Donna Brazile’s recounting of the Democrat Party’s treatment of blacks is deluded

USA Today posted an opinion written by Donna Brazile.

Here is a link to the 24 August 2016 story: Donna Brazile: Trump’s pitch to blacks is deluded

Donna’s statements are in blue.  Reality check statements are in red.

Forsake a party that has welcomed us, given us voice and advanced our interests?

The Democrat Party only welcomed blacks after the party stopped lynching blacks, stopped preventing blacks from voting, and stopped supporting segregation.  Many members of Congress were black soon after the Civil War and all of them were Republicans.  When those representatives were driven from office by the Democrat Party, blacks lost their voices and their interests could no longer be advanced by blacks.

For over 40 years, the Democratic Party has been my home. And it has been home to the vast majority of black voters in increasing numbers since the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and going back even further to the New Deal and earlier.

Black voters increased in numbers after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed over the objections of many Democrats; one in three Democrats voted no.  Democratic senators Byrd, Gore, Russell, and Thurmond filibustered against the act.  Richard Russell led the filibuster saying, “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”  And, isn’t it telling that Brazile ran Al Gore Jr’s 2000 presidential campaign?  Brazile is well aware that democrats kept her parents and grandparents from voting and she still chose to support the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party would have been the natural home of black voters, but it was the GOP that turned away from us.

Really?  Which party put sheets over their heads and slaughtered blacks by the thousands?  GOP?  No.  The Democrat Party looked the other way while its members terrorized blacks.

And at the height of the civil rights struggle, President Lyndon Johnson made a conscious decision to fully commit the Democratic Party to the cause of equality for African Americans, even though he knew that would cost the Democrats the South — and many elections — for at least a generation.

Brazile got this one right.  President Kennedy and his brother Bobby were not civil rights champions until just before Kennedy was elected president.  It was Bobby who authorized wire taps on Martin Luther King Jr.’s phone and allowed the FBI director to continue to harass civil rights leaders.  Would you believe that Bobby Kennedy was an intern for Joseph McCarthy as McCarthy ruined the careers of many Americans?  Johnson used President Kennedy’s death to push the civil rights agenda through Congress and signed the act just 7 months after Kennedy was assassinated. 

Does anyone even know that Martin Luther King Sr. was a Republican?  Brazile knows.  She knows that if the truth about the Democrat Party is told, she will lose the source of her power and influence.  Brazile knowingly tows the part line.  Her actions are analogous to slave overseers who tortured and punished fellow slaves at the behest of slave owners.

It is time for all voters to educate themselves.  Voters need to decide whether Democrats are different from Republicans and what actions need to be taken when that decision has been made.  This activist has made his choice.  I wish Bruce Carter success as he pushes against the party of slavery.

Has the world gone mad?

imageMaybe she can be forgiven for having an extra glass of wine and falling asleep during Obama’s State of the Union speech to Congress.  It was a snoozer even without alcohol.  But I assume Justice Ginsburg was sober and awake when she attacked a presidential candidate twice this past week.  Really?  A supposedly nonpartisan body of government should not get involved in a blatantly partisan body of government.  These are the guidelines all third graders learn about when they are introduced to our form of government.

The Chicago Tribune said “I Cannot see any possible defense of what Ginsburg did, given that she violated Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Supreme Court Justices are not strictly bound by that code, but they nonetheless act as exemplars for the rest of the judiciary, and this canon seems pretty important.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-ginsburg-scalia-trump-clinton-judicial-ethics-0712-jm-20160711-story.html.

The many lawsuits winding through the court system might end up in front of the Supreme Court and this candidate is involved in many of them.  The Supreme Court must maintain at least the appearance of impartiality.  This Justice has publicly  tainted herself.  Maybe she knows she will leave the bench before any of Trump’s cases could be argued before the Supreme Court.  But, we might need the Supreme Court to step into the election process.  Hopefully she skips the second glass of wine before she puts on her robe.

Updated.  The answer is yes.  The world has gone mad.  The NY Times agrees with me?  It is a mad, mad world.

“And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?”

I wonder if the NY Times is reading this blog.  Just joking.  That would be silly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/donald-trump-is-right-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=2

Updated again.  Ginsburg walks back her comments.

“Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office,” she wrote in a brief statement issued by the court, admitting her remarks were “ill advised” and expressing regret. “In the future I will be more circumspect.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html