The Second Amendment-3: God’s View
What I personally find earth-shaking when pondering today’s culture wars is the nearly complete propensity of Christians--‘NOT’ to use God’s Word in their interactions with liberals!! Because the liberal view is so often anti-God, anti-Christ, and anti-Bible, it is no surprise their opinions completely ignore God and His Word (Bible). However, while the conservative view ‘normally’ originates from General Revelation1--which refers to the laws of God created in nature—tragically, even conservatives do not often enough use the Bible (Special Revelation)—to support their contentions!
But why should the Word of God be used in the culture wars? Because the Bible possesses inherent power(Heb4:12)!! Because the Word of God sets the captive free(Jn8:31,32)!! Because the entrance of God’s Word brings light (Ps119:30)!!! In other words, the Bible directly answers every problem or offers the principle to determine God’s will in every situation!
So, what does the Bible contend regarding the “Second Amendment’s” right to possess a firearm?
First, the Bible declares that God created ‘hell’(Mat25:41) which is His righteous judgment of death on sin. Therefore, it was God Who created the potential of spiritual death on sin (Gen2:17; Deut30:19), imposing its penalty (Rom6:28) on those who reject Him(2Thes1:7-9). In other words, the idea of death as a penalty began with God.
Second, because man is a sinner (Rom3:23), we do not wait long before we see the manifestation of this ‘death’ in the Biblical text! For example, the consequence of ‘death’ that occurred when Adam and Eve sinned (Rom5:12) included their instantaneous spiritual death and subsequent physical death, climaxing in the spiritual and physical death of all mankind (Rom5:18-19)!!
Third, within the spiritual death resulting from Adam’s sin, the ‘sin nature’ of man was conceived, meaning mankind is born in sin(Ps51:5). In that ‘sin nature’ of man resides violence and destruction toward all God’s creation, especially mankind, as evidenced by the first recorded murder of Abel by Cain—within one generation!!!
However, as we learned in part two of this tidbit series on the Second Amendment, when the God who cannot die created all life, He created inherent to that life the power of self-preservation, from which organically flows self-defense. Very simply, all living things possess the desire to continue their lives!
For example, regarding mankind we see God’s provision for protection in: 1.God’s creation of angels sent to protect man(Ps34:7; Ps91:11;Dan12:1); 2.the wisdom of God provided to protect our souls (Ps1:1-4; 3Jn2); and 3.the mandate to “take dominion” over the earth(Gen1:26-28), from which mankind creates not only clothing and shelter for protection but also physical weapons derived from the earth to defend himself from other men and dangerous animals.
Let’s move forward now to other Biblical passages (Special Revelation) that teach God’s view on weapons.
The Bible’s Protection mandate:
1.God promise to be mankind’s protector (Gen15:1; Ps91:4)
More Scripture on Self-Defense*
2.Rom12:18- “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men”. This verse is the ultimate self-defense Biblical principle for existing with men with sin natures(Ps37:32).
3.Pro25:26- “A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.” Instead of defending against evil, this passage speaks to appeasement of evil; of not recognizing evil; or not standing against evil.
The Bible’s assumption of arms, or the direct mention of arms
The Bible’s war mandate
4.Exodus 15:3: God is called a “man of war”. Wars are fought with weapons to defend self or others.
5.One of God’s immutable names is ‘The Lord of Hosts’ which means “The Lord of armies” (Ps24:10; Ps46:7). This teaches Jesus leads armies into battle. Armies possess arms.
6.Michael the archangel is known in Christendom as the angel of war (Dan10:13,21;12:1). Of course, in war lives are taken by the opposition.
Furthermore, when Michael fights the dragon, the war occurs ‘in heaven’(Rev12:7). Because weapons are required to fight wars, does this imply there are weapons in heaven? Obviously, the answer is YES! Yet, if this is true, from where did the weapons originate considering that he is fighting in heaven? Again, does heaven allow weapons?
7.Is37:35,36. The angel of the Lord (probably Michael) killed 185,000 soldiers in one night, did he use a weapon to take that many lives? I ask again, if the archangel used a weapon, from where did he get it? And why would he need a weapon in heaven, in God’s very presence?
8.Gen14:1-16. Four kings abducted Lot, and Abraham warred against them with 318 men from his own household. Genesis 14:14 in the KJV says Abraham “armed” the men. This means he possessed the arms in order to arm them. In addition, all Bible versions declare his men were “trained”; but trained by whom, and for what? The obvious answer is trained for war or trained to kill…using a weapon.
Second, Abraham is called the “father of faith” (Rom4:11,12; Gal3:6). If he is the father of faith, and faith includes passivism, how is Gen14:1-16 to be interpreted?
Jesus’ Own Words
9.Matthew 10:34- “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” This passage declares a purpose for Jesus coming to the earth… yet, it also clearly and irrefutably advocates in behalf of arms! I repeat, Jesus instructed us to use arms!!!
10.Luke 22:36- “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one!” Jesus commands the purchase of a sword, which means--like the Second Amendment—the Bible teaches arms ownership!!
11.John 18:10 “Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus” Matt26:51-52; Mk14:47). Peter was armed with a sword in the presence of Jesus!
12.Luke 22:49 – “When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” In other words, the word “they” refers to either ‘some’, or ‘all’ of Jesus’ disciples. In other words, not only Peter but either ‘some’ or ‘all’ of Jesus’ disciples carried swords!!!
Two final points:
i.The disciples/apostles carried swords, not knives. Although I love the movie series “Chosen”, however they depict the apostles’ carrying knives. On the contrary, the Greek word in Luke 22:49 means “sword”.
ii.However, the most amazing part of the Jn18:10 and Lu22:49 passages is that the Apostles were in a prayer meeting! I repeat, the apostles brought their swords to Jesus’ prayer meeting!!!
In conclusion, all of the scripture and points of this 3-part tidbit series are secondary to ‘spiritual warfare’ (Eph6:10-18) God commands us to first wage against Satan (1Pet5:8;2Cor10:4) and his emissaries, using the Word of God in our mouths(Heb4:12)!
My ultimate objective in the 3 Tidbits of this series is to help unveil the Biblical roots of our Founder’s Second Amendment!!
* I highly recommend reading about the Bombardier Beetle. It possesses one of the most amazing systems of self-defense in all of God’s creation—possessing mind-boggling complexity. Yet, it was God who created this insect with a natural self-defense---that emanates from self-preservation!!
"Any human anywhere will blossom in a hundred unexpected talents and capacities simply by being given the opportunity to do so." -Doris Lessing
There are at least two sources of revelation from God to man. First, Special Revelation is God revealing Himself through the Bible. Second, General Revelation is God revealing Himself in/through His creation(Rom1:20).
Let’s begin with the creation, i.e.General Revelation, to elucidate the law of nature: self-defense. When God created all things (Col1:16), He created from Himself. In short, this means because God has a nature, when He created, He created all things with a ‘nature’! Because God behaves according to His nature, we can determine how God behaves by studying His nature. Furthermore, we can also learn about God through studying the behavior of His creation. In other words, all beings or things, animate or inanimate, behave according to their God-determined natures—beginning with God Himself (2Timothy 2:13).
For example, a dog’s nature creates the following four behaviors:
Even out of the sight of a dog, when a bark is heard, one does not think of an alligator, or a crab, or an insect. As a matter of fact, a dog’s bark is so natural and unique that one can determine not only the presence of a dog, but the size of the dog. When small dogs bark, we call it a ‘yap’. When large dogs bark, they possess a deep, guttural, powerful sound that is often recognizable from great distances. In many cases, a dog barks because it encounters a person or animal it is uncertain of! Therefore, a dog barks to warn or protect…which is the dog’s nature!
Regarding protection, there are at least two laws of nature created inside all of God’s creation:
One-time my friend had a pet parakeet bird and it escaped its cage and flew up to the corner of the room. I reached up and grabbed it with my bare hand before it could fly away…and it bit me! After I screamed in pain and let go, it flew out of the room so I could never touch it again. This is an example of self-preservation; then self-defense; then self-preservation again. When it escaped it was preserving itself; when it bit me it was defending itself; when it flew out of the room it was preserving itself…again!!!
But where did the dog and the parakeet learn such behavior? Who taught them? On the contrary, both laws of self-preservation and self-defense are written into the genes of all living things. Therefore, the dog and the parakeet did not have to be trained--God created them from His own nature of protection(Ps34:7; Ps91)!
Because humans are created by the same God, the laws of self-preservation and self-defense are also found written into our natures. For example, nearly every child encounters a ‘bully’ at some point in their school experience. Their first reaction is to flee. However, every person intuitively understands a ‘bully’ feeds on his victim’s fear. Therefore, it is common knowledge that the only way to stop a bully is for him/her to encounter some sort of penalty in response to his/her ‘bullying’. Three methods of restraining bullying are:
1.Appealing to either the parents of the bully, or school authorities
to intervene and impose a penalty on the bully; or
2.Have a friend or another person intercede1 in behalf of the victim;
3.The victim rises up and imposes some sort of pain on the bully2!
All three responses, with special emphasis on point 3--is self-defense!
Remember, from boxing, to wrestling, to Karate, to Taekwondo, up to and including war, self-defense has been, and is still taught all over the world in every nation and people group…which is why it is written on the human heart!
Christians have even created “Just War” principles to govern what is moral and immoral in war!! But why? Because both self-preservation and self-defense are laws written on the genes of every human to combat the sin nature of man!
Therefore, because of their Christian worldview, the Framers understood that human nature is evil:
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:
who can know it?” -Jer 17:9(KJV)
“…but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin” (NAS)
“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good
dwells…” (NKJV) -Rom7:14
Therefore, the Bill of Rights establishes within the authority of civil law, the rights of its citizens to the protections of: self-preservation, and second: self-defense!! I repeat, these are innate and God-created in mankind!!3 Therefore, the Second Amendment--which is an individual right--is the natural end of the two laws of nature written on every human heart. Therefore, the possession of a fire-arm is ‘THE’ greatest natural deterrent to the evil of the human sin nature! Even a young, 250-pound muscled former line-backer will ‘press-the-pause-button’ on a 100 pound, very feminine woman in high heels…at even the thought of her gun! Why? Two reasons:
Thank-God for our Founding Fathers!!!
Amen..and so be it!!!!
1.Confronting the bully with either words or physically
2.Normally, a bully is not discouraged by the mere words of his/her victim. This confrontation is normally physical.
3.Although the police, which are government representatives, play an indispensable and irreplaceable role in discouraging man’s sin nature, if someone breaks into your house, there is no injunction by God to wait for the police to arrive!!! Why? Every human has a God-given right to self-preservation! Can any man honestly say, if a man breaks into his 7-year old’s daughter’s room at night, and she screams “Daddy help!”, that that man will respond, “Ok…everyone calm down, while I call the police!”?!?!?!?! No father (or mother) on earth, nor in history, would react that way!
You will either stand for Jesus, or you will stand for all He died to repudiate. -George Barna
?First, I would like lay-out the reasons for the Second Amendment. And second, in the tidbit(s) that follow, I will offer what God thinks about gun rights.
The Second Amendment declares: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
There 2 interpretations of this amendment:
a.the Second Amendment is an individual right
b.the Second Amendment is a collective, protecting the right of a
state militia, but not individuals to possess arms
In this first tidbit, I argue the logic for the right of individuals to own guns. Following are six reasons I believe the Founding Fathers believed in individual gun rights.
1.The Framers understood this to apply to individuals.
2.The Bill of Rights was created to secure individual rights. The Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights, therefore the context of the Second Amendment is irrefutable evidence that it was designed to apply to individuals. Why then would the Framers place the Second Amendment in the context of the Bill of Rights—which I repeat, was designed to secure individual rights--if they intended to restrict its application to the government?
3.Allow me to return to the First Amendment for a moment, where the Bill of Rights records the ‘Freedom of Press’. Does this right apply only to the government? In other words, if the right to a ‘Freedom of the Press’ applies only to the government, then commentators on TitTok, Youtube, Facebook, and podcasts; not to mention NBC, CBS, New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc., are all violating the law! Why? Because none of these people or news organizations are government approved or sponsored! On the contrary, just as the ‘Freedom of the Press’ is an individual right, so also the Second Amendment upholds the right to own a gun, and is a government-sanctioned individual right.
4.The phrase “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, means just what it says, people are allowed to “keep and bear” arms. Second, are we to reject the clear definition of the word “keep” declaring that the “people” cannot “keep” their arms? If so, how are the words “people” and “keep” defined to support this position? In other words, does the word “people” not mean 'people'? Or, does the word “keep” not mean 'keep'? Third, does the word “militia” redefine the word “people”, in order for the meaning of the second amendment to apply only to a government-sponsored “militia”? Fourth, the word “bear” appears in the phrase along with the word “keep”, therefore, the second amendment declares that the “people” are allowed to both: a.keep AND b.bear arms. Obviously, the word “keep” is not synonymous with “bear”, or the phrase is willfully redundant. From the context of the second amendment the words are defined:
ii.“bear”=reveal/unveil at any moment necessary. Or, to carry; to
convey; to support and remove from place to place1
Now insert these simple definitions into the phrase: “right of the people to keep and bear arms”!
5.What kind of tortured logic would allow the Framers to argue that the words “keep and bear” arms:
i.applies only to a militia, and not to the people in spite of the word “people” appearing
directly in the amendment?
ii.applies only when the militia is fighting government-approved battles. In other words,
the militia must turn in their guns after a battle concludes.
iii.does not apply to “ the people”, which must include ‘citizens’; when the militia is
comprised of citizens.
6.If those who were called militia were in fact the army (government military forces), then they would be called an army, and not a militia. Second, if it is true that the militia is not a government military force, and if it is true that only the militia could “keep and bear” arms, why would not every man join the “militia” in order to have the right to “keep and bear” their arms after they fought in a battle? Third, if one believes the word “militia” applies to a government-trained and supplied military, why did the Founding Fathers not use the word “army”(navy, Marines, etc), which is the word most often used to identify a government-run military?
The point is, while it is not completely clear why the word “militia” was used in the Second Amendment, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is it could not have been the Framer's intent to apply the word “militia”2 to a military of the government because the word “army” would have been used instead. Remember, when the second amendment was debated and passed(1789), the U.S. had just won the war with Britain---which means the Framers understood the definition of an army! Point 7 further establishes point 6.
7.Although the Second Amendment is controversial because of the inclusion of the word “militia, points 2, 4, 5, 6, along with 7, are strong arguments that the word “militia” must apply to something other than an “army”, which I repeat, is normally used to identify government-sponsored troops. Why? Very simply, the word “militia” appears in the context of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which are rights directed to individuals!!!!
Why did the Framers advocate for individuals to possess guns?
i.To hunt for food
ii.Individual Self-defense. (Which I will cover in another tidbit)
iii.Foreign invasion. This should be an obvious reason because the War for Independence (Revolutionary War) was fought by American farmers, or ordinary people--not well-trained or experienced soldiers--who simply decided to fight for their freedom from Britain.
iv.Government tyranny.3 The Framers wanted individuals to be armed in case the government began attacking its own people.
2.In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison confirms that the Framers believed there was a difference between an ‘army’ and a ‘militia’: “This proportion would not yield in the United States an army or more than 25 or 30,000 men. To them would be opposed a militia amounting to near a half-million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia of such circumstance could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against British arms will be most inclined to deny the impossibility of it.”
Notice that James Madison perfectly established the point that the militia were non-government individuals. He not only used the word “militia”, but he used the word “citizens” to make the point that they had rights: “a militia amounting to near a half-million of citizens with arms in their hands”, which means Madison believed the second amendment applied to the militia as individuals!!!!
2.The Framers believed it was possible for the government to attack the people. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 46: “Let a regular army fully equal to the resources of the country be formed, and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government, still it would not be going too far to say that the state government with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger.” “repel” what danger? The military danger the federal government poses to its people, i.e.regular citizens!
The Democratic Party completely rejects the Judeo/Christian ethic (which is an euphemism for Christianity)!! They accomplish this through:
1.actively supporting every moral evil in our contemporary
2.advertise/market those evils to the culture
For example, a short list of the Democrat Party’s sins includes:
2.Racism, including antisemitism
4.Gay Marriage. This constitutes the destruction of marriage!
6.Every ‘other’ sexual perversion. Adultery, fornication, LBGTQii, etc.
8.Hatred of America, which means to reject:
a.God’s call upon this nation
b.Founding documents, such as the Constitution, Declaration,
For example, rejecting free speech, freedom of religion, and promoting gun control
10.Communism/Socialism/Fascism. Or, any and all autocratic governments.
I am literally shocked how any Christian can support the Democrat Party because of its agenda of promotion support for these and other blatant sins. Their support for abortion alone, the murder (1Jn3:15) of children in the womb, should be enough to inspire any/all Christians to reject the Democrat Party!!! Remember, Jesus died for sin!!! Therefore, a holy God cannot involve Himself with even one sin, let alone the above list citing their concentration of abject evil!
To be short, the root reason for such a concentration of sin is liberalism. While the Republican Party is up to 30% liberal, the Democrat party has adopted liberalism hook, line, and sinker, which I repeat, is THE primary reason Democrats have fallen into such debauchery!
The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary definition of ‘liberal’ helps elucidate my point. The word ‘liberal’ has 9 entries. For example, the first two are:
1.Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.
2.Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.
However, the ninth entry is:
9.Licentious; free to excess.
According to Dictionary.com, the word “licentious” means:
1.sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
2.unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
The word “lasciviousness” is mentioned in Galatians 5:19 as a work of the flesh, which means sin.
Selah!!! Please stop and rethink the definitions of licentious and lascivious!!!
Moving forward. To further help make my point, the Bible contrasts sin with leaven.1 In other words, the nature of leaven in bread makes bread grow and fill out. Therefore, sin is exactly like leaven meaning whenever and wherever sin is permitted, it grows, fills, dominates, controls, and corrupts…ultimately ending with destruction!!!
To tie all this up, the idea of ‘freedom’ is included in the definition of ‘liberal’. And, as Webster’s dictionary so eloquently describes, freedom is good, because God created freedom from His nature, Whom is good and does good2! Subsequently, God gave freedom to mankind as a gift. For example, in Genesis Chapter One God created everything including the Garden of Eden, and then told Adam he is free to eat of every tree in the Garden…except one: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! Therefore, although mankind is free, he/she does not have the freedom to sin.
At the point of ‘freedom and sin’ is ‘THE’ problem for liberalism. For example, historically, in the 1960s, Classical Liberals3 argued morally and persuasively for the Civil Rights movement, i.e. the freedom of Black people, which obviously is good and moral. However, because they did not use the Judeo-Christian ethic (God’s absolute law) as their standard for determining good and evil, they had no way of understanding the consequence of man’s sin nature on freedom’s nature. In other words, they did not understand that freedom is not absolute, but had to be limited because of man’s sinful nature!!!
Therefore, the contemporary culture’s license to sin, or the idea that man is free to do whatever he wants, was imperceptible as a tiny seed in historical Classical Liberalism! In other words, although the Classical Liberalism of the past possessed the Biblical principles of freedom, and the freedom of speech---over time, an uncontrolled freedom descends to its natural state: the pseudo-freedom of licentiousness or lasciviousness, climaxing in sexual activity without restraint!!!
Hence…the contemporary Democrat Party’s licentiousness/lasciviousness, which includes sexual license!!!!
In conclusion, God never gave humanity unlimited freedom! Even before Adam sinned, God told him you may eat of every true…except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which forever condemns unlimited human freedom!4 On the contrary, Satan has used the Democrat Party to deceive people into believing the lie: “You are free to do whatever you want!” As far as I am aware, the only commandment of the Satanic Bible is: “Do what thou wilst!” For this reason, the Democrat Party has adopted, and now champions every cultural evil contrary to the Word of God and should be rejected by every Christian!!!
1.The Bible uses leaven in a good and evil context, but the principle remains the same: leaven grows and fills wherever its used(good- Mat13:33; evil-Ex23:18; good and evil-1Cor5:6-8).
3.Today’s ‘Classical Liberals’ attempt to separate themselves from the free-for-all contemporary liberals by calling them: “Leftists”. However, this doesn’t work because Classical Liberals use the same liberalism, which is without limits apart from God’s word!!! I repeat, sin is present in humanity, therefore man’s freedom demands a limit!
4. Even God cannot break His word! (Num23:19)
I don’t agree with everything the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) acvocates, but they do keep accurate records on anti-semitism. They call ‘Democrat’ Louis Farrakhan:
Following is their evidence3:
“Why isn’t the white man a native anywhere? You’re not a native Palestinian, no you’re not. You didn’t originate there. But if you did, then you’re the real Semitic people. But the Ashkenazi European, he has no connection at all to the Holy Land. None! So in a showdown prove to us that you are Semitic. Let’s go on with it, it’s our time now!” — Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 11/18/18
“Do you know that many of us who go to Hollywood seeking a chance, we have to submit to anal sex and all kids of debauchery, and they give you a little part? The couch where you have to sit, it’s called the ‘casting couch.’ That’s Jewish power.” — Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 5/27/18
“You and I are going to have to learn to distinguish between the righteous Jew and the Satanic Jews who have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.” — Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 5/27/18
“But when you’ve got revelation that came to you from God through all these prophets, then that’s your test because if you use God’s truth that makes you wiser than others and use it to promote evil when you should be promoting good, then you’re no longer a Jew. And that’s why the scripture says, “I will make those who say they are Jews,” this is Revelation 2 and 9, ‘Who say they are Jews, but they are not, I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan.’ — Interview on WCGI 107.5 Chicago, 5/11/18
“When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
“Satan is going down. Farrakhan has pulled the cover of the eyes of the Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through. You good Jews better separate because the satanic ones will take you to hell with them because that’s where they are headed.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
“I don’t care what they put on me. The government is my enemy, the powerful Jews are my enemy.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
“Members of the Jewish community, who owned a lot of plantations, please don’t get angry and upset because this is real history, you put us back on the plantation as share croppers and began riding down on us, and if any of us escaped the plantation many of the Irish that were coming over, they call them the paddy wagon, they would come after us and bring us back to the plantation; those were hard days, hard days.”
— Speech at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC, 11/11/17
“But there are righteous Jews, good Jews, Jews that want to practice the teachings of the prophets, but then there are others who don’t wish to practice, and it is they that hated Reverend [Jesse] Jackson’s desire to be President.” — Speech at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC, 11/11/17
“Those who call themselves ‘Jews,” who are not really Jews, but are in fact Satan: You should learn to call them by their real name, ‘Satan;’ you are coming face-to-face with Satan, the Arch Deceiver, the enemy of God and the enemy of the Righteous.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), 2/26/17
“To my Jewish friends, I shouldn’t use the word ‘friends’ so lightly, you have been a great and master deceiver, but God is going to pull the covers all off of you.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), 2/26/17
In prosperity our friends know us; in adversity we know our friends.
-JOHN CHURTON COLLINS (1848–1908) Critic and educator
Let’s continue our investigation into the anti-Semitism of the Democrat Party. How about Al Sharpton. First, there have been many articles written by the media—both conservative and liberal-- calling Sharpton: a kingmaker. What they refer to is his newfound influence on ‘who’ attains Democrat leadership. For example, following are four examples of media acknowledging his kingmaking:
This is important because Sharpton is a long-time anti-semite. For example, in 1991, he heavily participated in inciting the Crown Heights riot, which one Jewish leader called: “the most serious pogrom in the history of this nation.”1
Riots broke out after an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi ran over two Black children on a sidewalk in his station wagon. Seven-year-old Gavin Cato was killed instantly, and his 7-year-old cousin Angela Cato was seriously injured but survived. The Jewish Rabbi was not indicted. Within hours of the tragedy, another Jewish Rabbi, who had nothing to do with the incident, was stabbed to death by a Black teen. Sharpton poured gas on the inferno with remarks like: “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkas on their heads and come over to my house”.2
2.The Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Four years later in 1995, Sharpton was at it again. A large Black Pentecostal church named ‘United House of Prayer’ was a major landlord in Harlem. One of their lessees was Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned clothing store that operated there for 40 years. Because of the economic situation at that time, the church raised the rent on Freddy’s store. In turn, Freddy raised the rent on a black-owned business to whom they sub-let. Sharpton saw this as Jewish racism!
“The Sharpton-led protests began in August and came to a head on the morning of Friday, December 8th when Roland James Smith, Jr., who had been part of the Sharpton’s protests, walked into Freddy’s Fashion Mart, pulled out a gun, ordered all the black customers to leave, spilled paint thinner on several bins of clothing and set them on fire–a fire that resulted in killing 7 people plus Smith.”3
Of course, Sharpton denied any culpability, but his radio shows had been recorded. Both Sharpton and one of his hosts, Morris Powell, continually made inflammatory statements:
“We are going to see that this cracker suffers” 4 -Morris Powell
“Reverend Sharpton is on it. We have made contact with these crackers. We don’t expect a lot out of them. They haven’t seen how we feel about anything yet. We are going to show them.”4
They think they gonna drive this man out of business, they gotta be out of their minds. We are not gonna stand idly by and let a Jewish person come in Black Harlem and methodically drive black people out of business up and down 125th Street. If we stand for that, we’ll stand for anything. Which we’ve been doing. 4 -Morris Powell
“I want to make it clear to the radio audience and to you here that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street.5 -Al Sharpton
“I am saying to the Jewish community and specifically to Abraham Foxman, that you come out and utter a word, accusatory remark against Reverend Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Donna Wilson, Reverend Shields, or Gary Byrd, we will boycott you and nobody loves money any more than the Jewish people. Thank you.”6 - Norman “Granddad” Reide
3.Let’s move on to Marc Lamont Hill. Mr. Hill was a former CNN commentator, and Temple University professor, and now has his own tv show called ‘Black News Tonight’. First, he was fired by ultra-liberal CNN after making the following anti-semitic statements at the UN:
"Contrary to western mythology, black resistance to American apartheid did not come purely through Gandhi and non-violence," Hill said. "Rather, slave revolts, self-defense, and tactics otherwise divergent from Dr. King or Mahatma Gandhi were equally important to preserving safety and attaining freedom."
"If we are in true solidarity, we must allow the Palestinian people the same range of opportunity and political possibility. We must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend themselves," Hill continued. "We must prioritize peace, but we must not romanticize or fetishize it. We must advocate and promote non-violence at every opportunity, but cannot endorse narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing."7
On August 13, 2014, he tweeted, “I’m not anti-Israel. And I’ve fought, and continue to fight, antisemitism my entire life. But I oppose the occupation of Gaza.” How does his opposition to Gaza occupation make him anti-semitic? Two points:
i.Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, an entire 9 years
before Hill made the statement.
ii.From 2005 through 2014, before Hill made his infamous
statement, Palestinians fired over 11,000 rockets into Israel. Five
million Israelis live under the threat of daily bombs!!!
Of course, his acolytes will argue that he simply made a miscue. On the contrary, remember he was a CNN representative at the U.N. when he spoke his anti-Semitic statements in 2018!! Is it possible that he knew nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If so, then CNN is to blame for sending him to represent them. However, considering he is a professor and activist, one must assume he knew exactly what he was saying!!
Next, Professor Hill is a BDS supporter: Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Israel. The leader of BDS, Omar Barghouti, and a good friend of Dr. Hill declared, “We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support euthanasia.” Moreover, Dr. Hill refers to Mr. Barghouti as “admirably devoted to the work of creating peace and justice for the vulnerable.”8
Finally, on May 12, 2017, when asked if he’d ever been to Israel he tweeted, “Nope. Saw it on t.v. though. I’m sure if I went, I’d do a 180 and agree with you.”9 The only problem is that in 2015 he took a selfie10 with his group demonstrating in Nazareth, where he said, “We came here to Palestine to stand in love and revolutionary struggle with our brothers and sisters”.11 Why would he lie? In his opinion, he did not lie, because he believes that Nazareth is Palestinian land!!!
Finally, here is Dr. Hill with Louis Farrakhan, “learning, listening and laughing”.12 However, Minister Farrakhan has the infamous privilege of being called the “leading anti-Semite” in America13
I remember my parents continually warning me to be very aware of whom I befriend. They believed the old proverb that in paraphrase decries, “you become like whom you hang around” or “you are your friends”. However, the Bible says it best:
“…bad company corrupts good character.” -1Cor15:33 NLT
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the
scornful.” -Ps1:1 KJV
In short, this photo with Minister Farrakhan presents Dr. Hill as such a ‘nice’, ‘smiling’ anti-Semite!
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WF6p73PVuo&t=726s -11:35
7.https://www.dailywire.com/news/38814/watch-cnns-hill-appears-call-elimination-israel-ryan-saavedra utm_medium=email&utm_content=112918 news&utm_campaign=position5
13. https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/nation-islam-0; &
We have been called to follow the leader and not follow the follower. When we choose to follow the follower, we compare our lives to the person in front of us or to the person behind us. However, the people around us are not our standard of success. Jesus is.
-James O Davis
Why I Am NOT A Democrat-12: Anti-semitism
First, a correction. In my last tidbit, I wrote there were 3 primary forms of racism in America. That was a mistake, an error of omission, and I apologize. There are four primary forms of racism: 1.Anti-semitism; 2.White racism; 3.Black racism; 4.Liberal racism.
There is an overabundance of evidence that the Democrat party is “anti-semitic”. It’s hard even to know where to begin. So, I will just begin with Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Although the KKK is primarily famous for lynching Blacks and Republican Whites, they actually hated three groups: Blacks, Jews, and Catholics. Before I understood that anti-Semitism is the foundation for racism, I never understood why the KKK hated Jews.
Sin cannot be understood apart from the Sovereign God. Because God is the ‘ONLY’, i.e.the Sovereign definer of good and evil, the sin of racism cannot be understood without understanding God’s word. In short, the KKK hates the Jews, for the very same reason that every person or group has hated the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And, what is that reason? Because God has a ‘special’ calling upon Israel/the Jew.
There are literally hundreds of Old and New Testament verses, so I will just…choose two:
5.Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep
my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto
me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6.And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an
holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak
unto the children of Israel. -Ex.19:5-6
Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. -Rom.9:4
From the moment God made this unique covenant with Abraham(Gen12:1-3), Satan committed himself to the destruction of Israel/the Jew. Hence, anti-Semitism and its’ descendents i.e.contemporary racism--are all Satanic. Therefore, because the KKK is motivated by racial hatred, and thereby by Satan—they had to include the Jews on their hit list! As a matter of fact, the KKK could not be authentically racist without first hating the Jew!
So, what does this have to do with the Democrats? Everything!
First, I have already irrefutably proven that the Democrat party created the KKK!!!1* See 8/1/22, ‘Why I Am NOT A Democrat-6: The Ku Klux Klan’. Therefore, it only logically follows that Democrats would be anti-Semitic!
Second, let’s look at just a few anti-Semitic statements made by Democrats:
Rep. Rashida Tlaib2*
“There’s kind of a calming feeling I always tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports.” 1*
Is it possible to place the words “calming effect” and the “Holocaust” in the same sentence? I think not!
Even while running for president in 1984 was caught on tape referring to Jews with the slur: Hymie. And, calling New York City: "Hymietown." His exact statement was: “That’s all Hymie wants to talk about is Israel. Every time you do to Hymietown that’s all they want to talk about.”
“Slavs, Latin and Hebrew immigrants(Jews) are human weeds…a dread weight of human waste. Blacks, soldiers, and Jews area menace to the race.”
“When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
“The Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out: turning men into women, and women into men.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., a critic of American support of Israel served two stints in Congress from 1997 to 2003 and then from 2005 to 2007. Her father, a state representative from Atlanta, was asked on television days before his daughter was defeated in a 2002 primary, why she faced such intense opposition. He said: "That ain't nothing. Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J. E. W. S."
Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar tweeted:
2012-"Israel has hypnotized the world"
2018- "Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews."
2019- “about the Benjamins baby” -suggesting the Jews are buying political support
And the list goes on…
1*Further irrefutable proof that the Democrats created the KKK is by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in his multi-volume set: ‘The History of the American People’, where he boldly declared:
“The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation—until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.”
(There are many Farrakhan anti-semite quotes on this site.)
God put something AMAZING inside of you. If you DON’T know what it is, it’s time to find it. If you DO know what it is, it’s time to use it. If you ARE using it, it’s time to be GRATEFUL that God is utilizing you.
In the last couple of tidbits, I debunked the myth that Democrats and Republicans switched parties. This is necessary because Democrats use this myth to deny their own racism while simultaneously accusing Republicans of racism. As a matter of fact, if you listen to Democrats speak, the only tactic they use is to name-call Republicans “Racists”! What is most tragic is that so many Blacks have swallowed this lie—and it is the primary reason that a large percentage of Blacks still support the Democrat Party!!
How do Democrats respond to my accusations of their past racism? They simply ask the question: “But…how are Democrats racist today?” This very question is a smoke-screen to remove the spotlight from their voluminous historic racism!
However, let’s take a shot at answering this disingenuous question anyway. So, what is my take on Democrat racism today? I answer with the following two points:
Sociologist Kenneth Stamp cites a list of five ways the typical ‘Slave Plantation’ of the antebellum South is similar to today’s contemporary inner city Black ghettoes. Stamp’s list is important because the inner cities of America are primarily run by Democrats. In other words, if Stamp’s list is true, we should find some of the same things in today’s Democrat-run cities as we found on the Democrat-run Southern Plantations before Reconstruction (1866-1876).
Stamp cites five areas of similarities:
i.Housing. In general, on plantations, slaves lived in shanties which were one-room dilapidated shacks with dirt floors, with or without windows. Many slaves and slave families slept head-to-foot in those shanties using only hay as bedding separating them from the cold ground.
Similarly, most of America’s inner cities are governed by Democrats, and even more tragically Black Democrats. Of course, Democrat Socialist policies have resulted in contemporary inner cities being filled with dilapidated public housing project high-rise apartments such as in Chicago’s Cabrini Green, the Robert Taylor, or Ida B. Wells homes. That’s in addition to the many substandard broken-down homes which are often without consistent running water, heat, or electricity.
ii.Family. The slave families were often broken-up as either children or parents were sold-off for any reason. In contrast, Black Washington Post writer Joy Jones quotes Black historian Eugene Genovese in ‘Roll, Jordan, Roll’ in her piece ‘Marriage is for White People’*:
"A slave in Georgia prevailed on his master to sell him to Jamaica so that he could find his wife, despite warnings that his chances of finding her on so large an island were remote. . . . Another slave in Virginia chopped his left hand off with a hatchet to prevent being sold away from his son."
In the very next sentence, Jones makes a most startling statement:
“I was stunned to learn that a black child was more likely to grow up living with both parents during slavery days than he or she is today, according to sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin.”
Tragically, this statement is not so startling when we realize that 73% of Black children are born out of wedlock.
iii.Violence. With the beatings and whippings that regularly occurred on slave plantations, it is obvious that violence was a norm. Yet, the violence of the Black inner cities is in some ways worse, when considering the nearly daily assaults, shootings, and murders perpetrated by Black gangs on other Blacks!
On the slave plantations, many times the slave owner provided for their slaves. Complete and total provision by their owners had to often occur because of the long hours worked by slaves. For example, Fredrick Douglas declared, “Master Thomas told me, If I would be happy, I must lay out no plans for the future. He said…he would take care of me…and taught me to depend solely upon him for happiness.”
Similarly, with the Socialist policies of the Democrat party, such as ‘Equity’, which means equal outcomes; under their rule, the government has replaced God as the provider for Black people.
v.Nihilism. Dictionary.com defines nihilism: “an extreme form of skepticism; the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth; nothingness or nonexistence.” The phrase ‘chattel slavery’ means generational slavery. Therefore, seeing themselves locked into slavery like their ancestors, and then extending beyond their children going forward, an American slave often had no foreseeable hope of freedom!
If there was a glimmer of hope at all, it was often a hope for death. So too, in contemporary Black ghettoes, there is sheer established hopelessness and inevitability over one’s present circumstances. Therefore, the same historic nihilism that existed in slavery past often still exists in today’s Democrat-run cities.
My second point is Liberal Racism. There are three primary types of racism in contemporary America: White racism; Black racism; and Liberal Racism. This does not mean racism does not apply to any others. On the contrary because racism is a sin of pride it can be committed by any person or group(Jms2:1,9).
While the dictionary definition uses other words, it agrees with the Biblical definition declaring a racist as one who believes one race is either superior or inferior to another race based on skin color. It is important to note that the traditional view of racism does not require hatred—just racial discrimination! However, because racial discrimination is a sin of pride, it organically devolves into hatred; for sin leads to sin, ultimately ending with death/murder (Rom6:23; 1Jn3:15).
So, Black Racism agrees with the traditional dictionary definition; for example, Black Muslims, Black Panthers, Black Israelites, and Black Nationalists, etc. Moreover, White Racism also agrees with the dictionary definition, for example, the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Skin Heads, etc. In short, however, Liberal Racism intentionally complicates and confuses the real definition of racism to make itself palatable to the masses. For example, Liberal Racism has three faces, all relative to a particular situation. First, Liberal Racism rejects Black Racism, declaring Blacks cannot be racist because they are without power. Second, Liberal Racism accepts the traditional dictionary definition of White racism—but ONLY when it benefits its’ agenda. And third, Liberal Racism redefines White racism to mean Whiteness, in spite of the Whiteness of its adherents; while simultaneously professing a pseudo-love for Blacks for their Blackness---in order to either gain or retain political power.
Because Democrats are liberal, nearly all have adopted Liberal Racism or parts thereof. For this reason, Democrats can reject their own racism by simply applying the ‘relativism’ of their Liberal Racism!!! When they are called-out for racism, they simply reveal another face to justify themselves.
Using the above definition of Liberal Racism, you will find expressions of it in the news almost daily. Allow me two quick examples that immediately come to mind.
First, the term ‘White Privilege’! How can it be rational for White people to call-out other White people for their White Privilege? If White people have White Privilege, due to their Whiteness--which liberals define as White Racism--then all Whites should be cancelled for their Whiteness, i.e.their White Racism, i.e.their White Supremacy…especially those Whites who accuse Whites of White Privilege!!!
How do liberals maneuver around this unresolvable dilemma? They simply declare, Whites must “acknowledge” their White privilege! However, after acknowledging their White Privilege, Whites are still White! Therefore, using their own logic, because Whiteness equals racism, they still have their racism!!!
How do liberals maneuver around this second unresolvable dilemma? They simply declare they mean “White systems”—not white skin color. First, systems have no color, systems are simply a means to bring order to facilitate a thing. Second, as a more practical example, liberals desire to replace the racist ‘system’ of Capitalism, supposedly created by the White man Adam Smith, with Communism/Socialism/Fascism. 50% of college students now prefer Socialism to Capitalism. There is one problem: Karl Marx the creator of Communism, with its branches of Socialism and Fascism…was White!! Once again, following liberal logic, in order to apply a system, we must first determine if it was created by a White person!
Second, Nick Sandman, a teenager from Covington Catholic School, was nationally defamed for literally ‘standing-up’, i.e. not moving! A Native American named Nathan Phillips walked up to Nick while he was waiting for a bus after attending a Pro-Life rally in Washington D.C. As the Indian beat a drum in his face, liberal America declared Nick committed a “facecrime”. What is a “facecrime”?** Liberals simply invented it as part of redefining White racism to mean whatever they desire for that moment, in order to convict a White person of White Supremacy!!
These are just two examples of Liberal Racism!
**By the way, Nick has won tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits!!!
“Every man is entitled to be valued by his best moments.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson
In part 1 of “But…the Democrat Party Changed”, I ended the tidbit by refuting the Democrat’s false claim that the two parties switched positions regarding race: Racist Democrats became the now racist Republicans, and the former non-racist Republicans became the present-day non-racist Democrats.
However, what I failed to address is the contemporary Democrat evidence for their “the parties switched’ claim. And, what is that evidence? Republican President Richard Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’. Democrats falsely claim that beginning with Nixon’s Presidential campaign, his ‘Southern Strategy’ helped to turn the South from Democrat to Republican. Furthermore, they claim that Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ hit its peak during Republican President Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, and reelection in 1984. In other words, according to contemporary Democrats, the ‘Southern Strategy’ was the blueprint, and its fruit was the South turning Republican during Ronald Reagan’s election victories.
The question now needing an explanation is because it was true that the South almost completely turned Republican during Ronald Reagan’s presidency (1980, 1984) did that turn begin with Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ (1968, 1972)? And, how do I refute this?
First, please re-read the final point of part 1, which uses the ‘Cub-White Sox’ analogy rejecting the idea that rivals can switch places. Second, in order for the “Big Switch” to be true beginning in 1968 and climaxing in 1980, Democrats unwittingly have admitted that prior to at least 1968 they were responsible for the massive White Supremacy that existed dating back to the Civil War!!! This means they indict themselves as the party that created slavery; KKK; lynchings; Jim Crow; and opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which ended slavery, established Civil Rights, and Voting rights for Blacks--- all of which happened prior to 1968!
Furthermore, their self-indictment includes the fact that they were still the party of racism when the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed! In other words, by placing a date on the ‘Southern Strategy’ of 1968, Democrats must fess up to their racism prior to, and through 1968!
Second, how did the South become Republican after Nixon & Reagan? This is a more difficult answer, not because it cannot be answered, but because it is more complex, i.e.having many variables.
The first Democrat lie needing exposure regarding Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ is that to win the South Democrats claim Nixon used racist “dog whistles”; by which they mean he spoke in some kind of code to the White Supremacists in the South! First, historian, apologist, and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza eloquently responds,
“Is it plausible that Nixon figured out how to communicate with Deep
South racists in a secret language? Do Deep South bigots, like dogs,
have some kind of heightened awareness of racial messages --
messages that are somehow indecipherable to the media and the
rest of the country?”1*
Moreover, in 1968, George Wallace ran for President as a pro-segregationist and won five deep south states where White supremacy was most prevalent: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. He won 9,901,118 votes out of a possible nationwide total of 73,199,998 2*, which amounted to 13.53% of the total votes cast in the presidential election. Wallace, although he was a life-long Democrat, officially ran as the presidential candidate for the American Independent party3*. Hubert Humphrey was the official Democrat candidate.
My point is that the folly of this Democrat accusation is revealed in the fact that Nixon did not even win the deep south where Wallace was the candidate of choice with White racists! If Nixon did in fact send “dog whistles”, the Southern White Democrat racists were obviously not listening!!!
‘Another’ of the many variables D’Souza cites to refute the Democrat’s view of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ is that the Democrat South began to shift to Republicans under President Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, as he won two landslide victories over Democrat Adlai Stevenson II. Republican Dwight Eisenhower lost 9 total states, all southern states in 1952; and in 1956 he lost 7 total states, once again, all southern states. Of course, the states he lost were the most racist southern states!! This is significant because Republican Eisenhower won the presidency before the start of the Civil Rights movement of the mid-1960s. This is further evidence that the South was ‘beginning’ its move away from its Democrat deep-seated racism--as they turned to the Republican Party4* ….which ironically, and according to their own Democrat propaganda, establishes that they had not yet switched!
Yet another variable D’Souza cites that Democrats use as evidence to blame Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ instead indicts Democrat Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.
First, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt won the presidency in 1932 which was at the apex of Democrat White Supremacy and lynchings in the South. I’m sorry to report that in spite of the horrible conditions imposed on Blacks at this time by White Democrat racism, Blacks still gave the Democrat party 35% of their vote in 1932, and an astonishing 75% in 19365*. How could this happen? As a whole, Blacks were still extremely poor and were still unable to overcome the systemic White Democrat racism embedded in Southern culture. So, when FDR offered money to Blacks through his ‘New Deal’, to survive, Blacks turned to the party of their lynchings! In short, FDR’s ‘New Deal’ handed poor Blacks free money for their votes!
Now, on to Democrat President LBJ’s contribution. D’Souza cites multiple biographers who offer irrefutable evidence that LBJ was a monstrous racist! Why then would LBJ sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Because he had a plan to finish the work started by FDR’s ‘New Deal’, that would both continue and further establish the movement of Blacks turning their support and loyalty to the Democrat party! And, what was that deal? LBJ’s ‘Great Society’, which in effect, repeated FDR’s ‘New Deal’…paying Blacks for their allegiance to the Democrat party!!!
Confirming LBJ’s plan for Black people, as well as his racism, on page 33 of “Inside The White House”, LBJ’s biographer Ronald Kessler, writes:
“Johnson, like other presidents, would reveal his true motivation in asides that the press never picked up. During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple. “I’ll have them niggers voting Democrat for two hundred years.” “That was the reason he was pushing the bill, said MacMillian, who was present during the conversation. “Not because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democrat party. He was phony from the word go.”6*
In other words, out of near complete destitution and desperation imposed upon them by the Democrat Party, Blacks did not switch from Republicans to present-day Democrats because the Democrats were in favor of racial equality, but because they were paid!!!
It is completely disingenuous at best, and a ‘Big Lie’ at worst for Democrats to declare that the parties switched places because the South is now Republican! In reality, even though the South is presently primarily Republican does not mean racism is the reason!!! When White Democrat Supremacy was dominating the South, literally thousands of Blacks and Whites were beat-up and lynched to keep the Democrat party in power---which is irrefragable racism!!
However, to this day, the election percentages between a Democrat or a Republican victory in many of the South’s most historically rabid racist states reveal that both Democrats and Republicans strongly compete for those spots!! For example, as far back as 2008, in America’s historically most racist states, Black former President Barack Obama won 38.7% in his loss in Alabama; he won 47% of the vote in his loss in Georgia; he won 43% in his loss in Mississippi; he won 39.9% in losing Louisiana; and he won 44.9% in a loss in South Carolina.7*
And, in 2012, Obama won 38.4% of the vote in his loss in Alabama; he won 45.5% in his loss in Georgia; he won 43.8% in his loss in Mississippi; he won 39.9% in his loss in Louisiana, and he won 44.1% in his loss in South Carolina.8*
My point is, in the Southern states where racism was most rampant, Democrat Black President Obama still lost by only a few percentage points in 2008 and 2012. This reveals that the election percentage results cannot be used to determine racism! Why? Because regardless of who now wins an election in the South—either Democrat or Republican--the election percentages are almost always close!9*
Therefore, because Republicans are winning the South now, is no evidence that Republicans are racist, any more than the Democrats are racist if they win the South in 2024!! On the contrary, for Democrats to pin racism on the Republicans because they are now winning the South simply demonstrates the Democrat party’s abject hypocrisy!! My point is, in today’s America racism cannot be determined by the South voting either Democrat or Republican!
In conclusion, how about considering another more reasonable answer? Of course, the idea that the two parties switched places on race is completely absurd for all the aforementioned reasons! On the contrary, however, a much better explanation is that as the South has become less racist, it has become less Democrat. Remember, it was the Republicans who freed the slaves, fought for Civil Rights, and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments during the Reconstruction period…and thereafter!
2*This number was not the total of the southern votes, but of the national votes.
3*This does not mean the Democrats in those states were not racist. Remember, it was the
Democrat Party that passed the segregation policy in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.
4*Death of a Nation, Dinesh D’Souza, St. Martin’s Press, New York, N.Y., pgs 179-242.
5* Death of a Nation, Dinesh D’Souza, St. Martin’s Press, New York, N.Y., pg 201
9*See the other elections for president, the races are nearly always close in voting percentages going back to the Civil War!!! https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2008
You will either stand for Jesus, or you will stand for all He died to repudiate. -George Barna
When challenged about the ‘irrefutable’ & ‘undeniable’ ‘racist’ history of the Democrat Party, contemporary Democrats, especially Black Democrats, have one or more of four responses:
1.They ignore you and change the subject.
2.They begin to cite problems with the Republican party.
3.They declare, “I’ve been a Democrat all my life”
4.“But…the Democrat Party has changed!”
Let’s address these responses.
1.They ignore you and change the subject. This is the most benign response by contemporary Democrats. When the racist history of Democrats is interjected into a conversation, they will either express shock because they are unaware of their party’s racist past or they will simply declare: “I don’t want to talk about it!” and walk away.
However, after Donald Trump was elected president and Democrats became increasingly more angry, this first response has become rare.
2.They begin to cite problems with the Republican party. First, this response assumes the person who cites problems with the Democrat party is a Republican. On the contrary, a person who cites problems with the Democrat party does not have to be a Republican. Because our nation usually votes either Democrat or Republican, does not mean only two political parties exist. There are many people who have problems with Democrat policy positions who are not Republicans.
Second, citing problems with the Republican party does not answer arguments against the Democrat party’s racist past—this is simply rationalization to ‘save face’ from having to deal with the authentic Democrat racist history.
Third, to cite problems with ‘both’ parties does not give license to ignore the problems of the Democrat party, declaring: “Well, both parties have problems!” This is emotional thinking, not rational thinking.
Fourth, ironically, one problem Democrats cite against the Republicans is: “Republicans are racist!” I find this response one of the most incredible statements made against Republicans by a Democrat. This is your typical ‘pot-calling-the-kettle-black’ response! The Democrat Party did not invent racism, but as I have shown in this series, they surely perfected it!
Fifth, certainly the Republican Party also has problems because political parties are comprised of imperfect people—but that is not the point! The question is about the Democrat Party’s past racism! And, those who are presently the loudest, i.e.Democrats; who hypocritically declare everything and everyone racist but themselves, are ‘THE’ very people who have been, and still are…the most racist!
3.“I’ve been a Democrat all my life!” First, ‘tradition’ is no excuse for retaining allegiance to a political party that has for decades been unashamed and is still unashamed of its racist past (which by the way, is the reason they still deny it). Second, I have Black relatives who are from Alabama, formerly known for its rabid racism. When I point out the hypocrisy of their Democrat allegiance, completely devoid of any reason or rationale, they often use this very statement on me:“I’ve been a Democrat all my life!”,
This answer reminds me of the Pharisees of whom Jesus said, “…and so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition” (Mat15:6-NLT). In other words, if ‘tradition’ is so powerful that it can nullify the Word of God, it can also keep a Black person bound to ‘THE’ political party who recently lynched their Alabama relatives!
4.“But…the Democrat Party has changed!” Although I have found this sentiment most often used by ‘educated’ Democrats, i.e.people with degrees, I find this statement laughable but typical of people who attempt to justify their ignorance at best or hypocrisy at worst!
First, because Democrats are serious when making the above statement, one must laugh to keep from crying at its utter absurdity! Second, they use one statement as evidence for the “Democrats-have-changed” myth: “the two parties switched places”. In other words, they argue: the past racist Democrats became today’s Republican racists, and the past Republicans who, by the way, fought for equality of race, have now become the contemporary ‘equality-seeking’ Democrats!!!
When I hear the “two-parties-switched-places” argument, I simply inquire: “how could this have happened?” or “Please give me the logistics of such a move?” Of course, these are rhetorical questions, so I just answer my own questions by using what I call my: ‘Cubs-White Sox’ analogy.
Nearly every person in the Chicago area who follows sports is aware of the ‘Cubs-White Sox’ rivalry; which has been a staple of the city for decades!! Not only do the Cubs and Sox hate each other, their fans are often worse!
First, the Cubs-Sox rivalry is not even in the same universe as the animosity between Democrats and Republicans. I know of no fan murdered in the heat of the oft Cubs-Sox fan arguments, but history is replete with literally thousands of Republicans murdered by Democrats!!!! Yet, the Cubs-Sox rivalry presents a perfect analogy for my point; how? Because of the nature of rivalries…any rivalry…it is nearly impossible for rivals to ever switch sides; and the rivalry between the Cubs and Sox fans certainly follows suit! However, where my Cubs-Sox analogy shines brightest is that, if a Cubs fan does switch to the Sox, he is welcomed with open arms as an ‘Enlightened One’! However, because that Cubs fan switches to the Sox, does not mean any Sox fan is going to switch to the Cubs! That is ‘more than’ absurd!
This is a perfect analogy of the absurdity of Democrats and Republicans switching places! If it were true that the ‘past racist Democrats became the contemporary Republicans’, why on ‘God’s-green-earth’ would the slavery-ending Republicans, who were lynched by Democrats, ever switch to the very party who lynched them?!?!!?
May God have mercy!
Like virtues in the culture, repentance has been cancelled in the church.