The New Left Feeding Frenzy

Democrats are dancing in the streets over a fellow leftist literally imprisoned for not obeying the New Left Orthodoxy. After all, only their malleable, mercurial, at-the-moment beliefs are of any value, whatsoever, right?

Only the stupid people haven’t been able to see this, but the New Left has, through dominance of news and entertainment media (the Liberal Entertainment Complex, as I’ve been calling it), been slowly eroding the fabric of America. In “the Matrix” (a movie most people loved, that was stolen by a pair of the very liberals of which we speak), sentient malware software program Mr. Smith had his own opinion on Humanity:

Not entirely accurate. Many Humans do make an effort to preserve or replace natural resources, where they can (though certain resources can’t be, like oil).


There is a type of person that does fit that profile pretty closely…

Let’s just change a couple of words in Smith’s statement to increase accuracy:

I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans liberals do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings Liberals are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we are the cure.

Why would I say leftists are like a virus?  Because you are (and I know you’re reading this).  Here’s an example:

NY, once (a LONG time ago), was a fairly decent place to live.  However, it contracted a virus.  Liberalism.  Liberals flocked to it, and turned it into a leftist mecca.  Their coffee shops, their crappy “performance art” houses, their newspapers (like the NY Slimes)…

…their “news” shows, like MSLSD MSNBC…


And, along with the accumulation of leftists came the leftist desire to tax anything and everything.  Eventually, predictably, this happened:

ALBANY, N.Y. – Taxed-out New Yorkers are voting with their feet, with a staggering 1.6 million residents fleeing the state over the last decade. For the second consecutive decade, New York led the nation in the percentage of residents leaving for other states, according to the report by the Empire Center for State Policy. The population loss is “the ultimate barometer of New York’s attractiveness as a place to work, live and do business,” the report’s co-author, E.J. McMahon, said. “It’s the ultimate indication that we’ve been doing things wrong.” Most analysts blamed New York’s high taxes and skyrocketing cost of living for the mass exodus.

The Tax Foundation ranked New York highest in the nation in the combined state and local tax burden in 2008. And as small-business lobbyist Mike Durant noted, New York has also “consistently ranked worst or in the top three worst in business climate. You can’t suck every penny out of people and expect them to remain in New York. Since 1960, New York has lost 7.3 million residents to other states — a net loss of 2.5 million people after adding in an influx of 4.8 million new immigrants, the study found.

Overall, the state’s population grew by 2 percent between 2000 and 2010, but that rate that fell far behind states with lower taxes, growing economies and warmer climates like Nevada, Florida and Arizona, the three fastest-growing states, according to The New York Post .”

The most heavily taxed state in the nation, and what do liberals do?  Do they try preserving the resources and accumulating more, by lowering taxes and abolishing some?

No, of course not.  That would require the use of a couple of watts of brainpower.

No, instead they taxed themselves out of house and home, leading them to start spreading out to other parts of the body (States), like Nevada, Florida and Arizona.  (They’re not wanted in Texas.)

In any event, let’s get back to New Left beliefs.

Currently, it’s en vogue to be a supporter of gay “marriage”.  Let’s see what else the DNC voters approved of:

During the first half of the 19th Century, the Democratic Party was the party of racism oppression and slavery. This is not a debatable assertion, it’s simply a fact. The Democrats were divided over slavery, between those who accommodated it and those who actively supported it. Their party officially supported slavery in its six platforms from 1840 to 1860. They opposed the constitutional amendments that wiped out slavery and set the freed slaves on the path to full voting citizenship. They repealed a Republican-passed civil rights law in 1892. Again, not debatable: Simply a fact.

Don’t believe your people (the left) supported slavery, and even included it in their DNC platform planks?  Look it up.

1. Resolved, That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the constitution, and the grants of power shown therein, ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

2. Resolved, That the constitution does not confer upon the general government the power to commence and carry on, a general system of internal improvements.

3. Resolved, That the constitution does not confer authority upon the federal government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several states, contracted for local internal improvements, or other state purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.

4. Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the federal government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country—that every citizen and every section of the country, has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of person and property from domestic violence, or foreign aggression.

5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government, to enforce and practice the most rigid economy, in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised, than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government.

6. Resolved, That congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people.

7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

8. Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the government from banking institutions, is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the government, and the rights of the people.

9. Resolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty, and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the present privilege of becoming citizens, and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute-book.

Just in case your leftist Common Core education let you down, and you somehow didn’t see what I’m talking about, I’ll highlight it, for you.

7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

See it, now?

Funny how you Big Government leftists – wanting government to control everything from retirement, to law enforcement, to medical care – turned into Small Government Conservatives, when it came to your slaves.

Let’s see what else you leftists believed, and claim to not believe, now:  oh, yeah.


Leftists have always claimed Thomas Jefferson as the progenitor of their misbegotten political party.  Maybe there’s a reason for that.

“Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”

That’s what the scumbag thought of ‘race mixing’ (and a lot of IFLS leftists are still too stupid in the year 2015 to know there’s only one race of Human on this planet).  What else did Bill Clinton’s partial namesake have to say about blacks?

“Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them.”

In other words, Blacks suffer less than real Humans, so don’t worry about how you treat them.  That also dovetails pretty well into another leftist belief that unborn children aren’t Human, and so they can do anything they want to them, ranging from brutally murdering them with tools that cut their heads off after partial birth, to taking them to a satanic butcher shop, and parting them out like used cars.

Oh, he also thought Blacks were stupid, too.

in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.

I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.

In fact, you democrats loved having these people you could “legally” rape, beat to death, work to death and torture with a clear conscience, because they were too stupid to realize what was happening to them, and wouldn’t really suffer, anyway, that you started a war to keep them.


So you say only a handful of people had slaves in the South, and point fingers at the North?  Well, let’s see about that handful:

“Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man…. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another in glory.”

The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees [sic], in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief stone of the corner” in our new edifice.”

Those were the words of left-wing, traitor-to-his country scumbag and democrat Alexander Stephens, who became VP of the “Confederacy”.  After they got their asses kicked out of existence, the democrats made him a a national politician in the House of Representatives, then governor of Georgia, where he got to live the Life of Riley, and die a racist, old, rich man.

In fact, to enforce your (democrats) ideals of racial superiority, you invented something:  domestic terrorism, and the Ku Klux Klan.

The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army. The name is probably derived from the Greek word kuklos (κύκλος) which means circle.

Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity.

The first Klan had mixed results in terms of achieving its objectives. It seriously weakened the black political establishment through its use of assassinations and threats of violence; it drove some people out of politics. On the other hand, it caused a sharp backlash and unleashed new federal laws that Foner says were a success in terms of “restoring order, reinvigorating the morale of Southern Republicans, and enabling blacks to exercise their rights as citizens.” Historian George C. Rable argues that the Klan was a political failure and therefore was discarded by the Democratic leaders of the South. He says:

the Klan declined in strength in part because of internal weaknesses; its lack of central organization and the failure of its leaders to control criminal elements and sadists. More fundamentally, it declined because it failed to achieve its central objective – the overthrow of Republican state governments in the South.

Again, just in case your selective vision blotted it out, I’ll highlight if, for you.

The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army. 


There weren’t any Republicans fighting in the CONFEDERATE ARMY.  And let’s not forget one of your most loved domestic terrorists:


Senator Robert Byrd.

You liberals loved his evil, twisted, racist way of thinking so much, you gave him the unofficial title “the Conscience of the Senate”.  What did he think about Black people?

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side . . . Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

Don’t believe he said that?  Don’t like the source?

Lllook it up.

In fact, Byrd the military service dodger not only was in the Klan, but STARTED his own chapter, and became a very high ranking member of that organization of scum and villains.

Then, there were other members of that domestic terrorist organization that you leftists still look up to, to this day:

Harry Truman

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.”

Truman’s attitudes toward race were shaped by his youth in Missouri. His grandparents had owned slaves; his mother was interned by Union troops during the Civil War and remained “violently unreconstructed” for the rest of her life. Young Harry developed “an abiding belief in white supremacy,” Leuchtenburg said.

People like to claim Truman changed, but did he really?  He didn’t enact any laws combating his party’s racism, CONGRESS did.  He signed some, but made absolutely zero effort to enforce them.

Lyndon Johnson, the guy that probably had his own boss (JFK) murdered.  What did LBJ have to say about Blacks?

Of Truman’s civil rights proposal, he said this:

…is a farce and a sham…I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill … I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.

What did he think about allowing Blacks to vote?

As a matter of fact, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.


Bill Jefferson Clinton, his middle name from the far-left, ultra racist white supremacist Thomas Jefferson.

Billy Jeff was the lap dog to militant racist Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright, who

“…was one of ninety-nine congressional Democrats to sign the Southern Manifesto, which declared that the Southern states had a right to keep their populations segregated by race.”

Oh, did I forget to mention that Fulbright was a racist, segregationist, pro communist, anti Semite piece of crap?

Ok, then I’ll say it, now:

J William Fulbright was a no-good, racist, segregationist, commie-loving, Jew hating piece of s**t.

And Clinton ran to him, like he was his long, lost daddy.  He kissed his ass, until he shriveled up and finally did something good with his life:  DIED.

As reported at National Review, Slick Willy was one of:

“three state officials the NAACP sued in 1989 under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965″

He was even found to be suppressing black voters. The Arkansas Gazette, December 6, 1989, stated:

“Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks…the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated…”

Oh, and let’s not forget this piece of history he’d rather have you stupid liberals forget:

During his 12-year tenure, Governor Clinton never approved a state civil-rights law. However, he did issue birthday proclamations honoring Confederate leaders Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. He also signed Act 116 in 1987. That statute reconfirmed that the star directly above the word “Arkansas” in the state flag “is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.” Arkansas also observed Confederate Flag Day every year Clinton served…

According to the book Game Change, as reported in an article at the NY Daily News, Bill Clinton was hoping for the late Ted Kennedy’s endorsement for his wife Hillary as President but Kennedy threw his support behind Obama, prompting Clinton to say, “the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

Clinton allegedly added,

A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

Don’t believe Clinton was racist scumbag?  Look it up.

Then, there’s this:  around election season, there’s this thing called the Democratic National Convention.  A gathering of leftist malcontents and miscreants, looking to inflict a president on the country.  The 1924 DNC was so RIFE with the presence of the Ku Klux Klan – the Democrats’ armed, violent, paramilitary branch – the convention has gone down in history under the name, the KLANBAKE.  In fact, after the Klanbake, 

“some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey…”

In any event, let’s see what left-wing Wikipedia has to say about this Klan Rally the Democrats tried disguising as a legitimate political convention:

The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the Klanbake,[1] held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, 1924, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It was the first major party national convention that saw the name of a woman, Lena Springs, placed in nomination for the office of Vice President. It was also known for the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan.

And guess who one of the key speakers was at said Klan rally convention?




Don’t believe Frankie was a racist piece of crap, even though he basically spoke at a Klan rally?

Roosevelt appointed “confidant” James Byrnes to the Supreme Court, who was so powerful that he was known as the “assistant president on the home front” and who “believed in racial segregation…and worked to defeat anti-lynching bills introduced in Congress.”

And, since appointing one white supremacist to the “Supreme” Court wasn’t good enough for him, he did this:

A BLATANT, and UNREPENTANT member of the Ku Klux Klan.

FDR couldn’t keep out of Stalin’s ass, or from up the asses of the members of the domestic terrorist group the KKK, but he couldn’t (wouldn’t) meet with Olympic medalist Jesse Owens.  What did Owens have to say about the scumbag FDR that you leftists idolize and lionize, so much?

President Franklin Roosevelt never congratulated Owens or invited him to the White House. ‘Hitler didn’t snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me,’ Owens said.

Oh, and FDR also liked Hitler’s concentration camps so much, he made some for people of Japanese ethnicity, living in America.  Like Obama and his mass, 4th Amendment violating, illegal searches and seizures of private communications of Americans without cause, Roosevelt claimed that he had to get everybody, to insure America was kept safe.

So, let’s sum this up, this far:

Liberals have believed that White Supremacy was the wave of the future, that Blacks were degenerate, sub-Human, animal scum, and that we should put people into concentration camps, because of the way they look.  Oh, and that [Black] people could be beaten, raped and traded like baseball cards.

This is what your Democrat Party fostered as beliefs.  Quite frankly, a lot still believe it.  Hell, Democrats don’t even like VETERANS.

During an April 2009 House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, fellow Floridian Tom Rooney, a former active duty U.S. Army JAG Corps officer, introduced an amendment that would make attacks against military veterans a hate crime. Wasserman Schultz remarked on the amendment:

“I’m from a state, as Mr. Rooney is, that includes and represents the districts that include real victims. I represent a very large — one of the largest – gay populations in the United States of America. One of the largest Jewish populations in the United States of America. My region — our region – has a very large African-American population. It really is belittling of the respect that we should have for these groups to suggest that members of the armed services have somehow systematically been the victims of hate crimes.”

But who is the real villain?

Not the people that support a White supremacist movement that pretends it’s a political party; no.  The real villains are those dastardly Christians.

Like this one.

Because she dared to assert her 1st Amendment Rights that you liberals – on your own non-existent authority – say she doesn’t really have, and start spreading lies that she “broke a law”, or some-such.

Liberals hated Blacks, and their actions – pushing Welfare and other such programs, in place of pushing education and self reliance with the known endgame of infantalizing Blacks – shows that most still do.  Leftists have adopted Blacks as their pet projects, still viewing them in an arrogant, Jeffersonian way as village idiots, unable to really fend for themselves, actually comprehend the world around them, or survive:  without your help.  This has transformed from a hatred of Blacks and denying them/us civil rights and creating such laws as anti-miscegenation laws and marriage licenses to unlawfully and unethically use the to letting Blacks join your little political “party”.  Blacks stupid enough to do so actually think that you’ve ’emowered’ them.

Does this look empowered?

Besides depriving Blacks (and many others) of their civil rights, what has the DNC done for Blacks stupid enough to vote for them?  Oh, yeah:  the DNC has given them poverty and unemployment rates far above the national average.

According to the BLS, African Americans experienced an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent in May, up from 9.6 percent in April.

The BLS is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by the way.

Those pictures are from Detroit, a city people laughably claim to be up and coming, again, when it’s still governed by the same asshat that ran it into the ground, in the first place.  Those “asshats” being empowered Black Democrats, if you don’t know.  Since around the time of FDR (who hated Blacks, by the way), refined by guys like LBJ (who really hated Blacks), Blacks have been viewed as nothing but infantile, village idiots that need the largess of the DNC (the White Supremacist Movement) to get anywhere in life.  Without them, without their handouts (not hand-ups), the Blacks would be living like animals.  In dangerous conditions; killing each other; crime rampant; uneducated; impoverished and with no dignity.

Oh, wait…

Blacks are the “pets” of the DNC.

But, now, there’s a new pet:  homosexuals.

Now, they’re the new flavor of the week, for the New Left of the DNC.  The New Left is touting marriage as a component of their new ‘civil rights movement’ (funny, considering how they opposed civil rights for ethnic minorities hundreds of years, until they found that they could harvest those very same people for votes, by keeping them stupid and happy).  The formula is the same:  “promise them anything they want, and those stupid enough to believe us, will make us their gods”.

However, this is causing some friction, with the other flavors.

Holdouts: Blacks oppose gay marriage, 41/51, in new Pew poll


They’re not the only group still opposed, of course — senior citizens and white evangelicals also say no to SSM — but they’re the only group that’s under intense partisan pressure to conform that’s still resisting. When Obama announced his support for gay marriage in 2012, at least one poll showed a sea change in black opinion in the aftermath, from 41 percent in favor to 59 percent virtually overnight. One 2012 exit poll found 51 percentsupport for SSM among blacks versus 41 percent opposition. Pew’s pollsover the years have found that black support did increase noticeably between 2010 and 2012, possibly driven by O’s friendlier rhetoric towards SSM or possibly by the broader national trend in favor, but over the past few years that support has leveled off. As things stand today, the closest thing to the GOP’s socially conservative base on gay marriage outside the base itself is blacks.

Makes me wonder how the numbers will look after the Supreme Court legalizes the practice. Will blacks come around, with Democratic Party leaders celebrating the decision euphorically, or is this opposition durable?

Black support has increased 14 points in the past 10 years, but to put that in perspective, support among Democrats aged 70 or older has increased 23 points over the same period. (A majority of Democrats in all four major age demographics now back SSM.) Black Democrats are even more resistant to the social trend than septuagenarians. What’s driving it, unsurprisingly, appears to be religion. Just 33 percent of black Protestants support gay marriage; among white evangelicals, the group that’s most strongly opposed, that number is 27 percent.

Taking advantage of their newly granted status as a ‘protected class’, gays are coming up with stupid sayings like:  “gay is the new Black”.

Not too many Black people are liking this, and I’m one of them.

In a new video, Texas pastor Voddie Baucham rejects the claim that “gay is the new black,” underscoring the significant differences between race and sexual orientation. Baucham posted the video the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage across the country, an outcome that President Barack Obama hailed as “a victory for America.”

The pastor stressed important distinctions between ethnicity and sexual orientation, observing that “ethnicity is innate and unchangeable. So-called sexual orientation is not innate and is changeable.”

There is 2,000-year-old evidence in Saint Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that people can stop being gay, the pastor says. The text refers to “men who have sex with men” as being outside the kingdom of God. It also says that “some of you were,” but you have been washed and justified.

Such biblical language may soon be censored as “hate speech,” as people are coerced into accepting the idea that homosexuality is just like race. A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA announced last week that it would censor views opposing same-sex marriage as no better than racism, sexism, anti-Semitism. John L. Micek, editorial page editor and formerly state capital reporter, explicitly compared such opposition to “hate speech,” despite the fact that it has been the common view of humanity for millennia. Micek later walked back that stance.

Baucham says that some of the confusion stems from mistakes made in the civil rights movement itself, which used the political language of “constituencies,” resulting in debates about special interests rather than the common rights of all.

When rights are reduced to privileges for certain constituencies of people, then their true meaning is lost. “We’ve embraced a hyphenated understanding of ourselves as opposed to a view that sees us as one people,” he said.

So “if all you are doing is using the language of the culture and the idea of people as constituencies, then you end up right where we are, and it is hard to stop that train,” he said.

And, in predictable left-wing fashion, gays attack anyone that opposes their agenda (like the Black Lives Matters people do):

The N-Bomb is Dropped on Black Passersby at Prop 8 Protests

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

There was also this:

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

So, these are the saints that you of the New Left…

…are rushing to defend, cannibalizing one of your own, in the process, just so you can be on the “right left side” of revisionist history?  You do realize Kim Davis is a democrat, like you people that are vilifying her?  In your rush to slime her, and her family, you attack her past marriages, and use that as ammunition to criticize Christendom, by extension.  Well, that’s funny, considering you don’t attack the antics of people like Angelina Jolie, a Hollywood whore that can’t keep her clothes on, has sex on screen with married men, and even got her current husband by having sex with him, when he was still married, then later tuned into a hoarder, collecting children.  That doesn’t bother you.  This type of behavior doesn’t bother you, unless it’s from someone you personally don’t like, because they don’t share your political views.

And when you are confronted with a prominent leftist doing bad things, you tend to lie, to cover it up, such as with the Westboro Baptist Church.

You do know that they’re leftists, and their preacher was as left wing as you liberals are, contributing significantly to the same candidates and politicians that you liberals do, right?

The founder of Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, notorious for leading hateful protests against gay rights, is actually a Democrat with long history of endorsing Democratic candidates.

On Tuesday, Politico provided some background on Phelps’ political history, most of which saw him endorsing Democrat candidates and running for office a number of times as a Democrat. In the 1990’s, Phelps ran in three Kansas Democratic primaries for Governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving only 15% of the vote. He also ran for Senator in 1992, receiving 31% of the vote, and for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.

Phelp’s endorsed Al Gore for the 1988 Presidential candidacy due to his opposition to a “gay bill of rights” and comments that homosexuality wasn’t something “society should affirm.” Phelps and his congregation later picketed the 1997 inaugural ceremony after he switched his opinions on gay rights. He also endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992.

In 1997, Phelps wrote a letter to Saddam Hussein, praising him for being “the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets.” Hussein then granted Phelps permission to send a delegation to “preach the Gospel” for one week. Church congregates then traveled to Iraq where they protested the U.S. by standing on the streets of Baghdad holding signs condemning Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Phelps has also led protests against the funerals of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and William Rehnquist.

On Sunday, Phelps was reported to be “on the edge of death” in hospice care.

However, because he didn’t go along with your New Left Orthodoxy, he was shunned, and his affiliation with you by politics had to be covered up.

You New Left liberals are always crowing about being “on the right side of history”, yet intentionally blind yourselves to the part your political party – the party of violent, murderous, bigoted White Supremacists – have played in history, and continue to play, to this very day.  You still idolize and lionize your politicians like FDR and LBJ, even though they are some of the most racist presidents in history, and have said some of the most vile things that you CLAIM to oppose.

Instead of confronting your political party’s past and it’s ugly, shameful history, including murderous, racist vigilante movements essential to your party, like the White League:

The White League, also known as the White Man’s League, was an American white supremacist paramilitary terrorist organization started in 1874 to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate freedmen from voting and political organizing. Its first chapter in Grant Parish, Louisiana was made up of many of the Confederate veterans who had participated in the Colfax massacre in April 1873. Chapters were soon founded in other areas of the state and in New Orleans. During the later years of Reconstruction, it was one of the paramilitary groups described as “the military arm of the Democratic Party.” Through violence and intimidation, its members reduced Republican voting and contributed to the Democrats’ taking over control of the Louisiana Legislature in 1876.

After white Democrats regained control of the state legislature in 1876, members of the White Leagues were absorbed into the state militias and the National Guard.

And what was the Coushatta Massacre?  I know you New Left liberals don’t care, but I’m going to tell you, anyway.

The Coushatta Massacre (1874) was the result of an attack by the White League, a paramilitary organization composed of white Southern Democrats, on Republican officeholders and freedmen in Coushatta, the parish seat of Red River Parish, Louisiana. They assassinated six white Republicans and five to 20 freedmen who were witnesses.

The White League had organized to drive out Republicans from Louisiana, disrupt their political organizing, and intimidate or murder freedmen to restore white supremacy. Like the Red Shirts and other “White Line” organizations, they were described as “the military arm of the Democratic Party.”

One night in August 1874, while Marshall Twitchell was in New Orleans at a Republican state convention, the White League turned out six white officeholders, including Twitchell’s brother, Homer Twitchell, and three brothers-in-law, George A. King, Monroe Willis, and Clark Holland; husbands of the Twitchell sisters. They also rounded up twenty freedmen nearby. They forced the officeholders to sign a statement saying they would immediately leave Louisiana. Before the men could leave the region, they were assassinated by the White League. George King fled but was killed two years later by the League. The freedmen were killed because they were witnesses. Although twenty-five men were arrested for the massacre, because of lack of evidence, none were brought to trial.

I’m amazed at the capacity for self delusion you New Left liberals have.  You dig up dirt on one of your own, if necessary, to maintain your illusory narrative, but won’t dig up dirt on the White Supremacist Slave Party that you belong to; and as you’ve seen, there’s plenty of that dirt.

Look at the DNC website.  Doesn’t mention any of this, does it?  Go ahead.  Look.  I’ll wait.

Nope, wasn’t there, was it?

No, you’re still concentrating on attacking Christianity, Christians and Republicans.  Instead of contributing anything intelligent to debates, you trot out idiots, like this:

Getting it out, immediately, Betty Bowers, is a fictitious character, created by a leftist bigot that has an axe to grind against Christianity and Christians.  Naturally, the New Left wouldn’t agree with that assessment, but so what?  Let’s look at the drivel:

“Kim Davis is not punishing same sex couples for their one “sin” – she is punishing them for her many.  She’s a gal with a tawdry moral history, who has recently thrown herself before the mercy of a judgmental god.  The lives of the same-sex couples she thwarts are sacrifices she offers to keep her angry, new god at bay.  She is denying these couples, not because she is a good Christian (she is not), but because she needs an gimmick to prove to her god  she has changed.  For I say unto thee:  There are none so zealous about the supposed shortcomings of others than a recently converted sinner.”

Now, let’s break it down.

“Kim Davis is not punishing same sex couples for their one “sin” – she is punishing them for her many.”

Clearly, this is a statement from someone that 1:  doesn’t believe in God, 2:  doesn’t even believe in sin, as a consequence of not being a Christian.  It also denotes a pretty childish personality.  Translation:  Because Kim Davis was standing up for what she believed in, and refused to bow down to the beliefs of others like the New Left Orthodoxy dictates she should, she’s a meanie, and a bad person.  Because she did bad things, in her past, she’s taking it out on other people.  Well, let’s not forget that Kim Davis used to be one of you New Left types, and it was back in those days that she was indulging in the behavior that you seem to attack, in order to make it look “tawdry”, in comparison to homosexual activities.  Elizabeth Taylor was married how many times?  Where are the memes on her?  And you still seem to like Bill Clinton, a racist rapist and serial cheater.  Why is that?  That isn’t considered immoral?

“She’s a gal with a tawdry moral history, who has recently thrown herself before the mercy of a judgmental god.”

Again, her “tawdry” history was back when she was perfectly fine to rub shoulders with the rest of you New Left types.  Now that she’s tried to move away from you, you suddenly use that as an issue, and have a problem with that.  Why’s that?  And as for Yeshua being “judgmental”, you’re probably referring to things like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (places where I’m sure you New Left types would love to live).

Cities the New Left in their ignorance identifies as being cities of homosexuals, when, in reality, there was plenty of other things going on, there, besides that.

“What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?”

Answer: The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous.” Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the Lord to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham’s nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.

Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'” The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then “the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities…”

In light of the passage, the most common response to the question “What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?” is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term “sodomy” came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestablethings before me…” The Hebrew word translated “detestable” refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an “abomination.” Similarly,Jude 7 declares, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.

Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.

So, it wasn’t just that there were violent homosexuals there, but the fact that the people engaged in everything that was unholy was the real problem, not just the one things like the idiotic creator of character Betty Bowers would have you believe, and probably believes.  It is also implied in the Bible that these cities were warned numerous times.  I think a “judgmental” god probably would’ve nuked them, right off, without warning, and certainly wouldn’t have cared that a redeemable family was living within the city limits.

The lives of the same-sex couples she thwarts are sacrifices she offers to keep her angry, new god at bay.  She is denying these couples, not because she is a good Christian (she is not), but because she needs an gimmick to prove to her god she has changed.

And who are gays sacrificing Christians to, when the attack them and attempt to destroy their lives, through destroying their livlihoods, and taking away their life savings?  What vengeful god are gays putting people on the altar of, when the have ministers arrested for refusing to give in to their demands?  Like we don’t know:

Or when Christians are discriminated against, and told they can’t have a voice in government?

And as for the rest of you atheists that think your own moral compass is the right one, to what demonic god are you sacrificing your children, when you send them to the butcher shops of Planned Parenthood?

And while you’re explaining that one away, how about you explain why this isn’t a problem?

No, let me guess:  they’re just fighting back against the tyranny of Catholicism and oppressive opposition to child sacrifice abortion, right?  When gays attack blacks in the streets with racist epithets (revealing their true, Democrat colors, in many instances) and destroy the lives of people that don’t bow down to them, is it because they’re being good gays?  When non-gays help them do this, is it because they’re being good atheists?

The bottom line is that the New Left has their own religion, and Christianity is a competing faith.

Government officials are their clergy,

and while they try ridiculing Christians for worshiping our “imaginary friend”, they worship and cry for a ball of dirt.

Yeah, you people are paragons of enlightenment and logic.

Faith is alright, for some of you, as long as it ‘stays in it’s place’.  You want to rewrite the 1st Amendment, so it states that faith is other gods is alright, as long as it gives way to the supreme god (of the leftists), which is the State.  You cannot use your religion as an excuse to fulfill your obligations to the Supreme God, the United States Federal Government, which is morphing into the United Nations New World Order, basically, as we cede more of our sovereignty to this NGO.  It’s like ancient Rome; you could worship other gods, all you liked, but theirs were superior.  They controlled everything, and everyone else got crumbs that they left behind.

The problem isn’t Christendom, it’s you.  Plain and simple.  Your “my way, or the highway” bullcrap is just that:  bullcrap. You don’t care about other people, and you don’t care about their beliefs.  Nothing they hold sacred has any meaning to you, unless it’s something YOU hold sacred and believe it, and your beliefs seem to change with the weather.  You endlessly put up stupid pop-psychology pieces, talking about how stupid Conservatives are, and how enlightened and wise leftists are, and you lack the self awareness God gave the 4 year old, to see what’s bad about doing that, and about your own beliefs.  Here’s a Bible verse for you that you leftists love to take out of context and twist:

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Luke 6:42

You like to say that the brother talking about taking the speck out of the other’s eye is Christianity, Conservatism, the GOP, etc.


It’s you.

You love to point out the problems, real and imagined, with other political parties, and everyone else that doesn’t share your sociopolitical philosophies, but you never look at the problems you bring to the table, and your CENTURIES of toxic baggage.  Say what you want about the GOP and Conservatives, but they didn’t invent domestic terrorism, they didn’t invent the American institution of race-based slavery.  The DNC pioneered Apartheid, before South Africa did, and the GOP didn’t make it a policy to tell Blacks they couldn’t join the military.  The list goes on and on.

First take the plank out of your eye, before you continue your mindless criticism of others, based on your intolerance for the fact that we dare have opinions that you don’t like.

There.  I got it out.

I am Virus-X, Republic Commando, and I approve this message.

great seal of virus x

~ by Virus-X REPUBLIC COMMANDO on September 8, 2015.

4 Responses to “The New Left Feeding Frenzy”

  1. Your ignorance of History is stunning. Back during slavery time, the conservative party was the Democratic party and the Republican party at the time was made up of liberals and conservatives. It all switched in early 1960’s. What ignorant jibber jabber. My sympathies to whoever believes this CRAP.

  2. “Your ignorance of History is stunning. Back during slavery time, the conservative party was the Democratic party and the Republican party at the time was made up of liberals and conservatives. It all switched in early 1960’s. What ignorant jibber jabber. My sympathies to whoever believes this CRAP.”

    Like the typical, public school indoctrinated, Me Generation, Obama worshiping, cowardly leftist, you bluster, because you lack the mental capacity to debate. If you did, you would’ve presented something you’re quite obviously unfamiliar with, called “evidence”.

    For example:



    Or, because I don’t like you:

    You are piteous, as well as stupid. You are part of the original White Supremacist Party of America (the Slave Party), and you feel that guilt hanging around your neck, like heavy chains (as well you should). However, instead of disavowing racial supremacy, you try to lie and bluster to cover it up. Just as your shameful, evil political party that was hated by Frederick Douglass (don’t worry, he’s just some random black guy that your leftist revisionist historians don’t tell you about in your public school indoctrination sessions) to this very day on their website refuses to disclose their full, and earliest, history, you carry on the leftist tradition of lying and blaming others for the very things that your political party bears full responsibility for. Your marginally coherent screed is heavily weighed down with shame and self hatred, as well as uneducated stupidity. The leftists of yesteryear – you democrats – are always the same. Back then, you lived off the toil and blood of others to further your selves. Today, you are no different. I don’t feel sorry for you, because I have no pity for the willfully stupid.

  3. Your Comments are Comparing Apples To Oranges: Simply a fact
    The “Conservative party” (party that wants to maintain the status quo) was the Democratic party in 1860 and later. They did not want to give blacks the new right to vote. The Republican party wanted to give blacks the right to vote, mostly to keep from losing seats in the House of Representatives rather than it was the right thing to do.

    Fast forward to 1964 and 1965. The Voting rights amendment and the Civil Rights act of 1965 were passed by Democrats. This resulted in Conservative Democrats switched to the Republican party because the Republicans were becoming the conservative party. Trend has continued until today – if you are not conservative – you cannot be a Republican.

    Simply a fact: Conservatives were against voting rights for blacks and now against voting rights for gays. Again, not debatable: Simply a fact.

  4. The laughability of your position grows with every response.

    “Your Comments are Comparing Apples To Oranges: Simply a fact
    The “Conservative party” (party that wants to maintain the status quo) was the Democratic party in 1860 and later.”

    Leftists (such as yourself), in their desperation to win debates (or arguments) resort to things like thinking they can change language to suit their own purposes. You keep hysterically saying “conservative, conservative, conservative”, yet, quite obviously, have no clue as to what Conservatism really is. You think in simplistic terms, and make no effort to actually look into political philosophies that are easily researched.

    A conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of everyone else.
    A conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, moral values, and limited government, agreeing with George Washington’s Farewell Address that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to political prosperity.[1][2]
    Phil Crane, the leading conservative congressman in the House from 1969 to 2005, urged people to make the world a better place than where they found it, and quoted frequently from the Bible in pursuit of that goal.[3]
    Former President Ronald Reagan said, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.”

    Oh, and by the way, you can compare apples to oranges. Some people like apples, and don’t like oranges, some vice-versa, and some like both, and some hate both. Your analogy is senseless, like the rest of your arguments.

    “They did not want to give blacks the new right to vote. The Republican party wanted to give blacks the right to vote, mostly to keep from losing seats in the House of Representatives rather than it was the right thing to do.” Now, if your simple-minded definition of Conservatism was correct, then they wouldn’t have done that, would they? And I don’t see any evidence of your accusations, meaning they – just like what you previously wrote – are empty, groundless accusations.

    Unless you ran into some of the Framers and Founders, back in the 1860s.

    My great^6 grandfather was an abolitionist, and would agree with me in saying that motives like what you fruitless attempt to paint on the GOP are best used to describe people like yourself: liberal democrats. That Framer/Founder grandfather is President John Adams, by the way. As for attempting to smear the GOP with yet another of your lies, I see you didn’t volunteer why your political party – the Slave Party – DIDN’T want Blacks to vote. Why is that?

    “Fast forward to 1964 and 1965. The Voting rights amendment and the Civil Rights act of 1965 were passed by Democrats.”

    More of your transparent and silly lies.

    “Michael Zak, author of “Back to Basics for the Republican Party,” which chronicles the party’s civil rights heritage, believes Goldwater was a significant factor, by forgetting that the 1964 bill virtually mirrored Republican-backed legislation from 1875.

    “Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts,” Zak told TheBlaze. “Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s presidential nominee that year, did not appreciate the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was thoroughly Republican policy.”

    And with President Barack Obama, the first black president, set to speak at the LBJ Presidential Library Thursday, that’s the notion that’s still widely promoted. This week, White House press secretary Jay Carney likened Republican opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act in Congress to opposing civil rights legislation.

    “Republicans object to this strenuously, using the same arguments that conservatives used when they objected to every bit of progress made on civil rights for women and minorities over the past many decades, and they were wrong then and they’re wrong now,” Carney told reporters Tuesday.

    Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats.

    Time magazine even largely credited Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) for pushing the sweeping legislation through, putting him on the cover after final passage.

    Johnson told Dirksen: “The attorney general said that you were very helpful and did an excellent job and that I ought to tell you that I admire you … and I told him that I had already done that for some time … . You’re worthy of the Land of Lincoln. And a man from Illinois is going to pass the bill, and I’ll see that you get proper attention and credit.”

    Horace Cooper, co-chairman of Project 21, a black conservative organization, told TheBlaze that at the time the 1964 bill was debated “it was clear [that] distinguished leaders of the Democratic Party were the opponents … we didn’t have 24-hour news then, but people who were paying attention knew who opposed it.”

    “There is a myth, and it has been a particularly effective one, that the Democratic Party has created opportunities for minorities,” added Cooper, a former law professor at George Mason University and former counsel for House Republicans. “The record for 100 years from the 1860s through the 1960s has been that the Democrats have stymied the abilities of black Americans to have the same constitutional rights as all Americans.””

    On this day in 1964, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate, condemned the Democrats’ 57-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African-Americans was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd, who got into politics as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, spoke against the bill for fourteen straight hours. Democrats still call Robert Byrd “the conscience of the Senate.”

    In his speech, Senator Dirksen called on the Democrats to end their filibuster and accept racial equality.

    Let’s start at the 1964 Civil Rights act. Guess what? Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress voted for the bill. Only 64 percent of Democrats did. Oh, and by the way, Al Gore’s father, Al Gore, Sr., Bill Clinton’s mentor, a segregationist by the name of J. William Fulbright, one-time Democratic Senate majority leader and former Klan member Robert “KKK” Byrd — they all voted against the Civil Rights Act.

    And as for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, 87 percent of congressional Republicans voted for it, 79 percent of Democrats voted for it. So the Republican Party — they were the party that Lyndon Johnson credited with the Civil Rights Act

    And your next lie:

    “This resulted in Conservative Democrats switched to the Republican party because the Republicans were becoming the conservative party.”

    Your ideological founding father – Josef – once said:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Just because you repeatedly say it, doesn’t make it true. There are no “conservative” democrats. A Conservative (see definition, above) would never align himself or herself with a political party like the Slave Party; the White Supremacist party that profiteered off of slavery, sexual assault, murder and torture. For two, you have no proof of this happening. Or maybe you’re talking Strom

    “The GOP’s civil rights case was not helped when rabid segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina left the Democratic Party for the Republicans after Johnson signed the law. But conservatives argue that doesn’t erase the historical divide.”

    In other words, nobody asked him to join, and he did not start a trend.

    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 Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.

    I’ve shown you the words of several people in the know on that matter. You chose not to look at anything, so that’s your problem. If you don’t want to be educated and continue living in ignorance, that’s your lot as a leftist democrat.

    “Trend has continued until today – if you are not conservative – you cannot be a Republican.”

    “Again, not debatable: Simply a fact.”

    More comedy. Like most leftists, if repeating something enough times doesn’t work, if shouting doesn’t work, you just manufacture evidence (or just go without) and claim ‘the science is settled’. For one, the national level GOP is certainly not Conservative. A handful of Conservatives does not a movement or political party make. Furthermore, clinging to the leaden life preserver of lies like ‘the DNC and GOP switched’ will simply send you where you belong: straight to the bottom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: