Slavery? Really Democrats? Really Michelle? Really Hillary?
December 6, 1865 was Liberation Day. It was on that day that America’s period of black enslavement, which lasted 246 years, officially came to an end. Now, 151 years later, the Democratic Party is still trying to make slavery an issue. Probably they will still being playing the race card when the 3016 election rolls around. Why? Simple. A Democrat could not be elected without using a devise tactic that enrages the emotions of minority groups.
Sadly, the Democratic Party has done little to help minorities. In fact, unemployment is at an all-time high within the black community. Couple that with a reduction in spendable income and increased violence within urban areas (Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc.) the Democratic Party has in essence enslaved those they have duped into voting a Democratic ticket.
Prior to the election of Lyndon Johnson and his “Great Society” programs, 90% of black Americans had previously voted as Republicans. A work ethic was soon replaced by a welfare ethic, because it is difficult to turn down free stuff. And if black Americans believe LBJ was their friend, think again. His disdain for the black race is well documented; a president that had to be taught how to say the word “negro” because his mindset was more attuned to saying the other “n” word.
In a twist of fate, Democrats were handed the designation as Civil Rights advocates when in reality it was the GOP that shepherded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress and forced them onto President Lyndon Johnson’s desk. Johnson attached his name and his party to their legacy by signing them into law.
And historically, the Ku Klux Klan that was a significant Democratic constituency; helping to elect legislators, sheriffs, judges and mayors who went on to become Klan members. Meanwhile, Klansmen targeted white Republicans for being “n—- lovers” who wanted to help blacks secure their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Just as Democrats in the 1800s wanted to keep blacks on the plantation, Democrats today want to keep blacks on the voting plantation and they will utilize any rhetoric, incentives or promises to keep them on that plantation.
If Democrats wanted to titillate the emotions of voters then why not champion a minority that was enslaved for over 400 years and had 6 million of their race systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany? The horrors suffered by Jews far exceed the injustices that have befallen any other minority demographic. Why not play that race card? I mean, they had a candidate of Jewish heritage in Bernie Sanders who could have led the charge against past injustices. Ironically, the WikiLeaks email fiasco shows a bent by Democrat Party officials to actually suppress Sanders because of his Jewish heritage. But statistically most persons who identify themselves as Jewish already vote as Democrats because they too have been coerced by leftist rhetoric that would have them to believe the Christian platform of the Republican Party is anti-Semitic. This errant thinking has led Jewish voters to follow after a party that believes in nothing; hence, they feel more comfortable in a party that is devoid of Christian values or convictions.
Now the Democrats have nominated a woman as their candidate and yet there has not been one speaker at their convention to address the slavery that affects 20-30 million persons in the world today. According to the U.S. State Department, 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year, of which 80% are female and half are children; approximately 80% of human trafficking involves sexual exploitation, and 19% involves labor exploitation. Woah! A woman candidate avoiding the enslavement of woman! Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party have avoided the real issue of slavery, because in doing so it would shed light on Bill Clinton’s exploitation of young women throughout his political career.
So once again, the Democratic Party shirks its responsibility to address the evident and existing slavery in the world today and pin their hopes on once again regurgitating an issue that was settled over 151 years ago. Minority voters will continue to remain exactly where Democratic leadership wants them to remain; on the plantation of failed promises.
One response to “Slavery? Really Democrats? Really Michelle? Really Hillary?”
Leave a comment
My World
Pressing the Issue 
Democrat have falsely believed that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.
Horace Cooper, co-chairman of Project 21, a black conservative organization, has said that at the time the 1964 bill was debated “it was clear [that] distinguished leaders of the Democratic Party were the opponents … we didn’t have 24-hour news then, but people who were paying attention knew who opposed it.”
“There is a myth, and it has been a particularly effective one, that the Democratic Party has created opportunities for minorities,” added Cooper, a former law professor at George Mason University and former counsel for House Republicans. “The record for 100 years from the 1860s through the 1960s has been that the Democrats have stymied the abilities of black Americans to have the same constitutional rights as all Americans.”
The basis of most Republican opposition to the 1964 law, even from GOP members of Congress who backed the 1957 and 1960 bills signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, was about forcing private business to comply with public accommodation laws. Few Republicans expressed any qualms about requiring public buses, and government buildings to integrate.
“Because Republicans had been the party of civil rights and liked more in it than they didn’t, they voted for it,” Cooper said. “Democrats were split. It was Democrats that used a herculean effort to block it through filibusters.”
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed along similar partisan margins, with 61 Democratic “no” votes in the House and 24 Republicans voting against the bill, which passed 333-85. In the Senate, the measure passed with the support of 94 percent of the Republican caucus and 73 percent of the Democratic caucus.
The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time.
Democrats continue to exploit race, but now just in a more sophisticated way.
FDR’s New Deal prolonged joblessness for millions, and black people were especially hard hit. restricted output and forced wages and prices above market levels. The minimum wage regulations made it illegal for employers to hire people who weren’t worth the minimum because they lacked skills. As a result, some 500,000 blacks, particularly in the South, were estimated to have lost their jobs.
Marginal workers, like unskilled blacks, desperately needed an expanding economy to create more jobs. Yet New Deal policies made it harder for employers to hire people. FDR tripled federal taxes between 1933 and 1940. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls discouraged employers from hiring. New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. New Deal antitrust lawsuits harassed some 150 employers and whole industries. It was misguided government intervention to disrupt private sector employment when the median unemployment rate was 17 percent.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) aimed to help farmers by cutting farm production and forcing up food prices. Less production meant less work for thousands of poor black sharecroppers. In addition, blacks were among the 100 million consumers forced to pay higher food prices because of the AAA.
The Wagner Act (1935) harmed blacks by making labor union monopolies legal. By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.
And because my post was about how Democrats love to play the slavery card, who could ever forget that FDR (The Yoda of Liberalism and a Democratic mindset) was the president who enacted Executive Order 9066. 120,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry were evicted from the West Coast of the United States and held in internment camps across the country.
Japanese Americans and other Asians in the U.S. had for decades suffered from prejudice and racially-motivated fear. Laws preventing Asian Americans from owning land, voting, testifying against whites in court, and other racially discriminatory laws.
Ironically, over two-thirds of the people of Japanese ethnicity interned — almost 70,000 — were American citizens. Many of the rest had lived in the country between 20 and 40 years. Most Japanese Americans, particularly the first generation born in the United States (the nisei), considered themselves loyal to the United States of America. No Japanese American citizen or Japanese national residing in the United States was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage.
FDR was obviously not a champion of Civil Rights and imposed tax hikes in 1935, 1936, and 1937 even though Treasury economists had repeatedly urged FDR to lower taxes on the poor.
Hoover before and Clinton after were also blinded by the symbolism of supposedly taxing the rich to help the poor; a shaky pillar of Liberal idealism.
As I said before, Democrats have done more to keep minority voters down on the voting plantation, because that is exactly where they want them to stay.
LikeLike