An 1867 drawing depicting African Americans casting ballots Anticipating an increase in Democratic membership in the following Congress, Republicans used the lame-duck session of the 40th United States Congress to pass an amendment protecting black suffrage.[18] Representative John Bingham, the primary author of the Fourteenth Amendment, pushed for a wide-ranging ban on suffrage limitations, but a broader proposal banning voter restriction on the basis of "race, color, nativity, property, education, or religious beliefs" was rejected.[19] A proposal to specifically ban literacy tests was also rejected.[18] Some Representatives from the North, where nativism was a major force, wished to preserve restrictions denying the franchise to foreign-born citizens, as did Representatives from the West, where ethnic Chinese were banned from voting.[19] Both Southern and Northern Republicans also wanted to continue to deny the vote temporarily to Southerners disfranchised for support of the Confederacy, and they were concerned that a sweeping endorsement of suffrage would enfranchise this group.[20]
A House and Senate conference committee proposed the amendment's final text, which banned voter restriction only on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".[2] To attract the broadest possible base of support, the amendment made no mention of poll taxes or other measures to block voting, and did not guarantee the right of blacks to hold office.[21] This compromise proposal was approved by the House on February 25, 1869, and the Senate the following day.[22][23]
The vote in the House was 144 to 44, with 35 not voting. The House vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats supporting the bill and only 3 Republicans voting against it,[24] some because they thought the amendment did not go far enough in its protections.[23][25] The House of Representatives passed the amendment with 143 Republican and 1 Conservative Republican votes of "Yea"; 39 Democrat, 3 Republican, 1 Independent Republican and 1 Conservative votes of "Nay"; 26 Republican, 8 Democrat and 1 Independent Republican not voting.[26] The final vote in the Senate was 39 to 13, with 14 not voting.[27] The Senate passed the amendment with a vote of 39 Republican votes of "Yea", 8 Democrat and 5 Republican votes of "Nay"; 13 Republican and 1 Democrat not voting.[28] Some Radical Republicans, such as Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, abstained from voting because the amendment did not prohibit literacy tests and poll taxes.[29] Following congressional approval the proposed amendment was then sent by Secretary of State William Henry Seward to the states for ratification or rejection.[23]
Where you get your news makes a huge difference . . . .
Doesn't look like a single one reported what he actually said . . . you take the batter . . . mold it into the shape of whatever you want and write the story around it.
From every source she can possibly find. She is thorough. Plus her degree is in Political Science and she is a teacher (world history, US History).
Thanks for your reply.
I've found the Conservative Treehouse to be an excellent resource for conservative news and information; I stumbled into them by following a link from Legal Insurrection very early in the Zimmerman trial:
If she chooses to check out CTH, I recommend following the Open Thread every day - lot's of newsworthy items make it in there that don't necessarily warrant a dedicated thread - and be SURE to read the comment sections on the various threads - there's a wealth of information posted up every day by conservative news "detectives."
Also note the "Search" and "Choose A Topic" functions on the right side near the top of each page - there's an absolute wealth of well-documented research material in there; there are 440 threads with information pertaining to Benghazi (always be sure to read the comments), as but one example.
Sundance and the mods do a good job of keeping the place civilized and pointed in the right direction, and CTH, in general, does not suffer fools gladly.
Blake or Administrators: Delete this if it violates Badweb Badword policy. I just find it funny as it demonstrates the childish behavior of the DNC and Hillary campaign.
Since the leaked DNC emails reveal the Glorious anti semite, anti hispanic, anti black racism of the Party Leadership, I think quoting those emails would be a great way to inform the uneducated voter who they are fans of.
As a guest on a radio show this afternoon said, "I'm certainly against hacking, but I have to admit I'm loving this"
Fb1. I forgot to mention her minor was in Constitutional Law. (the only one in her graduating class that didn't go on to law school)
I can barely keep up with some of the conversations, but have learned a lot from her. She whips out the constitution law text book every once in a while and throws it at me hoping I can learn from osmosis... lol
She has been quite roiled at some of the things the last few presidents have gotten away with in the name of "National Security".
What's funny is her parents think she is some sort of hippy child. Her dad almost keeled over when she asked for an NRA membership and a firearms safety course for her birthday one year. The rest of her family's mouths hit the floor when she pulled out her new "Group Therapy" t-shirt... Priceless!
Not on policy grounds. Hillary doesn't have policy, she has talking points and greed.
But as her husband/beard said to Ted Kennedy about Obama, "that boy should be bringing us coffee". Not necessarily a racist comment according to Bill, just an appreciation of tenure, status, seniority. The upstart commie Negro just should not have been able to buck the system and displace the Chosen One, Hillary back in 2008. That's Bill's view, and many others in the Democrat Establishment.
Of course, Barry The Weasel has been the nominal head of the D party for years. He IS the establishment.
One can assume there are lots of old Dems just waiting for Obama to go away so they can go back to the big bribes of the Clinton Years. I'm not sure what the current bribe levels are for the mainstream Dems.
It would be very informative to see the numbers on Bribery Income over the last few decades. I'm more likely to be handed the Nuclear Launch Codes, or the pin number for either Party's slush fund.
Oh, and let’s return to the fact that Bill needed to humanize Hillary Clinton. The woman has been in public life for three decades and the highest best use of her former president husband is to spend an entire convention speech trying to convince voters that she’s human.
Faced with a GOP nominee like no other in modern political history, the Democrats have a problem: They lack the words to describe him. Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy? That’s how they describe every Republican nominee. He’s divisive, racist, and plutocratic? Ditto. The Democrats have cried wolf so often that they don’t know how to effectively attack Trump, an actual beast growling at the door.
Keep in mind the National Review is solidly Anti-Trump. They claim the moral high ground as Conservatives, and detest Trump. Hate him more than the Dems.
Seriously dislike him, & only even pretend to barely tolerate Donald, because they know Hillary is a disaster of biblical proportions.
Answer all the questions (no cheating) before looking at the answers.
Who said it?
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx B. Adolph Hitler C. Joseph Stalin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few......and to replace it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity."
A. Lenin B. Mussolini C. Idi Amin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
3) "(We).....can't just let business as usual #$%$, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev B. Josef Goebbels C. Boris Yeltsin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung B. Hugo Chavez C. Kim Jong Il D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx B. Lenin C. Molotov D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Pinochet B. Milosevic C. Saddam Hussein D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
Scroll down for the answers
...
...
...
...
...
...
Answers (1) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 6/29/2004 (2) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 5/29/2007 (3) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 6/4/2007 (4) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 6/4/2007 (5) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 6/4/2007 (6) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 9/2/2005
That's your problem. You are too everyday. You don't get a chauffeured ride in an armored limo to work on the days you decide you want to. You don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollar$ to rent a house on the beach in the most exclusive resort town. You don't have snipers and men toting anti aircraft missiles & machine guns around to protect you from people like, well, you.
To be fair, most rich folk don't have the anti aircraft missiles.
As to white guilt.... There has been prejudice against the folk of African descent here since the English started selling them. It's part of the sales pitch.
You don't get an institution like Slavery to pass in civilized society, post Liberal Awakening, without making the slaves inhuman. So for well over 200 years the English slave market had pushed the notion that the Blacks are violent children, incapable of controlling themselves, and need the gentle guiding hand of a Master, White, of course, to make them behave properly.
You may notice this is the unofficial but quite real attitude of the Democrat politician, ( and a few Republicans ).
They used to point to the horrific lack of functioning governments in Africa and constant tribal war as proof of the Black's inferiority.
The fact that in Colonial times any functioning governments were destroyed by the Europeans might just have something to do with that, plus the use of tribal conflict to take over, for their own good,of course... and never mind there's only one river on the whole continent that you can navigate a good sized boat on and you have isolated cultures with very little trade, or riches.
As proof of that, I offer the Axumite Empire which dominated the Gulf region for hundreds of years, had a respectful border with Rome, and based it's economy on trade, a powerful navy with Marines, ( Galleys ) and strong anti piracy patrols. ( and exacting taxes for their protection, just like modern police ) That is where Ethiopia is today.
Folk on the interior of the Continent just didn't have the trade to get powerful, and after the Fall of Rome, the Islamic takeover of North Africa left that part of the planet in abject poverty & slavery.
So how does that make the White Guilt thing realistic at all?
Simple. Transference. The same reason that the people who would never own a gun, because they are sure they'd murder their own neighbors in a rage, insist you not have one, since you MUST be exactly the same as they are. They can't comprehend any other mental state.
They feel guilty for having life handed to them unfairly, ( once that is pointed out to them for years ) so you should feel equally guilty. They have justification for feeling that way. They MUST have received unfair advantages, since it's obvious that the folk they see on tv do not.
They don't comprehend that multigenerational welfare state policies have resulted in fatherless families and dependence instead of the promise of equality. It MUST be their unfairness. Well, it is, but not theirs, it's their Leaders. And has been since before the American Revolution.
No one has explained to them that they've been lied to all their lives, and they won't believe it if they are.
Note that I not only admit, but INSIST that there is institutional racism.
I can point though our history at each step.
And while individual racism is much less today on the part of us pale skinned devils, there is a completely rational version of it that lingers on. Even Jesse Jackson has said to his shame he gets nervous when a group of young Black men approach him. Looking at crime stats, Jesse has a perfectly rational fear of groups of young men wandering the streets at night.
Now Jesse & I would differ, publicly, as the the REASON the groups of young men have plenty of time to get in trouble. ( Groups of bored young men have ALWAYS had that habit )
It's funny that in the Roman Empire, which ran on slavery, skin color had nothing to do with the respect you got from others. If you spoke latin, ( or greek in the Western Empire ) and behaved properly, the color of your skin or hair meant nothing to another Citizen. Skin color as a sign of inferiority was strictly a post Dark Ages European thing.
The fact that in Colonial times any functioning governments were destroyed by the Europeans might just have something to do with that.
Blacks and Indians were referred to as "savages" in those days because for all intents and purposes they were, in comparison to "civilized" Western culture. It would be as if Aliens from outer space, a millions years advanced, landed on the planet. They would most likely view us as insects or pests. When the colonists and European explorers came across indigenous people they saw a group of people that hadn't evolved much past their ancestors. They were without the wheel, the sail or any modern conveniences of the day. They walked about barely clad in clothing with rings in their noses or tattoos adorning their bodies with primitive tools and weapons. When these civilizations waged war they didn't adhere to the accepted norms of battle - women and children were fair game. They had no comparable governance nor country just numerous tribes with "kings" or medicine men practicing a crude form of religion or spirituality. The disparity between cultures was enormous
True. Consider the real truth of "Roots". The English slave traders did NOT go inland and take slaves as shown in the movie. That was suicidal.
They bought slaves from the Arab slave houses which bought their slaves from tribes inland that took them in war from other tribes. The slave markets are still open today. Same folk running them, same business model.
The English slavers often never saw the tribes of the people they bought. Much of the "they are savages so we uplift them by selling them for labor in civilized lands" is propaganda.
The fact is that after the Arab conquest any advanced cultures were destroyed or absorbed and were erased.
And there were advanced cultures. Carthage was long gone but there were still folk that thought themselves Roman up to the time of the Caliphate. Ditto what is now modern Turkey. Rome finally fell when Constantinople fell to Islam.
Also after Lewis & Clark the region they traveled through was devastated by plague. Entire cultures wiped out.
Sure, there was no equivalent of London in Missouri, but entire trade empires vanished in a single generation.
Like under LBJ to today. Entire cultures in our nation wiped out by the plague of welfare rules and policy. Hillary was raised on the Alinsky way of lies to power. Keeping the Negros oppressed by telling them they are victims and incapable of getting ahead is key policy.
Violent children with no responsibility for their actions. Repeat the lie often enough and it takes on a life of it's own.
That's why Hillary's convention featured victim groups as heroes.