AT SOME POINT, black voters are going to rebel against racist ploys to keep them in their place -- safe in the clutches of the Democratic Party. But Al Gore and Joe Lieberman are hoping that it won't be this year -- which is why they aren't saying much about the despicable NAACP ads running against George W. Bush. The ads, in grainy black and white, show a pickup truck with a chain dragging across a dirt road. The voice-over is by Renee Mullins, the daughter of James Byrd, a black man dragged to his death two years ago chained to a pickup in Jasper, Texas.

Mullins accuses Gov. Bush of refusing to support

Mullins accuses Gov. Bush of refusing to support a new hate-crimes bill, saying "It was like my father was killed all over again." The unmistakable message: Bush condones lynching. What the ad doesn't say is that two of the men who killed her father have been sentenced to death by a Texas court for the murder, while the third serves a life-sentence. What's more, the hate-crimes bill she supports would not have added one whit to their punishment. Nor does the ad mention the presidential election. It doesn't have to; it's airing in battleground states with large black populations, exactly the places where a large black turnout might tip the election to Gore.

Although the NAACP National Voter Fund is ostensibly both non-partisan and independent, its ad campaign comes just weeks after Democratic National Committee chairman Joe Andrews told reporters Oct. 9, "We're going back to Jasper, Texas, and talk about hate crimes." Does anyone seriously believe the NAACP and DNC efforts were not coordinated? The NAACP is able to air its ads thanks to an anonymous gift of some $10 million by a single individual. Considering all the fuss generated last week when a group of Republican businessmen spent a few thousand dollars to air an anti-Gore spot reminiscent of a famous 1964 campaign commercial predicting nuclear war, you'd think some enterprising journalist would try to discover the identity of the NAACP donor. Alas, no one in the media seems curious about who the NAACP benefactor might be or what his motives are.

But as loathsome as the lynching ad is, it's nothing new. For the last two national elections, Democrats and their allies have successfully increased black voter participation in key races through fear and deception.

As the Weekly Standard reported after the 1998 campaign, ads aimed at blacks warned "When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. ... Vote smart. Vote Democratic for Congress and the U.S. Senate." One Democrat congressman mailed voter cards to black constituents, which depicted snarling German shepherds and baton-swinging cops threatening 1960s-era black civil rights demonstrators with the message "A Voteless People Are a Hopeless People." Another Democrat radio ad accused a Republican gubernatorial candidate of being about to "take away 50 years of the civil rights movement," and said blacks who didn't vote against the Republican were "no different than the Ku Klux Klan."

Also in '98, Democrat Gov. Parris Glendening was able to defeat Republican challenger Ellen Suerbrey in a close election in Maryland by running ads that accused her of voting against "the civil rights act" and having a "civil rights record to be ashamed of." The "civil rights act" the spot referred to was a minor state measure that would have allowed sexual harassment suits to be filed in state courts instead of federal ones and was defeated by Democrats who controlled the state legislator, including a vote against the bill cast by the black speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. The man who produced those ads, Robert Shrum, now runs Al Gore's media campaign.

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a liberal national group, estimates that at least 10 times as much money will be spent to turn out a large black vote this year as was spent in the past couple of elections. But if this money is used to frighten and misinform black voters, is this really advancing the civil rights of African Americans? Or is it just one more cynical attempt to scare them into voting against Republican candidates?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez.html

I think the only thing rarer is a Black Jewish Republican with O- blood

When you lie about someone as is the case with the afforementioned add about Bush, you are decieiving a target group, in this case that target group is the black voter. Of which, even less vote than the women group, yet are very, very numerous in this country.

The democratic party doesn't care about civil rights, or liberties, they try to curb our right to speak, worship, they interfere with our personal lives to no end(look at raids like the davidians and ruby ridge) Black voters have the power to swing the vote in almost any direction they want. What party was in power when the term "african american" became a pc phrase? I believe it was during Clintons reign. If it was not it certainly has been perpetuated by him. This is racist in itself. First, if you are an American by birth, then that is that. It doesn't matter what race you are, what god or gods you worship, you are American, and by forcing everyone to make the distinction that you are not Amercian, but "african american" you are continuing to make distinctions of color and race. The very thing we are trying to avoid.

The so called hate crime bill is pathetic. It can be charged in a federal court if it can be proven that hate was a motivating factor in the commission of the crime. In Kansas for example we have a small box we check on the case paper for motivated by hate yes or no. This is marked so that the DOJ can track how many hate crimes are committed each year. It does not distinguish, between blacks, whites, jews, christians, gays, lesbians, female, male, etc So when the hate crime statistics come out, there is no way to know what the make up is of that number.

Murder is murder, why this woman would even say something like it is like my father was killed all over again, is both ludicrous and racist. The men got the death penalty, they got hammered period. Why, because he was black and they were white? No, because they tortured and killed a human being.

Here is an interesting statistic (without numbers cause I don't remember them) made by a black lawyer.

The majority of crimes committed against blacks (especially violent and drug related crimes) are in fact committed by other black people, on the contrary the majority of crimes committed on whites are committed by black people.

Now, when a black man rapes a white woman, is it motivated by race? Does the "white" race get all up in arms about it and start preaching to the feds or whomever about how it was motivated race and something needs to be done about this? Nope. On the other hand if a white man rapes a black woman, We never hear the end of it, race was involved , he needs to be punished and so forth cause he did this to a black woman, just the opposite of the white response.

Created the very first social programs, overspent on them when the money wasn't there, have publicly stated that they need to make decisions for older people (concerning medical care) because they were not capable of making decisions for them selves. Voted themselves raises.

They are the ones who started the can't have prayer in school or moments of silence. They took the word God out of the pledge of allegiance when said in most public schools, they have FUCKED up the public school system, and now want to deprive those who have busted there ass to get their kids the best schooling possible in the public system by shipping their kids across town to a bad school to make room for a black kid in the better school.

What? you say. This happened to some friends of mine in Wichita. They lived directly across from a school that was one of the better, not the best, but it was in a good area, low crime, and so on. The school district came out and said we are sending your kids to one of the worst schools in this city, gang infested, high crime rate and so forth, so we can make room here for some black kids from there. Now this happened to about a half-dozen family's all of which were white, none of the black students were picked to go to this crappy school. Needless to say they sued the district, took their kids out of school and homeschooled them. Some even left the state.

Why do the democrats use the minority's this way, it is pathetic and appalling.

Maybe I should be a "German, Jewish, Indian, Irish, English, Romanian American" I mean after all I don't want to lose my heritage.

Give me a break, we are American, the mutts of the world, the best breed, the strongest with the best looking women in the universe. Let's not forget why are ancestor's came here in the first place. If you don't like it here then get the FUCK out we don't need you.

Okay, I ranted long enough. Next.

Or gives our satellite technology to the chinese communists?

Honor, duty, loyalty, none of these things mean anything to Gore, when are people going to realize this? No matter who we have as president they are not going to do 100% of what we want.

Bottom line is Gore wants to completely disarm me, take away my right to defend myself, turn this country into a police state. Because when only the police are armed that is what you have. Once this is achieved the government (gore) will have nothing to fear from us. He'll have taxes raised till we pay 80 or 90 percent to the feds in taxes,

What started the revolution,
1. England decided we could not worship they way we wanted

2. They imposed exorbantant taxes upon us

3. They realized that they could not enforce the first two if we were armed, so they came for the guns

Those were the main three, there were to be sure others, but what is happening today.

1. We cannot worship if it falls outside mainstream

2. Every day our taxes increase, I pay up to 30 percent or more just federally

3. They have passed over 20,000 gun laws and are hard at work trying to take all the guns away and repeal the second amendment

Sound familiar?

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said the people have the right of revolution if the government becomes tyrannical. Well if the populace is not armed, who is gonna revolt? What fear would gore have of not stepping down from office? What guarantee would there be for the 1st amendment or 3rd, 4th, 5th, and so on.

" lot of people don't see it but:: Bush will be the worst thing to happen to America if he becomes president, Don't ask me why but just knwo that I have a VERY GOOD reason to say this."

what is your reason? without evidence that statement is no better than me saying an army of blue smurfs from canada will kill us all on Saturday.

"for all you juice heads who plan on voting for Bush, just remenber it was his father who made Steroids illegal in the first place."

this is irrelevant. the republicans and democrats are both for the drug war and you know it. if you want it to end, vote Libertarian.

I agree with you bro, but don't worry too much. I'm sure there are many Republican generals and high ranking military officers who would love to sink their teeth into a Coup if it ever got too bad. I believe that this will certainly happen if this democratic domino affect goes too far. The military may be a federal organization, but it could easily revolt under the leadership of the Joint Chiefs.

------------------
"There is no shame in losing...Only winning without honor."

- Kwai-Chang Caine