After Obergefell, Can Courts Rewrite Laws?

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicia[l] in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self–appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
James Madison


An expanded version of this article is available here.

The Founders of the United States of America designed a balanced system of government that sets the stage for limiting the power of each of its three major divisions, or branches. We call this a system of checks and balances. It is a system that rests on the principle of the separation of powers.


Signing of the US Constitution by Junius Brutus Stearns

According to this model, courts cannot enact or rewrite laws; they can only interpret them or rule them unconstitutional. Only legislators—lawmakers—can write laws.

Recently, the highest court in Massachusetts reached beyond its designated authority. During the week of October 6, 2016, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling in a case involving two unmarried women and a child one of them had conceived through artificial insemination. Could the woman who hadn’t given birth be recognized as one of the child’s legal parents? Her lawyer was Mary Bonauto, was one of the lawyers who argued on behalf of same-sex couples in the Obergefell case. In presenting her arguments, Bonauto pointed to two Massachusetts statutes. David Fowler of the Family Action Council of Tennessee explains (emphases added),


David Fowler

First, Ms. Bonauto argued that the “paternity” statutes justified the claim that her female client should be “deemed” the child’s other legal parent. Given that the word “paternity” means “the state or fact of being the father of a particular child” and comes from the Latin word paternus, meaning “of a father,” do you now see the problem? How can a woman be a “father” unless words in statutes no longer have their common meaning? And on what basis could a court “interpret” away the clear meaning of that word?

Well, Ms. Bonauto argued that the statutes do not define “mother” and “father,” which she asserted left the Court free to give those words new meaning to conform to the new meaning of marriage. Makes perfect sense to me—if a court can redefine marriage, why can’t it redefine “husband” and “paternity” (and, really, any word in the English language)? You have to wonder what legislators were thinking years ago when they didn’t bother to define the terms “father” and “mother”!

But Ms. Bonauto also argued that the statute on artificial insemination involving a “husband and wife” should be interpreted to apply to her as well. Makes sense, too—if a court can redefine “father” and “mother,” surely it can redefine “husband” and “wife.”

Before you say, “Thank God we live in Tennessee,” consider the fact Ms. Bonauto has commented on the artificial insemination lesbian divorce case in Tennessee in which I am involved on behalf of 53 state legislators. She said, “As a matter of supremacy…the Tennessee statutes must be construed to comply with Obergefell’s constitutional commands.”

As a matter of supremacy…the Tennessee statutes must be construed to comply with Obergefell’s constitutional commands.
Mary Bonauto, lawyer and advocate for same-sex marriage—

Yes, a similar case is being litigated in Knoxville—

a divorce proceeding… involving a marriage between two women. During the marriage, one of the women conceived a child by artificial insemination. The issue involves the custody rights of the woman who has no biological relationship to the child.

The controversy centers on a statute that deems a child born to a “married woman” by means of artificial insemination, with the consent of the “married woman’s husband,” to be the “legitimate child of the husband and wife.”

The two women have asserted that that statute, enacted in 1977, is unconstitutional if it is applied according to the plain meaning of the words used and is not interpreted by the courts to apply to same-sex marriages.

With all of this as a backdrop, I have some good news and some bad news.

  • First, the good news. Fortunately, David Fowler has filed a motion on behalf of 53 state legislators to intervene in this case. Remember, courts have no authority to rewrite laws; they only can interpret them or deem them to be unconstitutional. More than any other party, the legislators—the lawmakers themselves—surely have a great deal to say about what the laws meant when they passed them, and what they mean today. Legislators’ perspectives should be extremely valuable to the court in determining any law’s intent. Furthermore, if a marriage law or laws are ruled unconstitutional, it then would become the prerogative of the legislature—the lawmaking body of Tennessee—to respond.
  • Now, the bad news. The Tennessee’s attorney generalHerbert Slatery, also has addressed the question at issue in this case. The bad news is that unfortunately, he apparently agrees with Mary Bonauto!

According to David Fowler in an email,

The [relevant] statue says, “A child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination, with consent of the married woman’s husband, is deemed to be the legitimate child of the husband and wife.”

In response, the AG literally cited the definitional section of the Code about how the Code is, generally speaking, to be interpreted. It says, “words importing the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter, except when the contrary intention is manifest.” Then the AG immediately wrote: “So both the word ‘husband’ and the word a ‘wife’ in [the statute] would be properly construed to mean ‘spouse.’”

So much for reading the words “except when the contrary intention is manifest!” The AG argues as if that phrase isn’t even in the statute it relies on!

So both the word “husband” and the word a “wife” in [the statute] would be properly construed to mean “spouse.”
—Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, completely ignoring the italicized portion of this guideline for interpreting state law: “[W]ords importing the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter, except when the contrary intention is manifest.”—

If there ever were legal arguments desperately needing friend-of-the-court briefs, those being made by David Fowler are those arguments. Amicus briefs opposing him and the legislators surely will be filed by national organizations that favor LGBT causes, especially since Attorney General Slatery has sided against state sovereignty in this case.

The Massachusetts case already has been lost. According to Fowler, similar cases also have been lost in Indiana and Wisconsin. Another case is being litigated in New York. Additional legal conflicts are sure to surface. Will pro-marriage organizations anywhere else do as David Fowler has done and seek out legislators who might be willing to go to bat for man-woman marriage? Are we really willing to surrender the meanings of the words “man,” “woman,” “husband,” “wife,” “father,” and “mother” without a fight? Furthermore, if these words lose their inherent meaning, is there anything on progressives’ wish lists that won’t become reality as these pioneers of the new social frontier seek to reshape civilization? “Civilization” is yet another word that will be redefined, and everyone will pay a high price!

Are we really willing to surrender the meanings of the words “man,” “woman,” “husband,” “wife,” “father,” and “mother” without a fight?

Keep in mind this isn’t just about marriage, but also about divided government and the separation of powers. Do courts have the right to rewrite laws? In our constitutional republic, they do not.

As George Washington said in his Farewell Address,


It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its Administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional Spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.


We soon will see if the US and Tennessee constitutions will be honored or totally ignored. If they are ignored, then we’ll no longer live in a republic, but an oligarchy; and, as precious as man-woman marriage is, they’ll be a great deal more at risk than just the sanctity of man-woman marriage.


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Look Who’s Waging the Real War on Women!

When pro-life advocates claim that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being, they are not saying they dislike abortion. They are saying it’s objectively wrong, regardless of how one feels about it.

If moral truths do not exist as a foundation for law, then law itself becomes merely a system of raw political power accountable to no one.


Scott Klusendorf, President of the Life Training Institute and author of The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture

In this election, the issue of abortion is of paramount importance to everyone concerned about preserving innocent life. Watch this exchange in the third presidential debate, which took place this past Wednesday, October 19.

Hillary Clinton Is Wrong

Against this backdrop, we need to make several important points. First, we should note that doctors and research testify that partial-birth abortion never is medically necessary. Christy Lee Parker, a nurse with years of experience in the delivery room, affirms that

late-term abortions are sometimes referred to as post-viability abortions. That’s important because viability means the fetus is able to live outside the womb. So, at any time after 24 weeks gestation, which is considered the “point of viability,” a baby can be delivered to save the mother while also allowing the child a chance to live. During a late-term abortion, the child is still delivered, only it’s delivered dead rather than alive after the infant has been killed.

Second, partial birth-abortion itself is dangerous to the mother. Parker also declares,

Although the pregnancy is ended with the death of the fetus, the baby must still be delivered. In fact, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is delivered breech, which is difficult, painful, and puts the mother’s life at risk. So, when you hear that liberal talking point, where they like to ask, “What if the mother finds out that she could die during childbirth?” it’s important to know that a post-viability abortion isn’t going to prevent birth. In fact, birth is in the name—partial birth abortion. Only a c-section would prevent a vaginal birth, and the child doesn’t have to die for that.

Third, Donald Trump was absolutely right to say that “Hillary is saying in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.” This is exactly what partial-birth abortion does.

Finally, we should not miss the fact that Hillary Clinton is proud to defend Planned Parenthood (PP). According to Wikipedia,

PPFA [Planned Parenthood Federation of America] is the largest single provider of reproductive health services, including abortion, in the United States. In their 2014 Annual Report, PPFA reported seeing over 2.5 million patients in over 4 million clinical visits and performing a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions. The organization has a combined annual revenue of US$1.3 billion [1.3 billion US dollars], including roughly US$530 million in government funding such as Medicaid reimbursements.

Abortion Providers Exploit Women

We have discussed Planned Parenthood’s appalling and illegal activities in earlier posts, as well as the urgent need to defund this organization. Abortion providers, including PP, claim to be helpful to women. They aren’t. They exploit them.

Many features of abortion on demand make it a practice that should be regulated and ultimately stopped. In this brief article I want to highlight just one aspect of abortion that everyone should oppose—especially pro-choice advocates who claim to be defending women.

Abortion Kills Women

Abortion on demand—especially late term abortion—increases the likelihood of sex-selection abortions. Such an abortion occurs when a baby’s sex is the one not desired by the mother or other adults involved in the situation. Sex-selection abortions create a lopsided population ratio of boys to girls, with boys significantly outnumbering girls in cultures where it is practiced. While the practice is creating significant societal problems in various foreign countries, including China, sex-selection abortions do take place in the United States (also go here, here, and here). Incredibly, in 2012, the House of Representatives, which at the time was controlled by Democrats, voted down proposed legislation that would have banned the practice.

Unfortunately, federal funding of PP has continued, even though Republicans have had control of both the House and Senate for two years.

McConnell,Mitch-012309-18422-jf 0024

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “is essentially conceding that Senate Republicans are ready to scrap language affecting [funding for] Planned Parenthood” from a bill that would fund research to combat the Zika virus (also go here).

Democrats have accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” yet abortion itself is a large part of the real war on women. Moreover, efforts to make abortion a safe procedure for women face resistance from these same Democrats. Thus, despite Republicans’ unwillingness hold PP accountable, Democrats’ rhetoric against Republicans rings hollow. Members of Barak Obama’s party aren’t really pro-choice, either; they want to force taxpayers to pay for a procedure they find objectionable (also go here and here).

Voters Have a Clear Choice

These facts should help the fog lift from the minds of any pro-lifers still struggling over this year’s election. Donald Trump should be applauded and supported for his clear statements on abortion—especially partial-birth abortion—during the third presidential debate. Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s statements make it abundantly clear how anyone calling himself or herself pro-life should vote in this year’s presidential race.

In the real war on women, pro-lifers are females’ true defenders.


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

The Scales of Justice Are Supposed to Be Balanced—But They Are no Longer

As a nation, we have arrived at a very sad and unfortunate place. On Friday, October 14, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals1 upheld a California law that requires—that’s right, requires—pro-life citizens operating pregnancy care centers that offer ultrasounds to disseminate information promoting abortion.


Matt Bowman, Senior Council with Alliance Defending Freedom, had this to say about the ruling.


It’s bad enough if the government tells you what you can’t say, but a law that tells you what you must say—under threat of severe punishment—is even more unjust and dangerous. In this case, political allies of abortionists are seeking to punish pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer real hope and help to women. Forcing these centers to promote abortion and recite the government’s preferred views is a clear violation of their constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms. That’s why other courts around the country have halted these kinds of measures and why we will be discussing the possibility of appeal with our clients.

It’s bad enough if the government tells you what you can’t say, but a law that tells you what you must say—under threat of severe punishment—is even more unjust and dangerous.
Matt Bowman, Alliance Defending Freedom—

Without question, this law allows abortion advocates to target pro-life pregnancy centers and their staffs and to work to nail them as lawbreakers. Pro-abortion forces would need only to covertly dispatch their “troops” in undercover operations to pregnancy resource centers to “check them out” to learn which centers are complying with the law and which ones are not. One might say that many laws do this, but this is not your typical law, as it requires pro-life individuals to violate their consciences. The point is that the law gives one side of the abortion debate an unfair wedge to use against the other. Clearly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is bearing down its thumb on one side of the scales of justice!


On Tuesday in response to the ruling, Dr. James Dobson called on Californians directly affected by the law to engage in civil disobedience (also go here). Here is a brief portion of what Dr. Dobson said in a statement.

This law – and laws like it – violate the U.S. Constitution, and they are a violation of our Christian conscience, and this ruling is yet another example of the power of activist judges. I encourage anyone with a voice to use it and to do so urgently. I have a simple word of advice to those pastors, priests and others who run California’s crisis pregnancy centers. If California attempts to enforce this law then do not comply. Make them put you in jail.

I believe that in the days ahead, believers will, with increasing frequency, be forced to choose between obeying the law of man or the law of God. We will have to develop a sound theology of civil disobedience and teach what the Bible says with clarity and conviction.

I have written about this before at Word Foundations and will continue to discuss this important issue. Articles on the site that discuss civil disobedience can be accessed from this page.

You can access articles at Word Foundations that discuss the important issue of civil disobedience here.

When God’s law and man’s law directly conflict, may the Lord give us strength and courage to obey Him rather than man.


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Dr. Dobson released this video on October 20, 2016.


1As the map below indicates, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over California, eight other states, Guam (GU) and the Northern Mariana Islands (MP).


When a Society Has Rejected Absolutes, It Is Vulnerable to Tyranny

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Benjamin Franklin, pictured above—

If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.
Francis A. Schaeffer—

A version of this post that is about 1/3 as long is available here.

Among the modern champions for religious liberty are Aaron and Melissa Klein. They are the Oregon couple who owned Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery in Gresham, Oregon. We recounted their story in an earlier post.

One January day in 2013, Melissa was at home with the couple’s six-month old twin sons while Aaron ran the shop. A woman named Rachel Cryer came in with her mother and inquired about a wedding cake. When they told Aaron that this wedding didn’t involve a groom but a second bride, he politely apologized, saying, “I’m sorry, we don’t do cakes for same-sex weddings.” In one way, this wasn’t easy. Aaron had no idea he was acting in violation of any statute or law, but he found no joy in turning down a customer. At the same time, his decision was clear. As Christians, Aaron and Melissa both believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. They had to act on that conviction.

The Klines, who had absolutely no qualms about serving homosexuals in their bakery, drew the line at the point of participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony—yet they were accused of violating a non-discrimination law. Alliance Defending Freedom has written about this irony, and others, with regard to business owners like the Klines and Colorado baker Jack Phillips. Yet Aaron and Melissa were found to be in violation the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, an LGBT rights law. We noted that Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI)

suggested that the Kleins, who have remained strong and refused to compromise, be fined a total of $135,000 “for the emotional suffering” the lesbian couple “experienced” because Aaron and Melissa turned down their request for a same-sex wedding cake.

Then we demonstrated just how strange this whole episode became.

Writing for The Daily Signal, Kelsey Harkness explained the twisted rationale for the exorbitant fines.

In order to reach $135,000, Rachel and [her partner] Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct.

One of the women, whose name was redacted to protect her privacy, listed 88 symptoms as grounds for compensation. The other, whose name was also redacted, listed 90.

Examples of symptoms include “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

We do well here to reflect on just how bizarre this situation is, because it illustrates the perilous extent to which this country has abandoned the principles and virtues on which it was founded. In other words, it shows how far we’ve departed from reality. Take note—the list of adverse symptoms is not a description of what the Kleins experienced as a result of all they have been through. Instead, the Kleins are being blamed and held responsible for causing Rachel and Laurel to experience them—all because Aaron and Melissa turned down their request for a cake! Significantly, no doctor appeared at the hearing to validate Rachel’s and Laurel’s claims. This truly is unreal!

The Kleins still have a sense of humor, but they are dead serious about their convictions about marriage. Moreover, they have no hatred for those who disagree with them.

I was reminded of the Klines’ ordeal this week—and just how strange a world we now live in—as I watched what took place, and continues to unfold, on the political stage.

Item one: A ten-year old video was made public in which Donald Trump, speaking privately, made lewd and sexually inappropriate comments about women. Surely his statements cannot be defended in any way, and Trump apologized for making them. Yet, among Trump’s harshest critics were secularists, many of whom are Democrats, “who defended the abusive and disgusting behavior of Bill Clinton, not when he was a private citizen but when he was a sitting president.” These same people also have for decades belittled those of us who sought to uphold character and moral standards as important for our nation’s leaders. Notable establishment Republicans joined them; they too were horrified over Trump’s remarks—yet they and their kind repeatedly have told the Republican base not to focus on moral values or moral issues.

On a side note, we have seen another response from a different group. Several prominent evangelical leaders, while condemning Trump’s remarks, also warned Christians about the ominous consequences of sitting out this election, and of the dire consequences of a Clinton presidency. Here are links the reactions of Tony Perkins, Dr. James Dobson (also go here), and Franklin Graham. Especially noteworthy are the remarks of Christian writer and radio talk show host Eric Metaxas. (Also go here).

I do not condone nor defend Donald Trump’s terrible comments made 11 years ago. They are indefensible and awful. I’m sure there are other misdeeds in his past, although as Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” I am, however, more concerned about America’s future than Donald Trump’s past. I wonder how Bill Clinton’s language stands up in private.…Hillary scares me to death.
Dr. James Dobson

Writing in the Federalist, Margot Anderson made a point to condemn the pious rhetoric of Republicans who apparently only recently have discovered morality. She didn’t hesitate to bring up the moral issue of abortion in pushing back against them. Good for her!

The chief offense Trump is being accused of is “objectifying women,” i.e. denying their dignity and humanity. But isn’t abortion the ultimate objectification of a human being? Abortion treats human life as a disposable clump of cells.…

During last week’s vice presidential debate, Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine defended a woman’s “right” to seek an abortion, even a late-stage one. There was nary a peep—no screeching for his removal from the ticket or even calling for his excommunication from the Catholic Church. Apparently, it is far less reprehensible to defend the killing of human life in public than to speak like a boor in private. (One can’t help but wonder if Trump would have gotten off easier for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.)

Anderson goes on to write about Hillary Clinton’s defense of her husband’s inappropriate sexual behavior and her publicly maligning half of Trump’s supporters by saying they were in a “basket of deplorables.” She also speaks of criminal activity on the part of Hillary Clinton, namely her use of a private server to send classified information. These have been actions and remarks presented in public; whereas Trump made his remarks, bad as they were, in private.

This isn’t partisan; Anderson doesn’t spare Republicans, or even Donald Trump. She does, however, seek to bring perspective and balance to the discussion. Here are her concluding paragraphs.

As has often been said, the people in a democracy get the leaders they deserve. We are a coarsened culture with vulgarity in every popular art form and crassness in public discourse. It is not so shocking that our current presidential candidates are rough and unscrupulous, as unfortunate as that is.

Yet we have far greater moral issues facing our citizenry, such as abortion-on-demand. Instead of focusing on real problems, sanctimonious Republicans care more about appearing pious and politically correct. Rather than pushing back against the provocateurs of identity politics, the elite Right is adopting their vernacular. In so doing, they minimize and detract from matters that deserve genuine moral outrage.

The point here is how convoluted society has become. Fasten your seat belt. We’re getting started.

Item two:

The left actually trashed the women who were the victims of Bill Clinton’s unwanted sexual advances. This trashing is not new; they did the same thing when Bill Clinton was president. In response to the release of the video, Trump held a news conference before the second presidential debate. Joining him were Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones, each of whom has a story to tell of an unwanted sexual advance from Bill Clinton. Broaddrick even says he raped her. Kathy Shelton also was present. As a 12-year old she was raped, and the lawyer who defended her predator in 1975 was Hillary Clinton. More on Shelton in a moment.

On the Monday, October 10 broadcast of The View, Joy Behar suggested that with regard to the first three women, Hillary Clinton should have said, “I would like to apologize to those tramps that have slept with my husband.” The next day, she apologized, but others who made disparaging comments did not. The women Behar had maligned had pushed back regarding Behar’s “tramp” comment.

As the show unfolded, its hosts were dumbfounded that conservatives would blame Hillary Clinton for Bill’s inappropriate and at times predatory sexual behavior. Yet conservatives don’t do this at all. Rather, they say Hillary is at fault for “lashing out at the women in question repeatedly over time.”

Earlier on Monday’s show, Whoppi Goldberg indicated, falsely, that the women appearing with Trump at the news conference really weren’t injured parties: “Several of those women slept with him knowing he was a married man … [Hillary Clinton] was the victim in this…the person to whom dirty was done.”

The heart of the content we’ve highlighted starts at 17:08 in the above video and ends at about 19:55.

On Monday’s Bill Press Show, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), a Clinton supporter, “described the Bill Clinton accusers who had attended the previous night’s debate as ‘a bunch of women, not looking their best, perhaps looking much better, you know, 40 years ago, to present them before the debate, for what purpose?’” Norton also said she “‘almost felt sorry for’ these ‘middle aged-looking women, who were apparently young women, who Bill Clinton hit on.’”

Isn’t all of this astounding? If the left isn’t trying to make the victims look like the predator and the predator look like the victims, then what are they doing? Eerily but unmistakably—and not coincidently—it reminds us of Aaron and Melissa Klein’s nightmare.

Item three:

Kathy Shelton was 12 years old when she was raped, and two years later, when she was 14, the case went to trial. Hillary Clinton defended the accused rapist, Thomas Alfred Taylor. He was convicted, but in the end he spent only a few months in jail. Reporter Jeff Dunetz writes,

Court records show, Ms. Clinton questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and invented a claim that the girl made false accusations in the past. Hillary also portrayed the girl as often fantasizing and as seeking out older men’ like the rapist. In other words she made up stories to blame the young victim.

In June of 2014, The Washington Free Beacon published audio recordings of Hillary Clinton from interviews in the early 80’s. In the recordings Clinton show [sic] an almost flippant attitude about the case defending the man who raped a 12-year-old girl in her words she who she got off by attacking the evidence, including the account of the victim….

In the recording from the early 80s, Clinton laughed. Dunetz’s report includes details of the case and several videos. You can access his article here.

On October 9, 2016, the night of the second presidential debate and the night of the press conference at which she spoke, Shelton tweeted, “I may be Hillary Clinton’s 1st female victim. She ruined my life; defended my rapist & blamed me. I was 12 yrs old. Then she laughed at me.”

Again, this fits the pattern of doing everything possible to make the victim out to be the one guilty of the crime. Using a distorted sense of morality and ethics, the left has turned the country upside down.

Item four:

In the days that followed the second debate, Wikileaks released emails that proved collusion between the Clinton campaign the Department of Justice with regard to Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Wikileaks also demonstrated through its releases that “Mrs. Clinton had [a] cozy and improper relationship with the mainstream media” (go here for some of the details). Don’t think for a New York minute the media will report this! It’s obvious why. You can learn more about these and other newsworthy items not making the mainstream news here.

In the midst of this flood of information that was—or should have been—damaging to the Clinton campaign, new allegations of sexual harassment were thrown at Donald Trump. This should not surprise us! Trump has flatly denied the allegations and has noted the clear coordination between the Clinton campaign and the media.

Don’t Miss the Lessons These Events Teach!

Several observations are in order at this point. This list will review some of the territory we’ve covered already and break new ground.

First, the very people who for years have said morality and virtue aren’t important and must be ignored are seeking to use morality and virtue against their opponents without applying it to themselves. This is utter hypocrisy.

Second, these people have the stage, the microphones, the personnel, and the means to get their message out to a society filled with people who don’t have diverse or balanced sources of information. The spokesmen are effectively using every means at their disposal to further their agenda, and they are repeating their messages relentlessly.

This reminds us that Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, declared, “It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” These kinds of verbal gymnastics set the stage for a world in which inappropriate words are deemed far worse than abusive sexual behavior—convoluted as this idea actually is. We do well to remember that it was Bill Clinton who said, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.
Joseph Goebbels

Third, Proverbs 18:17 declares, “In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.” Donald Trump is seeking to respond to the accusations being leveled against him and to present his side. He can reach some Americans through his speeches and campaign ads, but the ideas he is trying to convey are, to a very large degree, filtered through a pro-liberal, pro-Clinton media machine. This is one reason his pre-second-debate news conference featuring Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Kathy Shelton was strategically brilliant. It forced the media to cover the statements of those who had been abused and mistreated by the Clintons.

Fourth, because society has listened to the left’s diatribes against virtue and morality for decades, it no longer has any objective standard by which to judge its own behavior, let alone any leader or prospective leader. Note here how judging or evaluating messages is essential if we are to maintain an independent and free society.

Fifth, without any objective standard of morality, a society is a sitting duck, pliable and malleable, open to being persuaded to believe everything they hear from those who have the loudest voice and the most pervasive message.

Please take note: In the fourth and fifth principles we find the most important lessons of this week’s post. We may summarize these as follows.

When people in a society are taught they can believe anything, they will believe anything! Only acceptance of and an adherence to objective moral standards can guard against tyrannical manipulation.

In the sixties, seventies, and early eighties, Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer warned against the scenario we now face—and he saw it coming. In addition to the statement we have used as an introductory quote for this article, Schaeffer said, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.”

I realize there are well-meaning people who can think of many reasons not to vote for Donald Trump; but honestly, as flawed as Trump is, it is difficult for me to see how any or even all of these outweigh the urgent need to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming president. I also realize that if the Democrat propaganda machine fails and Hillary Clinton is prevented from becoming president, we still have a great many foundational problems as a country.

As we have said many times before at Word Foundations, we need to rediscover and realign ourselves and our society to the principles upon which this nation was founded. These include but are not limited to the Founders’ perspective on rights and liberty. They also include the Founders’ understanding of marriage and the family; even today many Americans still believe what nature and the Bible teach about these institutions. Moreover, these principles include what nature and the Bible teach about the unique value of human life (also go here).

Regardless of who is elected president, and regardless of the outcomes of all the other races, Christians have God-given duties they must never abandon. Let’s commit to uphold the truth about life and marriage and everything else, both before and after this critical election.

It’s the only way the world will ever be turned right-side-up once more.


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations in this article are from the New International Version. THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Websites and videos in this article have been cited for information purposes only. No citation should be construed as an endorsement.

No Pretense of Objectivity Left

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

We cannot make good news out of bad practice.

Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn’t mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.


Edward R. Murrow, journalist and radio news broadcaster for CBS during World War 2 and beyond—

On October 1, the New York Times released a story about Donald Trump that never should have become news. The story proclaims,

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

Note the word “legally” in the above statement. Even the New York Times admits Trump boke no law. Yet at the same time, it also implies he did something unethical or wrong. In fact, this was the clear intent of the story.

Campaign for Working Families president Gary Bauer noted in his daily report for Monday, October 3,

As a businessman, Donald Trump has every right to take full advantage of our tax laws. And the tax laws do allow individuals and businesses to deduct losses. This is central to almost all investment in the country.

Moreover, the New York Times knows this—it did something very similar in 2014. So did many major U.S. corporations and even Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Now, a word about illegality.

It was not illegal for the New York Times to publish this story. But Trump’s tax returns were illegally obtained by someone. Perhaps we have another IRS scandal in the making, which would not be at all surprising.

The IRS exposed the tax records of a conservative traditional marriage organization and was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine. You may also recall that Joe the Plumber had his personal records exposed by vindictive state bureaucrats when he dared to expose Obama’s socialism.

Given that the Times is not accusing Trump of doing anything illegal, perhaps we should all focus on the crime that was committed and demand that the individual responsible for leaking Mr. Trump’s tax documents be held responsible.


Maurice Emmer of Aspen, Colorado noted in a letter to the editor of the Aspen Times,

My dad was a business owner. In some years he had a profit and in others he had a loss. I’m sure there was a year when he lost at least $900,000 in his business. In other years he made that money back. Income tax rates then were about 50 percent. If my dad had been taxed at 50 percent on a $900,000 profit in one year ($450,000 of tax), but got no tax relief when he lost that same amount in another year, he would have paid $450,000 of tax on absolutely no net income (a profit in one year exactly offset by another year’s loss).

Business cycles occur over many years, not just one year. It’s understood that businesses have ups and downs. Therefore, our tax code has virtually forever permitted losses in one year to offset profits in other years. This results in a tax system that taxes long term business income results.

Did The New York Times explain this aspect of our tax system to enlighten its readers? Of course not. It turned an unremarkable example of the application of long standing tax law into a political slander job on Trump. The journalism profs who trained these people should be ashamed of what they have produced.

Sadly, they apparently are not ashamed. More on this in a moment. For now, let’s note the following facts.

  1. In declaring his loss on his 1995 tax return, Donald Trump acted legally, ethically, wisely, and responsibly. The tax provisions that allow Trump to do this not only benefit American businessmen and their businesses, but also their customers and their employees, who, by the way, become more likely to keep their jobs. The Trump campaign issued a statement that said in part, “ Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required.”
  2. Trump has paid many millions in taxes over the years. As the Trump campaign further pointed out, “Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions.”
  3. The implication that Mr. Trump acted selfishly to deduct his business loss in 1995 is slanderous and hypocritical. Do you know of any individual or business that, given the choice between two different amounts in taxes, would intentionally choose to pay the higher amount because it’s the “noble” thing to do?
  4. As Gary Bauer pointed out, Hillary Clinton has benefitted from the same tax laws she is trying to smear Trump for using—and she benefitted from them as recently as 2015. This is utter hypocrisy. When it comes to ethics, Hillary Clinton has no room to talk. (Also go here and here.)
  5. The verbal assaults on Trump regarding a tax return that is both legal and more than 20 years old fit the pattern of Democrat demagoguery we highlighted two and three weeks ago—a pattern involving emotional appeals and ad hominem attacks. We see both of these in Hillary Clinton’s statement at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina and other places. She said, “If not paying taxes makes him smart, what does that make all the rest of us?”

I am not a shill for Donald Trump. He has done some things I would never try to defend, although—full disclosure—I do believe the electorate must prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president. That said, Trump isn’t being covered fairly, and the media should be held accountable. As long ago as 2012, irrefutable evidence surfaced showing that the mainstream media marches in lockstep with establishment liberals. Moreover, we see evidence of this favoritism regularly, and it is getting more intense with each passing day. (See here, here, and here. Also, here is a report that helps explain part—not all—of the reason for liberal bias.) Is it any wonder that trust in the mainstream media has dropped to its lowest level ever—32 percent?

Truthfully, the willingness of the media to throw integrity and professionalism out the window in pursuit of a liberal agenda is to no small extent a reflection of the moral depravity in America at large. Sadly, the media are accelerating the country’s moral freefall with their lies and relentless promotion of a liberal, and in many cases anti-Christian, agenda.

What can we as Christians and other people of good will do? I have a few general suggestions.

  1. Rely on and support conservative news sources.
  2. Support and follow the media watchdog group Media Research Center, which operates the website
  3. Become familiar with the ideological worldview underpinnings of liberalism, progressivism, and socialism. For starters, go here, here, and here. Also read Calvin Beisner’s excellent book, Social Justice: How Good Intentions Undermine Justice and Gospel. You can download a copy here.
  4. Express your views whenever you have a good opportunity and platform to do so—but don’t wait for a perfect platform. A perfect platform never will exist. Don’t be ashamed to be a conservative.
  5. Pray for pastors to step up to the plate and educate their congregations on truth versus error in today’s American culture.
  6. Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziWork diligently to preserve religious liberty. This includes but is not limited to supporting organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom. Actually, religious liberty and defense of innocent life are primary concerns when one thinks of a Hillary Clinton presidency. (See the first item listed in this article. Note the other items as well, for they also are of great concern).
  7. Finally, pray for spiritual renewal in America, one with an emphasis on the critical need for repentance of sins, both individual and national.

As we honor God with our efforts to support and disseminate the truth, He will encourage and strengthen us to continue.

After all, if we are on God’s side, the truth is on ours.


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

top image: newsboy, Iowa City, 1940

Combatting Error with the Truth—In 5-Minute Presentations

If truth be not diffused, error will be.
Daniel Webster

Jason, a committed believer, entered his freshman year of college at a state university with a prayer that he would be able to defend his faith courageously and openly—but without being obnoxious. He enjoyed getting to know his fellow students and found that he and another incoming freshman, Steve, were both interested in restoring old cars. This point of mutual interest helped cement a strong friendship between the two, and it wasn’t long before Jason began to look for opportunities to talk to Steve about his relationship with God. One day, Jason decided simply to bring the matter up. He’d been praying for Steve and knew a few simple questions that could direct their conversation toward spiritual things.

“Hey, Steve,” Jason began, “I was wondering if you ever think much about God or spiritual things. Do you think it’s possible for people to have a relationship with God?”

“Jason, I really don’t believe in God at all.” Jason could tell Steve wasn’t offended but simply was sharing what he believed. “Honestly, I think the Bible is difficult to understand. It’s incoherent.”

“Really?” asked Jason. “That’s interesting. You know, I’d like to challenge you on that point. I’ve learned the Bible is a book with 66 major divisions written by 40 different human writers over a period of 1500 years. Despite all that, there really is amazing unity and agreement between the biblical writers. That unity points to the probability of God’s being the ultimate author. In fact, I believe God is the author, and that the Bible makes the most sense to those who know God personally. Think of the Bible as a love letter written by God to His children. Steve, your problem is mainly that you don’t know the author of the letter. You’ve been reading someone else’s mail!”

That same week at a sister school several hundred miles away, Sonya, another committed believer who also was beginning her college career, sat in class as her psychology professor attempted to shoot down the idea that the apostle Paul actually met Jesus on the road to Damascus. The professor had ridiculed Christianity and the Bible several times since the beginning of the school year and had described himself as an atheist. The idea that Paul’s life had taken a 180-degree turn because he’d met Jesus personally, he said, was ridiculous. Jesus, after all, was dead. How could he possibly have influenced Paul’s life? The professor continued, “There’s a phenomenon in psychology whereby a person who is vehemently opposed to a cause can go so overboard fighting it that he winds up embracing the very thing he opposed. I think that’s what happened to Paul.”

“Be careful, sir.” Sonya said as politely as she could. “You’re liable to become a Christian!”

These accounts are based on stories I’ve heard, and I can’t say with certainty that parallel events actually happened. Yet the accounts are instructive for us today. How many of our young people—or how many of us, for that matter—are prepared to defend what we believe?

How many of our young people—or how many of us, for that matter—are prepared to defend what we believe?

I’m not speaking just about our beliefs about God and the Bible, but also about

  • America
  • government
  • national defense
  • race relations
  • history
  • free speech
  • the faith of America’s Founders
  • the environment
  • evidence for God
  • Judeo-Christian values, including the Ten Commandments
  • the free market system
  • human relationships
  • life, and
  • morality

—to name just a few arenas where classic values are under assault today.

The above stories include what we might call “zingers”—memorable, attention-getting lines. In most debates, however, it isn’t the zinger that appears most frequently or that necessarily makes the biggest difference in the effort to win someone over. Of greater importance is the substance of one’s argument and how clearly and cohesively he or she presents it.

Where can people learn the truth about those things for which higher education and society at large have adopted a politically correct interpretation? If you haven’t already been invited, I’d like to invite you to attend Prager University.


Led by Dennis Prager, a conservative radio talk show host, Prager University is an online reservoir of information about hot-button topics. In each “course,” the conservative perspective on the topic at hand is provided. Each one is a video 5 minutes long—and at Prager U, students learn more truth in 5 minutes than is presented in many college and university classes all semester long. Moreover, Prager University is free—and its impact is worldwide!

One final point: while we began this post with illustrations about defending Christianity, Prager U does not focus specifically on defending the Christian faith. It is not a Christian organization; Dennis Prager is a devout Jew who, in and through his work, articulately defends Judeo-Christian values—the values and principles that have made America the freest and strongest nation on earth. Also, while Prager doesn’t specifically defend Christianity, he readily defends Christians and partners with them to make the strongest case for Judeo-Christian truth.

Explore and utilize Share it with others. It’s a great way to equip conservatives—and challenge liberals—with solid information.

Welcome to Prager University


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Top image: Display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas


The Importance of Getting History Right, Part 10

Launching Ad Hominem Attacks and Stoking Racial Tensions

When liberals rant, it’s called free speech; when conservatives rant, it is hate speech.
John Dietrich

If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If the law is not on your side, argue the facts. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, call your opponent names.
old legal adage

Six years ago, Human Events, a conservative publication, ran an article titled “The Democrat Plantation.” The article began by recalling slavery during the days before the Civil War. At that time, enslaved blacks, many of whom would become the ancestors of black Americans today, lived their lives strictly as directed by their masters. Absolute compliance to guidelines and protocol was expected, and anyone deviating from the requirements faced harsh consequences. Slaves were powerless to change their situations, so many of them became resigned to their fate. Their perspective has been called a “plantation mentality.” It quashed any initiative to move outside the established boundaries for thinking and behavior.

Fast forward a hundred sixty years. An “overwhelming majority of black Americans” today, the article contends, still have a plantation mentality. Expectations regarding one’s political views and how he or she should vote are crystal clear in the black community. Uniformity is required, and anyone who dares to question expectations or to think or act independently is severely punished. The “slave-owner” in the 21st century is none other than the Democrat Party—the party that claims to be blacks’ advocate and defender!

The spotlight of history exposes much about racism in America today.

The spotlight of history exposes much about racism in America today. We’ve seen this over the last nine weeks in our series of posts upholding the importance of historical accuracy. With only a few exceptions, Democrats have not been champions of blacks or of the principle of true American equality among the races. Instead, Democrats have oppressed blacks through a variety of means, including; Jim Crow laws; segregation; and Ku Klux Klan violence, intimidation, and even murder.

Despite this history, Democrats have enjoyed near monolithic support of blacks for the last fifty-plus years. Several modern myths have contributed to this allegiance. Learn about them here.

Despite the perceptions that teach otherwise, the Democrat Party still is the party holding blacks down. In fact, Democrats continue to buy blacks’ votes to enhance their own power. Beyond this, anyone who speaks against this dependency is accused of racism and called all sorts of names. Such an accusation is racist in and of itself—but black conservatives are especially vilified.1 An excellent example of one such conservative is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Thurgood Marshall’s Successor on the Supreme Court

1024px-thurgood-marshall-2At a press conference held on June 28, 1991, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the only black justice to have served on the court, announced that he would retire. On July 1, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to be Marshall’s replacement. At the time, Thomas was serving as the Judge of the Unites States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court.

Wikipedia states, “Civil rights and feminist organizations opposed the appointment based partially on Thomas’s criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that Thomas might not be a supporter of Roe v. Wade.” The conservative website offers this description of the response of Thomas’ opponents (citations and links have been removed).

In a flagrant violation of the rules of the Senate, staff members for a sitting Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee leaked a routine confidential FBI background report to Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio (NPR) which contained a vicious defamatory smear intended to mar Thomas for life. The accusation was known to be false, and was concocted to publicly intimidate an African-American Republican from accepting an appointment to the nation’s High Court, and derail his nomination. None of the allegations could be substantiated. The deliberate falsehoods did however persuade former Ku Klux Klan Democratic Senator Robert to change his vote from “yes” for confirmation to “no”.

From May 6, 1982 to March 12, 1990, Thomas had served as the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and before that at the Department of Education. A black lawyer by the name of Anita Hill had worked for Thomas in both settings. Testifying at Thomas’ hearings, Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment. He forcefully denied her claims, declaring,

ThomaseeocThis is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

In the end, Thomas was confirmed narrowly by the Senate on October 15, 1991. The vote was of 52-48. The breakdown was as follows. Of 43 Republicans, 41 voted for confirmation and 2 voted against; and of 57 Democrats, 11 voted for confirmation and 46 voted against.

Democrats claim to be champions of diversity, but here’s the truth. They want racial diversity only if it doesn’t upset their own liberal, ideological, and often unconstitutional agenda. Conservative blacks are a particular threat to that agenda. Indeed, when their policies are opposed, Democrats are all too willing to resort to ad hominem attacks and racism to get their way. Here’s an example. In early 2014, after America had elected and reelected its first black president, President Barak Obama blamed a downward trend in his approval rating on—you guessed it—racism! It should be no surprise, therefore, that as a black conservative sitting on the US Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas is a prime target of progressives’ wrath.

Progressives want racial diversity only if it doesn’t upset their own liberal, ideological, and often unconstitutional agenda. Conservative blacks are a particular threat to that agenda. Indeed, when their policies are opposed, Democrats are all too willing to resort to ad hominem attacks and racism to get their way. 

Clarence Thomas: A Principled Conservative

In June of 2013, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas. Reporter Robby Soave writes thatthe Court vacated and remanded a lower court ruling because Texas had failed to demonstrate that affirmative action was necessary to achieve a diverse student body—a requirement of the Grutter v. Bollinger decision in 2003. It was a win for foes of affirmative action—albeit one that won’t actually end the practice.”

Clarence Thomas concurred with the decision but went on to blast affirmative action in the first place. Among other things, he made the case it hurts minorities, the very people it purports to help. Thomas wrote,

  • The University admits minorities who otherwise would have attended less selective colleges where they would have been more evenly matched. But, as a result of the mismatching, many blacks and Hispanics who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position where under-performance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete.
  • Setting aside the damage wreaked upon the self-confidence of these over-matched students, there is no evidence that they learn more at the University than they would have learned at other schools for which they were better prepared. Indeed, they may learn less.

For additional statements from Thomas’ opinion, go here.

Thomas’ opinion in a similar case the following year was entirely consistent with all he wrote in Fisher v. University of Texas. A case named Schuette v. BAMN asked the court to answer this question: “Could Michigan voters have violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by amending their own constitution to prohibit race-based preferences?” Voters passed the ballot initiative (Proposition 2) on November 7, 2006, 58 percent to 42 percent. In their decision, which was released on April 22, 2014, the court upheld the law; a majority of justices effectively said no, Michigan voters hadn’t violated the 14th Amendment. Justice Elana Kagan had recused herself. Of the remaining 8 justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. That left Breyer, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scaila, and Thomas. Ken Klukowski reported on the decision for Breitbart News:

The Supreme Court in Schuette upheld this provision today. There was no majority opinion for the Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the lead opinion for the plurality, which will be the one carrying the force of law for the nation. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.…

Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the Court’s judgment upholding Proposition 2, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Scalia and Thomas, however, would have gone further than Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito. Justice Stephen Breyer, who consistently votes left of center, voted in this instance to uphold the provision, but his reasoning was different from that of the other justices.


Attacking Thomas Rather than Arguing Against His Ideas

Of course, liberals didn’t like the decision. Revealingly, they unleashed their fiercest wrath against Clarence Thomas. Here are examples of some of their tweets. A favorite epithet of the left in situations like this is “Uncle Tom.”

  • Since Clarence Thomas is against affirmative action, he should give up the black seat on the Court. He’s only there bc T Marshall was before
  • SCOTUS decision today shows it’s 5/9ths racist. And yes, Clarence Thomas hates his own race
  • Clarence Thomas is, for lack of a better word, a tom. No, actually, that’s the perfect word.
  • Clarence Thomas really is the universe’s equal and opposite reaction to MLK
  • Clearance Thomas is so bad. Calling some one his name is the same as calling someone an Uncle Tom.
  • Clarence Thomas please retire from the Supreme Court. You are the worst negro in history. described the situation this way: “Within a few hours, Twitter erupted with the usual slurs directed at black conservatives who don’t follow the left’s prescribed agenda.” (Note the word “usual” in the previous sentence; it indicates that with this kind of scenario, we can expect a bombardment of slurs from the liberals.)

As students of history, we need to realize that standing among the “black conservatives who don’t follow the left’s prescribed agenda” would have been slave-turned-statesman Frederick Douglass. He once wrote, “No class or color should be the exclusive rulers of the country. If there is such a ruling class there must of course be a subject class, and when this condition is once established this government by the people, of the people, and for the people will have already perished from the earth.” Both Frederick Douglass and Clarence Thomas are in great company!

No class or color should be the exclusive rulers of the country. If there is such a ruling class there must of course be a subject class, and when this condition is once established this government by the people, of the people, and for the people will have already perished from the earth.
Frederick Douglass


Clearly it isn’t just black conservatives who earn the wrath of the left, but all conservatives—especially articulate ones. Quite often, though, black conservatives are extremely eloquent, and this may be part of the reason they irritate liberals so thoroughly.

In part because black conservatives often are extremely eloquent, they irritate liberals thoroughly.

As Ben Shapiro has said,

The Left paints everybody who disagrees with them as a vicious racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, bad people. We are all bad people. That’s why you see, for example, in the last election cycle, Mitt Romney sort of made the case about Barack Obama, that Barack Obama was a good guy and a decent fellow who was not very good at being President, and Barack Obama basically made the case about Romney that he was scum of the earth. And that’s how the left wins elections, because they can’t win on their own competence. What they do win on is by claiming that anybody who opposes them is just a bad person on a fundamental level.

Along these lines, consider Hillary Clinton’s recent “basket of deplorables” remark about “half” of Donald Trump’s supporters. Clinton described them as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.” She found herself having to backtrack, but her having said what she said in the first place vividly illustrates our point. Moreover, an apology does not erase the impact of the message on Hillary’s intended audience.

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks do not represent an isolated case. has compiled a list of examples of liberal hate speech (also go here and here). Especially when this kind of rhetoric is used against blacks, it’s racist. Can you imagine the reaction of the leftist media and their cohorts if Republicans were to talk about liberal personalities in this manner?

The following video is very instructive regarding the hatred liberals throw at black conservatives, as well as the courage these freedom-loving Americans demonstrate as they swim upstream against today’s politically correct culture.

“Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste”

Meanwhile, in America’s cities, racial tension and violence continue to mount. As I type these words on Friday, September 23, 2016, Charlotte, North Carolina has seen rioting and violence for several days. Keith Lamont Scott, an armed black man, was shot and killed by a black police officer. The Police Chief in Charlotte, Kerr Putney—who also is black—described the incident: “Scott exited his vehicle armed with a handgun as officers continued to yell at him to drop it. He stepped out, posing a threat to the officers.” The protests started out as peaceful, but they didn’t remain that way. Evidence indicates that individuals from outside the city arrived and incited greater anger, causing behavior to turn violent. These instigators apparently have ties to the protests occurring in Ferguson, Missouri, last year. On a video posted on Facebook, a woman claiming that Scott was her father said he wasn’t holding a gun, but a book. If it’s a book, it sure looks like a gun! You can see a photo of it on this page.

loretta_lynch_official_portraitAs usual, the Obama administration is all too anxious to intervene in a local matter. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the rioters, “We hear your voices and we feel your pain.” Also, Vanita Gupta, who oversees the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, “has said that the real reason for riots lies in slavery and Jim Crow.” Is it any wonder that racial tensions have increased under America’s first black president? One is tempted to suspect that President Obama wants to stir things up, and that he and members of his administration will keep pouring gasoline on the fire. A student of Saul Alinsky, the president is following Alinsky’s teaching to never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Tellingly, a black Dallas police officer filed a lawsuit on September 16 against Black Lives Matter. The lawsuit “alleges the group is inciting a race war.” Included in the list of defendants are Black Lives Matter, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, George Soros, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan.

Know History and Share It, and Rally Behind Black Conservatives!

Against the disturbing backdrop of violence in our cities, we need to be reminded that history is important—and we need to share the truth about race in America with members of the next generation. Moreover, we need desperately to pray for, support, and encourage the black conservatives among us (also go here).

Thank God for them, their courage, and their leadership! Truly they are modern heroes of today’s American Revolutionary cause—returning the United States of America to its founding principles!

Resources for Digging Deeper:


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.

related article: “Clarence Thomas Is Conspicuously Absent in New Black History Smithsonian


1In our posts for last week and this week—the final two posts in our series on history—we are discussing two important tools the Democrats use to push their agenda. We devoted our discussion last week to Democrats’ powerful appeal to people’s emotions, especially the emotion of compassion. This week we expose the left’s penchant to personally attack their opponents. We should be aware that progressives have far more tools up their sleeves than these two items. These two, however, are especially powerful.

Top image: Blacks picking cotton on a Southern plantation, 1913

Websites are cited for information purposes only. No citation should be construed as an endorsement.


The Importance of Getting History Right, Part 9

An Opportunity Seized by Progressives—
and a Turning Point for America

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Thomas Jefferson

Part 8 is available here.

For the last eight weeks, we’ve been discussing several significant events in America’s history and the importance of understanding them in the historical contexts in which they occurred. Was America founded on racist principles? Was the original Constitution of 1787 racist? If not, then why did slavery continue in America for decades beyond the Constitution’s ratification?


Philadelphia’s Independence Hall in the 1770s

These have been some of the questions we have considered and endeavored to answer. Our journey has taken us from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, to the Civil War, to Reconstruction and beyond—all the way into the 20th and 21st centuries.

As we examined history, we saw that the Constitution was not racist.  Yet we did discover that one political party has promoted racism. Before, during, and after the Civil War, Democrats, generally speaking, were indeed racists and sought to implement racist policies. Today the prevailing narrative says that Republicans, not Democrats, are racists, but the fact that the narrative is what it is simply demonstrates that liberals—Democrats—have controlled it and effectively have rewritten history to their own advantage.

Today the prevailing narrative says that Republicans, not Democrats, are racists, but the fact that the narrative is what it is simply demonstrates that liberals—Democrats—have controlled it and effectively have rewritten history to their own advantage.

Just how has it come to pass that most people believe the narrative rather than what history teaches? Actually, with last week’s post, we already have started to answer this question, but this week and next week we’ll seek to answer it in earnest. In these final two installments in our 10-part series, we will highlight two strategies Democrats have adopted in the last 70 years to promote a progressive agenda. Progressives have relied on

1. powerful appeals to people’s emotions and
2. vicious attacks against their opponents.

These approaches largely have worked to further progressives’ aims, and it’s significant that as they have used them, liberals also have employed racism and racist overtones. Their racism isn’t manifested in the same ways it once was, but it is real and destructive nonetheless.

Let’s learn more. To set the stage to consider the first strategy we named—appealing to people’s emotions—we need once again to look back into history.

The First Black Democrat Elected to Congress

arthur_w-1-_mitchellArthur Wergs Mitchell (1883-1968) was the first black Democrat to be elected to Congress. Not coincidently, he was first elected in 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression. Mitchell began his political work in the Republican Party but in 1932 switched to the Democrat Party to support the programs of FDR. When he arrived in Congress in 1935, Mitchell declared, “What I am interested in is to help this grand President of ours feed the hungry and clothe the naked and provide work for the idle of every race and creed.”

As it turns out, Roosevelt wasn’t the first president to take steps to involve government in meeting people’s needs. How much do you know about the era of the Great Depression? Go here to take a brief, 2-question test and to learn some important things about American history you probably never heard in school. Also, you can learn more about Arthur W. Mitchell here.

What I am interested in is to help this grand President of ours feed the hungry and clothe the naked and provide work for the idle of every race and creed.
—Democrat Congressman Arthur W. Mitchell, conveying His desire to assist FDR in passing his proposals—

Mitchell’s statement sounds compassionate, noble, and honorable. Who could argue with it? I will! Before speaking against it, though, I must highlight the era in which Mitchell spoke. The Great Depression was taking a heavy toll on the American people. The average unemployment rate in 1935 was 20.1 percent. People had needs—and those needs were real. We must not minimize their desperate situations.

Government—Not an Effective or Efficient Provider

Even so, I am compelled to point out that it isn’t the primary job of the president, nor is it the main task of the government, to “feed the hungry and clothe the naked and provide work for the idle of every race and creed.” What is government’s job? Scripture is clear, but we don’t even need Scripture to understand that government is not equipped or suited to efficiently meet the material and physical needs of its people.

Thus, today, at minimum, government programs that “help” people in need must be reformed. Needy recipients must be encouraged to demonstrate responsibility and to work wherever and whenever possible—even though offering them handouts is tempting from an emotional point of view. Reforms were implemented in 1996, but President Obama gutted them in 2012. Reforms need to be reinitiated.1

Returning to our main point, we must not allow emotions alone to guide us when making decisions that affect so many. It is logical to assume this is one reason Thomas Jefferson warned against ignorance, or a lack of knowledge and understanding (see his statement at the top of this article). Government can’t help the poor without taking resources from others, and we need to use our heads to analyze, not just the impact government programs have on the poor, but also the impact they have on the country itself, and particularly on those who pay for such programs through higher taxes.

arlie-j-hoover-webThe point here is that emotions are a terrible guide. We have quoted the late Dr. A. J. Hoover in previous posts on other subjects (here and here). In a book exposing the weaknesses of various kinds of faulty arguments, Professor Hoover says, “Clear thinking involves many things, but one of the most important things it involves is learning to control your emotions.”2 Hear him elaborate on this idea. Especially today, these statements offer much needed wisdom.

Sometimes even the noble emotions like love, honor, courage, and kindness need to be carefully watched. You commit the fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam (“argument to pity”) when you make an illicit appeal to the emotion of pity.

This technique of persuasion has long been a familiar practice of lawyers in the courtroom. It is usually employed by the attorney for the defense who ignores the facts of the case and plays on the heartstrings of the jury. For example, he may bring into the courtroom the bedraggled wife of the defendant, followed by his seven pathetic, ragged children. He need not speak any words, for this “body language” says to the jury: “If you send my client to prison, you will make a widow of this poor woman and orphans of all these innocent children. What have these poor human beings done to deserve all this?”

Naturally, the prosecuting attorney will want to remind the jury that there is no necessary, logical connection between the deplorable state of the man’s family and his guilt or the requirements of the law. The jury should not be blinded by the noble emotion of pity in such a case.3

We’ve also previously noted this about government.

Government is inefficient, costly, and has an intoxicating effect on leaders and the public. Government may look like a benefactor, but it can offer only those resources it has taken from citizens and businesses through taxes and regulations. Despite appearances, government is not compassion, but force. Government’s good intentions often have very bad unintended consequences.

And this

The following quote frequently is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, although no evidence exists in his writings it ever originated with him. Nevertheless, whoever said it was absolutely correct. We need to heed this warning and understand its implications.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

• From bondage to spiritual faith;
• From spiritual faith to great courage;
• From courage to liberty;
• From liberty to abundance;
• From abundance to selfishness;
• From selfishness to complacency;
• From complacency to apathy;
• From apathy to dependence;
• From dependence back into bondage.

When the people of a nation believe they have a right to government “benefits,” they become intoxicated with everything the government is willing to offer. In turn, those in authority become intoxicated with the power they gain as an increasing number of people become dependent upon them. The more government “gives,” the more beholden recipients become. This is how a nation that began with liberty can be led into tyranny.

The early stages of this process, however, don’t look at all like a journey into tyranny. They may not look that way years or even decades later. Eventually, though, “the chickens will come home to roost.”

When the people of a free nation begin to look to the government to meet their needs, the journey on which they’ve started won’t appear to have tyranny as its destination. The road may not look like a path to tyranny and oppression years or even decades later. Then, when it’s too late, some of the people—certainly not all—will realize they’ve traded freedom for security and now live in bondage to the government.

FDR’s policies often are viewed favorably because of the many ways they seemed to help those in need. In other words, his programs were “compassionate.” Roosevelt was then, and is now, a hero to many. Economist Robert Higgs writes, “Roosevelt, it is said repeatedly, restored hope to the American people when they had fallen into despair because of the seemingly endless depression, and his policies ‘saved capitalism’ by mitigating its intrinsic cruelties and inequalities.”

But wait! Higgs goes on to contend this perception doesn’t fit the facts.

This view of Roosevelt and the New Deal amounts to a myth compounded of ideological predisposition and historical misunderstanding. In a 1936 book called The Menace of Roosevelt and His Policies, Howard E. Kershner came closer to the truth when he wrote that Roosevelt

took charge of our government when it was comparatively simple, and for the most part confined to the essential functions of government, and transformed it into a highly complex, bungling agency for throttling business and bedeviling the private lives of free people. It is no exaggeration to say that he took the government when it was a small racket and made a large racket out of it.4

As this statement illustrates, not everyone admired FDR during the 1930s.…The irony is that even if Roosevelt did help to lift the spirits of the American people in the depths of the depression—an uplift for which no compelling documentation exists—this achievement only led the public to labor under an illusion. After all, the root cause of the prevailing malaise was the continuation of the depression. Had the masses understood that the New Deal was only prolonging the depression, they would have had good reason to reject it and its vaunted leader.

headshot-bennettYet the masses, in fact, did not understand. In his three-volume work on American History—America: The Last Best Hope—William J. Bennett states that the congressional Democrats who had been elected to office in 1932 on Roosevelt’s coattails were all too eager to pass his policies, and pass them they did. Bennett quotes this paragraph from Samuel Eliot Morison as part of his explanation of the shift of political allegiances occurring against the backdrop of the Great Depression.

A feature of the WPA [Works Progress Administration] which caught the public eye and became nicknamed “boondoggling,” was the setting up of projects to employ artists, musicians, writers and other “white collar” workers. Post offices and other public buildings were decorated with murals; regional and state guides were written; libraries in municipal and state buildings were catalogued by out-of-work librarians, and indigent graduate students were employed to inventory archives and copy old shipping lists, to the subsequent profit of American historians. The federal theater at its peak employed over 15,000 actors and other workers, at an average wage of $20 a week. Under the direction of John Houseman, Orson Welles, and others, new plays were written and produced, and the classics revived.5

Bennett then writes,

iuHere, in a nutshell, we see the origins of many of today’s political alignments. Hollywood, academia, the press, libraries, the public universities—all are inhabited by tens of thousands of people who could trace the existence of their jobs or their institutions to a federal program begun under FDR. By bringing into government a “Brian Trust,” FDR assured the allegiance of what we today call the “knowledge class” to the Democratic Party. One thing can always be assured: If you take from Peter to pay Paul, you can generally rely on the vote of Paul.6

A history website  agrees that the 1932 election brought together a new coalition in support of Democrats. It also included blacks, the country’s other minority populations, and organized labor (see also the last paragraph on the 1936 election in this article). For decades beyond, Democrats would depend on this coalition for many of its wins. Robert Higgs, whom we cited earlier, says bluntly that “the New Deal served as a massive vote-buying scheme.”

The Snowball Effect

Lyndon_B._Johnson,_photo_portrait,_leaning_on_chair,_color_croppedWe see this dependency not just in the Roosevelt era, but particularly during and since the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. While there’s nothing necessarily wrong with building a coalition to support a cause, to use taxpayer money to strengthen a political party’s power—and to make constituents dependent on that money in the process—are actions that are especially unethical and wrong. It’s apparent that President Johnson was quite pleased at the prospect of bribing and manipulating voters—especially black voters—to increase his own party’s power.

If you don’t remember or haven’t heard what Johnson said privately about civil rights legislation when he was a senator and about his “Great Society” programs when he was president, you need to know. Go here to read these statements. Also recall the apparently deliberate misrepresentations of so-called black leaders with regard to the Three-Fifths Compromise. In each of these situations, the goal is the same—more power.

The unethical nature of creating dependency for votes is only one problem with government “entitlement” programs. Another big problem is that the stated goals of these efforts never are realized. In fact, since the welfare system was set up, things have worsened for those the system was supposed to help. African American economist and political commentator Walter Williams has rightly declared, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.”

The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.
Walter E. Williams

Yet another huge problem with wealth transfer programs—not just welfare but Social Security and other such programs, is the inability of taxpayers to sustain them as the number of recipients continues to increase. In other words, there’s a snowball effect. In a National Review article, journalist Michael Tanner asks, “How long can a shrinking number of taxpayers support a growing number of beneficiaries?” It’s a great question.


poster from the late 1930s or early 1940s marketing the “benefits” of Social Security

Advocates of government intervention to meet people’s needs focus on compassion and whether or not the action or the program makes them feel good. Bill Voegeli, the Senior Editor at the Claremont Institute, explains this important dynamic in progressives’ approach to government in this PragerU video.

The Bottom Line

Here’s the bottom line. Even though Arthur W. Mitchell, the first black Democrat, was elected and reelected to Congress by narrow margins, his wins reflected the beginning of a change in Americans’ perception about the role of government in people’s private lives. Even more importantly, Mitchell’s electoral contests—as well as Roosevelt’s landslide wins in 1932 and 1936 and his decisive wins in 1940 and 1944—reflected the beginning of a change in the nation’s perspective on rights. The ignorance Thomas Jefferson feared can, to a large extent, be effectively countered when citizens understand the Founders’ views on rights and why that perspective squares with reality.

FDR’s election and his subsequent reelections, as well as Arthur W. Mitchell’s election and reelections to Congress, reflect that the country was beginning to change its perspective on rights. It is critical for us to understand the Founders’ views on rights as well as the new perspective on rights the country was beginning to embrace. Why? The country has fully embraced the revisionist view today, and we need to combat this misinformation with the truth. America’s Founders got it right!

A quick review: To secure rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, government needs to stay out of the way and allow people to exercise those rights; but to secure rights like the “right” to food and shelter, government has to take wealth from its citizens and redistribute it so it can meet those needs.

Aren’t you concerned about hunger and housing? someone will ask. Of course we are! We’re simply saying it isn’t government’s primary role to meet these and similar needs. Please read and review our series on Americans’ posture with regard to rights. This is critical information.

Misinformed and Misled: An Eight-Part Series on America’s Distorted Perspective on Rights

In the 1930s, the 1960s, and beyond, progressives saw a golden opportunity for themselves. Unfortunately, they took advantage of it; and quite frankly, in doing so, they have exploited Americans who already were at an economic disadvantage. Moreover, it is not coincidental that to effectively promote the entitlement mentality that strengthens their power, Democrats have had to misrepresent history, including the Founders’ views on race, and liberty, and rights.

To effectively promote the entitlement mentality that strengthens their power, Democrats have had to misrepresent history, including the Founders’ views on race, liberty, and rights.

Republicans and other concerned citizens need to call them out, but they know there’s a risk in doing so. They’ll be called racists and practically every other pejorative name in the book.

Next week, we’ll explore this tactic, another manipulative strategy in progressives’ playbook.


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.


Top image: A line of unemployed men waiting outside a soup kitchen opened by Al Capone in Chicago, 1931



1As an aside, the Bible upholds both hard work and Christian generosity as means to meet the needs of individuals who are unable to work to provide for themselves and their families. When government took over the job of helping the poor, the church stepped away from it. The church should reassert itself in this area.

2A. J. Hoover, Don’t You Believe It! Poking Holes in Faulty Logic, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 67.


4The statements from Howard E. Kirshner’s book, The Menace of Roosevelt and His Policies, are quoted by Richard M. Ebeling in “Monetary Central Planning and the State, Part XIV: The New Deal and Its Critics,” Freedom Daily, February 1998, p. 15.

5Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History of the American People, Volume Three, 306.

6William J. Bennett, America: the Last Best Hope, Volume II: From a World at War to the Triumph of Freedom, 1914-1989, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 114.





The Importance of Getting History Right, Part 8

Don’t Be Fooled!

Before lecturing Republicans, Democrats should mop up their side of the political spectrum [with regard to the issue of race].
—Journalist Deroy Murdock (who, by the way, is black)—

Note: In Part 6, we began to record some historical facts Democrats have hidden from the public or effectively encouraged the public to ignore. We added to the list in Part 7, and this week, in Part 8, we complete it. The list contains 33 items. It isn’t exhaustive by any means, but it is thorough and very informative. It’s available on a single page here.

The second Sunday after a congregation had welcomed a new pastor into its midst, churchgoers noticed he preached the very same sermon he’d given a week earlier. The next week, he preached the same sermon yet again. When his people asked him why he was doing this, the pastor replied, “When you begin to apply the principles in this sermon, I’ll be happy to move on to the next one.”

As we continue adding items to our list of historical truths Democrats conveniently overlook, some may feel we are being repetitious, even though we’ve been adding new items every week. Unlike the new preacher who kept preaching the same sermon, I believe you’re getting it. Democrats, generally speaking, have rewritten history and are overlooking their own racist past. There are exceptions, but overall, Democrats have a history that upholds racism.

The eleventh item on our list (see last week’s post) highlighted Republican attempts to make lynching a federal crime in 1922, 1923, and 1924—and Democrat efforts to thwart them. Southern Democrats in the US Senate successfully filibustered the bill. Looking back a few years may shed some light on why these Democrats’ efforts could succeed.

Historical Truths Democrats Have Successfully Concealed

Twelfth, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921, was a Democrat who promoted and adopted racist policies and who glorified the Ku Klux Klan. Under Wilson, the federal government resegregated numerous agencies in the US government. Yes, resegregated. Integration had taken place during Reconstruction decades before Wilson took office. Wilson “brought with him an administration loaded with loaded with white supremacists who segregated offices and removed black men from political appointments.” In 1914 President Wilson defended these policies, saying this:

Segregation is not humiliating but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen. If your organization goes out and tells the colored people of the country that it is a humiliation, they will so regard it, but if you do not tell them so, and regard it rather as a benefit, they will regard it the same. The only harm that will come will be if you cause them to think it is a humiliation… If this organization is ever to have another hearing before me it must have another spokesman. Your manner offends me…

Of course, Wilson’s policies affected people on a personal level. One man affected was John Abraham Davis. John Davis was a hard worker and excelled in school. Not long after graduating from high school in 1882 he landed a job at the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC. His job became his career. John was rewarded for his hard work with promotions and pay increases, and by 1908 he had a very respectable income as well as a home in the nation’s capital and a farm in a nearby state. Everything changed for John after Wilson took office. He was demoted, then sent from one department to another to do jobs that required little skill or experience. In the end he wound up delivering messages in the War Department, but that job paid only about half of what he had been earning in 1908. John was forced to sell the farm, and by 1917 his spirit had been crushed. He’d live for eleven more years but could not recover from the humiliation and economic ruin Wilson’s racist policies had brought upon him. Not surprisingly, other black men in government jobs had similar experiences.

Moreover, Woodrow Wilson spoke glowingly of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1901 in his book, A History of the American People, Volume IX, Wilson wrote, “Those who loved mastery and adventure directed the work of the Ku Klux.” He also wrote, “The white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes and conducted in the interest of adventurers.” The quote inspired this frame in the racist movie The Birth of a Nation, a silent movie directed by by D. W. Griffith and released in 1915. The film was successful and was a factor leading to a resurgence of the Klan, which also took place in 1915.


On another issue, Wilson is seen today as a leader promoting women’s suffrage. Not so fast! He and other Democrats actually had no choice but to go along with passage of the Nineteenth Amendment after landslide wins for Republicans in Congress in the election of 1918. On May 21, 1919, the Nineteenth Amendment passed the House of Representatives. The vote was 304-89. Ninety-one percent of Republicans but just 59 percent of Democrats voted for it. The Senate passed the amendment on June 4 of the same year by a vote of 56-25. Eighty-two percent of Republicans but just 41 percent of Democrats voted for it. On to the states it went, and Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the amendment on August 26, 1920. Tom Wrutz writes, “Of the 36 states to ratify the 19th Amendment, 26 were Republican states [states with Republican legislatures].”


Suffragist demonstration in 1913 in Washington, DC

Thirteenth, the Democrat Convention in 1924 was called Klanbake because of the controversy that swirled around it involving the Ku Klux Klan. No political convention in US history has lasted as long as did this one. From June 24 to July 9, 1924, delegates cast a total of 103 ballots before officially nominating John W. Davis and Charles W. Bryan to run for president and vice-president, respectively. They would be defeated by Calvin Coolidge and Charles G. Dawes in November.


1924 Democrat Convention

Going into the convention, observers probably would have put their money on either Al Smith of New York or William Gibbs McAdoo, who had served as the Secretary of the Treasury in the Wilson administration and who would go on to serve as a Democrat US Senator from California. Davis became the compromise candidate.

Not all Democrats supported the revived KKK, and some wanted the party’s platform to condemn Klan for its violent activities. A plank was proposed. Pro-Klan delegates opposed Al Smith’s candidacy (Smith was a Catholic) and supported the candidacy of his chief opponent, William McAdoo (a Protestant). The convention was deeply divided. Writing about the proceedings, Randy Dotinga seasons his report with quotes from Robert K. Murray, a historian.

The vicious KKK debate finally ended in a chaotic two-hour vote that produced the most “prolonged pandemonium in an American political gathering.”

“The delegates engaged in fist fights, arguments, name calling, wrestling matches, and brawls, while the galleries howled and stomped their feet.” The fighting veered toward a riot that was only averted when 1,000 NYC cops hurried to the scene.

1924-dems202_zpsyoyhzzomDebate over adopting the anti-Klan plank was fierce. In the end, the plank was rejected by a vote of 546.15 to 542.85. In Celebration, “tens of thousands of hooded Klansmen rallied in a field in New Jersey, across the river from New York City. This event…was also attended by hundreds of Klan delegates to the convention, who burned crosses, urged violence and intimidation against African Americans and Catholics, and attacked effigies of Smith.”


Fourteenth, Democrat Hugo Black, who was a US Senator from Alabama from 1927 to 1937, was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. After being elected to his seat in the Senate in 1926, Black spoke to a KKK gathering and thanked them for their support:

This passport which you have given me is a symbol to me of the passport which you have given me before. I do not feel that it would be out of place to state to you her on this occasion that I know that without the support of the members of this organization I would not have been called, even by my enemies, the “Junior Senator from Alabama.”

As a US Senator, Black strongly opposed anti-lynching legislation, even when the sponsors of the bill also were Democrats.

In 1935 Black led a filibuster of the Wagner-Costigan anti-lynching bill. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported that when a motion to end the fillibuster was defeated “[t]he southerners- headed by Tom Connally of Texas and Hugo Black of Alabama—grinned at each other and shook hands.”


Fifteenth, Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Hugo Black to the Supreme Court in 1937. He was an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court from August 19, 1937 until just September 17, 1971, just days before his death. Shortly after Black became an Associate Justice, reporter Ray Sprigle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a story disclosing Black’s involvement in the KKK. The report caused quite a stir, and Sprigle won a Pulitzer Prize for his work. As a Supreme Court Justice, Black “went on to reintroduce America to the long-dormant phrase ‘separation of church and state, twisting its meaning. Black also wrote the majority opinion that deemed internment camps in the United States constitutional in 1944.”


Sixteenth, in 1938, during a filibuster of the Wagner-Van Nuys anti-lynching bill—a bill, by the way, bearing the names of two Democrat senators, Robert Wagner and Frederick Van Nuys— Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo, also a Democrat, declared,

If you succeed in the passage of this bill, you will open the floodgates of hell in the South. Raping, mobbing, lynching, race riots, and crime will be increased a thousandfold; and upon your garments and the garments of those who are responsible for the passage of the measure will be the blood of the raped and outraged daughters of Dixie, as well as the blood of the perpetrators of these crimes that the red-blooded Anglo-Saxon White Southern men will not tolerate.

Seventeenth, in 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed James Byrmes to the US Supreme Court. Byrmes was a segregationist who in 1919 said, “This is a white man’s country, and will always remain a white man’s country.”

Eighteenth, FDR committed racist acts and failed to defend races who were vulnerable.

  • In 1942, internment camps were established by Executive Order 9066 to house American citizens descended from Japanese and Japanese expatriates.
  • Jesse Owens had defied the propaganda of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany by winning four gold medals on German soil, at the Berlin Olympics of 1936. After the games, FDR invited only the white athletes to meet with him. Of course, Owens received no such invitation.

FDR invited only white athletes to meet with him following the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.

  • While Roosevelt was critical of lynching, he would not support a federal anti-lynching law. He said Southern Democrats, especially Senators, would retaliate by blocking other bills Roosevelt supported that were essential for the country’s survival: “If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can’t take that risk.”
  • FDR also has been accused of not doing enough to help the Jews during the Holocaust and World War 2.

Ninteenth, evangelist Billy Graham led a crusade in Jackson, Mississippi in 1952. Graham’s policy was clear regarding race—members of all races would be welcome at his events. Mississippi Democrat Governor Hugh White didn’t like the policy and asked Graham to schedule different services for white and black audiences. Graham refused, although he did, at the Jackson Crusade, allow segregated seating. Several months later, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Graham vehemently resisted the call for segregated seating. In Jackson, Graham proclaimed, “There is no scriptural basis for segregation. It may be there are places where such is desirable to both races, but certainly not in the church. The ground at the foot of the cross is level.…[I]t touches my heart when I see whites stand shoulder to shoulder with blacks at the cross.”


Billy Graham in 1966

Twentieth, In 1956, a document was drafted in the US Congress called “The Declaration of Constitutional Principles” or simply the “Southern Manifesto.” In it, 101 political leaders expressed their opposition to racial integration in public facilities and venues, including schools. Ninety-nine of the leaders were Democrats and two were Republicans. One signatory to the document was J. William Fulbright, Senator from Arkansas and eventual mentor to Bill Clinton. Fulbright has been described as a racist, a “notorious segregationist,” pro-communist, and anti-Semitic. Recently, “the famous Fulbright fellowship…[was] renamed…the “J. William Fulbright–Hillary Rodham Clinton Fellowship.”

Former Democrat Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright has been described as a racist, a “notorious segregationist,” pro-communist, and anti-Semitic. Recently, “the famous Fulbright fellowship…[was] renamed…the “J. William Fulbright–Hillary Rodham Clinton Fellowship.”

Twenty-first, Bruce Bartlett, author of Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past,” explains that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower repeated his call for civil rights legislation in his 1957 State of the Union address. Previously, the legislation had passed in the House but had died in the Senate because of opposition from Southern Democrats. Lyndon B. Johnson was the Senate’s Majority Leader. Opponents of the legislation were looking to him to oppose it, just as he had in the past. (While a congressman, Johnson had called President Harry Truman’s civil rights initiative “a farce and a sham—an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill…I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.”) Johnson, however, wanted to become president. Bartlett continues,

After dragging his feet on the civil rights bill throughout much of 1957, Johnson finally came to the conclusion that the tide had turned in favor of civil rights and he needed to be on the right side of the issue if he hoped to become president.…

At the same time, the Senate’s master tactician and principal opponent of the civil rights bill, Democrat Richard B. Russell of Georgia, saw the same handwriting on the wall but came to a different conclusion. He realized that the support was no longer there for an old-fashioned Democrat filibuster.…So Russell adopted a different strategy this time of trying to amend the civil rights bill so as to minimize its impact. Behind the scenes, Johnson went along with Russell’s strategy of not killing the civil rights bill, but trying to neuter it as much as possible.…

Eisenhower was disappointed at not being able to produce a better piece of legislation. “I wanted a much stronger civil rights bill in ’57 than I could get,” he later lamented. “But the Democrats…wouldn’t let me have it.”

Johnson explained his approach this way:

senator_lyndon_johnsonThese Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.

Forgive the language—I’m just reporting what was said. On Air Force One, President Johnson was speaking to two like-minded governors and explaining some of the benefits Democrats would reap from his “Great Society” programs. Johnson said, “I’ll have those niggars voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

Twenty-second, In 1958, Billy Graham planned a rally on the steps of South Carolina’s capitol building. South Carolina Democrat Governor George Timmerman objected and successfully nixed the plans to hold the rally at the capitol. Graham was viewed as an “integrationist.” In fact, the KKK had listed Billy Graham as one of their targets in 1957. Governor Timmerman said, “There is, in fact, no reason to select the State House unless the real purpose is to capitalize, for propaganda, purposes, on the appearance of a widely known advocate of desegregation. It is Graham’s endorsement of desegregation that has brought him front-page acclaim.” Brig. General Christian H. Clark helped make Fort Jackson, which was a federal venue, available, and the rally was held there. As many as 60,000 people of different races attended, and the meeting was “described at the time as the largest turnout for a non-sporting event in state history.”

Twenty-third, in 1962 George C. Wallace, then a Democrat, was elected Governor of Alabama. He was inaugurated on January 14, 1963.

In his inauguration speech he proclaimed, “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

Twenty-fourth, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivering his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC on August 28, 1963
The top image is a photo of the crowd attending that event.

Twenty-fifth, Contrary to the assumptions of many today, Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  • In the House of Representatives, 80 percent of Republicans voted for the measure, while just 61 percent of Democrats voted for it.
  • In the Senate, Republicans were at last able to end a filibuster brought by Democrats. Eighty-two percent of Republicans supported cloture along with just 66 percent of Democrats.
  • In the vote on the legislation itself, 82 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Democrats gave their support. 

Twenty-sixth, Surprise, surprise! The Voting Rights Act of 1965 also became law largely because of Republicans.

  • Ninety-four percent of Republicans in the US Senate supported the Voting Rights Act, contrasted to 73 percent of Democrats.
  • When the Senate voted on the final version of the bill from the House, one lone Republican Senator opposed it, along with 17 Democrats.
  • In the House of Representatives, 82 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats voted for the legislation. 

everettdirksenRepublican Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen was a co-author of the legislation, and he strategized against opposition brought by Democrats. He said, “There has to be a real remedy. There has to be something durable and worthwhile. This cannot go on forever, this denial of the right to vote by ruses and devices and tests and whatever the mind can contrive to either make it very difficult or to make it impossible to vote.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law largely because of the work of Republicans.

Twenty-seventh, Lester Maddox was elected governor of Georgia in 1970 and was a Democrat at the time. An ardent segregationist, Maddox once said, “That’s part of American greatness, is discrimination. Yes, sir. Inequality, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity.”

bill_clinton_1978Twenty-eighth, In 1989, the NAACP sued three state officials, including then-Arkansas Democrat Governor Bill Clinton, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal statute. According to the Arkansas Gazette on December 6, 1989, “Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks.” The paper also said that “the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated.” The court ordered the redrawing of electoral districts to enhance the strength of votes from the black community.

Writing at, Deroy Murdock reports,

During his 12-year tenure, Governor Clinton never approved a state civil-rights law. However, he did issue birthday proclamations honoring Confederate leaders Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. He also signed Act 116 in 1987. That statute reconfirmed that the star directly above the word “Arkansas” in the state flag “is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.” Arkansas also observed Confederate Flag Day every year Clinton served. The governor’s silence was consent.



Also, examples of merchandise from Bill Clinton’s presidential run in 1992 have appeared that reflect Confederate sympathies.


Twenty-ninth, As a presidential candidate in 2000, Al Gore declared to the NAACP that his father was voted out of office after voting for the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The Senior Gore, however, opposed the Civil Rights Act and voted against it. In 1970, Gore, Sr. lost to Republican Bill Brock in a contest that centered on the Supreme Court, the war in Viet Nam, and prayer in public schools. Also in 2000, Gore claimed to have worked to increase diversity among those who followed him every day, including the Secret Service; but blacks in the Secret Service were suing Gore because they “were not being promoted to positions guarding the Vice-President.”

robert_byrd_official_portraitThirtieth, in a National Review article titled “Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History,” Mona Charen writes, “As recently as 2010, the Senate’s president pro tempore was former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.).” Go here to learn more about this KKK role.

During World War 2, Byrd wrote, “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” Go here to view a brief timeline of Byrd’s actions with regard to race relations.

Thirty-first, Barak Obama has increased racial tensions in this country since becoming president. One glaring manifestation of this truth that if you’re opposed to his policies, you’re accused of racism. Check out articles herehere, here, and here.

This president is the most racist president there has ever been in America. He is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans.
Ben Stein, speaking of President Barak Obama—

070731-N-0696M-156 WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 31, 2007) - As Senator Hillary Clinton listens, Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Mullen responds to a question during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee for appointment to Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at Hart Senate Office Building, July 31, 2007. Mullen was joined by Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. James E. Cartwright for his appointment to Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley (RELEASED)

Thirty-second and finally, Hillary Clinton apparently has garnered support from people willing to embrace the Confederate flag (also go here). While a candidate can’t control who supports him or her, the candidate can disavow attitudes of prominent supporters with whom he or she disagrees.

Hillary Clinton does not have the best track record with regard to race, especially when one considers her husband’s policies when he was Governor of Arkansas. Yet she has been quick to accuse Republicans of racism.


In fact, accusations of racism among Republicans has become a Democrat mantra.

You see, Democrats don’t just rewrite the past, they misrepresent the present, too.

Part 9 is available here.


Copyright © 2016 B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

The Importance of Getting History Right, Part 7

Forgetting Flaws and Fabricating Fantasies: The Democrats’ Revisionist History

I am not a fan of the Republican Party. I’m not here as a Republican shill. I don’t like them. I’m not a member of the Republican Party. They’ve lost their way. But let’s get history right.
—Glenn Beck1

A condensed version of this article is available here.
Part 6 is available here.

Is a college education everything it’s cracked up to be? Increasingly, conservatives are compelled to say no. While education can be defined concisely as a quest for truth, college students in the United States today, generally speaking, aren’t acquiring truth. They’re being indoctrinated, and not by accident.


Woodrow Wilson in 1902, President of Princeton University

Thomas Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton University (1902-1910) before becoming governor of New Jersey (1911-1913) and president of the United States (1913-1921).2 Wilson has been called a “progressive reformer”3 and even the “Godfather of Liberalism.”4 Ironically, it was in a speech about the Young Men’s Christian Association that Wilson made this significant statement: “I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.”5

Dennis Prager indicates that what Wilson said hasn’t been forgotten. On the contrary, it is being consistently applied in higher education today.

In 1996, in his commencement address to the graduating seniors of Dartmouth College, the then president of the college, James O. Freedman, cited the Wilson quote favorably. And in 2002, in another commencement address, Freedman said that “the purpose of a college education is to question your father’s values.”6

The context for Prager’s insights is an article titled “What Kids Now Learn in College.”7 It can’t be good, given the admission made by Freedman.8 The truth is that warning signs about higher education are everywhere for Christian parents and others who hold to traditional moral values, and they have been for some time.9 Hopefully in the near future, I will be able to write an article about some of these signs for Word Foundations readers. For now, I want to highlight five of the 27 items Prager says parents are paying $20,000 to $50,000 annually per child for their children to learn.

  • The South votes Republican because it is still racist, and the Republican Party caters to racists.
  • Whites can be racist; non-whites cannot be (because whites have power, and the powerless cannot be racist).
  • Blacks are victims of whites.
  • The American Founders were sexist, racist slaveholders whose primary concern was preserving their wealthy status.
  • The Constitution says what progressives think it should say.10

Appropriately, Dennis Prager concludes his article with this piercing question: “Still want to go into years of debt?” Keep in mind we’ve listed here only a few of Prager’s observations!11 Also keep in mind that it isn’t just institutions of higher education indoctrinating children, but the broader culture as well.

For the past several weeks, we’ve been discussing the importance of having an accurate understanding of history in general, and of black history in particular.12 Last week we began making a list13 of historical truths that surprise and enlighten modern readers because they hardly ever are highlighted. Why do we only hear select portions of black history? The simple answer is that progressives and Democrats have revised history to their own advantage.

No longer will we ignore previously hidden historical truths or the lessons they teach! In Part 6 we had the privilege of discovering the contributions blacks made to the cause of liberty in the American Revolution and during Reconstruction.14 Our journey was prompted by these, the first two items on our list.

Historical Truths Democrats Have Successfully Concealed

First, many black soldiers fought alongside whites in the Revolutionary War.15 Their contributions to the cause of liberty and American independence truly were incalculable.

Second, all of the first black Members of Congress were Republicans.16 They courageously faced threats and fierce opposition from those who never wanted to free the slaves in the first place, many of whom were Democrats.

We now will add nine more items to the list. As you read, please remember that our primary goal isn’t to be pro-Republican or even anti-Democrat, but to learn the truth about history. We simply want to ask, “What happened?” Are you ready?

Third, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution officially ended slavery in the United States. The US Senate passed it on April 8, 1864, and the US House of Representatives passed it on January 31, 1865.17 One hundred eighteen out of 118 Republicans—100 percent—voted for the amendment, but a mere 19 of 82 Democrats—23 percent—voted for it.18,19 “Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: ‘No.’”20

Fourth, the 14th Amendment specifies that all Americans will have equal protection under the law. “In 1866 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved” the measure. Every single Democrat in Congress voted no.21

Fifth, the 15th Amendment guarantees the right to vote for every American, regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”22 At the time Congress passed it, there were a total of 56 congressional Democrats, and not one of them voted for it.23 The 15th Amendment would go on to be ratified on February 3, 1870.24

Sixth, the Democrat platform of 1860 “continued to campaign for immigrant rights and slavery. The 1864 platform denounced the Civil War and called for negotiations with the Confederacy. The 1868 platform denounced ‘negro supremacy’.”25  Blacks haven’t been the exclusive targets of Democrat racism, however. Democrat Party platforms from the last thirty years of the 19th century, as well as the 1900 platform, show that Asians, the Chinese, “the Mongolian race,” “servile races,” and the Japanese have been targets as well.26 During this time, Democrats didn’t abandon racism toward blacks, either; their 1892 platform decried blacks’ voting rights. 27

Seventh, Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan (KKK):

The KKK was founded in Tennessee immediately after the end of the Civil War as a sort of social club for former Confederate Soldiers whose influence quickly spread through the decimated Southern states.  As Columbia professor Eric Foner wrote in his A Short History of Reconstruction, in its early days, the group was loosely bound by one main principle: launching a reign of terror against Republican leaders black and white.

Racism was, of course, a guiding principle, but not quite as guiding as the hatred of the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the Yankees who[m] early Klansmen believed destroyed their homeland through what they termed a “war of northern aggression.”28

According to Larry Elder,

In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS’ “American Experience” notes, “In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865.” Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.29


“A political cartoon depicting the KKK and the Democratic Party as continuations of the Confederacy”

Eighth, the election of 1876 sent Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to the White House, but only after a compromise was reached that gave him just enough electoral votes to be elected.



The results of the election were mired in controversy, although Democrat Samuel J. Tiden had, without question, won the popular vote.30 According to the website Digital History,



At a meeting in February 1877 at Washington, D.C.’s Wormley Hotel (which was operated by an African American), Democratic leaders accepted Hayes’s election in exchange for Republican promises to withdraw federal troops from the South, provide federal funding for internal improvements in the South, and name a prominent Southerner to the president’s cabinet. When the federal troops were withdrawn, the Republican governments in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina collapsed, bringing Reconstruction to a formal end.

Under the so-called Compromise of 1877, the national government would no longer intervene in southern affairs. This would permit the imposition of racial segregation and the disfranchisement of black voters.31

When the federal troops were withdrawn from the South, the Republican governments in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina collapsed, bringing Reconstruction to a formal end. Under the so-called Compromise of 1877, the national government would no longer intervene in southern affairs. This would permit the imposition of racial segregation and the disfranchisement of black voters.
Digital History


the presidential election of 1880 is notable for several reasons. First, it was the first presidential election that took place following Reconstruction. Second, the Democrats nominated Winfield Scott Hancock, who had been a Union general during the Civil War. He’d emerged a war hero, but significantly, “Hancock was a Democrat who fought to preserve the Union but not to end slavery or see Black Americans protected by the United States Constitution.”32



It was a very shrewd move on the part of Democrats. Recognizing this, Republicans distributed a handbill that highlighted the stark differences between the two parties—and that effectively laid out reasons not to vote for the Democratic ticket.


For a larger copy of this image, click here.

While today some of the language used in the flyer would be considered inappropriate, the points it conveyed resonated with the public.33 In the end, the popular vote was very close, even though the vote in the electoral college was not.34 James A. Garfield was elected.



Tenth, Democrats in the South after the Civil War no longer had the institution of slavery to bring blacks down, so they found other ways. “Jim Crow laws” were widely used for this purpose. Jim Crow was a character created by Thomas “Daddy” Rice. In the 1830s, Rice wrote and performed for audiences in blackface and spoke in a black dialect.35 The name Jim Crow caught on, and by the late 1830s it had become a negative term people used to refer to a black man.36  We’ve noted that during Reconstruction (a period lasting from 1855-1877), federal laws were passed that afforded certain basic civil rights to blacks. However, in

the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting. Extensive voter fraud was also used. Gubernatorial elections were close and had been disputed in Louisiana for years, with increasing violence against blacks during campaigns from 1868 onward. In 1877, a national Democratic Party compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election [an event we highlighted in our eighth point on this list] resulted in the government’s withdrawing the last of the federal troops from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state. These Southern, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, officially segregating black people from the white population.37


—Not Just in the South—
Democrats running for office in Ohio in 1867
Go here for more information.

Go here and here to read some examples of Jim Crow laws and to learn about the segregation and oppression they engendered. Jim Crow laws were enacted not just during the 19th century in the years following the Civil War, but also well into the 20th century.

Eleventh, the Ku Klux Klan continued its campaign of intimidation, and no tactic in the KKK’s arsenal was more effective than lynching.38 You can understand why. If you can stomach it, take a few moments to watch this presentation on lynching.39 Among other things, it’s important for us to know these facts.

• Between 1886 and 1968 there were 4,743 lynchings recorded.
• There were 3,446 blacks lynched out of the 4,743 lynchings. That calls [counts] for 72.7% of [the] lynchings.
• Whites accounted for the extra 27.3%.40 

These are just the lynchings that were recorded! In 1922, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill authored by Missouri Republican Representative Leonidas Dyer that would have made lynching a federal crime. President Warren G. Harding supported the bill, but senate Democrats from southern states filibustered it, thereby blocking its passage.41 They filibustered it again in 1923 and 1924.42

In 1922, 1923, and 1924, Senate Democrats from southern states filibustered a bill authored by Missouri Republican Representative Leonidas Dyer that would have made lynching a federal crime.


This last item took place in the early 20th century, and there’s a good bit more to cover. We’ll complete this list next week by highlighting several 20th-century events, personalities, and attitudes. This will by no means become an exhaustive list, but I believe it will become—and already is—an informative one.

Elbert Lee Guillory is a former Louisiana state senator. In 2013, Guillory switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. As you hear him explain why, you’ll be reminded of the historical discoveries we’ve made this week and get a foretaste of next week’s discussion.

Before concluding, I feel compelled to underscore the following three items.

First, let’s reiterate. We’re diving into history and trying to learn from what it teaches us. We’re simply trying to uncover what happened. We do this because so many of these important historical facts never are discussed. They should not remain hidden in America’s past, because they hold too many lessons for Americans today.

Second, while this written presentation, in a sense, airs Democrats’ “dirty laundry” with regard to racism, we would never try to make the case that Republicans have a perfect record in this area. Yet their record doesn’t have to be perfect to be a far cry from what the Democrats claim.

Third, in recent years Republicans have developed an unfortunate and disappointing track record of campaigning on conservative principles and then, once elected, acquiescing to Democrat pressure without a fight. Voters who put these Republicans in office are rightly angry over this. This is relevant to our discussion because it is clear to many that Democrats still use intimidation and misinformation as vicious weapons. They have enthusiastic allies in the mainstream media, as well. Republicans need to stand up to Democrats unwaveringly and fight for the principles they ran on when they campaigned for office—the way they used to do when they fought against slavery and fought for equality for all Americans! Can you imagine Republicans of the era of history we’ve been highlighting calling their party a “big tent” that welcomes pro-slavery adherents into its ranks? Can you imagine their saying, “Well, I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I believe every person has a right to choose whether or not to become a slaveowner”? This sounds ridiculous because it is! Republicans, rediscover your roots and stand once again on solid ground! Your constituents long for you to do these things!

Can you imagine Republicans of the era of history we’ve been highlighting calling their party a “big tent” that welcomes pro-slavery adherents into its ranks? Can you imagine their saying, “Well, I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I believe every person has a right to choose whether or not to become a slaveowner”?


Churchill_portrait_NYP_45063Until next week, remember this insightful quote from Winston S. Churchill: “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”43 Let’s make sure we look back, and that we do so with clarity of vision.

These posts are offered, hopefully, as means to these ends.

Part 8 is available here.


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.

Top image: The First Vote: African Americans vote for the first time, as depicted in 1867 on the cover of Harper’s magazine. Engraving by Alfred R. Waud.


























25 Minor grammatical changes were made for clarity.













38David Barton, Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White, (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 2004), 115.