Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged republicans

Racist, Sexist Republicans

This week, a brilliant recounting of facts about race in America was produced by Prager University, and features Carol Swain, from the James Madison Society of Princeton University.

My first encounter with the James Madison Society of Princeton came during a visit to Princeton with my husband to see some of our old “stomping grounds” from our University days.

That encounter, at a seminar featuring Steve Forbes, provided me with the privilege of meeting Professor Robert George and Steve Forbes, and with the opportunity to connect with the rich source of information the James Madison Society of Princeton provides to students and to everyone.
It was during that seminar that I heard Steve Forbes offering hope that the state of the economy created by the Obama administration was still open to rescue.

Now, the James Madison Society and Carol Swain present a 5 minute video (or text below) that will teach you a few things you did not know:

The Video:  Racist, Sexist Republicans


The Text:


Racist. Sexist. Republican.

These words are virtually interchangeable—at least, according to most professors, journalists, and celebrities. So, are they right? Let’s take a look at history.

The Republican Party was created in 1854. The first Republican Party platform, adopted at the party’s first national convention in 1856, promised to defeat, quote, “those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery.”

Those “twin relics” were spreading into the western territories. Republicans feared that as those territories became states, polygamy and slavery might become permanent parts of American life. Polygamy—the marriage of one man to multiple women—devalued women and made them a kind of property. Slavery, of course, did the same to blacks. Literally.

The Democrats were so opposed to the Republicans and their anti-slavery stance that in 1860, just six weeks after the election of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina, a state dominated by Democrats, voted to secede from the union. The Civil War that followed was the bloodiest war in US history. It led to the passage, by Republicans, of the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves; the 14th Amendment, which gave them citizenship; and the 15th Amendment; which gave them the vote.

In 1870, the first black senator and the first black congressman were sworn in—both Republicans. In fact, every black representative in the House until 1935 was a Republican. And every black senator until 1979 was, too. For that matter, the first female member of Congress was a Republican; the first Hispanic governor and senator were Republicans. The first Asian senator? You get the idea.

Republicans also kept their pledge to defend women’s rights. In 1862, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress to put an end to polygamy.

In 1920, after 52 years of Democratic Party opposition, the 19th Amendment was ratified thanks to the Republican Congress, which pressured Democratic President Woodrow Wilson to drop his opposition to women’s rights. In the final tally, only 59 percent of House Democrats and 41 percent of Senate Democrats supported women’s suffrage. That’s compared to 91 percent of House Republicans and 82 percent of Senate Republicans. There certainly was a “war on women”—and it was led by the Democratic Party.

But while Republicans had won a major battle for women’s rights, the fight for blacks’ civil rights had a long way to go. In the 1920s, Republican President Calvin Coolidge declared that the rights of blacks are “just as sacred as those of any other citizen.”

By contrast, when famed sprinter Jesse Owens, a staunch Republican, won four gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, he was snubbed by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt only invited white Olympians to the White House.

Two decades later, it was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who sent the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students into Little Rock’s Central High when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus—a Democrat—refused to honor a court order to integrate the state’s public schools.

The Civil Rights Act of 1960, which outlawed poll taxes and other racist measures meant to keep blacks from voting, was filibustered by 18 Democrats for 125 hours. Not one Republican senator opposed the bill. Its follow-up bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is one of the landmark pieces of legislation in American history. That, too, survived a filibuster by Democrats thanks to overwhelming Republican support.

But, you might be thinking, all that’s in the past. What have Republicans done for women and blacks lately? The answer you’d hear from professors, journalists and celebrities is… “not much.” And this time, they’d be right. They’d be right because the Republican Party treats blacks and women as it treats everyone: as equals.

The Democratic Party never has, and it still doesn’t. Today’s Democrats treat blacks and women as victims who aren’t capable of succeeding on their own.

The truth is, this is just a new kind of contempt.

So, there is a party with a long history of racism and sexism…but it ain’t the Republicans.

I’m Carol Swain, for Prager University.

See Prager UniversityThe best ideas from the best minds focused into 5 minutes.

60% of viewers under 35 years old

70% of viewers changed their minds on an important issue after viewing videos

over 1 billion views

Prager University on You Tube


. a facebook post, lifted with permission from my son Chris:  


Political litmus test


by Chris on Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 6:47am



I got this email forwarded from a friend. It gave me a good chuckle.

A pre-note, though; I RARELY put anything political on facebook, because I don’t want to start fights. Anything mean-spirited (on either side) WILL be deleted. Any complaints about this policy WILL be deleted. I want my facebook to be a friendly, positive, G-rated place, so if you can’t find anything good to say, don’t say anything at all. Discussion or debate on this is fine, but let’s keep it civilized.


With that:


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs; in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Audrey doing?’ She replied, ‘ Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.’

Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA,  and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’ The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!’


The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the Republican party.’ If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I’m all ears.

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

Conservative versus liberal:

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one; if a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat; if a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life; if a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation; a liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.


You and Tom like this.


You know I think it is funny we make these generalizations about liberals and conservatives that are not really true. We say things like Republicans hate minorities and poor people and Liberals want to take all our wealth away and turn us i…nto China. This is what were told at least. The truth is that we all want about the same thing, maybe not always, but mostly. This article is based upon a logical fallacy, false analogy. As a moderate liberal I do not believe in most of these things. The exceptions are these, homosexuals demand legislated respect because if they do not they are found dead on the side of the road and while I believe in higher taxes and better government programs, there is a limit to this. There is a fundamental ideological difference here, I don’t see it helping those are lazy and don’t want to work, but those, because of circumstances out of their control, need help. Let’s drop all of the bullshit generalizations and have a real conversation about ideology.


As a moderate conservative, I agree with most of what you’re saying 🙂

Trust me, I’m NOT trying to say that we should get rid of all government programs, because, just this week, I almost needed to take advantage of one (unemployment)! Howev…er, I think we’d both agree that there ARE some lazy bums who get free rides from the government, and I’d bet both of us would agree that that should stop. The only question is how to do it in a way that doesn’t hurt those in genuine need.

Re: homosexuals, I’d be a little careful there for several reasons. First, you’re saying that we should legislate respect for a minority who is hated by another minority (I’d submit that 99% of people really don’t care either way what someone’s sexual orientation is, as long as they don’t make a public show of it – public shows of heterosexuality can be just as creepy as public shows of homosexuality!). To put it differently, you’re advocating making hatred illegal or legislating morality. Morality has to come from within, not without, because laws that govern what goes on inside someone’s head can’t be enforced.

Second, if you want to truly respect a minority group, and be able to say that they are truly equal, then, at least in law, they should be treated no differently than the majority. They should have no extra perks; nor any penalties.

Third, ok, let’s for a minute say that we can have equal respect for a given minority, while treating them differently than the majority. I still say we shouldn’t do it and here’s why: if we are going to make special programs for African-Americans and homosexuals, then why can’t we have a program for left-handed South African-Lithuanian-Americans (I’m pretty sure I’m the only one out there)? If we start giving extra perks to one group, if we want to be fair, we should give perks to ALL groups, and that would be a herculean task.

I think the only way to ensure respect for all groups is to teach our children, when they meet someone, to make the flash-judgment, “This is a member of Homo sapiens, a human person, just like me. If I cut them, they will bleed like me. If I love them, they will be happy like me. They want the same thing I do; the details may be different, but we both want to be loved and accepted, and we both want the opportunity to succeed.” Until we can get people to view each other like that, there’s no point in trying to legislate respect.

I now yield the soap box 😉



I like your soap box.
Let me know if I can post it on my blog.

Chris: sure

All Posts