The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Senate Democrats

[American_Jihad]

Demo's are funny how they flip on ya like cory booker stabbing Jeff Sessions in the back and front on nationwide TV...

January 15, 2017
The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Senate Democrats
By Bruce Walker

Senate Democrats are trying to assume the high ground against President Trump by rubbishing his nominees. Consider the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. The sum total of arguments against Senator Sessions are that at one time, many decades ago, he may have made a flippant offhand comment about the Ku Klux Klan and that he has suggested that the radically leftist NAACP and ACLU may be radically leftist.

His record of prosecuting Klansmen, desegregating Alabama schools, and generally upholding the law is, of course, totally ignored. So are Senate Democrats concerned about placing the former Klansmen to the highest levels of our legal system? No, not at all! The record of Senate Democrats and the brutal suppression of blacks in the South is stunning – and largely ignored by the leftist establishment media and educational systems.

In 1937, leftist icon Franklin Roosevelt appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States Attorney General Hugo Black, a man who had actually been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and never denied that fact. Senate Democrats, from the North as well as the South, voted overwhelmingly to confirm Hugo Black to the Supreme Court.

...

Klansmen Harry Truman, John Sparkman, and Hugo Black were all Senate Democrats who rose to higher posts by their party with no concern at all about their open sympathy for white supremacy and their membership in that most notorious association of white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan. But Senate Democrats, of course, could not pick Truman and Sparkman as their party's vice presidential nominees, nor could Senate Democrat nominate justices to the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats do, however, choose their own leadership. The Democrat floor leader in the Senate is picked only by Senate Democrats, the very same politicians who are trying to smear Jeff Sessions, a man who no one has suggested ever had anything to do with the Ku Klux Klan. These Senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd, a high-ranking official in the Ku Klux Klan, to successively higher posts in the Senate Democrat leadership.

In 1971, Senate Democrats ousted Teddy Kennedy as Democrat whip and elected Klansman Robert Byrd in his place. Ten years later, when President Reagan was elected, Senate Democrats promoted Robert Byrd to Democrat floor leader in the Senate, the highest office they could give him in the Democrat leadership. Then in 1989, Senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd for the highest constitutional office the Senate can elect anyone to be, president pro tempore of the Senate, third in line for presidential succession, and Senate Democrats also made this Klansman into chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, giving him extraordinary power over federal spending.

The record of Senate Democrats toward the Klan is extraordinary, considering the attacks this gaggle has been making against a man who actually fought the Klan. Perhaps if Senate Democrats passed a resolution apologizing to America for producing out of their number Klansmen who became president, vice presidential nominee, attorney general, Supreme Court justice, Democrat floor leader and president pro tempore of the Senate, then the rest of America would pay a bit more attention to their silly attacks on Senator Jeff Sessions.


Read more: Articles: The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Senate Democrats


cory booker will never be potus...

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats are just being who they are, filth. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised. This is precisely the type of lowlife scum thing they always do.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't really care whether there indeed be hypocrisy in the recriminations Democrats levy Sessions' way. What I care about is whether the man deserves the honor of serving the U.S. as attorney general. On that question, the chimeric cant of others informs me not, whereas my understanding of human nature, Sen. Sessions' personal history, his track record of words and deeds, and the interplay of those things do.

Thoughts about Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the man:
Maybe Sessions is among the minority of Southern whites who, though born at the end of WWII, were tacitly and overtly inculcated with the shackles of a deep abiding bias against blacks and who later discarded those mental manacles. Perhaps he's a Southern white man never so infixed. I don't know. I see signs that either of things be so and I see signs they may be, and I certainly know it's possible better lights guided him.

I am among that minority yet I have kin and acquaintances who are not. Anecdotal as it is, I'm going to say this. It is more likely that we will discover life on another planet in the next 20 years than it is that a man named Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, born in 1946 Selma, AL and descended from Jefferson Lee Sessions, is among that same minority. Sure as I say that, I am well aware that Sessions could be among Southern standouts who though descended from generations that venerated the legacy of Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee, have in their hearts closer kinship with Louisiana's General GT Beauregard, who led Confederate soldiers to victory in the first battle of Bull Run, after the war famously remarked:

• I am persuaded that the natural relation between the white and colored people is that of friendship. I am persuaded that their interests are identical; that their destinies in this state, where the two races are equally divided, are linked together; and that there is no prosperity for Louisiana which must not be the result of their cooperation.
  
  I am equally convinced that the evils anticipated by some men from the practical enforcement of equal rights are mostly imaginary, and that the relation of the races in the exercise of these rights will speedily adjust themselves to the satisfaction of all.

I'm obliged not to impugn the man's character for I don't know him. But I'll not be the fool who ignores extant human nature and the challenges one must overcome to, well, overcome it, most especially as go the mores of bigotry taught to young Southerners in Sessions' day. I know it can be done and I've observed how very, very hard it is to do. Sessions may or may not be among those who have done it, but it's all but impossible for anyone who doesn't know him to say if that's indeed so. As a man, therefore, I'm fine with giving him the benefit of the doubt.


Thoughts about the Attorney Generalship:
But what about as a nominee for Attorney General, who will in his official capacity be called to separate himself from his personal angels and demons and uphold our nation's laws? Trump clearly doesn't think people can do that; to wit his remarks about Judge Curiel. I don't share Trump's view, but also I don't know if Sessions is a person can make the separation. Maybe yes; maybe no.

What I know is that Sessions is among the people who espouse the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” mentality as the, not "a," way to improve one’s material conditions. Well, to a segment of society that even today struggles under the pall of racism, that is a woefully inadequate prescription for change. The resounding cries of the poorly educated Trumpkins [1] who feel left out of an economic transformation that in prior decades they'd have "owned" makes clear they know that is so just as well as minorities who have a far longer history of being in precisely that place. Educationally disadvantaged Trumpkins may suffer under the weight of a different bias, but their feelings of trepidation, angst, resentment and insecurity as they endure the burden are quite the same.

Sessions is also among the GOP leaders who champion the individual liberty ethos that drives Republican free market ideology has at times clashed with minorities. To minorities, especially blacks, that ethos, no less painfully than masa' whips and whites fists, portends the pain of Jim Crow and States Rights, neither of which ever bode beneficently for blacks' individual liberty or economic advancement, advance that is most aptly called a "quest for parity." African Americans' solicitude over Sessions derives from his, like many Republicans, overt rejection of the notions of pooled resources and collaboration, be they emotional, physical or economic.

Put another way, blacks are, in principle, "we" thinkers and Sessions advocates "I" thinking. I'd like to call it a "black thing," but it isn't. It's a minority thing, and I don't mean only racial minority -- whatever minority in which one finds oneself and that dominates one's existence and how others perceive one's existence -- economic minority, racial minority, intellectual minority, physical, sexual, etc. It's hard to relate to that if one's never lived it. If one has, however, one probably understands, at least to some degree.

The third dilemma liberals face is straight up philosophical. Liberals tend to promote policies based on the principles of positive liberty [2], and they're pretty consistent with that. Conservatives tend to advance policies based on concepts of negative liberty, except when they don't want to. For example, in the discussions about the replacement for O-care, from GOP corners we hear language such as "access" and "availability" as goes obtaining health insurance. Terms like that align with positive liberty's notion of ensuring equality of opportunity for all as contrasted with equality of outcomes among all. Conversely, on gun rights, abortion, civil rights, and gay rights, however, conservatives are 100% proponents of negative liberty.

That "sometimeyness" disconcerts people; they don't know what to expect. Blacks in particular fear that having for hundreds of years witness one white man lie and others swear to it. To say the least, it's hard for blacks to feel confident that a member of a "sometimey" party will fairly enforce laws designed to protect the freedoms they've gained over the years. Sessions did himself no favors with his "resume embellishment" that seemingly overstated his past role in defending civil rights. That smacks of "winks and nods," and that is something blacks know all to well when it comes to their history of courtroom success in the Antebellum South. I'm not blaming Sessions for what others did; I'm blaming him for, in an effort to seem "down" with civil rights, casting his efforts as being more than they may in fact have been. That's duplicitousness, even if sordid racial bias doesn't motivate it.


My decision:
Because the office of Attorney General is bigger than the man Jeff Sessions, I do not favor his obtaining that office. I can give the man the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot extend that benefit far enough to feel comfortable about charging him with the stewardship of the civil rights of so many. I like a good deal about Sessions and what I know of him, but I am paused by what I don't know, which in some aspects he seems to have have been less that candid about. That doesn't work for me as a trait of the nation's top lawyer.



Notes:
1 -- This is one time I use "Trumpkins" purely out of convenience. Readers can for this post safely attach no significance to the term.
2 -- Quick and dirty explanation of negative and positive liberty

In a repressive dictatorship people have neither negative nor positive liberty. You are oppressed by laws that you had no hand in shaping.

In a benign dictatorship people have negative freedom but not positive freedom The dictator doesn't give you any positive liberty, you don't get to decide what people are allowed to do, because the dictator does that. But he has decided that you can live your life in an unconstrained manner.

In a flawed democracy, in contrast people have positive liberty - you get to vote a party into power - but have little negative liberty, because society has democratically elected an authoritarian government.

In a democratic state with strong human rights protections people have a balance of both positive and negative liberty. The human rights protections attempt to balance negative liberties against positive liberties, although the 'correct' balance between negative and positive liberty is fundamentally unresolvable. As Isaiah Berlin said:

Where it [the line between positive and negative liberty] is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others.

And hence we get politics...​

 

[American_Jihad]

What!

 

[American_Jihad]

SCHUMER: TRUMP SHOULD HAVE FIRED COMEY AS SOON AS HE TOOK OFFICE
May 10, 2017

Daniel Greenfield

...

Never mind that the timing linkage is pretty clear. And, despite the media's best spin efforts, it came right after their own outrage over Comey's testimony about Hillary Clinton, not whatever vast conspiracy they pulled out of Mission Impossible movies.

Hillary's husband didn't fire FBI Director Sessions right after taking office either. Even though the supposed basis for that firing emerged from the previous administration. Does Schumer really expect President Trump to go beyond Bill Clinton? And if Trump had fired Comey right away, does anyone seriously believe that in addition to the cries of 'cover-up', the Dems wouldn't also be complaining about a lack of process?

Schumer: Trump Should Have Fired Comey As Soon As He Took Office

 

[American_Jihad]

FLASHBACK: PELOSI SUGGESTED HILLARY CLINTON WOULD FIRE COMEY
May 10, 2017

Daniel Greenfield

That's okay. According to the ACLU, only Trump isn't allowed to do things like that. It's okay for President Hillary Clinton to have a travel ban or fire an FBI director looking into her affairs.

Just ask Nancy Pelosi.

...

But we could stand by and watch another Hillary Clinton cover-up. And Pelosi's brazen hypocrisy.

Flashback: Pelosi Suggested Hillary Clinton Would Fire Comey

 

[American_Jihad]

HOW DARE TRUMP FIRE COMEY!
The Left’s shameless hypocrisy on the firing of the FBI Director.
May 11, 2017

Daniel Greenfield

Before the election, Nancy Pelosi had hinted that Hillary would fire FBI Director James Comey.

"Maybe he's not in the right job," the House Dem leader had coyly suggested. "I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way."

The FBI Director was at risk of becoming a “casualty” over his handling of the Hillary investigation.

...

And there would have been none of the hypocritical media outcry if the election had gone another way and Comey were being told to pack his bags by President Hillary Clinton.

...

In a matter of hours, Comey went from being lambasted for his testimony about Hillary’s abuse of classified emails to the hero at the center of next Watergate. It’s not about him. It’s about the left’s hatred for President Trump. The leftists, who went from hating to loving Comey with the same speed as the citizens of Orwell’s Oceania, are obsessed with undoing the results of a democratic election.

And that is the real conspiracy and cover-up that has caused a Constitutional crisis.

How Dare Trump Fire Comey!

 

[American_Jihad]

REP. NADLER: SURE I WANTED COMEY FIRED, BUT THAT WAS LAST YEAR
May 11, 2017

Daniel Greenfield

What a difference six months makes.

The left's Comey outrage is comedy gold. Some Dems, like Rep. Maxine Waters, have no qualms about still saying that Hillary should have fired Comey. But for the average Dem who has some self-awareness all those past calls to fire Comey are... problematic.

Here's how Rep. Nadler handled it on CNN.



...

Rep. Nadler: Sure I Wanted Comey Fired, But That Was Last Year

 

[ScienceRocks]

So Trump can have most of his team working for the Russians and you blame the democrats attempts at defending this nation! What a bunch of cock sucking tratiors and scum you republicans are.

 

[American_Jihad]

So Trump can have most of his team working for the Russians and you blame the democrats attempts at defending this nation! What a bunch of cock sucking tratiors and scum you republicans are.

I believe you lefties own cock/sucking...

 

[BluesLegend]

President Trump has Democrats and the liberal media so twisted up in knots they don't know whether to shit or go blind. Liberals loved Comey, then they hated Comey's guts and wanted him fired, they were just getting a good hate going when Trump fired him and the libs heads exploded.

 

[BluesLegend]

So Trump can have most of his team working for the Russians and you blame the democrats attempts at defending this nation! What a bunch of cock sucking tratiors and scum you republicans are.

The Democrats historic loss last Nov really has hit you hard

 

[American_Jihad]

MAXINE WATERS: OKAY FOR HILLARY TO FIRE COMEY, NOT TRUMP
May 11, 2017

Daniel Greenfield

A lot of us have spent time and energy documenting Dem hypocrisy on the Comey firing. I've got a 1,500 word article up documenting the double standards and lies. But then Maxine Waters just comes out and says so.



...

Maxine Waters: Okay for Hillary to Fire Comey, Not Trump