Besmirching the party of Lincoln

For six years now and counting, whenever Democrats can't run on issues or their one-size-fits-all mainstay ideas of bigger government bureaucracies, tax-and-spend, and the Obama wrinkle of wealth redistribution (à la Obamacare), they resort to spewing slimy fictions and the old political standby of demonizing Republicans.  Hillary Clinton – the only serious Democrat for president and a lock for her party's nomination – is a shrewish, polarizing figure wrapped in a paper-thin resume absent any accomplishments (save losing 6 billion dollars during her disastrous tenure as secretary of state, the failed Russian reset, and the still unresolved Benghazi scandal resulting in the deaths of four Americans) with a 40-year history of serious infractions when it comes to her personal and public veracity.  She of Server-gate malfeasance and Charity-gate corruption has some nerve pointing wrongdoing fingers and venomously calling out Republican competitors by name. 

Who else would have the unmitigated gall to accuse Republicans – the abolitionist party of Lincoln, the great emancipator of Afro-Americans and ender of the Civil War – of tacit racism through outright minority voter suppression?  Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire!  For the record, it was a Republican Congress that supported the 13th Amendment en masse, enfranchised the slaves, and freed their unborn generations 150 years ago.  The severely truth-challenged Mrs. Clinton needs to get her history straight: on April 8, 1865, with 63% Democrats opposed, only four Democrats alongside 100% of Republicans supported the measure.  The amendment passed 119 to 56, by the merest margin of 7 votes above the necessary two-thirds majority.  Per the 1860 U.S. Census, approximately 4 million slaves were freed.  On the wrong side of the argument – a position typical of them then as now – were the lion's share of pro-slavery Democrats. 

Fast-forward almost a century later to the Civil Rights movement of 1964.  Once again, the bill that both prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin and ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in public facilities, schools, and the workplace was passed, by a Republican Congress over strident Democratic objections.  Specifically, most notable chief opponents were Albert Gore, Sr. (father of Hillary's hubby's same-name vice president) and former avowed Klansman Robert Byrd (who led an unsuccessful 14-hour filibuster, and whom Democrats still revere as "the conscience of the Senate").  This is the deplorable Democratic record on voting and minority rights.  

Ronald Reagan was quite kind in his assessment of politicians of this ilk: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant.  It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”   

In typical Clintonian fashion, it seems Mrs. Clinton rarely takes a breath, holds a thought, or utters a word that does not incite the Democratic base to the benefit her own political prospects: “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.”  Twice now, America has dubiously elected a man to the presidency who happens to be black.  Afro-Americans, who make up 12% of the population, flocked to the polls in record numbers in 2008 and 2012, making up 13% of the electorate that elected Mr. Obama.  Those concrete results are not good enough for Mrs. Clinton, who is suddenly advocating mandatory voter registration at the age of 18.  Indeed, how much longer will it take progressives to figure out that they actually live in America – the land of freedom of choice – and the rest of us don't like their Orwellian intentions or pronouncements? 

Our political leaders are supposed to be servants of the public trust.  Hillary is not a servant, nor is she worthy of any trust of her fellow citizens.