Although the Democratic National Convention still has almost two full days to go, it has already managed to descend into a complete and utter farce.
From anti-Trump hysteria to hypocritical, brain-dead celebrities, to the embrace of extreme radical left-wing ideology, the 2016 DNC illustrates just how far removed from the concerns of normal, everyday folks the Democratic P:arty has become.
Nothing screams a concern for middle America as much as a panel discussion on the important topic of whether or not transgender men can get abortions.
Indeed, nothing screams a concern for middle America as much as a panel discussion on the important topic of whether or not transgender men can get abortions. That’s exactly what occurred at the DNC in an event hosted by The Atlantic entitled “Young Women Rising: America’s Next Top Voter?”
When the panel was questioned about reproductive rights and men who identify as women — because evidently safe, legal access to abortion is a pressing issue for “women” who don’t have uteruses — actress Amber Tamblyn chimed in happily.
“I wouldn’t know any statistics on that but I would say that goes again with the same notion of community, and fighting for everyone together,” Tamblyn said. “That for me as a heterosexual white woman to talk about reproductive rights and sit on the board of directors for Planned Parenthood, I have to not just talk about my people. I have to talk about everybody,” she said.
“The fact that I don’t know [if men who identify as women are having their reproductive rights infringed upon], the fact that I don’t have an answer should tell you a lot about what I need to learn,” Tamblyn continued.
Indeed, the DNC has so far been a glaring reminder of the Democratic Party’s somewhat bizarre belief that entertainment celebrities are somehow uniquely qualified to discuss the important sociopolitical issues of the day.
“Hillary knows that access and opportunity are the American promise. Not transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and systemic racism,” said living embodiment of everything wrong with modern feminism, Lena Dunham.
Dunham appeared with America Ferrara, a B-list TV actress who, as the daughter of Hispanic immigrants who named her after this country, is an obvious darling of the Left.
Dunham and Ferrara’s performance made clear the Democrats have no serious intent on debating the GOP or Trump’s ideas, but will instead cry big bad hateful wolf. “According to Donald Trump, I’m probably a rapist,” Ferrara said.
The most galling statement, however, came from Dunham. “I am a pro-choice, feminist, sexual assault survivor with a chronic reproductive illness … His rhetoric about women takes us back to a time when we were meant to be beautiful and silent,” Dunham claimed. “Meanwhile, 22 years ago, Hillary Clinton declared that women’s rights are human rights,” she continued.
The 2016 DNC, ladies and gentlemen: in which a woman who joked in her autobiography about molesting her own little sister claims to be a sexual assault survivor while praising a woman who defended a child rapist in court and spent a lifetime silencing her husband’s sexual assault victims as a champion of women.
In addition to putting a premium on celebrities spewing asinine nonsense, the DNC made sure to pander aggressively to every possible interest group on their progressive planet — other than white males, obviously.
Indeed, the DNC’s social justice stage props have included everything from an 11-year-old girl and her illegal-alien mother, to the mothers of young black men killed by police, to a disabled woman in a wheelchair, and even a dwarf. On Thursday the DNC — which has decided to do away with single-sex bathrooms because apparently the desire for privacy and comfort is a form of bigotry — will feature the first transgender person to address a national convention.
The Democrats’ politically correct pandering has become so palpable it reaches the level of parody.
Report lays out detailed timeline showing Clinton misled the public
A 45-page analysis of the Benghazi Committee’s investigative report released Tuesday by a pair of Republican congressmen lays out in devastating detail the lengths to which Hillary Clinton went to obscure the motives behind the murder of four Americans in Libya in 2012.
The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others on Sept. 11, 2012. Reps. Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo amassed ample evidence that then-Secretary of State Clinton quickly learned that the killings resulted from a organized terrorist attack.
“Yet, Secretary Clinton and the administration told one story privately — that Benghazi was a terrorist attack — and told another story publicly.”
“Yet, Secretary Clinton and the administration told one story privately — that Benghazi was a terrorist attack — and told another story publicly — blaming a video-inspired protest,” wrote Jordan and Pompeo, who said they wrote their report to highlight what they regard as the most important parts of the forthcoming official report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Indeed, in her Oct. 22 testimony before the Select Committee, Clinton blamed conflicting reports for the differences in her public and private statements on the motivations behind the attack. The report issued Tuesday by Jordan and Pompeo indicates there was overwhelming and immediate evidence in Clinton’s hands that it was a coordinated attack that had nothing to do with the video.
Democrats on the committee released their own report Monday, dismissing the investigation as “the ongoing Republican obsession with conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality.”
But it is hard to refute the written record showing Clinton and other administration officials clinging to their story that the attack started as a spontaneous protest over on obscure anti-Muslim internet video made by an American. Here is a timeline in the report:
Sept. 11, 2012
What they said in public: Clinton issued a statement at 10:08 p.m., before the attack was even over: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”
What they said in private: Hours earlier, though, at 6:49 p.m., Clinton told Libyan President Mohammed al Magariaf that there was “a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” In an email to daughter Chelsea at 11:23 p.m., she made no mention of the video. “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like [sic] group.”
Sept. 12, 2012
What they said in public: Clinton said in public remarks that officials were trying to determine the motives for the assault. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet,” she said.
What they said in private: In a summary of a call between Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones and Libyan Ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones said, “I told him that the group that conducted the attacks — Ansar Al Sharia — is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”
An email from State Department official Jacob Sullivan to the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, rejected the public contention that the attack in Libya was linked to a protest that had occurred in Cairo, Egypt.
“There was not really violence in Egypt [and] we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos,'” he wrote.
Clinton herself rejected the protest theory in a statement to then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Mohamed Qandil: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, in briefing with congressional staff, said, “No, the attack was a direct breaching attack.” He also differentiated it from the Cairo incident. “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”
Sept. 13, 2012
What they said in public: In remarks in Morocco, Clinton again blamed the online anti-Muslim film. “To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.”
What they said in private: A summary of a call between Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides and the Egyptian ambassador to the United States states: “Nides said he understood the difference between the targeted attack in Libya and the way the protest escalated in Egypt.”
Sept. 14, 2012
What they said in public: White House press secretary Jay Carey said at a news conference, “We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive.”
That is consistent with an email sent that evening by White House adviser Ben Rhodes to Carney and others that it was important “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
The father of Tyrone Woods, one of the fallen Americans, wrote in his diary that during a ceremony for the return of his son’s body, “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand, and she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.”
The mother of another victim, Sean Smith, similarly said, “We were nose-to-nose at the coffin ceremony. She told me it was the fault of the video. I said ‘Are you sure?’ She says, ‘Yes, that’s what it was … it was the video.'”
What they said in private: An email from a State Department press officer in the embassy in Tripoli urged colleagues not to draw attention to the video. “And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence,” the officer wrote.
Sept. 15, 2012
What they said in public: That did not stop President Obama in his weekly radio address from declaring that the “tragic attack takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries.”
What they said in private: Clinton made no mention of a protest or video in call with the Libyan prime minister-elect.
Sept. 16, 2012
What they said in public: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel, said, “But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack.”
Sept 17, 2012
What they said in public: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stood by Rice’s remarks on the Sunday news shows. “Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is,” she said.
What they said in private: Responding to instructions to link the attack in Benghazi to the protest in Egypt, a press officer in Libya wrote in an email, “I really hope this was revised. I don’t think we should go on the record on this.”
Sept. 18, 2012
What they said in public: Carney told reporters, “I would point you to what Ambassador Rice said and others have said about what we know thus far about the video and its influence on the protests that occurred in Cairo, in Benghazi and elsewhere.”
What they said in private: In a written statement to a congressional panel, Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell wrote, “The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terrorist attack from the very beginning.”
In an email exchange about an article quoting White House officials as seeing no signs of a premeditated attack, one State Department security agent asked another, “Can you believe this?” The second agent asked the first if there had been any rioting reported in Benghazi before the attack.
“Zip, nothing, nada,” the agent responded.
Sept. 19, 2016
What they said in public: In a cable to all U.S. embassies, Clinton warned of widespread violence at diplomatic posts across the Muslim world. “The proximate cause of the violence was the release by individuals in the United States of the video trailer for a film that many Muslims find offensive,” she wrote.
Sept. 20, 2012
What they said in public: At a Univision Town Hall event, Obama was still trying to determine what happened in Libya. “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
Remember how Obama and Holder tried to suppress the tape of Michael Brown’s violent robbery before his shooting? Here’s another problematic little revelation that just had to be covered up.
The police detectives who investigated the death of Freddie Gray were told that he had a history of participating in “crash-for-cash” schemes — injuring himself in law enforcement settings to collect settlements — but were advised by a state prosecutor not to pursue the information, according to defense attorneys for the six officers charged in Gray’s arrest and death.
The defense attorneys said in a court motion Thursday that Assistant State’s Attorney Janice Bledsoe told police investigators working the case in its early stages not to “do the defense attorneys’ jobs for them” by pursuing information they had about such schemes and evidence that Gray “intentionally injured himself at the Baltimore City Detention Center.”
Shouldn’t their job have involved determining what actually happened?
Why bother investigating reports that the poor victim had a history of deliberately injuring himself around law enforcement for profit? Let’s just pretend that the evil cops deliberately wanted to hurt him, because some of them being black, they were just that racist.
This is a ridiculous level of corruption all constructed to cover up the abuses of a Democratic administration that decided to sign off on race riots (Space to Destroy) in order to back Obama’s destructive agenda for America.
Perversely though the failure to investigate this made it inevitable that it would find its way to the defense lawyers, they are representing cops after all, where it would be used to show bad faith.
Gray, 25, died after sustaining a severe spinal cord injury in the back of a police transport van. His death in April sparked widespread protests against police brutality. On the day of his funeral, rioters clashed with police, looted businesses and burned buildings.
Questions about his injury remain. Some say he could have injured himself. Others say police might have subjected him to a “rough ride” in the back of the van. Neither theory has been proved.
Suddenly there’s an important piece of the puzzle explaining why Gray might have wanted to hurt himself.
The defense attorneys argued that her alleged statement “would seem to indicate some level of knowledge that exculpatory evidence exists which could benefit the officers charged in Mr. Gray’s death and that the prosecutor did not want this information uncovered by investigators.”
This is what justice under Obama looks like. Freeing drug dealers and locking up cops.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton’s BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department’s spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account.
“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton responded to Abedin.
Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office.
The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton’s server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. That copy of the email was publicly cited last month in a blistering audit by the State Department’s inspector general that concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers.
“While this exchange was not part of the approximately 55,000 pages provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton, the exchange was included within the set of documents Ms. Abedin provided the department in response to our March 2015 request,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said she provided “all potentially work-related emails” that were still in her possession when she received the 2014 request from the State Department.
“Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have,” Fallon said.
Fallon declined to say whether Clinton deleted any work-related emails before they were reviewed by her legal team. Clinton’s lead lawyer, David Kendall, did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The November 2010 email was among documents released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s service as the nation’s top diplomat between 2009 and 2013. The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton, including one filed by the AP.
Before turning over her emails to the department for review and potential public release, Clinton and her lawyers withheld thousands of additional emails she said were clearly personal, such as those involving what she described as “planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations.”
Clinton has never outlined in detail what criteria she and her lawyers used to determine which emails to release and which to delete, but her 2010 email with Abedin appears clearly work-related under the State Department’s own criteria for agency records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
Dozens of the emails sent or received by Clinton through her private server were later determined to contain classified material. The FBI has been investigating for months whether Clinton’s use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. Agents recently interviewed several of Clinton’s top aides, including Abedin.
As part of the probe, Clinton turned over the hard drive from her email server to the FBI. It had been wiped clean, and Clinton has said she did not keep copies of the emails she choose to withhold.
On Wednesday, lawyers from Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, questioned under oath Bryan Pagliano, the computer technician who set up Clinton’s private server. A transcript released Thursday shows Pagliano repeatedly responded to detailed questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.
Dozens of questions Pagiliano declined to answer included who paid for the system, whether there was technical help to support its users and who else at the State Department used email accounts on it. Pagliano also would not answer whether he discussed setting up a home server with Clinton prior to her tenure as secretary of state, according to the transcript.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the November 2010 email cited in the inspector general audit was one of more than a dozen work-related emails that his group identified that Clinton sent or received but later failed to turn over the State Department.
“Contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Mrs. Clinton did not return all her government emails to the State Department,” Fitton said. “Our goal is to find out what other emails Mrs. Clinton and the State Department are hiding.”
Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas — As interested observers, most Texans are probably trying to remain objective while watching the back-and-forth of political campaigns in the early stages of spring. Last week, however, the tactics by one of the campaigns for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate crossed the line from tough campaigning, into a realm of a behavior most will discern as unworthy of someone they’d want to have representing Texas.
In a charge quickly-proven as inaccurate, the accusation appeared in a blog post written by Ben Shapiro of Big Government that Texas’ Lt. Governor & Senate candidate David Dewhurst had held a Washington, D.C. fundraiser at the home of “Obama cronies.”
The truth was, in fact, something quite other than that. An updated story from Shapiro himself later cleared up the confusion and proved the charges false. The “meet & greet” reception was not a fundraiser of any sort – and rather than being hosted by “Obama cronies,” was organized solely by Republicans, including many who worked in President George W. Bush’s Administration.
In a series of web advertisements, Ted Cruz and his campaign ran with the unsubstantiated rumor, compounding the lie by attempting to link Texas’ Lt. Governor to the Obama Administration based upon a Republican Meet & Greet being held at town home owned by a bi-partisan lobby firm.
The phrase to describe any campaign’s gross misrepresentation of the facts, in Texas terms is, “that dog just won’t hunt.”
What Tea Party members in Texas and across the nation are sick of, is politicians who put their own personal advancement ahead of the welfare of the United States. Not only do actions speak louder than words, they are what is required given the brevity of the country’s current economic situation.
By resorting to false, malicious & too-often self-serving attacks on their opponents, the Ted Cruz camp (and others too) diminishes their own credibility … amongst other leaders, the press, donors, and most importantly the voters of Texas at large. (If you believe what we have been hearing the past month or so, this is the just latest in a pattern of mis-steps by the Cruz Campaign.)
While Ted Cruz has, to date, capitalized on a blossoming legal career to cast himself as a fighter, which undoubtedly is true given his personal story, many are just now learning Cruz is a partner at a high-powered law firm with a history of contributing 100’s of $1,000’s of dollars to Democrats such as the Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Congressional Committee’s campaigns.
Ted Cruz was hired as a partner Morgan Lewis & Bockius in 2008, during the presidential election in which Barack Obama became president. Morgan Lewis & Bockius made contributions totaling over $200,000 in support of Obama’s campaigns for President, as well as $750,000 to Democrats since Cruz became a partner.
Texans want a Senator who will fight the liberal Obama Agenda that‘s destroying our country – and does it based upon a previous record of experience, service & accomplishment, not upon dragging others down in order to build themselves up.
WHAT ALL AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S ALLEGED SAP COMPROMISE–MAJ ED COET, USA (RET)
[COURTESY: CAPT Les Horn, USN (Ret)]
My name is Ed Coet. I am a retired US Army Intelligence Officer. In my last job in the army I was the Chief of the Human Intelligence Branch
Here is what I personally know about SAP’s and what I can attest to in an unclassified forum:
1. The names of each SAP are themselves classified Top Secret because the information within the SAP are far and above Top Secret.
2. SAP’s are so sensitive that even people who have security clearances giving them access to Top Secret Sensitive Compartment Information (TS SCI), an enormously high security clearance level, cannot have accesses to a SAP’s unless they receive a special indoctrination into the SAP based on an operational “must know” that exceeds all other “need to know” standards.
3. Being “read on” for a SAP is far more then acknowledging in writing that you have been briefed on the SAP. It is an in-depth “indoctrination” into the given SAP, and each SAP is itself compartmented separately from other SAPS. Having access to one SAP does not give you access to another SAP, and in fact rarely does. Only a tiny handful of people have knowledge of all SAP’s. SAP’s are the most stringently compartmented and protected information in the entire US government.
4. Unlike Top Secret SCI which is maintained in highly secure Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilitates (SCIF’s) managed by specially trained Special Security Officers (SSO’s) at various levels of command, every single SAP is managed by an individually designated Program Manager for each individual SAP covering an entire theater of operations. In other words, SAP Program Managers are far fewer in number than there is SSO’s. SSO’s are not cleared to even know about SAP’s or to maintain information about them in their already enormously secure SCIF’s. How SAP’s are secured cannot be discussed because of the sensitive beyond Top Secret nature in which it is done.
5. Unlike individuals with the highest Top Secret SCI access security clearances, who must undergo a special background information with periodic “bring-up” background investigation, those tiny few who have access to SAP’s must also endure periodic polygraph tests in addition to the most comprehensive of special background investigations. I used to have to schedule four-star generals and admirals to be polygraphed in order for them to maintain their access to my SAP. Many generals and admirals who obviously have the highest security clearances still did not rate being indoctrinated into my SAP. In fact, they didn’t even know the SAP existed.
6. Compromise of a SAP is the single most dangerous security violation that can ever happen to the USA. Even the enormously damaging revelations of the Edward Snowden’s TOP Secret SCI security compromise does not reach the level of a SAP compromise.
7. To put SAP information in to an unsecure sever like Hillary Clinton’s unsecure server is a class one felony that could, in some cases, result in life in prison. That is because such a compromise is so dangerous that it could and likely will result in the death of people protected by and within the scope of the SAP.
As a former SAP Program Manager I believe it is inconceivable that if it is verified that Hillary Clinton’s server actually had SAP information on it that she could possibly escape indictment and criminal prosecution. As hard as it is to imagine, that would even be worse then electing to not prosecute a mass murdering serial killer because even they could not inflict as much damage on our country as the compromise of a SAP. Compromise of a SAP not only could — but without doubt would — cause serious damage to our national security.
If it is true that Hillary Clinton had SAP information on her unsecure server, whether it was marked or not, you can be sure that the FBI will strongly recommend that charges be brought against Hillary Clinton and continue in an exhaustive investigation to trace back to every single person that had even the tiniest role in this unbelievable security compromise.
If the Attorney General, through “prosecutorial discretion,” elected not to prosecute this crime, I believe congress would have no alternative but to impeach her, and the FBI would then have no choice but to conduct a criminal investigation of her for a deliberate cover up –- so grave is this security violation.
If President Obama were to pardon Hillary Clinton for a compromise of this magnitude he would render himself in the historical record as an “enemy of the state,” and could himself face criminal prosecution –- so grave is such a security compromise. Nobody, not even the POTUS could gets away with something like this in our system of government.
If anyone could escape persecution for compromising a SAP, we are deep trouble as a nation. No president who loves this country and is true to his oath would ever allow anyone, not even his or her closest and most loved relative, to get away with a SAP compromise. It is simply unimaginable that this could ever happen.
If the ongoing investigation finds that Hillarååy Clinton compromised a SAP, then we all should know with certainty, regardless of political persuasion, that she is entirely unfit to hold public office of any kind let alone President of the USA — and ALL Americans should never tolerate it. Compromising a SAP is an absolute “disqualifier” for public office and access to our nations most sensitive information – period.
Major, US Army (Retired)
P.S. It is my sincere hope that each of you will share this article, to help other Americans understand how grave Hillary Clinton’s alleged SAP compromise is. We can’t allow anyone so careless with this level of information to have access to any classified information ever again for as long as she lives. This would surely render her unqualified and unfit to hold any public office let alone POTUS if this allegation proves to be true.
Sunday on CBS “Face the Nation,” pollster Frank Luntz spoke with a group of Florida Republicans and Democratic voters who oppose both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
After a clip of Hillary Clinton saying she always tries to tell the truth a female voter said, “You could turn off the sound and still see on her face that she was lying. She was the worst liar I think I’ve ever seen in my life.”
Another woman said, “She lied about lying.”
Here’s a bit of American history guaranteed not to appear in any government-approved history book. The Democrat party has, throughout its existence, represented the bigotry and racism they seek to project onto Republicans.
The informed readers of this article are likely familiar with the racist roots of the political party aptly portrayed by a jackass, but much of the general population, especially outspoken Democrats, are woefully ignorant of any such facts.
Ask the nearest Democrat about Republicans and race and even the mayor of a substantial American city might just respond with, “They are racist.”
In reference to their own party, Dems will likely say they led the fight for civil rights throughout the years, though a cursory review of the party will prove this assertion wrong. For instance, this was the party that established the Ku Klux Klan as its enforcement arm. Powerful Democrat politicians have appointed klansmen to high-ranking positions in American government for a century, yet have somehow convinced the vast majority of blacks that Republicans are the bad guys!
The KKK was used to intimidate voters, black and white, into voting Democrat – or not voting at all.
Through violence, property damage, rape, and murder, Democrats were able to secure a huge majority of the black vote comprised of those afraid to cast an alternate ballot. Disgustingly, they have somehow been able to maintain that death-grip on the African-American community to this day.
When these reprehensible strategies, though unquestionably effective, did not satiate their need to keep the black population down, Democrat-supported legislation such as Jim Crow laws made sure these minorities would remain second-class citizens even after the ratification of the 13th Amendment. There are plenty of examples of heralded Democrats, including Presidents LBJ and Truman, expressing disdain for blacks in their own words.
Republicans, thankfully, emerged as the pro-freedom, anti-slavery alternative to the juggernaut that was the Democrat party. Despite the fact that significantly more Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats, the party of the left has somehow hoodwinked much of the black community into thinking they are its savior.
Of course, today’s Democrats will say, if they concede these points at all, that this is all ancient history, but I respectfully disagree. In much the same way that it did in the late 1800s, the Democrat party needs the black vote and, increasingly, the Hispanic vote to pull heavily for their side in order to win elections.
While paying them mere lip service, liberals pass legislation such as a broken welfare system rewarding poor mothers for having out-of-wedlock children and punishing them for getting married, thus keeping minorities at the mercy of government handouts. This makes them beholden to a party that represents views, such as support for abortion and gay marriage, that are diametrically opposed to those of many in the black community.
Democrats know they cannot intellectually compete with a party that, at its core, simply wants to provide individual liberty, encourage strong families and reduce abortions (which equal approximately the death toll of the 9/11 attack every two days in the black community alone), so they continue to repeat the old diatribe that Republicans are the real racists.
The GOP, which was the first to name a black Supreme Court Justice and Secretary of State, must defend itself against accusations based purely in the imagination of Democrats, often with figurative or literal blood on their own hands.
Each February, Democrats promote Black History Month with a vengeance, hoping to stoke the race war embers and elicit even more loyalty from the black community. I would promote a the study of accurate black history, not just during the shortest month but year round, and it’s relationship with a Democrat party that has been patronizing at its best and deadly at its worst.
Unfortunately, I feel that would be the only chance Republicans have of attracting a voting bloc that has continually been misled into hating the wrong political party.