The Owners of The Red Hen in Virginia Are the Real Bigots

  • “Once Sarah and her family left — and of course Sarah was asked to please vacate, Sarah and her husband just went home. They had sort of had enough. But the rest of her family went across the street to a different restaurant,” Huckabee said on “The Laura Ingraham Show.” “The owner of the Red Hen — nobody’s told this — then followed them across the street, called people and organized a protest yelling and screaming at them from outside the other restaurant and creating this scene.” (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

Here is something I have been saying the past days… and now PJ-MEDIA has a wonderful article stating it as well. Here are my bullet points and then an excerpt from the article:

  • Both the Masterpiece Cake Shop and Sweet Cakes, as well as Arlene’s Flowers are examples of Christian owners serving everyone who comes through their door. The gay couples were regular customers of both businesses, for MANY years. These two Christian business owners would sell and did offer to sell anything in the shop for the event (the same-sex marriage/wedding event), but merely chose due to conscience to withhold participating in managing and contributing their artistic expression and free speech to the EVENT. Blanket service was never denied. (See more here: “Having Your Cake and Forcing Others to Eat It Too“)
  • The Red Hen restaurant decided to do just the opposite of every example these Christian store owners did. They denied BLANKET service to an opposing point of view. The Huckabees did not ask the restaurant to cater a political or religious event celebrating something that the owner’s conscience would not be able to participate in. Rather, it is an example of Jim Crow type laws, being reinstated by the same party that establish them to begin with.

(By the way, I truly believe every business owner should be allowed to refuse business to whomever one wishes… and this is why Barry Goldwater was right: “The American Experiment Wanes ~ Indiana and Religious Discrimination” | BUT by trying to meter out who has rights or what political or religious position holds precedence… we are in the beginning stages of chaos for our legal system.)

Here is a portion of PJ-MEDIA’S excellent post:

Of course, these people who were outraged that Christian bakers wouldn’t make custom cakes for gay weddings think somehow that outrage over what happened to Sarah Huckabee Sanders makes conservative hypocrites, while their enthusiastic approval of her being kicked out of The Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, doesn’t make them hypocritical in the least.

But, I’m going to explain why what happened to Sarah Sanders and her family is actually worse, and why the people who celebrate that denial of service are the real hypocrites and bigots.

The key difference here is that baking a custom cake for a gay wedding is not the same thing as blanket denial of service at a restaurant. None of the Christian bakers ever denied service to gay customers — they just didn’t want to make custom cakes celebrating a lifestyle they believe to be sinful. Media coverage of various incidents has likened the cases of Christian bakers not wanting to create custom cakes for same-sex weddings as refusing to serve homosexuals. However, this is simply not true.

Masterpiece Bakery, owned by Jack Phillips, the complainant (and victor) in the recent Supreme Court case, never refused to serve gay customers.

from the beginning, Jack has seen his business as an expression of his faith (hence the name), and that has led him to reject business throughout his career. For example, he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties.

Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to design a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didn’t even recognize same-sex weddings. Jack told them that he would gladly sell them any item in the store—including cakes—but that he could not, due to his religious convictions, use his cake-design talents to participate in the celebration of their ceremony.

So Mr. Phillips went out of his way in an attempt to accommodate the gay couple. This was not a case of denial of service.

How about Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the Christian-owned bakery in Oregon? In this case, the lesbian couple that had wanted a custom cake for their wedding had been customers before the incident that resulted in the bakers being fined $135,000 (which ultimately forced them to shut down the business). There was no refusal of service by owners Aaron and Melissa Klein. The Kleins, in their own words, “declined to create a custom cake that would have required us to express a message our faith teaches against.”

How about 111 Cakery in Indianapolis, Indiana? 111 Cakery, formerly owned by Randy and Trish McGath, was forced to close its doors in 2015 after three years in business. But they weren’t guilty of refusing to serve gay customers, either.

McGath said he and his wife, who attend a Baptist church, were well aware of the neighborhood’s gay culture when they opened their bakery there in 2012. They served the gay community gladly for several years but “just didn’t want to be party to a commitment ceremony” because such an event reflected “a commitment to sin.”

[…]

“There was zero hate here,” said McGath, who is now selling recreational vehicles. “We were just trying to be right with our God. I was able to speak to many homosexuals in the community and to speak our opinion and have a civil conversation. I’m still in touch with some.”

Despite all the news stories that accused these bakers of refusing to serve gay customers, nothing could be further from the truth. That’s why what happened to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family is so much worse….

(READ IT ALL)

The owner is related to a Hollywood defender of child rapists

Did The Party’s Switch?


THE SWITCH


Just a quick intro to this video, it was at a Young American’s Foundation sponsored eveny at the University of Wisconsin, and a professor gets up to correct D’Souza on the Dixiecrat’s all becoming Republicans. It didn’t go well for the professor:

From a wonderful article from Freedom’s Journal Institute’s series, URBAN LEGENDS: The Dixiecrats and the GOP

THE DIXIECRATS

…During the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948 a number of disgruntled southern segregationist democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights.[1]

They left to form a new Party called the State’s Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats “was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election. Under this scenario, the contest would be decided by the House of Representatives, where southern states held 11 of the 48 votes, as each state would get only one vote if no candidate received a majority of electors’ ballots. In a House election, Dixiecrats believed that southern Democrats would be able to deadlock the election until one of the parties had agreed to drop its civil rights plank.”[2]

Notably, this stated aim is apparent in the third plank of the Dixiecrat’s platform which states, “We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government and the police nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.”[3]

What is even more telling, and speaks directly to the incredulous nature of this urban legend, is the fact that the Dixiecrats rejected the Civil rights platforms of not one, but both parties. Republicans had always supported civil rights since their inception (see GOP party platform here). What was new is that the Democrats, led by Harry Truman, were publicly taking a stand for Civil rights (see Democrat Party Platform here). The ‘totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government”, according to the Dixiecrats, was the federal government’s enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. With both parties, now, standing for Civil rights the segregationist had no party to go too. Thus, they started their own with the idea of causing a stalemate, which they hoped to break, once both parties relinquished their pro-civil rights planks.

Which way did they go?

The strategy of the State’s Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.

Eventually, politics in the South began to change. The stranglehold that white segregationist democrats once held over the South began to crumble. The “old guard” gave way to a new generation of politicians. The Republican Party saw an opportunity to make in-roads into the southern states appealing to southern voters. However, this southern strategy was not an appeal to segregationists, but to the new political realities emerging in the south.[4]


[1] See the 1948 Democrat Party Platform.

[2] Encyclopedia of Alabama – Dixiecrat.

[3] Read more at the American Presidency Project.

[4] I will talk more about the Southern Strategy in another article.





Here is another great excerpt from Ann Coulter from her excellent book, Mugged, regarding this “change dealing with Senators:

In 1948, Thurmond did not run as a “Dixiecan,” he ran as a “Dixiecrat.” As the name indicates, the Dixiecrats were an offshoot of the Democratic Party. When he lost, Thurmond went right back to being a Democrat.

All segregationists were Democrats and—contrary to liberal fables—the vast majority of them remained Democrats for the rest of their lives. Many have famous names—commemorated in buildings and statues and tribute speeches by Bill Clinton. But one never hears about their segregationist pasts, or even Klan memberships. Among them are: Supreme Court justice Hugo Black; Governor George Wallace of Alabama; gubernatorial candidate George Mahoney of Maryland; Bull Connor, Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, Alabama; Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas; and Governor Lester Maddox of Georgia.

But for practical purposes, the most important segregationists were the ones in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die. All the segrega­tionists in the Senate were of course, Democrats. All but one remained Democrats for the rest of their lives—and not conservative Democrats. Support for segregation went hand in hand with liberal positions on other issues, too.

The myth of the southern strategy is that southern segregationists were conservatives just waiting for a wink from Nixon to switch parties and join the Reagan revolution. That could not be further from the truth. With the exception of Strom Thurmond—the only one who ever became a Republi-can—they were almost all liberals and remained liberals for the rest of their lives. Of the twelve southern segregationists in the Senate other than Thurmond, only two could conceivably be described as “conservative Democrats.”

The twelve were:

  • Senator Harry Byrd (staunch opponent of anti-communist Senator Joseph McCarthy);
  • Senator Robert Byrd (proabortion, opponent of 1990 Gulf War and 2002 Iraq War, huge pork barrel spender, sending more than $1 bil­lion to his home state during his tenure, supported the Equal Rights Amendment, won a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America and a 71 percent grade from the American Civil Liberties Union in 2007);
  • Senator Allen Ellender of Louisiana (McCarthy opponent, pacifist and opponent of the Vietnam War);
  • Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina (McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, major Nixon antagonist as head the Watergate Com­mittee that led to the president’s resignation);
  • Senator Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee (ferocious McCarthy oppo­nent despite McCarthy’s popularity in Tennessee, anti-Vietnam War);
  • Senator James Eastland of Mississippi (conservative Democrat, though he supported some of FDR’s New Deal, but was a strong anti-communist);
  • Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas (staunch McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big supporter of the United Nations and taxpayer-funded grants given in his name);
  • Senator Walter F. George of Georgia (supported Social Security Act, Tennessee Valley Authority and many portions of the Great Society);
  • Senator Ernest Hollings (initiated federal food stamp program, sup­ported controls on oil, but later became a conservative Democrat, as evidenced by his support for Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court);
  • Senator Russell Long (Senate floor leader on LBJ’s Great Society pro­grams);
  • Senator Richard Russell (strident McCarthy opponent, calling him a “huckster of hysteria,” supported FDR’s New Deal, defended Truman’s firing of General Douglas MacArthur, mildly opposed to the Vietnam War);
  • Senator John Stennis (won murder convictions against three blacks based solely on their confessions, which were extracted by vicious police floggings, leading to reversal by the Supreme Court; first senator to publicly attack Joe McCarthy on the Senate floor; and, in his later years, opposed Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court).

The only Democratic segregationist in the Senate to become a Republican—Strom Thurmond—did so eighteen years after he ran for president as a Dixiecrat. He was never a member of the terroristic Ku Klux Klan, as Hugo Black and Robert Byrd had been. You could make a lot of money betting people to name one segregationist U.S. senator other than Thurmond. Only the one who became a Republican is remembered for his dark days as a segregationists Democrat.

As for the remaining dozen segregationists, only two—Hollings and Eastland—were what you’d call conservative Democrats. The rest were dyed-in-the-wool liberals taking the left-wing positions on issues of the day. Segregationist beliefs went hand in hand with opposition to Senator Joe McCarthy, opposition to the Vietnam War, support for New Deal and Great Society programs, support for the United Nations, opposition to Nixon and a 100 percent rating from NARAL. Being against civil rights is now and has always been the liberal position.


OPPOSING CIVIL RIGHTS


Related as well is the recorded votes of which party supported the Civil Rights history regarding persons of color

WHICH PARTY OPPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS?

The voting rolls of the Civil Rights laws speak for themselves. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House with 153 out of 244 Democrats voting for it, and 136 out of 171 Republicans. This means that 63 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans voted “yes.” In the Senate, 46 out of 67 Democrats (69 percent) and 27 out of 33 Republicans (82 percent) supported the measure.

The pattern was similar for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It passed the House 333-85, with 24 Republicans and 61 Democrats voting “no.” In the Senate, 94 percent of Republicans compared with 73 percent of Democrats supported the legislation.

Here’s a revealing tidbit: had Republicans voted for the Civil Rights laws in the same proportion as Democrats, these laws would not have passed. Republicans, more than Democrats, are responsible for the second civil rights revolution, just as they were solely responsible for the first one. For the second time around, Republicans were mainly the good guys and Democrats were mainly the bad guys.

Here’s further proof: the main opposition to the Civil Rights Movement came from the Dixiecrats. Note that the Dixiecrats were Democrats; as one pundit [Coulter] wryly notes, they were Dixiecrats and not Dixiecans.

The Dixiecrats originated as a breakaway group from the Democratic Party in 1948. For a time, the Dixiecrats attempted to form a separate party and run their own presidential ticket, but this attempt failed and the Dixiecrats reconstituted themselves as a rebel faction within the Democratic Party.

Joined by other Democrats who did not formally ally themselves with this faction, the Dixiecrats organized protests against desegregation rulings by the Supreme Court. Dixiecrat governors refused to enforce those rulings. Dixiecrats in the Senate also mounted filibusters against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Johnson’s Democratic allies in Congress required Republican votes in order to defeat a Dixiecrat-led filibuster and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Leading members of the Dixiecrat faction were James Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi; John Stennis, Democrat from Mississippi; Russell Long, Democrat from Louisiana; Strom Thurmond, Democrat from South Carolina; Herman Talmadge, Democrat from Georgia; J. William Fulbright, Democrat from Arkansas; Lester Maddox, Democrat from Georgia; Al Gore Sr., Democrat from Tennessee; and Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia. Of these only Thurmond later joined the Republican Party. The rest of them remained Democrats.

The Dixiecrats weren’t the only racists who opposed civil rights legislation. So did many other Democrats who never joined the Dixiecrat faction. These were racists who preferred to exercise their influence within the Democratic Party, which after all had long been the party of racism, rather than create a new party. Richard Russell of Georgia—who now has a Senate Building named after him—and James Eastland of Mississippi are among the segregationist Democrats who refused to join the Dixiecrat faction.

Now the GOP presidential candidate in 1964, Barry Goldwater, did vote against the Civil Rights Act. But Goldwater was no racist. In fact, he had been a founding member of the Arizona NAACP. He was active in integrating the Phoenix public schools. He had voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

Goldwater opposed the 1964 act because it outlawed private as well as public discrimination, and Goldwater believed the federal government did not have legitimate authority to restrict the private sector in that way. I happen to agree with him on this—a position I argued in The End of Racism. Even so, Goldwater’s position was not shared by a majority of his fellow Republicans.

It was Governor Orval Faubus, Democrat of Arkansas, who ordered the Arkansas National Guard to stop black students from enrolling in Little Rock Central High School—until Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce desegrega­tion. In retaliation, Faubus shut down all the public high schools in Little Rock for the 1958-59 school year.

It was Governor George Wallace, Democrat of Alabama, who attempted to prevent four black students from enrolling in elementary schools in Huntsville, Alabama, until a federal court in Birmingham intervened. Bull Connor, the infamous southern sheriff who unleashed dogs and hoses on civil rights protesters, was a Democrat.

Progressives who cannot refute this history—facts are stubborn things—nevertheless create the fantasy of a Nixon “Southern strategy” that supposedly explains how Republicans cynically appealed to racism in order to convert southern Democrats into Republicans. In reality Nixon had no such strategy—as we have seen, it was Lyndon Johnson who had a southern strategy to keep blacks from defecting to the Repub­lican Party. Johnson, not Nixon, was the true racist, a fact that progres­sive historiography has gone to great lengths to disguise.

Nixon’s political strategy in the 1968 campaign is laid out in Kevin Phillips’s classic work The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips writes that the Nixon campaign knew it could never win the presidency through any kind of racist appeal. Such an appeal, even if it won some converts in some parts of the Lower South, would completely ruin Nixon’s pros­pects in the rest of the country. Nixon’s best bet was to appeal to the rising middle classes of the Upper South on the basis of prosperity and economic opportunity. This is exactly what Nixon did.

There are no statements by Nixon that even remotely suggest he appealed to racism in the 1968 or 1972 campaigns. Nixon never dis­played the hateful, condescending view of blacks that Johnson did. The racist vote in 1968 didn’t go to Nixon; it went to George Wallace. A longtime Democratic segregationist, Wallace campaigned that year on an independent ticket. Nixon won the election but Wallace carried the Deep South states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.

Nixon supported expanded civil rights for blacks throughout his career while Johnson was—for the cynical reasons given above—a late convert to the cause. Nixon went far beyond Johnson in this area; in fact, Nixon implemented America’s first affirmative action program which involved the government forcing racist unions in Philadelphia to hire blacks.

To sum up, starting in the 1930s and continuing to the present, progressive Democrats developed a new solution to the problem of what they saw as useless people. In the antebellum era, useless people from the Democratic point of view were mainly employed as slaves. In the postbellum period, southern Democrats repressed, segregated, and subjugated useless people, seeking to prevent them from challenging white suprem­acy or voting Republican. Meanwhile, northern progressives like Mar­garet Sanger sought to prevent useless people from being born. Today’s progressives, building on the legacy of Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, have figured out what to do with useless people: turn them into Democratic voters.

For MANY MORE resources on this topic,

see my page titled, “U.S. RACIAL HISTORY

Larry Elder Exposes Chuck Todd’s Bias

While Larry Elder deals with Chuck Todd specifically, this is an example of the narrative most in the media try to build or believe… that is, that the GOP are full of bigots.

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 Democrats have rewritten it.

(Mona Charin)

CODE WORDS

When Republicans say something a team of scientists could study without finding racism, liberals say the Republicans are using code words.

Not only photos of Paris Hilton and Scott Brown’s pickup truck, but standard Republican positions on small government, low taxes and tough­on-crime policies are supposed to be proof of racism. That’s convenient. Since there is nothing objectively racist about these policy stances, liberals explain that they are “dog whistles” “slick racism,” “subtle racism” or “code words” that secretly convey: “I hate black people.”

This is as opposed to liberals who actually make racist statements all the time—but they have good hearts, so it doesn’t count.

We had Biden calling Obama “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean.” Former CBS newsman Dan Rather said the argument against Obama would be that “he’s very articulate… but he couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” Senator Harry Reid praised Obama for not having a “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

But because they are liberals, their use of actually racist phrases be­comes code for “I love black people!”

As French philosopher Jean-Francois Revel said of the left, while most regimes are judged on their records, only communism is judged only by its promises. Similarly, modern liberals are judged on their motives; conser­vatives are judged on what liberals claim we really meant.

The Tea Party was held responsible for every single person who showed up at their rallies, including random nuts or liberal infiltrators as if it proved something about the whole movement. Meanwhile, the explosion of sexual assaults, drug overdoses and property damage at Occupy Wall Street events were never thought to impugn the admirable motives of that group. (The first month of Occupy Wall Street protests included more than a dozen sexual assaults; at least half a dozen deaths by overdose, suicide or murder; and millions of dollars in property damage.)

Hordes of young liberal nitwits sport T-shirts featuring Che Guevara, a vile racist who described blacks as “indolent,” spending their “meager wage on frivolity or drink” who lack an “affinity with washing.” This isn’t a big secret: He wrote it in his book The Motorcycle Diaries. No one calls them racist.

When it comes to black conservatives, liberals drop the subtlety and tell us that blacks are stupid, unqualified and oversexed. It’s as if all the fake fawning over black nonentities creates a burning desire in liberals to call some black person an idiot—and all that rage gets dumped on black con­servatives.

Democratic Senator Harry Reid called Clarence Thomas “an embar­rassment to the Supreme Court,” adding, “I think that his opinions are poorly written.” Name one, Harry.

White liberal Washington Post reporter Mary McGrory dismissed Thomas as “Scalia’s puppet.” The New York Times’s Bill Keller called Justice Thomas an affirmative action appointment.

Bill Clinton slyly demeaned Colin Powell by citing him as a product of “affirmative action,” slipping it in during a televised town hall meeting in his 1997 “national conversation” on race. “Do you favor the United States Army abolishing the affirmative action program that produced Colin Powell?” he asked. “Yes or no?”

When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, there was an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt

Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from Gone with the Wind, a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist clichés. Joseph Cirincione, with the Carnegie En­dowment for International Peace, said Rice “doesn’t bring much experi­ence or knowledge of the world to this position.” (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.) Democratic consultant Bob Beckel—who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign so competently that Mondale lost forty-nine states—said of Rice, “I don’t think she’s up to the job.”

When Michael Steele ran for governor in Maryland, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report—something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in blackface and with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate.

And of course, both Clarence Thomas and presidential candidate Her­man Cain were slandered with racist stereotypes out of a George Wallace campaign flier.

But a Republican drives a red pickup truck and that’s “racist.”

Liberals step on black conservatives early and often because they can’t have black children thinking, “Hmmm, the Republicans have some good ideas, maybe I’m a Republican.”

The basic set-up is:

Step 1: Spend thirty years telling blacks that Republicans are racist and viciously attacking all black Republicans.

Step 2: Laugh maliciously at Republicans for not having more blacks in their party.

Republican positions are not code words for racism. Rather, liberals use “racism” as a code word for Republican positions. The basic difference be­tween the parties is that Republicans support small government, low taxes, and tough-on-crime policies, while Democrats prefer behemoth national government with endless Washington bureaucracies bossing us around, taxes through the roof and releasing criminals.

Republicans also oppose abortion and gay marriage, but those are touchy issues for Democrats since black people don’t like them either. So those aren’t “code words.”

In lieu of arguing with Republicans, Democrats simply brand all words describing their positions as a secret racist code, visible only to liberals. (To be fair, they should know.)

Bill Moyers distributed tapes of Martin Luther King’s adulterous affairs to the press. But this sensitive soul claims Republicans hated LBJ’s Great

Society program because they hated black people. Yes—Republicans were only pretending to care about bankrupting the country. That was a pretext, but deep down they didn’t care one way or another about a gargantuan, useless government spending program, requiring heavily staffed Washington bureaucracies. What reason, other than racism, could Republicans have for objecting to that?

How has the War on Poverty improved black people’s lives again? Try comparing how black people were doing before and after the Great Society before answering that.

Democrats claim “states’ rights” is racist code, but they are the only ones who ever used the phrase as a front for racism. Democrats love enormous, metastasizing national government for everything under the sun — but, strangely, they wanted “states’ rights” for their Jim Crow policies. Republicans want a tiny federal government with the states running everything else. The only times in the last century that Republicans have supported a broad federal remedy was when the Democrats were denying black people their civil rights in the South.

As has been overwhelmingly demonstrated over the past few decades, when Republicans talked about things like “states’ rights,” “law and order” and “welfare reform,” what they meant was: states’ rights, law and order and welfare reform. And as soon as their policies were implemented—most aggressively during the post-OJ verdict paradise—blacks suddenly had better lives and started being murdered a lot less. There are your Republican racists.

Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 250-253.

The American Experiment Wanes ~ Indiana and Religious Discrimination

Here is the discussion between Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law, John Eastman, and Dennis Prager about the law in Indiana and the failing American experiment:

In the second hour Dennis ruminates on the first hour and the discussion he had with Professor Eastman:

And as a bonus, I isolated Prager admitting that he was wrong and Barry Goldwater was right:

Todd Purdum Talks About His Book, “An Idea Whose Time Has Come”

Michael Medved interviews Todd S. Purdum about his book celebrating the 50th anniversary [history] of the 1964, Civil Rights Act, An Idea Whose Time Has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties, and the Battle for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some great historical additions to the knowledge about that time.

A Challenge On the Southern Strategy [Myth], Via FaceBook

(Reagan’s “Southern Strategy” – 1980)

The extreme leftist (since he classifies me as an right-wing-extremist, as you will see) said this to me:

  • sad, sean, ignoring the well documented southern strategy of the GOP .. and the way it has led to the current, party, no longer Republican in anything but name ….most likely because them thar Dixiecrats fled the dems and signed up as gooperrs

To which I responded with this:

NEWSBUSTERS: Every presidential election cycle, we have to hear about the “Republican Southern Strategy.” In your book, you exposed that there’s really no such thing. It’s actually a media fabrication.

COULTER: The striking thing about that, which I think few people have noticed, is the general and untrue point made over and over and over again that the segregationists were Democrats, but the Republicans decided to appeal to them to win the south. To put it in Bill Clinton’s words, “How Republicans think they started winning the south anyway if it wasn’t through appealing to racists.” We were supposed to have these secret little code words – unlike the Democrats who just actually come out and said racist things like Bill Clinton’s pal Orville Saubus or William Fulbright or Bull Connor or George Wallace – Democrats all. No, they just come out and go straight for the racist jugular, whereas Republicans say, “Let’s cut taxes,” and that’s supposed to be the equivalent of a Klan yelp.

The truth is Republicans didn’t win the Goldwater states. The southern strategy is supposedly based on the 1964 presidential election. But in 1948, Strom Thurmond – the one Democrat segregationist in the Senate to ever become a Republican – ran on a segregationist ticket, the Dixiecrat ticket. Note that was called the “Dixiecrats” and not the “Dixiecans.” This was a spinoff from the Democratic Party. He lost, but he won a handful of southern states. He went back to the Democratic Party, where he was warmly welcomed back, by the way, staying a Democrat for another two decades.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was a strong integrationist but also a little bit of a nutty libertarian and very serious about the Constitution – what Congress could do and what it couldn’t do. He voted for every prior civil rights bill unlike the Democrats who voted against the ’64 act. Goldwater voted against the 1964 civil rights bill on principle, and he lost a landslide election winning mostly the same southern states that Thurmond had won in 1948. So that is the entire theory of the southern strategy, and now, today, of course the south is mostly Republican.

The truth of the matter is Republicans didn’t start winning those Goldwater states for another 30 years, and the reason we did was because the Dixiecrats, aka the Democrat segregationists, died.

NEWSBUSTERS: Yet when a Democrat candidate wins those states, it’s not part of a “racist southern strategy.”

COULTER: No, that’s right, but truth is Republicans had been winning the same Republican states since the 1920s. Allegedly Goldwater was a game-changing election. No, Republicans had been winning the outer south – Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, one of the Carolinas, and Florida – since 1928. You can’t really tell much from the ’30s and ’40s because FDR and Truman dominated the entire country during that period. But then the next Republican to win any presidential election was Eisenhower, and he won basically those same southern states.

I have maps in the back of the book showing how Republicans keep winning the same outer circle of southern states. That is what Nixon picked up in 1960. Same thing in 1968. It’s hard to tell from the 1972 and 1980 elections because the Republicans really had a “landslide strategy.” It wasn’t just a southern strategy, but was a strategy for taking the entire country. In 1972, the entire country voted for Nixon other than Massachusetts – poor Scott Brown. And basically the same thing happened in 1980.

Republicans did not start winning a plurality of votes for the House of Representatives – which is voted on every two years – until 1994. That’s 30 years after Goldwater’s 1964 run. In 1980, Reagan did the worst in the Goldwater states. Even the ones he won, he won by the smallest margin, and lost Georgia outright, whereas he crushed in the southern states Republicans had been winning off and on since 1928. Also in 1980, Reagan won with younger voters in the south. He lost with their elders, i.e. the Dixiecrats.

Part of the evidence of that was from polls taken at the time. At Yale, Reagan got about seventeen percent. John Anderson was crushing in the Ivy League followed by Carter, with Reagan coming in between fourteen and seventeen percent. At Louisiana Tech, Reagan was winning by like 80 percent. So, it was young voters who weren’t alive in 1964 supporting Ronald Reagan in the south in 1980.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/8frfswo

To which John responded:

  • good grief, do you have ANY sources that are not already known as extreme right wing propaganda machines?

Firstly, john wouldn’t know if propaganda hit him like a 64 Buick LeSabre at 60-miles per hour! I respond with more:

Did you read the interview? History is being mentioned… the only person spinning (and are acting extreme) is you. What can I recommend for you John? Maybe instead of tuning into Rachel “Left of Moa” Maddow or other crazy leftist beliefs, you should take a hiatus, pick up a book or two, and learn a bit about history, worldviews, and the like. Stop labeling people and ideas. Like I told a youg person on my son’s FB:

★ I just wanted to point out how easy it is for people to label (what is called S.I.X.H.I.R.B. ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted), rather that engage in dialogue. [http://tinyurl.com/8nvg5ke]

You have once again done this. You rejected Ann Coulter’s stating of facts by connecting her to the right. An easy way to dismiss an argument… which makes my job easy because many on the Cultural Left do this instead of inculcating knowledge. Which is why you seem to merely respond with an ad hominem attack and then get spanked.

And then I ended with this:

Bam!

Governor George Wallace, Democrat of Alabama, sought to exploit the rising racial tensions.’ Along with Governor Lester Maddox, the Georgia Democrat, Wallace hoped to lead a white backlash against integration that would at least slow its advance. In 1964, Wallace had run unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination, leading him to conclude that the deck was too heavily stacked against him to win that way. So he made plans to run for president in 1968 as a third-party candidate opposed to the pro-civil rights policies of both the Republicans and Democrats. Wallace often said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties.

Richard Nixon was well aware of Wallace’s intentions when he made his own plans to run for president in 1968 and, consequently, conceded the Deep South to Wallace right off the bat. According to Theodore White, “Nixon conspicuously, conscientiously, calculatedly denied himself all racist votes, yielding them to Wallace.” Indeed, Wallace often attacked Nixon during the campaign for supporting civil rights. Said Wallace, “It started under a Republican administration in 1954 when they appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren and the [Senate] confirmation was presided over by [Vice President] Nixon.”

Therefore, contrary to popular belief, Nixon had no “Southern strategy” designed to carry racist votes through coded messages about crime and welfare, as is often alleged. It would have made no sense politically with Wallace in the race. Perhaps if Wallace had not been a candidate, it might have paid for Nixon to court conservative Southerners. But with Wallace running, it was clear that the Alabaman was going to get most of the votes of Southern whites concerned about issues such as black crime and welfare. “Wallace split the conservative electorate,” Nixon political adviser Kevin Phillips explained, and “siphoned off a flow of ballots that otherwise would have gone heavily for Nixon, and garnered many of his backers — Northern or Southern, blue-collar or white-collar — from the ranks of 1964 GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.” This meant that Nixon had no choice but to find his votes in the more racially tolerant North and West. As historian Glen Moore explains:

✪ The biggest fallacy in the Southern strategy viewpoint is that it ignores the fact that Nixon had to win in other regions in order to get the 270 electoral votes necessary for winning the presidency. If Nixon emphasized winning southern votes, then he risked losing support in the major industrial states, which would be committing political suicide.

This reality forced Nixon to run in 1968 as a classic centrist-splitting the difference between the ultra-liberal Humphrey and the ultraconservative Wallace. Thus Nixon actually emphasized his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and began his presidential campaign with a strenuous attack on racism!’ As he explained in a 1966 newspaper column: “Southern Republicans must not climb aboard the sinking ship of racial injustice. Any Republican victory that would come from courting racists, black or white, would be a defeat for our future in the South and our party in the nation.”

Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 170-171