Posted on 01/16/2018 3:32:50 AM PST by markomalley
Racist. Sexist. Republican.
These words are virtually interchangeable—at least, according to most professors, journalists, and celebrities. So, are they right? Let’s take a look at history.
The Republican Party was created in 1854. The first Republican Party platform, adopted at the party’s first national convention in 1856, promised to defeat, quote, “those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery.”
Those “twin relics” were spreading into the western territories. Republicans feared that as those territories became states, polygamy and slavery might become permanent parts of American life. Polygamy—the marriage of one man to multiple women—devalued women and made them a kind of property. Slavery, of course, did the same to blacks. Literally.
The Democrats were so opposed to the Republicans and their anti-slavery stance that in 1860, just six weeks after the election of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina, a state dominated by Democrats, voted to secede from the union. The Civil War that followed was the bloodiest war in US history. It led to the passage, by Republicans, of the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves; the 14th Amendment, which gave them citizenship; and the 15th Amendment; which gave them the vote.
In 1870, the first black senator and the first black congressman were sworn in—both Republicans. In fact, every black representative in the House until 1935 was a Republican. And every black senator until 1979 was, too. For that matter, the first female member of Congress was a Republican; the first Hispanic governor and senator were Republicans. The first Asian senator? You get the idea.
Republicans also kept their pledge to defend women’s rights. In 1862, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress to put an end to polygamy.
In 1920, after 52 years of Democratic Party opposition, the 19th Amendment was ratified thanks to the Republican Congress, which pressured Democratic President Woodrow Wilson to drop his opposition to women’s rights. In the final tally, only 59 percent of House Democrats and 41 percent of Senate Democrats supported women’s suffrage. That’s compared to 91 percent of House Republicans and 82 percent of Senate Republicans. There certainly was a “war on women”—and it was led by the Democratic Party.
But while Republicans had won a major battle for women’s rights, the fight for blacks’ civil rights had a long way to go. In the 1920s, Republican President Calvin Coolidge declared that the rights of blacks are “just as sacred as those of any other citizen.”
By contrast, when famed sprinter Jesse Owens, a staunch Republican, won four gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, he was snubbed by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt only invited white Olympians to the White House.
Two decades later, it was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who sent the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students into Little Rock’s Central High when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus—a Democrat—refused to honor a court order to integrate the state’s public schools.
(Video at link)
Agreed. They simply cannot bring themselves to face the truth, and the truth of the matter is...
The Democratic Party has done more damage to the black community than any other single entity in the history of this country.
another dreadful WaPo piece on a nothing story, but funny seeing ***”Asia” now included!!!
15 Jan: WaPo: Inside the tense, profane White House meeting on immigration
By Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa and Ashley Parker; Philip Rucker contributed to this report
This account of the events surrounding Thursday’s explosive meeting is based on interviews with more than a dozen White House officials, Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers...
He also objected that Democratic proposals to adjust the visa lottery and federal policy for immigrants with temporary protected status were going to drive more people from countries he deemed undesirable into the United States instead of attracting immigrants from places like Norway ***and Asia, people familiar with the meeting said...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-tense-profane-white-house-meeting-on-immigration/2018/01/15/13e79fa4-fa1e-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html?utm_term=.15653f3516fa
Tweet: Mickey Kaus: Good point. “Norway and Asia” doesn’t fit the narrative as neatly as just “Norway,” does it?
Tweet: Bruce Bolton: kausmickey from @washingtonpost T’s actual response was wanting immigrants “...from places like Norway and Asia, people familiar with the meeting said.” Funny how the Asia part was left out b4. Guess didn’t fit the outrage narrative
Combined both parties represent about 25% of the USA, if that.
Carol Swain is awesome. She has some other Prager U videos on related subjects that are worth exploring and using to convince open-minded folks.
"...Democratic proposals to adjust the visa lottery and federal policy for immigrants with temporary protected status were going to drive more people from countries he deemed undesirable into the United States instead of attracting immigrants from places like Norway and Asia, people familiar with the meeting said..."
"Adjust" the visa lottery?
Adjust it?
Geezo Crow, WTF are we doing with ANY kind of "lottery"? Boy, does this make me burn. I know liberals have it in there to increase the "diversity" of the country, which to me, makes it invalid because I simply refuse to accept that "diversity" for its own sake is worth more than a cup of warm spit.
Prager U videos are great!
according to most professors, journalists, and celebrities>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No need to individuate their alleged professions, they all can be referred to as “exploding heads.”
After they all pop off, the silence will be amazing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.