Crockett and Obama Woman Don’t Dare Question Their Masters

Skin-color is the viscous substance that lubricates the democrat “anti-all-things civil and truthful flim-flam machine.”  Melanin obsessed ignorant democrat politicians and their cronies are emblematic of fomenting inculcated inferiority.  To that end, two of the most disgusting examples are Jasmine “the mouth” Crockett, (D-TX) and the Obama woman. 

One acts and behaves like a Rhesus Macaque, i.e., Rhesus monkey, and the other redefines frighteningly grotesque.

Persons of dignity have long realized that human beings are not instruments used to sanitize that area of the body from which the residual by-product of ingested sustenance is evacuated. Suffice it to say that dignity is an oxymoron when used in the same sentence as democrat, because they fully believe their plantation puppets are nothing more than bipedal anthropomorphic sheets of bathroom tissue and only useful for the same purpose.

The following is for these two drama queens confirm time and again that a free education based upon quotas and being recognized as a crayon color isn’t synonymous with propriety and breeding.

Since these two thuggish harridans are so fixated upon how evil and racist so-called white people are, here are; following are unimpeachable facts that these two specimens might want to examine with respect to the party they represent.  Because apparently they are either unaware or even though they are aware the money is to good to confront the history.  I have plenty more facts historical facts that prove they, just as George Soros, was willing to sell out his Jewish people for gain, so these two are willing to sell out their so-called people for gain.

Let these ghetto drama queens explain why they are so comfortable with these unimpeachable facts:

In 1954, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education finally struck down state segregation laws in education, thus reinstating what Republicans had done nearly seventy-five years earlier in the 1875 civil rights bill. The southern Democratic response to the Court decision ending segregated education was two-fold: a response of words, and a response of actions.

In the category of words, 100 Democrats in Congress – 19 U. S. Senators and 81 U. S. Representatives – passed the “Southern Manifesto” denouncing the Court’s decision. Those 100 Democrats declared that desegregation was “certain to destroy the system of public education” and that there would be what they called an “explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision.”

At the state level Democratic Governor Herman Talmadge of Georgia issued a written attack on the Court decision and promised that there “will never be mixed schools while I am Governor.” Mississippi Democratic Governor James Coleman, when asked in an interview on “Meet the Press” whether the public schools of Mississippi would ever be integrated, succinctly replied, “I would say that a baby born in Mississippi today will never live long enough to see an integrated school.” This was typical of what many southern Democrats did in the category of words.

But the Democratic response went beyond words and also included actions. Following the1954 school desegregation decision, southern Democratic Governors went to extreme lengths to keep the Court decision from going into effect. For example, in 1956, Democratic Governor Allan Shivers of Texas deployed the Texas Rangers to keep blacks from entering public schools in Mans- field. The following year, 1957, Democratic Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas called out the National Guard to keep black students from entering Central High School in Little Rock. However, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower intervened and federalized the Arkansas National Guard to take it away from Governor Faubus. He then replaced the Arkansas Guard with 1,200 troops from the elite 101st Airborne Division, ordering them to protect the nine black students who had chosen to go to Central High. Democrats in the U. S. Senate strongly protested against Eisenhower’s actions to protect these black students. For example, Georgia Democratic Senator Richard Russell specifically complained about using “the whole might of the federal government, including the armed forces . . . to force a commingling of white and Negro children in the state- supported schools of the state.”

Georgia Democratic Governor Marvin Griffin also attacked Eisenhower’s actions but praised Arkansas Governor Faubus for his attempt to prevent blacks from entering Central High School. Governor Griffin promised that as long as he held office, he would “maintain segregation in the schools; and the races will not be mixed, come hell or high water.” To prepare for the possibility that Eisenhower might do in Georgia what he had done in Arkansas, legislation was introduced in the Democratically-controlled Georgia legislature so that if desegregation was attempted, the public schools of the state would be dissolved and replaced with state-run private schools so that blacks could be excluded. These type of schools became known as “segregation academies.”

Meanwhile, in Arkansas, Democratic Governor Faubus, unable to prevent black students from attending school because of the federal pro- tection they received, simply shut down the schools for the next year to prevent further attendance. And Virginia Democratic Governor James Almond – like other southern DemocraticGovernors – also shut down public schools in his state rather than permit black students to attend. In 1960 in Louisiana, where Democratic Governor Jimmie Davis supported segregation, it required four federal marshals to accompany little Ruby Bridges so she could attend a public elementary school in New Orleans. When Ruby entered that school, every other parent in that school pulled their children out of the school, and for the entire year, little Ruby was the only student in that school building – just Ruby and her schoolteacher from Boston.

Some Democratic southern Governors, however, did work for integration – including Tennessee Governor Frank Clement, Florida Governor LeRoy Collins, and Kentucky Governor Happy Chandler – but these tended to be the exceptions among southern Democratic Governors rather than the rule, and their admirable behavior was clearly overshadowed by the negative behavior of the others. (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Pg 24-26)

I truly pity crayon-colored democrats, because for all of their bluff, bluster, bullying, and wolf-tickets, at the end of the day they are a trope of the unrewarded and unwelcome. They are allowed to dress up like minstrels and exhibit crude boorish behavior, and whenever democrats have a weak hand they wheel out their “Darkies.”

Colored democrats are their own worst enemies, but they’re unable to recognize same because, they’re blinded by self-loathing and inculcated inferiority. Instead of striving for propriety they are encouraged by their masters to strive for commonality.