The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.
So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.
Preparing the Battlefield
No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.
The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.
In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.
All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.
Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.
Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”
I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.
The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.
So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.
CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.
Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.
Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.
At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.
Weaponizing the Deep State
During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.
About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.
The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.
John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.
The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.
The Mueller Investigation
The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Muller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.
Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.
Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.
The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.
The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.
The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.
Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.
The Palace Coup
All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).
In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.
The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.
At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.
McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.
The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:
One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;
Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;
Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.
In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.
Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.
Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/17/autopsy-of-a-dead-coup/
Monday, January 21, 2019
Thursday, January 17, 2019
https://sheeble.com/are-democrats-racist-definitive-guide/
https://sheeble.com/are-democrats-racist-definitive-guide/
https://libertytitans.com/are-democrats-racist-definitive-guide/
Percentage of Families Run by Married Couples:
https://libertytitans.com/are-democrats-racist-definitive-guide/
One of the biggest arguments against the Democratic Party is centered around racism, so we ask the question, are the Democrats racist?
Through-out the years, their members/affiliates have made blatant and also subtle racist remarks which the party does not deny (mostly). The interesting part, though, is that their main line of defense is a claim that doesn’t really have any grounds to it. The claim is that the Democratic and Republican parties have at some point switched stances in terms of racism.
So, after 45 hours of research, I’ve compiled the data and have arrived at a logical destination. Now I present it to you…
THE OBVIOUS RACIAL PREDICAMENTS
1857 DRED SCOTT VS. SANFORD
The Supreme Court made a ruling stating that slaves are not citizens and could not expect protection from the federal government or courts. (sos.mo.gov)
The ruling was 7-2, in which 7 Democrats decided the man could not be a citizen and 2 voted that he could.
The ruling was 7-2, in which 7 Democrats decided the man could not be a citizen and 2 voted that he could.
Note: This required a bit more digging around because, for some reason, it’s not talked about in many places.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (Democrat) presented the majorities’ findings, which was concurred by Chief Justice Samuel Nelson (Democrat). Opposed to the findings was Chief Justice John McLean (Republican) and Chief Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis (Republican). This quarrel can be found here (Wikipedia).
Remaining Supreme Court Justices that voted against Scott: Chief Justice James Moore Wayne (Democrat), Chief Justice John Catron (Democrat), Chief Justice Peter Vivian Daniel (Democrat), Chief Justice Robert Cooper Grier (Democrat) and Chief Justice John Archibald Campbell (Democrat).
1860
The Democratic Party was split in two factions: Northern Democrats typically against slavery and Southern Democrats defended slavery.
The Southern Democrats became afraid that Lincoln (Republican), after winning the Presidential election, would eliminate slavery altogether.
Shortly after the southern states started to secede from the Union, 11 states in total seceded between 1860-1861. (ohiohistorycentral.org)
1861-1865 THE CIVIL WAR
Union (Republican) vs. Confederate (Democrat).
Lincoln’s (Republican) emancipation Proclamation (1863) declared that all persons held as slaves in rebellious land are, and henceforward shall be, free.
Only 6 days after the Civil War ended, John Wilkes Booth (Democrat) assassinated President Abraham Lincoln (Republican).
1865-1869 OPPOSED THE 13TH, 14TH AND 15TH AMENDMENTS.
13TH AMENDMENT 1864-1865
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
1864 Democrats resisted this amendment by voting against it. The Senate results were 38- 6 with only 2 Democrats voting in favor of. The House vote failed also with a count of 93- 65, the vote was distinctively split by party- Republicans in favor of and Democrats against.
1865 Finally the Amendment passed with a House vote of 119- 56, again split down party lines.
14TH AMENDMENT 1866
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
1866 There were 70 proposals for this amendment in total. Finally, in June of 1866, the Senate passed the amendment 33-11 and the House followed a few days later 138-36. Votes were split down party lines again.
15TH AMENDMENT 1869
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
1869 The House voted 144- 44 and again was almost perfectly split down party lines; Republicans for and Democrats against. The Senate vote was 39- 13, also split down party lines. 
Author’s note: This is a pivotal time in this group’s history where their system of slave ownership has been tried, attacked and overcome. Although they continued to resist and called the Republicans “radical” (sound familiar?), their ideology was no longer accepted and had been outlawed, a fact that they would not swallow.
1865-1866 BLACK CODES
Black Codes were created by the Confederacy (Democrats) to keep newly freed slaves from having the luxuries of citizens; things like voting, land ownership, gun ownership and education.
Example from Mississippi:
“That all freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes in this State, over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in January, 1866, or thereafter, without lawful employment or business, or found unlawfully assembling themselves together, either in the day or night time, and all white persons so assembling themselves with freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes, on terms of equality, or living in adultery or fornication with a freed woman, free negro or mulatto, shall be deemed vagrants, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding, in the case of a freedman, free negro, or mulatto, fifty dollars, and a white man two hundred dollars, and imprisoned, at the discretion of the court, the free negro not exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six months.”
1866 KKK FOUNDED
General Nathan Bedford Forest (Democrat) founded the Ku Klux Klan as a resistance to “Radical” Republicans and Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. The KKK was basically an “unofficial” force mobilized to enforce the Black Codes, terrorize Black Americans and Republican thinking people who would run for office.
The Klan would attempt to suppress the black vote with violence and other immoral tactics. They were even known to commit voter fraud if they felt the need.
1912- 1921 WOODROW WILSON
A Democrat with a long laundry list of racist actions, including Federal Segregation.
Wilson rounded up the black vote by telling them that he would be fair and help them advance their interests. Many black voters left the Republicans and voted for Wilson instead. Less than one month after his inauguration he pushed forward for federal segregation in the Department of Treasury and Post Office Department.
1913 Ultimately blacks had to use separate restrooms, lunchrooms and some were even “screened” off out of public sight if their job (clerks) entailed them to be around whites.
Eventually, in 1914, Wilson made it mandatory that applications have a photo attached to them in order to make the discrimination process easier.
1915 The White House watched the film Birth of a Nation, based on the 1905 book The Clansmen, a film that portrayed the KKK as honest and noble
1919 Wilson shoots down a Japanese Amendment that recognizes “equality of nations” and “equality of race” among the League of Nations.
1870’S- 1965 JIM CROW LAWS
Jim Crow laws essentially were a continuation of the Black Codes and segregation brought up by Democrats. In 1896, “Equal but Separate” was upheld in the Supreme Court and amounted to public racial segregation. This also discriminately included poor education, meager jobs/job choices and trespasses against social rights.
This went on until the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
1860’S- 1920’S LYNCHINGS
Shortly after the Civil War and into the 1920’s, lynchings were used by the Democrats as a form of intimidation against mostly Black Americans, but also against other races. There was a supremacy factor implied in the lynchings that made the lynchers appear stronger and more powerful while making the victims appear “lesser.”
Between 4,000 and 4,700 people were lynched in this time frame, predominantly Black Americans. Roughly 75% of lynchings after the Civil War happened in the Democrat-controlled South.
1871 Enforcement Act, Ku Klux Klan Act: a bill that would punish Klan violence was voted on was and passed by House and Senate Republicans; not one Democrat voted in favor of this bill.
1894 President Grover Cleveland (Democrat) signed off on a bill that repealed most of the Enforcement Act.
1918 Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill: Introduced by Leonidas C. Dyer, a bill that would punish perpetrators of lynchings and mob violence. The bill passed the House 1922 but was ultimately filibustered by Senate Democrats.
1960 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
A bill that would protect voters at the polls and penalize anyone caught trying to interfere with someone’s right to vote.
The final tallies by party:
| Republicans | House | Senate |
| YEAS | 123 | 29 |
| NAYS | 12 | 0 |
| Democrats | House | Senate |
| YEAS | 165 | 42 |
| NAYS | 82 | 18 |
Senate passed with 100% Republican approval and 78% Democrat disapproval.
1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
A bill that ends discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin. Voter rights were also included.
Included a Democrat-led filibuster that lasted for 60 days.
The final tallies by party:
| Republicans | House | Senate |
| YEAS | 136 (80%) | 27 (82%) |
| NAYS | 35 (20%) | 6 (18%) |
| Democrats | House | Senate |
| YEAS | 153 (63%) | 46 (69%) |
| NAYS | 91 (37%) | 21 (31%) |
Note: a majority of the NAY votes were Southern states from both parties.
1963- 1969 LYNDON JOHNSON
The Democrat President who signed the Civil Rights Act in 1965 and the Great Society program in 1964- 1965. Sounds good, right? That is, until you read what he has been quoted as saying.
These quotes arguably show the true demeanor of the Democratic Party at the time of passing these bills. When you say:
“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
and then implement a program that would be supported predominantly by white tax-paying citizens while providing care, food and other things to poor folks, predominantly black citizens, people would have to be hypnotized not to ask questions.
To put the icing on the cake, Johnson was quoted as saying:
“I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.”
Keep in mind, this is after his famous Great Society programs were implemented, programs that included housing, food stamps and other welfare supplements. Single-parent homes were rewarded with extra benefits, a measure that assisted in breaking down the black family.
Authors note: This is another pivotal time in this group’s history. They had fought long and hard to try and uphold their feelings of supremacy and way of life. It was becoming clearer to them that the battle was being lost as people were seeing through the words and into the true intent; they were waking up. At this point it is my belief, based on the facts and order of events as they unfolded that this group pivots from being blatantly against Black Americans to covertly against Black Americans. It seems to go from physical enslavement with chains to mental enslavement with dependency.
1996
Remember when Hillary Clinton called inner-city Black Americans super predators and said they needed to be brought to heel?
ROBERT BYRD, KLANSMAN AND SENATOR
Held political office from 1947- 2010 as a Democrat. In the 1940’s Byrd started a new sect of the Klan by recruiting roughly 150 friends.
In 1943, Byrd claimed to have left the KKK but a letter was found that he wrote to a Grand Wizard:
“The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”
Later on in his life he stated that mistakes were made but he continued to support programs that hurt black families.
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) called Byrd a “friend and mentor.” Hillary Praises Robert Byrd
2018
After Kanye West visited President Donald Trump (Republican) in the White House, many Democrats called him racial names like
“token negro”
and made statements like
“Kanye West is what happens when negroes don’t read.”
Most of the animosity towards West comes after he publicly supported Trump and stated that “Liberals can’t bully me.”
This concludes my list of examples that were well-documented. Although there remain many more items that could be discussed, I feel that this list displays the Democratic Party’s origin and demeanor throughout American history.
THE NOT-SO-OBVIOUS RACIAL PREDICAMENTS
This section will touch on a subject that has been controversial ever since its origins: modern-day welfare. Although it is certainly handy for those who need it, it can be morally deadening for those who continually receive it but don’t actually need it.
I consider this subject to be a “not-so-obvious predicament” just because of the sentiment it has acquired by sympathizers and the persuasiveness of its pushers throughout the years.
SLEIGHT OF HAND
Let’s dive right in to the main attraction, President Lyndon Johnson.
Lyndon Johnson, a known racist, signed off on the Anti-Poverty laws in 1964-65. These laws included programs of many kinds, including: Job Corps, Model Cities Program, Food Stamp Act, etc.
He was also quoted saying:
“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
That’s quite the odd outlook for a sincerely motivated person, especially when you put that in conjunction with this quote, also from Johnson:
“I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.”
With these two quotes, you have a clearer picture of his outlook, although his racist agenda is already known.
Some will argue that the context of the first quote is in regard to another situation that he had seen earlier. This may be true, but he has provided us with an opportunity to see inside his head; we now know that he understands the psychology of manipulation and, in conjunction with other known actions and other statements, he will use it.
In 1967, the Government did some analysis in regard to the programs and found that only 50,000 people out of 7.3 million (less than 1%) on welfare were capable of getting off of the assistance and returning to work.
With this new information, we had empirical evidence of the program’s failure to bring the poor out of poverty. At this point, the clear solution was to either scrap the deal or use the new data to start from scratch and try something else. This did not happen, but why?
THE INCONCEIVABLE TRUTH
Next, let’s look at some statistics to see how Black and White American families held up to these programs.
(We are using the years between the 1950’s and 1980’s because data is readily available. For some reason, later years compiled the data differently so we would not be able to compare apples to apples)
ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS AND MARRIED HOUSEHOLDS
Illegitimate births/Births out of wedlock totals:
| Whites | Blacks | |
| 1950 | 1.75% | 17.96% |
| 1955 | 1.86% | 20.24% |
| 1960 | 2.29% | 21.58% |
| 1965 (Anti-poverty) | 3.96% | 26.32% |
| 1970 | 5.66% | 34.93% |
| 1975 | 7.30% | 44.17% |
| 1980 | 11.04% | 48.45% |
Percentage of Families Run by Married Couples:
| Whites | Blacks | |
| 1957 | 88.4% | 74.7% |
| 1960 | 88.7% | 73.6% |
| 1965 (Anti-poverty) | 88.6% | 73.1% |
| 1970 | 88.7% | 69.6% |
| 1975 | 86.9% | 63.9% |
| 1980 | 85.6% | 59.3% |
PEOPLE LIVING IN HOUSEHOLDS WITH A WOMAN AS HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD BY INCOME
Poor (incomes below poverty line):
| Whites | Blacks | |
| 1960 | 17.71% | 27.68% |
| 1965 (Anti-poverty) | 22.11% | 34.84% |
| 1970 | 28.23% | 53.40% |
| 1975 | 33.17% | 61.07% |
| 1980 | 33.87% | 64.61% |
Low Income (income from 100-125 % above poverty line):
| Whites | Blacks | |
| 1960 | 7.63% | 11.60% |
| 1965 (Anti-poverty) | 10.26% | 16.17% |
| 1970 | 15.41% | 27% |
| 1975 | 17.20% | 38.45% |
| 1980 | 18.73% | 43.47% |
Middle and Upper Income (income 125% of the poverty line and above):
| Whites | Blacks | |
| 1960 | 5.01% | 10.92% |
| 1965 (Anti-poverty) | 4.98% | 11.93% |
| 1970 | 5.84% | 16.79% |
| 1975 | 6.75% | 18.51% |
| 1980 | 7.78% | 21.01% |
OVERALL HOMICIDE, ROBBERY AND BURGLARY RATES
Homicide (per 100,000 people):
| Whites | Blacks | |
| 1960 | 3.5 | 42.4 |
| 1965 (Anti-poverty) | 3.4 | 41.4 |
| 1970 | 4.9 | 65 |
| 1975 | 6.3 | 54.7 |
| 1980 | 7.2 | 48.3 |
Robbery (per 100,000 people):
| Whites | Blacks | |
| 1960 | 84 | 754 |
| 1965 (Anti-poverty) | 81 | 843 |
| 1970 | 101 | 1419 |
| 1975 | 147 | 1325 |
| 1980 | 159 | 1441 |
Burglaries (per 100,000 people):
| Whites | Blacks | |
| 1960 | 545 | 1969 |
| 1965 (Anti-poverty) | 577 | 2293 |
| 1970 | 713 | 2741 |
| 1975 | 1039 | 2692 |
| 1980 | 905 | 2485 |
This data was collected from Charlie Murray’s book “Losing Ground,” (we’re not affiliated). His sources consist of official government outlets like the FBI and Vital Statistics of the United States.
Special note: these statistics have never been disputed.
We can see that most of the moral breakdown started to occur shortly after 1965 when the Anti-Poverty laws were passed.
The breakdown of the families and crime rates went up almost right on cue.
It seems pretty obvious that the negative effect of these anti-poverty laws was pretty harsh on the American families, especially black families.
This really makes one wonder why these laws were never revoked.
Author’s Note: An extremely important note to make at this point is in regard to the belief of “white privilege.” It would appear that if this concept is true in a systematic sense, it’s simply because of these laws, although, I wouldn’t label “white privilege” a cause because white families also suffered from this legislation.
PSYCHOLOGICAL MISDIRECTION
Lastly, there is a perceived notion, a baseless argument, that if you oppose any type of welfare that you are instantly racist.
Defamation attacks like this hardly prove any argument, but they are more effective at ending a debate while still feeling a false sense of accomplishment.
What needs to be realized is, like Thomas Sowell points out:
“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”
In other words, the war on poverty, which forces able-bodied workers to pay extra taxes on their hard-earned money that go towards unable bodied non-workers (nothing wrong here) and able-bodied non-workers, is actually a fairly new concept to America.
The “welfare” and other forms of assistance have always been through the community: families, friends, relatives, churches and so on.
Consideration for this being a government-provided service was not brought up simply because it was common knowledge that the government should not be intimately involved with families.
In the beginning of the anti-poverty programs, the notion was “a hand, not a handout.” This is considered acceptable by most.
But these programs do not actually lift the poor out of poverty, and there is empirical evidence to support that claim, which means there is no real war on poverty.
By tax-paying citizens giving money to a program that essentially does not help to create a level playing field, we are literally giving out free money.
In the process, we are helping our government to trap a group of citizens that will become dependent on this assistance.
Being against this concept does not make one racist; in fact, it could be used in consideration for determining one’s sanity.
“100 years of ill-treatment, segregation, out-casting and abuse hurts the souls and self-value of a people. Add on top of that a set of “stacked laws” that restrained education and good jobs, no wonder they are in poverty. The solution? Treat them like the humans that they are and let their souls heal, they will rise back in kind. Do not recklessly give them materialistic sustenance that further cripples their being. Let them be, let them be free. And they will prevail, just like every other creation of God, of course, when not under constant duress.” ~The Sheebler
BLACK LEADERS THAT HAVE SPOKEN UP
Throughout the years black leaders have stood up and illustrated their distaste for the Democratic Party. Maybe you’ve heard of them:
U. S. Rep. Richard Cain (South Carolina):
“The bad blood of the South comes because the Negroes are Republicans. If they would only cease to be Republicans and vote the straight-out Democratic ticket there would be no trouble. Then the bad blood would sink entirely out of sight.”
U. S. Rep. John Roy Lynch (Mississippi) agreed:
“More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party.”
Why did lynchings go unpunished in so many communities? U. S. Representative Joseph Hayne Rainey, the first African American elected to the House, explained the reason during the passage of the 1871 Civil Rights bill to punish Klan violence:
“When we call to mind the fact that this [Klan] persecution is waged against men for the simple reason that they dare vote with the [Republican] Party, . . . [t]he question is sometimes asked, ‘Why do not the courts of law afford redress?’ . . . We answer, that the courts are in many instances under the control of those [Democrats] who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity. What benefit would result from appeal to tribunals [courts] whose officers are secretly in sympathy with the very evil against which we are striving? . . . I will say that in the State of South Carolina, there is no disturbance of an alarming character in any one of the counties in which the Republicans have a majority. The troubles are usually in those sections in which the Democrats have [control]. . . . I say . . . to the entire membership of the Democratic Party, that upon your hands rests the blood of the loyal men of the South. Disclaim it as you will; the stain is there to prove your criminality before God and the world in the day of retribution which will surely come.”
Malcolm X:
“The Negro revolution is controlled by foxy white liberals, by the Government itself. But the Black Revolution is controlled only by God.”
Mason Weaver (Former Black Panther):
“They (Democrats) control every inner city school system, every inner city police, every inner city jail, but there’s nothing but drugs and misery.” “They (Democrats) have presided over the destruction of Black people, they should be ashamed of themselves. I don’t understand how any black person can be a Democrat.”
Ward Connerly:
“If I have learned one thing from life, it is that race is the engine that drives the political Left. When all else fails, that segment of America goes to the default position of using race to achieve its objectives. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it.”
Star Parker:
“When caring for your neighbor becomes a compulsory obligation imposed by government instead of voluntary, charity turns to confiscation and freedom to achieve to involuntary servitude. To liberals, compassion seems to be defined by how many people are dependent on the government; to conservatives, it’s defined by how many people no longer need help. One promotes dependence, the other freedom, responsibility and achievement.”
Larry Elder:
“Good motives aside, white condescension does more damage than good. White condescension says to a black child, ‘The rules used by other ethnic groups don’t apply to you. Forget about work hard, get an education, possess good values. No, for you, we’ll alter the rules by lowering the standards and expecting less.’ Expect less, get less.”
J.C. Watts:
“They said that I had sold out and (am an) Uncle Tom. And I said well, they deserve to have that view. But I have my thoughts. And I think they’re race-hustling poverty pimps.”
Angela McGlowan:
“It’s often said that the Democrats fight ‘for the little guy.’ That’s true: liberals fight to make sure the little guy stays little! Think about it. What if all the little guys were to prosper and become big guys? Then what? Who would liberals pretend to fight for? If the bamboozlers fight for anything, it’s to ensure that the little guy stays angry at those nasty conservatives who are holding him down.”
Thomas Sowell:
“The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state.”
Allen West:
“The Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today.”
Justice Clarence Thomas:
“If I were a black liberal, I would be hailed, I guess. But I’m not. I mean, I think for myself. I want to make my own decisions.”
Candace Owens:
“The reason that we’re seeing so many people flee the Left – I like to call them liberal refugees, like myself – is because they do not allow you to think freely. If you agree with them 95 percent and disagree on 5 percent, you are essentially excommunicated. You’re not allowed to be a liberal anymore. You’re not allowed to be a Democrat anymore.”
REPUBLICANS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY
This section will layout events brought on by the Republicans through-out the years.
Slavery, black codes, KKK violence, lynching, civil rights, Amendments 13-14-15; all things that Republicans voted for (a majority of them) were with the sole fundamental that blacks were Americans too.
CREATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
In 1854 the Republican Party formed to fight an Act that would dissolve the Missouri Compromise, which in turn would leave the fate of slaves/freemen at the hands of the popular vote per territory.
REPUBLICAN HISTORY WITH RACISM
- 1863 Emancipation Proclamation- Changed federal status of slaves to freedmen
- 1862 Confiscation Act of 1862- Allowed for confiscation of slave property
- 1864 Republicans vote for Black Americans in the US Army to receive equal pay
- 1864 Republicans vote to repeal Fugitive Slave Act
- 1865 The 13th Amendment is passed with 37% Democratic Party support
- 1865 Republicans establish Freedmen’s Borough- Provides provisions, clothing and temporary shelter to freedman and their families
- 1866 Republicans pass Civil Rights Act of 1866 – Defined citizenship and protected all citizens equally under the law
- 1866 Republican Thaddeus Stevens proposed providing every slave with 40 acres and a mule
- 1866 The 14th Amendment is passed with 0% Democratic Party support
- 1868 Republicans begin to impeach Democrat President Andrew Johnson: he is known for saying “This country is for white men. And by God as long as I’m president, it shall be a government of white men.”
- 1868 Republicans debut two Black American politicians – James Harris and Pinckney Pinchback
- 1869 Republican John Campbell signs first law allowing women to vote and hold public office
- 1870 The 15th Amendment passes with only 3% Democratic Party support
- 1870 Hiram Rhodes Revels – First Black Senator, also Republican
- 1870 Department of Justice is created by Republicans to protect Black Americans against Southern Democrats
- 1871 Republicans pass the Enforcement Act (Ku Klux Klan Act) which would punish Klan violence
- 1875 First Civil Rights Act is passed, gives Black Americans equal treatment to public commodities and jury duty. Receives 0% Democrat support
- 1878 Republican Aaron Sargent introduces the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, which is basically equal rights for women. Democrats defeated the bill 4 times until 1919, when Republicans had the vote power to pass it
- 1890 Republican Justin Morrill creates legislation that allows Black American to be eligible for land-grant colleges
- 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan declares, “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
- 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt outlaws segregation in New York public schools
- 1901 Booker T. Washington is invited by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt to eat dinner at the White House; Democrats were outraged
- 1909 The NAACP is born. Republicans Ida Wells and Mary Terrell are the creators
- 1920 Republicans pass 19th Amendment, allowing women to vote
- 1920 Americas first anti-lynching law introduced by Black Republican Nellie Francis
- 1922 Republican Leonidas Dyer writes bill that makes lynching a federal crime; Democrats lead with a filibuster. 86% of the final no vote was Democrat
- 1924 Republicans pass bill giving American citizenship to all Native Americans
- 1929 Republican First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife Representative Oscar De Priest, a Black American, to drink tea at the White House; Democrats protested all over
- 1942 Prominent Black Republicans call on the southern Democrats to break up the all-white party. The document is called the Durham Manifesto
- 1944 The Supreme Court shoots down Texas Democrats “white primaries”
- 1953 Republican Earl Warren wrote the landmark decision on Brown vs Board of Education, essentially making the racial segregation of public schools unconstitutional
- 1955 Republican President Dwight Eisenhower bans racial segregation on interstate buses
- 1956 Republicans rule in favor of Rosa Parks
- 1956 Republican Richard Nixon states, “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”
- 1956 Martin Luther King Jr. votes for Republican Dwight Eisenhower as President
- 1957 Republican President Dwight Eisenhower passes Civil Rights Act of 1957, essentially strengthening the government’s support for racial equality
- 1957 Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sends the 82nd Airborne division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce public school integration against Democrat Governor
- 1960 Republican bill: Civil Rights Act of 1960 passes
- 1963 Republicans call out Democrat sheriff in Birmingham, Alabama for arresting roughly 2,000 Black Americans while marching for their civil rights of integrated public schooling
- 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 finally passes after Democrat filibustering
- 1965 Republican judge Frank Johnson overrules Democrat Governor George Wallace by allowing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s march from Selma, AL to Montgomery, AL
- 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965 passes with more Republican support Democrat
- 1982 Voting Rights Act receives a 25-year extension from Republican President Ronald Reagan
- 1991 Republican President George Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991, which will strengthen federal civil rights legislation
- 1996 Bill created by Republican Representative Susan Molinari to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law
What we see here is Republicans introducing pretty much all of the bills and Amendments that would eventually lead up to the Civil Rights acts. Republicans essentially paved the way for Black Americans and women to be equals while fighting the Democrats every step of the way.
CONCLUSION
Democrats have roughly 150 years of history of defiantly and aggressively attacking the rights of Black Americans, along with suppressing the rights of women.
Then we are to believe that they fundamentally changed all of a sudden?
Not to mention this pendulum shift was to occur under the authority of an outwardly racist President like Lyndon Johnson?
I believe the facts speak for themselves and that we see more of a “switch in strategy” instead of an actual switch in perspectives.
Make sure that you share this article to get the word out.
Did I miss something or do you have something to add? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)