White Liberals Rewrite Dems’ Phony Civil Rights History


Liberals ignored my book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama throughout the fall. Now that I’m safely home from my book tour, they feel free to jabber on about their make-believe history of the civil rights movement with abandon.

In the hackiest of all hacky articles, Sam Tanenhaus, the man responsible for ruining The New York Times Book Review, has written a cover story in The New Republic, titled: “Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people.”

MSNBC has been howling this cliche for a decade — or, as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said of Tanenhaus’ article, “a bold headline”!

Being interviewed by a giddy Matthews — who has no black friends, employees or neighbors — Tanenhaus announced the startling fact that once, long ago, some Republicans supported civil rights!

“In the 1950s, as I say in the piece you read, Republicans looked pretty good on civil rights under Eisenhower. We had the Brown decision, the Central High in Little Rock, where he did the tough thing and sent the troops in, and we had the first modern civil rights act.”

It wasn’t a “tough” decision for Eisenhower to send troops to Little Rock in 1957.

In the presidential campaign the year before, the Republican platform had expressly endorsed the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The Democratic platform did not.

To the contrary, that year, 99 members of Congress signed the “Southern Manifesto” denouncing the court’s ruling in Brown. Two were Republicans. Ninety-seven were Democrats.

As president, Eisenhower pushed through the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act. He established the Civil Rights Commission. It was Eisenhower, not Truman, who fully desegregated the military.

Meanwhile, the Brown decision was being openly defied by the Democratic governor of Arkansas (and Bill Clinton pal), Orval Faubus, who refused to admit black students to Little Rock Central High School.

Liberals act as if Eisenhower’s sending federal troops to Little Rock was like Nixon going to China. No, it was like Nixon going to California.

Only someone who knows no history could proclaim, as Tanenhaus did, that the 1957 act “wasn’t great, it wasn’t what LBJ gave us, but it was something.”

If Eisenhower’s 1957 civil rights bill was weak, it was because of one man: Lyndon B. Johnson. As Robert Caro explains in his book, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson,” it was LBJ who stripped the bill of its enforcement provisions. Even after that, the bill was still opposed by 18 senators — all of them Democrats.

To the easily astounded Chris Matthews, Tanenhaus breathlessly remarked, “Not one Republican voted against that bill!” — as if the 1957 Civil Right Act was a Democratic idea and they were delighted to get any Republican support at all.

Imagine a modern German historian saying: “Remember — it wasn’t just Germans who opposed the Holocaust. The English and Americans did too!” Such a historian would be beaten bloody, quite rightly so.

The 1957 bill was sent to Congress by Eisenhower, passed with the intervention of Vice President Richard Nixon, and opposed exclusively by Democrats. Not “Southern Democrats,” not “conservative Democrats,” but Democrats, such as Wayne Morse of Oregon, Warren Magnuson of Washington, James Murray of Montana, Mike Mansfield of Montana and Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming.

With absolutely no evidence (because there is none), Tanenhaus then asserted that Republicans decided “they were not going to be pro-civil rights. … They were going to side with the Southern oppressors.” Cretin Matthews seconded this gibberish by saying Nixon was “playing the Southern Strategy electorally with Strom Thurmond and those boys.”

Who exactly does Matthews imagine he means by “Strom Thurmond and those boys”? Every single segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat. Only one of them ever became a Republican: Strom Thurmond.

The rest remained not only Democrats, but quite liberal Democrats. These included such liberal luminaries as Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Allen Ellender, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright, Walter F. George, Russell Long and Richard Russell.

Fulbright was Bill Clinton’s mentor. Gore was “Al Jazeera” Gore’s father. Sam Ervin headed Nixon’s impeachment committee. The segregationists who were in the Senate in the ’50s were rabid Joe McCarthy opponents. In the ’60s, they opposed the Vietnam War and supported LBJ’s Great Society programs. In the ’90s, they got 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

These “Southern oppressors” were liberal Democrats when they were racists and remained liberal Democrats after they finally stopped being racists (in public). If Republicans had a racist “Southern strategy,” it didn’t work on the racists.

Nor did Nixon — or Reagan — ever win over segregationist voters. Republicans only began sweeping the South after the segregationists died.

Even as late as 1980, when Reagan won a 44-state landslide, the old segregationists were still voting Democrat. Although Reagan handily won Southern states that had been voting Republican since the ’20s, he barely won — or lost — the Goldwater states.

According to numerous polls, Reagan swept Southern college students, while losing college students in the Northeast. Meanwhile, The Washington Post called the elderly “a bedrock of Carter’s southern base.”

As LBJ explained to fellow Democrats after doing a 180-flip on civil rights as president and pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which resembled the 1957 Civil Rights Act he had gutted as a senator): “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.” That’s according to a steward on Air Force One, who overhead him say it.

It’s one thing to rewrite history to say the Holocaust was when the Swedes killed the Jews. But it’s another to say that the Holocaust was when Jews killed the Germans.

That’s how liberals rewrite the history of civil rights in America. For the truth, get Mugged.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Mary Sue

    The Left usually tries to paint the likes of Fullbright and Bull Connor as "conservative Democrats" and thus, making the Republicans guilty by Association of these men on the basis of shared "conservatism". But we all know what Old Man Gore and Fullbright were really all about, and Robert "Sheets" Byrd, too. Hehe, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill used to say to Byrd, "C'mere, Sheets." So then they try to make out like these guys had some sort of Epiphany that changed their minds, while denying that Strom Thurmond had any such Epiphany. Buncha hypocrites, the lot of them.

    • Jim_C

      You'll want to actually dig a bit deeper than party affiliation and Strom and Byrd and learn about the actual chain of events. It's more liberal vs. conservative. You'll be astounded at the hypocrisy, all right.

      When I was young I thought the Confederate flag was kinda cool and rebellious. But if you really think about everything it stands for, it's purely a symbol of slavery, oppression, terror and sedition–a deep, dirty, sinful shame, and we're still paying a price for appeasement and allowing that flag the pretense of honor.

      That's not meant to insult today's South. There's a lot of great things about the South, and a lot of good people–even Republicans. But for the sake of the Union and the sake of American exceptionalism, we've sort of swept a lot of the stuff we don't want to have to see under the rug.

  • Gary Altergott

    Let's stay ahead of the Dem/Prog. Party. I believe they will be using the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination, along with the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Bill in 2014 as a part of the strategy to erode the conservative and moderate bases of the Republican Party; this opens up the lie that Republicans and conservative Tea Party members are racists and guilt the low info voter into thinking it was all a Democrat idea to push for civil rights for Black America. The MSM will carry that water for the Dem/Prog. and use it to attempt to regain the House in 2014.
    We all have to read our history, get the facts (not fiction) and challenge the Left on this. It's politics, and a dirty business it is.

    • Jim_C

      When you get around to reading that history, you'll find that the liberal Northern Republicans who did support civil rights are long a relic of the past, and you're on the wrong side of history.

      Why, you could even say the greatest Republican of all time, Abraham Lincoln, was a "big-government" type.

  • davarino

    Anybody still remember what Billy Clinton had to say about Obama when speaking to old Teddy Kennedy? This is how they speak about black people when "off" the microphone. The left has done a really good job of re-writing history………..and their own consciences.

    • Mary Sue

      That was their Clymer moment, though it never got as much press.

    • Jim_C

      Yes, I remember–he said Obama would be "carrying our bags" or "getting our coffee," depending on reports. In other words, Obama was young and green and hadn't paid his dues and should be making coffee runs and typing minutes for the seniors, not running alongside them, according to the guy whose wife was his opponent.

      It's charming, not at all cynical and unprincipled, that you and other white republicans are outraged for blacks everywhere about that comment. Funny, African Americans themselves didn't seem to mind much. They still love their "FIRST black president!"

      It must just be in their nature to be so stupid, right, davarino?

      • Viet Vet

        LOL, you are quite the propagandist, but you won't make any hay on this site.

  • chcollinsjr

    It seems nearly daily that the “mainstream media” (DNC lackeys?) treat us to yet another Democrat hypocrisy.

    Vis-à-vis civil rights, we need to continue to lay bare each new act of fraud and deception. Ann Coulter once again exposes the true nature of the party of the Ku Kux Klan, Jim Crow, virulent anti-Semitism, school and public facilities segregation, and an unbroken history of general contempt for and attacks on America's black population.

    The American left’s lackey press applies the techniques of der Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels to transmogrify the public perception of that odious institution into a champion of the downtrodden, particularly the black downtrodden. Compounding this felonious libel, Democrats and the complicit media have succeeded in portraying Republicans, the party of Lincoln, as if they represented all the evil in America.

    When will minority voters realize that the party they support in overwhelming numbers daily heaps contempt on them. Democrats have, for over seventy years, publicly shown that they regard members of the American black population as ignorant, incompetent, uneducable, and incapable of holding jobs and supporting their children without government programs.

    During that same period, the other party, the party of Lincoln and of school integration, has supported the full and participation of minority members in a robust and growing economy. During the Reagan years, more black Americans raised themselves from poverty to the middle class than at any other time in history. During the Obama years, so far, many of those same black Americans and their progeny have returned from the middle class back to poverty.

    Despite this reality, the adult black population of America, those who vote, continue to vote overwhelmingly for Democrat candidates and the programs from which that party continues to forge their shackles and the shackles with which they and their children remain trapped in dismal dependency.

    If some Caucasians voted against BHO because of his race, people would justly regard him or her as racist, bigoted. Does the same standard not also apply to black Americans who voted for him because of his race? Will Chris Matthews, when the thrilling tingle in his leg subsides, apply the standard to this other instance of bigotry and racism? Don’t hang by your thumbs waiting for that eruption of integrity!

    Chuck

  • Brujo Blanco

    Let us not forget the dispicable legacy of George Wallace. He was a Democrat that led the charge against integration. The Democrats and other communists do not mention his name even in passing.

    • Loyal Achates

      Who left the Democratic Party when it was clear the party was turning against its racist past and embracing civil rights.

      • Jim_C

        These bozos just step right into it. They don't know when to shut up and cut their losses.

  • Loyal Achates

    LBJ was a Republican, huh?

    When they passed the Civil Rights Act, he said 'We have lost the South for a generation'. Turns out he was too optimistic. It was the Dems turn to civil rights and against segregation which made the South turn Republican. Southern Strategy, anyone?

    Yes, back in Lincoln's time the GOP was the party of civil rights. That was a long time ago.

    • Jim_C

      Hush! Historical fact does not apply, here!

      • Western Canadian

        Since he didn’t utter anything factual, your comment is disgusting. You’ve shown your true colours often enough, go back to hufpo.

        • Jim_C

          Everything he said is verifiably true. Sorry!

      • Mary Sue

        Um, if it weren't for Republicans in Congress and the Senate, LBJ's Civil Rights act woulda been Dead in the Water.

        • Jim_C

          Yes, Mary Sue–but which Republicans?

    • Mary Sue

      LBJ NEEDED the Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act! The only reason LBJ was even president was because JFK stole the election and then was assassinated.

    • Viet Vet

      You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, Achates.

      • Viet Vet

        As Ann points out in her piece, the segregationists, except for Strom Thurmond, all remained in the democrap party as leftwing democraps. What lost the south for the democrappers was their lurch towards communism and anti-America/anti-Constitution. Democrats like Ronald Reagan, Jean Kirkpatrick and Bill Bennet crossed over and became pro-American republicans.

        • Jim_C

          Revisionist b.s. The "Southern Strategy" is a matter of historical record.

          • Russ P.

            And what about the Democrat's "northern strategy" of getting blacks as dependent on gov't as possible? Can you think your way out of a wet paper bag?

  • Bobby Jones

    Thats because the Progressive Marxists merged with the Racists. And Black Amerika today
    is the most racist of the racists! Black Racism is carefully nurtured by the Dims. Study some
    comrade.

    And the Demwits did not lose the South it's run by a Marxist Leftist president who got what 97%
    of the black vote. Take a reading comprehension course and also pull your head out. You are
    a deceitful lying Marxist Obama drone. Loyal you should change your ID to duhhleftist.

    • Jim_C

      You are at least right about the South's African Americans voting overwhelmingly Democrat.

      Guess why white Southerners began to vote Republican?

  • Choi

    In 1964,there was a BITTER" Credentials" FIGHT over WHICH delegation from Mississippi to seat at the Democratic National Convention,the SEGREGATED "empowered" delegation or the INTEGRATED "Democratic Freedom Slate". http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2011/05/sa

  • BS77

    My heroes….Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Brigitte Gabriel, Melanie Phillips, Fallaci, Spencer and so many others who are on the FRONT LINE facing the Orwellian Libtard Media and Leftist Educational Indoctrination Bureaucracies

    • Jim_C

      Hate to break it to you, but this article is a primo example of revisionist indoctrination.

      Enjoy your indoctrination!

  • Danny

    "The 1957 bill was…..opposed exclusively by Democrats. Not “Southern Democrats,” not “conservative Democrats,” but Democrats, such as Wayne Morse of Oregon, Warren Magnuson of Washington, James Murray of Montana, Mike Mansfield of Montana and Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming."

    Of the senators Coulter lists, only Morse voted against the bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75). The others voted for it. Every senator, other than Morse, who voted against it was from the South.

    What can I say? Typical Coulter BS. Wonder what Horowitz pays her to spout such rubbish. Same going rate he pays the other liars on the payroll? Uh huh.

    • Western Canadian

      You’re the only liar here of late, and I doubt if he is paying you.

      • Danny

        Tell me what I said that was a lie, genius.

        • Loyal Achates

          It's strange indeed that party affiliation, not ideology, matters more here at FPM…when it suits them, of course. Precious little mention of Eisenhower's statements on social security and the military-industrial complex.

          • Jim_C

            It is. I can't believe these dopes. These historical facts are everywhere; but they'll go with what makes them feel better about themselves.

            It must have something to do with some of them being racists, and others who aren't racists having been in bed with racists for so long–a way of assuaging their shame.

  • US Muslim

    The DemocRAT Party is the party of:

    1) Slavery
    2) Secession
    3) Segregation
    4) Socialism
    5) The Ku Klux Klan
    6) Balkanization of the USA
    7) Anti-Constitutionalism
    8) Historical revisionism
    9) Mullahism
    10) Anti-Defense
    11) ILLEGAL ALIENS
    12) Moral relativism
    13) Taxation without representation
    14) Pacifism
    15) Criminals, law-breakers, etc.
    16) Union thuggery and intimidation
    17) Organized criminal activity
    18) Rampant corruption

    The DemocRAT Party is a threat to the health of this country, to the safety and security of its citizens. People should realize this ASAP. It is a party of 3rd World values and if it isn't stopped, it will turn the USA into a 3rd world nation, all while blaming Republicans and conservatives of doing so. And its sheep-like followers will buy it all and swallow it up.

  • SmajDawg

    The Lib-Left have never been ones to let the facts or history get in the way a a good lie! Just wait, it will only get worse. We are one congressional and one presidential election away from losing our country. The smoke and mirrors, the bread and circuses will continue as the Libs continue to hoodwink the easily swayed and destroy our representative republic. It is over. I wonder what New Zealand is like this time of year?

    • Danny

      If I were you, I'd be…..leaving!

  • Jim_C

    Astounding dimwittedness on display, here.

    Let presume that white Southern segregationists stayed democrats in the years following the Civil Rights Act. Total freaking nonsense–but let's entertain this.

    So what the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act did was make it safer for African Americans to gain the franchise in the South and put some teeth in enforcement against the systematic disenfranchisement and oppression after decades of the South's shameful, cowardly terrorization of freed slaves. What party did African Americans register under, overwhelmingly?

    The Democratic Party, the party of their liberal Northern champions (though yes, there were still enlightened creatures known as Northern liberal Republicans back then).

    And when did the South go Republican? At the exact same time. Now that the people they terrorized had a voice, they knew which way the wind would blow.

    Do you think they just had epiphanies en masse about laissez faire economics? Nah. They took up the old cry of "State's rights" (and the shameful history that entailed) right where it left off under the Southern Democrats. Which is who they were, after all.

    • Russ P.

      Please educate yourself.
      http://russp.us/racism.htm

    • Rebecca

      I have enjoyed all of your comments very much. You can spin it anyway you want to and it will still be the same. The Republican party has never in its history been the party of racists. That distinction has always and will always belong to the Democrats.

      • Russ P.

        Wait… you're saying that Republicans aren't racist? B-B-But… liberals said they are… 100 billion times! So let me get this straight: repeating a lie 100 billion times does NOT make it true?

    • Russ P.

      So let me get this straight, Jim C. In the 1960s, the Democrats finally started recognizing the civil rights of blacks, over a CENTURY after the Republicans had been recognizing those rights. The racist southern Democrats were so upset by this that they all turned Republican. So you're saying that the racist southern Democrats preferred a party that had been in favor of black civil rights for over a century to a party that had just quit lynching blacks. What are you smoking, dude?
      http://RussP.us/racism.htm

      • Rebecca

        The dissembling that is taking place among democrats is breathtaking. Thank goodness for people like Ann who have made sure that people learn that it was not the Republican party that had some dramatic turn around on civil rights. It was part and parcel of being a Republican from the party's inception until today. But rather it was the Democrats who made the dramatic pivot. And now that that reality has hit them, we get this nonsense of racist "southern strategies" and how the Republicans of yesteryear were actually the Demo's of today and visa versa. Balderdash.

        • Russ P.

          Who was it who said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the "truth"? That is precisely the strategy of liberal Democrats.

        • Jim_C

          The southern strategy "nonsense" in a matter of historical record.

      • Jim_C

        Russ, aside from being able to parse through any conservative website's comments section on issues regarding race and being able to find out and out racism alive and well, I think it is you who may be smoking something.

        Certainly we can agree that racism is not confined to geography, but that the South had been the bastion of systematic racism and racial terror and oppression long before and long after the Civil War.

        We should also be able to agree that Congressional support for the CRA and VRA splt not along party lines but along clearly geographic lines, with the South in clear opposition REGARDLESS of party (NO Southern Republican voting for it, either).

        We can agree that the Democrats upheld white supremacy, with conservative white southerners voting Democrat against their own views on taxation and national security in order to maintain power…I would say up until Truman, when the devil's bargain started to fracture, finally splitting with LBJ.

        We can agree that LBJ was crass and racist, himself–but he also did the right thing.

        We can agree that LBJ was right and that while the Democrats gained the loyal African American vote through these acts, they "lost the South." After all–these are verifiable facts.

        Unlike what LBJ knew would happen, you want to believe that Southerners suddenly had an epiphany of morality and began voting en masse for Republicans, ostensibly because these good Christian folks who participated in, encouraged, and accepted systemic racism wanted a party that stood for good Christian people like them.

        But what happened to all those racists in the South, Russ? Do you really think they remained Democrats alongside the African Americans? We know certain Northern conservatives like Bill Buckley admitted they were wrong about civil rights. So maybe some of them really did "come to Jesus" out of shame for their historical sins, like Strom and Byrd.

        Or maybe–more likely–they did what they always did historically and voted according to how they could maintain white supremacy. Not the cute, metaphorical power in the fluffy analogy to the "Democratic plantation" conservatives love to use now when they're pretending to care about black people in order to score a point against a liberal. No, I'm talking about the REAL, actual oppressive power Southern whites historically needed over the people they kidnapped, enslaved, raped and oppressed. Those Southern Democrats were always, demonstrably on issues of taxation and "morality," conservatives.

        Which means conservativism–not party affiliation–is and always has been the seat of racism in America.

        • Russ P.

          That's more reasonable, Jim, but I still think you're missing the big picture. First, you say that the Southern Republicans all voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but there were very few of them to start with — far from representative of the Republican Party as a whole.

          More importantly, the idea that racist Democrats flocked to the Republican Party just makes no sense. The Republican Party was a CENTURY ahead of the Democrats on Civil Rights, and Eisenhower integrated the military and forced schools to accept black students. Eisenhower also got the first Civil Rights Act passed! Note also the Nixon started Affirmative Action — hardly the sign of a "racist." So no, it makes no sense whatsoever that racist southern Democrats would flock to the Republican Party. You need to re-evaluate your ideas.

          By the way, all significant parties have racists. But the notion that the Republicans have more than the Democrats is nothing more than a lie that has been repeated ad infinitim.

  • Jim_C

    Wiki the stats and stop talking like idiots:

    The original House version:

    Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

    Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

    The Senate version:

    Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
    Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
    Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
    Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

    • Maxie

      Wasn't Orval Faubus a Dem? btw: How about an explanation of why Barack Benghazi Obumble rescinded the Charter School program In DC? The DC system has a high AFAm student population; is at the top in terms of money and near the bottom in academic achievement. Maybe the kids were getting too well educated in the charter program and had to be put back under the dregs of the teacher's unions?

      • Jim_C

        Non sequitur

    • Jim_C

      A minus 2 simply for showing the facts!

      Typical conservatives.

  • dude911

    This isn't a thing with the original Democrat Party. This is a thing of the Communist movement, and its infiltration of, and re-creation of, the DNC.

    The Commies swore they would take over the DNC, and they have. The Marxist way is to take credit for what they didn't accomplish, and vilify the opposition. Propaganda pushing lies to recreate the truth into powerful credibility.

    Even JFK opposed the civil rights movement until he had no other choice.

    • Loyal Achates

      And why did he 'have no choice'? Where was the pressure coming from? It sure as hell wasn't coming from conservatives, or from the South. National Review defended segregation right til the end, and the GOP nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964 – one of the few senators who had opposed the Civil Rights Act. In 86 and 72 Nixon employed the Southern Strategy of race-baiting to turn the South to the GOP. When Reagan ran in 1980 he gave one of his most important speeches in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights activists had been murdered – to declare his sympathy with those who murdered them.

      Notice a pattern is emerging? Can you name a single important civil rights initiative that was backed by the conservatives of the day?

      • Loyal Achates

        *68

      • Viet Vet

        Yep, and the pattern is in your demented and mythical mind. You own your party's despicable racist history, live with it.

      • Rebecca

        "Reagan…gave one of his most important speeches in Philidelphia, MIssissippi where three civil rights activists had been murdered to declare his sympathy with those who murdered them" This is rubbish. He gave a speech at a fair in a state that Jimmy Carter had won in 1976 and a state that was in contention in 1980. You can get the text of the speech online. It was an innocuous campaign speech where he expresses his belief in **gasp** Federalism and describes the failures of the Carter administration. The only place where the speech was racist and offensive was in the feverish minds of leftwingers who are constantly on the lookout for nonexistant racist republicans while sidestepping the blatant racism in their own party.

        • Viet Vet

          As the heading of this piece alluded to, the left have been feverishly trying to rewrite their sordid race history.

  • Viet Vet

    Sadly, blacks have never been able to compete in the modern nation, have never been able to handle freedom. Now they are enslaved on the democrap plantation, which has destroyed the black family. They had a window of opportunity between the Southern Plantation and the Democrap Plantation, but chose the democrap plantation (or were forced on it) and have now become the anchor that the ship of state has to drag around behind it. The democraps have used blacks as a vehicle to undermine our constitutional freedoms and culture.

    • Viet Vet

      As Walter Williams, a black, once said on TV: if the KKK had wanted to devise a plan to hurt blacks, they couldn't have come up with a better idea than Affirmative Action and the War on Poverty.

      • Russ P.

        Considering the black-on-black murder rates in big cities like Chicago, one could make the case that the modern Democratic Party has done more harm to the black community than the KKK ever did.

        • Viet Vet

          Oh yes, absolutely!

  • Glennd1

    If you think arguing against the left on a factual basis is going to do a thing, you are all kidding yourselves. Try explaining the above to your average progressive, they'll lose interest and begin chanting "Yes we can" inside of 30 seconds. They really don't care what those who disagree with them have to say. They figure, "Even if these troglodytes are right about some little fact here or there, they are so wrong overall it just doesn't matter." They aren't even listening to us anymore.

  • Mike

    Stalinist revisionism at its finest.

  • medartist01

    Thoroughly enjoyed your whitewash of US history. The fact that political parties flipped monikers after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, and the South flipped from Democrat –– to Republican, is completely left out of your “rewriting US history.”

    I know that you know history, and that’s what makes you so offensive to the idea of ‘intellectual honesty.’ It’s akin to saying that today’s Republican Party is the “Party of Lincoln.” That statement is totally false.

    Today’s GOP senators and Congressmen, from the Southern states, have direct lineage to the Confederacy, and to the moniker the South had then; Democrat. In fact, we still see GOP Senators defending the Confederate flag and General Lee on one end… and saying they are the “Party of Lincoln” on the other. HA. It was the Confederates that fought against Lincoln, and the party (Democrats of the 1860s, [ie, Confederates] that formed the KK(k) and lynched blacks.).

    Please stop sheeting on our history, or trying to re-write it. That dog won’t hunt.

  • Paul

    Frankly, and this is being nice, a conservative claiming to THEY were responsible for civil rights is like a pedophile claiming he is curing childhood cancer. In 30 years, expect to hear that they were also the party of gay rights.

  • Frank

    Anything this nasty, racist witch writes is par for the course. She looks at her Adams Apple in the mirror when she gets up, and can’t decide if she wants to pee standing up or sitting down. Ann, trust me dear, you’re ugly to the bone.