asmPolitics-431 [Jim Crow & the Democrats]

 THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE out there who don’t like the recent GOP push to make the presentation of a photo ID a pre-condition of being able to cast a ballot. Count among them Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a U.S. representative from Florida.

Speaking with Roland Martin of TV One, a network that, according to its website, provides “real-life and entertainment television for African-American adults,” Wasserman Schultz equated GOP support for the anti voter fraud measure with a desire to “literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”

It’s an interesting analogy, one that Wasserman Schultz herself is walking away from now that her comments have leaked out into the broader media. But, as they say, the damage is done.

Dropping the “Jim Crow” bomb on a network with a largely African-American viewership is like waving a red cape at a bull; it’s a deliberate provocation—not an accidental misspeak—intended to get the viewers all riled up and thinking bad thoughts about the Republicans.

It’s also, in the larger context, a dangerous road for Wasserman Schultz to go down.

Leaving aside the idea that she perhaps does not understand what the word “literally” means, the “Jim Crow” laws were a whole series of measures indented to keep blacks and whites apart, living lives that were “separate but equal” in all kinds of ways. They were not, as Wasserman Schultz inferred, simply about keeping blacks from voting.

On the books from the end of reconstruction until the U.S. Supreme Court began to chip away at them in its landmark 1954 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the “Jim Crow” laws were a stain on our national character, one put there—and here is why the subject is dangerous for Wasserman Schultz to bring up—by the Democrats.

The fact that the Voting Rights Act was pushed through Congress by a Democrat—Lyndon Johnson—does not erase the party’s history of support for institutionalized de jure racism. LBJ was only able to get the bill through with the support of Republicans, led by Senate GOP leader Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois.

The Democratic Party’s longtime love affair with segregation is undeniable. Who stood up for “Jim Crow” when President Eisenhower tried to enforce desegregation at Little Rock, Arkansas’ Central High School? Democrats like Arkansas Gov. Orvall Faubus, who called out the state’s National Guard to prevent black students from entering the school. It was a Democrat, Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who famously proclaimed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." And it was a Democratically-controlled Georgia legislature that picked nationally-known segregationist Lester Maddox to be their state’s 75th governor in 1966.

These are all facts that Wasserman Schultz conveniently seems to have forgotten.

Moreover, even though former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman famously apologized for his party’s infamous “southern strategy” in a 2005 speech to the NAACP, neither Wasserman Schultz nor any Democratic National Committee chairman I can remember has ever apologized for their party’s support for “Jim Crow”—support that lasted nearly 75 years.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is shameless, but, even more than that, she needs to go back to school.

asmPolitics-430 [Democratic Party is The Party of Slavery]

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.courierpostonline.com/amp/1711669002

The Democratic Party has almost always been on the wrong side of history, as they are now with abortion, denying those little people who live in the first “habitat for humanity” their “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” Our leftist media, ably assisted by a woefully inadequate and misguided public education system, have succeeded in keeping the truth of this party from the people.

This is the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and the KKK, as expressed by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson: “The white men were roused by a mere instinct to self-preservation until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South to protect the Southern country.” Wilson again on segregation: “Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit and distinctly to the advantage of the colored people themselves.” This is the party of Bull Connor and Alabama Democratic segregationist Gov. George Wallace.

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 as an abolitionist movement as expressed by a great black American, Frederick Douglass: “I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.” We can all surely echo the words of another great black Republican, Martin Luther King Jr., who said: “Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”

The Democratic Party is a party that relishes power and control, which is why slavery and dependency have so much in common. This party does not trust “we the people,” which is why it relies so heavily on the Supreme Court to grant it what “we the people” will not. When “its majority” on the court is threatened, as in Robert Bork (1985), Clarence Thomas (1991) and Brett Kavanaugh (2018), it’s time to play dirty. Today’s Democratic Party employs smear campaigns, deception and intimidation to try to achieve its questionable goals, as was evident to all during the Kavanaugh hearings. Is this a party worthy of anyone’s support?

asmPolitics-429 [Jim Crow & the Democrats]

 https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html

The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina. Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights. The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state. The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats. ne of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death. -- Richard Wormser

asmPolitics-428 [Linda Sarsour & Tamika Mallory Are Racists/Anti-Semitic]

 https://www.nationalreview.com/news/democratic-convention-brings-back-womens-march-leaders-ousted-over-anti-semitism-allegations/

Roberts/Reuters)

The Democratic National Convention has brought in two speakers who were ousted from the Women’s March in 2019 over allegations of anti-Semitism.

Tamika Mallory, a former co-president of the march, spoke on Monday at a virtual meeting of the Democratic Black Caucus. In 2018, Mallory attended an address by anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, during which Farrakhan labeled Jews “satanic” and called them his “enemy.” Mallory posted on social media after the event that Farrakhan was the “GOAT,” or greatest of all time.

In January 2019, Mallory refused to denounce Farrakhan when pressed by Megan McCain during an appearance on The View. The DNC dropped its sponsorship of the Women’s March following the refusal. Additionally, according to an investigation in Tablet, Mallory and co-chair Carmen Perez blamed Jews as a collective for exploiting people of color at the first meeting of the Women’s March.

Linda Sarsour, another march organizer, spoke at a Tuesday meeting of the DNC’s Muslims and Allies Assembly. Sarsour who has a history of controversial comments on Jews and Israel, and apologized in 2018 for failing to condemn anti-Semitism among march organizers.

“If what you’re reading all day long, morning and night, in the Jewish media is that Linda Sarsour and Minister Farrakhan are the existential threats to the Jewish community, something really bad is gonna happen and we gonna miss the mark on it,” Sarsour said at a November 2017 event on combating anti-Semitism.

asmPolitics-427 [President Donald J. Trump, Goodyear, Dr. Steve Turley]

 https://videos.whatfinger.com/2020/08/20/goodyear-stock-plummets-after-trump-calls-for-national-boycott-against-woke-corporation/

asmPolitics-426 [Kamala Harris Admits She's Radical]

 https://thenationalpulse.com/exclusive/harris-declares-radical/

The remarks stand in stark contrast to the mainstream media’s attempting to dupe voters that the current California Senator is a “moderate.”

Speaking at the corporate headquarters of Google, a paragon of anti-conservative big tech, Harris embraced the “radical” label her opponent for California Attorney General Steve Cooley:

“I read that at the Republican Convention he called me a radical, so I guess that’s one difference between us. And yeah, I am radical. I do believe that we need to get radical about what we are doing and take it seriously.”

Cooley was referencing how Harris opted to forgo the death penalty for a gang member who murdered San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza, with the candidate noting “that became sort of a litmus test for her in terms of her radical views on criminal justice” in 2010.

An attempt to win swing state and working-class votes, mainstream media outlets and the Democratic establishment are keen on portraying Harris as a “moderate” to distance their 2020 ticket from the socialist wing of the party, epitomized by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The New York Times dubbed her a “pragmatic moderate,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos insisted she “comes from the middle of the road, moderate wing of the Democratic Party,” and The Washington Post even labeled her “a small-c conservative.”

But Harris herself insists otherwise.

And Harris’s voting record reifies her radicalness: according to GovTrack’s legislative-vote analysis, Harris is “ranked most liberal compared to all senators,” even voting to the left of socialist Bernie Sanders.

Natalie Winters

Natalie Winters is an executive assistant to the editor, as well as a Senior Writing Fellow at the National Pulse. She has previously been published at the WarRoom.org website.

asmPolitics-425 [Less Than 30 People Applaud Kamala Harris]

 After Harris’s nearly 20-minute speech on the third night of the Democratic National Convention (DNC), where she formally accepted her nomination for Vice President, convention organizers had Harris interact with a virtual audience of 30 screens.

Users on social media, however, were quick to point out that the audience contained three duplicates, appearing to suggest the DNC couldn’t find 30 individuals to celebrate her speech.

The evident lack of enthusiasm from the party surrounding the speech, where Harris slammed “Donald Trump’s failure of leadership,” was made even worse in light of Harris being the first woman of color to accept a Vice Presidential nomination on behalf of Democrats.

And the DNC’s inability to gather 30 unique individuals to show support for Harris at one of the most important speeches during the 2020 campaign doesn’t bode well for the Biden-Harris ticket at the polls – especially since the Vice Presidential pick plays a disproportionately important role alongside Joe Biden given his declining cognitive ability and self-admitted position as a “transition candidate.”

But it’s not entirely surprising.

Voters have discerned Harris’s political pandering and phoniness, with polls casting Black voters as one third less likely to vote for the Democratic Party ticket because of the Harris pick.