Secret History of 20th Century

Pedophile Multimillionaire Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s Its Heritage Not Hate Real History... Who ? Women Who ? Ku Klux Klan Women Who ? Women Of All Race's Who ? Less Racist the South gets, the more Republican it becomes. Here’s what the former president of the United States had to say when he eulogized his mentor, an Arkansas senator: We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better. . . . In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes. So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the “Southern Manifesto” in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.) The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories’ opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and their commitment to segregation forever. Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 60+ days. Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let’s review (since they don’t teach this in schools): The percentage of House Democrats who supported the legislation? 61 percent. House Republicans? 80 percent. In the Senate, 69 percent of Democrats voted yes, compared with 82 percent of Republicans. (Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the NAACP, voted no because he thought it was unconstitutional.) When he was running for president in 2000, Vice President Al Gore told the NAACP that his father, Senator Al Gore Sr., had lost his Senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act. Uplifting story — except it’s false. Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act. He lost in 1970 in a race that focused on prayer in public schools, the Vietnam War, and the Supreme Court. Al Gore’s reframing of the relevant history is the story of the Democratic party in microcosm. The party’s history is pockmarked with racism and terror. The Democrats were the party of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, and that miserable terrorist excrescence, the Ku Klux Klan. Republicans were the party of Lincoln, Reconstruction, anti-lynching laws, and the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964. Were all Republicans models of rectitude on racial matters? Hardly. Were they a heck of a lot better than the Democrats? Without question. As recently as 2010, the Senate’s president pro tempore was former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.). Rather than acknowledge their sorry history, modern Democratic Say Its Heritage Not Hate Group Confederate and Democratic are and have rewritten it history now. September 17, 2021 - Congresswoman and Multimillionaire Ocasio-Cortez proudly co-sponsored and voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), which passed out of the House in July 2022. This bill would reject the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe and codify abortion rights into federal law. As a member of the Pro-Choice Caucus, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez also supports repealing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used to cover abortion care and, in so doing, denies healthcare to millions of low-income families. The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. the inconvenient truth about the real democratic party of real hate of we the people. Best of Multimillionaire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Statements Nothing is built in America these days. I just bought a TV and it said "Built In Antenna. I don't even know where the hell that is! Thank You to the State of New Yorkers for sending your finest and have a good day. This alleged quote was nothing more than an old joke. There was no record of any democrats ever saying it. When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind? The Republicans? Or, the Democrats? Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this answer is incorrect. Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination. The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynching's, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s. In contrast, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it entirely. This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both Republicans. The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. The commander in-chief during that war was the first black Republican President, Abraham Lincoln – the black man who freed the slaves. https://rumble.com/v29usdu-first-blackmoorish-presidential-candidate-and-later-becoming-president-abra.html Six days after the Confederate army surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln. Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed the presidency. But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed slaves into the South’s economic and social order. Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal Republican support. Real 13th Amendment is now missing... https://rumble.com/v2wzqn0-united-states-government-is-a-foreign-corporation-and-missing-13th-amendmen.html The Missing 13th Amendment "If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from US Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. (Titles Of Nobility) During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935. But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s right to vote. And how was all of this enforced? By terror much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest. As historian Eric Foner - himself a Democrat - notes: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House in February 18-1915 - the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.” ( I love this film "Alexandria Ocasio Cortez") and its funny that president Joe Biden Say ( My favorite film is The Klansman 1974) with Cast: Lee Marvin, Richard Burton, and O. J. Simpson dressed as a KKK man in white face as a Klansmen Killer- yes the greatest movie ever made. A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. In 1964, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Democrats held the longest filibuster in our nations history, 60+ days. All trying to prevent the passing of one thing. The Civil Rights Act." Democrats in Southern states led the protest, while Northern Democrats did not support it. The filibuster that almost killed the Civil Rights Act and At first, Dirksen opposed the House version of the bill because of certain passages, even though he was a long-time civil rights supporter. Humphrey, a Democrat, worked together with his Republican colleague to make the bill more acceptable to Republicans, while not weakening its powers. On June 10, 1964, Dirksen made a powerful speech that served to bring more Republicans onto his side in the fight. Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 60+ days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam. And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*ggers voting Democrat for two hundred years.” Biden: ‘If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black’ So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of its history oppressing. Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain, when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down. Massive government welfare state has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools. Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime and to band black gun owners from self-defenses. So, when you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party should come to mind? I’m Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, for Prager University. https://rumble.com/v2v2rfn-a-gun-owner-and-racist-whoopi-goldberg-wants-a-constitutional-amendment-etc.html Whoopi Goldberg born Karen (Caryn) Elaine Johnson; November 13, 1955) She-He-Trans Militant Democrat Whoopi Goldberg Revolutionary Actions Group of the New Klan called Armed Antifa who have AR-15 and AK-47 Assault Weapons and other radical racists are explored is an American comedienne, actress, democrat political activist, writer and television host. Posts Tagged ‘Ku Klux Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party and those who desired the restoration of white supremacy’ Obama betrays Dr. King’s dream President Obama has mocked Martin Luther King by policies and actions that judge people by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Junior’s “I Have A Dream Speech” was one of his more eloquent and moving speeches. His words have resonated with all Americans for the past five decades and will do so for many decades to come. Among his dreams was an America where his four children would be judged not “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” Of course, he was not just referring to his own children or to children at all. He meant to heighten the disgrace of racism by picturing innocent children as the victims. What he truly meant — as was made clear during the rest of his oration — was that his dream was that all people would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The man who campaigned on the theme that there was no “white America” or “black America” has used his powers as President to practice identity politics on a scale never before seen in America. Barack Obama has overtly chosen top officials on the basis of their skin color and not on the content of their character. Moreover, he has enacted policies that overtly favor “people of color” over “people of pallor” regardless of the merits of the individuals impacted by his programs. What were we expecting from a man whose moral compass was the race-baiting Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose views of white people and America would have repulsed Martin Luther King, Jr.? Has Barack Obama chosen the best people to run America — has he picked people in a color-blind way who would do best in helping all Americans or has he used a color filter to discriminate among candidates for office? He chose Eric Holder to be our Attorney General, despite a controversial background involving the granting of a pardon by Bill Clinton to the ex-husband of a wealthy donor. Holder became America’s first black Attorney General. The past three years have seen the Department of Justice tarnished by the Fast and Furious Scandal, incompetency involving whether to try terror suspect in civilian trials in New York City, the Department’s refusal to pursue a “lay-up” case involving violent voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, and the transformation of the Civil Rights Division into a battering ram against businesses and banks on behalf of minorities. Martin Luther King’s dream was not King Obama President Barack Obama takes office today on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for the second time as the first black president of the United States. If his election and re-election represent the fulfillment of Dr. King’s vision in a superficial sense, Obama’s goal of “fundamentally transforming” the United States into a government-centered social democracy represents one of the deeply challenging aspects of Dr. King’s legacy. The great tragedy of civil rights movements–not just in the United States, but across the world–is that the end of discrimination has been closely tied to the start of state-directed redistribution. The result is that many of those who were formerly held down by the state believe that their success depends on state intervention. And the terrible irony is that the state’s role ensures that many who begin their freedom on the bottom rung, stay there. In the U.S., the end of Jim Crow in the South was swiftly followed by the Great Society, which created perverse incentives for individuals not to work and families to split apart. In South Africa, affirmative action actually came before the end of apartheid, because the white minority government wanted to create a small black middle class as a buffer against political change. “Black economic empowerment” after apartheid enriched a few wealthy, politically-connected blacks while the many of the poorest became poorer. And yet in both countries, the intended beneficiaries of these policies, who are in fact the victims of these policies, continue to elect politicians who promise to continue them. These voters do so partly out of deeply-internalized fear that they cannot compete on a level playing field, and partly out of suspicion that the old privileged castes, freed from the obligation to redistribute wealth and opportunity, would simply hoard them again. The Racist truth about Democrats “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror’ against Republican leaders black and white. Those assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who had served in constitutional conventions. In Louisiana, even moderate ex-Governor Hahn by October complained that ‘murder and intimidation are the order of the day in this state.’ White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up Republican meetings. In St. Landry Parrish, a mob invaded the plantations, killing as many as 200 blacks. Commanding Gen. Lovell Rousseau, a friend and supporter of the president, refused to take action, urging blacks to stay away from the polls for self-protection and exulting that the ‘ascendance of the negro in this state is approaching its end.’” https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/46433NCJRS.pdf You may recall that when MSNBC was commemorating the 50th anniversary of segregationist George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” stunt to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama, the network identified Wallace as “R., Alabama.” The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. Their preferred version pretends that all the Democratic racists and segregationists left their party and became Republicans starting in the 1960s. How convenient. If it were true that the South began to turn Republican due to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would expect that the Deep South, the states most associated with racism, would have been the first to move. That’s not what happened. The first southern states to trend Republican were on the periphery: North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. (George Wallace lost these voters in his 1968 bid.) The voters who first migrated to the Republican party were suburban, prosperous New South types. The more Republican the South has become, the less racist. Is it unforgivable that Bill Clinton praised a former segregationist? No. Fulbright renounced his racist past, as did Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. It would be immoral and unjust to misrepresent the history. What is unforgivable is the way Democrats are still using race to foment hatred. Remember what happened to Trent Lott when he uttered a few dumb words about former segregationist Strom Thurmond? He didn’t get the kind of pass Bill Clinton did when praising Fulbright. Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton told a mostly black audience that “what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people from one end of our country to another. . . . Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting.” She was presumably referring to voter-ID laws, which, by the way, 51 percent of black Americans support. Racism has an ugly past in the Democratic party. The accusation of racism has an ugly present. Biden says if you’re ain't black and don’t vote for him, you’re not black. If you have a problem figuring ... then you ain't black," Biden said Friday morning during an appearance on The Breakfast Club. Charlamagne responded that he's not considering Trump, but he wants more from Biden for the black community, such as the selection of an African-American woman as vice president. He also took issue with a Biden adviser trying to end the interview, saying, "You can't do that to black media." Biden argued his record proves he is the only. I would be the last black person to suggest that black Americans are a monolithic group who all believe the same things. When it comes to electing the president of the United States, all Americans should care about voting rights, social programs, truthfulness and candor from our leaders, the environment, the meting out of justice, diversity in government offices, and the makeup of the Supreme Court. (As resilient as she is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg cannot live forever.) But when voting rights are subverted, the safety net is attacked, environmental regulations abandoned and income inequality widened, the repercussions hit black people hardest. AOC and Democratic Ku Klux Klan Women in the House and Senate followed their color-coordinated tradition of dressing in all-white klan to honor the women’s suffrage movement at President Trump’s State of the Union Tuesday night. This year’s effort, which was organized by Democratic Ku Klux Klan Women's Caucus in the House, commemorates the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, granting women the right to vote. (Women Rights Vote ? ? ?) Who ? Women Who ? Ku Klux Klan Women Who ? Women Of All Race's Who ? Democratic Who ? Leftists literally cannot define the word woman... who ? Zero House Democrats All In White Vote Not To Protect Women’s Sports from Male Intrusion. Not a single Democratic member of the House voted Thursday in favor of legislation that would ban male athletes from competing in girl’s sports. This isn’t the first time Democratic Klan Women (Who ?) have coordinated their attire to send a message. The group also wore all white in 2017 and 2019 to bring attention to women’s issues including voting, health and reproductive rights. The bill passed along party lines with 219 Republicans voting in favor and 203 Democrats voting against. The House measure seeks to amend federal law so that “sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,” in order to determine Title IX athletics compliance. Title IX mandates that institutions that receive public funding from the federal government cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce has clarified that the bill would not “prohibit schools or institutions from permitting males to practice against women’s sports teams.” Representative Virginia Foxx (R., N.C.) who is the chairwoman of the Committee, applauded the vote on Twitter: “Women and girls won today.” “This legislation is the first step towards restoring integrity and fairness in women’s sports. The strides of women in sports should never be sacrificed to appease the radical woke mobs on the left,” the North Carolina representative said afterward during a press conference late Thursday morning. The attire selection was also meant to show a sign of unity among klan women in Congress as they unite against what they call the Trump administration's "immoral" and "misogynistic" policies. However, House Democrats have condemned the bill as part of a broader pattern demonizing the LGBT community. “Trans kids deserve the right to be equal members of their school communities, learn sportsmanship, and challenge themselves outside of the classroom, including by participating in school sports,” Representative Mark Pocan (D., Wis.) argued in a statement released in early March following the bill’s passage through the Committee. While the bill is not expected to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the White House has already said that President Biden will veto it should it reach his desk. “Discrimination has no place in our nation’s schools or on our playing fields,” a Statement of Administration Policy released on Monday noted. “At a time when transgender youth already face a nationwide mental health crisis, with half of transgender youth in a recent survey saying they have seriously considered suicide, a national law that further stigmatizes these children is completely unnecessary, hurts families and students, and would only put students at greater risk.” Representative Greg Steube (R., Fla.), who introduced the bill, condemned the White House for turning “their backs on female athletes.” “The Left is not only encouraging transgender individuals to invade women’s sports, but they celebrate as women are knocked off podiums and shunned to the sidelines. Nothing fair about this ? who ? Ocasio-Cortez defends $40 trillion price tag for progressive proposals Progressive Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday defended what could accrue to a $40 trillion price tag for progressive policy programs, including Medicare for all, over the next 10 years, citing the success in some European countries that have similarly developed health care models. CNN “State of the Union” anchor Jake Tapper asked where that estimated $40 trillion – which would include the costs for Medicare for all, jobs guarantees, student loan forgiveness, free college programs, paid family leave, and Social Security expansion – would come from. Medicare for all would be the costliest initiative, coming in at about $32 trillion, according to the Mercatus Center, a free market-oriented think tank at George Mason University, as well as an earlier study by the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center. Ocasio-Cortez, who is running for a congressional seat in New York, referred to the publicly funded health care systems in Western Europe and Canada, calling such programs “generational investments” toward the future of a country. “Medicare for all would save the American people a very large amount of money,” she said. “What we see as well is that these systems are not just pie in the sky. Many of them are accomplished by every modern, civilized democracy in the Western world,” she said. “The United Kingdom has a form of single-payer health care – Canada, France, Germany. What we need to realize that these investments are better and they are good for our future.” But asked again where that $40 trillion would come from, aside from her proposed increase in taxes on the wealthy and corporate taxes, which she has said would raise $2 trillion over the next 10 years, Ocasio-Cortez said the taxpayer-funded programs would free people up to increase economic activity in other areas, adding that the Medicare for all program is part of “a broader agenda.” “We do know and acknowledge that there are political realities,” she added. “They don’t always happen with the wave of a wand, but we can work to make these things happen.” She added that “when you look at the economic activity that it spurs, for example, if you look at my generation, millennials, the amount of economic activity that we do not engage, the fact that we delay purchasing homes, that we don’t participate in the economy and purchasing cars, et cetera, as fully as possible, is a cost. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson declined to give a definitive answer on how she defines a 'woman' as Sen. Ted Cruz took the stand to hound her on gender issues and what he described as lenient sentencing in child pornography cases. Cruz and Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., got into a heated back-and-forth exchange when the Texas Republican tried to go over his 30-minute time allotment. Cruz began to ask the judge about a case called United States v. Stewart, where the defendant was found to have possessed over 6,700 videos and images of pornographic content of children. Jackson sentenced him to 57 months in prison, though prosecutors had asked for 97 months. '6,700, that's a lot of kids being sexually assaulted--' Cruz said. Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin banged his gavel. 'Your time is expired,' he told Cruz. 'You have taken over a minute of my time, Mr. Chairman,' Cruz said. 'You've been given extra time, you usually ask for it, you're given it,' Durbin griped. 'OK, I know you want to interrupt, I know you don't like this line of questioning,' Cruz said, as Durbin shot back: 'I just want you to play by the rules.' 'I know you like to interrupt but you consumed a substantial time of my questioning and I'm going to ask my questions, and if you want to testify you're welcome to,' Cruz said, as Durbin muttered again that he want Cruz to play by the rules. As Cruz tried to ask again, Durbin said: 'Senator, you play by the same rules as any other senator.' Cruz got his question in as Durbin tried to move along. 'Why did you sentence him for half the amount?' 'Senator Coons? You're not recognized, senator,' Durbin said to Cruz. 'You don't want her to answer that question,' asked Cruz. 'You wouldn't allow her–' said Durbin. 'Mr. Chairman, she may answer the question. I've asked her why she sentenced Stewart–' said Cruz. 'You've gone over the time, Senator, by two minutes and a half,' said Durbin. 'Because you've interrupted me for two minutes, Mr. Chairman. Will you allow her to answer the question or do you not want the American people to hear why with someone she described as an egregious-S' said Cruz as Durbin interrupted and said, 'There comes a point, senator, where you get a little bit...' 'Chairman Durbin, will you allow her to answer the question?' asked Cruz. 'You won't allow her to answer the question!' Durbin shot back, both men growing more emotional. 'I will happily allow her...' Cruz says, as Durbin moves to recognize Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. 'Why do you not want the American people to know what happened in the Stewart case?' Cruz said. Durbin banged his gavel. 'You can bang it as loud as you want,' said Cruz. 'I can just tell you at some point you have to follow the rules,' said Durbin. Coons took his turn, as Cruz said: 'Apparently you are very afraid of the American people hearing the answer to that question.' In a number of the child porn cases in question, Jackson said that while her sentences were below federal sentencing guidelines and prosecutor requests, they were often in line with probation office recommendations, which are not always public. Cruz tried to submit a letter from Republicans for the record asking those probation office recommendations to be made public, but Durbin refused to recognize him or enter the letter into the record. Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., grew frustrated at Cruz. 'I know the junior senator from Texas likes to get on TV,' he said. 'I KNOW THAT I AM A WOMAN:' KBJ GIVES VAGUE NON-ANSWER TO TED CRUZ ASKING HER TO GIVE DEFINITION Texas Senator Ted Cruz brought up the issue during his 20-minute questioning after Jackson said during her exchange with Senator Marsha Blackburn Tuesday that she couldn't define 'woman' because she isn't a biologist. Cruz, however, went one step further to question how she decide if an individual was a woman if it came to gender discrimination cases. 'Yesterday under questioning from Senator Blackburn, you told her that you couldn't define what a woman is, that you are not a biologist, which I think you are the only Supreme Court nominee in history who has been unable to answer the question, 'What is a woman?'' Cruz asked Jackson. Before letting her answer, he expanded on the question. 'Let me ask you as a judge, how would you determine if a plaintiff had Article 3 standing to challenge a gender based rule, regulation, policy without being able to determine what a woman was?' he questioned. 'I know that I am a woman, I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman,' she said. 'And the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today – my mother,' still not giving a definition of the word 'woman.' 'But let me ask, under the modern leftist sensibilities, if I decide right now that I'm a woman then apparently I'm a woman. Does that mean that I would have Article 3 to challenge a gender based restriction?' he pushed. On the third day of the animated Senate hearing: Republicans accused Democratic chairman Dick Durbin of 'editorializing' their points and backing Jackson. Durbin tried to interject multiple times to stop Republican senators going over their allotted times. He also apologized to Jackson for having to face questions on 'culture war theories' that have no place in 'mainstream America'. Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff criticized the 'bickering' over timing and procedure during the hearing. Senator Lindsey Graham said child porn offenders should have their 'a**es' thrown in jail, claiming they deserve 50 years for their crimes Jackson said that she would recuse herself from the Havard admissions case claiming Asian applicants were rejected due to race. When the nominee still refused to give a straight answer, Cruz presented another hypothetical. He asked if he would be able to sue Harvard if although he is a Hispanic male, he decided to identify as Asian. Both Cruz and Jackson attended Harvard Law School. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. sued Harvard for discriminating in their affirmative action practices against Asian American admissions. In January 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, consolidating it with a similar case related to admissions practices at the University of North Carolina. Jackson vowed that if confirmed she would recuse herself from the Supreme Court case regarding Havard admissions that claims Asian applicants were rejected because of race. Jackson also refused to define the word 'woman' during a tense exchange with Blackburn. The Republican senator pressed Jackson on sex and gender issues Tuesday amid the fallout of swimmer Lia Thomas, who was born biologically male, storming to victory in the NCAA championships against biologically female competitors. 'Do you agree with [late] Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?' she asked the nominee picked to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. 'Can you define the word ''woman''?' 'Can I provide a definition?' Jackson replied. 'No, I can't. I'm not a biologist.' LINDSEY GRAHAM SLAMS JACKSON FOR SENTENCING RECORD, DEMANDS CHILD PORN OFFENDERS BE PUT IN JAIL FOR 50 YEARS Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tore into Judge Jackson again on Wednesday, lambasting her for thinking 'supervision' was an adequate deterrent for child pornography distributors and viewers. It came as he asked the nominee about other issues, including on whether an illegal immigrant should be allowed to vote or if a 20-week-old fetus can feel pain, to which she said she did not know. Graham claimed during the third day of Jackson's confirmation hearing that the only punishment should be putting their 'a** in jail.' Jackson pushed back against the South Carolina senator's claim that she believes the number of images viewed or distributed shouldn't be considered in child porn cases' sentencing. She insisted instead that her judicial record does show that she imposed 'substantial' internet supervision on violators. 'Wait, you think it is a bigger deterrent to take somebody who is on a computer, looking at sexual images of children in the most disgusting way, is to supervise their computer habit versus putting them in jail?' Graham questioned, raising his voice and showing visual disgust. 'No, I didn't say versus,' Jackson tried to clarify but was interrupted by Graham's irate line of questioning. 'That's exactly what you said,' the Republican lawmaker asserted. 'I think the best way to deter people from getting on a computer and viewing thousands and hundred – and over time maybe millions, the population as a whole – of children being exploited and abused every time somebody clicks on is to put their a** in jail,' he offered. 'Not supervise their computer usage.' Graham's 20 minutes of questioning was in line with other criticism of Jackson issued Tuesday when Republicans questioned Jackson on her sentencing of child porn offenders. Earlier in the hearing on Wednesday, Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin tried to defend Jackson during his short opening remarks by claiming her sentencing record with child porn cases were in line with 80 percent of other judges in similar cases. Jackson tried to defend herself again on Wednesday, claiming that in the age of the internet it's a lot harder to differentiate between severity of child porn offenders. She claimed before the time of the web, you could easily distinguish sentencing of someone who had received one image versus one thousand. 'In comes the internet,' she explained of the changing landscape of the child pornography industry. 'With one click you can receive, you can distribute tens of thousands.' 'You can be doing this for 15 minutes and all of a sudden, you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison,' she said. 'Good! Good! Absolutely, good! I hope you are!' Graham shouted back. 'I hope you go to jail for 50 years if you're on the internet trolling for images of children and sexual exploitation,' he said. Also in the midst of Graham's re-questioning period Wednesday he asked Jackson about abortion. 'Can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process?' Graham asked. 'Senator, I don't know,' she replied. He explained that anesthesia is administered to an unborn fetus if there is an operation to save their life at this period in a pregnancy because they 'can, in facet, feel pain.' She said she was also unaware of that. Graham said that these types of issues may 'come before you one day' and asked that she 'keep an open mind' when it comes to the issue. REPUBLICANS CLAIM DEMOCRATIC CHAIR DICK DURBIN IS 'EDITORIALIZING' THEIR POINTS AND DEFENDING JACKSON Day three of Judge Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearing kicked off with partisan bickering over the Judiciary committee's process – specifically Republicans' complaining that Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin was 'editorializing' their points and defending the nominee. The back-and-forth came after Durbin opened the third day of hearings with an apology to Jackson for Republicans' line of questioning on Tuesday. 'Yesterday, your nomination turned out to be a testing ground for conspiracy theories and culture war theories,' the Illinois Democrat alleged on Wednesday. 'The more bizarre the charges against you and your family, the more I understand the social media scoreboard lit up yesterday.' 'I'm sorry we have to go through this,' he added. 'These are not theories that are in the mainstream of America, but they have been presented here as such.' After Durbin issued his opening statement defending Jackson, Texas Senator John Cornyn cut in to express his dissatisfaction with the Democratic chairman's 'editorializing' during the confirmation process. 'Unfortunately, I noticed that after every series of questioning on this side of the aisle, you choose to editorialize and contradict the points being made by this side of the aisle,' Cornyn said of him and his Republican colleagues. 'I don't know whether we will have an equal opportunity to editorialize about the advocacy that you and your colleagues – the points that you're trying to make.' 'I just want to lodge a protest and say that I don't think it's appropriate for the chairman after every time somebody on this side of the aisle asks questions of the judge, you come back and you degenerate, and you attack and you criticize the line of questioning,' he continued. 'I think the judge is doing a pretty good job of defending her own position and answering questions,' Cornyn said of Jackson. 'So thank you for giving me a chance to express my objection to the way that you've been editorializing after each time this side of the aisle asks questions.' Durbin tried to explain it was called the 'chairman's time' to speak – but was cut off by Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana who said he wanted to also make a statement in response to Cornyn's comments. He alleged Durbin's 'input' was not offered in an 'even-handed way' and said it wasn't a 'productive' way to run the hearing. DEMOCRATIC SENATOR JON OSSOFF CRITICIZES PUBLIC 'BICKERING OVER TIME AND PROCESS' At this point, Democratic Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff interjected to ask that the proceedings get underway. 'I'd like the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of the State of Georgia,' he insisted. 'I think the American public is now tuning into these proceedings expecting a substantive discussion of matters of grave importance to the country with a nominee for the Supreme Court before us,' the freshman senator continued. 'I don't think we've set an appropriate tone by bickering over time and process at the outset of our proceedings. Every senator deserves to be heard.' Ossoff and Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina were unable to get their 30 minutes of questioning in during the first day of questioning on Tuesday after the panel went for 13 hours grilling the nominee. After Durbin and Grassley delivered their opening statements on Wednesday, they two were able to ask their first round of questions. Then the rotation started over with lawmakers getting another opportunity to question Jackson – this time in 20 minutes intervals. Durbin said that every senator would be able to 'editorialize' during their second round of questioning if they wished to use their time in that way. Jackson walked into the Hart Senate Office Building just after 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday donning a cobalt blue suit jacket over a black dress. On Monday she wore purple and on Tuesday red. Durbin alleged during his remarks opening the hearing day on Wednesday said that Republicans were using the hearing as a way to attack Democrats' agenda in a lead up to the 2022 midterm elections in November. 'For many senators, yesterday was an opportunity to showcase talking points for the November election,' Durbin said. 'For example, 'All Democrats are soft on crime, therefore this nominee must be soft on crime.' He said, however, that the stereotypes they are trying to outline doesn't pan out, including the fact Jackson has an endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police – seeming to suggest that she isn't as 'soft on crime' as GOP senators suggest. DAY TWO: REPUBLICANS CRUZ, HAWLEY AND BLACKBURN GRILL JACKSON OVER CRITICAL RACE THEORY, CHILD PORN SENTENCING AND DEFINING WOMEN A major line of questioning on Tuesday included Republicans going after Jackson for her sentencing record on child porn cases, claiming she did not issue harsh enough punishments for offenders in the past. Republican Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Josh Hawley of Missouri asked why Jackson had given such criminals 'substantially lower' sentences than what the prosecutor asked for. Cruz specifically pointed out that Jackson's sentences were on average 47.2 percent lower than what the federal government's prosecutors recommended. Jackson countered that Cruz was not accounting for what the probation officer recommended in such cases. 'I take these cases very seriously as a mother,' she insisted. 'A judge has to review the actual evidence in these cases and based on Congress' requirement, take into account not only the sentencing guidelines, not only the recommendations of the parties, but also things like the stories of the victims.' Earlier, Jackson noted that sentencing guidelines were outdated, having been written before the internet age, and did not adequately differentiate from the crime of consuming or distributing child pornography and being involved in its production. During Tuesday's questioning GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stormed out of the room after arguing with Durbin over the release of Guantanamo Bay detainees following his line of questioning of the nominee. Durbin, who was trying to defend Jackson against Graham following his 30 minutes of questioning, spoke to the recidivism rate of those released. 'If you're going to talk about what I said, I'm going to respond to what you said,' Graham shot back, turning his microphone on. 'If we close Gitmo and move them to Colorado, do you support indefinite detention under the law of war for these detainees?' 'I would just say, I'm giving the facts,' Durbin responded. 'The answer's no,' the South Carolina Republican rebutted. Durbin said the 31 percent Graham referenced of Guantanamo Bay detainees who were released and then were reoffenders dates back to 2005. 'What does it matter when it goes back to? We had them, and they got loose and they started killing people. If you're one of the people killed in 2005, does it matter to you when we released them? 'I'm suggesting the system has failed miserably and advocates to change the system, like she was advocating, would destroy our ability to protect this country. We;re at war, we're not fighting a crime. This is not some passage of time event. 'As long as they're dangerous, I hope they all die in jail if they're going to go back and kill Americans,' Graham said, starting to raise his voice. 'It won't bother me one bit if 39 of them die in prison,' he continued. 'That's a better outcome than letting them go.' 'And if it costs $500 million to keep them in jail, keep them in jail. Because they're going to go back to the fight. Look at the fricken Afghan government that's made up of former detainees at Gitmo. This whole thing by the left about this war ain't working.' At this point, Graham turned off his microphone, grabbed his water bottle and stormed out of the room. Also on Tuesday, Jackson refused to define the word 'woman' during a tense exchange with Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, with the nominee claiming she was not a biologist. Blackburn pressed Jackson on sex and gender issues amid the fallout of swimmer Lia Thomas, who was born biologically male, storming to victory in the NCAA championships against biologically female competitors. Quoting late Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Blackburn said: 'Physical differences between men and women are enduring. The two sexes are not fungible. A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.' 'Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?' the senator asked. When Jackson claimed she had never heard the quote, Blackburn asked directly: 'Can you define the word ''woman''?' 'Can I provide a definition?' Jackson responded. 'No, I can't,' she declared, before adding: 'I'm not a biologist'. Jackson's staunch refusal to offer a definition of a woman came at the end of the second day of questioning which tackled the big issues of race, abortion and judicial philosophy. It was a grueling marathon of debate for President Joe Biden's pick, who is making history as the first black woman nominated for the court. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she is a sexual assault survivor The Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday spoke in an emotional video about the insurrection at the US Capitol, and how what she went through was affected by her experience as a survivor of sexual assault. In an account remarkably candid for an American lawmaker, Ocasio-Cortez recounted going into hiding as rioters scaled the Capitol on 6 January, hiding in a bathroom in her office while hearing banging on the walls and a man yelling: “Where is she? Where is she?” She had feared for her life, she told an Instagram Live audience of more than 150,000 people. “I thought I was going to die,” she said. “And I had a lot of thoughts. I was thinking if this is the plan for me, then people will be able to take it from here.” In the video, Ocasio-Cortez expressed frustration at being asked to “move on” after the attack, likening it to the refrain heard by many survivors of sexual assault. “These folks like to tell us to move on, that it’s not a big deal, that we should forget what happened, even telling us that we should apologize – these are the same tactics of abusers,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I’m a survivor of sexual assault,” she added. “And I haven’t told many people that in my life. But when we go through trauma, trauma compounds on each other.” Ocasio-Cortez, who won re-election in November in New York’s 14th congressional district, had said in a video last month that she feared for her life during the Capitol attack. On Monday, she said she had been worried about the security situation for days, having been cautioned about possible violence by several people, including other lawmakers. The incident at her office had occurred after she returned from receiving her Covid-19 vaccine, she said. “I immediately realized I shouldn’t have gone into the bathroom. I should have gone in the closet,” she said. “Then I hear whoever was trying to get inside got into my office. I realize it’s too late.” She said she had then heard yelling. “This was the moment I thought everything was over. I thought I was going to die.” The congresswoman wiped away tears as she continued. “I start to look through the door hinge to see if I can see anything. I see this white man in a black beanie and yell again,” she said. “I have never been quieter in my entire life.” A staffer had eventually told her it was safe to emerge from the bathroom where she was hiding, and a Capitol police officer had been present in her office. She and her team had left the office, she recalled, and had eventually found shelter in the offices of the California representative Katie Porter. Ocasio-Cortez, who is Latina, had previously said that her fears were heightened because there were white supremacists and other extremists taking part in the mostly white mob. The second-term representative, whose New York district covers part of Queens and the Bronx, is among the most high-profile elected officials on the political left and a lightning rod for the right and extreme right. She has strongly condemned Donald Trump for inciting the riots, as well as members of his administration who did not invoke the 25th amendment to remove him from office, and lawmakers who voted to overturn the election results. The Spiritual Journey of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez In January, at a Martin Luther King, Jr., Faith Leadership Breakfast, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke in detail about how the Standing Rock protests catalyzed her spiritual and political calling. “It was truly one of the most spiritually transformative experiences of my life,” she said. Ocasio-Cortez, who is Catholic, began her remarks by saying that she has to contemplate how to talk about her spiritual life as a public figure. “It’s not something that I want to cheapen, or it’s not something that I want to use as currency.” Of her spiritual journey, she said, “I haven’t talked about it yet much on the outside. I’m very conscious of that. But today we’re in family.” More than 100 people had gathered for the breakfast in a catering hall in the Bronx, just blocks away from Ocasio-Cortez’s new campaign office. Jonathan Soto, the interfaith organizer for her campaign, put together the event. Soto said that they engage religious leaders and their communities in part to reach those who are economically and politically vulnerable. “Houses of worship can be an oasis in a desert like America where our public institutions have been winnowed down,” he told me. They can be portals for critical services for immigrants, the poor, and the working-class. Soto himself is the child of working-class Pentecostal ministers who moved from Puerto Rico to New York. Before working for the campaign, he was an associate vice president of strategic initiatives at Union Theological Seminary. The Faith Leadership Breakfast was intended to lay the groundwork for a series of monthly gatherings with faith communities, beginning first in the congresswoman’s district and then expanding beyond it. I attended the breakfast with New York City’s chapter of Religion and Socialism, a national working group that’s linked to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). There were also representatives from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim organizations, including Bronx Clergy Roundtable, Lab/Shul, New Sanctuary Coalition, Latino Pastoral Action Center, Micah Roundtable, and Union Theological Seminary. The spiritual dimensions of Ocasio-Cortez’s own journey from Standing Rock to Congress are essential to understanding her political theory of change. Like many politicians on the left, she has been criticized for having insufficiently pragmatic plans. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has famously referred to the Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez’s signature bill, as “the green dream, or whatever they call it.” But, as Ocasio-Cortez made clear during her remarks at the breakfast, it is more important to her to build political commitment than to craft a pragmatic plan. This was one of the major lessons she took away from her experience at Standing Rock, a Native American reservation where indigenous protectors showed up to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline by private oil companies. As she tells it, Ocasio-Cortez had never planned to go to Standing Rock. It was late 2016 and she was scrolling through her social media when she saw that a woman she had met years ago was at Standing Rock, working as a harmony keeper with the Lakota Sioux. “Something told me to reach out to her,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She messaged the woman to ask if she needed clothing or supplies. In Ocasio-Cortez’s telling, her friend replied, “We need women at the camp. When are you getting here?” Taken aback, Ocasio-Cortez did not respond for a few days. She had never been to North or South Dakota before, and she had no car or funds to get there. At the time, she was still working as a bartender and waitress, struggling to make ends meet. The conversation with her friend kept nagging her. Finally, she spoke to a friend of hers at the restaurant where they worked. They had organized politically together before. Ocasio-Cortez narrated: “I said, ‘You know this sounds so crazy, but I think I might want to go to Standing Rock.’ And she looked at me and said, ‘You know, I’ve been thinking about doing the exact same thing all week.’ We both looked at each other and said, ‘Well, let’s go.’ “We had no plan, no resources, but we both felt the call,” she said. “And so, as what tends to happen, everything you need appears. And that’s what happened.” Her friend’s aunt unexpectedly had a 1998 Subaru that she was willing to loan them. Friends chipped in through a GoFundMe page to pay for their gas and supplies that they could bring to Standing Rock. An old college friend offered, unprompted, to house them during their pit stop in Ohio. During their road trip from New York to Standing Rock, which they live-streamed on Facebook, they stopped in Flint, Michigan, where they clearly saw the intersection of environmental degradation and systemic racism due to the city’s lead-poisoned water. In Flint, they met with the director of the housing commission, who was also a local minister. “It was so funny because each and every stop there were spiritual and faith leaders that we just happened to connect with. It wasn’t in the plan—there was no plan. The plan was just to show up,” she said. “As we were driving closer to Standing Rock, I felt in me a kind of magnetism … it was almost like a law of nature: This is where you are supposed to be.” They stayed at Standing Rock for a handful of days and left just before Christmas. What they saw at the reservation, according a live-stream video posted by Ocasio-Cortez on Facebook and reported on by TIME magazine, was a stand-off between heavily militarized private corporations and various indigenous tribes, who had united at Standing Rock to protect the land. According to the conversation in the live-stream, Ocasio-Cortez and her friends were deeply impressed by what they saw: An organized but decentralized operation that was feeding and housing more than 2,000 people on the reservation. Everyone’s physical needs were met, but there was no central planning committee; instead there was a widespread culture of sharing everything in common, from socks to food. During the live-stream, Ocasio-Cortez described her memory of an exhibit in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City where an artist, Marina Abramović, sat in a chair and stared at whomever sat in the chair opposite her. Some people cried as a result of the intensity of unbroken, unmediated eye contact. “That’s the way everyone looked at each other at camp,” she commented to her social media followers. Ocasio-Cortez and her friends had shown up expecting to engage in political protest, but what they encountered instead was a profound spiritual ceremony—one that was also political in nature. Every action that was taken, from chopping wood for others to chaining oneself to a large machine, was a “spiritual act of dedication to your values,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the video. One of the takeaways for her was that this massive encampment at Standing Rock was largely unplanned: It began with a handful of young people, most under 25, who established a tiny “prayer camp” on the reservation to stop the oil companies and issued a call to other tribes for help. One of her most indelible memories, she said, was waking up every morning at six o’clock to a man who would wake up the entire camp, singing, cracking jokes, and repeating his mantra, “You are here for a reason.” She recounted, “It was so funny, you wake up every morning with a smile on your face and your feel that intentionality, that purpose, like you are part of something special.” Later, she reflected at the Faith Leaders Breakfast that the experience left her with a sense that she was being prepared for something—but she didn’t know exactly what. “I remember leaving that camp and thinking, ‘Lord, just do with me what you will. Allow me to be a vessel.’” Up until this point that morning, she had described her spiritual journey without any explicit reference to God or a particular religion. As she referenced the Lord, her words echoed many biblical verses involving vessels and Christian songs, such as “Lord Make Me a Vessel,” whose first line goes, “Use me Lord to do your will.” As she was driving off the camp on Christmas Eve, she received an email from a group called Brand New Congress, asking if she would consider running for office. That was when she realized that this was what she was being prepared for. “I didn’t know if I would win. I didn’t know if I would lose, I just knew that I was being told to run,” she told the room full of religious leaders. She had no concrete plan at that time for how she would win the election, but—taking a cue from her journey to Standing Rock and her experiences there—that did not deter her from pursuing what she felt called to do. The prioritization of commitments over plans is a key pillar in Ocasio-Cortez’s political theory of change. During the breakfast, she remarked that the real problem that befalls Washington, D.C., is not a lack of plans, but a lack of sufficient commitment to the poor, to working people, and so on. “When we have the commitment, we will make the plan together,” she said. Her time at Standing Rock has also informed the writing of the Green New Deal, which she released along with Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass) in February 2019. It is a non-binding resolution that roughly lays out how to phase out U.S. greenhouse gas emissions within a decade and massively invest in renewable energy jobs. The resolution, notably, calls for “obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories.” Such language, a rarity in federal policy, seems to be a direct result of collaborating with indigenous-led environmental groups. Toward the latter half of her speech at the breakfast, Ocasio-Cortez turned to the event’s namesake, Martin Luther King, paraphrasing his observation that while our scientific and technological progress has advanced, our moral progress has not caught up. “What we need to do is advance morally and ethically,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And that is what the frontlines of the faith-work is, that is what acts of faith are. Whether it’s criminal justice reform, abolition work, honoring our ancestry, fighting for a living wage, these are acts of faith.” As the youngest woman to ever serve in Congress, Ocasio-Cortez’s future lies wide open. When people ask her what her five-or-ten-year plan is, she usually responds, “I don’t have one.” “People seem almost appalled,” she said. “The way I genuinely feel is that I don’t have a plan. I’m waiting to figure out what the plan is for me.”

BBC Documentary - The Century of the Self is a 2002 British television documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis. It focuses on the work of psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, and PR consultant Edward Bernays.[1] In episode one, Curtis says, "This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy."

BBC Documentary - The Century of the Self is a 2002 British television documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis. It focuses on the work of psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, and PR consultant Edward Bernays.[1] In episode one, Curtis says, "This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self Originally broadcast on 29th April 2002.

BBC Documentary - The Century of the Self is a 2002 British television documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis. It focuses on the work of psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, and PR consultant Edward Bernays.[1] In episode one, Curtis says, "This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self Originally broadcast on 29th April 2002.

BBC Documentary - The Century of the Self is a 2002 British television documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis. It focuses on the work of psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, and PR consultant Edward Bernays.[1] In episode one, Curtis says, "This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self Originally broadcast on 29th April 2002.