Monday, January 25, 2010

Scott Brown won the CHARLES SUMNER seat in Massachusetts.........


I got this email and wanted to share it with you all.........makes me proud:

As the new senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, said: "It's not the Ted Kennedy seat. It's not the Democrat seat. It's the people's seat."
Instead of Ted, let's remember an honorable and courageous Republican senator who once filled the seat to which Scott Brown was elected.
Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) was one of the founders of the Republican Party. Angered by Sumner's denunciations of slavery, a Democrat congressm
an beat him nearly to death on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Sumner responded with a classic denunciation of the Democratic Party for promoting The Barbarism of Slavery.
During the GOP's 1860 election campaign, Senator Sumner gave a speech that speaks to us today:
"If ever there was a moment when every faculty should be bent to the service, and all invigorated by an inspiring zeal, it is now, while the battle between Civilization and Barbarism is still undecided.
Happily, a political party is at hand whose purpose is to combine and direct all generous energies for the salvation of the country. The work must be done, and there is no other organization by which it can be done. A party with such an origin and such a necessity cannot be for a day, or for this election only.
If bad men conspire for slavery, good men must combine for freedom. And when this triumph is won, securing the immediate object of our organization, the Republican Party will not die, but, purified by long contest with slavery, and filled with higher life, it will be lifted to yet other efforts for the good of man.
Others may dwell on the past as secure; but to my mind, under the laws of a beneficent God, the future also is secure, on the single condition that we press forward in the work with heart and soul, forgetting self, turning from all temptations of the hour, and, intent only on the cause."
The day he died, Charles Sumner urged Republicans to stay true to the principles of our Grand Old Party: "My bill, the civil rights bill - don't let it fail." The Republican-controlled 43rd Congress honored his memory by passing the 1875 Civil Rights Act.
Your contacts may be interested in a permalink to this article on the Grand Old Partisan website or Grand Old Partisan blog.
Mr. Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the nation, showing office- holders and candidates and activists how they would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. His Grand Old Partisan blog celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics.
See www.RepublicanBasics.com and Grand Old Partisan for more information.

31 comments:

beamish said...

Delicious.

Freedomnow said...

What a coincidence of fate!

So Michael Meehan was just continuing the long traditions of the Democratic Party.

Makes sense...

Chuck said...

150 years later and the Democratic party is still comprised of racists.

Ducky's here said...

Well that was a long time ago, z and if you know your history you know that the current Republican Party was largely built by the likes of Strom Thurmond when the "Dixiecrats" left the part over civil rights.

So, it is good to inject a little political history here and remind us that politics in America can have a dynamic but to think that the current Republicans are anything like the Massachusetts abolitionists is simply dumb.

Napqueen said...

For The First Time In My Life, I Am Ashamed Of My Party
Yes, I have to say that, For The First Time In My Life, I Am Ashamed Of My Party. I am tired. I am tired of choosing between bad and worse. I am tired of supporting a party that has lost its way.
I never considered Obama’s race relevant. I voted for Obama because I thought that he would be a "GOOD" change for American but I was wrong.

I have been a life long Democrat and I am deeply disappointed with his Healthcare bill and the way that he conducts his business. I am tired of hearing about "Closed Doors" and 2,000 pages of nonsense that no one even read but is voting for it anyway only because of party lines. Any bill that is passed that way is shameful.
There is only one politician in New York that in my opinion makes any sense and he belongs to the republican party and his name is Perter King. No, he is not a Democrat but he's the only one that has ant guts and is willing to stand up to Obama's outrageous policies.
I cam no longer agree with my parties policies and I must speak out and admit that I was wrong in voting for Barack Obama.

I an also tired of hearing that if I do not agree with Obama then you are the racist. Is that what America has come to?
What’s happening in America? What is happening to America? Both the President and Congress are failing to deliver what the people in America want. And for the first time in my life I am sick of it.
I am not ashamed of my country like Michelle Obama said she was, I am ashamed of the man in the White House.

Ducky's here said...

Gee Napqueen, you think it's bad now?
Check out the last insane supreme court ruling.

... now that McCain-Feingold is dead?

Where's his outrage now that the Chinese, the Iranians, the Russians, yep, even Cubans and Mexicans can buy officials?

All they have to do is incorporate in the U.S., say Delaware or Nevada, which have very loose corporation laws, and funnel all the money they want to officials they like.

But the Roberts court was a gift from the fine folks on the American right. We will be Mexico in twenty five years, the damage done by the right (that includes Clinton and Obama) has been absolutely stunning.

beamish said...

Well that was a long time ago, z and if you know your history you know that the current Republican Party was largely built by the likes of Strom Thurmond when the "Dixiecrats" left the part over civil rights.

They left the Democratic Party over civil rights for the party that actually wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Senator Everett Dirksen was a Republican, you idiot.

Not Left, Just Right said...

Good for Scott Brown and congratulations. At the moment, Massachusetts really is a model for America, with the majority of folk firmly seated in the moderate independent aisle. It's not about his policies but about his message: if a little-known Republican can take out the safest of all seats on the planet, a long-held Kennedy seat in MA, that means the American people are truly done with party politics. They are ready - indeed, desperate - for a real change. Obama is not it. No, Scott Brown isn't it either.
The nation is in collapse, and the Democrats are busy spending another trillion on health insurance, and the GOP simply wants to further the same policies with which they destroyed the nation.

What happened last week should be inconsequential powerwise. The GOP only had a one seat majority - at times, not even that, only Cheney's tie-breaking vote - and yet passed massive policy after massive policy. Now, the Democrats still maintain an effective nineteen-vote majority. Nineteen votes. Versus the one vote or none the Republicans had . And yet the GOP wielded more power with that one or none than the Dems likely will with nineteen, simply because they are lost, spineless, and truly without principle.

We, the normal people of America, understand the message of last night. Stop f'ing around with health care. Bring our damn jobs back home. Focus on us putting food on our tables, actually do any of the things with regard to the economy that you promised. Stop borrowing and spending money.
Unfortunately, expect the Dems to do the exact opposite, to take this as a call to stand even less strongly for what they stand for, to do none of the things the nation needs and that they promised and believe in. Free trade won't be touched. The Bush tax cuts will remain. The media rules will not be fixed - and so 24 hours a day, the lies, the endless, hate-spewing lies will continue to echo uncorrected, and the Dems will take the blame for the collapse conservatism has caused.

Ducky's here said...

Then Beamish, what about LBJ's famous quote when he was contemplating signing civil rights legislation, "If we sign this, we've lost the South for generations."

And in fact that happened and human dirt piles like Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond moved over to the Republican party and helped give us the likes of Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America.

So whatever you think of progressive politics, don't be a fool and claim they came from this current crop of Republicans.

Z said...

Beamish, it is, isn't it.
Freedomnow, some coincidence, right!?

Chuck, it's true, isn't it....enabling minorities by rewarding them to not have children, keep the dad out of the family ...
"Dash for Cash" you might call it, now that I think of it. "You go, we'll pay your family"....what WERE they thinking?

And, of course, Affirmative Action, something that drove such a divide, though I think there are aspects that worked.

NapQueen, thanks for coming by, I sure hope we see you again. I'm ashamed of our country for having picked Obama but, mostly, I'm MIGHTILY ashamed of OUR MEDIA which hid truths, never drove some of his lies into the American mind by showing and exaggerating on it as they always do to Republicans....
I'm sorry for you...But, I, too, got caught up in the FIRST BLACK PREIDENT stuff, I couldn't have voted for him for the lies and the policies but I was moved watching the young Blacks at the DNC on nomination night with tears running down their cheeks.
The handlers who put Obama up for election knew that, they knew our schools had weakened us and Hollywood and the media had, too: They knew we were ready for STYLE instead of SUBSTANCE and the style we got's not too smart, sadly.

Ducky "the LIKES of Strom Thurmond"? You mean like Robert KKKK BYRD?..

Z said...

NapQueen, I just read your profile and you're way more liberal than most of us are........
So, you're mostly disappointed that Obama's not BEEN as liberal, I guess!?
But fair enough to see how they've kept the Republicans and media out of negotiations and the sweetheart deals they've done with the unions, Louisiana, Nebraska, etc., to see that's wrong?
Well, if you come back, we should have some good conversations because you can rag on your own party intelligently and not take swipes at the party most of us are a part of.
Thanks..and welcome.
And yes, I've been more and more impressed with Peter King, too.
So, I guess you're a Democrat who understands the terror threat more than some who think American Protestants should be treated in the same way as islamist suicide bombers. Boy, that's a start to enlightenment, welcome.

beamish said...

Then Beamish, what about LBJ's famous quote when he was contemplating signing civil rights legislation, "If we sign this, we've lost the South for generations."

Perhaps LBJ was considering the effect the CRA's defense of the voting rights of blacks would have on Democrat political plantations in the South.

Maybe he couldn't figure out how to keep Southern Democrats on board with him after he and JFK played nuclear chicken with the Southern states during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And in fact that happened and human dirt piles like Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond moved over to the Republican party and helped give us the likes of Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America.

Very few "Dixiecrats" became Republicans. One very prominent Dixiecrat from Georgia, Jimmy Carter, even became President. Carter'll spit in your eye if you tell him you hate Jews more than he does. His leftist credentials are well intact.

Newt Gingrich is not nor ever was a "Dixiecrat."

So whatever you think of progressive politics, don't be a fool and claim they came from this current crop of Republicans.

If you mean to say "leftist" by "progressive," no, I wouldn't ever accuse the Republican Party of being opposed to civil rights. I'd say the Republican Party was pretty much in the good graces of conservative Christian figures like Rev. Martin Luther King even then.

Ducky's here said...

Newt Gingrich is not nor ever was a "Dixiecrat."

--------------------------

Of course he isn't. He's an example of what grew from what was sown by the "Dixiecrats".

beamish said...

Newt Gingrich is not nor ever was a "Dixiecrat."

--------------------------

Of course he isn't. He's an example of what grew from what was sown by the "Dixiecrats".

By who? The tiny, tiny percentage of Dixiecrats that because Republicans, compared to the vast majority of Dixiecrats that remained Democrats?

Yes, Gingrich comes from a Southern state. That's the end of the similarities between Gingrich and Dixiecrats, and the full depth of your analysis.

Pretty flimsy there, Ducky.

Maggie M. Thornton said...

Fantastic Z. Great post! I love the Grand Old Partisan. He is a wealth of information on civil rights, and the Republican party.

@ Ducky: Strom Thurmond was a Democrat during the time of the Civil Rights Acts. He only became a Republican after leaving the Dixicrats. Most Dixicrats went straight back to the Democrat party.

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen pushed for Civil Rights until it ruined his health. He was devoted to it. Without Dirksen, the legislation would not have passed.

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Republican minority party voted in favor 138 to 34. Democrats 152-96. the Republican support was a higher proportion of their numbers than the Democrat vote.

Z, hope you are feeling and doing well.

shoprat said...

The Democratic Party's policy: Keep em poor and dependent on government handouts, and tax the working and middle class to pay for it all. Pretend to be for the little guy while you tax him into poverty to buy the welfare vote That is also why most of America's billionaires are Democrats.

FrogBurger said...

Did you see this+

AIG, NY Fed asked to keep bailout details secret

What a great mafia we have in the WH. The funny thing, they're just continuing what Bush did with the bailout.

Anonymous said...

Ducky, are you suggesting that money wasn't flowing before this decision?

The unions didn't seem to have any trouble contributing $60,000,000 to Obama. I believe the SEIU is an international union. What about them?

The media were excluded in the Campaign Finance Reform Bill. Do you think they aren't Incorporated? Doesn't GE's CEO Immelt, also head NBC, a regular political propaganda machine? I think so.

It was all smoke and mirrors, and the money still flowed. Who are we kidding here?

Groups like the NRA, couldn't put campaign ads out supporting or againt a candidate the last 60 days of a campaign, now they can. It's called freedom of speech.

David Bossie of Citizens United who brought the suit, made a politically oriented movie which referred to Hillary Clinton. It was banned by the FEC.

Funny, it never stopped Michael Moore.

Supreme Court Justice Roberts asked the lawyer fighting this suit, "If Hillary Clinton's name appeared, if this was a book instead of a movie, would you still say it should be banned"? The lawyer said yes.

That says it all and makes it clear. The Supreme Court made the right decision.

The Campaign Finance legislation was unconstitutional. It flew in the face of the 1st amendment. It was obvious from the get-go.

Whether we agee or disagree with someone, they have the right to be heard. Especially political speech. I don't know what it is with the left, that censorship tends to creep into their agenda.

I guess for them the truth hurts too much and if that's the case, maybe they should reconsider what it is they're fighting for.

Pris

nurseaisha said...

As a person who has stood for and helped people of all colors (being a nurse I know we are all the same color inside) to have a voice and a better life, I too am very sad for all of the Black people who did not support a half black person for President, but instead voted for a person who promised them free stuff. He had to buy their vote with the promise of money! This is worse for them than us. They think that this is a victory when it is just more of the same. Every white Democrate from FDR to Kerry promised blacks handouts. Obama just offered more. How is that helping people? How is that a victory? Black people like Alan Keyes, a black man who was the first one to run for president although the press pretended like he was not running, and a person that I worked hard to elect even against my own party and race, know that the only true help is when we help ourselves. I feel very sad for all of the Black people who supported Obama because what they really want is a handout. This is so sad! He out spent McCain 6 to 1 in some states. Buying votes never makes a good elected official. When he cannot deliver on all of his promises to give handouts will all of the Blacks feel so entitled to that money that there will be even more crime in our nation?

I am not ashamed of my country like Michelle Obama is/or was. I am ashamed of the “Americans” who put this very dangerous man in the White House, along with the world’s dumbest man, Joe Biden.
We need to return to the American values and sanity. We cannot continue to sustain ourselves on this path. Who will foot the bill but the working class American of all colors and creeds.
The promise of “free everything” is a big draw to some folks, and Barack Obama’s election bears this out. These folks don’t realize that the promise of free stuff comes with a price – their very freedom.
Soon the sheeple that blindly followed this lying tyrant to Wonderland will see what they have wrought. What fools to sell one’s freedoms so cheaply. They are now all but owned by the government – a government which is known so well for the great efficiency with which it runs social programs. NOT.

What a bunch of tools; a bunch of useful idiots. These people are nothing but the flies on the feces of social degeneration.
Change is a-coming! Barry is in charge now. God help us all.

Z said...

Nurseaisha, may I tell you how proud I am to have your comment here. God bless you and PLEASE come back, we'd like to hear more from you. What a patriot you are and how well you understand what's happening. xxx

Z said...

FrogBurger, ONE QUESTION: Imagine if Republicans were in charge and this request was made!! IMAGINE the MEDIA?! I thought lefties cared about too many secrets, etc etc....they don't notice it NOW?

Pris, such good facts and figures; Leftwingers can't respond to you...
I love that :-)

Shoprat...most billionaires are Dems, the best kept secret of our media AND profs EVER. It's mostly Leftwingers moaning about the Supreme Court Decision on campaign finance as if they get NO money and the mean ol' Republicans reap the benefits..it's hilarious, really! And people BELIEVE THEM.
As to your other points, please read nurseaisha's comment below..it gave me (real) HOPE

Maggie, thanks for coming by.
And thanks for asking about me..you know, it's the hardest time of my whole life, particularly since the stepkids have gone back to Munich. But, one step at a time. The blogging helps fill the time and I love it, and so had Mr. Z...so that's a good thing.
And I'm so glad you enjoyed this information in the post, too. xx

FrogBurger said...

Z, people should have been upset when the bailout bill passed. It's in it: nobody can file a lawsuit against the government, even if funds are stolen, mishandled or misplaced.

I think it doesn't matter anymore who's on top. We now have a new aristocracy who acts as a mob. And the mobster in chief is Big O.

I could deal with some corruption if I had freedom and competent people on top. But no, much of them are clueless idiots who seem to know very little these days.

Z said...

FrogBurger, they're now trying to pass a bill saying all student loans must go DIRECTLY through the gov't! You know why: they'll be able to turn DOWN loans to schools the liberal gov't deems unfit.
Watch for it.

Here in CA, they tried to get preschools subsidized by the gov't about 4 years ago...we were thrilled for our Christian preschool and then decided to turn it down; we knew we couldn't mention FAITH at the school if that happened and even the secular parents DID want their children trained with that goodness... The bill didn't pass, I think, but we were NOT sorry.

This is the same thing on a FAR grander scale....we're doomed.

Anonymous said...

" people should have been upset when the bailout bill passed. It's in it: nobody can file a lawsuit against the government, even if funds are stolen, mishandled or misplaced."

Frogburger, Doesn't this affect our right to redress? Hopefully this will be another case for the Supreme Court. Even the ACLU can't like this.

Pris

Anonymous said...

" they're now trying to pass a bill saying all student loans must go DIRECTLY through the gov't! You know why: they'll be able to turn DOWN loans to schools the liberal gov't deems unfit.
Watch for it."

Z, not only that but, the government will mandate these students to work off their loans at a government job performing public service. Just like good little Obama soldiers.

This is called indentured servitude. Oh yes, the government plantation. Hard to believe that a black man would initiate something like this, but he is.

It's unbelievable that the black community fought so long and hard only to come full circle, and at the hands of a black President no less.

nurseaisha, you have it right. Great comment.

Pris

FrogBurger said...

"Frogburger, Doesn't this affect our right to redress? "

Nope.

I think the people should ask for new legislation for corruption of public officials. It should be considered one of the highest crimes because it undermines democracy. I wouldn't mind a very high price tag, even for the smallest thing.

Otherwise I'll bring the guillotine ;-)

Law and Order Teacher said...

Z,
I teach a unit on Titans of the Senate. Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun were involved in the epic debate prior to the Compromise of 1850. Read Webster's "Seventh of March" speech. The Wilmot Proviso had passed and Webster was arguing with literally his last breaths against slavery and that the northern states compromise. In his words slavery was on the way to a slow death.

A famous statement from him "Let us not be pygmies in a case that calls for men." His speech turned the tide toward compromise and put the Civil War off for another decade. These Titans were fighting a tide and through the force of their abilities they were able to save the union.

Sumner was an abolitionist without much humor and the speech that prompted the ire of Congressman Preston C. Brooks was probably in bad form for the Senate. I don't know that you can make a speech against slavery that was in bad form.

Incidentally, Brooks was reelected by his constituents and was showered by them with gifts of canes, some very expensive, in celebration of his assault. Nothing was really accomplished by the whole incident.

Heroes of the GOP is an interesting concept. As a history guy I do find it hard to really equate the Republican Party of Lincoln with that of today. Jefferson is probably a much better icon for the modern day conservative than Lincoln.

I pose this question: Was the Civil War a legal use of government that was in concert with the US Constitution? Next, Because the states ratified the union, could they then unratify it?

FairWitness said...

Tell me again how Republicans have been painted as racists for the last few decades? Why do we put up with that BS?

beamish said...

I pose this question: Was the Civil War a legal use of government that was in concert with the US Constitution?

Yes. The "Confederacy" very much violated every line of Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.

The Southern states were in insurrection.

Ending slavery, which was legal and Constitutional at the time of thr start of the Civil War, was never the original goal of the "War of Northern Agresssion" ;)

Look at Lincoln's first "Emancipation Proclamation" (there were two issued). It offered the South the chance to keep slavery if they ended their insurrection against the Union by a deadline of January 1st, 1863.

On Janualry 1st, 1863 with the 2nd Emancipation Proclamation he issued, Lincoln made ending slavery the "cause" for the Civil War almost two years after it started. You might say the Union Army was a victim of "mission creep."

Next, Because the states ratified the union, could they then unratify it?

Theoretically, yes, but the "right way" to go about doing it legally is moot considering the Southern launched hostilities at Ft. Sumter would have been preceded by Northern launched hostilities in Florida had not a storm delayed the landing of Marines sent by Lincoln there.

Lincoln spoiled for a fight "to preserve the Union" and pretty much got one.

His war upon the South was so unpopular in the North that by 1862 Lincoln was turning artillery barrages on New York City to break up anti-draft riots. Southern troops were marching through Northern territory with local support with pretty much impunity.

The South was kicking the North's ass in conventional warfare while barefoot and on Northern soil, until the North changed to tactics like raping the women of New Orleans (see Butler's Proclamation) and burning down civilian homes in Atlanta ("Sherman's march to the sea").

"Ending slavery" was a noble outcome of a very ugly, perhaps unnecessary fight over insurrection. Industrializing the South would have eventually ended slavery anyway.

Law and Order Teacher said...

beamish,
Your points are well taken. I enjoyed your allusion to the "War of Northern Aggression." I come down astride of the question I posed concerning the constitutionality of the civil war.

I am of two minds. Lincoln seemed to be all over the map with his reasons for the war, but mainly he stated it was save the union. I think in his mind the war was necessary. It certainly is a question that bears some thought.

I don't disagree with him or shortchange his choice in going to war. As for the unratify question, you are right on when you say the actions of the Confederates made the question moot.

But what if they had withdrawn their consent peacefully, armed and waited for the North to invade? I enjoyed your reply. Thank you.

beamish said...

I had a full semester course on the history of the American Civil War in college. It was one of my favorite classes.

But what if they had withdrawn their consent peacefully, armed and waited for the North to invade?

My theory, the war would have been ended much sooner and more disasterously for the South if they placed themselves on the defensive from the start. The North had to have its numerical superiority spread thin and defending "potential targets"

A big part of the South's military strategy was about embarassing Abraham Lincoln politically. What bigger insult to Washington DC could there be than Southern armies marching virtually unopposed in Pennsylvania?

Abraham Lincoln had to shell "his own people" into obeying conscription orders to fight those Southern armies operating on Union soil without real opposition from the local civilian population.

If General Lee had won at Gettysburg, the Union would have been crushed. Lee would have marched right into Washington DC itself from there.

Then again, in one of those "accidents" of history, General Early was on the banks of the Potomac looking at Washington DC in 1862. He chose not to attack the city because he feared that the Union defenses were too strong, that the North would never leave their capital city undefended and open to siege. Unknown to Early at the time was the fact that the city was left virtually undefended and open to seige and he outnumbered Union forces in Washington DC by like 5 to 1. He could have taken the city easily and had Abraham Lincoln either dead or captured before the North knew what hit them.

In a lot of ways, the South lost the Civil War because they were too nice about it. The South never burned down any Northern cities, but for around 3 to 3 1/2 years, they absolutely could have.