Yes, Democrats DID start the Ku Klux Klan (and it’s still the party of racism)

I don’t want people to think better of Republicans.

I want people to be as critical of Democrats as they are of Republicans.

Both parties are really terrible. But the Democrats too often get a pass because they are better at branding and marketing.

The last time a Republican Presidential candidate got more than 15% of the black vote was 1960.

And yet the Democrats had a former KKK member in the US Senate until he died in 2010. In fact, Robert Byrd wasn’t just in the KKK, he recruited 150 friends to start a chapter!

Robert Byrd used the N-word on live television in 2001. And then was re-elected as the Senator from West Virginia in 2006.

Compare that to the current Democrat Governor from one state over, Virginia. Ralph Northam dressed in blackface when he was 25 (or KKK robes we don’t know which) as pictured in his graduate school yearbook.

This guy is a clown. His defense was that he doesn’t think he is either one of the two in the racist picture, because he distinctly remembers wearing blackface on a different occasion.

That time, he says, he only applied a little bit of shoe polish to dress as Michael Jackson, because that stuff is hard to get off…

I wonder how he knew it was hard to get shoe polish off his face?

(Also, his wife had to tell him it was inappropriate to do the moonwalk during his blackface apology news conference:

But I digress.)

As you can see, racism in the Democratic Party runs deep.

And this shouldn’t surprise anyone who has any knowledge of history.

But since most people get their information from memes these days, someone took it upon themselves to educate the masses.

A bunch of Democrats wore white to Trump’s State of the Union address to protest Trump or something, I don’t know.

Which gave birth to the following meme:

You’ll notice that below the meme, Facebook attached a fact check which claims the Democratic PARTY did not start the Klu(sic) Klux Klan.

Not to get nit-picky, but the meme states that DEMOCRATS started the KKK, not the Party itself. And Politifact’s fact-check rested entirely on whether or not the Democratic PARTY started the Klan.

Even in the article, PolitiFact admits:

One historian confirmed there’s a historic link between the Democrats and the KKK: Many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats, and some joined the KKK. But according to J. Michael Martinez, who wrote the 2007 book “Carpetbaggers, Cavalry and the KKK,” it’s misleading to say the Democratic Party founded the Klan.

Yet Politifact confirms that the Democratic Party honored the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan when he spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, shortly after the Klan was founded.

Which brings us back to the original question, did Democrats start the KKK?

Yes!

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/yes-democrats-did-start-the-ku-klux-klan-and-its-still-the-party-of-racism/

>>5094361

Part 2 of 2

It was founded as a political organization to intimidate black and Republican voters in the south during reconstruction after the Civil War.

According to History.com:

[T]he KKK engaged in terrorist raids against African Americans and white Republicans at night, employing intimidation, destruction of property, assault, and murder to achieve its aims and influence upcoming elections.

There were two political parties… and the Ku Klux Klan aimed to influence elections AGAINST the Republican party.

Well, that certainly sounds like Democrats started the KKK, doesn’t it? And they started it for overtly political purposes.

The KKK was a political tool used by Democrats to help the Democratic Party win elections.

And that is a FACT.

Of course, another major strategy of covering up racist Democratic roots is saying that it isn’t the party today that it once was.

Some people even say the parties flipped at some point… so Democrats get credit for Lincoln (who was a Republican), and Republicans get credit for the KKK (which was founded by Democrats).

Well, when exactly did the parties suddenly and miraculously switch platforms?

Neither party added proposed anti-KKK positions to its platform at the 1924 conventions.

In 1963, the Democrat Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, stood blocking a doorway, refusing to allow a black girl to enter a white school that had just been desegregated by law.

And if the Democrats were still racist in 1963, that means Democrat hero Franklin D. Roosevelt was part of the old racist Democratic party. (Big surprise, that the guy who put Japanese Americans in concentration camps was racist).

Some people would say that the flip occurred with the election of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. After all, George Wallace lost the primary against Johnson, which seems to be a rejection of Wallace’s racism.

Plus, Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Still, only 69% of Democrats in the Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act, while 82% of Republican Senators voted for it. In the House, it was even worse, with just 63% of Democrats voting in favor, and 80% of Republicans supporting the legislation.

However, Johnson went on to push “Great Society” legislation throughout the rest of his Presidency, aimed at reducing crime and poverty, and expanding the welfare state and social safety nets.

You might think this would be a great thing to promote equality for disenfranchised blacks.

But historian, sociologist, and economist Thomas Sowell (who is black by the way) has a different perspective (emphasis my own):

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and “War on Poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress…

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.

The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law-enforcement policies.

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/yes-democrats-did-start-the-ku-klux-klan-and-its-still-the-party-of-racism/

Christopher Steele, the former British spy who prepared the Russia “dossier” that has led to more than two years of investigations into President Donald Trump’s campaign, has told a London court that he was hired to provide a basis to challenge the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election in the event that Trump won.

The Washington Times reported Monday (original links):

He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference.

His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London. The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer.

In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election.

“Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”

(Read the full Washington Times article here.)

Steele’s dossier was used by the FBI to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on several Trump associates. The FBI never told the FISA court explicitly that the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton campaign had paid for the dossier, though it did indicate that the document had been compiled as opposition research.

The dossier, and rumors of its contents, circulated widely throughout elite Beltway circles both before and during the election. The document — whose main claims have never been corroborated — is directly responsible for claims about Russian interference in the election, which Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the media have used to cast doubt on the 2016 election — just as Steele’s employers had allegedly intended.

In the last months of the election, Trump hinted he might not accept “rigged” results — a suggestion that earned him the ire of the Clinton campaign, which expected to win. Then-President Barack Obama said: ““I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.” Hillary Clinton and the DNC were allegedly doing just that.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/17/christopher-steele-i-was-hired-to-help-hillary-clinton-challenge-the-2016-election-results/

Military Operation downtown Los Angeles, CA on February 4, 2019

This is a different view that included breach explosions that I hadn’t seen until today

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unk3ERiGLkg&feature=youtu.be

You're Up North Carolina

BREAKING: Racist picture of Democrat North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper emerges just days after he called on Ralph Northam to resign -Daily Mail

https://twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1093577878258647040

Bus Unloads Migrant Group to Cross Unsecured Border in Arizona

https://twitter.com/AlwaysActions/status/1093284736062156805

“National Security Adviser Ambassador John Bolton joined me on air Friday morning” Hugh Hewitt

HH: The first question is the obvious question. Is military intervention imminent by the U.S., Brazil, or Colombia, or some combination thereof, in Venezuela?

JB: No, the President said all options are on the table. But our objective is a peaceful transfer of power. And that’s why we’ve been imposing economic sanctions, increasing political pressure from around the world, including from the European Parliament yesterday, for example, hopefully from the countries themselves. Within a day or two, we’re going to see a major series of demonstrations all across Venezuela tomorrow intended to convince the military, among others in Venezuela, that the overwhelming majority of the people of the country want the Maduro regime thrown out. That’s what we hope and expect to do.

HH: If the U.S. is obliged because of all of the options being on the table to intervene, would it intend to stay long?

JB: Well, I don’t really want to speculate. I think this is something that the people of Venezuela really are the focus of. I think what is important is, as you mentioned in your first question, though, is there is overwhelming support among the Latin American countries for the transfer of power away from Maduro. There are a few exceptions – Cuba, Nicaragua, for example, for obvious reasons. But this is not a made in the USA effort. This is a made in Venezuela effort fully supported across the board, all kinds of different governments in Latin America supporting Juan Guaido, the interim president.

HH: Now Ambassador Bolton, your yellow pad the other day said, “5,000 troops to Colombia.” Has an Army combat brigade been ordered to Colombia or already there?

JB: (laughing) You know, when we say all options are on the table, we want to keep it at that level. And going beyond that, I think, would be imprudent, as George H.W. Bush would say.

HH: Well, radio is, of course, an audio show not, we can’t see what’s on your yellow pad. Anything written on our yellow pad right now you’d like to share with us?

JB: It says Hugh Hewitt. That’s what I have written down. (laughing)

HH: Okay, that’s not enough. Don’t invade the studio. Let’s talk about after Maduro. I think he’s a goner. How quickly can Venezuela revert to the norm of a thriving, I mean, they’re the rich, they’ve got the most oil in the world. How long will it take to recover?

JB: Well, we’re hoping it will be very quick, although one has to say the social disintegration, the assault on the fabric of civil society after 20 years of rule by Chavez and Maduro has had profound effects. You know, right now, we estimate somewhere perhaps as many as 4 million -plus refugees have fled from Venezuela, maybe a million and a half in Colombia, maybe half a million in Brazil, the other million scattered around, including a couple hundred thousand in this country. The poor people who were the source of Chavez’ support in the early years have been hardest hit. There are studies by think tanks and universities that said in the past, just in the past year or so, the weight of the average Venezuelan has decreased 24 pounds. Think about that. So the economic devastation that this socialist government has caused is really quite profound. On the other hand, we believe that the oil infrastructure, which has been neglected by Maduro so that he and his cronies can loot the oil revenues away from the Venezuelan people, we think that can be fixed in some substantial measure fairly quickly. So if we could get that turned back on, get oil production back up after Maduro leaves, then that’s a source of revenue that would be applied very quickly. We are looking now at what humanitarian assistance we can give. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last Saturday that we would be prepared to donate an initial $20 million dollars to the Red Cross, to the UN High Commission for Refugees. So we’re looking at all this very carefully.

HH: Now Ambassador Bolton, Reuters reported atrocities have begun to occur – between 35 and 40 people murdered, 850 people kidnapped. I believe that the secret agents of Maduro were at the home of the actual president, legitimate leader, Guaido. Can even the dumbest generals and admirals count on us doing, standing by when they do this? I mean, can they not realize that’s going to trigger, if they have a Tiananmen Square in Venezuela, we’re not going to stand by, are we?

>>5094893

JB: Well, this is the critical question. And I think, you know, when you’ve looked at other revolutions, some in the Arab Spring in Egypt, for example, the military wouldn’t fire on their own people. So tomorrow, as I say, all across Venezuela, there are going to be what we believe to be massive demonstrations. And I think that should show to the military where the real heart of the people is. The problem that makes it particularly acute in Venezuela is the control exercised by Cuban Security Forces, you know, in many respects, that actually intimidate the Venezuelan military. It’s not an accident that around the hemisphere, people now call the country Cubazuela, because the Cubans are so much a part of the Maduro regime. And that’s why the stakes are high here, because a major defeat for Cuba in Venezuela could have ramifications in Cuba as well, obviously.

HH: Is there a risk that the Cuban agents, and there are now Russian mercenaries allegedly in the country, the little green men, that they open fire on the free people of Venezuela demonstrating, and they create the Tiananmen Square? Have you considered that risk that it’s not the Venezuelan military, but the Cubans and the Russians?

JB: No, that’s precisely correct. I mean, what we’ve seen, the violence you’ve referred to already, which interestingly has been largely in the poorest parts of Caracas, that is to say directed against the poorest residents of the city, the former supporters of Chavez by basically armed gangs called collectivos in Spanish trained and equipped by Cuba. These are the thugs and killers that have been sent out in the past days, were sent out against earlier expressions of opposition to Maduro. And it’s these people, they are absolutely ruthless. This is as cold-blooded, they’re capable of cold-blooded

murder, and they’ve engaged in it already. So the strength of the demonstrations by the citizens, the civilian population, is important. And the more people who come out, you know, it provides safety for everybody. So there’s a kind of cycle here. And this is what has to convince the military that the regime has completely lost the confidence of the Venezuelan people.

HH: But we, I hope we have communicated that there will be no mercy for people who open fire on demonstrators. There will be no amnesty, and we’ll find them. And I think it would trigger intervention. I’m not you, obviously, but is that not a likelier outcome if they open fire on groups of people that are large and mass for freedom?

JB: Well, what we’re trying to do is work with interim President Juan Guaido. You know, we don’t want to give Maduro the, any basis for an argument that somehow he’s a puppet of ours. He’s a brave and independent leader. He’s got a series of, I think, very brave people around him. And they’re the ones who are going to have to make the judgment on the ground. The National Assembly some days ago did pass a blanket amnesty for the military, officers and others, who cooperated with the opposition, who cooperated with the National Assembly. But I think they’ve also made it clear that atrocities against the people are not going to get amnesty.

>>5094893

HH: There are reports of Venezuela shipping gold to the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is a very close ally of ours. Have you asked the UAE to sequester that gold?

JB: Let me just say this. We’re obviously aware of those reports consistent with what we did on Monday against PDVSA, the state-owned oil monopoly where we imposed crippling sanctions. Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, is implementing them as we speak. We’re also looking at cutting off other streams of revenue and assets for the Maduro mafia, and that certainly includes gold. And we’ve already taken some steps to neutralize gold that’s been out of the country used as collateral for bank loans. We’ve frozen, and our friends in Europe, have frozen a substantial amount of that. We want to try and do the same here. We’re on top of it. That’s really all I can say at the moment.

HH: Ceausescu and Mussolini met bad ends. Idi Amin and Baby Doc Duvalier did not. Is that the choice facing Maduro right now?

JB: Well, I tweeted yesterday, you know, I wish him a long, quiet retirement on a pretty beach far from Venezuela. And the sooner he takes advantage of that, the sooner he’s likely to have a nice, quiet retirement on a pretty beach rather than being in some other beach area like Guantanamo.

HH: And have you been talking frequently with the President about this? Or has he basically delegated this to you and Secretary Pompeo? How often is he talking to you about Venezuela?

JB: We talk several times a day about Venezuela. You know, he called President Juan Guaido a couple of days ago. They had an excellent conversation. The President is very actively engaged in this. And we’re looking at a whole range of economic and political steps that remain to be taken.

HH: Two last questions, Ambassador John Bolton. Have you requested plans from the Pentagon for military action in Venezuela as it was alleged you did concerning Iran after Iran attacked our embassy in Iraq?

JB: You are a persistent questioner, Hugh. All I’ll say is all options are on the table.

HH: All right, and then lastly, Cuba. Did President Obama make a mistake in recognizing Cuba? Has Cuba’s behavior changed in any way? Does it remain a Stalinist police state?

JB: Well, Cuba’s behavior has certainly changed. It has gotten worse since Obama’s recognition. And we’ve taken a variety of steps to change that. We’re looking now at additional sanctions and steps we can take. That’s why I was pleased to give in October a speech in Miami where I singled out the troika of tyranny – Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua. We’re dealing with Venezuela now as we’ve just discussed, but these other two legs of the troika of tyranny remain very much on our minds.

HH: Ambassador John Bolton, thank you for joining us this morning.

JB: Glad to do it, Hugh. Thanks for having me.

HH: Thank you.

End of interview.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/national-security-adviser-ambassador-john-bolton/