Posts

The Humanitarian Hoax of the 2020 Democrat Party Platform: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The Democrat party platform for 2020 is a staggering political humanitarian hoax that disguises anti-Americanism as altruism. The Democratic National Committee presents itself as “working hard to advance issues like immigration reform, education reform, health care reform, and alternative energy.” Sounds great – all humanitarian hoaxes do. So, let’s see how this works.

Countries are defined by four basic elements and the Democrat party has taken aim at all four. We will examine these elements one at a time.

  • territory
  • population
  • culture
  • government

1. Territory

Territory refers to the demarcation of a country’s physical borders that define its earthly space and separate it from other countries, each with its own government. Without borders there is no country.

The open borders platform embraced by the Democrat party is their signature anti-American immigration reform. Open borders deliberately threaten the sovereign territorial borders of the United States by rejecting any attempts to defend the borders against the current mass invasion of illegal immigrants. While disingenuously insisting that open borders are a humanitarian issue, Democrat candidates oppose border wall funding and propose abolishing ICE so that nothing and no one can stop the flow of this massive invasion.

Open borders are an anti-American power grab by Democrats with twin benefits to themselves. First, mass immigration will overwhelm the country with illegals who will vote for the Democrats who let them in, creating a one-party system for the foreseeable future. Second, uncontrolled immigration will collapse the economy by overloading the welfare system – it is the destructive socialists’ Cloward-Piven strategy on steroids.

In a stunning interview published on YouTube July 11, 2019, Nancy Pelosi tutors illegal aliens on how to avoid deportation and actually says that the United States is part of a global community and illegals have rights!

Excuse me? Illegals are illegal by definition and are most definitely NOT entitled to the rights of citizens according to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, anti-American globalist Nancy Pelosi, voicing the 2020 Democrat party platform, declares the United States is not a sovereign country with defensible borders, and that U.S. politicians have no right to stop this illegal migration.

Former Florida Rep. and retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Allen West responded saying that Pelosi’s actions border on treason, “Unless I am grossly mistaken, Ms. Pelosi just violated her oath of office and has committed a high crime and misdemeanor.”

Globalism and American sovereignty are mutually exclusive. American sovereignty depends upon defensible territorial borders and a sovereign American government that upholds the U.S. Constitution. The 2020 Democrat party platform is a globalist, no-borders, anti-American, attack on the Constitution that advances the doctrine of one world government.

2. Population

Population refers to the people living in a country. The United States is the third most populous country in the world with almost 329 million people as of May 2019. The U.S. Census Bureau is the primary source of information about our nation’s people. The Census Bureau counts the entire U.S. population every ten years. The results of the census are used politically for apportionment. Apportionment determines the proportional number of members each U.S. state sends to the House of Representatives, and also establishes the number of eligible voters in that state. The question of citizenship has been part of the U.S. Census since its inception until Barack Obama eliminated it.

The Democrat party platform rejects restoring the census citizenship question because its results will reduce their apportionment in Congress and the number of eligible Democrat voters when illegals are not counted.

Demography is the study of the characteristics of a population and it is often said that demography is destiny. What does this mean?

Demography studies the size, structure, and distribution of different groups of people defined by age, sex, religion, education, nationality, ethnicity, etc. Social demography examines the relationship between economic, social, cultural, and biological processes influencing a population. As the demographics of a population change public policy adapts to meet the changing requirements. So, flooding America with an immigrant population, particularly those with globalist and/or sharia-compliant hostile norms, changes the demographics and eventually public policy. This is the essence of the open borders immigration reform embraced by the Democrat humanitarian hucksters led by huckster-in-chief Barack Obama himself.

In America, Barack Obama imported 43,000 sharia compliant Somali refugees into the United States, many were resettled in Minnesota. Ilhan Omar, also a sharia compliant Muslim, was elected by her constituency and protects their hostile norms in the name of diversity actually accusing anyone who objects as Islamophobic or racist. The same thing that is happening in Minnesota happened in Luton, England because demographics are destiny.

The small English town of Luton had only one mosque. Following the European Union demand for mass immigration of sharia compliant Muslims into England, the number of mosques swelled to thirty. This changed the demographics of Luton. The hostile social and cultural norms of sharia compliant Muslim immigrants created crime and social chaos in Luton. UK journalist began reporting on Muslim grooming and rape gangs that were raping little English girls according to sharia law. British authorities protected the Muslim perpetrators in the name of cultural diversity, and punished Tommy Robinson for exposing the crimes and the British coverup. Demographics are destiny.

3. Culture

Culture refers to the pattern of human activity and the symbols that give significance to them. Culture manifests itself in the forms of art, literature, clothing, customs, language, and religion. The way people live and what they believe constitutes their culture. Their principles and moral values also form an important part of their culture. People from different parts of the world have different cultural values. Cultural differences contribute to the diversity in people’s thinking and living styles.

Culture is not innate it is learned. Culture is passed down from generation to generation at home and in school. American traditional Judeo-Christian values were taught at home and reinforced in schools. Not anymore. Since Barack Obama forced Common Core education into the public school system, American education has become globalized instruction that reflects its anti-American, antisemitic, anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, pro-globalist agenda. Common Core comports with the United Nations Agenda 2030 and its 17 sustainable goals designed to internationalize the world under one world government. The Common Core rejects American sovereignty, American exceptionalism, American Judeo-Christian traditions, and the American meritocracy. Common Core’s educational goal is to prepare the world’s children for membership in the globalized new world order of one world government.

Common Core has had a calamitous effect on America, American children, and American families. Joy Pullman’s recent book, The Education Invasion: How Common Core fights parents for control of American kids, describes this catastrophe and exposes the federalized education scheme and the globalist funding that promoted it. Parents and teachers are finally recognizing the crippling anti-American nature of Common Core and are fighting to have it removed.

Common Core is the globalized anti-American education reform embraced by the Democrat party platform in 2020. Its anti-American curriculum content provided by Pearson Education is Obama’s dream of a globalized, internationalized pro-Muslim education facilitated courtesy of the Qatari government, Qatar Foundation International, and the Libyan Investment Authority’s major Islam-promoting donors.

Common Core teaches American history as white racist oppression. Our American children are being indoctrinated to be self-loathing Americans who will reject Americanism, American Judeo-Christian values, American exceptionalism, the American meritocracy, and eventually vote for collectivism and one-world government. Common Core is part of the anti-American information revolution that will be won at the ballot box – no bullets required.

The current Democrat party platform presents reparations as the remedy for white racist oppression. Reparations?? Really?

Any student of history knows slavery was a heinous historical reality in every part of the world including the United States. Any student of history also knows that Americans and Republican President Abraham Lincoln went to war and 750,000 Americans died to free the slaves in this country. Slavery is still legal in 15 countries including China, Russia, North Korea, India, Uzbekistan, Dem. Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Sudan, Dominican Republic, Yemen, Iraq, Indonesia, Philippines, Guatemala, and Nigeria.

Racism in America began as the consequence of slavery. Slavery was outlawed in America with the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865, eight months after the end of the Civil War, but the racist attitudes that supported it did not immediately disappear. America is not a racist country – we elected a black president – enough talk about reparations.

Race hustlers in the Democrat party platform disingenuously focus on historical slavery and intentionally ignore the ongoing slavery integral to Islamic sharia law. Women are the property of their husbands – owning a human being is slavery. Young infidel girls are groomed to be sex slave – rape and sex grooming is slavery. In the name of diversity, the Democrat party has surrendered its Judeo-Christian culture to the barbarism of Islamic sharia law.

4. Government

The United States of America was formed as a constitutional representative republic designed to provide minimum government and maximum freedom for its citizens. The Democrat Party 2020 platform offers maximum government and minimum freedom for the people. This is how the reversal works.

Barack Obama’s post-presidency “resistance” movement has mobilized his loyal soldiers embedded in the government, and unleashed a cadre of anti-American activists, politicians, and community organizers bound together by identity politics and an anti-American ideology seeking to overthrow the duly elected President Donald Trump. Obama’s hope for change agenda is the Democrat party 2020 platform featuring:

  • Open borders
  • Illegal immigration
  • Educational indoctrination
  • Anti-traditional norms of our Judeo-Christian culture
  • Economy killing Green New Deal
  • Centralized government offering one-payer health insurance
  • Dissolution of the Constitution and our representative republic in favor of socialism and one world government

Obama’s resistance movement poured the footing for this anti-American revolution of the 21st century. He subverted the liberal Democrat party launching its transformation into the extreme leftist, anti-American, anti-Christian, antisemitic, pro-socialist, pro-Muslim, pro-globalist debacle that it is today.

Radical newcomers Omar, Tlaib, Cortex, and Pressley have cracked the once unified Democrat party and radicalized it to staggering levels. Obama’s sycophants and embedded operatives targeted the pillars of American society including the meritocracy, the family, Judeo-Christian norms, and the Protestant work ethic. The 2020 Democrat party and its platform is an anti-American, antisemitic, anti-Christian, pro-communist, pro-Muslim, pro-globalist consortium of bad actors with common cause to shatter the United States of America from within.

If the Democrat party prevails in 2020 and manages to destroy the four elements that make a country a country, America will cease to exist as a sovereign nation. What then?

Historically, to the victor goes the spoils – not this time. The leftist/socialist/Islamist alliance of the 2020 Democrat party platform will shatter and the infighting will begin. The leftist socialist Democrats foolishly presume they will impose their socialist fantasy of collectivism upon America. The Muslim Brotherhood leftist sharia-compliant Democrats foolishly presume they will settle America and make it Muslim. Both alliance partners are too arrogant to realize that they are the useful idiots of the globalist who have outwitted them. The globalists have exploited them and their common cause to create the social chaos required for globalist ambitions to rule the world themselves under one world government.

Leftists and Islamists brought a knife to a gunfight. English aristocrat Sir Bertrand Russell described the planned globalist takeover in his classic 1952 book, The Impact of Science on Society. The fight for world domination is not new – it just has new scripts, new actors, and new costumes.

Barack Obama won the starring role of U.S. President in the 2008 Washington D.C. theatrical hit “Hope and Change” and then renewed his contract for the 2012-2016 season. As with so many long-running shows, “Hope and Change” flopped at the box office in 2016. The audience rejected Hillary Clinton, the actress hired to replace Obama, and stopped buying tickets to the play. A new script titled “Resistance” was created for Obama, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez auditioned for the supporting role of New York congresswoman and won the part. She performs her scripted lines well and will continue to do so until she is replaced by another auditioned actress.

The Democrat party is currently auditioning parts for the 2020-2024 season of “Resistance.” Its plot disguises anti-Americanism as altruism which explains why its globalist authors have requested anonymity. “Resistance” poses a clear and present danger to the world order of sovereign nations. Americans must recognize the humanitarian hoax being performed in “Resistance” and stop buying tickets at the box office.

Voters are being urged to invest in “Resistance,” and millions of dollars are being spent to promote it. This particular globalist extravaganza enjoys record levels of free publicity by the mainstream media and on the Internet.

The 2020 presidential elections will determine the success or failure of “Resistance.” Voting Americans will decide if art imitates life or if life imitates art.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The First-Ever Woke Democratic Primary Is Going To Be Awesome!

Let’s be straight, if not for a certain dementia setting in deep within the Democratic Party, Republican chances for a successful 2020 election would not be looking great.

But hallelujah (maybe) we do have the Democratic Party racing at warp speed lurch to the jaw-droppingly radical left. When it comes to the competing nonsense of intersectional politics, grievance structures, getting rid of air travel, special interest slices and a festival of pandering, the scene for the next 16 months will be one gigantic display of neon insanity.

In other words, awesome.

Get the popcorn, pop up the recliner footrest and watch how a party led by a 29-year-old bartender seeks to remake the most successful economy in world history — all while devouring its own members in a delicious internecine display.

(Unless of course, they actually win the House, Senate and Presidency, in which case civilization is doomed.)

But let’s focus on the pure entertainment value of the next year and a half — in case it’s all that is left — and start with the most recent unprecedented wackiness: eliminating planes and cow farts in 10 years.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the notorious AOC, the bubbly, pretty, likable young ignorant whackadoodle now holding sway in the Democratic Party, thanks to a wildly irresponsible media, has proposed the Green New Deal, which is a sumptuous combination of an 8th grade Marxist class that just watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

Let’s just tap the high points: In order to deal with the threat of climate change that will end the world in 12 years (AOC’s words) the United States must lead the salvation of humanity by giving everybody free healthcare, free college, affordable/free housing, healthy food, well-paying jobs, and economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.

To accomplish this, Green New Deal says the United States need to eliminate all fossil fuels, including natural gas, in 10 years. Eliminate all nuclear plants in 10 years (yes, they are the only efficient clean energy we have, but nothing in this plan is remotely sane, so don’t draw the line there.) Eliminate all cars that run on gasoline in 10 years. Eliminate all planes and replace travel with high-speed rail. (No word from the Hawaii delegation on this point.) And naturally, we will need to upgrade or replace every building in America. Every. Building.

This is an exquisitely laughable proposal. The only challenge serious people have had in critiquing it is running out of adjectives to describe its utter madness.

The spin cover run by the media on this plan is quite amazing — honestly, almost impressive. It’s obviously indefensible by even the most partisan media (which is pretty much all of the media.) So here’s the media operatives’ spin: Republicans are hyper-focused on the details, but the goal of the plan, you see, is to get the conversation started. Republicans are missing the point. We need to have a conversation about this peril and this starts it.

First, have we not been talking about climate change? Seems to me I recall a convo or two on this point. Second, not sure we need to have a conversation on getting rid of planes and cow farts. But that could be just me.

The next example of the unprecedented absurdities facing Democrats is the self-decapitation of the Democratic leadership in Virginia.Unbeknownst to many Americans, apparently dressing in blackface was a thing in Virginia in the 1980s.

Photos of Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam from his college yearbook show him in blackface (or worse, possibly a KKK outfit replete with pointed hood.) If he falls, second in line is Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, who as soon as Northam’s apparent fate became nationally known has been beset by accusations of sexual assault by two women, which seem more credible than the one who accused now Justice Brett Kavanaugh. If Fairfax also falls, next in line is Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring. And like clockwork, he confessed that he, too, dressed in blackface several years ago. Fourth in line? The conservative Republican Speaker of the Virginia House.

We know how this ends. If Democrats were held to the standards they have created for Republicans and others, all three would be gone by now. As of this writing, all three remain in office and apparently are planning to stay there. So much for blackface and #metoo when it comes to Democratic politicians. So much for #believeallwomen if you are talking about Democratic politicians in office.

Republicans should be like kids in a candy store for the 2020 races, pushing every Democrat on whether they support eliminating planes or the death of the planet; and whether they #believeallwoman and compare their answer against their statements during the Kavanaugh hearing. This is a rich vein to mine. (Not by the media, of course. They’ll ignore it. But by Republican opponents.)

By way of comparison, photos of the Republican Florida Secretary of State surfaced recently of him in blackface at a Halloween Party several years ago. He resigned in hours. It’s not clear any Democrats will resign, which makes sense. I mean to put a fine point on it, they were the Party of slavery, of Jim Crow laws, of Bull Connor, of herding black Americans into tenements and locking them into welfare, and which still use race unabashedly to further their own political ends on a pretty much nonstop basis. It’s in the DNA of the Democratic Party.

Speaking of DNA in their veins, the Democratic Party now openly supports infanticide. I’ve avoided this term for decades during the abortion debate, although I do think that given the humanity of the resident in womb, it is just that. But the aforementioned Gov. Northam said a baby meant for abortion that is born alive and living outside the womb can still be killed by the “choice” of the mother. Sorry all, that’s infanticide.

This came days after the New York legislature erupted in applause after passing a bill allowing for abortion up to the literal moment of birth at 40 weeks. Further, the bill stated that a pregnant woman who is assaulted and that assault kills the baby — even if she is full term and on her way to the delivery room — authorities are banned from charging the attacker with murder. Only assault on the mother. The baby is simply non-existent to the Democratic Party. Standing applause.

More unprecedented insanity: AOC proposed a 70 percent tax rate before she unveiled her junior high plan to remake American civilization. But one of her radical compadres in Congress, Rep. Ilhan Omar, saw her 70 percent and raised her to 90 percent. Within days, the New York Times ran a column calling for the abolishment of millionaires and, voila!, #abolishbillionaires was trending on the Democratic left. This is how fast the most astonishingly un-American ideas travel to the radical cliff on the left, and Democrat politicians are flummoxed in how to deal with them.

And we’ll wrap up this circus of absurdities with the combination of Medicare for All and open borders. Medicare for All, which is single-payer universal government health care, is estimated to cost $33 trillion over 10 years — nearly doubling the federal budget on an annual basis. Of course, it will cost more than that. Combine that with free college for all and assured housing and a $15 minimum wage (although why stop there?) and open borders in which literally millions of unskilled, uneducated immigrants who don’t even speak the language can roll on in, and you have a pretty massive national financial collapse racing toward us.

And this does not even reach the actual politics of the presidential campaign in which it is likely no Democratic contender ever will be able to survive the gauntlet of ever-changing political correctness standards and the viciousness of their own base. Meanwhile, every conceivable real and imagined kitchen sink has been thrown at President Trump and he just hit 50 percent approval in Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll.

So enjoy the spectacle. It’ll be awesome! (Except for the whole future-of-civilization part.)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. It is republished with permission. Click here for the definition of “Woke.”

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are no joke

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.
This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

DeceptionEDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill. The featured image is of Huma Abedin is by Greg Nash.

Mr. Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

Democratic convention more about Fantasyland than America

If you had just arrived from Mars to observe the Republican and Democratic conventions, one after the other, you undoubtedly would conclude that they were talking about two different countries.

One America recognizes real threats from foreign jihadi fighters who seek to eradicate our existence and to replace our freedoms with Islamic sharia law. It believes that economic revival — through tax reform, trade reform, and enforcing our borders and immigration laws – holds the key to future prosperity.

The other America believes we face no real foreign threats, the economy is doing great, and that our biggest challenge comes from crop failures, rising seas, and monster storms caused by — you guessed it, climate change.

It wasn’t by chance that the Democrats made no mention of ISIS on the first day of the convention and scarcely mentioned it on the next two days.

Terrorism and Islamist ideology that seek to replace our democratic republic with a “superior” law written by Allah are a distraction from the real mission of Democrats in Philadelphia. As former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley put it: “to hell with Trump’s American nightmare.”

In his first year in office, President Obama directed the Central Intelligence Agency to divert significant assets from the war against real threats from terrorists and enemy nations to the hypothetic dangers of “climate change.”

The Defense Department was ordered to follow suit, and under Obama’s direction, launched massive building programs at American naval bases to shelter them from rising seas.

President Obama squandered billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in pursuit of an ideological agenda.

This past May, the CIA quietly shuttered its climate change initiative, since it was unable to find data to sustain the Left’s faith in its new religion that man-made climate change would destroy the earth, or significant portions of it.

Cyclical changes in our climate have always occurred and have had dramatic impacts in the past, long before the carbon emissions the Left blames for today’s droughts and tsunamis.

Hollywood actress Signourey Weaver, hair on fire, introduced a “scare-me” video by James Cameron and claimed that farmers in Kansas were losing their crops today because of climate change.

I understand that Ms. Weaver is too young to have lived through the Dust Bowl — so am I. But I would hope she isn’t too dumb to have read about it and to have understood that these things have happened before, and will happen again.

Government’s role, in such circumstances, is to extend a helping hand of solidarity to individuals who lose their livelihoods to disasters they had no way of foreseeing. Its role is not to preemptively cripple the nation with fantasy-driven regulations and shut down entire sectors of the economy.

Incapable of a sustained conversation about national security, we’re left with Sen. Harry Reid suggesting that the Director of National Intelligence should “fake” national security briefings to Donald Trump. Why? Because Trump suggested that perhaps the Russians might be able to find the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton admitted she deleted from the private server even President Obama warned her not to use.

In Senator Reid’s mind, entrusting Mrs. Clinton with our national security secrets is just fine, even though FBI Director James Comey acknowledged she had been “extremely careless” by transmitting highly-classified intelligence information on her personal email server. Let’s not forget that the FBI still hasn’t found more than 2,000 classified emails Mrs. Clinton deleted.

Bill Clinton thought he had found a “trump” card that would earn his wife a place in the pantheon of national security heroes.

“She launched a team — and this is really important today — she launched a team to fight back against terrorists — online — and built a new global counterterrorism effort,” he said.

Think about that for a moment. In the words of her own husband, Mrs. Clinton’s main achievement in the war against the terrorists attacking us was to hire a few social media analysts whose advice she didn’t consult and in fact ignored when they informed her the Benghazi attacks had nothing to do with a YouTube video insulting Mohammad.

I’ve got news for the Clintons: our intelligence community has been focusing on social media for years. The biggest growth industry among the Beltway bandits is foreign language experts who can mine Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites for evidence of jihadi connections.

That’s great, but it isn’t enough.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went overboard in his support for Mrs. Clinton, claiming that, if elected, she would take office as someone who “has the trust of our troops who know she will always have their back.”

Four men died in Benghazi because Mrs. Clinton didn’t have their backs. Instead of rushing to the rescue, she spent hours in meetings trying to keep Panetta from sending reinforcements to their rescue.

But that’s the other America. The America of facts.

The differences of our two Americas are many. One America lionizes the mothers of young black men killed by the police – often after they had committed assaults of one sort or another. The other celebrates as heroes police officers gunned down by snipers seeking vengeance.

One America believes that women, illegal immigrants, invalids, minorities, and people with kaleidoscope glasses constitute grievance classes who deserve special treatment. The other believes that all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity under our system.

As a life-long investigative reporter, I remain committed to the facts. But I recognize that the contest in November will be determined not by facts, but by faith, and by how many believers on each side come to the polls. That is the new reality of the two Americas of 2016.

A Democratic Death Wish

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, two Muslim terrorists, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife,  Tashfeen Malik, walked into an afternoon Christmas party at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, and opened fire on the assembled guests.  Fourteen innocent people were killed and 22 injured.  Two of the injured remain in critical condition.

Then, late in the evening of Thursday, January 7, 2016, Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett was on routine patrol in his squad car at 60th and Spruce Streets in west Philadelphia.  Without warning and without provocation, black Muslim Edward Archer stepped from the shadows, ran across the street, and fired 13 close-range shots at Officer Hartnett from a 9mm Glock pistol… a handgun stolen from a Philadelphia police officer in an October 2013 home burglary.  Although Officer Hartnett was gravely wounded, he stepped from his vehicle and gave chase.  The officer drew his sidearm and fired three shots at Archer, striking him in the buttocks.  (For my Democrat readers, that means Officer Hartnett shot Archer in the ass.)

Captain James Clark, commander of the Philadelphia police homicide unit, said Archer told detectives, “I follow Allah.  I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS).  He told police investigators that he did what he did because police “defend laws that are contrary to Islam.”

Moments later, newly-elected Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney stepped to the microphones and parroted to a stunned television audience what has become a standard Democrat Party talking point.  He said, “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teachings of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen.  That is abhorrent.  It’s just terrible and it does not represent this religion in any way shape or form or any of its teachings.  And this is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers.  It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

In between those two atrocities, on December 17, 2015, seventy-three members of Congress, all Democrats, introduced House Resolution 569, subtitled, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric toward Muslims in the United States.”  The resolution calls upon local and federal law enforcement authorities to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who perpetrate “hate crimes” against-Muslims.  The 73 co-sponsors of HR 569 are as follows:

Don Beyer (D-VA); Mike Honda (D-CA); Keith Ellison, a Muslim  (D-MN); Joseph Crowley (D-NY); Andre Carson, a Muslim (D-IN); Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC); Betty McCollum (D-MN): Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Carolyn Maloney (D-NY); Daniel Kildee (D-MI); Loretta Sanchez (D-CA); Charles Rangel (D-NY); Scott Peters (D-CA); Brad Ashford (D-NE); Alan Grayson (D-FL); Mark Takai (D-HI); Brian Higgins (D-NY); William Keating (D-MA); Raul Grijalva (D-AZ); Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL); G.K. Butterfield (D-NC); Gerald Connolly (D-VA); Ruben Gallego (D-AZ); Cheri Bustos (D-IL); John Delaney (D-MD); Kathy Castor (D-FL); Luis Gutierrez (D-IL); Mike Quigley (D-IL); Elizabeth Esty (D-CT); Joseph P. Kennedy (D-RI); Robin Kelly (D-IL); Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX); Gregory Meeks (D-NY); Grace Meng (D-NY); Al Green (D-TX); Katherine Clark (D-MA); Adam Schiff (D-CA); Alcee Hastings (D-FL); Sam Farr (D-CA); Frank Pallone (D-NJ); Jim McDermott (D-WA); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Donna Edwards (D-MD); Robert Brady (D-PA); Frederica Wilson (D-FL); Michael Doyle (D-PA); Albio Sires (D-NJ); Susan DelBene (D-WA); Judy Chu (D-CA); Jared Polis (D-CO); David Loebsack (D-IA); Bill Pascrell (D-NJ); Debbie Dingell (D-MI); Janice Schakowsky (D-IL); Steve Cohen (D-TN); Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX); John Yarmuth (D-KY); Niki Tsongas (D-MA); James Langevin (D-RI); Mark Pocan (D-WI); John Conyers (D-MI); Mark Takano (D-CA), Tim Ryan (D-OH); Jose Serrano (D-NY); Hank Johnson (D-GA); Paul Tonko (D-NY); Zoe Lofgren (D-CA); Chris Van Hollen (D-MD); Lois Capps (D-CA); David Price (D-NC); Doris Matsui (D-CA); Gwen Moore (D-WI); and Denny Heck (D-WA).  The resolution reads as follows:

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslims or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native born citizens;

Whereas the Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances, and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:  Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the House of Representatives –

  1. Expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
  2. Steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
  3. Denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those  perceived to be Muslim;
  4. Recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
  5. Declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
  6. Urges local and federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes, and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes, and
  7. Reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.         

In other words, nearly four out of ten Democratic members of Congress feel as though Muslims are so terribly abused in our country… physically, verbally, and emotionally… that those of us who warn our countrymen of the danger posed by radical Islam must be deprived of our First Amendment rights.  What HR 569 tells us is not that Democrats really care about Muslims, Mexicans, or any other ethnic group seeking refuge in America.  They don’t.  What HR 569 tells us is that there are literally no limits to the pandering that Democrats will resort to in order to gain access to yet another voting constituency.

In building their national political coalition, Democrats have extended a welcoming embrace to unionized blue collar workers, teachers, and public employees; trial lawyers; radical feminists; radical environmentalists; gays; lesbians; and ethnic minorities… any identifiable special interest group seeking to gain special treatment or to avoid competition in our competitive enterprise system.  The only two things that Democratic special interests share in common are their numbers and the huge sums of political money they bring to the table.

But now it appears they are throwing caution to the winds as Barack Obama, a man with strong Islamic sympathies, announces plans to import hundreds of thousands of future Democrat voters from the Muslim world.  They appear to take no notice of the fact that Muslims are incapable of assimilating into western cultures.  Instead, they come with sharp knives, suicide belts, and the announced intention of either killing all non-Muslims, or forcing us to convert to Islam.

Meanwhile, Democrats appear to be operating under the mistaken assumption that, when the time comes, the Muslim executioners will first separate Democrats from Republicans before proceeding with their genocidal cleansing.  Although to do so is a pure death-wish, Democrats apparently see no downside whatsoever in snuggling up to Muslims who might be their friends and neighbors one day and their executioners the next… a stark reality that they will have to confront firsthand when Islamic terrorism comes to their neighborhood.

But let’s not wait for the radical Islamists to deliver a moment of truth to our Democrat friends.  Let’s do our best to see to it that the 73 cosponsors of HR 569 are not returned to Congress in January 2017.  Or better yet, let’s provide each of them and their families with a year-long all-expense-paid junket to the Muslim country of their choice.  They have a few things to learn.    

CEO of the DNC: Responce to the GOP Presidential Debate in Las Vegas

I received an email from Democratic National Committee CEO Amy K. Dacey about the GOP debate in Las Vegas. Amy writes:

Amy K. Dacey

DNC CEO Amy K. Dacey

Here’s what happened last night: We watched as Republican presidential hopefuls stumbled their way through basic questions about national security, without one of them providing a serious plan for keeping our country safe.

Instead, they spent almost four hours discussing the agenda that their frontrunner, Donald Trump, has set for the Republican Party. Everything from where to bomb, which refugees to ban, and how big a wall we should build.

The choice in this election could not be more clear. We can elect a Democrat who will fight for equality, who won’t use offensive rhetoric that compromises our national security and puts us in harm’s way, who will fight every single day for folks like you and me, Richard — or we can end up with one of these Republicans as our next president.

What may be wrong with Amy’s view of the debate?

Amy must follow the Democratic Party narrative when it comes to dealing with national security and the existential threat to the United States and the free world – Islam. The narrative is summed up by Amy’s statement that Democrats, “[W]on’t use offensive rhetoric that compromises our national security and puts us in harm’s way.”

In other words the Democratic Party will not say or do anything to offend Islam. 

Why? Because President Obama truly believes that Islam is not the problem but is the solution. The final solution, for Jews, Christians, non-Muslims, if you will. You see any criticism of Islam, called Fitna in Arabic, is forbidden.

Quran versus 2: 191-193, reads:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Islam requires the killing, expelling and fighting disbelievers where ever they are found. Fitna (resistance) “is worse than killing.” A Muslim will kill because disturbing the peace and order of the Ummah (the Muslim community) is worse than the slaughter of innocents, such as the 5,000 annual honor killings by Muslims of their family members.

In the Democratic Party there is a “socio-political narrative” which sees the loss of diversity and/or the risk of offending Muslims as a much greater concern than the actual threat posed by the global Islamic movement, forced imposition of shariah laws and the slaughter of innocent  people by Muslims, as happened in San Bernardino, California.

Democrats consider any opposition to Islam (Fitna) to be worse than the global slaughter, which leads to more slaughter.

Amy is afraid to offend. Democrats are afraid to confront evil. They are Islamic Democrats or put another way the Democratic Party of Islam.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The trouble with ‘moderate Muslims’

DHS Whistleblower’s Open Letter to Congress: No Confidence in Administration’s Vetting Process

Anyone saying ‘Islam is a Religion Of Peace’ needs to read this

Multiculturalism Kills

EDITORS NOTE: Click here to learn more about Fitna.

VIDEO: Democratic Party TV Ad Objects to Use of Term ‘Radical Islam’

A new ad by the Democratic National Committee strikes out at Republican presidential candidates for using the term “radical Islam,” saying that using the term is “equating Islam, all Muslims, with terrorists.”

In the ad, the DNC also objects the use of the terms “radical Islamic terrorism,” “radical Muslims” and “radical Islamic jihadists” by Republican presidential candidates, saying, “It’s oversimplifications and it’s wrong.”

The reason why the term “radical Islam” is used is precisely to make the distinction between this type of Islam and Islam itself. (While most of us learned about the purpose of adjectives in grade school grammar classes, it seems that members of the DNC were absent for that class.)

Moreover, the claim that using the term “radical Islam” amounts to indicting “all Muslims” as terrorists is equally absurd.

Insulting the audience further, the ad shows a clip of former Republican President George W. Bush saying, “We do not fight against Islam. We fight against evil” and “The war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims.”

No Republican presidential candidate who has used the term “radical Islam” — much less the majority of the Americans who agree with this use of the term “radical Islam” – intends to indict an entire faith group for the behavior of some of its members.

To wit, in America, the number of hate crimes against Muslims actually decreased during the past year. And in France, a Pew poll suggested the approval ratings of Muslims in France increased in the months after the Charlie Hebdo attack. Significantly, the increased approval rating was manifest in all political strata, from those identifying as left to moderate and right. (French people saying they held “favorable” or “mostly favorable” attitudes towards Muslims numbered 85, 82 and 65 percent, respectively.)

We have all heard the argument that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. As recently as November 19, less than a week after Islamist terrorists perpetrated the horrific attacks on Paris, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Facile platitudes such as these, as well as the blatant distortion that using the term “radical Islam” is equivalent to calling all Muslims terrorists does an extreme disservice to humanity, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, both of whom are in the crosshairs of a fanatical ideology that seeks their destruction.

Just days before the DNC’s ad appeared, King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “We are facing a Third World War against humanity” if the civilized world does not “act fast to tackle” the Islamic State and similar terrorist groups.

What the DNC refuses to admit, King Abdullah stated clearly, “This is a war, as I said repeatedly, within Islam,” noting that over 100,000 Muslims have been murdered by the Islamic State over the past two years (including in “atrocities like-minded groups” have pertetrated in Africa and Asia.)

In a recent landmark speech, UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron called out U.S. President Barack Obama for failing to name Islamist extremism and calling it instead “violent extremism.”

“Barack, you said it and you’re right — every religion has its extremists,” Cameron countered. “But we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL [ISIS], to al-Shabab, to al-Nusra, al Qaeda and so many other groups.”

In response to Obama’s failure to name the ideology behind current terrorism, Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist who now is on the forefront of those advocating against this ideology, asks, “What happens if you don’t name the Islamist ideology and distinguish it from Islam?”

Nawaz says what will come back to Muslims is exactly the attitude the DNC is advocating against. “You’re sending out the message to the vast majority of Americans: There’s an ideology you must challenge, but you don’t tell them what it’s called. What are they going to assume? The average American is going to think, ‘Yeah, I’ve got to challenge an ideology — it’s called Islam.’”

Nawaz added, “You’re only going to increase anti-Muslim hatred, increase the hysteria, like ‘he who must not be named’ — the Voldemort effect, I call it — by not naming the ideology. Because the average guy out there is going to assume the president is talking about the religion itself.

“But if you distingiush Islamist extremism and say, ‘Look, Islam’s a religion. We’re not going to tell you whether Islam is good or bad, peaceful or not. We’re not going to define that for you. What we can say is you mustn’t try to impose that on anyone else. If you do, that’s called Islamism, and that’s what we have a problem with.’”

In the long run, failing to name this treacherous enemy will almost certainly mean the battle against it will be lost. In truth, bombs can only destroy people, but they are ineffective against ideology, which can always fourish in newer and younger groups of people.

In his speech, Cameron stated, “Our new approach is about isolating the extremists from everyone else, so that all our Muslim communities can be free from the poison of Islamist extremism.”

Naming “radical Islam” for the ideology it is, is the first step towards fighting this scourge on all civilization as we know it.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reps Endorse Bill to Name Brotherhood as Terror Entity

Hate Crimes in US Against Muslims Decrease – FBI Report

Governors of 27 States Say They Oppose Syrian Refugees in US

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America

PORTLAND, MAINE: Somali Immigrants Kill Christian Man In Most Gruesome Way

Pinning the Tail on the Democratic Party Donkey

Two recent outrages following the 50th anniversary “Black Sunday” march in Selma, Alabama, require a pointed response to Democrats.  First, a photograph of Barack Obama leading a march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma is minus its most distinguished participant, George W. Bush.  The photo appearing on page one of the March 8 edition of the New York Times, above the fold, has been skillfully cropped to eliminate any photographic evidence that George W. and Laura Bush marched across the bridge with Obama and other black leaders.

Then, a black woman named Diane Nash, identified as a Martin Luther King, Jr.“Lieutenant,” proclaimed that she refused to march in the reenactment because George Bush was a participant.  As she explained, the reenactment of the March 7, 1965 march was intended to show support for non-violence, which George W. Bush opposes.  Yet, she and other Democrats appear not to be concerned that Selma’s most visible landmark is named after a known white supremacist, a reputed member of the Ku Klux Klan.  Nor do they seem to find any incongruity in joining forces with the Democrat Party, a party that for nearly a century imposed its will on black people with whips, bullets, fire bombs, and the hangman’s noose.

Each and every year the American taxpayer spends billions of dollars and countless classroom hours on a curriculum called “black history.”  But one wonders exactly what is being taught in those classrooms.  Are the schools and classroom teachers innocently omitting significant truths of black history, or are they purposely lying to black children?  Are black children being taught that it was the Republican Party that was born out of opposition to slavery, and that it was the country’s first Republican president who put an end to the institution of slavery?  Are they being taught that hundreds of thousands of the sons of white Republican abolitionists gave their lives in order to free black men and women from the bonds of slavery?  And are they being taught that it was Republicans who gave us the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, outlawing slavery and giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote?

In the years immediately following the Civil War, southern Democrats found that they could no longer control and oppress their former slaves.  However, just because human slavery had been permanently abolished, Democrats didn’t immediately join the ranks of abolitionists.  Instead, in 1866, they established a paramilitary auxiliary called the Ku Klux Klan to keep the freed slaves in line and to force them to vote for Democratic candidates.  And once they’d regained control of the southern legislatures they set about enacting Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes, dictating where and for whom blacks could work, where they could live, where they could eat and sleep, which restrooms and drinking fountains they could use, and where they were allowed to sit in movie theaters and on trains and busses.  Such inhumane policies were still in effect as late as the 1950s.  As black historian John Hope Franklin has written, “The personal indignities inflicted upon individual whites and Negroes were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”

Herbert Aptheker, in his book, Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States, Vol. 2, quotes the November 1, 1871 testimony of John Childers, a black resident of Livingston, Alabama, as recorded in Senate Report No. 579 of the 48th Congress.

Childers was questioned about threats made against him and whether or not he was afraid of what might happen to him if he voted Republican.  Childers replied, “I was sir, because… there was a man that told me he had a coffin already made for me.  Yes, sir, I voted it, and don’t pretend to deny it before nobody.  When I was going to the polls there was a man standing in the door and (he) says, ‘Here comes you, God damn your soul, I have a coffin already made for you.’   I had two tickets in my pocket then; a Democratic ticket and a (Republican) ticket.  I pulled out the Democratic ticket and showed it to him, and he says, ‘You are all right, go on.’ ”

On March 25, 1871, Kentucky blacks sent a letter to the Congress, saying, “The Democratic Party has here a political organization composed only of Democrats – not a single Republican can join them…. We pray that you will take some steps to remedy these evils listed below?”  The letter provided details of 85 murders (hangings and shootings), 18 beatings, 5 fire-bombings, 1 rape, and 10 miscellaneous attacks in Kentucky in the three year period between January 1868 and January 1871.  Although no official records of Klan atrocities, nationwide, are available for the years 1866 to 1882, Tuskegee Institute records indicate that, between the years 1882 and 1951, some 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites, nearly all Republicans, were lynched by the KKK.

On May 17, 1918, Klansmen committed an atrocity in Valdosta, Georgia that almost defies description.  Mary Turner, a black woman who was nine months pregnant, announced that she would seek the prosecution of the Klansmen who had lynched her husband, Hayes Turner.  A mob dragged her from her home, tortured her, and hanged her.  And while she was still alive, hanging from the rope, they cut open her womb, the child spilled out onto the ground and they crushed the baby’s skull under the heel of a boot… proving only that Democrats, in the history of their party, have been just as ruthless and bloodthirsty as the fighters of Islamic State who have a fondness for cutting the heads off their captives and burning others alive.

Are black children instructed on the evils of the KKK and who they were?  If not, they may be interested in the congressional testimony of former Klan member Thomas W. Willeford.  When questioned about his initiation into the organization and what he was told of the objective of the Klan, Willeford replied: They told me it was to damage the Republican Party as much as they could… burning, stealing, whipping n_ _ _ _ _ s and such things as that.

Unlike blacks of today, 19th century blacks had a well-informed opinion of Democrats.  Herbert Aptheker has written that, on February 18, 1884, Mrs. Violet Keeling, a black woman, testified before a U.S. Senate committee regarding black voting preferences.  She was asked what she would do if she found that her husband had voted Democratic.  She said: “I think if a colored man votes the Democratic ticket he has already sold himself… I would just pick up my clothes and go to my father’s, if I had a father, or would go to work for 25 cents a day.”

And finally, what are black children taught about the Democratic Party’s longstanding fondness for fraud and political corruption?  After Democrats gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress in 1894, they introduced the Repeal Act of 1894, hoping to repeal all of the major civil rights laws enacted by Republicans since the Civil War, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the First Reconstruction Act of 1867, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Force Act of 1871, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (identical to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which today’s Democrats attempt to take credit for).

Just before the final Senate vote on February 7, 1894, Senator George Hoar (R-MA) took Democrats to task on the Senate floor.  He said, in part, “Wherever there is a crevice in our protection of the freedom of the ballot there you will find the Democratic Party trying to break through.  Wherever we have left open an opportunity to get possession of an office contrary to the true and constitutional will of the majority, there you will find that party pressing; there you will find that party exercising an ingenuity before which even the great inventive genius of (the) American People, exerted in other directions, fails and is insignificant in the comparison… …

“If you will produce me a citizen of the United States, a Democrat, who lost his honest vote in consequence of intimidation or impediment, created by these United States marshals, I will find on record here the proof of ten thousand Republicans who have lost their votes by Democratic practices….  Mr. President, the nation must protect its own.  Every citizen whose right is imperiled, if he be but one, when it is a right of national citizenship and a right conferred and enjoyed under the Constitution of the United States, has the right to demand for its protection the entire force of the United States until the Army has spent its last man and the Navy fired its last gun.  Most of us have nothing else than the right to vote….  The urn in which the American cast his ballot ought to be, aye, and it shall be, as sacred as a sacramental vessel.”

And finally, are young blacks taught that, in 1909, four white Republicans issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice for African Americans?  The organization created as a result of that meeting was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)… the once-respected organization whose politics has drifted so far to the left that it has lost all relevance as a force for the social and economic advancement of minorities.

Since the earliest days of the civil rights movement in the 1950s, African Americans have been so thoroughly propagandized by Democrats that most rank-and-file Republicans consider them to be a lost cause.  They won’t even attempt to reach out to blacks because they’re convinced that, if they do, black leaders will only attempt to draw them into a bidding war for the hearts and minds of black people.  That, Republicans will never do.

Sadly, the spineless men and women Republicans elect to Congress today seem blithely unaware that they are playing an entirely different game than their colleagues across the aisle.  Perhaps one day they will come to understand that Democrats of today are pretty much like Democrats of the 19th and 20th centuries.  The only major difference being that, today, they no longer arrive on horseback in the middle of the night, carrying ropes and torches and dressed in hoods and white sheets.  Today, they fly in private jets and wear Armani suits, silk ties, and Rolex watches.

On March 7th, Ms. Diane Nash refused to participate in the reenactment of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge because she was afraid she might accidentally rub elbows with George W. Bush.  Wouldn’t it be fun to sit down with Ms. Nash just to remind her of all the things black children are not being taught in “black history” class?