Are We Really Overpopulated? Bill Gates Stop Lying.
Real News, True Facts, That Is Correct.
~ Baron Tremayne Caple A.K.A. Foxy Fox/Foxy Kitsune Fox/Fox Man/Fox King/King Fox/Gemini Man/Autism Man/Rainbow Man Is A Metrosexual/God Of Autism/King Of Autism/God Of Asperger/King Of Asperger 🦊
Who was Jim Crow and why is this as a rallying cry for Democrats?
When a fictional character meets mental illness...
Jim Crow laws were a collection of state and local statutes that legalized racial segregation. Named after a Black minstrel show character,
Jim Crow was a fictional character in a minstrel act performed by Thomas Dartmouth Rice. Mr. Rice was a white actor in the 1800s. During that time in his 20s, he was a devoted actor who came up with a way to portray a black person on stage. It was a mistaken belief that his style of dress and song depicted a traditional black person from the era. He chose to imitate this and represent a black person on stage.
Now days, this is considered racist. In Thomas Rice's mind, he wanted to expose the audience to black people who couldn't be on stage. Think about it in the context of it then being illegal for a black person to be on stage and there were no representations of black people. Slap on a bit of ignorance about black people because education wasn't very prolific in a stratified educational system, and you have the birth of black face.
From a historical context, Thomas Rice's "Jim Crow" was very controversial. By no means do I attempt to apply his views to modern morality and views of black face as a means to defend the practice today. I am also not going to apply the inverse to judge the man by today's standards. That would be completely ignorant of the truth.
In the 1800s with racism very prolific as owed to the times, laws were created with the intent to maintain control over the black communities. Toward this end, Thomas's character was subverted to become the poster child for the movement. Keep in mind that copyrights did not cover his character and therefore, he had no way to maintain control over his likeness. This also led to the very law that allows politicians to use any music and images or likenesses for their political uses without having to get permission or pay royalties. More on this later...
Alas, Thomas Rice would be overshadowed by his own creation having been abused by ... wait for it ... the Democrats.
The bulk majority of Jim Crow Laws that came about in the 1800s and maintained their prominence until the 1960s were crafted and defended by the Democrats. Unfortunately this information is often not provided when you read about Jim Crow Laws. You only hear about how these laws stemmed to suppress black people and not who created them. Gee, I wonder why?
The Republicans were staunchly against the Jim Crow Laws. During years where Republicans were in majority, these laws were systematically removed as they could be. In years as they were the minority, the Democrats reinforced Jim Crow Laws not otherwise removed or deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Don't believe me, then let's look at who really toppled these laws in the 20th Century.
1948 - President Harry S. Truman - Republican
1963 - President Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson, 36th U.S. president, who championed civil rights and the ‘Great Society’ but unsuccessfully oversaw the Vietnam War. A mo
These two Presidents were in different parties. President Truman initiated the call to integrate the military and remove segregation. The Democrats hammered him repeatedly for his views. President Johnson was a moderate Democrat who was attacked for his actions following a study he called upon with Illinois Governor Otto about the race riots. Republicans attacked him because he had lost control of the country. He took action for civil rights for all Americans, especially blacks. While he signed the Civil Rights Act, he ultimately failed at implementation because of his party's actions and the Vietnam Conflict.
Why is this important? Well, let's set the record straight that President Johnson only became President after the assassination of President Kennedy. The Civil Rights Act was President Kennedy's dream, efforts and position. It was one in which President Johnson attacked the Kennedy family with repeatedly. The Democrats impressed upon Kennedy to select Johnson as his running mate. Then, surprise, Johnson took power...
So why did he sign the Civil Rights Act?
To appease the public during the turmoil of the 1960s Race Riots, that's why. He had the Vietnam War raging. He had riots in the streets that were otherwise making headlines and diminishing his Presidency. So in using President Kennedy's shadow was to continue his legacy as a beloved public figure. Despite this, President Johnson loathed President Kennedy and is the subject of many theories that President Johnson was selected to take the seat in a planned assassination of President Kennedy by his own party.
In reality, President Kennedy is more responsible for the downfall of Jim Crow Laws than President Johnson. President Kennedy wouldn't have had the capability if it wasn't for President Truman. President Eisenhower, a Republican, helped President Kennedy rise to power.
Why is Jim Crow returning to present day?
The simplicity of it. Democrats need a new piñata to beat in front of the realm of the Public Court of Opinion. They're well aware that the bulk majority of those between the ages of 13~30 are unaware of Jim Crow beyond the references to the laws toppled in the 1960s. Furthermore, they lack the context of time. Without President Trump and the realization that their abuse of Godwin's Law during the past four years has led to an unstably divided society that normalized violence as political action, Democrats needed a fictitious strawman to avoid the public from turning against real people.
Many people I've seen, including Hollywood actors, believe Jim Crow was a real person. Funnier yet, they believe Jim Crow was a white politician who instituted these laws. That's why I made it abundantly clear that this is hardly accurate. Democrats are waving the fear flag that Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow Laws.
Do note that the Liberal view is that there are things only for people of color that exclude white people. This isn't segregating white people, this is segregating people of color. The Liberal view is also that people of color are also different from one another and also have things that exclude each other. This is further segregating people by color. All of this is glossed around the ideology that everyone is special and therefore separate from each other. That's called racial segregation, and it's illegal.
Is it true that Jim Crow Laws can come back?
No. The Democrats created, supported, and defended Jim Crow Laws until President Johnson was pressured into signing the Civil Rights Act that was supported by President Kennedy to save his own Presidency. Jim Crow Laws would never pass today's Senate and are already illegal, as deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court rulings against challenges to the Civil Rights Act.
Can a State implement Jim Crow Laws to suppress the Black Voter?
No. They're Constitutionally invalidated and Federally illegal. The 10th Amendment prohibits States from going against the Federal Government. Since, it's Federally illegal to deny any Citizen the right to vote.
Then why are Democrats saying Jim Crow Laws are coming back?
To scare people into allowing Democrats to create laws that allow non-Citizens the right to vote. They also want to make it easier to commit voter fraud by making it impossible to determine if a person is or is not allowed to vote. Specifically, if you need to recount and make sure someone is allowed to vote, you have a tight timeframe to do that. We witnessed this during the last Presidential election. While there were extensive discrepancies, many challenges failed because of the extent to which the delays would overrun mandated deadlines and the patchwork of voter laws which vary by State. It was not for a lack of evidence.
Doesn't Federal Law define voting rights?
Nope. The 14th Amendment (President Abraham Lincoln [Republican]) states in the reverse that the Federal Government cannot impinge the authority of State laws. This is confusing to most people, but let's say that Kansas says it's illegal for someone to jump up and down on Fridays between 2 PM to 3 PM. A Federal Law saying it's legal to jump up and down doesn't override Kansas's law, it only says that Kansas cannot make it totally illegal to jump up and down. Kansas simply has a restriction on when this cannot be done. However, Kansas cannot make a law that says one can only jump up and down between 2 PM and 3 PM, because this is considered a violation of Federal Law in prohibiting people from jumping up and down. Furthermore, if Georgia passes a law to say that black people can't jump up and down between 2 PM and 3 PM, the Civil Rights Act, 1st Amendment, and all other laws prohibiting discrimination and racial segregation say that that law is Federally illegal and wholly unconstitutional -- rendering it null and void.
Also note that The 9th Amendment specifically prohibits the States and Federal Government from exercising the few rights extended to them in the purpose of denying or infringing upon the rights of Citizens. This is very important in the context of voter rights. The Democrats want to make a Federal Law that allows them to define who can vote. The Republicans want to make a Federal Law that defines limitations on the States' ability to define who can vote. There's a big difference here.
The Democrat Voter Rights Law is misleading. You already have the right to vote as a Citizen of the United States as defined by the Constitution. A gray-blue skinned pansexual CIS Female identifying alien Princess with six azure colored eyes who is gender-fluid in a Sapphic relationship and a Citizen of The United States of America, has the right to vote! Democrats want to extend this right to non-Citizens of the United States. This effectively allows people who know nothing about our country and the Constitution to vote on laws that directly impact the rights of those who are Citizens.
The Republican supported Voting Laws, similar to Georgia's and New York's, require States to ensure that voters are Citizens (by presenting a Federally recognized State-issued "Real ID") in support of the Constitutional requirement that voters are United States Citizens. Ladies and Gentlemen, The 15th Amendment states that only Citizens have the right and privilege to vote, and it shall not be impinged unless that privileging is revoked by commission of a crime per the 14th Amendment (another reason why Democrats keep calling the Capitol Hill riot an insurrection, despite that this is no longer a requirement to strip someone of the privilege of voting).
To summarize in closing: Georgia's Voter ID Law (Republican) is not any more tough as New York's requirements (Democrat). Both States require that a person present identification as proof of who they are. New York's law requires that a person provide the same, but specifically indicating from which borough that they reside in. This is actually tougher than Georgia's Voter ID law, despite only requiring a utility bill or photo ID with name and address because they can only vote in that borough. Georgia's Voter ID Law only requires a State provided, Federally mandated Real ID (Republican) and a person can vote anywhere in the State (Local elections excluded).
You're being lied to by Democrats. Don't fall for the propaganda and mouthpieces. Learn the Truth. Understand History and the context of the times.
look at you. can;t even shot a gun. btich little oby. probaly a gril. you. slut. i acn shoto guns. listen BLAM BLAM BLAM. yea see? prety vool right? you wosh you cpuld do that. you wisj. litle slut boy girl liberal. gun. jesus. kablamawangadoodee
Modern people cannot solve major issues, because they do not see their shared interests and responsibilities nor do they see themselves as members of a community.
U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., showed up at an anti-police brutality protest in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on Saturday evening, saying
This is what is called, "Inciting Insurrection."
When a government official, such as a congresswoman, calls for open rebellion, especially in a state or district they do not represent, and the use of violence is promoted against government law enforcement, that is called sedition to insurrection - AKA Inciting insurrection against the United States. It's borderline treason. She can and should be arrested by the Minnesota State Police.
When she and others like her use the word "justice" they really mean "revenge". They are not demanding justice, they are demanding retribution by mob rule. Justice isn't getting what you want by torching cities, vandalizing cars, assaulting other human beings because you've dehumanized them based on some arbitrary rule that equates to incontrovertible proof of guilt by association. That's called "injustice."
Justice is innocence until proven guilty by a jury of peers in a legally accepted court of law, whereby the burden of proof befalls the accuser or the prosecutor. Where the defendant is guaranteed a fair trial by not having to prove innocence over the accusations. To look at what's happening in our country is to watch the McCarthy Salem Jewish Escaped Witch Slave Trials unfold. Every single injustice of perverted perceptions of mob rule, all in one and multiple by a hundred million blue human sheep branded with the Democratic National Party's stupid logo.
That's OK though... We fought the Civil War against the Democrat Slave Owners the last time they did this, and won.
