History of the Democratic Party: Part III

The Democratic Party has indeed been the party of diversity. It has persecuted Native Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and German Americans alike. They love to hear from people with all kinds of views and backgrounds --- as long as they're in lockstep with the prevailing elites of the party. After all, they are Democrats.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

The roots of the Democratic Party, which had sprung from the ashes of the Democratic Republican Party in 1830, were deeply and unquestionably racist.

I know this is quite a statement to make, but Democrats repeatedly lied to, broke treaties with, and slaughtered Indians.  They supported slavery, fractured the nation with secession of the South, and in large measure, were responsible for thrusting America into the Civil War, which cost over 600,000 lives.

The political ideology of the Democrats, however, hadn't been so radical or so destructive, as their racist tendencies.  At least, not until Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson coupled the party's racism with radical progressivism.  That's why the election of 1912 was a critical turning point in the history of the party and the United States.

VOICE:  The incumbent was Republican William Howard Taft.  The Democratic challenger, tall and dignified, Woodrow Wilson.  And taking them both on was the most formidable third party candidate in history, former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt.

Disappointed that his handpicked successor Taft had abandoned many of his policies, Roosevelt had actually tried to rest the Republican nomination away from him.  He failed.  And at that point could have chosen to bow out gratefully, but this was Teddy Roosevelt

VOICE:  He said, I stand in Armageddon to do battle for the Lord.

VOICE:  Running under the banner of the new progressive party, the popular Roosevelt capsized Taft's reelection bid.  But TR's candidacy had an unintended consequence:  By splitting the Republican vote, he allowed the Democrat, Wilson, to win the White House.

GLENN:  While it was a former Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who started and ran under the progressive party banner, it was Democrat Woodrow Wilson who was even more progressive than Roosevelt.  A note here:  Progressivism is Marxism that is accomplished without revolution, more slowly and under a different name.  The principles are essentially the same.

It was under Wilson's leadership that the Democratic Party took a huge left turn.  It had been a party that had been leery of centralized government, while Wilson pushed for and succeeded in greatly enlarging the size of the federal government, the one they were all so afraid of.

He also adopted the policy of an early Democratic progressive, William Jennings Bryant, in pushing for and this time succeeding in bringing about a progressive national income tax.  Seems we always forget the progressive part of tax.

Now, up until his presidency, the United States had been free of the burden of a permanent national income tax.  It was almost universally believed to be unconstitutional.

Yet, Wilson took office March 4th of 1913.  And by October of that year, the United States had been fundamentally transformed and altered, with a new progressive income tax.

With it came the IRS and the Federal Reserve.  And America would never be the same again.

Wilson had also changed the American power structure.  Before his administration, the executive branch was at best, simply equal to Congress.  But he made the presidency superior to Congress.  Wilson also worked really hard to fundamentally transform the United States.  Of America's original founding document, Wilson said...

VOICE:  Some citizens of this country have never gotten beyond the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.  It is of no consequence to us.

GLENN:  Americans were never meant to get beyond the Declaration of Independence.  It is inextricably linked to the Constitution and to every principle of governance that we hold dear.  It is the idea of America, while the Constitution is the framework to make that idea work.

Wilson's thoughts, however, on the Constitution were similar to his thoughts on the declaration.

VOICE:  All the progressives ask or desire is permission.  In an era when development -- evolution is the scientific word to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.  All they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

GLENN:  In other words, all he desired was the ability to interpret the Constitution in whatever way he might deem appropriate.

In Woodrow Wilson's mind, the Constitution was ever changing, ever evolving, rather than a set of rights that were eternal.

With that in mind, Wilson set out his agenda.  One of his worst acts was sponsoring the Espionage and Sedition Acts.  The Sedition Act prohibited criticism of the government, armed forces, or the war effort.  This, after Wilson had promised and been reelected for keeping the United States out of World War I.

If the citizens dare violate the act and actually said, "Wait a minute.  What did you just say?"  They were imprisoned or fined.  Some 1500 people were arrested under this law, including socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs.  As of all of that were not enough un-American activity for one president, Wilson went so far as to have thousands of German Americans forced into one of two internment camps that he had set up in the United States.  One of the camps was in Utah.  And the other one was in Georgia.

Remember, this isn't the Japanese internment.  This was two decades before.  Just a few of the notable German interns were geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, as well as 29 of the very scary and dangerous members of the Boston symphony orchestra.  The orchestra's musical conductor, Carl Muck, spent more than a year at the camp in Georgia, as did Ernst Kunwald, the musical director of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra.

What are we afraid of?  Oh, are they ninjas with the batons?  How, you might be asking, in a nation with a revered Constitution, such as America, which prohibits all of these actions, can all of this take place?  Author of Theodore and Woodrow, Judge Napolitano sums up exactly how it happened.

VOICE:  Roosevelt -- and I speak of Theodore, of course -- and Wilson openly boasted that they were not obliged to follow the words of the Constitution, that as president they could make changes on their own.  So you have two presidents who believe -- this is a radical difference from all of their predecessors, even Lincoln, that they can from the White House order and direct changes which will affect the lives of every American.

GLENN:  Coupled with the inaction of separate, but equal branches of government, Congress and the judicial branch and the nation was thrust into a constitutional crisis that virtually nobody even noticed.

As I said earlier, the American people had been very vocal about staying out of the war in Europe.  And Wilson had been reelected in large part because he had kept America out of World War I.

Nearly as soon as he was reelected, however, Wilson wasted absolutely no time in using the sinking of the British passenger ship, the Lusitania, to plunge the United States into the worst war in world history up until that time.  Wilson claimed...

VOICE:  I am an advocate of peace, but there are some splendid things that come to a nation through the discipline of war.

GLENN:  The Alien and Sedition Act was one of those splendid things he had accomplished.  He was also interning American citizens behind barbed wire.  He also splendidly raised the top income tax rate from 15 to 77 percent.  And along the way, he resegregated the civil service and US military.  But other than that, he was a constitutional dream.

Considering all of this, it is inconceivable to hear modern day Democrats sing Wilson's praises or seek to even be associated with him, as Hillary Clinton did several years ago.

HILLARY:  I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive area at the beginning of the 20th century.  I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society, when we're working together.  And when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their families.

GLENN:  Sure.  I mean, who wouldn't be inspired by an early 20th century American progressive?  And comments like this one from Woodrow Wilson.

VOICE:  The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation, until the last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.

GLENN:  The believer he was in the KKK, he actually premiered the movie that glorified the Klan, called Birth of a Nation at the White House -- it was the first movie ever to be screened at the White House.

So given the despicable legacy of the party, it's difficult to understand the arrogance of many of today's Democratic elites, such as Hillary Clinton, who stated...

HILLARY:  Now, as Democrats, we have diverse views and backgrounds.  We are Democrats after all.

GLENN:  Wow, indeed, it has been a diverse party, willing to persecute citizens of Native American, African-American, Asian-American, and German American descent.  Oh, yes, and they love to hear from people of all kinds of views and background, just as long as you're in lockstep with the prevailing elites of the party.  After all, they're Democrats.

After the war, Woodrow Wilson became obsessed with entangling the United States in international laws and regulations by joining his brainchild The League of Nations.  However, the people of the United States didn't want anything to do with it.  They instead wanted to maintain American constitutional sovereignty, and they rejected the league.

The problem is, Woodrow Wilson wasn't a guy who was going to take no for an answer.  He ignored the Senate.  He ignored the veto.  He began a rigorous nationwide campaign to try to sell to the American people, The League of Nations.  He had a whirlwind tour that turned out to be too strenuous for him, and on October 2nd, 1919, Wilson suffered a massive stroke, which left him virtually incapacitated for the rest of his presidency.

I don't like to wish ill on anybody, but thank goodness that stroke happened.  But to make a bad presidency worse, his unelected wife essentially secretly ran the executive office from then on.  She was actually our first female president, and she kept the severity of his illness under wraps until the election of President Harding in 1920.

Next time, the Democratic Party of today.

VOICE:  Tomorrow, on the Glenn Beck Program, in chapter four of the history of the Democratic Party, you'll learn how the party continues to cover up its racist past.  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.