History of the Democratic Party: Part II

Over the past 200 years, Democrats as an institution --- not the average member --- evolved from overt to covert racism. The tactics they used to control minorities just changed, shifting from actual slavery on cotton plantations to ensuring blacks stayed on the plantation of government assistance.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

GLENN:  As we look back into history of the parties, the racist history of the Democratic Party has been very well documented.  While it is a fact that Democrats avoid it at all costs, when pushed, they will admit the truthfulness of it.  But they quickly claim that the racist Democrats in the South became Republicans who then became the racists.  They'll tell you that they now are the party of racial acceptance and inclusion.

Unfortunately, the problem is that statement is vastly untrue.  In saying that, it is important to remember that we're not talking about Democrats as your neighbors.  We're talking about Democrats as the institution.

And while Democrats like to claim that they are the party for a century now that has helped minorities and women get ahead, that they are the party of the downtrodden.  The facts simply don't back it up.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the opposite is actually the truth.

During the past 200 years, Democrats simply shifted their actions from overt racism to covert racism.

The tactics that they used to control minorities in America just changed.  They shifted from actual slavery on the cotton plantations to making sure that blacks remained on the plantation of government assistance.  Ever dependent on their Democratic overseers.

Republicans, meanwhile, as a general rule, have always fought for the rights of self-determination for minorities, any minority.  They tend not to promise that the government will take care of them.  Instead, the G.O.P., if true to its nonprogressive roots, has a philosophy that allows people to have the opportunity to take care of themselves, to chart their own course, make their own destiny, to thrive, rather than just survive on the handouts from supposed benevolent masters.  And the G.O.P. did this, first, as abolitionists.  Then they were the party that was opposed to the Jim Crow laws, the party in favor of women's suffrage and black civil rights.  Finally, the party that favors less government intervention in the lives of minorities and everyone else in this country.

On our last episode, it took us to the American Civil War.  It's just an interesting quick side note, the Confederate flag that is so hated today, is such a symbol of hatred and racism, but it was created and used by Democrats.

Even though the Union won the Civil War and the Republican president Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, still in the South, the rights for blacks were ignored, and oppression continued as Democrats passed laws to keep them down.

1866, Republicans went to work to put a stop on the southern lawlessness and to strengthen the newly passed 13th Amendment, which had finally constitutionally banned the practice of slavery in America.

VOICE:  By the time Congress convened in 1866, anti-slavery Republicans dominated both houses, led by men like John Bingham in the House, along with senators Charles Sumner and Jacob Howard, radical Republicans enjoyed complete control of Congress.

VOICE:  They have the power to amend the Constitution, and they are determined to use it.  They were faced with an unending series of abuses in the reconstruction of the south.  State and local governments had responded to the new 13th Amendment ban on slavery by trying to deprive newly freed slaves and their white supporters of any meaningful freedom, especially economic freedom.

GLENN:  This was a societal change that southern Democrats were passionate about stopping.

VOICE:  Economic liberty, the right to pursue a livelihood of your own choosing and to keep the money you earn was the opposite of slavery.  And the real opportunity for freed slaves to lead a free life.  The pro-slavery forces knew this.  So in the South, freed slaves weren't just banned from pursuing particular occupations, but in some places, it was actually illegal for black people to leave their employer's property without written permission.  In others, breaking a labor contract was punished by whipping.  The 14th Amendment was supposed to stop rights violations like these.

GLENN:  The Democrats in the South had lost the war, but they were determined that nothing in the states they controlled was going to change.

So it was up to Congress to try to do something about the deep schism that divided the nation.

VOICE:  The 14th Amendment protects three distinct interests:  Due process, equal protection, and the privileges or immunities, meaning rights, of United States citizens.

Of those three, privileges or immunities are by far the most important because that clause protects individual rights from government infringement.

GLENN:  In Congress, as was the case with the abolition of slavery with the 13th Amendment, every single Republican voted for the amendment.  All Republicans.  23 percent of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the 13th Amendment, but not one Democrat in the US House or US Senate voted for the 14th Amendment.

100 percent Republican support, zero support from the Democrats.  Now, these are not opinions.  They are historical, provable facts.

They may be uncomfortable for some Democrats to hear, but they are indeed the truth.

David Barton explains why the 14th amendment was so important.

VOICE:  You get to the end of the Civil War, shortly after you abolish slavery, now you have all these states who separated to have slavery, and they have to come back to the Union somehow.  But you have to convince them that if you're going to get back in, you have to do so, upholding the 13th Amendment.  Slavery has got to be offered.  Well, they wouldn't.  They said, all right.  So what.  You freed all the slaves, but they're not going to be citizens of our state.  We're not going to let them be citizens of Louisiana or Georgia or Texas or whatever.  So Congress says, let's do a little arm twisting here.

GLENN:  And that set the stage for another amendment for the Constitution.

VOICE:  So they came up with a 14th Amendment that says that a freed slave is a citizen of the state in which he lives.  So what had happened in the South, you had two types of citizens.  You had state citizens, and you had others just living there, free blacks who can't be citizens.  Federal constitution says, no, no, no, that stops right now.  You live in a state.  You're a citizen of that state.  That's the end of it.

So that when it came time to vote on that in the federal Congress, 14th Amendment that says that these former slaves get civil rights, not a single Democrat in Congress voted for the 14th Amendment.

GLENN:  Democrats were losing the battle constitutionally and legislatively.  But they were finding other ways around their perceived problem.

VOICE:  You have all the slave owners, all these racist mentality people, who were willing to form their own nation on the basis of race.  And now you're trying to say that my elected representatives are black.  I'm not going to do this.

Well, in Democratic states, not only do you have Republicans, you've got black Republicans.

So nationally, in 1866, to stop this forward progress, there was a group that was started to keep Republicans out of office.  The group that was started in 1866, we recognize today.  But it was the Ku Klux Klan

GLENN:  The early days of the Klan was marked by violence against blacks, of course.  But white Republicans were not spared their wrath either.

VOICE:  In 1871, a black US congressman from South Carolina, Joseph Hayne Rainey, reported an instant concerning an elderly man named Dr. John Winsmith, a white Republican state senator.

VOICE:  The doctor, a man nearly 70 years of age had been to town.  Returning home late, he soon afterward retired.  A little after midnight, he was aroused by someone knocking violently at his front door.

VOICE:  The Klan shot down the state senator, a white state senator because he was a Republican and was fighting for the rights of blacks of his state.  In that hail of bullets, Dr. Winsmith was hit seven times.  However, he survived the shooting and lived to testify before Congress about the attack made on him by the Klan.

GLENN:  The Klan was really after the Republican, black or white.  And the Democratic Klan only got worse from there.

The shameful history of the Democratic Party is one of America's best kept secrets.  From the party's inception with its founder Martin Van Buren and President Andrew Jackson, the Democrats desperately tried to take away the rights and in many cases, the lives of many minorities.  Blacks and Indians.  From the devastating war against the American Indians to the continued scourge of slavery, seceding from the Union, igniting Civil War, fighting against the Constitutional rights gained by blacks after the war, and starting the KKK, wow, the Democrats were to this point, a century-long blight on the United States.

Whether that blight would continue during the next century is a topic that we have to explore.  However, listen to today's Democrats, and much of their supportive media.  The Democrats are positioned as the keepers of the flame of liberty.  The ferocious fighters in defense of the underdog.  But honestly, if you look at the facts, nothing could be further from the truth.

Next time, let's examine how the Klan lost its steam, and then became reinvigorated by an American Democratic president.  We look into the men who furthered the racism of the party and started the ideological radicalism of the progressive Democratic Party.

VOICE:  Tomorrow on the Glenn Beck Program in chapter three of the history of the Democratic Party, you'll learn how the progressives elected the most bigoted president we ever had, Woodrow Wilson.  Listen live or online at GlennBeck.com/serials.

This compromise is an abomination

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Three decades ago, "The Art of the Deal" made Donald Trump a household name. A lot has happened since then. But you can trace many of Trump's actions back to that book.

Art of the Deal:

In the end, you're measured not by how much you undertake but by what you finally accomplish.

People laughed when he announced that he was running for President. And I mean that literally. Remember the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner when Obama roasted Trump, viciously, mocking the very idea that Trump could ever be President. Now, he's President.

You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.

This empire-building is a mark of Trump.

RELATED: 'Arrogant fool' Jim Acosta exposed MSM's dishonest border agenda — again.

The most recent example is the border wall. Yesterday, congress reached a compromise on funding for the border wall. Weeks of tense back-and-forth built up to that moment. At times, it seemed like neither side would budge. Trump stuck to his guns, the government shut down, Trump refused to budge, then, miraculously, the lights came back on again. The result was a compromise. Or at least that's how it appeared.

But really, Trump got what he wanted -- exactly what he wanted. He used the techniques he wrote about in The Art of the Deal:

My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after.

From the start, he demanded $5.7 billion for construction of a border wall. It was a months' long tug-of-war that eventually resulted in yesterday's legislation, which would dedicate $1.4 billion. It would appear that that was what he was after all along. Moments before the vote, he did some last-minute pushing. A national emergency declaration, and suddenly the number is $8 billion.

Art of the Deal:

People think I'm a gambler. I've never gambled in my life. To me, a gambler is someone who plays slot machines. I prefer to own slot machines. It's a very good business being the house.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, Senate passed the legislation 83-16, and the House followed with 300-128. Today, Trump will sign the bill.

It's not even fair to call that a deal, really. A deal is what happens when you go to a car dealership, fully ready to buy a car, and the salesman says the right things. What Trump did is more like a car dealer selling an entire row of cars to someone who doesn't even have a licence. When Trump started, Democrats wouldn't even consider a wall, let alone pay for it.

Art of the Deal:

The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.

He started the wall on a chant, "Build the wall!" until he got what he wanted. He maneuvered like Don Draper, selling people something that they didn't even know they wanted, and convincing them that it is exactly what they've always needed.

As the nation soaks in the victory of the recent passing of the historic First Step Act, there are Congressmen who haven't stopped working to solve additional problems with the criminal justice system. Because while the Act was impactful, leading to the well-deserved early release of many incarcerated individuals, it didn't go far enough. That's why four Congressmen have joined forces to reintroduce the Justice Safety Valve Act—legislation that would grant judges judicial discretion when determining appropriate sentencing.

There's a real need for this legislation since it's no secret that lawmakers don't always get it right. They may pass laws with good intentions, but unintended consequences often prevail. For example, there was a time when the nation believed the best way to penalize lawbreakers was to be tough on crime, leading to sweeping mandatory minimum sentencing laws implemented both nationally and statewide.

RELATED: If Trump can support criminal justice reform, so can everyone else

Only in recent years have governments learned that these sentences aren't good policy for the defendant or even the public. Mandatory minimum sentences are often overly harsh, don't act as a public deterrent for crime, and are extremely costly to taxpayers. These laws tie judges' hands, preventing them from using their knowledge and understanding of the law to make case relevant decisions.

Because legislation surrounding criminal law is often very touchy and difficult to change (especially on the federal level, where bills can take multiple years to pass) mandatory minimum sentences are far from being done away with—despite the data-driven discoveries of their downfalls. But in order to solve the problems inherent within all of the different laws imposing sentencing lengths, Congress needs to pass the Justice Safety Valve Act now. Ensuring its passing would allow judges to use discretion while sentencing, rather than forcing them to continue issuing indiscriminate sentences no matter the unique facts of the case.

Rather than take years to go back and try to fix every single mandatory minimum law that has been federally passed, moving this single piece of legislation forward is the best way to ensure judges can apply their judgment in every appropriate case.

When someone is facing numerous charges from a single incident, mandatory minimum sentencing laws stack atop one another, resulting in an extremely lengthy sentence that may not be just. Such high sentences may even be violations of an individual's eighth amendment rights, what with the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. It's exactly what happened with Weldon Angelos.

In Salt Lake City in 2002, Weldon sold half a pound of marijuana to federal agents on two separate occasions. Unbeknownst to Weldon, the police had targeted him because they suspected he was a part of a gang and trafficking operation. They were oh-so-wrong. Weldon had never sold marijuana before and only did this time because he was pressured by the agents to find marijuana for them. He figured a couple lowkey sales could help out his family's financial situation. But Weldon was caught and sentenced to a mandatory 55 years in prison. This massive sentence is clearly unjust for a first time, non-violent crime, and even the Judge, Paul Cassell, agreed. Judge Cassell did everything he could to reduce the sentence, but, due to federal law, it wasn't much.

The nation is facing an over-criminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties.

In cases like Weldon's, a safety valve for discretionary power is much needed. Judges need the ability to issue sentences below the mandatory minimums, depending on mitigating factors such as mental health, provocation, or physical illness. That's what this new bill would allow for. Critics may argue that this gives judges too much power, but under the bill, judges must first make a finding on why it's necessary to sentence below the mandatory minimum. Then, they must write a clear statement explaining their decision.

Judges are unlikely to risk their careers to allow dangerous criminals an early release. If something happens after an offender is released early, the political pressure is back on the judge who issued the shorter sentence—and no one wants that kind of negative attention. In order to avoid risky situations like this, they'd use their discretion very cautiously, upholding the oath they took to promote justice in every case.

The nation is facing an overcriminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties. Mandatory minimums have exacerbated this problem, and it's time for that to stop. Congresswomen and men have the opportunity to help solve this looming problem by passing the Justice Safety Valve Act to untie the hands of judges and restore justice in individual sentences.

Molly Davis is a policy analyst at Libertas Institute, a free market think tank in Utah. She's a writer for Young Voices, and her work has previously appeared in The Hill, TownHall.com, and The Washington Examiner.

New gadget for couples in 'the mood' lets a button do the talking

Photo by Matt Nelson on Unsplash

Just in time for Valentine's Day, there's a new romantic gadget for couples that is sure to make sparks fly. For those with their minds in the gutter, I'm not talking about those kinds of gadgets. I'm talking about a brilliant new device for the home called "LoveSync."

This is real — it's a simple pair of buttons for busy, modern couples who have plenty of time for social media and Netflix, but can't quite squeeze in time to talk about their... uh... special relationship.

Here's how it works. Each partner has their own individual LoveSync button. Whenever the mood strikes one partner, all they have to do is press their own button. That sets their button aglow for a certain period of time. If, during that time window, their partner also presses their own button, then both buttons light up in a swirling green pattern to signal that love has "synced"...and it's go time.

According to the makers of LoveSync, this device will "Take the Luck out of Getting Lucky." It brings a whole new meaning to "pushing each other's buttons." It's an ideal gift to tell your significant other "I care," without actually having to care, or talk about icky things like feelings.

If you find your significant other is already on the couch binge-watching The Bachelor, no problem! You can conveniently slink back to your button and hold it in for four seconds to cancel the desire. No harm, no foul! Live to fight another day.

Have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children.

No word yet on whether LoveSync can also order wine, light candles or play Barry White. Maybe that's in the works for LoveSync 2.0.

Of course, LoveSync does have some pitfalls. Cats and toddlers love a good button. That'll be a fun conversation — "Honey, who keeps canceling my mood submissions?" And have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children. "Yeah, kids, that button just controls the lawn sprinklers. No big deal."

If you've been dialing it in for years on Valentine's Day with flowers and those crappy boxes of chocolate, now you can literally dial it in. With a button.

Good luck with that.