Social & Domestic Issues

Democrats Should Know Jim Crow, They Created Him

With a bit of Chicago-machine swagger about him, Bill Clinton, a “war room” veteran, is back in the spotlight and stumping for Obama.
 
Speaking to Campus Progress last Wednesday, Clinton asked the crowd of young progressives, “Are you fighting?”  Taking talking points almost directly from the mouth of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D.-Fla.), the former President asserted, “There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the voter Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit a franchise that we see today.”
 
Likening Republican policies aimed at preserving voter integrity in states from Florida to California to poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow era proves Democrats are desperate.  Obama’s tax-and-spend agenda stinks on ice.  So his segregation mudslingers—in this case, Clinton—must rely on shopworn clichés that stir racial animus to fire up his left-wing base.
 
Are Clinton and Shultz insinuating that minorities, college students and the elderly are all born Democrats, that they are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates?  Is this what Democratic elites think of their constituents?  Do Democrats believe blacks and Latinos, old people and youngsters, are too stupid to acquire a photo I.D. by next November?
 
Moreover, decrying all Republicans as racists is a Democrat article of faith.  But why dredge up Jim Crow?
 
In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born.  By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems.  These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation.  Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous.  However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states:  They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”
 
When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964.  Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
 
Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation.  Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:
 
“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag.  It was our party’s flag.  That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats.  That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”
 
How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote?  Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.
 
Nevertheless, deception—what all warfare is based on, according to ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, won’t work with independents.  Obama’s reelection strategy of slander and defaming all conservatives and Republicans as racists won’t win him that all-important center.
 
With a “recovery” missing 8.5 million jobs, unemployment going in the wrong direction and no perceived end to our economic misery in sight, Obama obviously doesn’t see winning a second term without getting down in the gutter to inspire his bulwark leftists.
 
This latest attempt to stir up Obama’s base by former President Clinton is just the beginning.  Digging up the ghost of Jim Crow Past may have worked before, but the political landscape has changed.  And Americans are seemingly ready to vote their wallets in 2012.
 
This contest will be a battle between the Democrat Party of higher taxes, more spending and backbiting, and the Republican Party of lower taxes, job creation and solving America’s problems.

Sign Up
  • Hominid

    So, Ed, you’re conceding (if you stop to think about it for a second or two) that it was, in fact, the Repubs and NOT the Dems who ended Jim Crow, since the southern Dems did not switch to Repub until AFTER the demise of Jim Crow (as you claim).  See how easy it is for you to make a fool of yourself again and again and again?

  • RenegadeScholar

    Do Democrats believe blacks and Latinos, old people and youngsters, are too stupid to
    acquire a photo I.D. by next November?

    Well–yes, they do.

  • RenegadeScholar

    C’mon, Hominid.

    For someone who believes himself to be a superior intellect to a generally ignorant and/or stupid population, your responses are pretty childish.

  • Ed_USA

    Sure, I’ll happily concede that the Dem party, at the time of Lincoln and at the time of Johnson, was the home of the racist “Southern Democrats”. On the other hand, you lie when you claim that the Dems did not end Jim Crow. Here are the vote tallies by party

    The original House version:[12]

    * Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
    * Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

    Cloture in the Senate:[13]

    * Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
    * Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

    The Senate version:[12]

    * Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
    * Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12]

    * Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
    * Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

    Clearly both Dems and GOP voted to pass the Act.

    Now all that’s left is for you to look up the term “southern strategy”. Nixon actively courted southern racists, and that solidified the GOP as the party of bigots right up to today. Look into Reagan’s 1980 campaign kickoff in Meridian, MS with a “state’s rights” speech.

    Yes, Lincoln sent the racists to the Dem party, and then Johnson and Nixon sent them back to the GOP. Things change. Now the “Eisenhower Republicans” are Dems or independents and the GOP is trying to figure out whether it’s the Tea Party or the Bible party. Of those two, the Tea Party is the less racist.

  • deeme

    Liberals have their own made up version of the World, facts don’t now or ever will matter to them, they are on their own trip, if you argue with them., you will just get called names ,they will tell you, you lie , take the facts and change them., till they say what works for them..brought to you by the DOE.  wonderful story Mr. Hudson, now get ready to be called all kinds of names for being a conservative. I Know i know, you, already know…

  • Hominid

    That’s your prob, Ren – you equate verbosity with erudition (you’re not alone in that regard).  It’s exactly the opposite, Ren – precision and economy of language are a true sign of intellection.  If education is called for – i.e., there some hope with respect to the subject – I take time to educate (as in the present case).  If the subject is a stupid fool, I don’t waste my breath.

  • RenegadeScholar

    In other words, the corruption of the educ system is simply another
    manifestation of a generally stupid population, not the cause.

    Stupid…misled…trusting..ignorant…unwilling to challenge what they were taught.

    There are a lot of reasons. Americans were (and are) led to believe that the government is “there for them,” as opposed to “there for itself.” People are told things by others they respect, and soon it becomes its own indisputable truth. It’s not so hard to imagine that happening to bright people.

    Just look at how many people unquestioningly accept Darwinism, despite its obvious flaws as a model (no–I’m not a creationist, or and I.D. proponent). Even a cursory investigation yields huge problems. True scientists agree with the problems that creationists bring up, although most, of course, disagree with the creationists alternative explanation. There are a number of alternate theories being brought up to address the problems in Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, and some have been around since the 70′s.

    One of the problems that critics of Darwinian  evolution bring up is the lack of “in-between” species in the fossil record. Your average “intellectual” will argue until he is blue in the face that there HAVE, in fact been “in-between” species discovered. Even National Geographic television shows tout this falsehood.

    Real scientists, meanwhile, have quietly realized the problem and come up with alternate theories such as “Punctuated Equilibrium” to compensate for the lack of evidence for Darwinism (even Darwin realized the lack of evidence for Darwinism). And that’s just one problem, there are many others, along with other theories. The sum of all of these problems and the diversity of competing hypotheses put Darwinism on shaky ground.

    Yet “intellectuals” such as yourself still blindly cling to the 9th grade textbook teaching.

    But the textbooks don’t cover these problems, nor do they discuss the other theories. They only state the Darwinist theory as fact. Thus, people (like yourself) grow up believing something false (or at least flawed). It’s not because the general population is stupid that they still blindly believe in Darwinism and/or neo-Darwinism; it’s because that’s what they were taught and they don’t like to challenge their beliefs.

    So, Monkey-man, that’s how otherwise intelligent people can be led astray.

  • Hominid

    Since you’ve conceded that the Hominid is right (again), there’s no need for further discussion.

  • Hominid

    Exactly right, deeme.

  • Mr. EMT

    Senator Byrd called from the grave and said to thank you for being such a weak minded gullible moron.

  • Hominid

    OK, Ren, first you have to tell us what ‘Darwinism’ is? 

    As opposed to just saying it has ‘obvious flaws,’ tell us what they are.

    What are a few of the ‘huge problems’ you claim are revealed by ‘cursory investigation’?

    Do you not realize that the so-called problems you cite are disagreements over HOW evolution occurs, not whether it occurs?  Are you then accepting that modern man, like all other organisms, is a product of evolution?

    You accuse me of ‘blindly clinging to a 9th grade textbook’ version of evolution – but I have a PhD in a biological science and an MD and am a published and world-recognized authority in my field of research.  What are YOUR credentials?

    I grew up believing nothing, fool.  I was raised in the Catholic tradition and attended Catholic parochial school, but rejected their silly mysticism.  Do you think for a minute that I would accept ANY dogma without seriously questioning it?

    All right, let’s assume that whatever ‘Darwinism’ is wrong – what theory is there for the driver of evolution that is better supported by the data than natural selection?  What are the ‘other theories’ you refer to?

    I’ll wait.

    I’m still waiting, Ren.

  • reddarin

    >Why did the general pop accept 40-50 yrs of Lib-Lefty educ control

    I have a theory about that.

    Americans have a long history of deferring to experts in any given field. All societies do to one degree or another but the American free market system created niche experts in every area of endeavor. America’s higher education system and relative wealth allowed for great numbers of experts to come into existence with purely theoretical experience. That is, some studies performed but limited or no field trials or poorly controlled ones.

    Wealth, which expressed itself through grants and endowments, meant that pressure to produce real world results were minimized especially in abstract fields like psychology and sociology. That is not to say that great strides weren’t made in those fields.

    So, how do you connect these experts to the masses?

    Television.

    Television always hungry for content. Interesting content. An expert opinion that is counter-intuitive? Bonanza!

    TV gave experts unfettered access to American homes. Even intelligent people will fall to the wiles of an expert.

    Experts with agendas and a passionate desire to see them through. How many of these men were beamed into households, credibility unquestioned by the host, that would never have been allowed to set foot in most homes if their worldview were known?

    In 1950 only 9 percent of American homes have a TV set; in 1962, 90 percent; and in 1978, 98 percent, with 78 percent owning a color TV.

    I think TV ushered in the era of quiet subservience to the intelligentsia that were the forerunners to the far left agenda driven damn the consequences liberals that are ensconced in all levels of academia today.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

    You know, the most pathetic thing in the world is a poor republican. Think about that the next time you look at your paycheck.

  • reddarin

    >If your knowledge improves then I suspect that your opinions might improve as well

    Ed you are living proof of this fallacy.

  • juryveto

    Oh that reminds me of this show that used to be on a local fox broadcast station on sunday mornings.                                                                                           
      It was a black news/ pundit show.                                         
     In one show they were talking about alternatives to government schools inculding vouchers.                                                                         
      There was best I remember 5 people on the show including the host.                     
     One of the guest was a white ” progressive” educator from some university, the others were black one ran a private school, one was a reporter for a major newspaper who tended to have liberal views.                                                                       
      The host seemed to lean conservative on some issues and liberal on others but he was fair to all in his questioning.                                                                         
      there was also a black lady on the show, a media fiqure who  seem to usually have liberal views.                                             
     All of them were coming out for school choice and vouchers except for the white ” progressive” and it liked to drive the man nuts.                                  
      He was getting angry about it, bobing his head side to side, shouting at them, stammering and almost spitting.                                                                                           
      I couldn’t do nothing but laugh.  
    He was actually telling them the only hope for blacks was to be bused to white government schools in the suburbs and to spend more money on the government schools.
    They of course knew better, called him on it and that was making him mad.

  • wearyconservative1946

    I mind everything I’ve ever seen or heard from this 2 bit thug.

  • Hominid

    Let the riots begin!

  • juryveto

     of course the planters during the SC/ Calhoun/ Jackson  nullification debates were angry because the federal government slaped a big traiff on cheap cotton clothing imports cheaply made for the planters slaves.                                             
      With the high import tax they might as well buy the better quality American clothing like most of the other Americans wore.

  • Ed_USA

    No, I’m arguing that the racists left the Dems after Johnson pissed them off by signing the bipartisan 1964 Civil Rights Act and after Nixon intentionally positioned the GOP as the racist party. Try to understand what’s being said.

  • Ed_USA

    What do you mean “they”? Of the three senators mentioned, only one, the Dem, renounced his racist past. The two GOP did not. Even if Byrd did so for political reasons, which his statements do not support, doesn’t that make it worse for the GOP?

    Thurmond and Helms never felt the political need to renounce racism. I guess that sort of thing isn’t required in the GOP. It might even be a political negative.

    Thanks for solidifying the case that the GOP is the party for racists.

  • Hominid

    TV?  You’re gunna blame TV?  Seriously?  Actually, I think it must have been COLOR TV!!!!
    You say, ‘Even intelligent people will fall to the wiles of an expert.’  Really?  And you know this how?  Your gunna havta define ‘intelligent’ in this context, red.  How old are you – did you fall victim to the seduction TV??  Somehow, I don’t think so.

  • Mr. EMT

    yeah? Let me know when barrack obamao renounces his racist past, mmkay?

    Oh wait, i forgot. Renouncing for me and you are two different things.
    What is a more accurate statement is “sweeping under the rug” and not renouncing.
    “What? I never heard him say such a thing, and I never missed a sermon in 20 years.”

  • reddarin

    So. You do not agree that generally people defer to experts? That right?

  • reddarin

    > Really?  And you know this how?

    Hell. You are proof:

    “but I have a PhD in a biological science and an MD and am a published and world-recognized authority in my field of research.  What are YOUR credentials?”

    *You* cite your credentials and expect them to carry weight.

  • juryveto

    Well in 1970 we had a rino as president followed by another rino Ford, followed a democrat, followed by a real republican, followed by another rino,  followed by a democrat, followed by another rino, followed a international marxist.                         
     Durning that period we pretty much have had a democrat majority in congress including the time that we had the real republican as president.                               
     Will it does no good looking at my pay check to see how much money I have when the dems, rhe rinos and the federal reserve keeps changing the measurment.                                   
       the 540 federal reserve dollars I clear after the other federal taxes has a value of only around a third of an ounce of gold and my wage is not offically considered low.           
      In 1932 a half ounce of gold a week was considered a low wage.                       
     In 1970 the minum wage was equal to over 1.7 ounces of gold a week, today that would equal to over 2,550 federal reserve dollars a week or 63.75 federal reserve dollars an hour.                                                                                                                        
      Does that mean the lowest wage would be that high with sound money?                          
      Probably not but with sound money people would have very much noticed the low wage dropping from the equal of 60 federal reserve dollars a week in 1970 down to around 7 federal reserve dollars a week if the federal reserve dollar had not been devalued after 1970.                                                                                        
      Also in honesty you can’t blame it in general on US corporations as I already told you their total profits are half what they were in 1970. 
    by the way I’m editing this because I made an error in a post the market value of the federal reserve dollar did decrease in the two years before 1970, it drop to 38.49 to an ounce in68 and 41.09 in 69 and it had increased in value to 34.95 in 67 but in 68 and 69 the markets got nervous about the lower value of the federal reserve dollar with some of the nations talking about going with something else.
    Nixon made promises to buy and sell gold to keep the federal reserve dollar at or close to 35 so in 1970 the federal reserve dollar gained in value to 35.
    Nixon did not keep his promises and closed the window in 71 the federal reserve dollar dropped to 40.80 an ounce for an average, 51.16 in 72, over 90 in 73, over 150 in 74, 161 in75.
    Today its over 1500 and will likely go down more.

  • juryveto

    tax cuts did not cause the debt, spending increases and the devaulation of our money did. 
    Large Central governments are highly inefficently at delevery of services but when they devalue the money in the wish of spreading the wealth because of more money in circulation they also increase their inefficency because the money does not go as far for workers, for the poor or for business or even for government.
    4 trillion federal reserve dollars is equal to around 2.66 billion ounces of gold.
    From 1934 to 1970 that would have been equal to around 93.3 billion federal reserve dollars.
    the federal budget has not been that low since Ike was president.
    Still both labor and capital have been efficent enough to increase productivity since 1970 although they have little to show for it in wages and profits because of devaulation of money.
    In 1970 it took nearly 500 ounces of gold to buy the average new home ,100 ounces to buy a new car and a ounce of gold would buy 100 gallons of gas.
    Today you can buy a much larger new home for 150 ounces of gold, buy a nice better made longer lasting new car for 20 ounces of gold or less and a ounce of gold will buy you over 400 gallons of gas.
                                                                                                                  
     Come on Wil even Marx and Lienn saw the value in sound money although they got little else right.

  • Hominid

    To red et al.,

    The format here doesn’t enable The Hominid to respond directly to the many questions for which the seekers of enlightenment plead, but, as the primitive mortal that I am, I’ll try to respond anyway and hope ya’all can sort it out ‘mongst ya’selves.

    The dummies defer to the ‘experts’ (the quotation marks mean their not really experts for those of you in Rio Linda) because they support their particular delusion.

    My point in citing my credentials (and you’re right – I shouldn’t have done that – but I’m gettin old and I never was perfect anyway) is that I have dedicated a great deal of effort to the EMPIRICAL SUBJECT IN QUESTION and PROVEN MYSELF as opposed to those who have an uninformed opinion.

    And actually, if you had some discernment, you would see that acquiescence to proven experts is exactly what I DON’T expect.

    But, you give weight to your car mechanic’s opinion over your own because he knows a hell of a lot more than you do about cars – don’t you, dummy?

  • reddarin

    >the most pathetic thing in the world is a poor

    Uh huh.

    So, you must believe the flip side of that. Nothing more pathetic than a rich democrat that panders to the poor.

    John Kerry? Mark Warner? Jared Polis? Herb Kohl? Jay Rockefeller? Dianne Feinstein? All worth at least 46 million dollars, and maybe as high as  293 million dollars.Eight of the ten richest people in Congress are Democrats, and not Republicans.

  • reddarin

    >My point in citing my 

    Yes of course.

    The salient point though is that you unthinkingly produced your bona fides because you automatically think that means something to the person you are speaking to.

    My point about TV was not about TV sets as a physical item but the access these devices give to the home.

    Your quick dismissal is frankly annoying because it shows a shallowness that you frequently display anytime your post is questioned by anyone for any reason. You are very thin skinned.

    TV as a facilitator for indoctrination is the whole premise behind deriding the MSM.

  • Sweetrae aka: LeAnn

    No, I just just figured one racist piece of sh!t to another could exchange KKK secrets.

  • Chase

    Does anyone realize that after the democrats passed the Jim Crow laws, they all became Republicans? History didn’t stop there. Besides, what does political party have to do with anything? Shouldn’t we just not care about party, but instead focus on the content of the character? Both democrats AND republicans are 1) Responsible for the mess we’re in and 2) Have been very bad people in the past. Vote on the person, not the party. I’m a registered democrat, but in 2016, if Marco Rubio is running for senate re-election, I’m voting for him, because he doesn’t vote along party lines. He does in Washington what he came to do. Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi do not. That’s why, if I could, I’d vote them out despite being a registered democrat.

    Main points: 1) After the repeal of the Jim Crow laws, democrats became republicans. They literally switched parties. Even my dad, a hardcore conservative recognizes this.
    2) Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for screwing up this country.
    3) Vote on the person, not the party. That’s what counts.
    Thank you for reading. :)

  • Chase

    I’m a liberal, but Chris Matthews in an idiot. Someone should take him off the air. msnbc sucks. They are the liberal version of fox news. I don’t even use American news because of the bias.

  • Chase

    You’re right. Education works best at an individualized level. There is no “one size fits all” education.

  • Chase

    Let’s be fair. There have only been a couple times where I haven’t been called names by a conservative. Both sides call each other names. You have to be realistic. Being a dick is a human nature thing, not a conservative or liberal thing.

  • Chase

    Woodrow Wilson was pretty racist. There has never been a perfect president, and there has never been a completely bad president. Nor will there be. Millard Fillmore might be an exception. He was a bad president. 13th. Whig party. I used to do all my history reports on him so I could get a good grade lol.