All humans are deserving of equal treatment @conservative-humanist - Tumblr Blog

Posts

sidetongue

HAHAHA HES SO CUTE

mysharona1987

mockiatoh

Rounded up AND untaxed.

amkrii

Simply dont tax me and I would have hat money in my pocket already.

ricwulf

$1200 might not be enough because you’re stupid and don’t know how to spend your money properly.

Min wage isn’t intended to be “livable” in the modern age. The idea of the minimum wage=a living wage comes from the 50′s, when the standard of living was much lower and luxuries were much fewer.

Most people today have no clue of how to even start becoming self-sufficient so that $1200 will go a long way. Most people have a lot more time these days. Why not use that time to produce something for yourself that might help you down the track and save money?

Oh wait, that would require actual hard labour, like tending to a patch of dirt.

$1200 is plenty. You just want to sit home all day watching Netflix.

listeningboy

Are you stupid?

Yeah, minimum wage isn’t a livable wage now. Because the government didn’t keep up with inflation. It was created in order to be a livable wage, and then they let that stop happening. Yet people are still expected to live on minimum wage. That’s not the fault of the minimum wage workers for not planning, that’s the fault of the government for not providing for their people.

ricwulf

Ah yes, the idea of “it just needs to be adjusted for inflation”.

Tell me, how’s Venezuela doing? Has their currency bounced back yet, or still worth less than the World of Warcraft gold?

indirectexistence-deactivated20

ah yes, venezuela, the country famous for ruining its economy by raising the minimum wage, a thing that no country has ever managed to do without ruining their economy

never mind that their minimum wage is lower than the united states, or that all the countries with higher minimum wages than us are doing fine, if we were to raise the minimum wage it would totally turn us into venezuela

ricwulf

No, their solution was to simply print more and more money for the civilians to use, which lead to inflation so bad that fictitious currency is worth more.

Answer me this though: will raising the minimum wage have an impact on the cost of living? Really think on this, because the consequences of a yes is an admittance that inflation will occur. Your dollar will be worth less. It’s all good having an extra $200 dollars a week, but when your cost of living also goes up $200 dollars a week, it ultimately means you’ve solved nothing, made everything more expensive as a result, and ultimately made it harder for small business to operate in a market that is already hostile towards them, which is hilarious because corporate entities are the ones guilty of the worst mistreatment possible.

Your ideology will only lead to inflation. The fact you can’t grasp that to instead focus on something rather irrelevant is quite sad for you. It isn’t that complicated, yet here we are.

indirectexistence-deactivated20

they’ve done studies and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage corresponds with no more than a 4% increase in prices of fresh food, and an average of 0.4% increase in prices overall, after 30 years. which means you still have more buying power than you would’ve if it hadn’t been raised.

here’s one study (there’s a link to the actual paper on that page): https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/does-increasing-minimum-wage-lead-higher-prices

and abother, it’s a meta-analysis based on 30 years of data (it’s the study i was thinking of): http://ftp.iza.org/dp1072.pdf

also, a recent study found that raising the minimum wage corresponds with a massive decrease in the suicide rate, not only for people working minimum wage jobs but also for wealthier people and unemployed people. considering how high the suicide rate is, raising the minimum wage by just a few dollars could save tens of thousands of lives. not really related to the question of whether it would affect cost of living, but it’s still relevant

https://jech.bmj.com/content/74/3/219

This working paper shows by using monthly price series that the pass-through effect is entirely concentrated on the month that the minimum w

ricwulf

> they’ve done studies and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage corresponds with no more than a 4% increase in prices of fresh food, and an average of 0.4% increase in prices overall, after 30 years. which means you still have more buying power than you would’ve if it hadn’t been raised.

And you think that’s an accurate indication of COST OF LIVING?

Let me be blunt: Fresh food is not the only thing that will be impacted. Things like transport, all foods (not just fresh), cleaning services, manufacturing, etc etc etc will have a run on effect. Saying “all services” is a nice way to downplay the impact that the increases will have to goods and services specifically tied to the cost of living.

So let’s actually look into your studies (I’ll bold the first sentence of each study just for ease of formatting, though I may use bolding elsewhere for emphasis if I feel it’s needed, but I’ll try to stick to italics for that).

First up, your Upjohn Institute that you linked twice for padding.* First off, it’s not for fresh food. It’s specifically within the restaurant market, which in America is infamously known for paying the bare minimum with TIPS making up the majority of pay for those on the minimum wage. What a dishonest twist. Furthermore, if you actually read the study linked within your “source”, you’d know that these are theoretical estimates, and based on the language within is basically meant to be a resource used to convince an increase of the Federal minimum wage while explicitly stating that they know state and city minimum wage has often increased in various areas around the nation, virtually admitting that their goal is to see the Federal Min Wage increase despite it being unnecessary on a practical level due to the ability of state and city levels to adjust instead. Your source? It’s theory for the purpose of political usage, and not nearly as much of a smoking gun as you think it to be.

Next up, IZA, again linked twice for padding. First off, it’s a survey, and it’s over 15 years old. While old academia isn’t invalid, it’s something to keep in mind, especially considering the increases in standards of living between then and now (EG internet was not considered a standard, but a luxury or possibly a business requirement in 2004 (mass accessibility, not to be confused with adoption, is largely considered to be around the 2007 mark, when the first iPhone was released). Today, many would consider it practically a necessity (though there are workarounds if we’re talking about necessity vs practicality))(man that was a lot of brackets). Furthermore, there is no inclusion within the studies as to what portion of the overall workforce is min wage, making it rather hard to apply over 15 years later as many would say that percentage has risen, meaning that cost of living expenses would most likely have a larger impact because more industries are hit.

Within its introduction, it explains that there are numerous studies on the employment effects of increasing min wage, none on the profit effects, and very few on the price effects of increasing min wage. It also outright admits that economic theory suggests that low wage firms would not be able to absorb those increases in cost due to already low profit margins (most small businesses aren’t even profitable in the first 5 years of operation), meaning that these costs must be mitigated through either employment (increasing workload with less workers), by passing the costs on to the end consumers, or some combination of both (which tends to be the most common).

But what’s really damning here is the final paragraph of the introduction to your very own source.

This comes after a paragraph explaining that employment is rarely effected, which basically means that this survey is trying to show that, *GASP* inflation will be the end result of minimum wage increases!

The conclusion (which I’m sure is all you read for some confirmation bias) basically repeats your statement, but does not actually state anything with regards to other industries other than simply “food”. Furthermore, considering that this is an aggregate of studies over time (and that I will not be going through a good dozen studies spanning 30 years (which is different from you suggesting the inflation takes 30 years to occur)), it does nothing to control of reduction in costs due to natural increases in automation or production via technological improvements.

And lastly, your link from BMJ. It doesn’t mention any controls for suicide trends in general. It (sadly) doesn’t differentiate between gender, which would have been very interesting considering the theory that suicide is somewhat gendered in nature, but what it DOES say is that the effect of minimum wage is negligible compared to unemployment rates when unemployment is below 3.8%. Guess what does have an effect on employment rates in large industries? Whoops. Furthermore, I’m gonna have to say that with a lack of controls, it seems like this is correlation but that does not make it causation.

Overall, I don’t think you tried all that hard, I think you skimmed the results sections hoping to get a little confirmation so you could slap that down on someone who wouldn’t bother to actually read what you linked and examine shit like methodology.

But you want to know the real kicker to all of this? Thanks to the innovation of capitalism that drives prices down for the purposes of competition, you can absolutely live off the minimum wage. Again, the standards of living has increased. The idea that the min wage is livable comes from the 50s, and realistically it still is livable if you were to live on those standards from the 50s. That means one car per family and planning shit out, it means no internet (or heavily reduced to necessity only (meaning no large monthly plans)), it means no or little TV, it means heavy restrictions on electricity usage, it means less AC usage, it means more recycling/”upcycling” or producing your own goods, it means going back to the bare necessity because the cost of LIVING is not the same as cost of COMFORT. Is that nice or pretty? Fuck no. It sucks. But that’s the reality. The irony is that living like that, having that frugal lifestyle will actually result in you being able to save money to eventually move up. But far too many people don’t care for that. They would rather lounge around and watch Netflix all day. And don’t get me wrong, I too enjoy that stuff. But it truly, really isn’t that hard to plan your life out to get the most out of their dollar. I highly suggest looking into a frugal forum for some of these ideas, because they will show tips and tricks to save money, and no, it isn’t eating $2 ramen every night.

The cost of living isn’t that hard to clear. We’re just addicted to our amazingly luxurious lifestyles that have been afforded to us via progress of industry.

*A little presentation criticism. Doubling up on linking the same thing twice to try and pad out your post, making it look like you have 5 sources when you really only have 3 is shameful, and really betting on the fact that most people (especially those that agree with you already) won’t click through any further, especially on links that are barred with a paid study (thankfully there are workarounds for the more savvy out there).

indirectexistence-deactivated20

i only linked each thing once, i don’t know what you’re saying about it being twice. in any case, i’m a communist. i don’t actually care that much about minimum wage, except as a means to alleviate the suffering of the working class and to enable them to organize resistance against the bourgeoisie. nothing lasts forever. there was a time before capitalism, and there will be a time after capitalism. just, the absolute cruelty of expecting people in the wealthiest country in the world to scrape by on wages that barely cover rent, if it even does cover rent, is absolutely baffling to me. i can’t even comprehend how people who think like you can exist. if you really believe that raising the minimum wage won’t fix the problem, then you should be looking for another solution, not blaming people for being poor.

ricwulf

> i only linked each thing once, i don’t know what you’re saying about it being twice

Then scroll up. You’ll quickly find you have 5 whole links up in your post, but they only lead to 3 different studies. Here, I’ll even include a screenshot.

See those underlines? They represent links. Baffling, I’m sure.

I’ll be willing to buy that Tumblr fucked it up somehow though. Regardless of ideological differences, the one true unifier is that Tumblr is a trash site with trash coding that will almost never work properly. Because it’s trash.

> in any case, i’m a communist. i don’t actually care that much about minimum wage

lol, what a joke. “I’m gonna spend my time making a point that I don’t really care about”. Intelligence isn’t your strong point, but then again, you aren’t just a commie, but an ancom, so you aren’t too bright anyway considering that you’re free to go live in a commune but choose not to.

> there was a time before capitalism

Now you’re a feudalist? I guess it is pretty close to Communism. Everyone is equal except those that are “card carrying” members of the Party.

> and there will be a time after capitalism

Ah yes, the theory that we are right on the edge of Capitalism’s collapse. Any day now, it’ll happen. It’s just so fragile that any day it will fall. We’ve been waiting centuries for it, but it’ll happen. Just ignore all the commie regimes that have failed in the mean time though. They don’t count. It’s not rEaL communism!

> if you really believe that raising the minimum wage won’t fix the problem, then you should be looking for another solution, not blaming people for being poor.

I already have beliefs that will help. You’re assuming I don’t because I don’t agree with you.

Furthermore, I’m not necessarily blaming the poor either. It’s not their fault for the mindset, though it is escapable. It’s easy to miss the luxury of the times when it’s all you’ve ever really known and can be hard to truly conceptualise just how difficult life would be even 20 years ago (let alone 70).

People in general, not just the poor, have gotten very soft. Personally, I believe a return to more traditional lifestyles and community is the way to go, emphasising local markets and free trade, only relying on larger businesses out of necessity (eg large scale manufacturing (electronics, which is still a competitive market, machinery, which I’d argue is semi-competitive), or long-distance transport (which is sadly not a competitive market thanks to state interventionism), among some others).

This would include much smaller cities, less urbanisation, greater importance upon the family, and a real focus on the local. Included in this would create healthier ideas of semi-self-sufficiency, and I say semi because that goes back into the community living, especially with regards to trading goods or services between one another.

It’s far more sustainable that communism which by its very virtue requires authoritarian measures to ensure some fictitious utopia could be brought about, but that will always result in a takeover by those in charge because, shocker, those in power don’t want to give it up. Communism isn’t viable because it cannot be enacted. The closest success you have is Castro, and Castro wasn’t a good person. The runner up is China, and they’re only alive because the operate on an international level in a very Capitalistic manner, essentially betraying the very ideas that the general populace (but not the upper echelon) are forced to live under.

uncle-jingo

“in any case I’m a communist”

ricwulf

You should check out their latest reply. They’re full blown rambling and saying that Communism is simply any alternative to Capitalism. Here that folks? Third-position? Communism. Fascism? Communism. Feudalism? Communism. Eco-fascism? Communism.

So long as it isn’t Free Trade, it’s Communist. Takes a whole lot of brainrot to get to that level of stupid.

robert-the-redhead-lover-deacti

> there was a time before capitalism

Yeah, no. Capitalism was created when the first creature decided to trade for what another had instead of killing for it.

ricwulf

Well what do you think Communism is, Rob? They kill those they disagree with and take their belongings.

enbiesarenttrans

I get less than $1200 a month and I’m Canadian so my money is worth a shit ton less than America’s (and Europe’s and god knows what else) and yet somehow you don’t see me bitching nearly as much as people who don’t understand the basics of economics.

animalrates

This is Enzo, @mister.enzoviola. He was born with a rare skin condition, causing a lil black freckle to appear on his face. Believed to be the rarest Golden on the planet. 14/10 would be an honor to noggin pat 😘🧡🐕

rightsmarts

Look who was right yet again.

unaffiliatedpangolin

imjustmeat

Oh, to be young, unleashed in a Barnes & Nobles with a fifty dollar gift card, buying whichever books had a dragon drawn on the cover.

babyanimalgifs

prokopetz

If you’re trying to catch a housecat that’s gotten outside, don’t forget: they’re an ambush predator and you’re a persistence predator. You have several times more endurance than they do - use that to your advantage! Don’t run after them; that’s playing to the cat’s strengths, and vigorous pursuit may cause them to hide. Instead, follow them at a brisk walking pace until they get tired and need to have a lie-down, at which point you can simply pick them up and take them home.

fsthhdwefg-deactivated20180515

Ok but no shit this tactic is what allowed humans to survive pre-civilisation

lowkey-revolutionary-raccoon

Some mammoth: *chilling, eating grass, mammothing*

Cavedude: *power walks towards them*

Mammoth: oh sIHT

krwzprtt

cat : haha you can’t outrun me

human:

legalizememes

bruh

heathyr

everything about this… this statue, the choppy waves, the cliffs behind her, the echo, the drumming….. aesthetic

tuulikki

Lyrics in Faroese:

Trøllabundin eri eg eri eg Galdramaður festi meg festi meg Trøllabundin djúpt í míni sál í míni sál Í hjartanum logar brennandi bál brennandi bál

Trøllabundin eri eg eri eg Galdramaður festi meg festi meg Trøllabundin inn í hjartarót í hjartarót Eyga mítt festist har ið galdramaður stóð

English translation:

Spellbound am I, am I The wizard has enchanted me, enchanted me Spellbound deep in my soul, in my soul In my heart burns a smouldering fire, smouldering fire

Spellbound am I, am I The wizard has enchanted me, enchanted me Spellbound in my heart’s root, my heart’s root

thelostknee-deactivated20210422

Did anyone else just get the shivers? Cuz I’m definitely getting the shivers.

Btdubs, the singer is Eivør Pálsdóttir.

corseque

Reblogging again for the haunting wizard lyrics

catboy-jim

shoutout to the faroe island for being the only real viking island left

I hope your mother regrets giving you life.

Lol thank you for the laugh, Anon. I needed that this evening.

this-is-cthulhu-privilege

kajiosblog

This article’s title is rather misleading. They aren’t encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs or something like that. They aren’t encouraging anything.

The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation. Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth

matt-ruins-your-shit

I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.

First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?

Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.

“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all.

The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.

So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder.

They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.

Where would the oversight be. The NHS is already overwhelmed you think there’s going to be someone checking to make sure nobody is telling mothers their babies have fetal defects when they don’t? You think the system is going to check every single case, especially when every single case is going to benefit them? What fairy tale world do you live in. It’s the setup for a system where you give a doctor the power to say to himself this baby has a 10-60% chance of survival this mother is being a real bitch…and we’re in need of organs right now…maybe I tell her the lowest number in that estimate. Which is all it will be…fucking estimates. I have a member of my family that was pronounced dead four times and lived another twenty years. These people can’t even figure out when a person is dead and you want to give them 100% authority to determine who will die. Fuck that, fuck this. If they do this there will be horror stories rolling out within the week.

libertarirynn-deactivated202006

Imagine fucking reading this and being like “no guys you don’t understand nobody’s asking the mother’s to disable the babies, just to give birth to disabled babies instead of murdering them in the womb so we can chop them up for parts! Because that’s so much better!”

redbloodedamerica

OUT: Eugenics and Planned Parenthood harvesting organs from aborted babies.

IN: Just harvesting organs directly from born disabled babies.

Normalizing abortion has diminished some people’s morality to a level of depravity so low that we’re almost to the point of legitimizing Soylent Green.

ithelpstodream

conservative-humanist

You don’t have to like the idea, but you most certainly shouldn’t spread misinformation about the idea.

animationsource

Chuckie, this is your mommy.

beautifulgodzilla

THIS TOOK A FAR DIFFERENT TURN THEN I EXPECTED

beautifulgodzilla

mariesbookblog

I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE SECOND PART

sinkinga-w-a-y-deactivated20150

The notes on this!!

piercingsandink

Awww

prepfordwife

“Can i pick u up on thursday?” AWWWWWWW

thingsthatbeginwithb

lol he just wanted to buy her some superman pjs that werent on sale??! ~

meleedamage

can they see this right now??

OMG HE’S ADORABLE

kuguchiclan

dailydextergifs

There aren’t many women like you. I know that. You’re more like a guy. A guy? You don’t play games where I have to figure out what you’re really thinking. You just say it. Usually with a lot of really filthy words I’ve never heard before.

sonia-marmeladova

You said the Republican party fought against slavery.. That is true, but the Republican party around that time period have more modern Democrat beliefs. They were northerners who believed in equal rights. And the Democratic party in the 1800s had view more similar to modern Republican beliefs. The party's beliefs flip flopped around late 1800s-early 1900s.. The conservative states were always advocating for slavery and oppression. They were also the last states to give women the right to vote.

Let’s discuss some history then.

1791 - The Democratic-Republican Party is formed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans strongly opposed government overreach and expansion, the creation of a national bank, and corruption.

1804 - Andrew Jackson purchases the plantation that will become his primary source of wealth.

1824 - The Democratic-Republican Party split. The new Democrats were supported by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, and the National Republicans were supported by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.

1828 - Andrew Jackson is elected President of the United States.

1830 - Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, whereby the Cherokee and other native tribes were to be forcibly removed from their lands.

1831 - Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that Cherokee Nation was sovereign and the U.S. had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Andrew Jackson had already started to enforce the removal of the Choctaw.

1832-33 - The Whig Party is formed in opposition to Jackson’s government expansion and overreach in the Nullification Crisis and the establishment of a Second National Bank. The Whig Party successfully absorbs the National Republican Party.

1838 - Many Indian tribes had been forcibly removed. Under Jackson, General Winfield Scott and 7,000 soldiers forced the Cherokee from their land at bayonet point while their homes were pillaged. They marched the Cherokee more than 1,200 miles to the allocated Indian territory. About 5,000 Cherokee died on the journey due to starvation and disease.

1854 - The Whig Party dissolves over the question of the expansion of slavery. Anti-slavery Whigs and anti-slavery democrats form the Republican Party with their sole goal being to end slavery.

1861 -The election of President Lincoln spurs the beginning of the Civil War.

1862 - Lincoln writes a letter where he declares he wishes to preserve the union regardless of the morals on slavery. He issues the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves in Union territories had to be freed. As states came under Union control, those slaves too had to be freed.

1863 - Frederick Douglass, former slave and famous Republican abolitionist, meets with Lincoln on the suffrage of emancipated slaves.

1864 - Lincoln revised his position on slavery in a letter to Albert G. Hodges stating “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”

1865 - Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrenders at the Appomattox Courthouse to Union victory. After Lincoln’s Assassination, Democrat President Johnson issues amnesty to rebels and pardons the slave owners of their crimes.

1865 - The 13th Amendment which ended slavery passed with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat support in congress.

1866 - The Klu Klux Klan is formed by Confederate veterans to intimidate black and Republicans through violence, lynching, and public floggings. They gave open support to the Democrat Party.

1866 - The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Every single Republican voted and overturned the veto.

1868 - The 14th Amendment which gave citizenship to freed slaves passed with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The first grand wizard of the KKK, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest is honored at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

1868 - Representative James Hinds who taught newly freedmen of their rights is murdered by the KKK.

1870 - The 15th Amendment which gave freed slaves the right to vote passed with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

1871 - The violence of the KKK grew so savage that congress passed the Enforcement Acts to repress their influence.

1875 - Democrat Senator William Saulsbury speaks out against the Civil RIghts Act of 1875, claiming it will allow “colored men shall sit at the same table beside the white guest; that he shall enter the same parlor and take his seat beside the wife and daughter of the white man, whether the white man is willing or not, because you prohibit discrimination against him.“

1884 - A train conductor orders Ida B. Wells, a black Republican woman, to give up her seat and move to the smoking car. Wells was an investigative journalist who worked for a Republican journal to expose the horror of lynching. She advocated for the 2nd amendment rights for blacks so that they could protect themselves, and she denounced the Democratic Party for treating blacks as property unequal to whites.

1892 - Democrat Benjamin Tillman is re-elected to the Senate. He was a white supremacist who boasted his participation in lynchings. He is quoted saying that “as long as the Negroes continue to ravish white women we will continue to lynch them.”

1915 - Democrat President Woodrow Wilson screens KKK promotion film Birth of a Nation. The film pictured blacks as ignorant and violent savages, and the Klu Klux Klan as rescuers and protectors of the civilized world. The popularity of the movie revived the Klu Klux Klan which had previously gone extinct. Reportedly Wilson said about the film that “[it] is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

1919 - The 19th Amendment which officially gave women the right to vote passed with 82% Republican support and 54% Democrat support in congress.

1924 - Thousands of Klansmen attend the 1924 Democratic National Convention.

1933 - The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state.”

1933 - Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act with the well-meaning goal to help farmers and sharecroppers. Instead, though it aided white farmers, it resulted in increased unemployment and displacement of black farmers.

1933 - FDR established the National RecoveryAdministration to stimulate business recovery by forcing employers to pay higher wages for less work. This relief program was enforced on a local level and allowed Jim Crow racism to flourish, resulting in many blacks being fired to be replaced by whites.

1934 - The Federal Housing Administration is introduced under FDR. The FHA made homeownership accessible for whites, but explicitly refused to back loans to black people or even other people who lived near black people.

1936 - The Roosevelt Administration finally begins vying for the black vote. Though the relief programs neglected blacks, their communities were bombarded with advertisements. FDR began to garner black support though the vast majority remained economically unchanged and locked into poverty.

1942 - FDR orders American citizens of Japanese ancestry from their homes into interment camps without due process after the bombings at Pearl Harbor.

1953 - Senator Robert Byrd is elected into congress and remains a staunch Democrat until his death in 2010. He was a prominent member in the KKK and praised by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

1955 - Democrat Richard Daley is elected mayor of Chicago. He resisted residential desegregation, defended public school segregation, and used urban renewal funds to build massive public housing projects that kept blacks within existing ghettos.

1957 - The Civil Rights Act of 1957 is passes with 93% Republican support and 59% Democrat support.

1963 - After the assassination of JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn into office. LBJ was a Democrat remembered by a famous quote: “I’ll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

1965 - The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passes with 94% Republican support and 73% Democrat support.

1968 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated. MLK voted Republican.

1960-70s - A total of 24 Democratic members of congress switched to become Republican over a 20 year period. The majority of democrats in that time period remained democrats.

1995 - Dreams from My Father by Barack Obama is published. Obama discusses how the urban cities would become the new plantation for blacks under Democrat political bosses: “The plantation, the blacks have the worst jobs, the worst housing, police brutality rampant; but when the so-called black committee man come around election time, we’d all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. White folks spit in our faces, and we reward them with the vote.“

2009 - Hillary Clinton lauds Margaret Sanger, KKK advocate, white supremacist, and eugenicist at the 2009 Planned Parenthood Honors Gala: “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life.”

Me: 1History revisionism: 0