Joe Biden’s claim we are witnessing a ”21st Century Jim Crow assault” is deranged theater … bizarre even by Minstrel Show standards.

July 19, 2021 By The Crusader

The term Jim Crow originates back to 1828 when a white New York comedian, Thomas Dartmouth “Daddy” Rice, performed in blackface his song and dance that he called Jump Jim Crow. Rice’s performance was supposedly inspired by the song and dance of a physically disabled black man he had seen in Cincinnati, Ohio, named Jim Cuff or Jim Crow. The song became a huge hit in the 19th century and Thomas Rice performed it across the country as “Daddy Jim Crow,” a caricature of a shabbily dressed African American man.

Eventually the term Jim Crow was applied to the body of racial segregation laws and practices throughout the nation. As early as 1837 the term Jim Crow was used to describe racial segregation in Vermont. Most of these laws, however, emerged in the southern and border states of the United States between the years 1876 and 1965. They mandated the separation of the races and separate and unequal status for African Americans.

(Per Blackpast[dot]org)

Who’s playing the part of Jim Crow now Mr. Biden?

Hyperbole in political circles is not an unknown rhetorical device, but President Biden’s ludicrous reference to Jim Crow in comparing state legislatures’ efforts to provide the “right to vote” a fair and secure framework is not even in our solar system as far as sanity is concerned. He’s merely confirming the opinion of many that his puppet strings are firmly attached to a radical Leftist ideology which is hell-bent on securing Democrat control of American politics for all time. Talk about a modern rendering of the original “Minstrel Show” his comments are 21st Century Democrat theater.

Abolitionist Frederick Douglass decried blackface performers as …

…the filthy scum of white society, who have stolen from us a complexion denied to them by nature, in which to make money, and pander to the corrupt taste of their white fellow citizens.

Do we dare wonder if Douglass would have a similar sentiment of Joe Biden theatrics?

Urban Dictionary: Mother Jones –– a website dedicated to Nazi-watchdogs, basement dwellers, and millennial journalists equivalent to MSNBC, but on steroids. Fine communist propaganda!

Mother Jones About page: Mother Jones is a reader-supported investigative news organization recently honored as Magazine of the Year by our peers in the industry. Our nonprofit newsroom goes deep on the biggest stories of the moment, from politics and criminal and racial justice to education, climate change, and food/agriculture.

O.K., now that you’ve had a good laugh, consider this leftist rag’s most recent cover story, “Facing down Jim Crow Again.” Feel free to read the article of which 95% is a fairly decent historical record of how Jim Crow laws actually suppressed the vote for Black Americans. The remaining 5% is an egregious journalistic impropriety which can summed up by merely concluding, “See there … it’s happening all over again.”

This magazine isn’t worth the time of day.

In Michael Barone’s recent piece, “Joe Biden’s Big Lie,” he draws attention to the “Jim Crow” nonsense…

Did you know that Black people are not going to be allowed to vote in America anymore? At least in states controlled by Republicans. Sounds a bit unlikely, but that’s a conclusion you might have come to if you took seriously what President Joe Biden said in Philadelphia on Tuesday.

Biden decried Republicans’ proposed changes in election laws as “the 21st century Jim Crow assault” that tries “to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy.”

This is, to be polite, unhinged nonsense.

Biden is old enough to remember what real Jim Crow voter suppression was like. It meant zero Black people voting in places like Mississippi. It meant threats and violence against Black people who tried to register to vote. It meant unfair application of literacy tests and poll taxes.

Requiring voters to present photo ID is nothing like this. Large majorities think it’s reasonable. Measures such as reducing the number of pre-election voting days in Georgia (there are zero in Biden’s Delaware) or ending pandemic-inspired measures like drive-through voting in Harris County, Texas, are not the same. Not even close.

Jim Crow laws had definitive characteristics –– using this era of racist segregation as a broad brush of criticism exposes not merely a gross ignorance of history, but a nefarious attempt to paint millions of Americans as small-minded bigots and “enemies of the state.”

As explained briefly at USC’s Gould School of Law, “Jim Crow” was…

…a derogatory slang term for a black man, making it a fitting name for the laws that were in force in the South and some border states from 1877 through the mid-1960s. These laws were in place to maintain racial segregation after the Civil War ended. Initially, Jim Crow laws required the separation of white people and people of color on all forms of public transportation and in schools. Eventually, the segregation expanded to include interaction and commingling in schools, cemeteries, parks, theaters, and restaurants.

Jim Crow laws began in 1877 when the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn’t prohibit segregation on common modes of transportation such as trains, streetcars, and riverboats. Later, in 1883, the Supreme Court overturned specific parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, confirming the “separate but equal” concept. During the ensuing years, states passed laws instituting requirements for separate and equal accommodations for blacks on public modes of transportation.

After World War II ended, America’s segregation policies were put under the microscope. President Harry Truman created a committee to investigate the issue, and in 1948, Truman issued an executive order that eliminated racial discrimination in all of the military branches. The tide began to turn noticeably toward equality in the following years with a series of Supreme Court victories for civil rights. Black people finally began breaking down racial barriers and challenging segregation with success, and the pinnacle of this effort was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which abolished the Jim Crow laws. This law outlawed discrimination in any type of public accommodation. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act followed, which protected black people’s right to vote by barring discriminatory voting laws.

Jim Crow was defeated in 1964

The forgotten Republican of the 1964 Civil Rights Act … Everett McKinley Dirksen.

On June 10, 1964, Republican Leader Everett Dirksen delivered the most significant speech in his career in support of civil rights legislation. Dirksen gained key votes for cloture from Republicans with a powerful speech calling racial integration “an idea whose time has come.”

After 534 hours, 1 minute, and 51 seconds, the longest filibuster in the history of the United States was broken, Everett McKinley Dirksen, then Senate Minority Leader, provided the votes that made cloture, the procedure for ending debate, possible. It was his greatest moment as a legislator.

The abolition of slavery in 1865 was merely the first act in the continuing drama to ensure equal rights for all Americans. The quest for civil rights legislation in the century following the Civil War was a long road, hampered by decades of struggle, neglect, and delay. Entrenched racial attitudes and hallowed legislative procedures left little hope for African-Americans to share in the American dream. It was not until 1964, that many diverse and powerful forces combined with the personal courage of the U.S. Senate minority leader and senior senator from Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen, to pass the most meaningful civil rights legislation in nearly a century: the Civil Rights Act of 1964.From the beginning, before the bill was even introduced in the House, Kennedy, and then Johnson, realized the success or failure of the bill rested upon the shoulders of one man, Everett McKinley Dirksen. Ironically, two Democratic presidents relied upon a Republican senator because they could not count on the support of Southern Democratic senators, most of whom supported segregation. Dirksen could deliver enough Republican votes to invoke cloture, thus limiting debate and vastly improving the chances of the bill’s passage. In fact, if a senator was willing to vote for cloture he would also, in all probability, vote for the civil rights bill.

Senator Richard Russell (D-Ga.) began a filibuster against the bill on March 9, 1964, just days after it was introduced in the Senate. During the weeks immediately following introduction of the bill, Dirksen formed a small working group to fashion a Senate substitute for the House bill.

The gallery was packed on June 10, 1964, as all one hundred senators were present for the climactic moment of the longest filibuster in Senate history. Late in the morning Everett Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. In poor health, drained from working fourteen-, fifteen-, and sixteen-hour days, his words came quietly. “There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, ‘Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.’ The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.” After Dirksen spoke for fifteen minutes the motion for a roll call vote for cloture was heard. As each name was read, members of the press and spectators in the gallery kept tally. At 11:15 a.m., Senator John Williams of Delaware replied “aye” to the question. It was the sixty-seventh vote; cloture had passed, opening the way for the Civil Rights bill to be passed. After successfully defeating the eighty-three-day filibuster, Dirksen, when asked how he had become a crusader in this cause, replied, “I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.”

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the “Southern Bloc” of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone Republican John Tower of Texas, led by Richard Russell, launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act.

Voter “Suppression” or vote “Integrity?”

What exactly are the “Voting Integrity” elements of the current raft of legislation occurring across the country?

If you ask the Democrats, it’s those evil Republican lawmakers who are introducing “Voter Suppression Bills” in a collective effort to lock people out of the process and suppress the vote in future elections, primarily in communities of color. Virtually everything in politics is subject to a critical view … from Supreme Court decisions, to audits, to immigration laws, to judicial lack of diversity, to election boards, to the climate crisis, to the rights of criminals, to social media platforms, to LBBTQIA+ rights, to voting districts –– one would think this country is no further along on the issue of civil rights than the day after the first boatload of slaves landed in the Americas.

To summarize the Left’s basic premise, this quote from Stacey Abrams, the former Democratic minority leader of the Georgia state House crystalizes their position, these bills…

…are responding to the big lie, to the disproven, discredited and, sadly, the blood-spilled lie of voter fraud.

Was the opportunity for “fraud” favoring Democrat candidates baked into the cake in 2020? Explain the reasoning for changing election rules right in the middle of the game. These states made questionable decisions that impacted the integrity of the election process no less than the flashing “TILT” that shows up when you nudge a pinball machine too hard.

Let’s take a look at this piece from The Heritage Foundation, “8 States in Voting Lawsuits With Election Day Less Than a Week Away.

With Election Day just days away, and early voting already underway in many states, the election-related lawsuits have been piling up, and court decisions (and appeals) have been coming out at a dizzying rate.

Some are still trying to change the rules in the middle of the election that would make it easier to commit fraud and to manipulate election results—not unlike a college football coach persuading the referees to change the rules in the middle of a bowl game to make sure his team can win.

Challenges to election procedures in South Carolina (witness requirements for absentee ballots); Ohio and Texas (ballot drop-box locations); and Florida (registration deadline)—to name just a few—have all made the news as they make their way through the federal courts.

But wait, there’s more!

Absentee-ballot deadlines have been a major contention—especially when federal judges extend them well beyond Election Day. That raises many serious issues about the integrity of the election process and the possibility of ballots being voted and collected (or altered) by so-called “vote harvesters” after Election Day to shift reported preliminary results.

Here are eight such cases…

DEMOCRATS CHANGED VOTING LAWS … Let that sink in. Definitely worth the read at Heritage.

In 2020, the fundamental nature of our elections was altered by various state officials and lower courts. Some of these efforts were documented at the time by the American Center for Law and Justice.

One of the specific voting procedures that Liberals seemed fixated on was the issue of “mail-in ballots.” The emergency health concerns brought on by COVID 19 was a dream come true for advocates of automatically mailing ballots to all registered voters. One would have thought that if Ed McMahon were still with us, he’d have been chosen to use the mailing database of Publishers Clearing House. Thankfully, Nevada’s Secretary of State addressed this very issue in response to the criticism that she did not automatically mail all registered voters a ballot for the general election.

The progressive activists claim I am engaging in voter suppression by not authorizing the automatic mailing of a ballot to all registered voters for the 2020 general election, but like most partisans, they assume bad faith on the part of their political opponents and ignore legitimate reasons for why somebody might not agree with them. The left throws out the specter of voter suppression often, much like the boy who cried wolf, but voter suppression claims ought not to be believed without evidence.

What my opponents fail to understand is the all-mail primary election was an emergency measure, and at that time we were truly in an emergency situation with a lot of unknowns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Poll workers and polling places were unavailable. However, we are no longer in an emergency situation, and those who believe we are need to look up the definition of emergency. We have been living with the pandemic for more than four months, and all estimates are that COVID-19 will continue to affect daily life for a long time. We have all had to make significant adjustments to how we live, interact with others, and conduct business. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for me to rely on a statute that was written for emergency situations to call for another all-mail election.

During the 2020 election cycle, Wisconsin was “Ground Zero” for Democrats’ effort to drive voter integrity right off the cliff. As they attempted to jettison the rule of law concerning elections, they were laying the groundwork to “push to federalize and centralize elections to create a more direct democracy — even though such efforts are antithetical to US governance,” as noted by David Harsanyi in his April 9, 2020 article in the New York Post.

David observes in, “Democrats trying to use coronavirus crisis to rewrite all US election law” ––

If the coronavirus remains a hazard in November, Democrats say the only solution to preserve the November election, is national voting by mail. AP

I’m sorry, but you have no constitutional “right” to vote by mail. You have no constitutional “right” to vote six days after an election is over. Nor do you have any “right” to censor information related to an election. Not even during a pandemic.

This week, the US Supreme Court ruled that a lower federal court couldn’t overwrite Wisconsin’s election laws and force the state to accept ballots without any postmark deadline nearly a week after the election. Likewise, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Gov. Tony Evers didn’t have the authority to arbitrarily suspend in-person voting.

If these dictates had been allowed to stand, they would have created destructive precedents, taking elections out of the hands of local legislatures. If we discard legal norms every time there’s a crisis, we no longer have a nation of laws.

Voter ID’s = Voter Suppression?

At the center of the Democrats’ target as they aim at “Voter Suppression” is the issue of Voter ID. As the Brennan Center notes, “Over the last 20 years, states have put barriers in front of the ballot box — imposing strict voter ID laws, cutting voting times, restricting registration, and purging voter rolls.” The reader will note the use of the words “strict voter ID laws” as if that makes the requirement so much more egregious than mere “regular” ID laws. The fact that voters overwhelmingly favor this aspect of voting security is apparently lost among the cries of racist voter suppression.

This report from Western Journal reveals a poll showing the support for voter ID.

Majorities of whites (74%), blacks (69%) and other minorities (82%) say voters should be required to show photo identification before being allowed to vote,” Rasmussen Reports found among 1,000 likely voters polled throughout the U.S.

As Liberals are often predisposed to use European countries to attempt disparaging just about anything happening in the U.S., they may find interest in these statistics on foreign voting laws

There are 47 countries on the continent of Europe. Guess how many of those countries have voter ID laws. Give up? Forty six have voter ID laws. Are they all racists too?

Furthermore 74% of the countries in Europe have a complete ban on absentee voting because it makes it too easy to cheat.

So, why is it that Europe can see the danger but American liberals can’t?

Actually, the liberals know exactly that it leads to wholesale cheating the same way that eliminating voter ID does. That’s exactly why they want it.

Why is it that voter ID is such a flash point with Democrats? Could it be that it’s just another scene from the “Minstrel Show” that Joe Biden has been a part of for years? Consider this article from the Federalist, “Democrats’ Crusade Against Voter ID Is Barely Masked Racism“…

Although the Supreme Court correctly ruled in 2016 that the Justice Department’s supervision of states that had racist rules more than 50 years ago was no longer necessary, left-wing ideologues are determined to pretend that the battles of the previous century still need to be refought.

Mainstream Democrats were complicit in this deception, since they believed panic among African Americans about voting rights was essential to their party loyalty. When Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the 2012 Republican presidential nominee would “put you all back in chains,” that offensive piece of incitement was treated as typical of his hyperbolic style. It actually betrayed the mindset of Democrats eager to pretend that the epic struggles about civil rights that had concluded a half-century earlier were still being fought, with only their party standing between blacks and slavery.

Thus, Democrats’ crusade against voter ID laws cannot be understood except as a cynical attempt to revive black fears and brand Republicans as racists even when evidence for their accusations is sorely lacking.

There’s nothing racist about a procedure that can help prevent people who aren’t citizens or aren’t legally registered from committing fraud. What is racist is the notion that African-American and Hispanic voters who don’t have an ID are incapable of getting one.

Now that opinion polls and major outlets have exposed public support for voter ID, Democrats have quickly changed course and claim the exact opposite. Enter stage Left, Stacey Abrams…

“That’s one of the fallacies of Republican talking points that have been deeply disturbing. No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting.”

Insert laugh track here.

Even James Clyburn joined the show saying that he “absolutely” could support a proposed national voter ID requirement despite previously saying such laws were a form of voter suppression.

And how could we leave out Georgia’s newly minted Senator, the Reverend Ralph Warnock? Perhaps the good Reverend should be reminded of the Biblical admonition against lying, Proverbs 14:25, “A truthful witness saves lives, But he who utters lies is treacherous.”

As reported in this Washington Times article, “Raphael Warnock says he ‘never opposed’ voter ID laws but once called them ‘discriminatory’…

Just two years ago, Mr. Warnock, then chairman of the voter-registration group New Georgia Project wrote an op-ed in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he accused state lawmakers of usurping voting rights with the ID law.

“More than a decade ago, Republican legislators in the state of Georgia, ironically the home state of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., led the way in turning the clock back on voting rights by passing unnecessary and discriminatory voter ID laws,” wrote Mr. Warnock, a Democrat. “As shocking as it is, this is just the latest chapter in an old story and, of late, a growing trend in America. Regardless of political party, we should all see it for what it is — an assault on the soul of our democracy, the sacred trust we have with one another as an American people.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Warnock did not respond when asked to reconcile his statement in favor of voter ID with his support for the bill and his past statements.

It’s difficult to keep your balance when the rug is jerked right out from under you.

“Voter Integrity” isn’t about tossing out the rules.

If, as President Joe Biden has said, voting is a “Sacred Right,” then it would certainly be important to insure that the system itself is secure and protected from interference of any kind. The fact that elections have obviously been won or lost by narrow margins means that efforts to ensure voting is done honestly and fairly should be paramount for the American electorate. The focus on cybersecurity is also an issue that should be vigorously studied to prevent bad actors from accessing the electronic infrastructure of the voting process.

Without electoral integrity, U.S. leaders and election officials lack accountability to the public, making confidence in our elections weak and thus diminishing its legitimacy. Liberals are labeling every effort to secure our elections with cries of “Voter Suppression.” When President Joe Biden said, “It is Jim Crow on steroids what they’re doing in Georgia,” he was either being completely ignorant of post-civil war segregation or was telling a brazen falsehood to craft a narrative for political gain and knows the media would never call him on it.

“Jim Crow on Steroids” –– Gabe Kaminsky at the Federalist takes the President behind the woodshed on that one.

The president continues to float “Jim Crow” around, dangling it before seething and corrupt media, but the comparison doesn’t stand.

The bad-faith comparisons Biden is making are so perverse. Apparently, weekend voting, asking people to provide a driver’s license on an absentee ballot, and attempting to secure drop boxes are all “Jim Crow.” Not only is the president misleading the American people when he says this, but he is disrespecting black Americans whose ancestors endured legitimate discrimination at the hands of actual oppressive laws.

Let’s remember who our president is. This is the same guy who said, “You ain’t black” if you weren’t going to vote for him. Biden may continue to preach that it’s “a time to heal,” but healing can’t include falsely maligning the opposing political party as racist segregationists.

In the end, what we really should be asking President Biden is, “Who’s really running the Minstrel Show now?”