Steinberg should end “racist” name-calling and instead debate CRT

By Rubashov

Once again, Alan Steinberg proves just how selective and fickle memory can be. He appears to forget just how the gubernatorial election of 1981 was won. A scandal repeated in 1993, after Whitman consultant Ed Rollins bragged about spending $500,000 in “street money” to suppress black voter turnout.

If he needs reminding, perhaps Steinberg should place a call to Ray Lesniak, the Democratic Party’s State Chairman in 1993, the man who called for a U.S. Justice Department investigation into Whitman’s victory. If memory serves, we recall Steinberg playing a role in that victory – one for which he was rewarded with a fat patronage job. For someone intent on discovering racism everywhere he casts his eye, perhaps he should look in the mirror?

Steinberg’s memory is so bad that it appears impervious to basic search engines. He writes:

“The reason for the emergence of this GOP racist message is explained in the landmark book, How Democracies Die, by Harvard political science professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, enacted through the efforts of a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, signaled that the Democrats constituted the party of civil rights change, while the Republican Party was the constituency for voters wishing to maintain the racial status quo. This began the political ideological polarization of America, with African-American and white civil rights supporters flocking to the Democratic Party, while white supporters of the racist status quo, largely Southerners, enlisted in the GOP.”

Wow, what a dickhead.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (S. 1564) was introduced by both party leaders of the U.S. Senate – Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield for the Democrats, and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen for the Republicans. On May 26, 1965, the Senate passed the bill by a 77–19 vote (Democrats 47–16, Republicans 30–2). The House of Representatives approved this conference report version of the bill on August 3, by a 328–74 vote (Democrats 217–54, Republicans 111–20), and the Senate passed it on August 4 by a 79–18 vote (Democrats 49–17, Republicans 30–1). On August 6, President Johnson signed the Act into law.

Only a dickhead like Alan Steinberg could read some racist “signal” in such a bi-partisan undertaking.

The great W.E.B. Du Bois understood the difference between racialists (like Steinberg) and racists. The old racialist South – which often boiled over into absolute overt racism – was built on the bitterness and spite that followed the Civil War. Its political institution was the Democratic Party. The hated Republicans – of whatever skin color – were universally referred to as “black Republicans”. Alan doesn’t know. He wasn’t there. (In fact, a contributor to this website was on the receiving end of that epithet and was actually called a “black Republican”.)

As the memory of the Civil War and Reconstruction faded, so too did the Democratic Party’s hold on Southern voters. Southern Democrats started voting for populist “conservative” Republicans long before Richard Nixon. In 1928, for example, Herbert Hoover won Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Florida.

On the other hand, Democrats like George Corley Wallace kept getting elected in Alabama well into the 1980s. When they left the stage, they took the old politics of overt racialism with them. It was Wallace, now a born-again Christian, who said in 1982: “Those days are over, and they ought to be over.” But for race-hustlers like Alan Steinberg they’re never over.

People like Alan Steinberg act as if the population of the South remained constant. In fact, there were huge migrations from the South and to the South. It was these migrations that ended the hegemony of the racialist Democratic Party in the South and allowed a more garden-variety conservative Republicanism (hawkish, pro-business, anti-tax & spend) to establish itself.

Take Huntsville, Alabama. It was just one city dramatically changed in the 1960s by the work-migration to it (in this case, by thousands of engineers and scientists because of NASA and the space program). Huntsville’s population jumped from 16,437 in 1950 to 139,282 in 1970. Steinberg would have us believe they were all institutional racists who migrated to Huntsville to be racist together. Like we said, what a dickhead!

No “Southern Strategy” could be pertinent for more than an election cycle. In fact, the strategy was particular to the 1968 presidential election, in which Nixon faced TWO Democrats – Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Governor George Wallace). Between them, they split the South. Humphrey won Texas. Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Nixon took Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Oklahoma. Nixon won the election with 43% of the vote.

In 1952, the year Richard Nixon was elected Vice President, Texas had 22 members of Congress. Today, it has 37. Georgia had 10. It now has 14. Florida had 8. It now has 28. South Carolina had 6. It now has 7. Did the pre-existing populations have massive numbers of children (as Steinberg seems to think)… or did people move there from someplace else? Here’s a hint: In 1952, New York had 43 congressmen, Pennsylvania had 30, New Jersey had 14. Today those numbers are 26, 17, and 12.

Steinberg thuggishly attempts to shutdown debate about a subject that voters have democratically demanded a voice in discussing – Critical Race Theory or CRT. Steinberg makes the ludicrous claim that CRT hasn’t made its way down the educational chain and insists that it is something only discussed in law schools. In fact, CRT is no different than any other “popular” theory that starts out in academia and then makes its way into everyday life. From “Manifest Destiny” to Freud this has been the way and CRT is no different. A watered-down version of it is now being force-fed to children in classrooms across America. Parents got wind of it courtesy of pandemic-related school lockdowns and accompanying distance-learning. They are not going to forget it just because some handjob insists that they do.

We have a better suggestion. Perhaps Alan Steinberg would wish to debate his position on CRT in venues around New Jersey? We would help facilitate this. He simply needs to let us know.

Alan Steinberg's hero
and
a MODEL for all Republicans
(so says Steinberg)

Did New Jersey Governor Whitman, who stopped and frisked a 17-year-old for a photo op, ruin his life?

Help Us Teach The Truth To Defend 'Christian America'

Several weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece entitled "The ferocious last gasps of the religion of Christian America". It was widely printed in other newspapers, including the Press of Atlantic City. The piece is based on the false premise that America in the past embraced a “corrupted” version of Christianity that promoted intolerance, violence, and “white, male, heterosexual dominance.” It falsely claims that this corrupted “American Christianity” caused the violence at the Capitol and is an evil and dangerous force that is not dying fast enough.

There is nothing new about that ignorant and hateful description of American Christianity. Those lies have been embedded in Hollywood and TV entertainment, and the curriculum of most colleges and public schools (including Stockton University, and Mainland and Egg Harbor Township high schools) since the 1960s.

Click here to read full article as posted in "American Thinker", a national blog. Then please do more than use the buttons at the bottom to "share" it on Facebook and Twitter. Please also copy and paste the link into the "comments" windows of as many "mainstream" online news sites as you can. Thanks!

"It is very similar to the ignorant and hateful descriptions of “International Jewry” that saturated the newspapers, movies, and schools of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. In fact, the The Press of Atlantic City made that similarity even more striking. Along with a reprint of that “Christian America” piece, it ran a cartoon depicting a Christian preacher as a grotesque, less than human creature exactly as Jews were depicted in “Stürmer” cartoons. Der Stürmer (The Stormtrooper) was a popular Nazi newspaper in the 1930s. . . "

Most older Americans like me know that these are lies.  That is because we, and often our parents and grandparents, grew up and lived in that Christian America.

For roughly 350 years, that Christian America was by far the greatest country in the world. We knew it was never perfect. We are humans, not angels. All races, nations, and people have done evil in the past, when judged by today’s standards. However, America did far less evil and far more good than most. Christian America was much quicker to recognize and correct injustice.

One of the biggest problems of Christian America was too many people trying to get in. Not too many people trying to get out.

I am Jewish. However, I and most Americans until the 1960s were immersed in the culture of Christian America since childhood. I am very grateful that we were.

I recited the Lords’ Prayer and heard Bible readings every morning in the Atlantic City public schools. I sang “We Gather Together” in assemblies before Thanksgiving, and carols before Christmas.

Like most Americans, I was also taught Christian values in public school. I assumed “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you” were American values. And they were. These fundamental Christian beliefs guided America since our founding.

Slavery ended in most of Christian Europe a thousand years ago. However, it was widespread and normal in the rest of the world. It expanded with Islamic, not Christian, conquests in Africa and Asia. Slaves bought there were tragically brought to parts of America in the 1600s.

However, most Christians found slavery in America offensive. They fought hard to end it long before the Civil War. 
Please click here for complete article.  Then please do more than share it.  Please copy and paste it in the "comments" windows of as many "mainstream" new sites as you can.  Thanks!

The Reparations Racket is an exercise in vote-buying

Most of those alive today are descendants of slaves. Wikipedia defines slavery as follows:

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property. A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalized, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations. However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Slavery existed in many cultures, dating back to early human civilizations. A person could become enslaved from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase.

Slavery was legal in most societies at some time in the past, but is now outlawed in all recognized countries. The last country to officially abolish slavery was Mauritania in 1981. Nevertheless, there are an estimated 40.3 million people worldwide subject to some form of modern slavery. The most common form of modern slave trade is commonly referred to as human trafficking. In other areas, slavery (or unfree labour) continues through practices such as debt bondage, the most widespread form of slavery today, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.

Race doesn’t enter in to it, as all manner of human beings, all colors and creeds, have enslaved their fellow man since the beginning of time. If it is, as some suggest, our original sin (and it is high on the list of sins) then it is a sin shared by all mankind, one that in our humility we must all account for.

The Bible tells us that the Israelites often found themselves enslaved as a people – by the Egyptians, and later, by the Romans. Slavery existed in the Americas at the time of its first contact with Europe. At the start of the American Republic, there were two African-based slave trades. One, out of sub-Saharan Africa, provided human beings to slaveholders in the United States and European colonies in America. The other, based in North Africa, brought European slaves and others to Islamic markets. The United States fought two wars to end the latter (1801-05 and 1815) and a civil war (1861-65) to end the former.

Politically, the Democrat Party was the institutional face of the slavery in America. You need only read the Democrat Party platforms prior to the Civil War to recognize this. Long after the Democrats were forced to give up on slavery, they continued to commemorate their slave-holding heritage. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders… they all have attended Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners and have, by doing so, honored those two slave-owning Democrats.

Slavery in America ended with the advent of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, was elected in 1860 with 39.8% of the vote. Lincoln was sworn-in on March 4, 1861. The American Civil War began a month later, on April 12, 1861. By then seven Southern states had seceded from the Union.

At the 1860 census, it was recorded that those in slavery made up 13 percent of the United States’ population. Slavery existed in 14 of the then 33 states (by the end of the war there would be 36 states). 3.9 million people were enslaved, but only 8 percent of American families were slaveholders. Slaveholders did not constitute a majority in any of those 14 states in which slavery was tolerated. But though a minority, slaveholders were an exceedingly rich minority.

All the anti-slavery states (as well as some of the slaveholding ones) produced soldiers and sailors for the holy cause of abolition. New Jersey furnished 76,814 soldiers and sailors – 1,185 of whom were African-American. This was a smaller contribution than neighboring states like Pennsylvania (337,936) and New York (448,850). It was claimed that New Jersey was less enthusiastic than more Republican states. In 1864, in the middle of the war, New Jersey would field the Democrat candidate against Lincoln, who won the state’s 7 electoral votes and a 53% to 47% popular vote win.

Nevertheless, 5,754 New Jersey soldiers/sailors gave their lives in that war to end slavery. Again, neighboring states gave more to the cause. Pennsylvania lost 33,183 of its sons. New York lost 46,534. Regiments were segregated then, so we know that most of those who gave their lives were classified as “white”. But it should be noted that they fought alongside comrades who were classified as “colored” – 36,847 of whom died. In all 178,975 “colored” soldiers and sailors served in the war.

Some Democrats have come up with the ridiculous fable wherein they argue that the parties “switched” ideologies. No, you will not find support for slavery in any Republican Party platform. Unfortunately, the Democrats cannot make that claim. Slavery is the sin of their party. Burdened by such a sin, it is natural that the Democrats wish to deflect the blame for it onto a wider population. And so they have come up with the idea of “reparations”.

What the Democrats propose is a tax (it’s always about a tax with them, isn’t it) on some people – regardless of whether or not their ancestors had slaves, or fought and died to end slavery, or even were in the United States before 1865. Then the Democrats propose that they make a gift of this money to a different group of people.

This satisfies the Democrats’ need to publicly proclaim their “goodness”. It also absolves their party of its unique blame by vastly expanding that blame to others, regardless of whether they have any specific guilt at all or of the sacrifices made by their ancestors. And finally, the Democrats calculate that by taking from Peter and giving it to Paul, Peter will be silenced into submission and Paul will reward the Democrats with his vote. Yes, the Democrats are without shame.

Later today, you can catch this shameless performance at the Assembly Appropriations Committee, Committee Room 11, Fourth Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, New Jersey. The performance is for the benefit of the Democrat Party of Phil Murphy, Steve Sweeney, and Craig Coughlin.

Stay tuned…

Are NJ Republicans heading for civil war?

By Rubashov

Remember the great culling of 2007?  That's when a bunch of young up and comers like future Bridgegate figure Bill Baroni, future LGBT lobbyist Tom Wilson, and a number of individuals associated with the Chris Christie project decided that some incumbent legislators had been there too long.  They were members of the Great Generation, had fought our nation's wars, and had rebuilt our party after the Watergate debacle.  But the youngsters said they were old, their time was up.

And so they set upon them and worked from within and without to push them, unceremoniously, from office.  Guys like Senator Bob Littell resisted such rude attentions, so they circulated rumors about his health and attacked him on blogs like the old PoliticsNJ.  In fact, the genesis of this blog can be traced from those efforts to defend that old gentleman. 

It is a decade later, and another culling is afoot.  Only this time, it is being led by the fag end of a depleted and demoralized party who strangely believe that the road to salvation is to become as close to the Democrats as possible on issues like abortion, LGBT, the Second Amendment, climate change (or global warming or whatever they are calling it this week), crime, Abbott Districts, COAH, and pretty much everything except a few balance sheet issues and the hobby-horses of this lobby group or that.

The voices in favor of this culling are not just limited to the metro-sexual wing of the Young Republicans.  Younger party leaders, some quite powerful, will assure you in all seriousness that the future of the Republican Party is about identities instead of ideas.  They earnestly believe that we must compete with the Democrats in having our very own LGBT or Muslim contingent.  Some will insist that only a set of breasts and a fashionable haircut will win the day.

As with any culture brought up on watery advertising, they eschew data and have developed myths and mythological figures.  Chief among these is the "soft Republican."  They will tell you that we must ignore all those old-timers who still judge people by their ideas and conduct, instead of their identity or surface appearance.  "Soft Republicans" (limp dicks?) is where it's at.  These softies -- in both mind and groin -- constitute a great untapped vein of young voters.  "They are the future!"  Or so we are endless told.

So here is a wake-up call for the metros who seem to run the party these days.  The data is in, and you are going to have to wait awhile for that coming day of the 57 genders.  The old f*cks aren't dying off quick enough and they'll dominate the party until some of you are well into middle age.

Nearly half a million registered Republicans, 43 percent of all Republicans in New Jersey, are aged 60 or older.  Another 31 percent are middle aged -- 45 to 59.  10 percent are 35 to 44.  9 percent are 25 to 34.  With just 6 percent 18 to 24.  The Democrats are not so much a young party as a middle aged one, with their two youngest groups coming in at just 8 and 13 percent, respectively.  37 percent of their voters are aged 60 or older.

The truth is that young people really don't like political parties.  They don't trust them.  So if you really want to appeal to the young -- quit party politics and organize a group around an issue that matters, like human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of children.

Political party organizations are about as exciting as newspapers and about as relevant.  Except for the BCRO, whose website currently features a couple in a rather explicit situation.  But old people like them -- political parties and newspapers, that is -- and so for the next few more years we will have them.  But nothing is following.  There will be no GOP metro-sexual new day.  There will be something else, but it won't be a party as we know it today.

Now don't all you metros go running to the lavatories at once.  Your sperm counts weren't that much to begin with.  Have a good cry on your best mate's shoulder and buck up.  Because the old f*cks are still here... and so you still have a party.  But you are going to have to cater to them.  Or lose even more than you lose now.