a wide array of business activities Mr. Bruno conducted while Senate leader, including consulting contracts with companies seeking state business or help with regulators, his work with an investment firm seeking pension fund investment from New York unions with business before the Legislature, and investments in thoroughbred racehorses.

Mr. Bruno and his lawyers at times clashed openly with Judge Sharpe, who on one occasion abruptly sent the jury out of the room and chastised Mr. Bruno for speaking out of turn. Those exchanges may become an issue in any appeal that Mr. Bruno might file.

Ultimately, a jury acquitted Mr. Bruno of six counts of honest services fraud. But he was convicted on two counts involving his relationship with Jared E. Abbruzzese, an Albany-area entrepreneur who sought the Senate leader’s help for an array of ventures, from a nanotechnology company seeking state money to telecommunications firms seeking investment capital.

The jurors found that Mr. Bruno had improperly concealed $200,000 in fees paid to the senator in 2004 by consulting firms run by Mr. Abbruzzese, while also violating the law a year later, when Mr. Abbruzzese forgave Mr. Bruno $40,000 in debt and paid him $40,000 for a horse that prosecutors said was almost worthless.

ah lemme guess - he's a RINO, right?

 

[kokonut]

Black Conservatives: The New Face of the GOP - Politics - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

 

[Jiro]

now's a good time for ya'all to buy this tshirt for $19

 

[kokonut]

Again, BS.

MLK Jr. wasn't registered in any parties.

Civil Rights of 1964 is passed by bi-partisan and signed by LBJ - DEMOCRAT!!!

By party
The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[10]

* Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all democrats are associated with KKK but only people caused, not party itself.

You said that I refused because I don't believe this BS so you are HYPOCRITE.

LBJ *had* to sign it. With 73 senators combined that voted for the bill which was already more than 2/3 votes LBJ couldn't have vetoed it knowing that by going back to the Senate it would've easily gotten to the 2/3 votes to over-ride a president's veto.

There was no registering of party affiliation back then for blacks. Blacks couldn't vote! Not until after the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed were they allowed to vote. It'd be mighty stupid to register for a party if you cannot vote.

Democrat party has had a long sordid history of hating blacks and making sure they couldn't participate in voting. So, why on earth would blacks back then in the 1960s wanted to be associated as a "Democrat?"

Let me ask you this. Which president started the first civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House?

Which president in 1957, and then again in 1960, made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections?

Which president, in 1963, proposed a strong civil rights bill using the language taken from the wording of a previous president's original civil rights bill (before it was gutted by the main party (who?)) and from proposals made by the same previous president's civil rights commission?

Did you know that the 1965 Voting Rights Act by Johnson was a resurrection of Eisenhower’s original language before it had been killed by Democrats? Also, did you know that when it was finally approved under President Johnson, there were 18 Senators who opposed the Voting Rights Act with 17 of them being Democrats? In fact, a whopping 97 percent of Republican Senators voted for the Act. Makes you think that Democrats didn't want blacks to vote. What good is it the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they can't vote? It took a 1965 Voting Rights Act to make this happen.

And did you know that the 1965 Voting Rights Act opened opportunities for African-Americans that they had not enjoyed since Republicans had been in power a century before; the laws and policies long enforced by southern Democratic legislatures had finally come to an end. As a result, the number of blacks serving in federal and State legislatures rose from 2 in 1965 to 160 in 1990?

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!] (note: original link doesn't work).

So, yeah, MLK would be a Republican.

 

[Foxrac]

LBJ *had* to sign it. With 73 senators combined that voted for the bill which was already more than 2/3 votes LBJ couldn't have vetoed it knowing that by going back to the Senate it would've easily gotten to the 2/3 votes to over-ride a president's veto.

There was no registering of party affiliation back then for blacks. Blacks couldn't vote! Not until after the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed were they allowed to vote. It'd be mighty stupid to register for a party if you cannot vote.

Democrat party has had a long sordid history of hating blacks and making sure they couldn't participate in voting. So, why on earth would blacks back then in the 1960s wanted to be associated as a "Democrat?"

Let me ask you this. Which president started the first civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House?

Which president in 1957, and then again in 1960, made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections?

Which president, in 1963, proposed a strong civil rights bill using the language taken from the wording of a previous president's original civil rights bill (before it was gutted by the main party (who?)) and from proposals made by the same previous president's civil rights commission?

Did you know that the 1965 Voting Rights Act by Johnson was a resurrection of Eisenhower’s original language before it had been killed by Democrats? Also, did you know that when it was finally approved under President Johnson, there were 18 Senators who opposed the Voting Rights Act with 17 of them being Democrats? In fact, a whopping 97 percent of Republican Senators voted for the Act. Makes you think that Democrats didn't want blacks to vote. What good is it the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they can't vote? It took a 1965 Voting Rights Act to make this happen.

And did you know that the 1965 Voting Rights Act opened opportunities for African-Americans that they had not enjoyed since Republicans had been in power a century before; the laws and policies long enforced by southern Democratic legislatures had finally come to an end. As a result, the number of blacks serving in federal and State legislatures rose from 2 in 1965 to 160 in 1990?

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!] (note: original link doesn't work).

So, yeah, MLK would be a Republican.

Like Jiro said, labeling is OVERRATED and don't matters if yellow, tan, democrat, republican, socialist, rich, poor, soldier, communist, orange, red, blue, king, queen, prince, etc, all of them are crooks so don't matters.

1960's is OVER so time to focus on 2010, it doesn't matters about past, again, don't matters...

 

[kokonut]

Nice evasive move. So, yeah, let's face it, MLK would be a Republican had he had the chance to vote in the first place. It'd be silly to say that MLK would've been a Democrat back then.

 

[Foxrac]

Nice evasive move. So, yeah, let's face it, MLK would be a Republican had he had the chance to vote in the first place. It'd be silly to say that MLK would've been a Democrat back then.

Not all democrats are black haters, it is depends on person.

In 1960's, most southern states were democrat but today, most southern states are republican since republican has been hitchjacked by religious group and party of no in 30 years ago.

I'm not religious, nor is conservative because they are crooks so screw on conservative, even anything...

Time for move on because 1960's is over.

 

[kokonut]

Not all democrats are black haters, it is depends on person.

In 1960's, most southern states were democrat but today, most southern states are republican since republican has been hitchjacked by religious group and party of no in 30 years ago.

I'm not religious, nor is conservative because they are crooks so screw on conservative, even anything...

All one has to do is look at the voting history of Democrats during the 50s and early 60s. It's pretty safe to say that a majority of them didn't like blacks in the first place.

 

[Foxrac]

All one has to do is look at the voting history of Democrats during the 50s and early 60s. It's pretty safe to say that a majority of them didn't like blacks in the first place.

Again, we aren't in 1960's anymore so get over it.

 

[kokonut]

Are you saying that MLK was a "Democrat" back then?

 

[Jiro]

Are you saying that MLK was a "Democrat" back then?

are you saying that MLK was a "Republican" back then?

FACT - MLK was neither.

 

[Foxrac]

are you saying that MLK was a "Republican" back then?

FACT - MLK was neither.

RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT!

I have say so.

 

[kokonut]

RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT!

I have say so.

Again, this isn't about registering to a specific party but about having many of the same principles, values and beliefs of a political party, and that happens to be the Republican party. This is easily understood if one knows the history of both parties - http://suwanneegop.com/NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter-2.pdf. It would be foolish to say that MLK's belief aligned with that of the Democrat party knowing its history.

Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow,
segregation forever." Do you think MLK would agree to this Democrat? That was in 1963.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. Do you think MLK would agree and approve with what President Eisenhower did?

In 1958, Eisenhower established a permanent Civil Rights Commission that had been rejected by prior Democrat presidents, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Do you think MLK welcomed Eisenhower's move on creating this commission?

MLK would be a Republican today.

Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still trying to tarnish his image and diminish his civil rights achievements by claiming that, if Dr. King were alive today, he would embrace the secularist, socialist policies of the Democratic Party. In reality, Dr. King was a Christian who held deeply religious beliefs and was guided by his faith and his Republican Party principles in his struggle to gain equality for blacks. He did not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democrat Party....

 

[Foxrac]

Again, this isn't about registering to a specific party but about having many of the same principles, values and beliefs of a political party, and that happens to be the Republican party. This is easily understood if one knows the history of both parties - http://suwanneegop.com/NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter-2.pdf. It would be foolish to say that MLK's belief aligned with that of the Democrat party knowing its history.

Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow,
segregation forever." Do you think MLK would agree to this Democrat? That was in 1963.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. Do you think MLK would agree and approve with what President Eisenhower did?

In 1958, Eisenhower established a permanent Civil Rights Commission that had been rejected by prior Democrat presidents, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Do you think MLK welcomed Eisenhower's move on creating this commission?

The parties are changing alot so MLK Jr. isn't republican so quit being misled or lies about MLK Jr.

Don't care, 1960's is over so move on.

 

[kokonut]

History is important. Which is why black Republicans are making a come back today recognizing the history and current principles of the conservative/Republican party in stark contrast to the Democrats'.

 

[Foxrac]

History is important. Which is why black Republicans are making a come back today recognizing the history and current principles of the conservative/Republican party in stark contrast to the Democrats'.

BS, MLK Jr. isn't republican and 1960's are very different from today.