How the Ku Klux Klan got away with murder, and why both parties let themThe Price of Klan Sympathies An introduction. 24 hours that "never happened."
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress...who, having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..."
Truth is stranger than fiction: Bill Clinton is an icon for many in the African-American community, his headquarters are even located in Harlem now. But after all the smoke and mirrors, after all the lip service and patronizing speeches, a shallow legacy of terrorist appeasement and obstruction of justice was the greatest gift he gave to the black community.
No one in their right mind can call the Ku Klux Klan anything but a terrorist organization. It was deemed as such from the beginning, when President Grant sent federal troops into the South to quell Klan-led acts of terrorism against the newly freed slaves.
Looking back at the events surrounding the bombing of the Okalahoma federal building, it is becomes painfully obvious even to the most skeptical observers that someone helped conceal Ku Klux Klan (read that terrorist) involvement in the Oklahoma City Bombing and the nationwide wave of church arsons. The reason why the Klan was protected by the Clinton Administration and to an equal extent, the Lott supporters in the Senate; is perhaps as odious as the act itself...
Klan members are members of a terrorist organization. This is self-evident. Moreover, former Klan members are thereby forbidden, under the 14 th amendment, to hold public office. So why is Byrd still in office? Or Hollings? or Lott, or any other legislator that is tied to or sympathetic to the Klan?
The year prior to the Oklahoma City Bombing, the KKK and Aryan Nation had activated all operational terrorist cells and openly declared the start of the race war was to begin in 1995. Lest there be any doubt, the KKK also made sure to leave their calling card in the wave of hundreds of countrywide 1995-96 church burnings. Evidence has long been uncovered that the KKK had formed ties with middle-eastern terrorists, which isn't a surprise. Consider the modus operandi of the terrorist bombings of US embassies in the middle east and Africa and then look at OKC.
The Islamic fanatic does what he does for the sake of the Koran, the Klansmen for the Kloran. The Mufti Arabs in WWII even worshipped Hitler as a God! If Hitler had middle-eastern allies, what makes you think the neo-Nazi wouldn't? the Aryan Nation and the Klan found ready financial backers and training from the middle-eastern terrorists who shared a common enemy in the Jew. It makes one wonder if Byrd's opposition to the war in Iraq was motivated by the knowledge that losing Saddam would be a blow to the Klan and Aryan Nation that could count on his financial backing.
So why the concealment of Klan and neo-Nazi involvement?
Apparently, to prevent a backlash that could threaten the careers of powerful ex-Klansmen in the Senate and House, from both parties, e.g. Sen. Robert Byrd (D), Sen. Strom Thurmond (R) and Sen. Fritz Hollings (D). (Hollings, "Senator Disney", was the Dixiecrat that placed the Confederate battle flag on the South Carolina state house in the 1960s). Why were these Klan ties so dangerous to the democrats and republicans? because under the 14th Amendment, these "ex-Klan" legislators are unlawfully in office.
Indeed, at the time, several legislators in the Lott-era GOP were receiving campaign funds from KKK and Aryan Nation umbrella groups. Sen. Larry Craig (R- Idaho) catered to the same by beatifying Randy Weaver, a white supremacist killed by federal agents in Ruby Ridge. (Curiously, in August 31, 1994, Sen. Craig remarked that a "free white male is an endangered human being in New York City" in response to a question about the Endangered Species Act.)
Even as late as 2000, Sen. Byrd (D) said on FOX television interview that there were "white niggers" also. Regardless of context, it is a telling glimpse into his psyche. "White niggers" is what the Klan calls white people who believe, and act upon the conviction, that we are all created equal. Are these the "white niggers" which Byrd was demeaning?
In short, the Clinton Democrats decided to protect the Klan rather than risk losing fiercely contested seats in the House and Senate by losing Byrd and his recruits, "reformed" as they might be. At stake was control of the House and Senate, both houses which had just turned Republican.
The Republican Lott stood to lose his position as Senate majority leader in the event of full disclosure; e.g., his present ties and past support of the same extremists now implicated in mass murder and terrorism.
Nowhere to Run
Many powerful African-American leaders in the Democratic party knew this. But they had nowhere to run. They had two choices:
Then GOP Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, who first came into politics on a strident segregationist platform, was a Klan sympathizer who chose instead to impeach Clinton's misconduct in the Waco/OKC investigation indirectly, via the Lewinsky scandal, sparing his own hide and that of his supporters.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, protecting the ex-Klansmen in the party was all for naught. The Democratic hemorrhaging of seats continued unabated. And by the presidential election of 2000, the Republicans would control the House, Senate and Presidency.
And finally, Trent Lott would fall from grace for the same Klan ties. Lott's legacy, however, is glaring: the ethnic cleansing of an entire party. There is not one African-American Senator or Congressman in the GOP today. Not one. And this was the party of Lincoln, the party that freed the slaves.
Republican efforts to correct the minority exodus under Lott are underway. The Bush Administration promised a new era of inclusion and racial tolerance, and appears to mean it. Under George W. Bush, an African-American is now Secretary of State, another, a woman, is now National Security Advisor. Powell and Rice's cabinet positions are the highest ever achieved by the African-American regardless of party.
Bush's present attempt to place the first Hispanic in the federal judiciary, has led to filibusters from a Democratic Party which prides itself on its racial diversity. Some in that party, in fact, are attempting to use "abortion rights" as a litmus test to approve judicial nominations. But as long as we're using civil rights litmus tests to approve federal judges, why not use a Klan litmus test, as well? Only this litmus test determines the right to remain in office.
This is a nation familiar with domestic and international terrorism. Do leaders who coddle ex-Klansmen in Washington themselves have a right to remain in office? It is obvious ex-Klansmen like Byrd, whom are unlawfully in office, are grave party liabilities at best, and instruments of covert federal obstruction at worst.
You see, there really is no such thing as former members of the Klan, unless you're dead. Read the Kloran. When you join the KKK, it's for keeps. Otherwise you'd never make it in. And even if you do decide to leave, you can never speak or act against them as an outsider. Byrd, and Hollings, have demonstrated the veracity of this code of silence when they turned a blind eye to domestic terrorism the minute it pointed to the Klan. Byrd was a Klan recruiter, and as such, had lists of every political recruit he brought into the Democratic party, some whom are still in office. This is why the 14th Amendment prohibited former Klan terrorists from holding public office; they knew about the liability of secret oaths that hold such groups together.
Are we to believe Byrd was ever penitent enough to disclose KKK membership records of those Klansmen whom he had successfully recruited into the Democratic party, even as the nation reeled from Klan-led domestic terrorism?
Why is it that the Democrats believe our right to know is only important when it comes to voting records on abortion, but not important when it comes to disclosing past ties and recruited member rosters to a terrorist organization like the KKK?
It wasn't just the Democratic leadership that betrayed Americans, Lott's supremacist minions in the GOP did as well.
Indeed, after Oklahoma City, the church arsons, etc., isn't it clear that such terrorist membership, even if past, legally disqualifies a legislator from holding office and is a test of character that once failed, provides the surest litmus test of one's unworthiness to lead?
Comments? email firstname.lastname@example.org@impiousdigest.com