Taking Our Country Back Sen. Kamala Harris
We need to take our country back San Luis Obispo Dems
Taking our country back…. actress Cynthia Nixon
We can get our country back. Abigail Spanberger, Candidate for Congress, VA-7
We have to take our country back March for Our Lives, Boston
Are we going to take our country back? Susanna Dokupil, TX House District 134 candidate
To take my country back…. student, Wartburg College National Walk Out Day
We can take our country back. Sen. Bob Menendez
We must get our country back. Evan Wolfson, “pioneer in the marriage equality movement”
It won’t be easy to take our country back Alex Triantaphyllis, candidate in the Houston district

However, it wasn’t more than a few short years ago that the very notion of “taking the country back” was that dangerous, xenophobic dog whistle of anti-immigrant nativism and anti-Obama racism.

When the Tea Party was at its heyday during the 2010 elections, when the Palins and the Bachmanns ruled the day, we were treated to some soaring oratory by real, “take-our-country-back” Americans: You know, those real Americans, real patriots, real believers who belong to the party of core values, of family values — the good party, the party of God.

Although, I am plenty outraged at such screed, and have written plenty about it, my words can’t hold a candle to the powerful lyrics of a song I just read and listened to. The song with the “intriguing” title “When They Say ‘We Want Our America Back’, What The F#@k Do They Mean?” is written and sung by none other than Jill Sobule. Jill says: “In deciding what to write, I thought I would include an anti-immigrant history with the still befuddling question I have for the Tea Party folk.”
— Huffington Post, 11/17/11

So while taking the country back was a narrative the left found oh-so offensive back in the day, taking our country back NOW is the left’s proud 2018 campaign slogan.

Trump’s America? Not for long. Democratic women are taking our country back.
— The Hill, 4/29/17

With that, what exactly do Democrats want to “take our country back” TO?

The good old days when they so screwed up our health care system, forced Americans to participate and pay more for despite all the promises from the president-on-down that we’d save so much money per year on premiums?

The good old says when our officials and career employees entered into agreements with foreign regimes that were almost instantly reneged on and taxpayers would still be forced to honor?

The good old days when high black and Hispanic unemployment were at traditionally acceptable levels to white Democrat elites?

And we’ll probably need to remind Democrats of all the scandals were government agencies were weaponized against citizen opponents and those involved were allowed to just walk away, virtually unscathed.

Let’s hope that every Republican running for office in 2018 ask their Democrat opponent what they want to “take our country back” to. That is, if you can get them to admit they STILL lie about their past.

It will be interesting to have “proud” Democrats articulate and defend their vision of just how great things really were under their leadership and how much better off we’ll be based on that proven record of misery.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website. Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.
— Daily Caller, 10/25/13

We all know how well that $678 million no-bid contract worked out for the American people. Granted, working within the red-tape federal government parameters is probably a bear to circumnavigate, but for the amount of money awarded it should have been graciously dealt with and a working website delivered.

Five years later, we apparently still have the incompetent mixing with federal government access to millions of taxpayer dollars, a failure to deliver the goods as promised and a black woman with questionable ability to handle the task at hand.

The mission for the Federal Emergency Management Agency was clear: Hurricane Maria had torn through Puerto Rico, and hungry people needed food. Thirty million meals needed to be delivered as soon as possible. For this huge task, FEMA tapped Tiffany Brown, an Atlanta entrepreneur with no experience in large-scale disaster relief and at least five canceled government contracts in her past. FEMA awarded her $156 million for the job, and Ms. Brown, who is the sole owner and employee of her company, Tribute Contracting LLC, set out to find some help.

Ms. Brown, who is adept at navigating the federal contracting system, hired a wedding caterer in Atlanta with a staff of 11 to freeze-dry wild mushrooms and rice, chicken and rice, and vegetable soup. She found a nonprofit in Texas that had shipped food aid overseas and domestically, including to a Houston food bank after Hurricane Harvey.

By the time 18.5 million meals were due, Tribute had delivered only 50,000. And FEMA inspectors discovered a problem: The food had been packaged separately from the pouches used to heat them. FEMA’s solicitation required “self-heating meals.”

“Do not ship another meal. Your contract is terminated,” Carolyn Ward, the FEMA contracting officer who handled Tribute’s agreement, wrote to Ms. Brown in an email dated Oct. 19 that Ms. Brown provided to The New York Times. “This is a logistical nightmare.”
— New York Times, 2/6/18

This is NOT to say they’re aren’t competent black people around the country who can’t handle large scale projects, but we also live at a time when racebaiting big mouths get the attention and much is done to placate them. Possibly knowing a few Obama holdovers in the federal government to assist in the tax dollar hook-up didn’t hurt either.

Then again if you screw the taxpayers and you’re an aggrieved minority, don’t assume responsibility. Blame and bite the hand that fed you very well.

Brown admits she didn’t have the money to finance to project but insists she wasn’t awarded the contract as part of a sweetheart deal. “I got it because I had a very good proposal and understanding of what was needed,” she told CNN. “Here is what I can say, I’ve had challenges with government contracts in the past. The primary reason is financial resources, and lack of support,” she said. She says FEMA was the real problem. “They need to really shore up their infrastructure for payment for their contractors,” Brown said. “If you want someone to provide a service of $155 million, you really should pay or wire transfer within 24 hours or pay a percentage.”

Brown told CNN she plans to sue the government for $70 million.
— Slate, 2/6/18

Brown admits she didn’t have the means to create and deliver the meals prior to accepting the contract, but that’s not what she wrote when she sought millions of taxpayer dollars.

We can deliver 10 million per day. We can deliver to all locations.
— Tiffany Brown, Tribute “proposal” for Maria Meals

Obviously not but now “FEMA is to blame” for giving a contract to a woman who shouldn’t have applied for it in the first place.

Most contractors understand payment can take between 30 and 60 days after delivery of a product and the federal government is no exception. And now she plans on suing the taxpayer for termination of a deal she couldn’t deliver. Demanding payment despite having a history of failure will probably result in the misguided black, liberal traditional charge of racism and she’ll get paid something to make her go away… at our expense.

Laura found a blatant example that was particularly disheartening.

Granted, Wayne Dupree didn’t cut-and-paste the entire column, but he did cut-and-paste a few word-for-word paragraphs without linking back to the original post and the byline implies HE wrote it. We’ve only done that ONCE because we gambled the original post would be taken down and it was, but we gave the appropriate attribution.

In other words, we didn’t give the intentional impression that we wrote it. Simple.

During his acceptance speech, Wayne thanked his team, friends at FTR Radio and his family for their support. He also mentioned by name one special person who helped launch his blogging efforts who he referred to as an angel. Some of us weren’t blessed with a bleeding-heart sugar mama who wanted to help a black conservative out.

It makes you naturally wonder how many other posts may have been lifted without attribution if one were to go to Dupree’s site now, and conversely considering all the different media we’ve contributed to, what we could’ve accomplished with a few nice lump sums.

There are dozens of “blogger” mediocres out there who everyday find a piece online and basically re-write and post the piece as their own; sometimes with an infuriating “BREAKING” or “EXCLUSIVE” that turns out to be hours or more old.

Based on our conservative values and experience, we not only attempt to keep you informed of what’s going on but offer our take on those issues, which apparently takes a lot more effort than many of those (who are comfortable) are willing (and/or able) to expend.

Some of us have been doing this for over a decade and have never received an award of recognition of excellence from CPAC. This isn’t sour grapes because we’re appreciative of those who appreciate our content and perspectives. If conservatives want to donate large sums of money to blacks to disprove the liberal narrative that Republicans are racist, fine.

Choose wiser.

With that, why do blacks HAVE to be Democrat?

Of course we know that almost all information regarding the political history and present is controlled by liberals in education, the media, and entertainment. That makes it very easy for the left to disseminate any narrative necessary to keep a segment of a population in their control. Any information coming from a teacher (as they’re assumed to be an accredited source of truthful knowledge), news and/or entertainment personality is automatically deemed accurate thus they have the ability to shape opinion that sticks.

But what if that information is a lie? What if those disseminating that opinion is doing intentionally or out of ignorance, and those who receive that information are just regarded as lowly pawns, easily sacrificed for a greater goal?

Going back to Baltimore (which is emblematic of most inner cities), one party has controlled almost every political entity within. Nothing has improved in these cities, in fact, almost every social and economic category has gotten worse, yet that party receives the super-majority of the vote every time with literally nothing to show for it, and it was publicly recognized years ago.

I’ve often used this very simple analogy.

If someone had to repeatedly return a car to a shop for a specific repair and that repair repeatedly wasn’t done, that person would quickly find another shop to take that car (unless they’re stupid). With that, there is no justifiable reason for any black person to vote for a Democrat until they repair the black community (improve educational and economic opportunity) as is done for any other.

So, why do blacks continue to give that knee-jerk vote for Democrats? Because the left knows how to trigger negative emotion from certain constituencies for their political benefit.

If it’s a woman, Democrats latch onto a timely issue to exploit such as domestic violence, “campus rape culture”, wage inequality, etc. If it’s a black person, they scream “racism” and draw that predictable, visceral, negative response that they hope will shut down rational thought in favor of emotion.

Democrats knowingly count on the ignorance of black people; ignorance they perpetuate and exploit. We hope you can imagine the disgust experienced as The Democrat Race Lie was researched and compiled. As discovered and verified with each new tidbit, it was realized that almost everything we’ve grown up believing about the history of the United States was indeed a lie. A lie that’s repeated to this day by elected Democrats, their media, black so-called civil rights “leaders”, liberal controlled education system and simply because they can.

The recent Confederate Flag controversy, because of it’s convenient presence in the tragic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, has opened a brief exposure into the truth that is the history of “The White Man’s Party”; a history being willfully ignored by black media pundits who’ve sold out their consumers as to maintain their opulent lifestyle.

Until black people wake up, understand they’ve been used and abused for decades and take their car to another shop, things will NEVER improve in the black community and that’s just what Democrats count on. I’m not saying the Republican Party is the greatest of alternatives, but when enough people stop going to a bad repair shop, it has one of two courses of action: improve service and credibility or go out of business.

The bottom line is the Democrat Party was formed to enable the use of people. At that time it was solely for their personal wealth. If you look at the party today, those in power earn a very good living while the intentionally growing number at the bottom live on the scraps left over to keep them alive and constantly dependent.

If families will ostracize a black person who wishes to exercise their Constitutional 1st Amendment “freedom of assembly” and association right, it again comes down to what Democrats depend on: instilling fear in any black who wishes to leave the plantation. Another thing to think about: the Democrat Party believes they own the black vote.

They instilled and enforced that fear centuries ago (Ku Klux Klan) and they proudly continue their proud tradition to this day. When the truth is finally understood by black people, the revolt against the Democrat Party will be severe because that strategy has cost millions of American blacks a positive standard of life, mass targeted abortions, thus many lives as well just so a few can enjoy the perks of power.

As we’ve all recently witnessed, Democrats will help advance gays, lesbians, transgenders, illegal Mexicans, Muslims, and almost every approved aggrieved group, EXCEPT black people. And why is that?

Because Democrats know they don’t have to.

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers…. On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

THAT was not true. Why the Democrats opted to remove most of those words is something the party should explain, if they ever do.

Last night, I received an email from an academic at an “Intercultural Communications College” who took issue with assertions I raised after doing research on the 150-plus years of American history glossed over in many of today’s classrooms. In my case, I left school with a rather abbreviated knowledge of black history. There was slavery, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for civil rights until he was killed, Republicans were/are racists, something about Selma, Alabama, the Klan, and not much else. It wasn’t until I did the research did I come to another conclusion, a conclusion that doesn’t sit well with the left….

A republican I know directed me to your website as prof that the democratic party is racist. She is obviously unable to formulate her own opinion and learn things on her own. . As a history PHD I thought you may appreciate a few facts yourself. omissions.

Before the Civil War, the South was Democratic and the North largely Republican. Both parties were thoroughly racist.

My research found that the Republican Party was created as an abolitionist party to slavery; it’s sole purpose for being. I may be a simpleton in comparison to this academic, but this was one of the first things I found in my personal quest for the truth and I’m surprised she didn’t find it as well. Omissions?

I’ll try not to interrupt.

The war was fought to reunify the nation — not to end slavery. Lincoln said, “If I can restore the Union without freeing any slaves, I will do so.” However, he ultimately issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed “slaves in the states of rebellion.” In other words, it freed nobody. Why was it issued? Largely to deter Britain from siding with the South. (Britain was antislavery, but her economic ties were to the South.) In other words, virtually everything your website, Black and Right, attributes to Republicans in the 19th century was done for political expediency. Nonetheless, one could certainly argue that the northern Republicans after the Civil War were far less racist than the southern Democrats into the 20th century. There was full segregation of the races in the South, but not in the North. Blacks were also denied the vote by use of such things as “grandfather” clauses (if your grandfather couldn’t vote, you couldn’t vote), literacy tests and poll taxes in the South.

Thanks for the clarification….

Naturally, African Americans overwhelmingly voted Republican where they were able to vote. But it must be remembered that there were very few blacks in the North during this entire time.

It is in the 20th century that all things change. At around the time of World War I, there is a mass exodus of blacks from the South to the North. At that time, racism becomes entrenched in the North — leading to terrible riots and rampant discrimination in Chicago and elsewhere in 1919. Now repression occurs in the North with a vengeance, leading to acute suffering within the black community as the economy slides into the Great Depression. Despite the racism of the times and his dependence on the votes of racist southern Democrats, Franklin Roosevelt demanded that blacks share equally in all relief efforts of his administration. Indeed, FDR had a “black cabinet”: African American leaders who kept him apprised of the special needs of black people in the depression. FDR also named a black woman head of the youth relief program. Eleanor, of course, was an outspoken black advocate.

I believe the person FDR appointed to head the National Youth Administration was Aubrey Williams, a white man. Black Republican Mary Jane McLeod Bethune was appointed to an NYA division, but not as “head”. Yes, I know I’m nitpicking….

Then came Harry Truman. The idea that Republicans opposed his dropping of the atomic bombs is ludicrous. America didn’t have such partisanship then as it does today. His Sec’y of War, Henry Stimson, was a Republican who had service under Herbert Hoover (a Republican prez). Besides, in 1948, Truman desegregated the armed services — fulfilling FDR’s promise to do so after the war. That was huge because it was so eminently successful from the get-go, and gave black men such an important avenue of advancement.

“America didn’t have such partisanship then as it does today.” Tell that to Charles Sumner.

Again, I’m humbled in my attempt to debate a “history PHD” (wouldn’t that be “Ph.D”…?), but I would think partisanship would be at it’s worse during, let’s say, a Civil War? But that’s only me.

Yes, Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when Brown vs. Bd. of Ed. decision was made in 1956 was a Republican. However, the case was brought by an all-Democratic organization, the NAACP.

“… all-Democratic organization, the NAACP”…?

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

It’s clear it’s an “all-Democratic organization” today.

In addition, the Republican prez at the time, Eisenhower, reacted to the decision by saying that his appointment of Warren was “the biggest damn-fool decision I ever made.”

Of course, the most egregious aspect of your Website is its failure to mention the two most singularly important pieces of civil rights legislation passed in American history: the Civil Rights Act of 1963 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I believe I did. I “egregiously” wrote:

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

I guess she missed that.

It is utterly dumbfounding to me that Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) was actually able to get them passed. Indeed, if they hadn’t been passed then, they would never have gotten passed. The Civil Rights Act of 1963 made discrimination and segregation unlawful in all aspects of life. (By the way, this forbade discrimination against woman as well.)

Discrimination against women was legal prior to 1919.

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket — straight”

That was changed by Republicans, despite the best efforts of Democrats.

January 10, 1878
The Republican House passed a constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans and only 54% of Democrats in favor. In the Senate 80% of Republicans voted yes and almost half of Democrats voted no.

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920
The Republican-authored 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote became part of the Constitution. Twenty-six of the 36 states needed to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures.

Whoops.

Despite its passage, the vast majority of blacks were still unable to vote in the South. So, the Voting Rights Act outlawed all devises impeding blacks’ right to vote, and allowed the Justice Dept. — not states — to prosecute all cases brought under the law. Indeed, the Justice Dept. was empowered to go into districts where fewer than 50% of blacks were registered to vote and oversee their registration and voting procedures to ensure fairness. Fortunately, a largely Democratic Supreme Court withstood the many legal attempts to have these laws gutted or claimed unconstitutional. In other words, they were enforced to the full measure and changed society forever.

It was after the passage of these bills that the South abandoned the Democratic party for the Republican party. That’s why the vast majority of bigots with guns are now older white-guy Republicans and live in the Bible-belt. It’s also why these Republicans oppose money going to safety-net programs: they assume, mistakenly, that the recipients are all blacks (or immigrants).

I presume you heard of all the efforts made in these states in the last two elections to curtail the black vote? Requiring special ID, etc. Some African Americans waited hours and hours to vote. That is what Obama was referring to in his Inaugural Address. But they did wait. They waited to vote Democratic!

I produced an informal sampling of blacks and found some even laughed at the notion that obtaining a photo I.D. was beyond them.

You can hear the partisan tone of her email and I don’t believe she adequately addressed the initial premise of my “Race Lie” piece that contends that Democrats have lied to blacks about their past because they believe blacks are stupid enough to accept it, and they have such low regard for black people they would deny us the truth about our history in this country.

This academic accused me of “omission” while herself leaving easily attainable, yet inconvenient information out of her rebuttal. Her snarky response to the Republican she demeaned as not being able to formulate her own opinion is clear hypocrisy when this very academic recites Democrat talking points about voter disenfranchisement and our reliance on the “safety net”.

Yes, they waited to vote for Obama (purely because he’s black) and they will continue to have little to show for it. THAT is the Democrat tradition.

I would ask this person since 1965 when Democrats retook ownership of the black population, what has gotten better for the community? Sure, a black president was elected twice and he and his family will be taken care of, but what exactly has improved for most blacks? Personally, I believe the Democrat track record in the black community is a travesty and the only way they can maintain the vote is by keeping the black standard of living down by increasing the dependence on “safety net” programs.

Liberals, championed by progressive Margaret Sanger, call it choice to kill our babies and say very little when our children are shot dead in the street, yet they go are far as attempting to pass legislation when white kids are victims.

As in any lie, the real fear for the liar is that one day the truth will come out and what the repercussions will be.

Democrats have been using blacks for political gain for decades and what has been the result?

Inferior schools thus low employment opportunities thus high crime neighborhoods. There is NOTHING happening in the black community that liberals would allow to happen in theirs. When it does, they freak out. There is little in the history of the Democrat Party that shows me they have the best interests of blacks at heart. Back in the day, they created the Klan to kill us, now they use Planned Parenthood to do it legally.

If I’m wrong, maybe this academic can show me some proof I can see, not just take her word for it.