The sordid history

Today’s Supremes, minus Ruth. R.I.P.

I am embarrassed — embarrassed, I tell you! — that I was a Democrat all my life until 2007. What excuse do I have? Nary a good one. I was living in one of those bubbles. Thank God that Barack Obama combined with my increased loathing — since the early 1990s — of Political Correctness burst that bubble for good. I saw the light.

And now I am free!

This past week, the Democrats provided another reason to celebrate my departure. They are so disturbed at the possibility of Trump’s adding another conservative to the Supreme Court that they vow to pack the court with added justices as soon as they can.

This will sound familiar to those with a grasp of history. Another Democrat, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, tried to pack the court too and for the same reason. By Jove, he wanted decisions to go his way! His court-packing was thwarted, however.

The Democrats have a long, sordid history.

I won’t start back in the 1800s, which is what most folks do when they highlight the party’s ugly past. I’ll start more recently. Welfare reform during Democrat President Johnson’s administration effectively removed fathers and husbands from black households, creating the abysmal situation we now find in America’s ghettos.

Let’s look at the Civil Rights Act of 1957, introduced by the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower who first proposed it in a State of the Union address. Ike later signed it into law, the first civil-rights legislation since Reconstruction. Lyndon Johnson, then a Democrat senator from Texas, opposed the legislation.

Later that same year, Republican President Eisenhower sent Army troops to Little Rock, Ark., to integrate schools because Democrat Gov. Orville Faubus refused to do so.* Moving on to 1960, Eisenhower — a Republican, mind you — signed the Civil Rights Act of 1960 after 81.5% of House Republicans voted for it, but only 59% of Democrats did.

When LBJ became president after Jack Kennedy’s assassination, he noticed the tenor of the times, changed his tune, and introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Senate Democrats filibustered the legislation until the filibuster was broken by Republicans.

On final passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 80% of House Republicans voted for it while only 63% of Democrats did. In the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted yes, but just 69% of Democrats did the same. A more complete rundown of all this is available at The American Thinker.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

Digging deeper into the past, it was Republican President Abe Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. You’d be surprised how many Americans today think Lincoln was a Democrat. After the Civil War, it was Democrats who founded the Ku Klux Klan. It was Democrats who lynched blacks. It was Democrats who initiated Jim Crow laws.

Bull Conner was a Democrat.

Republicans opposed it all.

Democrats are smart and slick. They’ve labeled themselves liberal and progressive, which is laughably wrong. They’ve donned the Hat of Tolerance, which they are blatantly not. They call Republicans “racist” on a daily basis, which turns reality on its head.

And now, yet again, if Supreme Court rulings go against their desires, well, they’ll just pack the court with as many cronies as necessary to insure the contrary. Let’s hope they don’t get a chance. And I hope that if you’re a Democrat, you’ll wake up, as I did.

* Ike invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 to do this, force Democrats to behave. Trump has indicated that he will also invoke the act to stop violence that will erupt in Democrat cities following his re-election. This is good and appropriate.

21 thoughts on “The sordid history

  1. Thanks for the education. As a Canadian my U.S. history is a little fuzzy but, like you, I once felt that I had more in common with the Democrats than those “evil” Republicans. I did not like the warmonger Bushes and don’t really remember Reagan or Nixon. Now I’m firmly on the side of Donald Trump. He’s a refreshing change from the status quo politicians on either side. Having Ruth Bader Ginsburg dying a month and a half before the election throws a wrench into things. Some Democrats’ heads are exploding like this lunatic woman:

    (Warning: profanity)


    1. Brent: That Republicans have been portrayed so long as selfish, fat-cat, evil capitalists simply demonstrates the effectiveness of Democrat lies. They are very clever, far sharper in many ways than conservatives who tend to be more straight-forward. Just look at how they have virtually everyone, even conservatives, calling them “liberals” and “progressives,” which is absolutely the polar opposite of reality.

      That video was amusing. I have to wonder, however, if lots of these things are not made up. Lord knows.


  2. You left out the fact that “progressive” Democrat Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the federal workforce and the military too.

    And now, after refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election, an attempted coup on Trump, and various other misdeeds, they have the gall to threaten the country if Trump does what they fervently begged McConnell to do in the fall of 2016: fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

    By the way, here’s a link to a letter signed by approximately 350 legal scholars, judges, and lawyers written in 2016 to McConnell & co explaining how it was his legal and moral duty to hold a vote on Merrick Garland. How many of them now want him to do the same? I’d guess few, as we’ve seen a blossoming of hypocrisy that’s bountiful even by recent standards.


    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where we are alarmed that the Dems want to burn down the country. Of course if they do, Biden will lose the election. Let’s see if they can thread the needle.


    1. Kim: I was not aware of that aspect of Wilson’s presidency. I did know he was not a good guy, however. So, not surprised.

      The RNC has released a montage video of all the Democrat big-wigs declaring in the last year of Obama’s reign that he had the right and responsibility to quickly fill a Supreme Court seat, exactly the situation that now exists with Trump. It’s a hoot.

      Of course, Trump has all the right in the world to fill the vacancy ASAP, and the Senate should approve it.

      If Ginsburg had had a lick of good sense, she would have resigned toward the end of Obama’s presidency. She was older than God even then. But she held on. ¡Qué bueno!


      1. Right-wing Twitter has been full of retweets of Democrat tweets in 2016 imploring McConnell to hold a vote on Garland. But to be fair, there’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around, with Lindsay Graham being perhaps the poster child. Doesn’t matter. Let Trump appoint someone and then let the Dems “rip.” The Kavanaugh zoo created a ton of unity among Republicans, and I’d imagine that a replay will drive them out to vote in record numbers.

        Meanwhile, have you seen Biden? Boy does he look unhealthy. Not only does he have the memory problems, but his breathing can only be described as “labored.” Makes me wonder what else is wrong. He’s also too tired to be president. You can’t run the country on 15 minutes every few days.


          1. And if that’s the case, then the effective nominee of the Democrats will be a woman who didn’t garner a single vote in the primaries, and whose best polling came after she called Biden a racist, and who dropped out after her polling numbers subsequently crashed. Sounds “democratic” to me. Not!!!!!

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Kim, P.S.: A lightbulb just lit over my head. Ginsburg did not resign during Obama’s time because she, like all the Democrats, had no doubt whatsoever that Hillary would defeat Trump. It was a given.


      1. Indeed. Hillary’s “win” was pre-ordained. I’ll never forget election night, 2016. The absolutely crestfallen looks on the faces of all the news anchors was priceless. In retrospect, it now seems like they knew (rather than expected) something. Looks like the plan failed.

        And yes, Ginsburg should have retired in 2016. That likely would have pushed Hillary into a winning position. But the Democrats have been blowing things here for a while. Now, if Trump nominates a new SC justice, any Dem rioting will work to undermine Biden. Right? Just last week, when polling told her that it needed to be done, Pelosi finally (finally!) after 100 days of rioting (not “peaceful protests”) came out against violence. No, she doesn’t care about violence or the well-being of Americans. But she realized it was hurting Biden’s chances. I think the Left has created a monster that they no longer control. Let’s hope. Trump will need every possible advantage.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Thanks to Al Gore for inventing the internet, so we can see these kinds of videos.

    If you talk in a quiet voice and hold your hand over your heart, most of the younger people will believe any kind of bull that you put out there. If you ask the hard questions and give the hard answers, you are a bad person, I think most of them are too lazy to put in the effort to really look for answers or they just don’t want the real answers.

    It’s very easy for some people to go along with, “Do it our way or we burn it all down” philosophy if you don’t have anything worth saving from the fire.


    1. Kirk: I assume you are referring to the Bull Conner video, and you are right. We owe ole Al a big one.

      I saw a poll this morning that indicated something like 65 percent of young people now think socialism is a great idea.


  4. As long as that party promises to deliver social welfare services and other benefits that people do not think they will have to pay for, people will vote for them.

    Our success is seen as the source of their failure. Equal poverty is the goal of the Democrat party. Eventually, we will get there. And then, from where will come the revenue to fund the grand and glorious programs?


      1. Felipe: this is why we need constraints on federal spending. For your entire life, the government has managed to provide big government services on small government taxes, while borrowing, and now printing the deficit. This has led to all kinds of misperceptions about the sustainability of extreme deficit spending. Alas, it’s not going to get fixed until we get to the other side of the coming financial conflagration. Seriously, you should at least try to figure out how you’d survive on half or less of your Social Security, because cuts are coming. The only question is when and for which group of retirees. I’m probably screwed, though I don’t need SS. But you might be in a pickle in your later years.


        1. Kim: I’m already in my later years, and don’t think I have not considered that possibility. However, SS would be a really last resort. Not for nothing is it considered the political third rail.


  5. Everyone now expects a decent standard of living. Generation after generation lived on food stamps and EBT cards. No one remembers holes in their shoes and ragged underwear. No one went hungry or without nice clothes. Our generation lived out of the secondhand store. We ate really strange stuff our family raised in their garden.

    Hang on, when the great reset happens, it will not be easy. Those people will not be denied.


Comments are closed.