Democrats Getting Back To Their Roots

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

  • Voltaire

The Democratic Party was founded to protect slavery, and has a 150 year long tradition of refusing service to whichever groups of people they have currently chosen to hate.

Democrats and progressives are a permanent standing hate group, who simply shift their causes from one thing to another, in order to justify their hatred towards one group or another.  I don’t see any Democratic Congresswomen inviting illegal aliens to break into their yard.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Democrats Getting Back To Their Roots

  1. RAH says:

    “The Democratic Party was founded to protect slavery, and has a 150 year long tradition of refusing service to people they don’t like.”
    And enslaving them and thus denying them their constitutional rights while at the same time counting them proportionally as citizens in order to maintain control of Congress. Then once freed after a nasty war they were murdering them, burning their churches, and denying them their right vote etc, etc, etc.

    The Irish and Italian immigrants could not be tolerated. Vietnam war vets could not be tolerated. Now Conservative professors and teachers cannot be tolerated nor even Conservative speakers in our Universities nor can Christians. And now, even a dully elected POTUS and anyone who serves on his staff and supports him or his policies cannot be tolerated.

    They have always been the least tolerant citizens among us.

    • Andy DC says:

      Believe it or not, there have been some good Democrats. Like JFK. I was a Democrat for much of my life. Even Reagan was once a Democrat. But Democrat party of Harry Truman and JFK is so far removed from these current bunch of pathological liars and lunatics, it’s not even worth comparing.

  2. arn says:

    She should have done this at Starbucks-
    then she would have gotten 200.000 bucks as compensation
    – but not without the right amount of melanin
    as this is the current racist status quo in your country i guess.

    (or she should claim that she is now a non binary pansexual cis genderfluid male
    with the pronoun Bernie-than millions would start to protest for her)

    • RAH says:

      They really do hurt themselves trying to keep their pussyhat base energized for the coming mid terms. I want them to keep it up and keep doubling down on their in intolerant actions. Keep lying and having their lies exposed. Keep rioting and demonstrating. NFL racists keep knelling. Keep attacking law enforcement. Keep defending the illegality of the actions of the DOJ, FBI, and the rest of the deep state. Keep mocking and attacking Christians. Keep attacking Conservative speakers. Keep being honest about their intent to grab all the guns from the average citizens. Keep calling us Nazis. Keep supporting by every means possible the illegal invasion of our borders. Keep calling for the elimination of ICE. Keep trying to get Trump off the ballots in leftist states by making unconstitutional demands for his Tax records. Keep suing everyone and everything under the sun that supports that current administration. Keep it all up and in fact intensify their efforts.

    • Robertv says:

      Why should a restaurant not have the right to refuse a person ? Like a bakery should have the right to not make a wedding cake for a guy couple.

      • Mac says:

        I wasn’t aware that somewhere in The Bible it says being a Republican is a sin against Christianity and God. The two cases are not equivalent, but I’m not opposed to the idea that this disturbed idiot leftoid woman shouldn’t be allowed to refuse service to a normal person. It’s her restaurant. Let her serve socialist beta males, corpo-globalists, and overbearing masculine women from now on.

        • RAH says:

          She has the right not to serve as we all have the right not to patronize. But having and exercising a right does not make the action the right thing to do. If she is concerned about doing what she believes are the moral, righteous, and considerate things then she should post a sign stating which categories of potential diners will not be served at her establishment.

        • Squidly says:

          I absolutely and completely disagree. Any private citizen or private business has the absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean they won’t suffer the consequences of their actions (socially acceptable or not).

          This is exactly like the NFL protesters. They absolutely have the right to protest, but they may also suffer the consequences of doing so.

          I will defend anyone’s right to refuse to serve someone else against their will. Being forced to serve someone else against their will is the very definition of slavery. We once fought a war over such things. We may be fighting another over the exact same things here shortly.

          • Gator says:


          • Andy DC says:

            I have no problem if anyone wants to protest. But what I object to is using someone else’s business to bring attention to an unpopular issue. The owners are paying these people handsomely and trying to run a business. Employees should not have the right to interfere or harm that business, unless it is directly related to their own working conditions.

            If they want to peacefully assemble in public to make any point they want, that is the American way. But not on their employer’s dime.

          • RW says:

            Agreed. Andy is right too. The NFL is a business and requiring players, their employees, to stand or sulk in a locker room during the anthem is beyond reasonable.

            Discrimination based purely on group affiliation can be pretty dicey imo. Personal discrimination based on knowledge about a person’s actions is done every day and perfectly normal.

          • Squidly says:


            First, in the case of the Red Hen, it was the owner of that business that harmed their own business. She also has/had a business partner, who has legal remedy available to penalize her for harm to his/her own portion of the business.

            An employee’s actions to “harm” a business are met with consequences. There are legal remedies to satisfy such action, and they are used every single day.

            RW, you are correct. The NFL can (and should) absolutely require their players to stand for the Anthem, failure to do so should result in immediate termination of employment. It is up to the business what they will allow/disallow and how they may seek remedy for violation.

            Again, this is really simple. As a private citizen or business, you have the right to act any way you wish (without physical/financial) harm to others. You will be met with consequences for the actions you choose. If you treat everyone equally and respectfully, the consequences will most likely be most favorable to you. If you choose otherwise, the consequences should be most unfavorable.

            As the old saying goes “do unto other as you would have them do unto you”

            As far as discrimination based purely on “group affiliation” is indeed “dicey” .. how do you prove such a thing? … I can refuse service to you because I don’t like blonde haired people. But how do you know that is my reason? .. perhaps I will claim it is because you smell bad. Am I now discriminating against all bad smelling people, which would be a large group of people.

            You see, there are no clear lines here. It is all subjective. And like it or not, every single one of us discriminates against others every single day of our lives. We discriminate against groups of people as well. Most of the time you are not even aware of it.

            Our own government discriminates against all sorts of “groups”. Affirmative action is discrimination. By selectively favoring one group over others, you are effectively discriminating against all of the other groups, which in itself is then a summation into an even larger group.

            Our government should not be discriminating against (or favoring) anyone or any “group” (even though they do a whole lot of it). A private person and/or business has the right to discriminate for any reason they see fit.

            Again, you cannot force someone to do something or to act against their will. That is called “slavery”. Each of us however shall pay the consequences of our actions, either good or bad.

        • It is a pleasure to once again bask in the pithy wisdom of “Gator66”. Here is my verbose explanation of what he just said. Gator please tell me if I got it wrong!

          It does not matter that the owner of the “Red Hen is an intolerant, deranged and repugnant scumbag. She has the right to refuse to serve or not serve anyone given that she is operating a private business.

          IMHO it is stupid for any business to reject customers on idealogical or religious grounds given that customers are liable to vote with their feet. Suing anyone for refusing to bake a cake should have been laughed out of court.

          Given the bias of Google, Facebook, Target, Twitter, the NFL, Simplisafe, Delta Airlines, Starbucks, and a hundred other large organizations I “vote with my feet” by refusing to use their services.

          Will it matter? I suspect that it does.

        • arn says:

          A good read-
          but there is an much easier example to make a point without going to extremes.

          In Germany there are tons of kebab shops
          and they offer many non oriental stuff
          bit many of them do not serve nor make eg.
          Schnitzel or roasted sausages
          because they do not serve pig meat.
          And noone would never ever think about forcing them to do so because the reasons are known
          and noone would protest and the media would not touch this subject.

          On another note:
          Remember the discusting things pussy riot have done in a russian church and when they got imprisoned and the entire media+the usual idiots(politicians,pathological good doers) were crying “Free Pussy Riot” and demanding sanctions against Russia.

          Now imagine Pussy Riot would have done this in a mosque or synagogue in Germany:
          Noone would have called this sick pervert ceremony “art” or be crying “Free Pussy Riot” and crying for sanctions.
          Instead Merkel would be travelling the near east and kissing buttholes for the next 3 years in this region.

          A similar thing happened a few years ago when during a huge sports event(olympics or world championsships track@field)europian politicians and journalists instantly adopted this agenda after Obama pushed it in the USA
          and put massive pressure on female High Pole Jumping russian Isenbajewa during a conference
          about this issue because Russia rejected this unnatural BS(there never have been gay marriages in history of mankind until obama).

          There have been many athletes from islamic regions and noone even dared to ask them about this crap(they don’t even give a shit about death penalty for being gay in many muslim countries),
          but as soon as a russian girl came around journalists came together like rats(that’s infact their modus operandi as they are chicken when alone))
          and jumped on her to promote their new values they never had until obama told them.

      • sunsettommy says:

        The problem is her poor intolerant reason for doing it.

        • RW says:

          Indeed. But she will bear the costs of that decision.

          Her latest claim is pathetic: that she took a vote. In other words, group discrimination by popular vote. Disgusting. But should the state intervene? I don’t think so.

          • Squidly says:

            That is a glimpse into what a real “Democracy” is. For it is literally mob rules.

            I am surprised that many of these “minorities” these days boast on about “Democracy” and denounce our “Representative Republic”. They do not understand that the only reason why “minorities” in this country have any voice at all is because we are NOT a “Democracy”. If we were truly a “Democracy”, they would have no voice at all.

      • Sharpshooter says:

        Oh, man! Freedom of Association (like Freedom of Conscience) is soooooo 18th Century!!

        /end sarc

  3. Robertv says:

    Progressives introduced the biggest enslaving system ever. The Federal Reserve system. Even a slave could become a free person but today’s americans will never have that privilege.

  4. Pathway says:

    All that’s missing are the white hoods.

  5. R. Shearer says:

    But Maxine Waters says that God is on their side, the atheists.

    • Robertv says:

      Just for that statement she should be thrown out of the communist/democratic party as a traitor.

    • Gator says:

      “Gott Mit Uns” was on the belt buckle of every Wehrmacht soldier’s uniform while Hitler was gassing Jews.

    • arn says:

      Maxine Waters lived in a house with an estimated value of 3-4.5 million dollars.
      Around 100 refugees can live comfortably on her huge property
      (some inside the house,the rest outside in tents)
      as she has several bathrooms.
      But not a single refugee is living there
      nor does she live in the district she pretends to represent.

      (there is a reason why the black communities are struggling so much with ‘leaders’ like that though the black US- population would be according to larry elder , the 15th richest country on earth.
      (most countries with a similar population (30-40mio) aren’t even in the top 20 of the richest countries)
      With hipocryt leaders like her failure will always be the result

    • Thank God for Maxine Waters. Together with Nancy Pelosi she defines the insanity of the Democrats.

      • Squidly says:

        God’s gift to conservatives and Republicans (although, I take issue with the majority of Republicans as well).

  6. Texas sharp-shooter says:

    Whenever someone on the left wants to engage in a political discussion I say the same thing. They’re not hard to spot. They self-identify early on by flogging the jargon they bandy about in the echo chamber. “Privilege,” “progressive,” and so forth.

    What I say is that as a follower of Christ I am obliged to love them and if they want to talk politics I would be willing do so only in the context of keeping first things, loving God and them. You will see a lot of shocked faces like after a wet kiss from a hot fist.

    They realize then that my “problems” run far deeper than exposure to their political acumen (ie. their current talking point) can solve. Of course, they regard me a fool. And they’re right, of course, as St Paul says. Politics tends to fall off the table at this point and they go for the throat: the fictive “Da Vinci Code” analysis of scripture. Heh. Then the fun can begin.

    • Squidly says:

      Whenever someone on the left wants to engage in a political discussion ..

      I just look at them disgusted and say “as if you could “discuss” politics ..pffftt”

      Sorry, I have no time to engage in such triteful banter. A complete waste of time and energy. I have been down that road a hundred times. You can tell a child the stove is hot a 1,000 times, but they won’t truly believe it until they touch it for themselves. I say .. let them touch the hot stove.

  7. CO2isLife says:

    Not only is their history a history of Slavery, Andrew Jackson, Father of the Modern Democratic Party, Namesake of the Jefferson/Jackson Dinner, gave us the Trail of Tears.

  8. CO2isLife says:

    Wilson, another Liberal Icon screen Birth of a Nation in the Whitehouse. And the list goes on and on and on. Wilson’s racism resulted in the League of Nations ignoring Japan in the Post-WWI settlements set the stage for WWII, with Japan a one time ally our enemy.

    • Gator says:

      Please do not call those totalitarian scumbags “liberals”, they are anything but. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, and so am I.

      • RW says:

        Ah, just give it up. You just confuse everyone. Liberals took that word (liberal) decades ago. Stick with ‘classic liberalism’ or libertarian. It still means what it means. You want to reclaim a word or phrase, reclaim ‘right wing’. Somehow people think ‘Nazis’ or ‘white supremacist’ when they hear ‘right wing’ even though 1) fascism is left wing and 2) racism is a poor metric for the political spectrum.

        • Squidly says:

          No, Gator is correct. Just because the leftist turds hijacked a word, doesn’t change the meaning of that word. I too am a “liberal”, but I am about as far away from “left” as you can be.

          It is time to stop allowing the leftist turds to frame the language. That is where you go wrong. That is exactly what the Nazi’s did and that is exactly what the Communists do. That’s but one tool they use to win. Take it away from them!

      • Gator says:

        Give me liberty, or give me death.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Todays democrats are too often LEFTISTS, which is why I find them so repellant, Classic liberals are nearly gone now from the party, which is why they are so messed up today with the once existing moderating base of the party dwindling away.

  9. Snowleopard says:

    It is interesting that the average Democrat (libtard?) does not know that the KKK was founded by Democrats (with unofficial party approval), or even that Lincoln was a Republican. A benefit of pointing these out is to them has been that most do not speak to me any more!

    • RW says:

      Indeed. They also invent insane reasons to justify the maintenance of their allegiance to Democrats, such as that the Republicans and Democrats “switched sides” or switched platforms in the 50s and 60s. Total delusion. Cognitive dissonance on steroids. Look at the proportion of congressional votes for vs. against the civil rights acts and do it per party. You will find that a much greater proportion of Republicans voted FOR the civil rights acts than Democrats. Fact.

    • Johansen says:

      In colleges now (my daughter’s) they are teaching that Southern racists were indeed Democrats, but when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Equal Rights Amendment they all got mad and switched to being Republicans, thus the Republicans are the racists

      • Rah says:

        Really? You mean like Robert Byrd? And why did MLK continue to endorse the Republican party during LBJ’s term until his death? And why did the Democrats maintain control of almost every “solid south” state legislature for decades after LBJ’s passing? And why didn’t George Wallace run as a Republican?

        I’d get kicked out of class!

        • Johansen says:

          Yes, many ways to poke holes in it. At 19 years old though, you don’t have the information and background. That’s what the professor is counting on…

        • cdquarles says:

          I’ll answer this one, since I was there and I knew people who were there, at the time. The public’s knowledge of the man is simply horrible.

          George Wallace lost an election to a real ‘Dixiecrat segregationist’. At the time, if you wanted an elected office, you had to run as a Democrat. What George Wallace wanted, though, was for Alabama to succeed, which it wouldn’t do as long as ‘Dixiecrat segregationists’ retained power.

          Long before he became Governor, he made a name for himself among the poor white and poor black community as one who would fight for them against the urban elites. After losing that election, where this past was used against him, he vowed to never be ‘out segged’ again. So, he would act as a segregationist to get elected and, once there, continue the act in public, when needed. Behind the scenes, though, he’d work to end Jim Crow. Which he did, by the way, on Alabama’s terms, not the urban elite’s terms.

          What gets forgotten is that the University of Alabama’s student body wasn’t always segregated. Wallace oversaw the second desegregation, at least. 10 years after that ‘stand’, over 1000 black students were enrolled as students, undergraduate and graduate, including international students.

    • Squidly says:

      Ah, but the “average Democrat” will also make the claim that the Democrats and Republicans “switched places” .. which is the most absurd thing I have ever heard and flies in the face of historical reality. I have a neighbor that is actually conservative that believes that bullshit story about Dixiecrats and Dem’s/Repub’s “switching places”. Dinesh D’Souza wrote a great section on this subject in one of his books and shows how this “switching places” narrative is absolutely false. A great read!

  10. Norilsk says:

    The Canadian Liberal Party has turned into a monster, funding terrorists on home soil and denying Christians summer job grants because they won’t sign a waiver commiting them to agree with abortion and homosexual rights.

    Trudeau has to go.

  11. Frank K. says:

    Well, here’s some good news for a change…

    Breaking: Frivolous Climate Lawsuits Hit the Wall

    “…late today Federal district court judge William Alsop—a Bill Clinton appointee—dismissed the lawsuits with a strongly-worded opinion that is quite clear about how ridiculous these suits are. It does not dispute the conventional account of climate change at all. But it does say the lawsuit is preposterous.”

  12. Love you guys! I am busy right now but hope to return soon.

  13. Griff says:

    Is this site about climate change or supporting one US political party?

    This sort of stuff confirms my belief that opposition to the science of climate change is political, not science based.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor griff doesn’t STILL realise that “climate change™” is PURELY and ONLY a political construct.

      IPCC.. what is it short for, griff.

      Why are you always so DUMB and IGNORANT, griff??

      You seem to have the inability to learn ANYTHING except by brain-washed programming?

      • AndyG55 says:

        oops….. should read… “STILL doesn’t realise….

      • terak says:

        Nope Andy, IPCC still doesn’t do science and there’s not a treasure-trove of ignored AGW-denying papers to be found anywhere.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Well, that was a particularly MINDLESS and EMPTY post , bonehead..

          Glad to see that you, at least, realise that AGW is just a political construct.

          • terak says:

            Opposition to evolution is a “political construct”. Science that proved evolution took place is not.

          • Squidly says:

            Science that proved evolution took place is not.

            Proof? where?

            I see absolutely no evidence of evolution anywhere on this planet. Show a single creature, currently existing, that bridges any evolutionary gap. Just one.

            Adaptation, mutation, do not equate to what you are referring to as “evolution”. One cannot simply extrapolate adaptation and mutation and call it “evolution”. That’s equivalent to the extrapolation that gives us the “Big Bang” theory, forcing us to believe an entire universe was created from a “singularity” that cannot be physically or mathematically explained. You just have to have “faith” and “believe” in the theory. Well, one can have “faith” and “believe” in all sorts of things.

            In terms of “evolution”, the suggestion is that evolution supplants intelligent design and/or creationism. This too is simply another hypothesis, even if evolution occurred for the human species, you must still make the leap to replace design/creation. And finally, where is the evidence linking mankind back to primordial goo ? .. there is none. The “evolution” theory has just as many holes as any other theory of human beginnings.

            So puleeezz… don’t give me this “proof” bullshit unless you are able to provide this “proof”.

          • AndyG55 says:

            WTF has evolution got to do with climate change ???

    • terak says:

      That’s true Griff, as evolution-denial is religion/cult-based. It’s more and more evident to me that the two-party system has very serious shortcomings. People suffering under it do not realize how much it distorts their thinking, as most of them as not seen anything else.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “People suffering under it do not realize how much it distorts their thinking,”

        Yep, it has CLEARLY distorted yours.

        You have yet to evolve into a rational thinking human being.

        • Squidly says:

          No kidding Andy. Talk about a closed and unevolved mind. Another “denialist” … “You don’t agree with me so you are a denier” .. where have we hear that before. Nevermind that Terak has no “proof” of what he/she speaks.

          I have to laugh at people that speak in such absolutes without proofs of anything. They simply extrapolate to what the “believe” is true. Sounds pretty “religious” to me.

    • Squidly says:

      Hahaha … OMG! … you didn’t just say that, did you?

      Holy crap … laughing my freaking ass right off … what a moron!

  14. TA says:

    It ought to be against the law for political terrorists to gather at a politician’s house and harrass their families.

    If the protestors want to protest, they should do it at the politican’s office or in a publc venue after they get a permit.

    Radical Leftists are trying to intimidate their political opponents by trying to strike fear into the hearts of their families and friends.

    They better stop it. Conservatives are generally non-violent but that can change depending on the provocation. Conservatives are not going to let the Radical Left run over them.

    The Radical Left is resorting to charging their opponents with being racist and with trying to physically threaten them and their families with violence.

    What this means is the Left has lost the argument and are reacting with hate and violence.

    The Hateful Left is exposing its ugliness for all to see.

  15. There is a restaurant in North Carolina that tolerates people who oppose Leftists. I hope some of you will find this story inspiring.

    In January 1998 Drudge broke the Lewinsky scandal which was dismissed as a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” by Hillary Clinton. While this was typical Hillary BS it struck a few of us as a great idea so we set up a VRWC “Local”. Back then Chapel Hill was dominated by the “Vast Left Wing Conspiracy” at UNC so we were only able to find four members. We decided to meet every Friday morning at the Bob Evans restaurant located at the junction of I-40 and 15-501. One of the reasons for choosing this restaurant was the 50 foot American flag flying there.
    /home/p/SpiderOak Hive/PHM/Photos/Photos-jpg/Misc/VRWC3.jpg

    This is a picture of the founder members in 1999. From the left, Don Holloway, Jay Lindgren (deceased), Charles Tanquaray and Peter Morcombe (aka the gallopingcamel). We needed an “Anti-Hillary” who would be more female, more blond, more smart and at the opposite pole of the political spectrum.

    We chose Ann Coulter and her photo was displayed at the head of our table at all our meetings. You will notice that we are all rather old but nineteen years later the VRWC is much larger and the average age has fallen dramatically. Some days we have over twenty members present and the intensity of the dialog is amazing. While we still love Ann Coulter we now want to add Laura Ingraham.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Twenty members! I always knew this secret cell existed somewhere in the vastness of America. But how come that Brock, Blumenthal or Stephanopoulos never sniffed you out?

      • I am hoping that auntie Maxine Waters will dispatch her goons to shout us down. We are a noisy bunch so it won’t be easy for them.

        Please say a prayer for Maxine…….the gift that keeps on giving. If she remains the most visible face of the Democrat party expect a “Red Wave” in November.

Leave a Reply to John F. Hultquist Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *