RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://canadafreepress.com/article/systemic-racism-inherent-in-democrats-dna

If the upcoming presidential election on November 3, 2020, were not so serious, it would be downright hilarious just watching the Democrats twist themselves into pretzels in their efforts to project onto President Trump their own lengthy and shameful record of racism.

As Bill Federer of AmericanMinute.com has exhaustively documented:

In 1857, the Supreme Court, with seven of the nine justices being Democrats, decided that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a citizen, but property. 
After the Civil War, when Republicans enacted the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in America, southern Democrats reacted by creating the vicious anti-black Jim Crow laws.
In 1866, Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens introduced legislation to give former slaves “40 acres and a mule,” but Democrats opposed it.

This lopsided picture continued unabated through the 19th century and into the 20th century. Only space limitations prevent me from providing a doctoral thesis worth of sordid documentation.

In 1953, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (DDE) proposed “to use whatever authority exists in the office of the President to end segregation”…but Southern Democrat governors objected!
In 1964, Democrat senators held the longest filibuster in U.S. history––75 days––to try to prevent the Civil Rights Act from passing. Finally, Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) persuaded the leaders of his party to support a compromised bill, saying: “I’ll have those (N-words) -voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2020/06/when-the-facts-fade-to-black/

Anthony Dillon identifies as a part-Aboriginal Australian who is proud of both his Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestries. Originally from Queensland, he now lives in Sydney and is a researcher at the Australian Catholic University.

“Many times I have heard blactivists dismiss high rates of community violence and child abuse with the throwaway  line, ‘Walk a mile in our shoes before you criticize.’ Maybe they should try walking a few yards in the shoes of the police just to see what it’s like. They would likely discover that the last thing police need in pressure situations is some loud-mouth sticking a phone in a police officer’s face while shouting “I’m filming this!”

Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists and their sympathisers claim to care about all black lives, which prompts me to pose a question: Why are BLMers not protesting when blacks die at the hands of blacks? Instead, during the current eruption of outrage, they focused at first on Aboriginal deaths in custody, which demonstrated what a charade they were staging, given that Aboriginal people are less likely to die in custody than non-Aborigines. Such an inconvenient fact required a change of emphasis, hence the narrative’s switch to claims of systemic police brutality. The method? Cherry-pick examples and ignore context.

Consider a recent article by Australian activist Amy McQuire in the Washington Post. In regard to the alleged racist brutality of police and the justice system, she informs her US audience that “the violence is evident in the wounds on black bodies and in the life stories of Aboriginal people.” Actually, Amy, if it’s the wounds on black bodies you are interested in, I can take you to some remote communities where you will see all the wounded black bodies you want. The perpetrators are mostly Aboriginal, so you wouldn’t be interested in telling Americans about that, not when it is more fun, and wins you more attention, to slander an entire nation in the eyes of a wider world.

In a YouTube clip (below), Amy explains that while non-Aboriginal people regard police as protectors, “for Aboriginal people we see them as the aggravators, as the unjust people, as the people that you need protection from.” Really, Amy? When you speak of ‘Aboriginal people’, are you speaking on behalf of all Aboriginal people?