Some of Joe Biden’s Lies for Blacks’ Votes


47

He pretends to be a various individual, and to have actually done various things, than he actually is, and did. And thus far, he has actually gotten away with it …

by Eric Zuesse

Joe Biden was one of the U.S. Senate’s leading segregationists; and he was condemned by the NAACP for it in 1977 hearings prior to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but he has claimed rather to have taken part in anti-segregation sit-ins, which were led by black ministers all of whom were easily deceased at the time when he made those assertions, therefore they could not be asked whether he had actually participated. He was making those assertions while running against Bernie Sanders, whom the Chicago Tribune displayed in their image during the 1960 s being detained as a college student for his quietly demonstrating versus Chicago’s segregationist policy at the time. Sanders in his Presidential campaign didn’t extol it; only Biden bragged about his anti-segregationist activity, though it was fictitious; therefore Biden swamped Sanders in the South Carolina primary on February 29 th– the turning-point in the 2020 Democratic Presidential primaries– where most of the voters were Blacks, who had actually been deceived by Biden’s claims and who didn’t understand that Biden had in fact been a leading northern segregationist. (Biden had even backed an anti-integration bill by North Carolina Republican segregationist Senator Jesse Helms to restrict the federal government from requiring school districts to be or become desegregated in order to qualify to receive federal funds and to allow rather ‘separate-but-equal’ education of Black and White children) Regardless of Biden’s having been condemned by the NAACP for his assistance of ‘natural’ partition, Biden appeared on a broadcast to young Blacks, on 22 May 2020, saying ” The NAACP has actually endorsed me whenever I’ve run.” The very next day, the NAACP silently said ” The NAACP is a non-partisan company and does not back prospects for political office at any level.” They did it quietly, since, if Biden ends up being the President, they want to have the President’s assistance; they don’t want to annoy a future President by notably making a point of what a fraud he is, concerning bigotry.

The NAACP official, at that Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, condemned Biden’s legal proposition, by stating (among other things) that Biden was trying ” to enact an unconstitutional set of technical barriers whose sole function is to disrupt and postpone the courts in their work in school partition cases.” Would that condemnation by the NAACP follow Biden’s currently stating ” The NAACP has endorsed me each time I’ve run” — even if the truth weren’t that the NAACP declines to endorse any prospects?

Biden had opened that 1977 Judiciary Committee hearing by assaulting the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education choice, saying against it: “The typical resident, and finally his agents in Congress, have concerned the conclusion that the courts have gone too far in education cases.” He was in fact referring there to only one case: Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954 (which still hasn’t been implemented in law). The NAACP’s lawyer, Thurgood Marshall, had been the NAACP’s supporter arguing before the Court, to come to that decision In 1967, Marshall became himself the very first Black on the U.S. Supreme Court Ten years later on, in 1977, Senator Biden was being condemned at the Senate Judiciary Committee, by Jack Greenberg, Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. In 1940, Thurgood Marshall had actually established, and became the very first Director-Counsel of, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and his title is the one that Marshall had held when he argued the Brown v. Board of Education case at the Court. Jack Greenberg was Marshall’s immediate successor; and, so, when he condemned Biden, Greenberg was doing it as the instant successor to Marshall. Biden was the NAACP’s chief opponent on this matter, the enemy of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education choice.

In that very same 22 May 2020 broadcast to young black voters, Biden said:

Joe Biden: (09: 10)

I opposed that three strikes and you’re out bill. I oppose the position taking that, stating that you’re going to have any obligatory sentences.

But here’s what Biden had informed Katie Couric on NBC’s Today Program on 1 February 1994:

what I support is a 3 strikes and you’re out, if in truth, they’re extremely violent criminal offenses– arson, rape, murder, manslaughter. 3 strikes in those areas, and you must be out.

He called it there “the Biden expense”– all of it was. “Serious drug offense” needn’t be “violent”; so, non-violent “serious” drug-law violations can and do put detainees behind bars permanently.

Later because May 22 nd interview, he said:

The only obligatory remained in there was carjacking, which I opposed and 3 strikes and you’re out, which is ridiculous. It only was imposed three times however still even once makes no sense. The idea of 3 times 3 strikes and you’re out, give me a break.

Naturally, that’s incorrect (to the level that his broken syntax makes any sense).

Because May 22 nd broadcast, Biden lessened the law’s relevance to federal drug-law lawbreakers, by stating “94% of every detainee in jail remains in a state prison, not a federal prison. No federal law.” The fact is that there are 226,000 federal detainees, and that 100,000 of them are in jail for federal drug-law infractions 44% of prisoners in federal jails are in for having actually violated federal drug-crimes. Yet again, Biden lied, to say “No federal law.” (Moreover, the numbers he cites– such as “94%”– are unreliable.)

Biden’s trashing of convicts led him to want them to come out of prison as doing not have in higher education as they were when entering jail.

Biden likewise stated because May 22 nd interview:

Modification the whole prison system for one, that is punishment to rehab. Why did I come along and compose the first act that stated, when you get out of jail, you don’t simply get a DOSA where you get 25 bucks and a bus ticket.

So every single solitary individual being launched from prison must have access to every single government program. Why does it not make sense to have African Americans who were getting out of jail, served their time, everyone for that matter, be able to have public real estate?

He doesn’t mention, and wasn’t asked by his interviewer about, “the Biden bill” (as he called it) having actually eliminated any and all higher education in federal prisons. He pretends to be a various person, and to have actually done various things, than he actually is, and did. And thus far, he has actually gotten away with it.

Those are simply a few examples, however they are normal ones.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Occasion that Developed Christianity

Content from.
Silverdoctors.com RSS feed.


Like it? Share with your friends!

47