Select Page

Democrats, The Truth and Perception of Truth

Democrats, The Truth and Perception of Truth

We have heard for years, the Democrats were the party of woman’s equality, they were the ones that would fight for their freedom of choice, would fight for their right to advancement, this was played out over and over to us on the radio, TV and in newspapers, but was this really the case? Were they the party that brought an end to woman’s suffrage, fought for their right to vote? What about the protection of them from predators? Lately, it seems like this was not so much the case, we find out more and more that they were actually a house built of cards, a mirage, nothing but a thinly wrapped outer shell that sure looked wonderful, but when you started to peel the layers away, the party claimed to be the party of virtue in this matter was anything but.

We were told that the GOP was the party that wanted to strip away woman’s rights to have abortions, you had Democrats when Trump won telling women to quick, get your abortions now, but has anything been done to stop them? Of course not, it is the law of the land, but truth and perception of truth are two different things, the left has never been interested in the truth, only in perception that makes them seem to be presenting it.

We heard the cries from the left, Judge Moore needs to resign from the senate race, but nothing is done about Al Frankin. Both had accusers come forward, we have Al Frankin admitting guilt, it is kind of hard to not do so when you have photographic evidence, but all they had with Judge Moore was accusation that had many, many cracks in their accusations (like the yearbook Signed as DA, when he was not this until years later, when they asked for the year book to be released for investigation they have refused. And then, of course, you have the stepson refuting the whole story, says it is all a lie). Al Franken should resign, the Judge should have the Senate seat if he wins the election, then let the Senate investigate this. Like it or not, it is not up to the Senate to decide whom the state votes for, that is the states right, to claim they will not respect the sovereign right of the voters, that would cause a great problem, you are showing them that their votes don’t matter. Of course, this is only if Judge Moore wins.

A look at historical facts


But back to the woman, I think sometimes it is best to take a look at history. The Woman’s Suffrage movement, a movement started in late 1800’s in both England, and the US was a fight for women to not only be able to vote, but to hold office as well. England was under the rule of Queen Victoria; they had seen that a woman could rule, could do so effectively, bring about changes, and preside over them in a way that was as great as any man. Of course, they had already seen this with Queen Victoria’s great rulers before her, Queen Mary and Queen Elizebeth, it was obvious when a woman was put in such a position they were indeed able to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner.

This was one of the reasons on both sides of the oceans the woman were fighting; they should not only have a right to vote, their opinions did matter, they should be able to run for office. This was very shocking to the men who controlled everything, had for too many generations to count.

It all started with the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, a rather shocking event, woman meeting to talk about the need to have their voices heard, the news at the time was not very flattering of what they saw as women who obviously didn’t know their rightful place, but they refused to be silenced, the two leaders Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were determined this was a fight that they had to fight, they needed for all woman to be equal to men in voice.

These two women went on to form the Woman’s National Loyal League in 1863; their goal had united these two in a battle to introduce the call for a 19th amendment, a right for all women to participate in government in both votes and office. There was a split as the two sides for a short while had a difference  of opinion, with the emancipation proclamation one side wanted to include all African American women in this, the other side was worried that bring in civil rights issues with the fight for women rights was taking it a step too far, they could jeopardize the whole thing, but they figured out a way to work this out, soon formed the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) in 1890, with Stanton as president and Anthony as vice president.

As the NAWSA was growing in power the greatest obstruction they received was from the Democratic party, it is hardly surprising, this is the party of slavery that fought the North in the Civil War, it had put in place laws to restrict the Black American “Negro’s” as they called them back then, even though they had a right to vote, they sure were not going to make it easy, that is why during this time almost the whole African American population were Republicans, they were the party that emancipated so many. It was later when they switched the party, not because of what the party stood for; rather it was what they were offering, the results we now see with the downfall of the African American community with generations thinking they are entitled to be on the nipple of the state. This was what the Woman in NAWSA was fighting for, and who was resisting them was never the GOP, it was the DNC.

On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority.

Two weeks later, on June 4, 1919, the Senate passed the 19th Amendment by two votes over its two-thirds required a majority, 56-25. The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification. Within six days of the ratification cycle, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin each ratified the amendment. Kansas, New York, and Ohio followed on June 16, 1919. By March of the following year, a total of 35 states had approved the amendment, one state shy of the two-thirds required for ratification. Southern states were adamantly opposed to the amendment, however, and seven of them AlabamaGeorgiaLouisianaMarylandMississippiSouth Carolina and Virginia—had already rejected it before Tennessee’s vote on August 18, 1920. It was up to Tennessee to tip the scale for woman suffrage. The reason was simple; they already were suffering from what they saw as the Northern intervention by giving the black Americans the right to vote, they were not going to give in so easily.

With this seen, and only one state left that needed to ratify the amendment to make it law was Tennesse, they knew they had zero chance of changing the other 6 southern states, there was too large of a majority against this, so they set about moving the US President, Congress, and going to the state to work with putting in candidates that would vote for their cause, the candidates, by the way, were all GOP members, they could not get any Democrats to vote along their way. It was finally the marriage of the Suffrage Movement lobbyist and the lobbyist from the liquor distilleries, guess liqueur loosened up more than just morals, soon they had the members they supported in office, on August 18, 1920, the Tennessee legislators narrowly voted in favor of the 19th Amendment, it was completely by party, the GOP had enough to sway the vote, and the US ratified the 19th amendment, but not before the DNC had already in Tennesse tried one last ditch effort, moved on August 31st to repeal the vote, but it was too late, the U.S. Secretary of State had already proclaimed the amendment ratified on August 26, and the 19th Amendment was law.

Even after this, there was still widespread objection to the 19th amendment, but World War 1 with the shortage of men and women moving into their spots in manufacturing quickly put that to rest as the men saw that women were indeed as capable as they were in filling in and doing such tasks.

We saw the same objections from the Democrats during the civil rights fights of the 60’s, it was the Southern Democrats that were the ones fighting Kennedy’s and later Johnson, it was the GOP that these presidents turned to, they knew they were not going to get any help from their racist Democrats, at this time there was a huge divide between southern and northern Democrats, over time they changed this working, but not their racist attitudes.


So the next time the left comes up and tells you they have always been the party that has fought for the rights of women, tell them  they are liars, they fought this like they fought against emancipating the slaves, how it was they who fought even during the Bush presidency to expand Medicare to include adding prescriptions for the elderly, for they love to take credit for what they have fought against.

The Democrats today is nothing but a racist party, they have always hated the Jews, that has not changed, the only difference now is the same hatred you used to see displayed against Blacks, it is now displayed against whites, that is why you have the DNC releasing memo’s saying, ‘no white straight males need to apply‘, to screams of the silliness of “White Privilege”, the party is nothing but a sham, they sadly have enough people willing to buy into this because they have a powerful friend, the press. What is more confusing is the reason why Blacks or Jews choose to be part of the party, as a Jew I sometimes wonder if it has to do with self-hatred, or maybe it is just delusions, maybe this is what the American Jewish left think they deserve, to be hated by the party they support.

And before some of you say this is made up, look to Keith Ellison, look to the cries of objection during the second term of Obama, before he was elected, when they tried to get votes to show support for Israel in recognition of Jerusalem as their capital you saw screams of outrage, when the votes were called the screams against were so overpowering you could not tell what the votes were, after three tries they finally just passed it over the protest of the majority of members. And this does not even bring up the racist anti-Israel factions the DNC has in their midst.

One other thing, if being against Israeli policy is racist, I will tell you it is not, but many use this as their means to show racism. These very people who claim they are not antisemitic but anti-Israel are the first to demand of every Jew that they answer for what Israel has done. Thus their real motivation is laid bare. Has any Russian American ever been demanded by these same people to answer for the actions of Russia? What about Korean Americans for the actions of North Korea? Or Chinese Americans for the actions of China? We have seen backlash against Muslim Americans, but they are not a nationality, Islam has white, black, brown, and every other color under the myriad of world skin hues following the faith, to claim attacks against Islam is racist is ill-informed and racist in its way, are you trying to say all Muslims are Arab? How racist.

The Democrats are not what they claim to be; they are only shown in a way that is deceiving like many things in life, perception is more powerful then facts, when you start to look at facts, the perception can quickly be stripped away.



About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *