Former Klansman Seeks Political Office in Florida…as a Democrat
- Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:22am by
Emily Esfahani Smith
- Print »
- Email »
John Paul Rogers, a 70-year old Floridian, wants to run for mayor of a small Florida town called Lake Wales. Just one problem: the democratic mayoral candidate is a former Klansman.
Here he is at a 1977 KKK rally in Tallahassee:
Not only was Rogers a Klansman, but he was a leader in the United Klans of America, which was arguably the most violent of the Klan organizations says Florida local and Klan history expert Darryl Paulson:
Paulson, a USF professor, who is an expert in the Klan, points to a case in which two Klansman with the United Klans of America were convicted of attacking 19-year-old Michael Donald in 1981 in Mobile, Alabama. Donald was beaten up and his throat was cut.
Paulson says, “They hung him from a tree and they were sued in court and the civil judgment was launched against the United Klans of America. The jury awarded a six million dollar settlement to the mother of the slain child.”
He adds, “When Rogers says he resigned. He had no other choice. The United Klans couldn’t pay off the six million dollar settlement but they lost their headquarters. Their headquarters was sold as part of the judgement so in essence they were forced out of business. They were financially bankrupt.”
According to a local news station in Tampa Bay, Rogers has no apologies about his time with the KKK.
Rogers told WTSP’s 10 News, “Well I resigned years ago, about 30 years ago. Jesus said, ‘He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone,‘ and so far no one’s hit me with a rock. I don’t know of any act of any violence that was sanctioned by our organization, either national or in Florida.”
Will Lake Wales voters elect a former KKK leader to be their mayor? We’ll find out on April 5, election day.
Local coverage and an interview with Rogers appears below (H/T Gateway Pundit).
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 690 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 480 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 375 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 336 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 323 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 310 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 323 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 220 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 310 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (253)
Zoe
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:06pmListen for the whisper …. or wait for the Brick.
Report Post »KL
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:04pmByrd was a former klansman and he was a democrat. This guy wont be the first! FYI Shane…..checkered pasts? Please………neither Bush NOR Clinton were former klansman. THAT would be a checkered past. So dont go pointing fingers with out knowing what you are talking about. The Bush’s are good people!
Report Post »NHdriver
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:03pmFormer KKK’s are Dems because for them, the next best thing to terrorizing blacks is using welfare and abortion to keep blacks poor and under control. All the while acting from some fake moral high ground.
Report Post »obama_binpharteen
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:00pmYou can take the man out of the KKK, but you can’t take the KKK out of the man. This guy will always be racist. Wakeup Florida…
Report Post »Dandylyon
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:56amYou find all kinds of people when you pull the cowards HOOD off.
What do you suppose we will find when we pull Obama’s cowerdly shroud off,better yet how about the manwoman he is married to??????????????/
Report Post »orlandojon
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:56amWell there is a history of Klansmen holding office in the Democrat party
Report Post »Bermuda Onion
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:55amFunny thing is is that no too many people know that MLK Jr. was a republican. I know the teachers hate to admit that and that Jack Kennedy and Al Gore Sr. voted against civil rights. Kennedy went as far as to not accept the march in D.C. Why is it that teachers don’t teach that in school. I know, I know, it is because that would let the cat out of the bag and the African American votes might actually start to dwindle.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:14pmNorthern African-Americans (who could vote) began to swing Democratic as early as the 1930s, punishing the Republicans for decades of mostly lip service and rewarding the Dems for work relief, food stamps, welfare and other New Deal innovations. Southern African-Americans (who could not vote) tended to remain Republican until the 1960s, but then swiftly went Democratic, even as southern whites began to trend Republican. Despite Byrd’s Klan past, Kennedy’s very late endorsement of civil rights, and the equivocation of Gore, Johnson et al., everybody knew what Goldwater’s “states’ rights” rhetoric of 1964 portended.
Report Post »Dan
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:09pm@LLOYD DRAKO
Once again your so called facts are not correct.
Dan
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:33pmDan:
OK, but how so?
Northern liberal Democrats dominated their party by the 1960s and shrewdly calculated that they could afford to write off much of the white South–as LBJ freely admitted–by endorsing civil rights.
Republicans on the other hand behaved very stupidly in opting for the “[white] southern strategy” of Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan–stupidly, that is, if they wanted to get more than a tiny minority of the black vote.
All I’ve done is to point out that the two parties have effectively switched positions (and constituencies) over the course of 150 years.
Those are not so-called facts, they are facts pure and simple.
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:15pm@lloyd, I am interested in the sources of the facts you cite. Would like to look at them further.
Report Post »Dan
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:48pmLloyd Drako, I just wanted to say that I find our disagreements very interesting.
The myth goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today’s Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.
This myth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject. But it is testimony to its growing influence that it is taken aboard by writers like Dan Carter, a prize-winning biographer of George Wallace, and to a lesser extent by the respected students of the South, Earl and Merle Black. It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racial issues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of “a new era for the Republican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won’t be tolerated.” It has become a staple of Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, who accuses Republicans of “dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people” through the use of so-called racist “codewords.” All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and “racist” is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics. Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat the GOP’s reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know young Republicans who fear that behind their party’s victories lies a dirty, not-so-little Southern secret.
Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context.
The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today’s conservatism must be traced directly back to the “politics of rage” that George Wallace blended from “racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics.” Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan’s 1980 Southern coalition was “the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968.” For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the “party of Abraham Lincoln,“ but it became the ”party of Barry Goldwater,” opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats’ insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America’s devil (according to the Democrats).
The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP’s policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South‘s dominant party in the least racist phase of the region’s history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.
Let’s start with policies. Like many others, Carter and the Black brothers argue that the GOP appealed to Southern racism not explicitly but through “coded” racial appeals. Carter is representative of many when he says that Wallace’s racialism can be seen, varying in style but not substance, in “Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon’s subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan’s genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush’s use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich’s demonization of welfare mothers.”
The problem here is that Wallace’s segregationism was obviously racist, but these other positions are not obviously racist. This creates an analytic challenge that these authors do not meet. If an illegitimate viewpoint (racism) is hidden inside another viewpoint, that second view—to be a useful hiding place—must be one that can be held for entirely legitimate (non-racist) reasons. Conservative intellectuals might not always linger long enough on the fact that opposition to busing and affirmative action can be disguised racism. On the other hand, these are also positions that principled non-racists can hold. To be persuasive, claims of coding must establish how to tell which is which. Racial coding is often said to occur when voters are highly prone to understanding a non-racist message as a proxy for something else that is racist. This may have happened in 1964, when Goldwater, who neither supported segregation nor called for it, employed the term “states’ rights,” which to many whites in the Deep South implied the continuation of Jim Crow.
The problem comes when we try to extend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing that Nixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, and welfare reform in a political climate in which many white voters doubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individual responsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned as racist “code,” the GOP’s positions would have to come across as proxies for these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. The problem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Many scholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury, usually they don’t even pause to identify when views like opposition to affirmative action would not be racist.
In effect, these critics want to have it both ways: they acknowledge that these views could in principle be non-racist (otherwise they wouldn’t be a “code” for racism) but suggest they never are in practice (and so can be reliably treated as proxies for racism). The result is that their claims are non-falsifiable because they are tautological: these views are deemed racist because they are defined as racist. This amounts to saying that opposition to the policies favored by today’s civil rights establishment is a valid indicator of racism. One suspects these theorists would, quite correctly, insist that people can disagree with the Israeli government without being in any way anti-Semitic. But they do not extend the same distinction to this issue. This is partisanship posturing as social science.
The Southern Strategy
This bias is evident also in how differently they treat the long Democratic dominance of the South. Carter and the Black brothers suggest that the accommodation of white racism penetrates to the very soul of modern conservatism. But earlier generations of openly segregationist Southerners voted overwhelmingly for Woodrow Wilson‘s and Franklin Roosevelt’s Democratic Party, which relaxed its civil rights stances accordingly. This coalition passed much of the New Deal legislation that remains the basis of modern liberalism. So what does the segregationist presence imply for the character of liberalism at its electoral and legislative apogee? These scholars sidestep the question by simply not discussing it. This silence implies that racism and liberalism were simply strange political bedfellows, without any common values.
But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftly identified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study, authors say that “racial and economic conservatism” married white Southerners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidental events must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964 racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it would be for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams to generate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophical link between segregation and liberalism’s economic populism.
Yet liberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analytic error. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up voting Republican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicans went to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming to them. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first is the logic of electoral competition. Extremist voters usually have little choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at best the lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they truly desire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallace won less than 9% of the electoral college and Nixon became president anyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limited national bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOP was the mountain.
Second, this was borne out in how little the GOP had to “offer,” so to speak, segregationists for their support after 1968, even according to the myth’s own terms. Segregationists wanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settle for relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing and reluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason these policies aren‘t plausible codes for real racism is that they aren’t the equivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.
Why did segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue to vote Democratic? The GOP’s appeal was mightily aided by none other than the Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s, becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” Among other things, the Democrats absorbed a civil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, its agenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the Vietnam War, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Party drove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in the country, not least the South.
Given that trend, the GOP did not need to become the party of white solidarity in order to attract more voters. The fact that many former Wallace supporters ended up voting Republican says a lot less about the GOP than it does about segregationists’ collapsing political alternatives. Kevin Phillips was hardly coy about this in his Emerging Republican Majority. He wrote in 1969 that Nixon did not “have to bid much ideologically” to get Wallace’s electorate, given its limited power, and that moderation was far more promising for the GOP than anything even approaching a racialist strategy. While “the Republican Party cannot go to the Deep South”—meaning the GOP simply would not offer the policies that whites there seemed to desire most—”the Deep South must soon go to the national GOP,” regardless.
Electoral Patterns
In all these ways, the gop appears as the national party of the middle-class, not of white solidarity. And it is this interpretation, and not the myth, that is supported by the voting results. The myth’s proponents highlight, and distort, a few key electoral facts: Southern white backlash was most heated in the 1960s, especially in the Deep South. It was then and there that the GOP finally broke through in the South, on the strength of Goldwater‘s appeals to states’ rights. Democrats never again won the votes of most Southern whites. So Goldwater is said to have provided the electoral model for the GOP.
But hidden within these aggregate results are patterns that make no sense if white solidarity really was the basis for the GOP’s advance. These patterns concern which Southern votes the GOP attracted, and when. How did the GOP’s Southern advance actually unfold? We can distinguish between two sub-regions. The Peripheral South—Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas—contained many growing, urbanizing “New South” areas and much smaller black populations. Race loomed less large in its politics. In the more rural, and poorer, Deep South—Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana —black communities were much larger, and racial conflict was much more acute in the 1950s and ’60s. Tellingly, the presidential campaigns of Strom Thurmond, Goldwater, and Wallace all won a majority of white votes in the Deep South but lost the white vote in the Peripheral South.
The myth that links the GOP with racism leads us to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most strongly where and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. The GOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites and only later in the Periphery. The GOP should have appealed at least as much, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-class whites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but who were George Wallace’s base. The GOP should have received more support from native white Southerners raised on the region’s traditional racism than from white immigrants to the region from the Midwest and elsewhere. And as the Southern electorate aged over the ensuing decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era.
Each prediction is wrong. The evidence suggests that the GOP advanced in the South because it attracted much the same upwardly mobile (and non-union) economic and religious conservatives that it did elsewhere in the country.
Take presidential voting. Under FDR, the Democrats successfully assembled a daunting, cross-regional coalition of presidential voters. To compete, the GOP had to develop a broader national outreach of its own, which meant adding a Southern strategy to its arsenal. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower took his campaign as national hero southward. He, like Nixon in 1960, polled badly among Deep South whites. But Ike won four states in the Peripheral South. This marked their lasting realignment in presidential voting. From 1952 to the Clinton years, Virginia reverted to the Democrats only once, Florida and Tennessee twice, and Texas—except when native-son LBJ was on the ballot—only twice, narrowly. Additionally, since 1952, North Carolina has consistently either gone Republican or come within a few percentage points of doing so.
In other words, states representing over half the South’s electoral votes at the time have been consistently in play from 1952 on—since before Brown v. Board of Education, before Goldwater, before busing, and when the Republicans were the mainstay of civil rights bills. It was this which dramatically changed the GOP’s presidential prospects. The GOP’s breakthrough came in the least racially polarized part of the South. And its strongest supporters most years were “New South” urban and suburban middle- and upper-income voters. In 1964, as we’ve seen, Goldwater did the opposite: winning in the Deep South but losing the Peripheral South. But the pre-Goldwater pattern re-emerged soon afterward. When given the option in 1968, Deep South whites strongly preferred Wallace, and Nixon became president by winning most of the Peripheral South instead. From 1972 on, GOP presidential candidates won white voters at roughly even rates in the two sub-regions, sometimes slightly more in the Deep South, sometimes not. But by then, the Deep South had only about one-third of the South’s total electoral votes; so it has been the Periphery, throughout, that provided the bulk of the GOP’s Southern presidential support.
* * *
The GOP’s congressional gains followed the same pattern. Of course, it was harder for Republicans to win in Deep South states where Democratic-leaning black electorates were larger. But even when we account for that, the GOP became the dominant party of white voters much earlier in the Periphery than it did in the Deep South. Before Goldwater, the GOP’s few Southern House seats were almost all in the Periphery (as was its sole Senator—John Tower of Texas). Several Deep South House members were elected with Goldwater but proved ephemeral, as Black and Black note: “Republicans lost ground and stalled in the Deep South for the rest of the decade,“ while in the Periphery they ”continued to make incremental gains.” In the 1960s and ’70s, nearly three-quarters of GOP House victories were in the Peripheral rather than the Deep South, with the GOP winning twice as often in urban as rural districts. And six of the eight different Southern Republican Senators elected from 1961 to 1980 were from the Peripheral South. GOP candidates tended consistently to draw their strongest support from the more educated, middle- and upper-income white voters in small cities and suburbs. In fact, Goldwater in 1964—at least his Deep South performance, which is all that was controversial in this regard—was an aberration, not a model for the GOP.
Writers who vilify the GOP’s Southern strategy might be surprised to find that all of this was evident, at least in broad brush-strokes, to the strategy’s early proponents. In his well-known book, Kevin Phillips drew the lesson that a strong appeal in the Deep South, on the model of 1964, had already entailed and would entail defeat for the GOP everywhere else, including in what he termed the Outer South. He therefore rejected such an approach. He emphasized that Ike and Nixon did far better in the Peripheral South. He saw huge opportunities in the “youthful middle-class” of Texas, Florida, and other rapidly growing and changing Sun Belt states, where what he called “acutely Negrophobe politics” was weakest, not strongest. He thus endorsed “evolutionary success in the Outer South” as the basis of the GOP’s “principal party strategy” for the region, concluding that this would bring the Deep South along in time, but emphatically on the national GOP’s terms, not the segregationists’.
The tension between the myth and voting data escalates if we consider change across time. Starting in the 1950s, the South attracted millions of Midwesterners, Northeasterners, and other transplants. These “immigrants” identified themselves as Republicans at higher rates than native whites. In the 1980s, up to a quarter of self-declared Republicans in Texas appear to have been such immigrants. Furthermore, research consistently shows that identification with the GOP is stronger among the South’s younger rather than older white voters, and that each cohort has also became more Republican with time. Do we really believe immigrants (like George H.W. Bush, who moved with his family to Texas) were more racist than native Southerners, and that younger Southerners identified more with white solidarity than did their elders, and that all cohorts did so more by the 1980s and ’90s than they had earlier?
In sum, the GOP’s Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least “Southern” parts of the South. This is a very strange way to reincarnate George Wallace’s movement.
The Decline of Racism
Timing may provide the greatest gap between the myth and the actual unfolding of events. Only in the 1980s did more white Southerners self-identify as Republicans than as Democrats, and only in the mid-1990s did Republicans win most Southern House seats and become competitive in most state legislatures. So if the GOP’s strength in the South only recently reached its zenith, and if its appeal were primarily racial in nature, then the white Southern electorate (or at least most of it) would have to be as racist as ever. But surely one of the most important events in Southern political history is the long-term decline of racism among whites. The fact that these (and many other) books suggest otherwise shows that the myth is ultimately based on a demonization not of the GOP but of Southerners, who are indeed assumed to have Confederate flags in their hearts if not on their pickups. This view lends The Rise of Southern Republicans a schizophrenic nature: it charts numerous changes in the South, but its organizing categories are predicated on the unsustainable assumption that racial views remain intact.
What’s more, the trend away from confident beliefs in white supremacy may have begun earlier than we often think. David Chappell, a historian of religion, argues that during the height of the civil rights struggle, segregationists were denied the crucial prop of religious legitimacy. Large numbers of pastors of diverse denominations concluded that there was no Biblical foundation for either segregation or white superiority. Although many pastors remained segregationist anyway, the official shift was startling: “Before the Supreme Court’s [Brown v. Board] decision of 1954, the southern Presbyterians. . . and, shortly after the decision, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting desegregation and calling on all to comply with it peacefully. . . . By 1958 all SBC seminaries accepted black applicants.” With considerable understatement, Chappell notes that “people—even historians—are surprised to hear this.” Billy Graham, the most prominent Southern preacher, was openly integrationist.
The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region‘s dominant party in the least racist phase of the South’s entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region’s growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth’s shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers’.
Report Post »Dan
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 3:01pmDemocrats and their racist history
Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
Democrats fought to keep blacks in slavery and away from the polls and they started the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize them.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Democrat Senator Robert Bryd of West Virginia personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore Sr. (father of Al Gore Jr.) and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
Democrats were whom Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer” to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
Democrat Senator John F. Kenedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
Republicans funded the HCBU’s and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
Republicans pushed through much of the ground breaking civil rights legislation in Congress by 82% to 64%.
Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
The 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.
Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican.
Dan
Report Post »earthrise
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 5:43pmDan, I shall tackle this one subject that you brought up in your treatise above.
Any one with a lick of common sense will be able to deduce that all “affirmative action” will net is a quota and NOT the best qualified person. affirmative action ensures minorities will “drift” through life because you are “entitled” to a job/position that you didn’t WORK for. Companies are FORCED to hire unqualified personel in order to (long/short) be PC.
Report Post »Dan
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 7:22pmEarthrise, I despise handouts, entitlements and freeloaders. Affirmative action has been perverted and should go by the wayside. What is happening to the firefighter tests is a travesty.
I was responding to the post above, which stated that the Democrats gave blacks work relief, food stamps welfare etc… He also stated that the Republicans became the party of white southern racist and remains that way even today.
Republicans didn’t abandon blacks nor did they dislike blacks but rather encouraged blacks to become entrepreneurs, encouraged them to get a job, be self-sufficient. In other words stop being wards of the state and take care of yourself. The Democrats just enslaved them through entitlement programs.
(Metaphor alert) The Democrats seems to keep blacks on drugs while the Republicans wants to get them to rehab so they can become productive members of society and stop sucking the system dry.
Conservatism=Self-sufficient
Democrats=Entitlements
Dan
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 7:41pmDan:
If this were a college course and I were the professor, I think you know the grade you’d be getting, and why! But since it’s not, and since I don’t think Gerard Alexander and the Claremont Review would object, I’ll address the arguments on their merits.
The solid Democratic South always had Republican enclaves–in areas where blacks could organize politically without fear as well as in Appalachian areas where there were few blacks and white resentment of state planter elites ran high. In 1928–when the Democrats ran a Roman Catholic for president–a few southern states even went Republican, but the New Deal’s farm policies, TVA and welfare (which shifted some burdens away from the states) brought them scurrying back to the Democratic fold. In the 1950s, some in what Alexander calls the “peripheral South,” which had attracted a lot of northern migrants, went for Eisenhower. The national Democratic leadership naturally hesitated to risk losses in the Deep South as well, but JFK (briefly, in his last few months) and LBJ finally took the plunge in 1963-1965, essentially because they realized it was the right thing to do.
Old-line Republican pols, meanwhile, realizing that 1964 was a lost cause, allowed Goldwater to win their nomination, little realizing that his conservatism was not an aberration but the real future of the GOP. Very bad timing, if they hoped to retain black votes in the North or pick them up in the South as they became available! Agreed, Goldwater was a man of principle, and his principles did not include racism, but his rhetoric nevertheless sent a clear message to the Deep South, which at that point began swung massively toward the GOP. Wallace in 1968 and Democratic candidates like Carter and Clinton only clouded the picture temporarily.
The best part of the argument is its insistence that there were plenty of reasons besides racism for white southerners to become Republican: sunbelt prosperity, a new suburban middle class, and perhaps especially the newfound marriage between Republicans and evangelicals, which really didn’t bloom until many evangelicals soured on Carter (though it’s interesting that few black evangelicals joined the parade!).
I’m surprised the Blazers let your post stand. I find that the longer the post, the likelier it is mysteriously to disappear. Food for thought anyway–there’s nothing I like so much as a good argument!
Report Post »Dan
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:54pm@Lloyd
Name calling is the sign of a lost argument. If you stop trying to be insulting and condescending and actually read it again you might actually learn something.
Its a shame people have to resort to these tactics. Now run along…
Dan
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on March 27, 2011 at 10:43am@Dan:
If I came across as insulting and condescending, I sincerely apologize. However, it might have been better had you simply referred me (and others) to the article you posted, naming the source, or maybe briefly summarized it in your own words, with or without attribution. Personally, I’ve found that the longer the post, the likelier it is to get deleted, “accidentally” or otherwise,
I did in fact read the entire piece and found it enlightening, as I hope my response showed. It raised questions which I’d really like to address. For example, the peripheral southern states such as Texas, Florida, Tennessee and Virginia, in addition to going Republican earlier than those of the deep South, were also much more inclined to tolerate at least some black voting well before the 1960s. (Trying to be consistent here, let me recommend “America in Black and White,” by Stephan & Abigail Thernstrom, for particulars.) In these states, let’s say in 1952 or 1956,did black voters
go Democrat as northern blacks were already doing, did they stick to their ancestral GOP loyalties, or did they split their votes? Note also that in the deep South, the white vote had begun to break with the national Democratic leadership even before it went Republican, e.g., in 1948 and 1960.
We’re in agreement it seems on many things! I have never thought that the civil rights movement was the morality play it’s often made out to be. Even in Alabama and Mississippi, lynching was virtually a thing of the past and the black vote had begun to inch up by 1960. Civil-rights agitation not only provoked a nasty backlash, longer term, it provided a sort of template of righteousness for all sorts of questionable causes, such that adolescent access to iPods and laptops has now become a “civil rights issue” in the rhetoric of old warhorses like Jesse Jackson. I would like to see affirmative action buried with a stake through its heart today if not sooner. I wouldn’t go so far as to compare welfare with slavery, but I do appreciate that handouts, entitlements (and government employment) have secured at least some black voters for the Democrats for generations. Still I think that the GOP played with fire in 1964 and after, and is still paying the price for it, while the Democrats have long since atoned for the sins of Bull Connor and the KKK.
Now I think I will run along! Best wishes whether you read this or not,
Report Post »burnteye86
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:55am2012 is shaping up to be weirder than 2008
Report Post »freedumb1
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:49amDo those white burqas come in black?
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:49amDoes Emily Esfahani Smith not know that the KKK were always Democrats?
Report Post »The only KKK to run as a Republican was David Duke, who took advantage of no primary special elections. The only time he ever won was with Democrat votes with the Republicans endorsing the Democrat in the race.
V-Forge
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:47amI was born in, and lived in the south for many years. I was beaten for having a black friend and denied jobs for not joining the clan. Yes they are democrats. Most of them are just playing along with the team spirit attitude and don’t care about hating blacks. they just want to collect donations from the members like a union. so yes.. very democrat.
Report Post »Shane the Golden
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:41amHow many politicians have checkered pasts? GW Bush, Clinton, Obama and we elected them all. Grayson turned out to be a winner just like Lawton Chiles (extremely liberal) Bill Nelson (too stupid to put one foot in front of the other) and Bob Graham, another liberal. Come on Florida WAKE UP and elect more people of character and principles like Allen (?) West.
Report Post »Just saying…
chips1
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 9:29pmThere is that name Allen West again. I have just got to get on the same page as you guys. I only heard him once and was impressed. Be patient, I’m learning as fast as I can. Short bus isn’t very fast. Sorry!!!
Report Post »Guerrino_P
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:41amLets not forget that the KKK are Christians.
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:51amNo, they’re not. They use it as a cover, and that’s all. There’s nothing about what they say or do that resemble Christianity in anyway, despite what they say, or how they try to represent themselves.
Report Post »Caffeinated Texan
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:52amYou fail.
Report Post »hgaut
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:08pmNot!
Report Post »jordy2010
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:31pmyeah…….and let’s not forget that all KKK members probably drink water and breathe air……..
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:23pmThere you go, hitting the blazers where they live :)
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:36pmGuerrino_P
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:41am
Lets not forget that the KKK are Christians.
_______________
Christian? NO! Progressive who thinks they are all gods? YES!!
Report Post »teresa2010
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 6:33pmHe is a Democrat …. Democrats are not Christians…They think they are!..Can ‘t be pro-abortion and be a Christian…Democrat Party are for the Atheist,Abortionists, Militants, Socialist, Communists,Losers…They have a right to vote too…
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:25pmGuerrino_P
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:41am
Lets not forget that the KKK are Christians.
**********
They hide behind Christianity – just like The Obamas and their Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:37amHistorically the KKK has ALWAYS been a militant arm of the Democrat party. This is no big surprise. It is only through propaganda that conservatives have been saddles with the sin of liberals. Just take a look at congressional votes from the era. Conservatives have always been supporters of liberty and justice for ALL
Silversmith
Report Post »8jrts
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:37amI have a lot of family in Lake Wales. It’s mostly retired folk from all over the country, and migrant workers that work in the orange groves. I doubt this guy will get elected.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:37amnot all democrats are clansmen, but all clansmen are democrats
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:49pmSo true!
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:35amThe Democrat Party is having problems………..their slip/hooded robe – is showing.
Report Post »Gruug
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:34amHitler “resigned” from the Nazi Party in 1945. So, I guess we should all just forgive and forget all the Jews he had exterminated before that.
While I can “forgive” anybody, I can’t forget what they stood for in the first place. And it is no reason to give them (literally) the keys to the city.
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:33amLooks like the KKK is coming forward……….wants to be in politics –
just like the terrorist group, The Muslim Brotherhood.
Report Post »BigBouy
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:33amAnother good liberal!
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:32amWOW – hey Democrat Party “leader” Nancy Pelosi – are you going to help this KLANSMAN get elected – since he is a member of The Democrat Party?
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:30amWow– a Real Klansman stepping up – as a member of The Democrat Party!!!!!
DEMOCRAT PARTY EXPOSED ——- DEMOCRAT PARTY EXPOSED ——
The KKK is the invention of the Democrat Party – used for the beatdowns of blacks – as the means for The Democrat Party to obstruct the passage of The Civil Rights Acts.
Report Post »earthrise
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 5:06pmHey y‘all there is another point that y’all are missing…. The KKK didn’t only terrorize black folk . They also hounded conservative white folk, if not moreso for having the “gall” to go against all they considered “right”, (PC if you will) in their idea of the world.
Sad but true.
Report Post »GeorgieJo
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:29amFlorida elected Alan Grayson so I guess anything is possible….
Report Post »Boojer56
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:38amI’m from Florida and Grayson is an embarrassment to me and my state.
Report Post »BIGJAYINPA
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:55amYou may have voted Grayson out, but the last time I looked you still had Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a Representative. Dead heat between Fla, Tex(Sheila Jackson Lee) and Cal(Pick one). for biggest embarassment. Pa is no longer in the running, Murtha died.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:15pmI’m from Georgia, and Grayson is an embarrassment to Congress!
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:18pm@BIGJAYINPA
Report Post »Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:55am
You may have voted Grayson out, but the last time I looked you still had Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a Representative. Dead heat between Fla, Tex(Sheila Jackson Lee) and Cal(Pick one). for biggest embarassment. Pa is no longer in the running, Murtha died.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ROFL ~ (No cracks from the peanut gallery!)
Psychosis
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:29amummmm……………… ALL klansmen are DEMOCRATS this isnt anything new
Report Post »bobodu
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:38pmYeah….. and Mormons believe that black people refused to fight Lucifer on the side of God and that Jesus have three wives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jXjOdvsjSY
Report Post »7.62AirMailComeGetIt
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:56pmWhy is it the KKK is a Democrat and The majority of Dems is BLACK AND HISPANIC voting for the KKK
Just a little IRONIC
Report Post »Amica
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:52pmBobodu:
Report Post »Your ignorance is showing. Mormons believe that anyone who fought on Lucifer’s side (1/3 of the host of heaven) didn’t make it to this planet, so…
Amica
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:53pmBut…what that has to do with this is a mystery.
Report Post »teahugger
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:28amIf a former klansman can be a U.S. Senator, why not a mayor?
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:35amBoth affiliated with the Democratic Party, too. The KKK started with Democrats, and apparently continues. It’s a mystery to me why so many black Americans vote Democratic, especially since is was a Republican who emancipated them.
Report Post »mtnclimberjim
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:38amWhats wrong will seem right, what’s right will seem wrong. Could the end really be this close?
Report Post »MiketheTrucker
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:43amAnd “they” call those of us in the Tea Party racist.
Democrats are pigs.
Report Post »912828Buckeye
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:44amSenator Byrd had to join the KKK so he could get elected
Report Post »and help the people of WV. Rogers says let he who is with
out sin cast the first stone. Democrats will just say anything
to get elected.
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:44amCome on, Florida! Really? A former KKK member?
Don’t be stupid. Don’t elect this guy.
Report Post »BIGJAYINPA
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:50amThe KKK is not a problem for Democrats,…see Byrd, Robert, Sen (D WV). Membership in anything other than the ACLU is only a problem if you have an (R) behind your name. The democrats only requirement for membership is leftist sympathies and an abiding hypocracy. To be perfectly honest about it I for one would not mind seeing both parties eliminated and banned.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:55amTXCOMMONSENSE: The reason why most blacks vote for progressive/marxists (aka democrats) is because the media brainwashed them back during the 60s into believing the progressive/marxists were on their side, especially when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Even though progressive/marxists such as Al Gore Sr, and Byrd voted AGAINST it, the media sung the praises of the progressives until the lie was believed by their willing slaves.
Report Post »betterthantv
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:55amThat’s exactly what I was thinking
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:57amAnd Professor O’Barry will give the Eulogy when he croaks.
Report Post »Divineliberty
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:59amThe democrat party started the KKK…. William Bedford Forest (the founded) was a honored member at the DNc national convention way back when…this is nothing new
i dont understand why we dont expose this when they call the tea party racists…uh they have the racist past.
Report Post »Divineliberty
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:04pmRead David Bartons book “American History in black and white” and you will see the long democrat history of racism and oppression of the blacks..
now they do it with welfare programs.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:07pmIt’s no surprise to me that he is wanting to run as a Democrat. Contrary to what the left-wingers would have you believe, most all of the significant members of the Klan thoroughout history have been Democrats……Sen Byrd for example.
Report Post »Thinkingboy
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:35pmThe reason so many blacks vote democratic is two reasons. After MLK died, JFK was very vocal in supporting their family. The second reason is that Lyndon Johnson bribed the black population with the civil rights act, though that legislation has arguably done more harm than good to blacks. That’s not surprising because Johnson was an avowed and rabid racist.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:43pmElections are local… I pray they choose wisely…A Conservative Tea Party member.
Report Post »NYSTREETKID
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 12:54pm2012 is going to be a HOOT!, We got Socailist running for reelection. Bipolar Republicians, and a county split right down the middle. We are Totally screwed. We better start thing about how bad it going to get in 2012 and beyond. We need to start think about hitting the reset button. This county as we Known it is on life support. We wont be able to take back the “county” because the deck is stacked. All the real power player got the game fixed. They dont really care or are to self center to see that rome is burnng. The Pressure is building every where. In trhe schools,the union halls,the coffee shops. in our living rooms and churches. The county is not at a archduke moment,but at a Harpers Fairy and John Brown Moment. this is not 1914.This 1859. Hold on folks. You see it in your own families. Father put against by Son, Husband against wife. Employer against employee. Not small little problem,but all out hate.One side of the county slip with no common ground with the other.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:01pmY’all are probably right, but I was thinking, “Good luck with that campaign in Florida — with Jeb Bush a former governor and Allen West having just been elected to the senate!”
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:05pmI’ll “throw a rock” at him. I have never slit anyone’s throat or hanged anyone. And he’s crying because they (KKK) lost their headquarters over it!!!
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:09pmWait until David Duke throws his hat in the R 2012 ring, HE SAYS at the urging of TeaPartiers. Yep, investing in popcorn.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:09pmAre we supposed to be surprised that would be running as a Democrat? … ROBERT BYRD comes to mind .. the KKK were (and stil are apparently) southern DEMOCRATS.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:12pmLake Wales .. is in the center of the state .. pretty much “old south” .. I have been to the area. Not like the coastal areas. Or even “Orlando area” that is faily close by but a “world” away.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:22pmI grew up in fear of these idiots and believe me they are now and have always been Democrats. They would have NEVER accepted a Republican into the Klan.
Report Post »P C BE DAMNED
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:42pmMost Democrats are now being found to be racists and the ones they elect also. I guess I would be surprised if they elected a white Klansman. They are stupid enough but I would still be surprised.
Report Post »Clive
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:44pmits news because its a democrat, instead of a republican.
Report Post »drbage
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:53pm@TexasCommonSense
Report Post »Further, history shows us that the President who started segregation was none other than Woodrow Wilson. Also, the civil rights act was formulated by President Eisenhauer, but blocked in Congress by Speaker Lyndon B. Johnson. When Johnson became President, he passed the Civil Rights Act and garnered all the accolades. History cannot be rewritten, but there are many who choose to ignore the inconvenient parts.
Oldphoto678
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 1:53pm@TexasCommonSense
Blacks vote for Democrats because they understand that the RepubliCONs of today have nothing in common with the Republicans of the 1860s.
Rickfromillinois
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:24pmThe first head of the KKK was Nathan Beford Forest not William. He was a Confederate General who was a brilliant leader and coined the phrase “get there firstest with the mostest”. He was also a former slave trader and committed what could only be termed as war crimes against black union forces during the war. It just goes to show that being a brilliant combat leader and repeatedly demonstrating courage in battle does not mean that you are a good guy.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:30pmANY FLORIDIAN who votes for a former KKK member should be ashamed of themselves. They were all bloody DEMOCRATS/CRACKERS/RED NECKS and they should have no voice in America. Same with “skin heads” “nazis” “anarchists” and let’s include Farrakahn (sp) in that too. All of these evil-inspired dopes need to crawl back in their holes and the REAL Americans, the decent, GOD Fearing, GOD Loving Americans who want a good life for every one BUT KNOW WE ALL HAVE TO WORK FOR THAT…should be in charge. KKK is a filthy, dirty word. That guy needs to repent, not be elected.
Report Post »Amateur_Radio_Operator
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:35pmHe can be… doesn’t make it right or smart, but in our free society he can be mayor.
Report Post »CultureWarriors
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:37pmIt’s common knowledge the KKK was created by the Democrat party. This isn’t a surprise to anyone that can read beyond a 3rd grade level. In addition to the KKK the Democrats have supported slavery, segregation, and the killing of innocent unborn babies. Practically everything in this nation’s history that is shameful has come from the Democrat Party. Given that fact, you can only draw one of two conclusions about someone who is a Democrat. They are either evil to the core or profoundly ignorant.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:39pmBecause that was THEN and this is NOW!!!!! I certainly hope the good people of Lake Wales will not elect this man. Having gone to school in Babson Park, right outside of Lake Wales in the 70′s, that area has evolved from orange groves to a very nice area to live in. What a stigma that would be.
Report Post »democratgirl
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:46pmmtnclimberjim:
Report Post »Yes.
Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:47pmLet’s see how soon the liberal media jumps on this and expose one of their own. I’m not holding my breath.
Report Post »starman70
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 3:11pm@ TEXASCOMMONSENSE
If they don’t vote Democratic, they might lose all the freebies (Food stamps, Rent subsidies, health care and a host of other programs) they are receiving now.
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 3:50pmtifosa, you’re joking, right? David Duke is going nowhere, especially as a Republican. True, he was also a former candidate in the Republican presidential primaries in 1992, but he was also in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1988.
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 3:56pmC. Schwehr,
starman70,
drbage,
Good posts and I agree.
Oldphoto678, you need to study history much more. Try reading some of the great posts here, and then do your own research. Don’t let your ideology blind you of the facts.
Report Post »IntrepidSI
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 3:57pmDid anyone ask Grand Cyclopse Robert Byrd for a comment? Oh, wait, he is dead. How come Demcorats can’t comment when they are dead, but seem to have no trouble voting?
Report Post »avenger
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 4:07pmhey gang..give him a chance..remember senator byrd..klan dudes have rights too especially within the democrat party ! so where are the poverty pimpd,jessie and al crying foul….
Report Post »hud
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 5:12pmWhat’s the problem? We have a black thug in the White House.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 7:29pmJohn Paul Rogers, a 70-year old Floridian, wants to run for mayor of a small Florida town called Lake Wales. Just one problem: the democratic mayoral candidate is a former Klansman.
————————————————————–
I have known many Democrats that were racist, but not the progressive Democrats. This does lead to a very strange alliance. Most progressives go ape-poop about any issue that concerns race, yet they completely overlook racists in the political party they support. And this leads to the question… which is worse, the racists or the enabler of the racists?
For the record… I have never met a Conservative that I would call a racist. A few Republicans, yes, but never a true Conservative. The majority of racists in this country come from two groups… Democrats and Minorities. Now add-in what we learned in the first paragraph, and it seems the left is swamped with racism!
So all in all, this story doesn’t surprise me in the least.
http://www.americasteapartynews.com
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 8:13pmMikethetrucker…
Of course the Left is lying about the Tea Party being racist. My Tea Party chapter has a black Conservative speaker on a regular basis.
Progressives Deamonize and Marginalize. That’s their MO. They learned it in schools and are taught how to implement their tactics in colleges and in local groups.
The scenarios like we saw in Wisconsin are orchestrated with the help of experts. We have infiltrated some of their groups.
It’s the left that is racist. We all know that. Many blacks are racist, as are the Mexicans illegally coming to the US.
Report Post »hifi74
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 8:31pmC. Schwehr
Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:55am
TXCOMMONSENSE: The reason why most blacks vote for progressive/marxists (aka democrats) is because the media brainwashed them back during the 60s into believing the progressive/marxists were on their side, especially when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Even though progressive/marxists such as Al Gore Sr, and Byrd voted AGAINST it, the media sung the praises of the progressives until the lie was believed by their willing slaves.
——————————————————————————————————————————
You forgot another major player in that, LBJ himself voted against it for several years until…….UNTIL he himself made it into the oval office.
Report Post »quarter horseman
Posted on March 27, 2011 at 6:58amstarman70
Report Post »I agree 100%,as long as the handout keep comming they dont care who they vote for.
ring a bell?
Where you going?
To get our money!
Where does the money come from?
I don’t know? Obama.
Where does Obama get the money?
I dont know, his secret stash.
Obamam, Obama, Obama we love Obama!
Uncle Sambo
Posted on March 27, 2011 at 8:52amYou can’t spell democrat with out the suffix demo. For that matter you can’t spell demon without it either. Demon Rat
Report Post »TakeOurCountryBack
Posted on March 27, 2011 at 10:25amThe democrats will continue to win as long as the continue to pander to the “ignorant and unwashed” masses
Report Post »Uncle Crusty
Posted on March 27, 2011 at 1:01pmThis is the huge lie purpetrated by the left, that the KKK is conservatives, LOL, quite the opposite pinkos, it is the dumbocrits that are the real racists…just like LBJ is given credit for the civil rights laws, when he actually blocked it in the Senate, only to pass it (and take credit forit) in the WH. It was Eisenhower who wrote that fine piece of legislation that LBJ blocked – HYPOCRITS are the left! The uber left is a joke, a communist, in sheeps clothing, the Fabian Socialists!
Report Post »lovenfl3
Posted on March 27, 2011 at 2:19pmCan you say Robert Byrd? Amazing how liberals have tried to rewrite history on the klan. They were started by the Dems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=619wI12Ky20
Report Post »indy1
Posted on March 27, 2011 at 5:53pmHe’ll be another Al Gore Sr.!
Report Post »ShawnB
Posted on March 27, 2011 at 11:50pmThank you
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 8:32amWhere’s Bill Clinton making excuses for this hatebreeder like he did for Byrd.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 12:39pmTEXASCOMMONSENSE, potentially running in 2012. On the Republican ticket. Look into it yourself.
Report Post »RJO
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 1:14pmPoint of Fact:……the KKK has been and is as anti-Catholic as it is anti-black.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 1:50pmTexasCommonSense
Report Post »Posted on March 26, 2011 at 11:35am
Both affiliated with the Democratic Party, too. The KKK started with Democrats, and apparently continues. It’s a mystery to me why so many black Americans vote Democratic, especially since is was a Republican who emancipated them.
________________________________________________
The GOP of today would not have elected Linclon, the astro-turf tea-party is trying to distance itself from Teddy Roservelt. Nixon saw that the south would no longer support the Democrates after Johnson pushed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts through (the Civil Rights Act, being the act the Astro-Tea Party favorite Rand Paul wouldn’t vote for). It was Nixon using the racism of the south, with his southern stratergy thta flipped the parties. It was GOP and others and their assault on the poor and working class, the GOP’s assualt on the Civil Right laws that should the country who the GOP supports.
RJO
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 2:07pmOh Good….Encinom has shared his thoughts. There’s nothing like a healthy glass of Liberal/Progressive/Marixst BILGE to start off the day!! You are just so darn persuasive!!! Keep the dung coming!!
Report Post »Secret Squirrel
Posted on March 29, 2011 at 11:40am……..
Report Post »Professor at USF, huh?
Sami Al Arion, convicted terrorist was also a professor at USF.
What are the requirements to be on the USF staff?
A folder in the CIA? FBI?
I guess if you’re a democrat, that’s enough for tenure.