When we put history together it becomes clear why the democrats have been leading a movement to rewrite our American history books. All of us should know the majority of those details. But few remember all history. Someone once said, “when we forget history, we are condemned to repeat it.” We are facing a part of history no one should have to repeat. This is a part of history consisting of America’s Darkest moments. Our older generation should remember the majority of America’s darkest history. I’m not so sure about the younger generation. I’m not so sure how much has been withheld and rewritten during the Obama administration to cover up the democratic parties past. Which helps us to understand actions in the present and of course see what the democratic party has in store for the future. That picture is not pleasant. It is a step backwards. Not only a step backwards in American history but to reenter the darkest moments in world history.
Who founded the democratic party?
Jackson briefly served as Florida’s first territorial governor before returning to the Senate. He ran for president in 1824, winning a plurality of the popular and electoral vote. As no candidate won an electoral majority, the House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams in a contingent election. In reaction to the alleged “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Henry Clay and the ambitious agenda of President Adams, Jackson’s supporters founded the Democratic Party.
In addition to his legal and political career, Jackson prospered as planter, slave owner, and merchant. He built a home and the first general store in Gallatin, Tennessee, in 1803. The next year, he acquired the Hermitage, a 640-acre (259 ha) plantation in Davidson County, near Nashville. He later added 360 acres (146 ha) to the plantation, which eventually totaled 1,050 acres (425 ha). The primary crop was cotton, grown by slaves—Jackson began with nine, owned as many as 44 by 1820, and later up to 150, placing him among the planter elite. Jackson also co-owned with his son Andrew Jackson Jr. the Halcyon plantation in Coahoma County, Mississippi, which housed 51 slaves at the time of his death. Throughout his lifetime, Jackson may have owned as many as 300 slaves.
Men, women, and child slaves were owned by Jackson on three sections of the Hermitage plantation. Slaves lived in extended family units of between five and ten persons and were quartered in 400 square feet (37 m2) cabins made either of brick or logs. The size and quality of the Hermitage slave quarters exceeded the standards of his times. To help slaves acquire food, Jackson supplied them with guns, knives, and fishing equipment. At times he paid his slaves with money and coins to trade in local markets. The Hermitage plantation was a profit-making enterprise. Jackson permitted slaves to be whipped to increase productivity or if he believed his slaves’ offenses were severe enough. At various times he posted advertisements for fugitive slaves who had escaped from his plantation. In one advertisement placed in the Tennessee Gazette in October 1804, Jackson offered “ten dollars extra, for every hundred lashes any person will give him, to the amount of three hundred.”
January 1829, less than two months before he became president, Andrew Jackson ordered an inventory of his slaves. The inventory recorded the names, ages, and familial relationships of ninety-five enslaved individuals who lived and worked at The Hermitage, his Tennessee plantation.1When President-elect Jackson left for the White House, he brought some of these enslaved people with him. The 1830 census listed fourteen enslaved individuals in Jackson’s household – eight women and six men – and many scholars suggest that his household grew during the course of his presidency.2Jackson also made significant improvements to the White House during his administration, including the construction of the North Portico and a new stable, as well as the addition of running water to the house, projects that almost certainly made use of enslaved labor, either from Jackson’s own household or hired out from other slave owners in Washington, D.C.3
The democratic party was founded by a slave owner with obvious interests in his wealth, income, and personal business activities that relied on slave labor. Jackson was a man with no regard for human life. He must have been possessed to do the things he did. Whipping slaves past the point of death. Making his other slaves watch. Jackson loved to see people suffer all in the name of total control over human beings. Somehow he convinced his foremen and other white workers their deeds were part of life. Some unholy balance required to make a profit. Jackson was the founder of the democratic party. As we follow the early history of the democratic party we can see Jackson was not alone. The democratic party was designed to attract the attention and support of those who depended on slaves to build their personal empires. It soon became clear to Jackson and the democratic party, only a one party system would aid their economic plans, goals, and agenda.
Founder of the Democratic Party
Nearly two centuries after his death, elected officials in a western Missouri county want people to finally have a full picture of the area’s namesake.
Jackson County legislators voted Monday to add new plaques to Andrew Jackson statues highlighting his troubling past, a controversial move meant to express the country’s inclusiveness.
“Jackson’s ownership of slaves and his support for the Indian Removal Act are part of his history,” the plaque will read. “The act forced Native Americans from their home territories so that white settlers could live there and triggered the Trail of Tears, a 1,000-mile march resulting in the death of thousands, including an estimated one-quarter of the entire Cherokee nation.”
The plaques will be attached to existing statues located outside the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City and in the Historic Truman Courthouse in Independence. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-andrew-jackson-to-be-described-as-slave-owner-in-new-plaques-20191217-izd2brjtzje5xitpvyykcrn6a4-story.html
Relations between Indians and Americans increasingly grew tense and sometimes violent as a result of territorial conflicts. Previous presidents had at times supported removal or attempts to “civilize” the Indians, but generally let the problem play itself out with minimal intervention. There had developed a growing popular and political movement to deal with the issue, and out of this policy to relocate certain Indian populations. Jackson, never known for timidity, became an advocate for this relocation policy in what many historians consider the most controversial aspect of his presidency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
In this letter, written in December 1834, Davy Crockett complains about President Andrew Jackson’s forced removal of the Cherokees from their homes to Oklahoma. Crockett opposed that policy and feared Vice President Martin Van Buren would continue it, if elected president. He even goes so far as to say that if Van Buren is elected, Crockett would leave the United States for the “wildes of Texas.” Crockett writes, “I will consider that government a Paridice to what this will be. In fact at this time our Republican Government has dwindled almost into insignificancy our [boasted] land of liberty have almost Bowed to the yoke of of [sic] Bondage.” Crockett actually went to Texas before Martin Van Buren was elected president, and he died in the Battle of the Alamo on March 6, 1836, months before the election.
A full transcript is available.
I have almost given up the Ship as lost. I have gone So far as to declare that if he martin vanburen is elected that I will leave the united States for I never will live under his kingdom. before I will Submit to his Government I will go to the wildes of Texas. I will consider that government a Paridice to what this will be. In fact at this time our Republican Government has dwindled almost into insignificancy our [boasted] land of liberty have almost Bowed to the yoke of Bondage. Our happy days of Republican principles are near at an end when a few is to transfer the many. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/davy-crockett-removal-cherokees-1834
Jackson like his supporters clung onto the theory of evolution and used that as an excuse to exercise their power and influence over all nonwhite Americans. Jackson and others used the theory of evolution to sway the minds of others, non-slave owners who never stood a chance at profiting from slavery. Jackson and the democrats used the theory of evolution to build an imaginary bridge between elite slave owners and common, middle class Americans. In essence, democrats used fear as a motivating factor to achieve political and economic gains far outside the reach of average Americans. Democrats were willing to sacrifice every non-white person in the US for the votes needed to secure total control of the government.
History shows how other democrats shared Jackson’s ideals, and thirst for total control at any cost. The lives of slaves meant nothing to those in the democratic party. To maintain the control they lusted over, the lives of those who opposed them had no value. The only rule, the only law democrats knew was their control over slaves and the entire US population. Murdering the opposition seemed like the next logical step to democrats.
Stephen Arnold Douglas (April 23, 1813 – June 3, 1861) was an American politician and lawyer from Illinois. He was one of two Democratic Party nominees for president in the 1860 presidential election, which was won by Republican Abraham Lincoln. Douglas had previously defeated Lincoln in the 1858 United States Senate election in Illinois, known for the Lincoln–Douglas debates. During the 1850s, Douglas was one of the foremost advocates of popular sovereignty, which held that each territory should be allowed to determine whether to permit slavery within its borders. Douglas was nicknamed the “Little Giant” because he was short in physical stature but a forceful and dominant figure in politics.
Democrats suffered major losses in the 1854 elections, which saw the emergence of the nativist Know Nothing movement and the anti-slavery Republican Party. The Illinois legislature replaced Senator James Shields, a Douglas ally, with Lyman Trumbull, an anti-slavery Democrat. After the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, anti-slavery and pro-slavery settlers flocked to Kansas Territory to influence whether Kansas would be a free state or a slave state. A series of violent clashes, known as Bleeding Kansas, broke out between anti-slavery and pro-slavery forces in the territory, and the two sides established competing governments. Douglas issued a committee report that endorsed the pro-slavery government as the legitimate government of Kansas and denounced anti-slavery forces as the primary cause of the violence. Anti-slavery activists like Charles Sumner attacked Douglas for the report; one Northern paper wrote, “Douglas has brains, but so has the Devil, so had Judas and Benedict Arnold.” As the crisis in Kansas continued, the Whig Party collapsed, and many former Whigs joined the Republican Party, the Know Nothings, or, in the South, the Democratic Party.
In 1854 the concept of commit a crime and blame it on the opposition was born. A concept still used today by the democratic party. Later in this book we will explore Hilary Clinton’s use of that concept. While democrats organized and funded groups like the KKK, they blamed Republicans for the violence. Sound familiar? We see it today in the news, on social media, and in speeches. It may be a natural reaction to calm the conscience. Or it may be part of an elaborate cover up. A cover up that has been going on for over 150 years. When historic details like this are reveiwed, we can see why democrats demand US history be rewritten. In 2020 they finally formulated an excuse. But what parts of history do the want covered up, which parts do democrats what to rewrite, and which facts do they want eliminated? We will not know until they cease power and initiate their plans. Today we only witness the smoke screen when violent accusations are cast upon historical figures like Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln. It all sounds so confusing because it is meant to confuse the average American. That confusion is designed to lead people to believe democrats have a group of knowledgeable experts capable of rewriting history for the good of all the people. The question is, are we willing to allow democrats to cover up their past? How much of their history are they planning on repeating?
Democrats have a long history of trying to kill those who oppose their ideals and plans. When they could not control people through fear introduced by the theory of evolution, they turned to threats, violence, and murder.
Sumner changed his political party several times as anti-slavery coalitions rose and fell in the 1830s and 1840s before coalescing in the 1850s as the Republican Party, the affiliation with which he became best known. He devoted his enormous energies to the destruction of what Republicans called the Slave Power, the influence over the federal government of Southern slave owners who sought the continuation and expansion of slavery. In 1856, South Carolina Democratic congressman Preston Brooks nearly killed Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor after Sumner delivered an anti-slavery speech, “The Crime Against Kansas.” In the speech, Sumner characterized the attacker’s first cousin once removed, South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, as a pimp for slavery. The widely reported episode left Sumner severely injured and both men famous. It was several years before he could return to the Senate; Massachusetts not only did not replace him, it re-elected him, leaving his empty desk in the Senate as a reminder of the incident. The episode contributed significantly to the polarization of the country, leading up to the Civil War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sumner
When Sumner returned to the Senate in 1859, the North-South rift had intensified, but he, like most other Republicans, did not realize or perhaps care that Republican ascendancy would bring on civil war. From the war’s beginning Sumner argued that it should be waged to abolish slavery, not solely to preserve the Union. He regularly pressed President Abraham Lincoln to sponsor legislation to free the slaves, grant them civil rights, and enlist them in the Union army. He also argued for stringent conditions for readmission of Confederate states to the Union.
After the Civil War, all the slaves gained freedom. But what was going to happen to millions of people who tasted freedom for the first time in their lives? Common sense told Republican leaders, those ex-slaves needed help. Any type of help. Land was ceased from plantation owners and divided up among those who worked that land their entire lives as slaves. It seemed like the least Republican leaders could do for the people they freed from slavery.
40 acres and a mule
Forty acres and a mule is part of Special Field Orders No. 15, a wartime order proclaimed by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman on January 16, 1865 during the American Civil War, to allot land to some freed families, in plots of land no larger than 40 acres (16 ha). Sherman later ordered the army to lend mules for the agrarian reform effort. The field orders followed a series of conversations between Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and Radical Republican abolitionists Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freed people believed, after being told by various political figures, that they had a right to own the land they had been forced to work as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freed people widely expected to legally claim 40 acres of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war. Some freedmen took advantage of the order and took initiatives to acquire land plots along a strip of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts. However, Abraham Lincoln’s successor as president, Andrew Johnson, explicitly reversed and annulled proclamations such as Special Field Orders No. 15 and the Freedmen’s Bureau bills.
” Stanton had suggested to Sherman that they gather “the leaders of the local Negro community” and ask them something no one else had apparently thought to ask: “What do you want for your own people” following the war? And what they wanted astonishes us even today.
Who were these 20 thoughtful leaders who exhibited such foresight? They were all ministers, mostly Baptist and Methodist. Most curious of all to me is that 11 of the 20 had been born free in slave states, of which 10 had lived as free men in the Confederacy during the course of the Civil War. (The other one, a man named James Lynch, was born free in Maryland, a slave state, and had only moved to the South two years before.) The other nine ministers had been slaves in the South who became “contraband,” and hence free, only because of the Emancipation Proclamation, when Union forces liberated them.
Three months after Sherman issued his Field Orders, No. 15, the U.S. Congress created the Freedmen’s Bureau for the purpose of ensuring the welfare of millions of enslaved people being freed by the war.
One task of the Freedmen’s Bureau was to be the management of lands confiscated from those who had rebelled against the United States. The intent of Congress, led by the Radical Republicans, was to break up the plantations and redistribute the land so formerly enslaved people could have their own small farms.
Andrew Johnson became president following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. And Johnson, on May 28, 1865, issued a proclamation of pardon and amnesty to citizens in the South who would take an oath of allegiance.
As part of the pardon process, lands confiscated during the war would be returned to White landowners. So while the Radical Republicans had fully intended for there to be a massive redistribution of land from former enslavers to formerly enslaved people under Reconstruction, Johnson’s policy effectively thwarted that.
This is one example showing how democrats have a long history of denying equality and have stood against every race but the white race. While Republicans fought hard to do what they could to right wrongs and create a level playing field, democrats fought hard to maintain control of politics, business, and profits.
One of the strangest twists in US history occurred after the Civil War. Plans were being drawn up to draw the union together, and help the ex-slaves build a new life. President Lincoln and the Republicans gathered a number of ideas, issued a number of orders, and drew up a number of new laws to pass. Of course that sent democrats into a frenzy. No one is sure how deep the plot was and who was involved. President Lincoln was assassinated. Rumors were, Vice President Johnson was also to be assassinated. But that never occurred. Instead Johnson became President. This is the strange twist because America never had a President and Vice President on opposite polls on every issue. Lincoln was one of the Republican founders. Johnson was a dedicated democrat. After Lincoln’s assassination, democrats had a President who opposed freedom for slaves, and every act to aide their transition to freedom.
Andrew Johnson (December 29, 1808 – July 31, 1875) was the 17th president of the United States, serving from 1865 to 1869. He assumed the presidency as he was vice president at the time of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Johnson was a Democrat who ran with Lincoln on the National Union ticket, coming to office as the Civil War concluded. He favored quick restoration of the seceded states to the Union without protection for the former slaves. This led to conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1868. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote. His main accomplishment as president was the Alaska purchase.
Elected a U.S. senator in 1856, he generally adhered to the dominant Democratic views favouring lower tariffs and opposing antislavery agitation. Johnson had achieved a measure of prosperity and owned a few slaves himself. In 1860, however, he broke dramatically with the party when, after Lincoln’s election, he vehemently opposed Southern secession. When Tennessee seceded in June 1861, he alone among the Southern senators remained at his post and refused to join the Confederacy. Sharing the race and class prejudice of many poor white people in his state, he explained his decision: “Damn the negroes, I am fighting those traitorous aristocrats, their masters.”
Like Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson continued democrat’s efforts to secure slavery, continue business, increase profits, and seek revenge at any cost. A number of Amendments were presented to deal with the transition from slavery to freedom. Johnson and his democrats opposed each of those Amendments at every turn. Going as far as spilling blood to stop those bills from passing.
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.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in Confederate states still at war with the Union on January 1, 1863, and as a wartime order, it could be reversed by subsequent presidential proclamation, congressional legislation, or court ruling. Through a constitutional amendment, the abolition of slavery could be made permanent throughout the United States.
In April 1864, the Senate, responding in part to an active abolitionist petition campaign, passed the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery in the United States. Opposition from Democrats in the House of Representatives prevented the amendment from receiving the required two-thirds majority, and the bill failed.
Following his re-election in November 1864, Lincoln threw his weight behind the amendment. He persuaded eight House Democrats to switch their votes and encouraged several other Representatives who had missed the previous vote to support the amendment, which was finally passed on January 31, 1865. The Constitution does not require presidential signatures on amendments, but Lincoln added his, making it the only constitutional amendment to be later ratified that was signed by a president.
The 13th Amendment’s road to enactment began in April 1864, when the U.S. Senate passed it by the required two-thirds supermajority vote.
However, the amendment hit a roadblock in the House of Representatives, where it faced opposition by a significant number of Democrats who felt that the abolishment of enslavement by the federal government would amount to a violation of the rights and powers reserved to the states.
As Congress adjourned in July of 1864, with the presidential election looming, the future of the 13th Amendment remained cloudy at best.
14th Amendment Citizenship
Democrats fought against the 14th Amendment giving slaves citizenship.
President Andrew Johnson was notified that the amendment was being sent to the states for ratification, and he publicly expressed his disapproval.
Congressional approval — and presidential opposition — led to a two-year battle between President Johnson and the Republican Party over the 14th Amendment’s ratification. Following a heated campaign between President Johnson and the Reconstruction Republicans over the future of the 14th Amendment, the Republican Party won a landslide victory in the congressional elections of 1866, solidifying their political power over Reconstruction policy.
However, even following this landslide victory, ex-Confederate states continued to reject the proposed amendment. The Republican Congress fought back, passing the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which required ex-Confederate states to extend voting rights to African-American men and denied these states representation in Congress until they voted to ratify the 14th Amendment. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/it-was-today-congress-approved-the-14th-amendment
15th Amendment Voting Rights
The actions to prevent African Americans from exercising their civil rights became known as “Jim Crow” laws. Some examples of Jim Crow laws are poll taxes (a fee required to vote—generally not applied to white voters), literacy tests (the Mississippi test asked applicants to copy a portion of the state constitution at the white administrator’s discretion), or owning property as a condition of voting. Jim Crow laws were enforced by election boards or by groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, who intimidated African Americans with violence if they voted or wished to do so. The southern region of the United States made little or no effort to protect the voting rights of African Americans guaranteed by the Constitution.
The 15th Amendment was a milestone for civil rights. However, it was not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed by Congress that the majority of African Americans would be truly free to register and vote in large numbers. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/15th-amendment-united-states-constitution/
Another common argument of conservatives and Democrats was that giving equal rights to blacks deprived whites of their own rights. Raising the black man to the same status as the white was seen by these commenters as inherently diminishing the status of whites, since now they were no better than blacks. https://thereconstructionera.com/opposing-the-15th-amendment-the-conservative-and-democratic-argument-again-blacks-voting-1869-1870/
In 1865, Congress passed what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guaranteeing citizenship without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. The bill also guaranteed equal benefits and access to the law, a direct assault on the Black Codes passed by many post-war Southern states. The Black Codes attempted to return ex-slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, prohibiting them from owning firearms, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court. Although strongly urged by moderates in Congress to sign the bill, President Johnson (Democrat) vetoed it on March 27, 1866. In his veto message, he objected to the measure because it conferred citizenship on the freedmen at a time when 11 out of 36 states were unrepresented in the Congress, and that it discriminated in favor of African Americans and against whites. Three weeks later, Johnson’s veto was overridden and the measure became law. This was the first time in American history that Congress was able to muster the votes necessary to override a presidential veto. Despite this victory, even some Republicans who had supported the goals of the Civil Rights Act began to doubt that Congress possessed the constitutional power to turn those goals into laws. The experience encouraged both radical and moderate Republicans to seek Constitutional guarantees for black rights, rather than relying on temporary political majorities.
The vote in the House was 144 to 44, with 35 not voting. The House vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats supporting the bill and only 3 Republicans voting against it, some because they thought the amendment did not go far enough in its protections. The House of Representatives passed the amendment with 143 Republican and 1 Conservative Republican votes of “Yes”; 39 Democrat, 3 Republican, 1 Independent Republican and 1 Conservative votes of “No”; 26 Republican, 8 Democrat and 1 Independent Republican not voting. The final vote in the Senate was 39 to 13, with 14 not voting. The Senate passed the amendment with a vote of 39 Republican votes of “Yea”, 8 Democrat and 5 Republican votes of “Nay”; 13 Republican and 1 Democrat not voting. Some Radical Republicans, such as Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, abstained from voting because the amendment did not prohibit literacy tests and poll taxes. Following congressional approval, the proposed amendment was then sent by Secretary of State William Henry Seward to the states for ratification or rejection.
In 1867, the Republican-dominated Congress passed the First Reconstruction Act, over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, dividing the South into five military districts and outlining how new governments based on universal manhood suffrage were to be established. With the adoption of the 15th Amendment in 1870, a politically mobilized African American community joined with white allies in the Southern states to elect the Republican Party to power, which brought about radical changes across the South. By late 1870, all the former Confederate states had been readmitted to the Union, and most were controlled by the Republican Party, thanks to the support of African American voters.
In the same year, Hiram Rhodes Revels, a Republican from Natchez, Mississippi, became the first African American ever to sit in Congress. Although African American Republicans never obtained political office in proportion to their overwhelming electoral majority, Revels and a dozen other African American men served in Congress during Reconstruction, more than 600 served in state legislatures, and many more held local offices. However, in the late 1870s, the Southern Republican Party vanished with the end of Reconstruction, and Southern state governments effectively nullified the 14th and 15th Amendments, stripping Southern African Americans of the right to vote. It would be nearly a century before the nation would again attempt to establish equal rights for African Americans in the South. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/15th-amendment-adopted
History reveals how democrats have developed a dislike and hatred of the Constitution. Democrats have always, and still oppose every word in the Constitution that grants us our civil rights. Democrats fought against the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment and more. Today democrats work to reconstruct the 1st Amendment to suit their agenda and eliminate the 2nd Amendment, which would eliminate the basic liberty to defend ourselves against an oppressive government. If democrats have the best interest of the people at heart, why is it so important to disarm the general public before they initiate their plans?
Woman’s right to vote
Between January 1918 and June 1919, the House and Senate voted on the federal amendment five times. Each vote was extremely close and Southern Democrats continued to oppose giving women the vote. Suffragists pressured President Wilson to call a special session of Congress and he agreed to schedule one for May 19, 1919. On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster, 36 Republican Senators were joined by 20 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 yeas, 25 nays, and 14 not voting. The final vote tally was:
20 Democrats Yea
17 Democrats Nay
9 Democrats Not voting/abstained
36 Republicans Yea
8 Republicans Nay
5 Republicans Not voting/abstained
In January 1918, with momentum clearly behind the suffragists—15 states had extended equal voting rights to women, and the amendment was formally supported by both parties and by the president, Woodrow Wilson—the amendment passed with the bare minimum two-thirds support in the House of Representatives, but it failed narrowly in the U.S. Senate. This galvanized the National Woman’s Party, which led a campaign seeking to oust senators who had voted against it.
A subsequent attempt to pass the amendment came in 1919, and this time it passed both chambers with the requisite two-thirds majority—304–89 in the House of Representatives on May 21, and 56–25 in the Senate on June 4. Although the amendment’s fate seemed in doubt, because of opposition throughout much of the South, on August 18, 1920, Tennessee—by one vote—became the 36th state to ratify the amendment, thereby ensuring its adoption. On August 26 the Nineteenth Amendment was proclaimed by the secretary of state as being part of the Constitution of the United States. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nineteenth-Amendment
Thomas Woodrow Wilson was an American politician and academic who served as the 28th president of the United States from 1913 to 1921. A member of the Democratic Party
It seems both parties opposed woman’s rights. Why? We can explain that in one word, control. Fifty years after the Civil War democrats still had a rough time giving up control at any level. But the democrats had a good reason to fight against woman’s rights. Democrats remembered how they had to face black women, ex-slaves who were not about to be pushed around by anyone. Woman who clung onto education, the letter of the law, and knew how to organize people from both sides of the political isle as well as men and women.
In 1894, before leaving the US for her second visit to Great Britain, Wells called on William Penn Nixon, the editor of the Daily Inter-Ocean, a Republican newspaper in Chicago. It was the only major white paper that persistently denounced lynching. After she told Nixon about her planned tour, he asked her to write for the newspaper while in England. She was the first African-American woman to be a paid correspondent for a mainstream white newspaper.
In the years following her dispute with Willard, Wells continued her Anti- Lynching campaign and organizing in Chicago. She focused her work on black women’s suffrage in the city following the enactment of a new state law enabling partial women’s suffrage. The Illinois Presidential and Municipal Suffrage Bill of 1913 gave women in the state the right to vote for presidential electors, mayor, aldermen and most other local offices; but not for governor, state representatives or members of Congress. Illinois was the first state east of the Mississippi to give women these voting rights.During the membership of Ida B. Wells in the Negro Fellowship League, the organization advocated for women’s suffrage alongside its support for the Republican Party in Illinois.
Using statistics and quantitative data, Wells concluded that “this idea of rape and even criminal behavior is not so much connected to lynching, but that lynching was a means to keep blacks—who were very economically competitive at this point—to keep blacks down,” Giddings says. She also found that in some cases, the “rape” black men were accused of was actually consensual sex with white women.
These conclusions incited a riot while Wells was in Philadelphia. It was too dangerous for her to return to Memphis, so she decided to stay in the north. Over the next several years, she traveled widely in the United States and Europe to talk about lynching. It was in Chicago, though, that she found her new home.
In granting a posthumous citation to Ida B. Wells, the Pulitzer Prizes honors one of America’s earliest and most intrepid investigative reporters.
Ida B. Wells was born a slave in Mississippi in 1862. She became a writer and publisher who crusaded against lynching and for civil rights in the deep South after the Civil War. It was death-defying work for a black woman, who spent months journeying through the Southern states, investigating the lynchings of black men through records research and in-person interviews — a process that laid the groundwork for modern investigative techniques.
At 30, and as the co-owner and editor for The Memphis Free Speech and Headlight, Wells took on that most famous work, attempting to investigate the trope that lynchings usually followed the rape of white women by black men. She discovered, of course, that this was patently false: “Nobody in this section of the country believes the threadbare old lie that Negro men rape white women,” Wells wrote. Instead, she wrote, the horrible violence — and threat of that violence — were simply a means for white citizens to terrorize and oppress African Americans. Her writing was published across the United States and abroad, and included the pamphlets-turned-books “Southern Horrors” and “The Red Record.”
Democrat history in the White House echoed segregation 100 years after the Civil War. It seems democrats could never give up the loss of slave labor and the interruption of business and profit that followed. The hatred lingered on in the democratic party.
First Movie in White House
The Birth of a Nation was the first movie ever shown at the White House; the next night, possibly at the president’s bidding, it was screened for an audience of Washington dignitaries. But not everybody appreciated it. It was immediately attacked by the newly established National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which issued a statement declaring that ‘every resource of a magnificent new art has been employed with an undeniable attempt to picture Negroes in the worst possible light.’ https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v31/n03/j.-hoberman/first-movie-in-the-white-house
“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. [Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957]”
― Lyndon B. Johnson https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7107768-these-negroes-they-re-getting-pretty-uppity-these-days-and-that-s
Since President Trump released roughly 2,800 previously classified documents on the assassination of John F. Kennedy last week, media outlets within the United States and around the world have been scrambling to find any new information regarding the death of our 35th president. In the process, a document has been uncovered that reveals something that may or may not be surprising to Americans across the country – that former Democratic President Lyndon Johnson was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan. https://www.eastonspectator.com/2019/12/30/newly-released-jfk-files-reveal-democrat-president-lyndon-johnson-was-a-member-of-the-kkk-which-was-run-by-democrats/
There were plenty of interesting factoids to come out of the recent JFK files release: The CIA considered mob hits on Fidel Castro, someone called the FBI threatening to kill Lee Harvey Oswald a day before Oswald’s murder, and the U.S. examined sabotaging airplane parts heading to Cuba.
There was even proof that the CIA used journalists and media figures to spread propaganda.
Additionally, we got confirmation that President Kennedy’s successor following his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson, was possibly a member of the KKK.
One of the newly released files contains a memo about a journalist named Ned Touchstone, who was an editor of The Councilor, the newsletter of the racist White Citizens’ Councils.
Touchstone claimed the Ku Klux Klan had “documented proof” that LBJ had been a member of the Klan in the early days of his political career in Texas. https://thepoliticalinsider.com/lyndon-johnson-kkk/
Democrats clung onto every source of revenge. One day a woman came along with a plan to control and maybe eliminate blacks in the US. Sixty years after the Civil War democrats looked for every imaginable way to get even. Murder was not above the democratic party. The KKK proved that. Margaret Sanger offered a new weapon to add to their arsenal. Sanger initialed an unholy union between the worst in America, democrats, the KKK, socialism, and murdering unborn babies.
Margret Sanger KKK
Parenthood was founded by the late Margaret Sanger. Sanger began the movement by speaking to many groups, including the wives of Ku Klux Klan group members, who were also organized for white supremacy. There is access to much, rather interesting, uncovered information about her and her organization which began circa 1921. I can barely touch on the topic of Margaret Sanger, and will only be able to touch upon it here.
Margaret Sanger got in tight with the Ku Klux Klan circles, and cozied up to more like them. The following quote from the book “Killer Angel” discovers who some of the other friends in her new movement were:
“In April of 1933, The [Birth Control] Review [Margaret Sanger’s magazine], published a shocking article entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need”. It was written by Margaret’s close friend and advisor, Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s Director of Genetic Sterilization and had earlier taken a role in the establishment in the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. Later in June of that same year, [The Birth Control Review] published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, “Selective Sterilization”, which adamantly praised and defended The Third Reich’s pre-holocaust race purification programs.”
(Killer Angel, a biography of Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger, p. 71-72).
Sanger openly advocated for eugenics. In her book, “The Pivot of Civilization”, she says, “Eugenics suggests the reestablishment of the balance between the ‘fit’ and the ‘unfit.’ The birth-rate among the … finer stocks of humanity is to be increased by awakening among the ‘fit’ the realization of the dangers of a lessened birth-rate in proportion to the reckless breeding of the ‘unfit.’ (The Pivot of Civilization by Margaret Sanger, Ch. VIII, paragraph 12.) . From this type of writing, she became dubbed by the awareness concerning her advocacy, which hailed as “More children from the fit, less from the unfit.” https://www.courierherald.com/letters/hitler-the-ku-klux-klan-and-margaret-sanger/
On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York finally decided to remove the name of Margaret Sanger, the pro-Eugenics founder of Planned Parenthood, from its Manhattan abortion facility. While the organization can distance itself from its founder, the abortion Planned Parenthood practices has eerie echoes of the ugly eugenics movement Sanger supported.
The New York affiliate excised Sanger shortly after the it ousted its executive director, Laura McQuade, in part due to complaints that she had mistreated black employees. The affiliate claims there is no connection between McQuade’s ouster and the canceling of Sanger. The national organization, which has often defended Sanger from criticism, agreed with the decision to cancel the founder of the abortion giant.
“The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color,” Karen Seltzer, the chair of the New York affiliate’s board, said in a statement, The New York Times reported.
New York’s Planned Parenthood affiliate is also talking to city leaders about replacing Sanger’s name on a street sign that has hung near its offices on Bleecker Street for more than two decades. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/07/21/planned-parenthood-cancels-margaret-sanger-will-nancy-pelosi-and-hillary-clinton-will-return-their-awards-n668252
Take, for example, Sanger’s desire to see America’s borders sealed to all “unfit” immigrants to protect what she considered a fragile gene pool. That sounds a lot like the caricature of pro-Trump conservatives conjured up in left-wing fantasies.
Then there was her notorious speech before a branch of the New Jersey Ku Klux Klan, a well-documented event despite the content being nearly forgotten. In that speech, Sanger warned that America must “keep the doors of Immigration closed” to genetic undesirables.
Then there’s Sanger’s opinion of non-whites, which, if uttered now, would (rightly) cause a conniption among Americans. She considered Australia’s Aborigines compulsive rapists and “the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development.” Because he has “no great brain development,” Sanger wrote, “police authority alone prevents [Aborigines] from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.”
But if Planned Parenthood was honest about its founder, Sanger’s most unforgivable “sin” would be her skepticism of abortion itself.
One of Sanger’s few criticisms of the Soviet Union when she visited the communist state in 1934 was its outright insistence on encouraging abortion over contraception. “Four hundred thousand abortions a year indicate women do not want to have so many children,” a perplexed Sanger told a Soviet doctor. https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/24/margaret-sanger-is-a-hero-to-the-left-heres-her-history-of-ugly-views/
Today democrats praise Sanger and her achievements. Marriage vows between democrats and socialism were sealed in the blood of aborted babies. A new craze was active in the democratic party. A new ideology that went across the grain of ever civilized religion. Democrats as a whole abandoned their faith. The theory of evolution was a beginning to the end of that faith. Sanger was the spark that ignited the fires of hell in democrat’s meeting halls that started a new frenzy, to stand against the United States Declaration of Independence which influenced the Constitution.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
With no God there could be no revolution for freedom, and no Constitution. If one falls, they both fall, and so does the American way of life.
Only a faithless society would suggest abolishing the Constitution and eliminating the rights it secures for its people. Socialism is anti-religion. Abortion goes against every religious value. And democrats who have been planning to abolish the Constitution for 150 years cling onto abortion and socialism as their faith and last hope.
Hilary and Sanger
Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, named after the founder of the American Birth Control League, which changed its name to Planned Parenthood in the 1940s. In her remarks, Clinton singled out the namesake of the award for praise:
Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.
Clinton lamented that “Margaret Sanger’s work here in the United States and certainly across our globe is not done.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/sec-clinton-stands-by-her-praise-of-eugenicist-margaret-sanger
When Hillary Clinton announced her presidential candidacy earlier this year, Planned Parenthood welcomed her to the race with open arms. They even noted that throughout her career, Hillary scored a perfect 100 percent on all of Planned Parenthood’s congressional scorecards. Planned Parenthood’s press release praising Hillary does not mention whether the organization includes support for illegal trafficking of unborn baby organs on its annual scorecards.
As much as Planned Parenthood loves Hillary, Hillary’s an even bigger fan of Margaret Sanger, the racist eugenicist founder of the organization. Clinton specifically honored Sanger at a 2009 Planned Parenthood event in Houston.
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously,” Clinton told the event’s attendees. “Her courage, her tenacity, her vision.”
“When I think about what [Sanger] did all those years ago in Brooklyn,” Clinton gushed. “I am really in awe of her. And there are a lot of lessons we that can learn from her life and the cause she launched and fought for and sacrificed so greatly.” https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/14/watch-hillary-praise-planned-parenthoods-eugenicist-founder-margaret-sanger/
The Planned Parenthood endorsement contains this eye-opener from its leader, Cecile Richards: “Everything Planned Parenthood has believed in and fought for over the past 100 years is on the ballot.” That is true. And it’s embodied in the person of Hillary Clinton, whom Richards and friends rightly view as the truest true believer.
As someone who wrote an entire book on Hillary Clinton about 10 years ago, and has long followed her very carefully, especially on matters of her faith and abortion beliefs, I can say without equivocation that she is not mildly or even strongly pro-choice; no, Hillary Rodham Clinton is an abortion fanatic. I believe Hillary Clinton would die for abortion. In fact, if Hillary loses the presidency this year, her next stop might well be Planned Parenthood. Cecile should watch out — Hillary Clinton would be the perfect next president for the organization. If not that, Hillary would be an ideal honorary president for life of Planned Parenthood. https://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/14/hillary-clinton-is-in-awe-of-racist-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/
How can a person be so involved with organizations like Planned Parenthood without reaching a point where their natural tendencies are not thrown out of balance?
In 2016, the most recent year available, the government agency reported 623,471 abortions, the lowest number the CDC has ever seen since it began tracking the procedure in 1969, according to the study. That’s a 2.3% decline from 2015, when the CDC recorded 638,169 instances of the procedure.
Current United States Data*
Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2018: 61.8 million+
186 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)
U.S. Abortions in 2017: ~862,320 (Guttmacher Institute)
Abortions per day: 2362+ (GI)
Abortions per hour: 98+ (GI)
1 abortion every 96 seconds (GI)
13.5 abortions / 1000 women aged 15-44 in 2017 (GI)
Although figures vary from source to source, abortion is real and abortion has taken millions of lives over the years. The most shocking fact about abortions is what the money is used for.
Planned Parenthood will spend $45 million on the 2020 elections, the nonprofit’s biggest electoral expenditure in its history, according to CBS News.
Planned Parenthood will spend $45 million to support candidates in favor of abortion rights, the largest electoral program of its kind in the group’s history.
The money will go toward supporting candidates at the presidential, congressional and state levels.
You may want to ask, how does a non-profit, taxpayer funded organization donate $45 million dollars to democrats? Loop holes in the law passed by democrats. Yes this was planned. Political campaigns funded by the deaths of millions of unborn babies.
Planned Parenthood’s income breakdown for the 2018-2019 fiscal year
PP non-government clinic income: $369.6 million
PP donations revenue: $591.3 million
PP government grants and reimbursements: $616.8 million
Total profit: $110.5 million
Total income: $1.63 billion
How can a political organization live with itself knowing funds come from murder? Where did it all begin? We’ve see how democrats placed themselves, their ambitions, and businesses above race, rights, and liberty. Adding murder to their agenda is nothing new for the democratic party.
Founded in 1865, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for Black Americans. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and Black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.
There are of course dozens of different stories about who started the KKK and who funded the KKK. Many of those stories conflict. What lies on the surface are reports of who was threatened and murdered by the KKK. Republicans and blacks were consistently targeted by the KKK. The very same groups targeted by democrats. The left can attempt to rewrite history any way it wishes. The fact of the matter remains, thousands of reports show Republicans and blacks were victims of the KKK movement. Why? Democrats wanted total control. While Republicans were fighting hard to abolish slavery and ensure the rights of all Americans, democrats were fighting to abolish the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Democrats looked for every conceivable way to turn back the clock. Sanger and her plans for abortion added fuel to that fire by locating abortion clinics in black neighborhoods than using tax dollars from abortions to fund the democratic party. Nothing was sacred to democrats. Nothing was beneath their plans.
No one honored Sanger more than Hilary Clinton. No one appreciated her plans more than Hilary Clinton. Few people have benefited more from abortion donations than Hillary Clinton. And no one advanced devious democratic plans more than Hilary Clinton.
Clinton in Haiti
It is estimated that the IHRC collected over $5.3 billion over two years and $9.9 billion in three years but Haitians still find themselves mired in abject poverty. A US Government Accountability Office report circumvented the issue by deciding not to find any iota of wrongdoing, but the gravity of the failure made them mention that the plans by the IHRC, co-chaired by Bill Clinton, “did not align with the Haitian priorities.”
The failure by the IHRC to rebuild Haiti is still haunting Haiti. The failed agricultural policies by the US made sure Haiti, a country that produced its own rice, would be reliant on US food to the extent that Haiti imports food from the US. Foreign aid is continuously pumped into Haiti, and no plan is made to bolster the country’s own capacity to rebuild and produce.
Haiti is still run on which business finds favor with the US, and while the Clintons were in charge of the US, they presided over all these failed policies. It is high time the onus to build Haiti shifts back to the government. https://www.africanexponent.com/post/7108-how-the-clintons-robbed-and-destroyed-haiti
Critics have pointed at the Clinton Foundation, alleging the charity had control over the billions of dollars in aid to Haiti. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Clintons’ involvement in Haiti translated into mixed feelings in the Haitian-American community about Hillary Clinton, ranging from low enthusiasm to disappointment and anger. As secretary of state, Clinton supported the presidency of Michel Martelly, intruding into Haitian electoral politics by flying to Haiti in 2011 to pressure President René Préval to allow Martelly to participate in a two-person runoff. Martelly won. As president, Martelly selected Special Envoy Bill Clinton’s chief of staff as prime minister, and gave important positions to people with criminal backgrounds, and was known for corruption and violent government repression, and attempting to install his successor. Mrs. Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, became a member of an advisory board of a mining company that owns a gold mine in Haiti and was introduced to the company through the Clinton Global Initiative arm of the Clinton Foundation. All of this fueled speculation that the United States and the Clintons were installing a puppet government and engaging in profiteering and drew the ire of Haitians and Haitian-Americans. https://atlantablackstar.com/2018/01/24/really-happened-clinton-foundation-haiti/
Biden is talking about raising minimum wage. Ya right. Clinton promised the same thing. In Haiti the Clinton’s used disaster relief funds to build a textile factory in Haiti. This is what the Clinton’s considered a fair minimum wage.
As of last year Hanes had 3,200 Haitians making t-shirts for it. Paying each of them two bucks a day more would cost it about $1.6 million a year. Hanesbrands Incorporated made $211 million on $4.3 billion in sales last year, and presumably it would pass on at least some of its higher labor costs to consumers. Or better yet, Hanesbrands CEO Richard Noll could forego some of his rich compensation package. He could pay for the raises for those 3,200 t-shirt makers with just one-sixth of the $10 million in salary and bonus he raked in last year. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/11/what-the-clintons-did-to-haiti
Possibly the most enduring criticism of the Clinton Foundation’s work in Haiti stems from its signature project, a garment factory known as the Caracol Industrial Park.
The foundation, working with the Clinton State Department, helped arrange a US-subsidised deal with the Haitian government to build the $300m factory complex in 2012.
Several hundred farmers were evicted from their land to make way for the 600-acre manufacturing site, which produces clothes for retailers such as Old Navy, Walmart and Target.
South Korean textile giant Sae-A Trading Co, which is the main employer at the facility, subsequently donated between $50,000 to $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Mr Clinton declared 100,000 jobs would be created “in short order”.
But the Caracol Industrial Park has created only 8,000 jobs. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098
Killing babies was not enough for Hillary. When an earthquake hit Haiti, the gears started turning. Hillary saw new ways of making money. New ways to campaign. Using every imaginable media source, Bill and Hillary made pleas for donations to help people in Haiti. No one knows what actually happened to the majority of that money, but it did not go to Haiti. Hilary did build a textile factory where people could work as slave labor. Proof democrats still have a desire to turn back the clock on Constitutional Amendments and civil rights.
Clinton’s leaving the White House
How soon we forget.
It was another author, not here to remind us, who documented the rip-off of White House valuables. Her name is Barbara Olson, the noted author and commentator, who was among those who died in the jet that struck the Pentagon.
In The Final Days: The Last, Desperate abuses of Power by the Clinton White House, Barbara Olson revealed how the Clintons absconded with furniture and White House property–some historic–valued in the tens of millions.
The Clintons, wrote Olson “shipped off 70 priceless museum pieces to arkansas”.
Then “a yearlong investigation by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee confirmed the account of former White House whistleblower Linda Tripp, who alleged that Bill and Hillary Clinton tried to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts they’d received, many of which were not reported as required by law.” (NewsMax. Feb. 12, 2002).
When the booty was counted, gifts, which included china, furniture, electronics and art, totaled an estimated $190,000.
“Gifts were coming in from everywhere,” Tripp said. “I was brought in, because of my institutional memory and my knowledge of procedure. I’m filling out the gift unit form…and they don’t want any part of that.
“One room in the White House “was floor to ceiling stacked with gifts,” she recalled. “In the Clinton White House…most of it didn’t make it to the gift unit.”
The Clintons subsequently announced that they would reimburse nearly half of the $190,000 in gifts received from 27 donors in 2000. Some of the gifts included $5,000 in china from director Steven Spielberg and his wife actress Kate Capshaw, and a $350 golf driver from actor Jack Nicholson. https://canadafreepress.com/2006/cover040606.htm
In 2001, the Clintons were moving out of the White House to make way for the Bush Administration. Not only did the Clintons steal furniture on their way out of the White House, but they did something far worse. It’s yet another reason why they should not be allowed to step foot in the White House AGAIN!
Besides the stolen furniture, Hillary Clinton and her lackeys defaced walls, stole a presidential seal dating back to the Eisenhower years, damaged furniture they deemed not expensive enough to take, and left a huge mess in the offices, making it look like a rave party had taken place there.
They left behind offensive and derogatory statements about Bush, defaced keyboards so the letter W could not be used, stole doorknobs and other small items, and left behind prank signs as well as many other immature acts. Apparently, the Clintons are petty, reckless, and have no respect for the taxpayers or the donations they give to for president’s household and office.
A complete list of all the damages is in the GAO 02-360 ‘The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition,’ an official document of the aftermath of the Clinton Administration. So, liberals can’t chalk this up to a conspiracy theory.
And the Democrats want someone this immature and disrespectful back in the White House? https://en-volve.com/2016/09/25/fact-clintons-stole-items-and-destroyed-property-as-they-left-white-house/
Nothing was sacred. Theft had become an everyday way of life for the Clinton’s. Stealing from the White House and American people didn’t shock any of the democrats. It was business as usual for the democrats who felt everyone who opposed their concepts owed them. Taking a few items was nothing compared to what was done in the past. Lying and stealing were a necessary evil to achieve their goals.
Hilary introduced a new concept to the democratic party. Her concept was simple. If you plan to do a crime, blame someone else. That will distract the American public who is not smart enough to recognize a scam. Her concept was used throughout her election. Hillary worked with another set of communist out of Russia to smear Trump. Her first move was to throw everyone off the scent by claiming the Trump campaign was working with Russians. Hillary was able to cover her tracks for nearly four years.
Hillary and Russia
Not only were Russian officials aware of Hillary Clinton’s campaign plan to accuse Donald Trump of being a Russian asset, top U.S. intelligence authorities knew of Russia’s knowledge of Clinton’s plans, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe disclosed to congressional officials on Tuesday. Before they launched an investigation into whether Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia, intelligence agencies learned that Russia knew of Clinton’s plans to tarnish Trump with the collusion smear.
At one point, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan personally briefed then-President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials that Russia assessed Hillary Clinton had approved a plan on July 26, 2016, “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services,” according to Brennan’s handwritten notes.
Newly declassified documents from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe show former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have set up the 2016 Russia investigation into the Trump campaign. The information was released Tuesday afternoon in a letter written to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham.
“In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication,” the letter states. “According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”
The simple plan of, blame another party while committing a crime has been used by Hillary throughout her carrier. When Bill was caught having sex in the White House, Hillary blamed the women. When Hillary stole funds from Haiti, she blamed other organizations and contractors. When Hilary worked with Russia in influence the 2016 election, her first step was to accuse the Trump campaign of working with Russia. Today we see Biden using Hilary’s almost successful procedures.
Biden and Hitler
CLAIM: Joe Biden claimed at the debate: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he invaded the rest of Europe.”
VERDICT: MOSTLY FALSE. Hitler’s rise led to a downturn in relations, though the U.S. stayed out of the war until 1941.
Biden attempted to criticize President Donald Trump for his diplomatic relationship with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, calling him a “thug.”
Trump countered that he inherited a volatile situation from the Obama-Biden administration, and that he averted war by developing a good relationship with Kim.
Biden replied: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he invaded the rest of Europe.”
Not true. As the website of the U.S. embassy in Germany notes:
Come on Joe. Claiming the US was friends with Hitler. Come on man. Are you nuts? Check history. Check the records. Check the books and memoirs on WWII figures. All of them will tell you, the US was sending arms and relief to European nations long before entering the war. Nazi subs were sinking US ships and lurking just off the east coast. Nothing is below Joe. To claim the US attempted to overlook, or justify what Hitler was doing is below any politician. Or it should be. But 47 years of politics has somehow starved common sense.
Biden Condemns Polish and Hungarian Fight Against Communism in Europe
Poles in America have urged Joe Biden to correct his “false” and “harmful” comments about Poland at a recent town hall, where he appeared to lump it in with Belarus and other “totalitarian regimes”.
“You see what’s happening in everything from Belarus to Poland to Hungary and the rise of totalitarian regimes in the world, and, as well as, this President embraces all the thugs of the world,” Biden had said on October 15th — causing enormous offense in the latter two countries, both EU democracies and NATO allies.
Joe Biden appeared to suggest the elected, conservative governments of NATO allies Hungary and Poland are “totalitarian regimes” like Belarus.
Speaking at a town hall event on Thursday on foreign policy, the Democratic party presidential candidate praised Donald Trump “on the deal with Israel recently” but condemned the U.S. President’s supposed inaction with regards to Russia and North Korea.
“You see what’s happened in everything from Belarus to Poland to Hungary, and the rise of totalitarian regimes in the world,” Biden said, telling the ABC-screened event: “This President embraces all the thugs in the world. I mean, he is best friends with the leader of North Korea, sending love letters.”
In both Poland and Hungary, the most prominent social media platform is Facebook; Twitter plays a smaller role in political life. Both Poland and Hungary should look into alternative social media networks and communications technologies, in order to build an internet in the national interest that can stand against Silicon Valley’s attempts to meddle in their own political affairs. Other governments moving in a more nationalist direction should consider the same measures. In the worst-case scenario, it may be necessary to transfer social media interactions to national internet platforms to properly secure against foreign interference.
To be sure, Turkey (a NATO member) and other allies, like Saudi Arabia, have faced criticism and even sanctions from the United States—but nothing like the round-the-clock media denunciation seemingly reserved for Poland and Hungary.
The real reason that Poland and Hungary have been demonized in the United States is that they represent a successful alternative to the failed American combination of industrial and family collapse. In recent years, Poland has pursued a policy of modest domestic re-industrialization, while also supporting Polish families with direct government support. Hungary has done the same, including appointing a minister of state for family affairs (Katalin Novák) tasked with helping Hungarian families thrive.
For American conservatives, Poland and Hungary are important allies of the United States against a decadent global liberalism that has left Western countries shells of their former selves. They are also military and commercial partners, and the United States is a place that many Polish and Hungarian emigrants call home. For all the laments about foreign policy incoherence over the last four years, it is breathtaking to see the casual dismissal of key Central European allies. The transatlantic alliance, in all its elements, is clearly more important than ever. The priorities of a new liberal foreign policy, however, may quickly reveal that Biden’s words were not an accident.
“We may still remember the kind of Central European policy the Democrats pursued for eight years; we may still recall the continuous lecturing, accusations and attacks,” railed the country’s foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, in a video message uploaded to Facebook, denouncing Biden’s comments as having “nothing to do with reality”.
Szijjártó further recalled how, under Obama and Biden, “members of the U.S. diplomatic corps in Budapest openly took part in opposition protests and published ‘extraordinarily biased’ statements with the aim of supporting left-liberal parties and attacking the Hungarian government,” according to the official About Hungary website.
The foreign minister went on the note that Biden seemed “particularly busy” when it came to foreign policy under the Obama administration, suggesting that for a time, “and I exaggerate a bit, Biden spent more of his time outside D.C. in Ukraine than in rural America.”
“This was the time when his son happened to be a chief executive at a key Ukrainian energy company; this was also the time when there were deals in the Ukrainian energy sector that were suspected of being corrupt,” the Hungarian continued.
“[I]t would be best if Joe Biden could answer some of those old questions that have been out there for a while, before attacking Central Europe,” he said, adding: “It would be great if Joe Biden could tell us why he put pressure on the Ukrainian government to fire its chief prosecutor, and how all of this related to the investigation into his son’s Ukrainian energy deals grinding to a halt.”
It really is eye-opening to actually go to Hungary and Poland, to talk to ordinary people there, and to try to see the world through their eyes. You must understand that for Americans who don’t speak Polish or Hungarian, all we ever hear about those countries comes to us through English-language media. It is impossible to overstate how culturally conditioned US journalists are by liberal internationalism — that is to say, towards seeing those nationalist governments, which were chosen by their people in free and fair elections, as illegitimate. Even, as Joe Biden put it, as “totalitarian.”
What opened my eyes, and my mind, to the other side of this story was going to Hungary for the first time a few years back, and talking to ordinary Hungarians about how fearful they were of losing control of their own country’s identity, and its fate, to Western capitalist entities and liberal institutions. The people in the Western media, and among Western elites, who look down on the Deplorables in this country hold the same views about the kind of Poles and Hungarians who vote for Duda’s Law & Justice Party, and Orban’s Fidesz. I’m not saying that those governments are above criticism, but Pappin is right: what people like Joe Biden find most repulsive about them is that they have the audacity to question whether policies made in Washington and Brussels are in the best interests of their peoples — and whether the progressive ideals championed by secular Western elites are actually nothing more than a form of cultural imperialism.
Biden feels a need to attack the few democratic nations in Europe to secure the communist vote here in the US. I have no idea why they US has so many open communists and to see so many mayors and governors coming out of the closet in 2020. Now we know they were lurking just below the surface like those Nazi submarines. Life has to value. Liberty has to value. Democrats have been working along side communists within our schools for years. The media has turned communist. It seems we don’t know who to trust and to what lengths people are willing to go to secure their communist agenda in America and across the world.
Critical Race Theory
It says contractors’ workers who participate in training that “promotes race or sex-stereotyping or scapegoating similarly undermines efficiency in federal contracting,” adding that it promotes divisiveness and distracts from the “pursuit of excellence.”
“Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex-stereotyping or scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and not to allow grant funds to be used for these purposes. In addition, Federal contractors will not be permitted to inculcate such views in their employees,” the order said.
It builds on an order issued earlier this month that instructs federal agencies to end diversity training programs that teach about “white privilege” and critical race theory.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought outlined the directive in a memo.
“The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions,” Vought wrote. “Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda.”
President Trump keeps getting stronger in the fight against the anti-American critical race theory that has crept into our institutions, schools, and corporations. Critical Race Theory is the Marxist indoctrination ideology that claims America is inherently racist and the only way to fix it is to destroy capitalism and the American way of life.
Christopher Rufo of the Discovery Institute published documents on Monday from what he said was a 13-week CDC series called “Naming, Measuring, and Addressing the Impacts of Racism on the Health and Well-Being of the Nation and the World.”
The trainings taught how to view “racism as a public health crisis” and said “systemic racism” causes “police killings of unarmed Black and Brown men and women” and “the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color.”
Rufo was influential in publicizing other federal uses of the academic theory, which applies a focus on race rather than individuals to social issues and history. He said the CDC course was “textbook critical race theory.”
Badenoch, a member of the ruling Tory party who was born in Wimbledon and spent much of her childhood in the United States and Nigeria, stated:
Our curriculum does not need decolonizing for the simple reason that it is not colonized. We should not apologize for the fact that British children primarily study the history of these islands, and it goes without saying that the recent fad to decolonize maths, decolonize engineering, decolonize the sciences that we have seen across our universities to make race the defining principle of what is studied is not just misguided but actively opposed to the fundamental purpose of education.
What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are accepted fact. We don’t do this with communism; we don’t so this with socialism; we don’t so it with capitalism. And I want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home to my life, and it’s the promotion of critical race theory, an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression.I want to be absolutely clear: This government stands unequivocally against critical race theory. Some schools have decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group, often fully aware that they have a statutory duty to be politically impartial.Black lives do matter; of course they do. But we know that the Black Lives Matter Movement, capital “BLM,” is political. I know this because at the height of the protest, I’ve been told of white Black Lives Matter protesters calling— and I’m afraid, I apologize for saying this word — calling a black armed police officer guarding Downing Street a “pet n*****.”
Until this month, according to the parliamentary record, Hansard, the term “critical race theory” had never once been uttered in the House of Commons chamber. By the end of the day on 20 October, however, it was of such importance that the government declared itself “unequivocally against” the concept. “We do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt,” warned the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, at the end of a six-hour debate to mark Black History Month. “Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.”
Taxpayers have been paying for government employee training programs that spread left-wing racism and neo-Marxist conspiracy theories about white supremacy and the so-called problems of white culture. The hateful ideas are collectively known as critical race theory and its tenets have helped fuel much of the violence currently playing out in American cities.
Democrats have embraced the dangerous ideology, which is part of the reason their cities are being torn apart by angry leftists. The 60s radicals took refuge in academia and their poisonous anti-American beliefs have permeated the federal government. The academia to government pipeline has stocked the federal bureaucracy with “diversity trainers” and race consultants who are paid by the taxpayer to inculcate federal employees in toxic neo-Marxist garbage.
Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s lead, the British government has declared it is opposed to Critical Race Theory and the Black Lives Matter movement in the classroom, and warned teachers it is unlawful to teach concepts like “white privilege” as fact.
Speaking during a debate on Black History Month in the House of Commons, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities Kemi Badenoch, who is black, described “the promotion of Critical Race Theory” as a “dangerous trend in race relations” and “an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression.”
“I want to be absolutely clear that the Government stand unequivocally against Critical Race Theory. Some schools have decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group, often fully aware that they have a statutory duty to be politically impartial,” Badenoch said.
“[CRT] doesn’t depend on your personal feeling, sentiment, [or] heart condition—it’s based on the group that you’re born into,” [Hamilton] explained recently on American Family Radio. “It completely eliminates individual responsibility, individual sin and expands it to corporate sin. And based on how you’re born, you are immediately ascribed into an ‘oppressor’ or ‘oppressed’ group.” . . .
“Jesus articulated the primary commandments: love God with your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself,” [Hamilton] concluded. “We don’t need these anti-Christ, unbiblical tools to teach us how to love our neighbors as ourselves—the scripture is sufficient for that.”
In “The Stain of Albert Mohler” documentary, Tom Buck, a SBC pastor who contested Resolution 9 at the SBC convention in June, noted that Resolution 9 acknowledges that Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality(2) alone were insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills they identified. Furthermore, Buck stated:
Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality are . . . not merely insufficient, they’re incapable of diagnosing man’s problem and incompatible with the biblical Gospel. Critical Race Theory is based upon Marxism, a godless intellectual foundation, and both include a praxis contradictory to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These views do not complement the Gospel; they completely contradict it.
In his rebuttal statements against Resolution 9, Buck quoted Colossians 2:8, then added:
When it came to worldly philosophy and human tradition, Paul did not tell the Colossians to adopt or adapt but to abandon.
“There have been few times in American history when an effort such as the Conservative Baptist Network has been so needed,” said Sen. Peggy Jeffries (R-AR). “The unbiblical, cultural Marxist views of Critical Theory and Intersectionality are a cancer on and in our churches: they undermine our Christ-centered efforts at evangelism and true reconciliation, and are alienating large and quickly growing numbers of Baptists from our Cooperative Program-based work. Baptists have to stop this insidious effort to co-opt the church away from its gospel mission into nothing more than a political tool of the left.”
Sen. Jeffries was just named to the Conservative Baptist Network Steering Council.
A second new member to the CBN Steering Council Sen. Dennis Baxley (R-FL) agreed with Sen. Jeffries view. “The focus of the church, and certainly of our Cooperative Program-funded ministries, should be reaching the lost with the Gospel, not advancing a leftist political agenda,” Sen. Baxley said. “We need more evangelism, more care for the suffering, and a lot less virtue signaling and cancel culture. Some of our leaders are losing their way, chasing the latest political fads and worldly philosophies. They need to put their eyes back squarely on Christ and His all-sufficient Word.”
What is the Critical Race Theory
From the CRT perspective, the white skin that some Americans possess is akin to owning a piece of property, in that it grants privileges to the owner that a renter (in this case, a person of color) would not be afforded. Cheryl I. Harris and Gloria Ladson-Billings describe this notion of whiteness as property, whereby whiteness is the ultimate property that whites alone can possess; valuable just like property. The property functions of whiteness – i.e., rights to disposition; rights to use and enjoyment, reputation, and status property; and the absolute right to exclude – make the American dream more likely and attainable for whites as citizens.
Critical race theory recognizes that systemic racism is part of the American life, and challenges the beliefs that allow it to flourish.
“Critical race theory is a practice. It’s an approach to grappling with a history of White supremacy that rejects the belief that what’s in the past is in the past, and that the laws and systems that grow from that past are detached from it,” said Kimberlé Crenshaw, a founding critical race theorist and a law professor at UCLA and Columbia universities.
While the theory was started as a way to examine how laws and systems promote inequality, it has since expanded.
“Critical race theory attends not only to law’s transformative role which is often celebrated, but also to its role in establishing the very rights and privileges that legal reform was set to dismantle,” she told CNN. “Like American history itself, a proper understanding of the ground upon which we stand requires a balanced assessment, not a simplistic commitment to jingoistic accounts of our nation’s past and current dynamics.”
Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s.
To look at the critical race theory is confusing to say the least. No matter what source you use to study the critical race theory you find one thing in common. No one offers any solution. No one has a step by step plan. No one has any answers. This of course is all part of the plan. Introduce a problem, answer as few questions on the subject as you can, and offer one solution. Vote democrat and they have a board of experts who will come up with all the solutions in record time and all the people will benefit. That has been Biden’s answer to everything over the last few months of his campaign in 2020. Biden refuses to answer any question. The only answer Biden offers is, “you’ll find out after you elect me.” That is Biden’s answer to covid, the oil industry, foreign affairs, the economy, and every other subject. One answer fits Biden. The leader of the democratic party.
Democrats and Republicans differ in one major philosophy. Democrats believe people elect officials to solve all the problems and come up with solutions. To democrats, you vote then shut up until the next election. Democrats don’t want people involved in government or suggesting any ideas, and democrats don’t want anyone to find out what they actually do with tax dollars. On the opposite side of the coin Republicans rely on input from voters. They have shown that since Lincoln helped organize the Republican party. Slavery threatened wages. It had to go. The majority of people agreed. So a few large plantations had to suffer for the good of the nation. It was obvious and it was the will of the people to abolish slavery. Of course the critical race theory will disagree with that. But history as it was recorded shows a different story than what democrats are trying to paint. Media somehow supports democratic plans to change America, the Constitution, and our way of life. Of course there has to be sacrifices. Sacrifices that are becoming evident today.
Eliminating Christians and Their Values
After a gaggle of leftists whined in a Wikipedia discussion about it, several other user profiles containing conservative, Christian statements and the decision was made by Wikipedia to pull the plug on Christians who openly expressed their beliefs.
Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter and other leftism openly displayed in user profiles is perfectly fine and one user equated stating that marriage is between one man and one woman with saying “black lives don’t matter.”
Again, move it out of the context of equal marriage. Would we support a userbox advocatign “black lives matrter”? Yes, of course. Would we support one advocatign “all lives matter”? That would be deeply problematic. But how about one that says “black lives don’t matter”? That is what we are saying here. “one man one woman” is exactly equivalent to “black lives don’t matter”.
Where is all of this leading? Biden in China gives us a clue. Is Biden in China working on a sweet oil deal? Eliminate US oil production and buy oil from China. Is that the Biden plan for the US? Or does it get more sinister than that? What could be more sinister than $5 a gallon gasoline for your car? When we look at Hunter Biden’s exploits in China, the same theme keeps popping up. Prostitution, sex with minors, and human trafficking. Do the Biden’s know something we don’t? We can be sure of two things. Large sums of money are involved and human rights have no place in Biden’s plans.
North Korean Girls Are Sold for $750 in China
If you heard me, please help me to raise awareness so we can stop this modern-day slavery happening to North Korean women in China.
“Trafficking in persons,” “human trafficking,” and “modern slavery” are used as umbrella terms to refer to both sex trafficking and compelled labor. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-386), as amended (TVPA), and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Palermo Protocol) describe this compelled service using a number of different terms, including involuntary servitude, slavery or practices similar to slavery, debt bondage, and forced labor.
Human trafficking can include, but does not require, movement. People may be considered trafficking victims regardless of whether they were born into a state of servitude, were exploited in their home town, were transported to the exploitative situation, previously consented to work for a trafficker, or participated in a crime as a direct result of being trafficked. At the heart of this phenomenon is the traffickers’ aim to exploit and enslave their victims and the myriad coercive and deceptive practices they use to do so.
We believe everyone, everywhere has the right to a life free from slavery. But right now, millions of children and adults are trapped in slavery in every single country in the world. Including yours.
Modern slavery is the severe exploitation of other people for personal or commercial gain. Modern slavery is all around us, but often just out of sight. People can become entrapped making our clothes, serving our food, picking our crops, working in factories, or working in houses as cooks, cleaners or nannies.
From the outside, it can look like a normal job. But people are being controlled – they can face violence or threats, be forced into inescapable debt, or have had their passport taken away and are being threatened with deportation. Many have fallen into this oppressive trap simply because they were trying to escape poverty or insecurity, improve their lives and support their families. Now, they can’t leave.
40 million people are estimated to be trapped in modern slavery worldwide:
Contemporary slavery, also known as modern slavery or neo-slavery, refers to institutional slavery that continues to occur in present-day society. Estimates of the number of slaves today range from around 21 million to 46 million, depending on the method used to form the estimate and the definition of slavery being used. The estimated number of slaves is debated, as there is no universally agreed definition of modern slavery; those in slavery are often difficult to identify, and adequate statistics are often not available. The International Labour Organization estimates that, by their definitions, over 40 million people are in some form of slavery today. 24.9 million people are in forced labor, of whom 16 million people are exploited in the private sector such as domestic work, construction or agriculture; 4.8 million persons in forced sexual exploitation, and 4 million persons in forced labor imposed by state authorities. 15.4 million people are in forced marriage.
Modern slavery differs from historical slavery in several ways:
There are more slaves than ever before, but they are a smaller proportion of the human race
No-one seriously defends slavery any more
Slavery is illegal everywhere and so requires corruption and crime to continue. The power of the slave owner is always subject to the power of the state; slavery can only continue to exist if governments permit it to, and some writers claim that government corruption is a leading cause of the persistence of slavery
Slaves are cheaper than ever and can generate high economic returns. Modern slavery is very cheap, and Kevin Bales has argued that this has made modern slavery even worse than that of Atlantic Slave Trade:
No one has done more to end modern slavery than President Trump. Is that the reason the democrats oppose him during every waking moment? Do we see history repeating itself? President Lincoln opposed slavery. Democrats not only assassinated President Lincoln for his opposition to slavery, democrats formed groups such as the KKK to threaten, beat, and murder Republican supporters. You would have to be blind not to see history repeating itself. Democrats have never forgotten their economic losses and the loss of control they suffered before, during, and after the Civil War. The thought of revenge at any cost thrives in the democratic party today. The quest for total control through a one party rule lives on in the democratic party. Over 150 years ago the fight between Republicans and Democrats centered on slavery. Today we see evidence of the same fight brewing in politics all over the world. England, Poland, Hungary, and other European nations have seen this war brewing for years. Mostly lead by communist factions tied to organized crime who want laws against illegal drugs, prostitution, and slavery abolished. Democrats in America look at the promise of almost unlimited profits through the support of such moves. Before, during, and after the Civil War, democrats showed the world they believed in profit at any price. No sacrifice was too great. As long as it was other people who suffered the sacrifices. Sacrificing freedom. Democrats stood up against abolishing slavery. Democrats stood against citizenship for ex-slaves and the right to vote. Today we see a new twist. Promises of a new freedom. Freedom to peddle and use illegal drugs. Freedom to rape. Freedom to have sex with minors, no matter what their age. Freedom to buy and sell slaves. Europe has been fighting against those distorted freedoms for years. In America we can’t help to see those ideals rear their ugly head. Biden in China. China buying and selling slaves from North Korea. Biden condemning efforts in Europe to maintain family and Christian values. Biden calling the fight for Christian values, terrorist activities. Biden dealing with communist governments whose goal it is to over throw European democracies he brands as terrorist. You have to be blind not to see what is going on and how democrats are using people as pawns to cease total control.
Hunter Biden’s laptop contains all the evidence we need to make a rational decision. Pictures showing drug use, sex with minors, prostitution, and other acts the moral majority still considers crimes. Eye witnesses, emails, taped phone conversations, links to known communists deep into organized crime. Everything we need to show us the link between government figures and corruption at every level. For the most part the media has decided to ignore that evidence. Social media giants have chosen to bury that evidence. For what? What are their ties to those communists and organized crime. Were they paid off? Or are their promises of larger profits in the future? The election in 2020 will decide if we ever see the truth or if the next government will bury the truth and unleash the next phase in their plan.