Watching political history unfold and sanitized in the Black community   E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot September 20, 2014   Just when you think you have heard it all about why Blacks vote Democrat a new theory turns up: Republicans opposition to the Voter Registration Act of 1965 and matters emanating from it!   Before this, the justification was that Blacks had reacted against the Republicans and Barry Goldwater, their presidential candidate for 1964, who together with Southern Democrats, had voted against the Civil Rights Bill of that year.   Southern Democrats, in the lexicon of these day's revisionists, are always described as Southern Conservatives in order to provide the perfect hook to pull Republicans into the racism void.   But note that there never was "Southern Republicans" in the Jim Crow racist arrangement. Historically, the Jim Crows were all Southern Democrats.   Now, Southern Democrats have morphed devilishly into Southern Conservatives.  And Southern Conservatives have consequently became Republican.   The transfer is absolutely magical, even if it is a solid lie.   So racism has  become the traditional taint used by Democrats and liberals for only Republicans running office.    And the lie   As a result, Blacks have been voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats for the past 50 years plus.    On the basis of the Black vote, Democrats have managed to hold on to political power over the years, as noted by Malcom X.   In 1965, Malcolm X asked Blacks, “The fact that you threw 80% of your votes behind the Democrats that put the Democrats in the White House…. but …. what do you get out of it?”   As recent as the last presidential election of 2012, the Black vote increased to 95% for the Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Obama.   The rationale for the one-way trend in voting has not changed.  The excuse remains the same: Republicans were the villains.  They were the racists who opposed the Civil Rights Bills.  Not true.   The accusation is just so brazenly a contradictory analysis of what actually happened in the Civil Rights debate in Congress.,   Worse, the one party vote for Blacks is derogatory in its assumptions and assertions.   To think that Black loyalty can shift on a dime, on a perception gained over a mere three months of legislative debate, is to imply a fickle minded constituency that was willing to go blind politically in one eye.   But go blind for what, so as to win the existential race?   Possibly so, says current Black Democrat leaders. And only by the assertion that you are willing to sanitize history so as to prevent Democrats from ever being called racists.   And this is exactly what has been achieved. Democrats, the party of Jim Crow, are no longer racist, says the Black vote.   The truth was the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the more historic Bill, that supposedly turned Republicans into racists, could not have passed without a majority Republican support vote.   This is a historical fact that has been twisted.  Accordingly, Blacks hardly give Republicans credit for passing it.   The 1964 bill was passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who admitted at the signing that it wouldn’t have been possible without the Republican majority vote in Congress.     Eighteen Democrats senators and a lone Republican filibustered the 1964 legislation.  But only Strom Thurmond, the Republican in the filibuster, would turn up as the villain on the roster of Black politics.   The illustrious Democrats on the filibuster, according to Black leadership political consciousness, are hidden.     Senator Robert C. Byrd (Democrat) led the filibuster attack on the 1964 bill. Senator Richard Russell of Georgia (Democrat) closed the argument in opposition.   The opposition for both the 64 Civil Rights and 65 Voting Rights Acts was dominated by Democrat names, whose progenies are prominent in the Democrat party’s affairs of today – Albert Gore, Richard Russell, William Fulbright, Robert Byrd and many more.    But today in Black politics all the Southern racists, according to Democrats, have moved en mass to the Republican side.  Not true!   In 1965, there was a bi-partisan support for the Voting Registration Act.   It was first and jointly proposed in Senate by then Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield (Democrat) and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (Republican).   In the House, two committee leaders, William McCulloch (Republican) and Howard W. Smith (Democrat) opposed it and sought to delay or dilute the bill.    Note the bi-partisan nature in both opposition and support for the Bill.    At least, a fair analysis would conclude on this notion that both Democrat and Republican whites were racist.  No so.   In the end, the Bill was passed in the Senate by a 79-18 vote (Democrats 49-17), (Republicans 30-1) on August 4, 1965.  Democrats held the majority in the Senate.    On the Senate side, it should be clear that the overwhelming Republican vote went strongly for the passage of the Bill -  97% on the Republicans side versus 65% on the Democrat side.   Seventeen Democrats opposed the Bill while only one Republican was against it . Surprisingly, after 1965, the moral and courageous victory for this historic Bill went to Democrats.   And this feigned victory is what is used by revisionists to justify the seismic shift in Black votes to the Democrat party.    In the process, all the good works on the Republican side, from the Civil War years to the signing of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, would be spun to nothing.   The Democrats are now the heroes.   Conveniently, the part played by Senator Sam Irvin (Democrat) in opposing the 1964 Act would be forgotten.   Sam Irvin is lionized today. He was a champion in the drive to remove Nixon after the Watergate scandal.   Same Irvin had been an ardent supporter of the pro Jim Crow document, the Southern Manifesto, signed in Congress in 1956 by 96 Democrats and Four Republicans.   Richard Russell (Democrat) was on the Southern Manifesto roster too but the Senate office Building has been named after him. But you wouldn't hear a single Black leader advocating for his name to be removed because he was a racist.    Strom Thurmond, the lone Republican senator on the filibuster bill, had only Trent Lott to speak for him on his 100-year birthday.  For this, Lott (Republican} was driven from his Senate leadership office, mostly as the result of Black outcry.   The myth about racist Republicans persists today. Mention any electoral reform proposed by them and you would hear the refrain “Republicans want to suppress the Black vote”!   The controversy surrounding the law requiring voters to show photo identification before casting ballot in an election is an example.   And true enough; opposition to the “photo id” law had since scored some legal victories in a number of states.   But whose rights are the litigants seeking to protect, the illegal alien from across the border, and the fraudster within state or the law abiding Black citizen at home?   And how much of the Black vote can be suppressed, since Democrats already own 90% of that vote!   Meanwhile, the Black vote in reality is already being suppressed or diluted to make space for Hispanic dominance in minority politics..   Each year thousands of undocumented “immigrants, “mostly Hispanic whites, walk across the Southern border to live and work in America.    Unsurprisingly, Hispanic now forms the lead minority group; with growing, exclusive economic and political clout in America.  And thanks to the opposition to photo identification, many more non-citizens can vote.   Blacks were the dominant minority group. The decline to second place happened while all attention was on racist Republicans!     This one way voting pattern has produced little gains for Blacks but a lot more for others.  A discerning person might think that the whole racist scheme was designed to keep Blacks down and under.   Now consider the case of the frog in a boiling pot.  Even though the frog didn’t volunteer for service in the ever more boiling pot, its problem now becomes how long it will choose to stay to be cooked. So has the overwhelming Black voting pattern for Democrats become.   But just in case you are offended by this frog imagery, please remember Malcolm X called us  "A POLITICAL CHUMP!" in 1965 just because we had stayed too long in the Democrat camp.   E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, September 20, 2014 Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.