219 SHARES Facebook Twitter

It has become de rigueur in democrat circles to paint the Republican Presidential candidate as a racist every four years, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Let’s get this straight. Calling Hillary Clinton a “bigot” has reporters asking every Republican in sight if Donald Trump has gone too far. But the Clinton campaign releases a video saying Mr. Trump is the candidate of the Ku Klux Klan and it’s all okey-dokey? Then again, Mr. Trump has already been likened to Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Small wonder there’s a collective ho-hum when Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine says Mr. Trump is peddling “KKK values.” This is what Democrats do.

Indeed. Mr. McGurn offers us examples of classic democrat tactics:

• In 2000, for example, an NAACP ad recreated the gruesome murder of James Byrd to imply that then-Gov. Bush was sympathetic to lynching black men. Over footage of a chain being dragged by a pickup truck, Mr. Byrd’s daughter says, “So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.” • When John McCain ran in 2008, Barack Obama warned that Republicans would scare people by saying, “You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.” The McCain campaign fired back, accusing Mr. Obama of playing the race card from the “bottom of the deck.” Funny thing: All those reporters always hearing “dog whistles” from Republicans somehow didn’t hear this one. • In 2012, when Mitt Romney went to the NAACP and told them face-to-face about his opposition to ObamaCare, the stories were all about how he was really just trolling for the racist vote. Vice President Joe Biden put it more explicitly, telling a largely African-American audience that if Mr. Romney were to win, he’d “put ya’ll back in chains.”

There is great irony in this. Historically, democrats have kept blacks in chains- not Republicans. Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan. They resisted the 13th Amendment:

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

democrats continued to resist equal rights for blacks through the 50’s:

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower’s primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Hillary’s self-described mentor Robert Byrd was a Grand Kleagle in the KKK. In 1945 Byrd is quoted as saying

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

But the handwriting was on the wall. Blacks were going to see equality. They were going to become a force in voting. It was only then that democrats, led by Lyndon Johnson, decided they’d cash in.

Lyndon Johnson was a racist. In his first twenty years as a lawmaker Johnson opposed every single civil rights issue. He made frequent use of colorful racist language:

There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “n*gger bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a n*gger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a n*gger.”

Doris Kearns Goodwin quoted Johnson:

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Adam Serwer:

Lyndon Johnson said the word “n*gger” a lot. In Senate cloakrooms and staff meetings, Johnson was practically a connoisseur of the word.According to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, Johnson would calibrate his pronunciations by region, using “nigra” with some southern legislators and “negra” with others. Discussing civil rights legislation with men like Mississippi Democrat James Eastland, who committed most of his life to defending white supremacy, he’d simply call it “the n*gger bill.” Then in 1957, Johnson would help get the “n*gger bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”

It is also claimed that Johnson bragged:

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”

Snopes asserts that this is unproven, but given the balance of his words is quite believable. Even Snopes admits:

“it wouldn’t have been entirely out of character”

No it would not. Without any doubt Johnson knew of the burgeoning power of the black vote and wanted to own it. They secured it, but what have democrats done for blacks?

democrats have been willing assistants in the destruction of the black family:

Liberal advocates had two main ways of dodging the subject of family collapse while still addressing its increasingly alarming fallout. The first, largely the creation of Marian Wright Edelman, who in 1973 founded the Children’s Defense Fund, was to talk about children not as the offspring of individual mothers and fathers responsible for rearing them, but as an oppressed class living in generic, nebulous, and never-to-be-analyzed “families.” Framing the problem of ghetto children in this way, CDF was able to mount a powerful case for a host of services, from prenatal care to day care to housing subsidies, in the name of children’s developmental needs, which did not seem to include either a stable domestic life or, for that matter, fathers. Advocates like Edelman might not have viewed the collapsing ghetto family as a welcome occurrence, but they treated it as a kind of natural event, like drought, beyond human control and judgment. As recently as a year ago, marking the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, CDF announced on its website: “In 2004 it is morally and economically indefensible that a black preschool child is three times as likely to depend solely on a mother’s earnings.” This may strike many as a pretty good argument for addressing the prevalence of black single-mother families, but in CDF-speak it is a case for federal natural-disaster relief.

The war on black families was not going to wane:

By the early 1980s the media also had woken up to the ruins of the ghetto family and brought about the return of the repressed Moynihan report. Declaring Moynihan “prophetic,” Ken Auletta, in his 1982 The Underclass, proclaimed that “one cannot talk about poverty in America, or about the underclass, without talking about the weakening family structure of the poor.” Both the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times ran series on the black family in 1983, followed by a 1985 Newsweek article called “Moynihan: I Told You So” and a 1986 CBS documentary, The Vanishing Black Family, produced by Bill Moyers, a onetime aide to Lyndon Johnson, who had supported the Moynihan report. The most symbolic moment came when Moynihan himself gave Harvard’s prestigious Godkin lectures in 1985 in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of “The Negro Family.” For the most part, liberals were having none of it. They piled on Murray’s 1984Losing Ground, ignored Mead and Sowell, and excoriated the word “underclass,” which they painted as a recycled and pseudoscientific version of the “tangle of pathology.” But there were two important exceptions to the long list of deniers. The first was William Julius Wilson. In his 1987 The Truly Disadvantaged, Wilson chastised liberals for being “confused and defensive” and failing to engage “the social pathologies of the ghetto.” “The average poor black child today appears to be in the midst of a poverty spell which will last for almost two decades,” he warned. Liberals have “to propose thoughtful explanations for the rise in inner city dislocations.” Ironically, though, Wilson’s own “mismatch theory” for family breakdown—which hypothesized that the movement of low-skill jobs out of the cities had sharply reduced the number of marriageable black men—had the effect of extending liberal defensiveness about the damaged ghetto family. After all, poor single mothers were only adapting to economic conditions. How could they do otherwise?

Lest you doubt the value of the family, Marjorie Valbrun might dispose of those doubts:

The new report, “The Moynihan Report Revisited,” outlines some of the very same challenges to the well-being of black families chronicled back then, including acute and concentrated poverty in low-income black neighborhoods populated by underemployed and unemployed residents; crime; inequality in housing, employment, education, health care, and the criminal justice system; high rates of nonmarital births and children raised in households headed by single women; and social welfare policies that undermine the role of black men. (The report also offers more context about the larger political, social, legal and economic forces that have contributed to the problems.) “Today, the share of white children born outside marriage is about the same as the share of black children born outside marriage in Moynihan’s day,” the Urban Institute report said. “The percentage of black children born to unmarried mothers, in comparison, tripled between the early 1960s and 2009, remaining far higher than the percentage of white children born to unmarried mothers.” About 20 percent of black children were born to unmarried mothers in the early 1960s, compared with 2 to 3 percent of white children. “By 2009, nearly three-quarters of black births and three-tenths of white births occurred outside marriage. Hispanics fell between whites and blacks and followed the same rising trend.” Gregory Acs, an author of the report and the director of the institute’s Income and Policy Benefits Center, said it was striking to go back to the Moynihan Report and look at where progress was made, where ground was lost and how persistent these disparities have remained over the decades. “One of the key things to understand is how many strands are attached to this web of problems,” he said. “We can choose not to address these issues now, or address them in piecemeal and continue to throw money at the consequences, or we can create sustainable programs at multiple levels that carry at-risk kids from conception to the workforce.” Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and a director of its Center on Children and Families, wrote a chapter titled “Moynihan Was Right: Now What?” in a 2009 book about the original study. He said in an interview with The Washington Post that the findings in the new report indicate that even as African Americans clearly enjoy more opportunity today and that the black middle class has grown, the challenges that undermine sustained and widespread economic prosperity remain stubborn. Chief among those challenges, Haskins said, is the disproportionate share of black children living in single-parent homes. “We have scores of studies that show that kids that grow up in single-women-headed families don’t fare as well, are more likely to do poorly in school and to drop out of school, to be arrested, to become single parents themselves,” he said. “These factors reinforce the economic disadvantages that these kids face and impact the larger black community.” He said the problems will remain and possibly worsen until the numbers of children in black, Hispanic and white families living in two-parent homes increase.

There is a very simple solution to this:

finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

But instead of embracing it, liberal elites will paint you as a racist for daring to say it. The only conceivable reason for that is to prevent the poor from improving their lot and keeping them dependent on the state and more likely to vote democrat. And blacks do tend to vote heavily democrat. It’s the triumph of hope over reality.

Jason Riley wrote of the tragic legacy that obama leaves for blacks:

As Kanye West might say, I’m starting to wonder if the president much cares about the well-being of poor blacks. Mr. West was remarking on the George W. Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, a natural disaster, but the current administration seems keen on facilitating man-made varieties. At the urging of labor unions, President Obama has pushed for higher minimum wages that price a disproportionate percentage of blacks out of the labor force. At the urging of teachers unions, he has fought voucher programs that give ghetto children access to better schools. Both policies have a lengthy track record of keeping millions of blacks ill-educated and unemployed. Since the 1970s, when the federal government began tracking the racial achievement gap, black test scores in math, reading and science have on average trailed far behind those of their white classmates. And minimum-wage mandates have been so effective for so long at keeping blacks out of work that 1930, the last year in which there was no federal minimum-wage law, was also the last year that the black unemployment rate was lower than the white rate. For the past half-century, black joblessness on average has been double that of whites.

obama is commuting the sentences of thousands of inmates so that they might return to crime in their neighborhoods:

A 2002 federal report tracked the recidivism rate of some 91,000 supposedly nonviolent offenders in 15 states over a three-year period. More than 21% wound up rearrested for violent crimes, including more than 700 murders and more than 600 rapes. The report also noted the difficulty of identifying low-risk inmates. Auto thieves were rearrested for committing more than a third of the homicides and a disproportionate share of other violent offenses.

Riley also sees the consequences of liberal policies:

The socioeconomic progress of black Americans in the Jim Crow era before the civil-rights movement is a neglected area of media interest. Yet the pace of black advancement during this period—in poverty reduction, educational attainment, entering skilled professions and other measures—has never come close to being duplicated, not even in the decades following the landmark political victories in the 1960s and the launch of the war on poverty. Racial barriers to black progress in the first half of the 20th century obviously were much more forbidding than they are today, but black communities then were also much safer and thus more conducive to social and economic progress.

In 1965 when blacks gave 80% of their votes to the democrat party, none other than Malcolm X called them “chumps” :

Yet Democrats, said Malcolm X, failed to deliver on a promised and much anticipated new civil rights bill, knowing the party could still count on their blind support in the next election. “You put them first,” said Malcolm X, “and they put you last. ‘Cause you’re a chump. A political chump! … Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you are dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party — you’re not only a chump but you’re a traitor to your race.”

History is in the process of repeating itself. Illegal aliens are the new crop to be harvested and made state dependent by democrats. Twenty years ago both Hillary and Bill Clinton sounded a lot like the Donald Trump of today.

https://youtu.be/SNy4ixHFrdI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk9GGGAz0fA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfxjq3a5Q68

Today Hillary promises amnesty within 100 days.

So what happened?

Today Hillary promises amnesty within 100 days.

So what happened?

The same thing that happened 60 years ago. The realization that somewhere down the line democrats plan to offer amnesty to illegals and make them voters. They represent the next significant voting bloc and democrats are racing to make sure they establish the same dependency they created before. The first drug dose is always free. If Hispanics have half a brain, they will realize voting democrat will take them down the same road blacks have traveled. Blacks should also consider Trump. Wht ahve they to lose? Republicans lifted blacks out of one kind of slavery only to have democrats trap them in another. It absolutely terrifies the democrat elites that instead of giving them fishes Donald Trump might actually teach blacks and Hispanics to fish.

Besides, why vote for a documented liar who sleeps through meetings and is “often confused”? Who can she help, other than herself?