(This is with a hat-tip to Santa Clarita Community Watchdog Group — a Facebook group) In a post on Facebook I came across this linked article to LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY discussing a Democrat politician from Florida’s 18th Congressional district apparently putting out a “hit list” against Republicans. Here is a portion of that article:
Politics is hardly ever pretty when it comes for folks racing toward an election, and thus that means the election for Florida’s 18th congressional district is not immune from the likes of nasty rhetoric from people trying to get a seat at the table.
But when you have people calling for an “open season” for killing your political opponents, then that is where a line has been crossed.
The person who crafted a hypothetical call for murdering the likes of President Trump, Roger Stone and AG Bill Barr is Pam Keith. This Democrat is vying to land Florida’s congressional seat for the 18th district, but a Twitter post dating back to June 10th of this year puts her disturbing mindset on full display:
“GOP: Yeah he’s dead. But it’s not a big deal because he was a “bad guy.” Is that REALLY the new rule they want? Killing is OK if it’s a “bad guy?” Is it now open season on: Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Cohen, Trump, Barr, Kavanaugh, Lewandowski, Bolton, Pompeo, Papadopolous, Parscale.”
NATIONAL REVIEW is the original source for the LET article and notes the political struggle in that district, writing that “The race between Mast and Pam Keith for Florida’s 18th district is now considered a toss up by the Niskanen Center.” Continuing they note:
…The district has swung Republican since 2016, however Keith represents a first major challenge to Mast’s tenure.
Mast is a veteran of the Afghanistan War, where he lost both legs after a bomb exploded under him. Keith is herself a former judge in the Navy, and is an African American who has voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairwoman Cheri Bustos has said of Keith, “Pam has never backed down from fighting for what’s right. She’s running for Congress to put an end to the petty partisanship that gets in the way of delivering results for Floridians.” However, Keith is not one of the candidates listed as part of the organization’s “Red to Blue” campaign to flip Republican-held districts.
With a competitive election on the horizon, focus has shifted to both candidates’ social media history. Keith was the subject of a profile in the Washington Post on Friday which did not mention her more controversial posts…..
Of course if this were a Republican, WaPo would have included those “controversial” posts. All this led to a humorous aside:
This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:
You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.
I could go on, but I won’t.
Here is a short video discussing the matter:
“…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
“…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.
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:
…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.
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.”
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.”
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.…
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.
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.
In dealing with the left, one must remember that they are a selfish and irrational people. Political Correctness is the outward expression of their piety in their progressive socialist religion. They demonstrate their moral purity to one another through one-upmanship, no demand is so crazy that it cannot be topped be an even crazier demand. It’s a game no one can ever win. Put another way, if you give a monster a cookie, he’s only going to demand more cookies. (Gay Patriot)
I posted the below on a friends FaceBook… thought I would share it here:
The issue I see is almost a “pop” outrage. Democrats feel good in taking down something they put up in the 60’s as a middle-finger to the government telling them to desegregate. (Sort of like them getting rid of trans-fats after they replaced coconut oil and lard with it… they fix the problems they cause… decades later.)
I learned something during this whole thing. This is not the confederate flag. It is specifically Gen. Lee’s Battle Flag and was put up by a Dixiecrat. This Dixiecrat (Ernest Frederick “Fritz” Hollings served as a Democratic United States Senator from South Carolina from 1966 to 2005) stayed a Democrat till his dying day ~ like almost every Dixiecrat!
…. QUOTE BREAK:
➤ “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” ~ Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
…I am personally glad for this “outbreak” of faux-concern because it allows for discussion of Democratic racist history and hands me opportunity to note campaigners of Hillary Clinton on stage with shirts sporting Che Guevara, a racist homophobe who killed blacks, homosexuals, banned rock music, engineers, priests etc… as well as Obama campaign offices with Che Guevara hanging on the wall behind them.
…. QUOTE BREAK:
➤ “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” ~ Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.
While Amazon and Wal-Mart took down the Stars and Bars, campaign pins for Clinton-Gore with the Battle Flag behing them -or- Hillary Clinton with the Battle Flag are for sale on eBay as well (below-left). I love it… it is a giant cesspool of leftist hypocrisy, and when I engage in conversation with people [beyond their bumper sticker beliefs that keep them warm-and-cozy in their political mirage… I get entire Starbucks soo quite you could hear a pin drop.
One girl was shuffling soo much as I pulled out a book that I purchased off of the Akiba bookstore of Trinity United Church of Christ (Obama’s church of twenty years) and read these two quotes [after clearly explaining where I bought the book to my two compatriots… this was the time no one in Starbucks was talking]:
➤ “White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64
And then I read this one from Mein Kampf:
➤ “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” ~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
The only noise I could hear is a young college student shuffling to my left. It was as if I was exorcising a demon from her as she was moving soo much after having her protected world inhabited by reality.
And this is the point a very left-leaning professor makes. To have people in the camp he is in merely label people as ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ makes my job easier. Because one someone is labeled, the person doing the labeling stops learning, refuting, checking facts and history.
And I slice them up one side and down the other like the 1972 movie Shogun Assassin.
Keep this faux outrage coming, I love it. I wake up every morning and look in the mirror and say… proudly, “my party is the party of Lincoln… we set people free. The new plantation keeps them subservient.”
[Well, I don’t say that every morning… I just try to gauge if I am gonna take a dump before or after my cup of coffee.]
SeeC-SPANSone-hour interview of Bruce Bartlett about the book I quote from below:
By 1914, Tillman was not on the ballot and he used his influence to defeat Blease in the Democratic primary, the only election that mattered in South Carolina after the disenfranchisement of blacks in 1895. Indeed, so intent was Tillman on defeating his former protégé that he threatened to have the literacy tests designed for blacks used against Blease’s poor white followers as well.
Among the more ridiculous tactics Blease used in the 1914 campaign to save his position was an attack on doctors, whom he charged with abusing young women by examining their private parts during physical examinations. He threatened to kill any doctor who examined his daughter against her will and to pardon anyone who did the same. Fearful that other people were not as outraged as he was about doctors simply doing their jobs, Blease implied that doctors were allowing “Negro janitors” to observe their examinations.
Of course, Blease did not avoid attacking blacks directly in his efforts to gin up the votes of ignorant white textile workers. “The Negro race has absolutely no standard of morality,” he declared. “They are, in that respect, a class by themselves as marital infidelity seems to be their more favorite pastime.” Blease said that giving education to a black man would only “ruin a good field hand and make a bad convict.” He warned that “the black ape and baboon” was a constant threat to rape white women whenever the opportunity presented itself.
Partly because of Tillman’s efforts, Blease was defeated in the 1914 Democratic primary and again in 1916. In 1918, Blease retaliated by running against Tillman for the Senate himself. However, Blease misread the mood of the people regarding World War I and ran a strongly pacifist campaign, attacking Woodrow Wilson and opposing American intervention in the war. After voters reacted very negatively to this approach, he tried to switch course, but it was too late and he was defeated.
Six years later, Blease ran again for the Senate; this time winning election. As a U.S. Senator, Blease was best known for continuing the Tillman tradition of making racially inflammatory speeches on the Senate floor. For example, in a 1928 speech, Democrat Blease blasted Republican Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover:
Republicans are now talking about nominating that man for President of the United States . . . a man who is in favor of making young white girls use the same water-closets as Negro men, making young white girls sit by them day by day. If there was nothing else, Mr. President, a Negro would be offensive because of his natural human smell. You can take a Negro and take a tub of the hottest water you can get him into, and use all the soap you can use, then take him out and cover him with cologne, and in five minutes he will smell just as offensive as he did before you washed him, because it is human nature, and he could not get rid of the odor. Then this man [Hoover], who wants to be President of the United States of America, this Englishman, wants to make white girls associate on equal terms with Negroes. . . . Mr. President, it is a shame, it is a disgrace.
The only disgrace, of course, was that the Democratic voters of South Carolina—the only ones whose votes counted—sent such an obnoxious racist to Washington to represent them. But by 1930, they came to their senses and replaced Blease with James F. Byrnes, a much more genteel racist. Twice more, in 1934 and 1938, Blease attempted to make a comeback as governor, but was rejected by voters both times. He died in 1942.
There is no mention of blacks in the Democratic Party’s 1932 platform. Much of the black community was, in fact, less than enthusiastic about the Roosevelt-Garner ticket. Said the New York Amsterdam News, a prominent black newspaper, “We fear that equal rights in the National Democratic Party means exactly what they meant in 1913 when the Woodrow Wilson administration came into power—equal rights for the white man but hell and damnation for the colored man.”
From the black perspective, the best thing Roosevelt had going for him in 1932 simply was that he wasn’t Herbert Hoover. Hoover was certainly no racist—he abolished segregation in the Commerce Department while secretary” But he had the tinniest of tin ears when it came to practical politics, especially when it came to blacks. Hoover needlessly alienated them by purging blacks from Republican organizations in the South in order to appeal to whites; nominating a justice to the Supreme Court, John J. Parker, who was widely viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a racist; and allowing the War Department to segregate black Gold Star Mothers during a government-financed trip to European graveyards. Many blacks also believed that Hoover had condoned discriminatory treatment while he was in charge of federal relief after the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927.
It is impossible to calculate precisely to what extent New Deal policies raised black unemployment above what otherwise would have been the case. But it is revealing that well after the beginning of the Depression but before the New Deal began, unemployment for black workers was actually lower than for whites. In April 1930, the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent for black males and 6.9 percent for white males. Seven years later, in late 1937, after implementation of most New Deal programs, the unemployment rate for black males was well above that for white males: 19.1 percent for the former versus 13.9 percent for the latter.
Despite all of this, black support for Roosevelt grew sharply between 1932 and 1936. Contrary to popular belief, Hoover actually carried a majority of the black vote in 1932. It was not until 1936 that blacks really deserted the Republican Party in large numbers. A key reason appears to have been the federal government’s welfare efforts through the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which literally put food on the table for a large percentage of black families. According to one estimate, 30 percent of the entire black population was receiving relief in January 1935. As a contemporary analyst explained, blacks were profoundly grateful for this aid, little as it was, and rewarded the political party that delivered the goods:
Many Negroes in Chicago came in for a large share of relief funds and, consequently, were greatly impressed with the humanitarian aims of the New Deal. This sentiment was played upon and encouraged by both the national and local Democratic organizations. It was soon evident that their security was tied up with direct relief.
This same analyst quoted a Republican precinct captain in Chicago, who explained his party’s loss of the black vote this way: “That Abe Lincoln was a Republican is not near so important as their daily bread.’ It didn’t matter that the disbursement of aid was in the hands of local officials who often discriminated severely against blacks. They were grateful that they were getting something, even if it was less than whites received. “Let Jesus lead me and welfare feed me,” Depression-era blacks would say.
Ironically, on August 14, 1935, Roosevelt signed into law the biggest expansion of social welfare in American history—the Social Security Act—and left most blacks out of it. Although initially proposed as universal legislation that would benefit all workers, the bill Roosevelt ultimately signed excluded most blacks by exempting domestic and agricultural workers from coverage. For this reason, many historians today view the original law as inherently racist. As Robert Lieberman of Columbia University recently wrote:
The Old-Age Insurance provisions of the Social Security Act were founded on racial exclusion. In order to make a national program of old-age benefits palatable to powerful Southern congressional barons, the Roosevelt administration acceded to a Southern amendment excluding agricultural and domestic employee from OAI coverage. This provision alone eliminated more than half of the African Americans in the labor force and over three-fifths of black Southern workers.
While Roosevelt himself was not responsible for the provision that limited Social Security coverage for blacks, it is also a fact that he didn’t fight very hard to prevent his proposal from being watered down this way Nor can Roosevelt be excused for ignorance. The NAACP even testified against the Social Security Act before the Senate Finance Committee. Said the NAACP representative, Charles H. Houston, the more the organization studied the legislation, “the more holes appeared, until from a Negro’s point of view it looks like a sieve with the holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”
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.
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:
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
On FaceBook, a gentleman named John mentioned that the KKK supports and mirrors the Republican party. I will here show here the plethora of evidence I brought to bear in private with him. Why make it public (while protecting his privacy)? Because he refuses to admit that this is a) new information that could add to his views, and b) even allowing for an iota of this new evidence into his thinking. Instead, he offers anecdotal responses that are sold on bumper stickers. I was thinking he was not a lemming and could think for himself.
Here is the first paragraph I came across by John:
… the CURRENT GOP is perhaps the most ungodly party in US history .. it shares the legacy of the KKK and the Birch society and calls for shifting wealth from everyone who works into the hands of a few oligarchs….NOW … is that the message we wish to hear from the pulpit? and do we want every Christian pastor to explain how voting for a Mormon is voting against the historical Jesus of the Bible? Me, i prefer not to have this from the pulpit. in fact, I wonder if that is the TRUTH the makers of this film wish pastors to speak out??
Here is my intro:
I would love to join the conversation by saying that there are a few topics already in this small paragraph. I would like to deal with a topic specifically… and, as we move along… keep to this one topic till we get some clarity or consensus on it. This may take a bit of time, but as these topics are important — I think it will be worth the hard work. With one-hour photo, half-hour pizza, Instagram, and email (vs snail mail), we can get use to not thinking or taking time to really delve into a subject.
The first subject may take some time to deal with, but i guarantee that if one sticks to the facts, that some ideas or understandings of these topics WILL change. Before I continue — and this is my busy season — I always wish to preface these talks with a “legal statement.” Before I paste it, I do wish to say one thing more.
I write and upload on these topics… so if a video is posted and recommended to be watched, I would rather a couple of weeks pass until one is able to work through it than not watch it (or read it).
Much Thought, SeanG:
“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”
Lets deal with the kkk claim first, yeah.
John reiterated his position:
ok .. no i am on this thread….note i said the GOP shares the legacy or ghe KKK and the Birchers…this would tie into the nation wide movement for voter suppression, the constant attacks on mr Obama ( including several that use the word nigger ) and the tendency to refer to Obama as ‘socialist’ or even communist.
John, here is a sentence for you, let me know if you agree with it. And if not, tell me how I am going wrong: “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”
Do you have a date for this statement… up until the 60s if would be mostly accurate…in fact you can see the shift of racist from the Dems to the GOP by looking at a election map of the old Confederate states…That shift took place about the time Strom Thurmond moved from the Dems to the GOP …along with other racists…
No, not really. Reagan and the Republican governors implemented the rest of the Civil Rights Act. And in 1972 Wallace was beating McGovern in primaries before he was shot. He was running on an openly racist platform (https://vimeo.com/album/203863/video/25238719). Even today,
That came from a book I just read by Bruce Bartlett entitled “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past” (2009). I brought and read that book and the Rev. Wayne Perryman’s book on a recent Alaskan cruise. Rev. Perryman’s newest book is entitled, “Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats” (2010). [I will post some books and media I have watched below for further referencing for you if you are interested in my reading on this topic.]
First however, I wish to post here what I did on my oldest sons FaceBook:
I would also like to hear a definition of “racist” from people who say such things. “Racism” is a belief that one ethnic group is genetically superior to another. This was popular in the evolutionary field years ago because it was once taught that the races (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid) evolved in separate times and geographical areas.
A literal understanding of the Bible does away with this type of thinking… but that is neither here-nor-there. I would actually like to know what it would take to get someone like myself to work hand-in-hand to remove, say, Bush (“W”) from office — vote him out when he was Pres.
Maybe if Bush went to a church for 20-years that sold white power books similar to Mein Kampf. A church where KKK members and White Power guys felt at home to visit and the pastor (with all this — books in the churches book store and members) was an “ex” Nazi skinhead. I would probably work hand-in-hand with fellow Democrats to remove him from office.
I mean the Rev. Wright is an ex Nation of Islam guy. His church had many visitors from the Black Panthers, the New Black Panthers, and Nation of Islam guys. Outright Racist literature was sold in his church and pushed by his pastor on Hannity & Colmes.
Why wouldn’t they then, work with me? Some quotes for the hard of hearing:
“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf
“The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.62 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
“White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf
“There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.63 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
“Christianity is not alien to Black Power, Christianity is Black Power” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.38 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
“In contrast to this racist view of God, black theology proclaims God’s blackness. Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who black persons are and what they are doing” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.65 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
“The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf
“These new theologians of the Third World argue that Christians [liberation theology accepting Christians] should not shun violence but should initiate it” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.32 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
“It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.14 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
“It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.151 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
“It [black liberation theology] is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both “anti-Christian” and “unpatriotic.”…. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the American Way” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.55-56 (book sold in Obama’s churches book store [of twenty years])
Oh, I almost forgot! Current KKK’ers are also very supportive of the Democrats because many are very harsh on Israel, or outright anti-Semitic. A case in point, David Duke. David Duke endorsed Democrat Charles Barron because of their shared enmity toward “zionists.”
need to get to work ..but … consider …1. David Duke didn’t win as a democrat…2. .Wallace.. check out the American Independent Party …( and also that he at the end of life renounced the racist actions ) 3.go aback to original post of min e. and the words CURRENT GOP….there was a great shift in the GOP since the neo-cons and tea-party ,in my opinion, stole the party from the real republicans in this century… so beware of historical items that do not address the current no longer truly Republican party.
(Like I said, you can take your time with responses, I work too, so no worries in feeling like an immediate response is warranted)
Wallace ran as an independent in 68. in 72 he was running as Democrat (and winning) as an open racist. Reagan in the early 80’s along with his Republican governors working with him, solidified the Civil Rights Act. David Duke CURRENTLY endorses Democrats, as an example.
Do you have a person you can name that is a racist, currently? Obama went to a church that for 20-years sold books in its church book store that mirror Mein Kampf… is that an example I supported by references and quotes? Yes. Can you give me a similar example, or a name of a racist in the Republican Party? Please, I am asking seriously, this issue is close to my heart as my Grandmother is a black woman and I came from Detroit where ALL my friends were black. I know racism and prejudice, as I was a minority and in fights weekly because I was white.
You mentioned Strom Thurman… and that many others switched… a quote is coming, but here is some names in concrete for you and not merely non-resources “sayings” you have heard from others:
Please, give a source from a Republican calling Obama a nigger? Was it close to this: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” ~ LBJ (How? The New Deal)
Besides Robert Byrd, who was a recruiter for the KKK as well as an Exalted Cyclops (“top dog” in his local chapter), there is also this interesting cadre of RECENT names in the Democrat Party:
[What is so galling about these episodes to Republicans is the double standard: blatant racism in the Democratic Party usually passes without notice or denunciation from Democratic leaders or the civil rights establishment. Previous chapters have noted the racist records of highly respected Democrats such as Senators Richard B. Russell of Georgia and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who rose to the highest levels of power in the Democratic Party despite their well-known and often demonstrated hostility to civil rights. Byrd, for example, was elected Senate Democratic Whip in 1971 and Majority Leader in 1977 even though he was known to have once been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and had personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Down to the present day, cases of overt racists holding high-level positions in the Democratic leadership are not uncommon—Byrd still serves in the Senate, where he chairs the powerful Committee on Appropriations. And as recently as 2001, he was still making racist remarks, referring to “white niggers” on national television. Following are a few other contemporary cases that people may have forgotten.]
Senator Herman Talmadge, Democrat of Georgia (1956-1980)
The son of infamous racist Eugene Talmadge… was a chip off the old block. Having replaced his father as governor of Georgia in 1946, he publicly attended Ku Klux Klan Id events in his official capacity. In 1955, Talmadge published an entire book devoted to attacking the civil rights movement and defending segregation. He was especially concerned about the degrading effects of intermarriage. Said Talmadge, “history shows that nations composed of a mongrel race lose their strength and become weak, lazy and indifferent.”E Nevertheless, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1956, where, despite his racist past, he rose to the chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Senator John Stennis, Democrat of Mississippi (1947-1988)
Elected to succeed the notorious Theodore Bilbo… Stennis shared his predecessor’s opposition to integration. In a 1955 interview, Stennis asserted that contrary to popular belief, blacks really wanted separate schools. Moreover, he argued that allowing black and white children to attend the same schools would “eventually destroy each race.” Stennis said it was better to abolish public education altogether than permit integration. Nevertheless, he was among the most respected members of the Senate until his retirement, chairing the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees for many years. Stennis was honored by his fellow Democrats by being elected President pro tempore of the Senate during the One Hundredth Congress.
Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina (1966-2004)
Elected governor of South Carolina in 1958, Hollings was a staunch opponent of integration. Among his actions was signing into law a bill that added the Confederate symbol to the state’s flag. After his election to the Senate in 1966, Hollings continued his intolerant ways. In 1981, he referred to fellow Democratic Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio as “the Senator from B’nai B’rith” for his opposition to school prayer. In 1983, Hollings was forced to apologize for calling supporters of fellow Democratic Senator Alan Cranston of California “wetbacks.” In 1986, Hollings used the word “darkies” to describe minimum wage workers in South Carolina. And in 1993, he said that it was good for African leaders to attend international conferences because they would get a good meal instead of having to eat each other. 11.4 Yet despite these and other racially offensive comments, Hollings served without reprimand and chaired the Senate Budget Committee and the Committee on Commerce.
Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut (1980- )
On April 1, 2004, Senator Robert C. Byrd cast his 17,000th vote in the Senate. Many senators rose to congratulate their colleague, but the most effusive was Dodd. As he said that day, “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation. Considering Byrd’s well-known and admitted past membership in the Ku Klux Klan, Dodd’s words could have been construed as endorsing that nefarious group and he quickly apologized. This incident would not be worth mentioning except that the words spoken by Trent about Strom Thurmond in 2002 were very similar and spoken in the same context of honoring a longtime colleague. But while there was a firestorm of controversy about Lott’s comments and he lost his leadership position, Dodd was not punished in any way and the story instantly vanished.
Senator James Webb, Democrat of Virginia (2006— )
During Webb’s campaign to unseat Republican Senator George Allen in 2006, the liberal New Republic magazine dogged Allen for his alleged pro-Confederacy views. These charges were picked up in the major media and contributed heavily to Allen’s defeat by Webb. However, there is no media record of the fact that Webb himself held views even more sympathetic to the Confederacy than Allen’s. On June 3, 1990, Webb spoke at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington Cemetery and talked extensively about the “gallantry” of the Confederate soldiers that is “still misunderstood by most Americans.” He even voiced sympathy for the idea of state sovereignty and the right to secede from the Union. Yet although it is far more supportive of the Confederacy than anything Allen ever said and was easily available on Web’s personal web site, no mention of this speech ever appeared in the New Republic, Washington Post, or other major media outlet.
Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 182-185.
Mmmm, and Nixon fighting (most Republicans) for the Civil Rights Act, and most Democrats fighting it (including JFK).
What I Have Shown?
• From segregation to separation over race (wanting to create a new — racist — country), from Dred Scott to Bull Connor, to drinking fountains to fighting for the Civil Rights Act wanting to be passed by Republicans since the 1870’s, Democrats were on the wrong side of history. All of it. From Jackson onward. • The Democrat Party never rejected nor disciplined there members for racist activity, even up until current times. Trent Lott lost all positions or importance and was drummed out by fellow Republicans after praising Strom Thurmond, Chris Dodd in a similar situation was ignored. (Like Democrats getting committee leadership positions and three standing ovations in Congress after sleeping with an underage page… but Republicans drumming out any fellow persons who are similarly caught in these situations.) • There are examples (as already posted) of Democrats until recently (even a few years ago the word “niggar” used by Robert Byrd and In 1986 Hollings used the word “darkies” to describe minimum wage workers in South Carolina) racial language used by Democrats, in Congress. • The keynote speaker at the DNC this year is a member of “La Raza” (see: http://tinyurl.com/99ua58z) and has ties to MECHa (so, white power and the KKK respectively… just Hispanic versions). • I showed Obama’s racist connections to a ethos that teaches racism (the genetic superiority of one ethnicity as well as God blessed, racism), that is a Republican had attended a similar church for 20-years, calling this pastor his mentor, a sort-of-father figure, and putting him in charge of part of his campaign (until under the bus he went), the cultural left would be going ape-shit! • I showed that the KKK like Democrats because many are anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian… David Duke even coming out and endorsing a Democrat… and they gravitate towards Ron Paul, who sends voters to go vote for a Democrat ex-Rep. who is part of the Black Panthers (a racist organization, as well as supporting The Nation of Islam) and committed Marxist.
How is this different from you? You seem to make grand, unfounded anecdotal claims based in hearsay. “Colloquial” sayings in generalized swaths with no connection to reality, history, or the like. You, like many today on the left, do not know how to define racism (a genetic superiority) or show that Republican leaders — not some group — are prejudiced (like I have shown in Democratic terms, to be RACIST and PREJUDICED). Like the left labeling its opposition with SIXHERB (explained here: http://tinyurl.com/9o6486c), outside of political expediency, there is no truth to this labeling or connection with the KKK, racism, or historical position of the Democrats like Dred Scott or the silly connection to asking for I.D. to vote. The same question asked to get into the DNC this year… I.D.
So, I am curious what your position is on the Republicans and the KKK are. This one topic.
John repeatedly told me that I have proven nothing, and he again mentioned the John Birch Society. Funny, because the john birch society has included Alan Keyes (a black man) as a speaker and Ezola Foster was an integral part of the organization. The conversation ended with this:
you have shown almost nothing about the last 15 to 20 years….
I hate to point the obvious out… but I did deal with the past 15-years. Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina (1966-2004), Senator James Webb, Democrat of Virginia (2006— ), Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut (1980- ). The endorsement of a leader in the KKK was 2012. So his point is proven wrong, and I think he may have ignored them because it showed his thinking was bad. Obama went to an overtly racist church recently, and the DNC had as its keynote speaker a racist. So my examples spread from the past till current times.
As well as recent racial comments by Democrats, like, Bill Clinton (“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”), Joseph Biden (“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”), and Dan Rather(“but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”):