Posts Tagged ‘racism’

The United States has steadily slid down the list of the global rankings in education standards, but why is that? 
It could be suggested that the problem lies in the fact that almost half of the teachers accepted by teacher preparation programs were ranked in the bottom half of their high school class. 

So what should the standard be?

In 2013, the state of New York introduced four assessments in an effort to raise the quality of teaching in elementary and secondary education. This included the Academic Literacy Skills Test, ALST. But now the New York state Board of Regents is dropping it from the requirements. 

Tests like the ALST have recieved intense scrutiny for a supposed racial bias, because just 46 percent of Hispanic test-takers and 41 percent of black test-takers passed it on the first try, compared to 64 percent of white candidates.

In 2015, after the bias was first reported, a federal judge ruled that the tests were not discriminatory. However, what a judge decides has little bearing on social justice. 

Oppoents of the tests find it “problematic” that so many of those screened out of the teaching pool are racial minorities. 

While roughly 80% of all teachers are white, the latest data says that only 50% of government school children are white. This 30% difference is what has the SJW’s in a tizzy. 

That is a discrepancy that can’t be ignored. Interestingly enough, there is another discrepancy that is being over looked. In that same study, the Department of Education found that 76% of teachers are female, while women make up only 50.8% of the US population. 

That leaves another 26% difference, this time leaving men, a slight minority of the population, in the cold. If that inequality is acceptable why do we need to force unqualified people into teaching just to balance this out? 

It seems obvious that the worst teachers end up teaching in the worst schools. The worst schools are usually in poorer areas where there are more minorities. If the standard is lowered to make more black and Hispanic teachers the education of the poor black, white, and Hispanic children will be what suffers. 

I ask you, what’s more important to you in a teacher for your kids? Would you prefer to have the most qualified teacher or the teacher that most closely looks like your child? That is an easy question for me to answer, but I don’t hold any prejudice against teachers for their race. 


Disclaimer: If you are offended by the mention of racial slurs you may not want to read this. The use of such slurs are used only in actual quotes from Democrats and are in no way the actual thoughts or feelings of the TrueStorey blog or its contributors.

Last time in Part II I covered the role Roosevelt and Truman played in Civil Rights. I’m going to move on to Eisenhower (1953-1961), the first Republican president after twenty years of Democrat control. Where we finally start to see some movement in the right direction.

While President Truman had begun the process of desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948, actual implementation had been slow. Eisenhower made clear his stance in his first State of the Union message in February 1953, saying “I propose to use whatever authority exists in the office of the President to end segregation in the District of Columbia, including the Federal Government, and any segregation in the Armed Forces.” When Robert B. Anderson, Eisenhower’s first Secretary of the Navy, argued that the Navy must recognize the “customs and usages prevailing in certain geographic areas of our country which the Navy had no part in creating”, Eisenhower overruled him: “We have not taken and we shall not take a single backward step. There must be no second class citizens in this country.”

After the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education Eisenhower told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children. In 1956, Eisenhower was faced with “Massive Resistance”, a policy declared by U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. (D-VA) to unite other white politicians and leaders in Virginia in a campaign of new state laws and policies to prevent public school desegregation, as well as violence in other states.

In Little Rock, Arkansas, Gov. Orval Faubus (D) refused to integrate public schools. Eisenhower was forced to send federal troops to protect nine children while integrating a public school, the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were sent to the South. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote to Eisenhower to thank him for his actions, writing “The overwhelming majority of southerners, Negro and white, stand firmly behind your resolute action to restore law and order in Little Rock”. There had been continued physical assaults against suspected activists and bombings of schools and churches in the South by Democrats. The administration of Eisenhower proposed legislation to protect the right to vote by African Americans.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957, effectively a voting rights bill, was the first Civil Rights legislation enacted in the United States since Reconstruction. The bill passed the House with a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167-19 for, Democrats 118-107 for) and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43-0 for, Democrats 29-18 for). President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957. By the time the Bill was passed it was watered down significantly from what Eisenhower’s Attorney-General, Herbert Brownwell, originally intended when producing the bill. Lyndon Baines Johnson was the Senate Majority leader at the time and did his best to slow the progress of civil rights. Johnson sent the bill to a Senate judiciary committee which would examine it for flaws, controversial and unconstitutional points etc. This committee was led by Senator James Eastland (D-MS). Committee heads have the ability to greatly alter and change bills, which is exactly what Eastland did. The result was a watered down bill that didn’t do much to help matters, but did open the door for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act down the road. The loopholes left in the 1957 bill led Eisenhower to sign the 1960 Civil Rights Act, which tried to close up some of the loose ends.

Following Eisenhower, there was another decade (1960s) of Democrat rule, and the subsequent filibustering that slowed, but could not stop, the civil rights movement.

When it comes to President Kennedy (D) it is widely an excepted truth that he was a major player in the advancement of the civil rights cause. It has been said that from the 70’s on that most black houses had a wall that held pictures of three men, Lincoln, MLK, & Kennedy. He is given so much credit even though when you look at history you see that Kennedy never accomplished anything worth noting on the issue. Granted, he didn’t have much of an opportunity since he didn’t even serve a full term. His predecessor did have a chance though.

Fast forward to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill was a huge victory for minorities and the Republicans who fought for civil rights. It ended all major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. It put an end to unequal voter registration requirements and segregation in schools, workplaces, and public services such as restaurants. Passage of this bill wasn’t so easy though.

The bill was brought to a vote in the House on February 10, 1964, and passed by a vote of 290 to 130,(with support from 80% of Republicans and a whopping 40% disapproval from Dems) and sent to the Senate. Since it was passed in the House first it went directly to the Senate calendar, bypassing the normal committee review. This rule is rarely used, but supporters of the bill wanted to avoid the probable delay of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This left the bill’s opposers with only the filibuster to try and stop a vote. Senator Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Russell was quoted saying, “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states.”

For the next three months Democrats filibustered. The only way to end the filibuster was with cloture which requires 2/3s of the senate to vote in favor of bringing the bill to a vote. The minority leader, Everett Dirksen, R-IL, played a pivotal role for the civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, his substantial efforts in support of the bill culminated in an impassioned appeal to the Senate to support cloture and hold the vote. On this extraordinary occasion, the Senate voted for cloture, 71-29 — 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted in favor. Opposed were 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans. In the eventual vote the Senate passed the bill with only 31% of Dems and 16% of Republicans voting no.

When Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, took the throne, he realized that the fight for segregation was a losing one and decided to flip the switch. LBJ was quoted as saying, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years.”

Going back to the 50’s for a moment, let me give a little back story on LBJ. As I said earlier, he was the Democrat Senate Majority Leader when Eisenhower sponsored the civil rights act from 1957, and the 1960 voting rights act. It was Johnson who lead the fight against these bills and was a big part of why they were so watered down. Back to the 60’s, when Johnson took over, after JFK’s assassination, he had a chance to jump on the upcoming Civil Rights act of 1964 and claim it as his own. So he took advantage, in his own words, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Johnson did sign the bill but it is evident to anyone who looks close enough that he did not do it for any reason other than political gain. As with his appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. He explained his decision to a staff member by saying, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”

By this time the civil rights movement was beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and the Democrat party was finally realizing they could no longer leave their racism on their sleeves. They began slowly rewriting history and devising new ways to keep the black people in poverty and voting Democrat. They went from publicly displaying a belief that blacks and whites should be separate and that blacks shouldn’t vote, to backing legislation to keep blacks on the government teat and in the slums, and to make sure if blacks did get to vote, they would always vote Democrat.

Even though the racism of The Democrat Party is no longer in the spotlight, it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. They just have the media to help them keep it quiet now, not to mention the NAACP.

For example, Senator Robert Byrd, (D-WV) is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and, until his death in 2010, was the only national elected official with a history in the Klan at the time. Byrd was extremely active in the Klan and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership recruiter. Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was effective in “promoting traditional American values”

In March of 2001 Byrd had an outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the “n-word,” on national television. Amazingly, this incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any of the other clowns who purport themselves to be the leaders of the civil rights movement. In contrast, the main source of well deserved criticism for Byrd’s racist outburst came not from any of the so called leaders of the civil rights movement but from Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey. The race hustlers turned a blind eye towards this act of racism by one of their own party. But where they turn a blind eye and spew their lies, it is up to conservatives to set the record straight with the truth.


In Part 1 I told you the truth about the beginnings of the “modern” Democrat Party, which began with Woodrow Wilson. When he left office in 1921 the American public didn’t elect another Democrat until 1933 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was selected as the 32nd President of the United States. I do have to give FDR some credit on civil rights though. In 1941 Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which created the Fair Employment Practices Committee, which said that the federal government could not hire anyone based on race, color, creed, or national origin. Although this order only applied to government jobs.

In September 1942, at Eleanor’s instigation, Roosevelt met with a delegation of African-American leaders, who demanded full integration into the forces, including the right to serve in combat roles and in the Navy, the Marine Corps and the United States Army Air Forces. Roosevelt agreed, but then did nothing to implement his promise. Leaving integration up to his successor Harry Truman.

Even though I’m basing this blog on black history I feel that when talking about FDR and civil rights one must mention the internment camps set up by the War Department after Pearl Harbor. On February 19, 1942 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 which ordered Secretary of War, and military commanders to designate military areas “from which any or all persons may be excluded.” Japanese-American citizens as well as non-citizens were removed from their homes on the West coast and placed in camps until 1944. This is one of the more controversial moves made by FDR, even though there was evidence of espionage compiled by code-breakers that decrypted messages to Japan from agents in North America and Hawaii before and after Pearl Harbor. This was known only to people with the highest security clearances at the time to prevent Japan from finding out their code was cracked. Even with evidence from these messages some people still say that this move was racially motivated. In 1925 Roosevelt had written about Japanese immigration: “Californians have properly objected on the sound basic grounds that Japanese immigrants are not capable of assimilation into the American population… Anyone who has traveled in the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European and American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results”. Did Roosevelt go to the extreme with the internment camps based on racial motivation? I can’t say for sure.

Harry Truman was the next Democrat President when he replaced Roosevelt after he died in office April 12, 1945 as FDR’s third VP. Truman’s wife, Bess, told that while they were dating he told her he believed one person was as good as any other person….. as long as they aren’t black. He also criticised the Chinese in America, the Jews – to whom he referred to as “Kikes” and the Italians in America who he called “wops”. When he first entered politics he did what any good Democrat would do, he paid his $10 to join the KKK.

While running for reelection for Senator in Missouri he changed his tune a little, it’s not known if he really changed his beliefs or, if like Wilson before him, he was just pandering for the black vote. He said while running for re-election, “I believe in brotherhood….of all men before the law….if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race……and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety…….The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this.” Truman never did anything about his statement but was chosen as VP by FDR anyway.

In 1945 the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC), set up by Roosevelt, was involved in a case against a Washington DC transportation company and Truman did not give the FEPC any support over this issue and nothing was done to enforce the will of the FEPC in this instance. Truman could not even persuade Congress, which was dominated by Democrats, to finance the FEPC. In 1946 Truman finally issued an executive order to desegregate the armed forces, unfortunately he did not implement this order and it wasn’t until 1948 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) finally put the order into effect.

In Part III I’ll talk more about Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, MLK, and the role of the two parties in civil rights.


Since writing part one of My Black History Month Celebration I came across an article written by Francis Rice called Why Martin Luther King Was Republican. I highly recommend you check it out. It is along the same lines as what I’m writing about, only from the perspective of a black Republican. She offers some valuable incite into the problem of racism being attributed to the Republican Party, which is a problem of misinformation.

Black History Month Part 2 is coming soon so stay tuned and remember….


It’s that time a year again when the History Channel plays all their documentaries on the KKK, MLK, and skinheads, all the news channels play their specials, and for the entire month we are over saturated with Black History Month.

You hear some people complain about it, some people go all in on it, but most only learn part of the story. So in honor of Black History Month I’m going to inform YOU of the things you don’t really see on the specials or learn in school. Since the Democrat Party is so commonly associated with civil rights and the like I’m going to dispel this misconception with some actual historical facts, with part 1 of my Black History Month Celebration.

Most people learn in school that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President, but most think that at some point the Republican and Democrat parties just got together one day and decided it might be fun to switch parties at some point. I don’t know maybe FDR lost a bet with Herbert Hoover?

I’ll start with the 1850’s, the decade leading up to the War Between the States. The Democrat Party became divided over the slavery issue and under pressure from the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas-Nebraska Act the anti-slavery Democrats left the party and joined with members of other dwindling parties to form the Republican Party.

In 1860 the Democrat Party split again when the pro-slavery party couldn’t decide if they wanted to force slavery on new western states or to allow a vote in each new state deciding the issue. The Northern Democrats nominated Senator Stephan A. Douglass (IL.) the “pro-states decide guy”, the Southern Democrats nominated incumbent VP John C. Breckinridge (KY.) the “pro-slavery for all guy” while some left the party and joined the Constitutional Union Party nominating Secretary of War John Bell (TN.) which split the Democrat vote and helped elect Lincoln.

When the Democrats decided to start their own country they didn’t have political parties, in essence becoming an all Democrat nation, and we know how that turned out.

After the war the Democrats benefited greatly from the resentment Southerners felt for Reconstruction and their subsequent hostility toward the Republican Party. After the end of Reconstruction in the 1870’s and the violent disenfranchisement of blacks led by white-supremacist Democrats the South became loyal Democrat voters.

Fast forward to 1913 and the beginning of the “progressive movement”, the election of Woodrow Wilson, and the point at which modern liberals attribute the switching of the parties. One of my personal favorite Woodrow Wilson quotes is from his History of the American People: “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation…. until at last sprang into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern Country.” In 1912 an unprecedented number of blacks left the Republican Party to help elect Woodrow Wilson after his campaign promises of support for minorities, but once in office Wilson expanded on racial segregation policies, and placed white segregationist Southerners in many executive appointed positions while acting to reduce the already meager number of blacks in appointed positions. For the first time since 1863 Wilson instituted official segregation in federal government offices, and designed new facilities to keep the races working separately. During this process many black federal employees were downgraded while more were fired. He didn’t stop there though, taking steps to make obtaining a civil service job more difficult for blacks. Primary among these was the requirement, implemented in 1914 and continued until 1940, that all candidates for civil service jobs attach a photograph to their application further allowing for discrimination in the hiring process.

In 1914, Wilson told The New York Times, “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it.” When a delegation of blacks protested the discriminatory actions, Wilson told them “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.” Wilson’s History of the American People (1901) explained the Ku Klux Klan of the late 1860s as the natural outgrowth of Reconstruction, a lawless reaction to a lawless period. Wilson wrote that the Klan “began to attempt, by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action.”

So the man credited with the beginning of the progressive Democrat Party wasn’t what liberals today want you to believe. I’ll continue, in my next post, to tell you about more of the “dirty secrets” of the Democrats.

Happy Black History Month


Anyone who reads my writing knows that I’m not afraid to discuss the race issue and I do, quite regularly. Gov. Nikki Haley’s appointment of Congressman Tim Scott to the retiring South Carolina Senator, Jim DeMint’s seat in the Senate has raised some concern from the NAACP.

Being that Congressman, soon to be Senator, Scott will be the only black person in the Senate, since 2010, you may think that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would be proud. Not so fast, the problem is Tim Scott is a Tea Party Republican. The NAACP is “concerned” that he won’t tow the line, and take his orders from them.

It is well known what this “civil rights” organization thinks of the Tea Party movement. In a 2010 report they called the movement a platform for anti-Semites, racists, and bigots. Even knowing that in 2010, at Tea Party events liberal organizations were planting people in the crowds with racist signs for their cameras, and that the Tea Party is more diverse than the Democrats and Republicans, the movement has still been repeatedly labeled as the opposite.

On the issue of racism in the Tea Party Scott told CBS News, in 2010, “There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery.”

“Certainly I feel like I’m the tip of the arrow at times because certainly the national media wants to talk about the fact that I’m a black Republican and some people think of that as zany that a black person would be a conservative but to me what is zany is any person black, white, red, brown or yellow not being a conservative,” Scott said then.

The Daily Caller caught up with Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, Monday.

“It is important that we have more integration in the U.S. Senate,” said Shelton in a phone interview. “It’s good to see that diversity.”

“Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC.

“Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said.

Shelton went on to explain that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who then vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities.

Shelton said that the NAACP is worried that Scott won’t promote that agenda, since he “has demonstrated a record of opposition to civil rights protection and advancing those real issues of concern of the NAACP’s noted African-American community.”

It seems to me that the NAACP is only in favor of diversity when it works in their favor. Shelton went on to talk about trying to convert Scott to the dark side their side.

While the NAACP focuses on the down side of a black conservative I feel the overwhelming pride in how far we have come in the 150 years since slavery. Tim Scott will be the Senator for a district that includes Fort Sumter, where the first shots of the War of Northern Aggression were fired, in the state that was the first to succeed. Also worth mentioning he will be holding the Senate spot once held by the late Strom Thurmond, one of the few Republican segregationists.


It’s Not Racist If It’s A Joke

Posted: December 10, 2012 in racism
Tags: , , , , , , ,

I’ve already covered Jamie Foxx giving “honor to God and (his) lord and savior Barack Obama”, well since he has pissed bunch of conservatives off he, of course is immediately brought on SNL.

He has already defended his blasphemy by saying it’s just a joke, and since you can say what you want, as long as it’s a “joke” he decided to joke around some more Saturday. This is his latest attempt at humor, “I got a new movie coming out ‘Django Unchained’. And in the movie I got to wear chains. But don’t be worried about it because in the movie I get out of the chains. I get free. I save my wife and I kill all the white people in the room. How great is that?”

The crowd goes wild so evidently they think that’s great. Would it be ok to replace white with black in that? I doubt it. I don’t think many people would like a joke like that, I know I wouldn’t like that any more than I like what Foxx said.

What do you think?

Comment, like, subscribe.

Racism on CNN

Posted: November 12, 2012 in America, racism
Tags: , , , , ,

I was watching the Sunday morning shows yesterday and was flipping channels during commercials and landed on CNN. A show was on called “Your Business” and the host had two guests on discussing the previous segment on a small business that makes decorative iron railing. One of the guests was a black man from some organization called Black Entrepreneurs something or other, and the other was a woman from a similarly named female business owners group. Their conversation was kind of boring but I couldn’t help wonder why they didn’t just have two business owners, why did it have to be a black man from a black only group and a woman from a woman only group?

Then next they had a promo for some discussion to be had at a later time, that was going to tackle the tough question that is on all our minds, is the race issue in America still an issue. Following that was yet another promo for Soledad O’Brien’s show “Who is Black in America”. Now, I might be the only one, but I don’t understand how anyone can ever expect to tackle racism or unite people, despite race, sex, and religion, if we have ten different groups for business owners that are all divided up by race, sex, or religion? And that’s not the only example, for every thing that is deemed worthy of an organization, there are different groups for the same thing but are focused on either what color you are or who you go to bed with.

We will never get rid of the division and self-segregation we have here if we continue to have each little group stay in separate corners. What makes it worse is that the people who complain the loudest about racism, or some similar offense, are the same one’s who join the segregated organizations. It all seems to me like they just want something to complain about, or when something doesn’t go their way they have racism to blame it on. I do not participate in hyphenated-Americanism because it is part of the problem. You are not an African-American if you were born in America, no more than I’m a European-American. If it offends you to be identified as an American, then I invite you to take your happy tail across the Atlantic and spend a couple weeks in Western Africa, see how you like it then.

I want to encourage you to leave your thoughts or feedback in the comments at the bottom.