Zero tolerance

Votto

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2012
56,153
56,704
3,605

Remember what happened to the rapper Ye, better known as Kanye West?

Two years ago, he made bizarre, antisemitic comments – and the whole internet came after him. Ye lost a lucrative deal with Adidas as well as other business ties. Twitter suspended his account.

Fast-forward to now. Would people still care that much about blatant rhetoric against Jews?

Given the seeming tolerance for widespread protests and violence by pro-Palestinian demonstrators in response to the Hamas-Israel war, I have to wonder.

The hysterical and obstructive demonstrations that have plagued U.S. college campuses after Hamas started the conflict with its Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel have spread far beyond the quad.



Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march near Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., on June 8, 2024, to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza.

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march near Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., on June 8, 2024, to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza.© Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
DEI is unraveling at our universities. Good riddance to a failed and divisive bureaucracy.

The conflict has become a huge campaign headache for President Joe Biden in recent months, with pro-Palestinian supporters in the United States threatening to withdraw their support from the president if he doesn’t change course.


Where's the outrage over this antisemitism?​

Take what happened this weekend in Washington, D.C.

A protest Saturday outside the White House against Biden’s support of Israel attracted thousands of people from around the nation. Many of the protesters wore keffiyehs and masks as they surrounded the White House grounds.

It was disconcerting to see, with some protesters holding signs supporting “martyrdom,” “jihad” and “intifada.” Another read, “f--- Israel, stand with Hamas.”

Other people were chanting, “Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want no Zionists here.” Others yelled “kill another Zionist now.

It doesn’t get much more antisemitic – or anti-American – than that.


I think the author of this article mistakes political and corporate silence for Jew hatred coming from the Left as a lack of outrage. The outrage regarding Kayne West was all generated by political and corporate action, to censor his speech and take away advertisement opportunities. But he was an easy target, for you see, he has been known for his support for Trump at times and for wearing shirts that say "White Lives Matter". As a result, he was already a target for the Left. Kayne just made it easy to target him because he is a racist lunatic.

But now those that hate Jews are taking up the banner of a Left-wing cause, namely, destroying the Jewish nation of Israel. And since the political and corporate elite have been taken over by the Left, there is no real outrage to be seen as singing gas the Jews has now been normalized on college campus' all across the country. Now it is hip to hate Jews.

The Left is normalizing another Holocaust, but rest assured, there is outrage. It just is simmering and growing and hopefully will stop these lunatics as well. This is why the Left is so much more dangerous than those marginalized by the political and corporate elites on the right.
 
Last edited:
what is so different now Votto?
View attachment 960559

~S~
Good point. Democrats started the KKK.

Maybe democrats can't help themselves, they have always been full of hate and murderous rage that is smiled upon by the political and corporate elite.


The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

"The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem."

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.
"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.
"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."
Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.
Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.
His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.
Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.
Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.
"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat � either in the House or the Senate � voted for the 14th Amendment," Barton wrote. "Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans."

He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress' civil rights laws were "unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void."
It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.
Barton's book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.
Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.
Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

Dems' website showing jump in history
The current version of the "History" page on the party website lists a number of accomplishments � from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William Jennings Bryan and women's suffrage.
A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the issues. "You're not going to get a comment," said the spokesman who identified himself as Luis.
"Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?" Barton asked. "Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about � perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website."
The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their racism.
"Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said.
It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., of pro-slavery Democrats. "Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years."
By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it wasn't until Harry Truman was elected that "Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender."
"That is an accurate description," wrote Barton. "Starting with Harry Truman, Democrats began � that is, they made their first serious efforts � to fight against the barriers of race; yet � Truman's efforts were largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party."
Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something Graham refused to do. "And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the facilities to the evangelist," Barton wrote.
The National Review noted that the Democrats' "Klan-coddling" today is embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."
The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, was "scorned" by national GOP officials.
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.
Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: "The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."
Barton's documentation said the first opponents of slavery "and the chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation's first abolition societies."
During the years surrounding the Civil War, "the most obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on slavery," Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while Democrats declared: "All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people."
Wallbuilders also cited John Alden's 1885 book, "A Brief History of the Republican Party" in noting that the KKK's early attacks were on Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the Republican identity en masse.
"In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the meetings of negroes and displaced them," Alden wrote. "Its ostensible purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real motives were essentially political � The negroes were invariable required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened with death if they broke their promises."
Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in American now is African-Americans. He said most consider their affiliation with the Democratic party longterm.
But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi, who recalled his grandmother never "would let a Democrat in the house, and he never knew what she was talking about." After a review of history, he knew, Barton said.

Citing President George Washington's farewell address, Barton told WND, "Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation."
"We shouldn't love a party [over] a candidate's principles or values," he told WND.
Washington's farewell address noted the "danger" from parties is serious.
"Let me now � warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. � The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," Washington said.

"Educate thyself My Friends, Educate Thyself."
 
Last edited:
There's always been a lot of hate in the world ,and a lot of it goes public, which has always been an American right

Allowing them to make an a** of themselves is far more effective than shutting them down to a martyr

do you agree Votto?

~S~
 
There's always been a lot of hate in the world ,and a lot of it goes public, which has always been an American right

Allowing them to make an a** of themselves is far more effective than shutting them down to a martyr

do you agree Votto?

~S~
I do, and I also have the freedom not to tolerate it on a personal level.

The tactics by the Left have changed my views on this somewhat. The Left came to power preaching tolerance because they did not have a grasp on political power as of yet. And as people tolerated their lunacy on a personal level, and even began to agree with them, their power grew until they took over political and corporate power. And guess what, now that they have power they stopped preaching tolerance as they censor everyone now because they understand that people tolerating this crap makes the movement grow.

Should people be censored for what they say? No, but at the same time, people need to stop tolerating a crowd chanting "gas the Jews".
 
The Democrats never got over 1865.
They went from the KKK to Marxism ever since.
Now they are embracing Hamas and antisemitism.
What a hateful mess these idiots are.
🙄
 
Well i'm with you on the left being intolerant Votto, fact is they've come full circle in a generation to looking more like what they opposed in the past

They are the cancel culture 1st Amd abusing brownshirts of the new millennia, a key point of fascism 101

The trick is how to expose them for what they are w/out lowering one's self to their tactics

~S~
 

Remember what happened to the rapper Ye, better known as Kanye West?

Two years ago, he made bizarre, antisemitic comments – and the whole internet came after him. Ye lost a lucrative deal with Adidas as well as other business ties. Twitter suspended his account.

Fast-forward to now. Would people still care that much about blatant rhetoric against Jews?

Given the seeming tolerance for widespread protests and violence by pro-Palestinian demonstrators in response to the Hamas-Israel war, I have to wonder.

The hysterical and obstructive demonstrations that have plagued U.S. college campuses after Hamas started the conflict with its Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel have spread far beyond the quad.



Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march near Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., on June 8, 2024, to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza.'s actions in Gaza.

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march near Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., on June 8, 2024, to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza.© Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
DEI is unraveling at our universities. Good riddance to a failed and divisive bureaucracy.

The conflict has become a huge campaign headache for President Joe Biden in recent months, with pro-Palestinian supporters in the United States threatening to withdraw their support from the president if he doesn’t change course.


Where's the outrage over this antisemitism?​

Take what happened this weekend in Washington, D.C.

A protest Saturday outside the White House against Biden’s support of Israel attracted thousands of people from around the nation. Many of the protesters wore keffiyehs and masks as they surrounded the White House grounds.

It was disconcerting to see, with some protesters holding signs supporting “martyrdom,” “jihad” and “intifada.” Another read, “f--- Israel, stand with Hamas.”

Other people were chanting, “Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want no Zionists here.” Others yelled “kill another Zionist now.

It doesn’t get much more antisemitic – or anti-American – than that.


I think the author of this article mistakes political and corporate silence for Jew hatred coming from the Left as a lack of outrage. The outrage regarding Kayne West was all generated by political and corporate action, to censor his speech and take away advertisement opportunities. But he was an easy target, for you see, he has been known for his support for Trump at times and for wearing shirts that say "White Lives Matter". As a result, he was already a target for the Left. Kayne just made it easy to target him because he is a racist lunatic.

But now those that hate Jews are taking up the banner of a Left-wing cause, namely, destroying the Jewish nation of Israel. And since the political and corporate elite have been taken over by the Left, there is no real outrage to be seen as singing gas the Jews has now been normalized on college campus' all across the country. Now it is hip to hate Jews.

The Left is normalizing another Holocaust, but rest assured, there is outrage. It just is simmering and growing and hopefully will stop these lunatics as well. This is why the Left is so much more dangerous than those marginalized by the political and corporate elites on the right.

I checked out your link, and saw no "Pro Hamas" signs at all, nor any of " supporting “martyrdom,” “jihad” and “intifada.” Another read, “f--- Israel, stand with Hamas.” claimed in your OP.
 
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid

Step out of line, the men come and take you away


~S~
 
Well i'm with you on the left being intolerant Votto, fact is they've come full circle in a generation to looking more like what they opposed in the past

They are the cancel culture 1st Amd abusing brownshirts of the new millennia, a key point of fascism 101

The trick is how to expose them for what they are w/out lowering one's self to their tactics

~S~
Here is the thing, I have no problem with intolerance. In fact, if you walked through a Jewish death camp in the 1940's, if you had no feelings of intolerance, you probably should have been hung with the Nazis who ran the death camp.

My issue is with those in power. For you see, we are wired to adapt our morality to those perceived in power over us that we respect. This can come from our parents, our peers, government, etc., and then have those people influence my moral sensibilities. This is why when slavery was legal, most said it was not ideal but it was Ok, but a century after being illegal, the overwhelming consensus is that slavery is evil. The same can be said of abortion. Before abortion was made legal, the majority would say that it is immoral, but decades after being made legal the general consensus is that it is not ideal, but it is Ok.

In short, we are lemmings, or as the Bible calls us, we are sheep.

Fortunately, I have long ago rejected the moral authority in the Swamp. I care more about what Kayne West thinks and says than Potato head, but the sad part is, most respect and follow the moral ques by the idiots in the Swamp who think that the moon is made of cheese. This is the result of secularism and the rejection of any religious authority. They have not rejected religion; they have merely adopted a secular one to replace it because that is how we are wired.

You see the Left speak out about fascism, but the funny part is, fascism is born with political power as they engage in it 24/7 while condemning anyone who wants their fascistic power to be fascists themselves. They have a point, but fail to see or continue to hide their own fascism.

Power corrupts, which is why we should seek to divide power as much as humanly possible. Problem is, the Left are collectivists. They spend all their time trying to centralize power into fewer and fewer people.
 
I checked out your link, and saw no "Pro Hamas" signs at all, nor any of " supporting “martyrdom,” “jihad” and “intifada.” Another read, “f--- Israel, stand with Hamas.” claimed in your OP.

To deny what is going on in college universities around the word tells me one of two things about you.

1. You are clueless and blind

2. You are a lying troll.

Which is it brown shirt?
 
Good point. Democrats started the KKK.

Maybe democrats can't help themselves, they have always been full of hate and murderous rage that is smiled upon by the political and corporate elite.


The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

"The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem."

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.
"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.
"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."
Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.
Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.
His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.
Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.
Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.
"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat � either in the House or the Senate � voted for the 14th Amendment," Barton wrote. "Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans."

He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress' civil rights laws were "unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void."
It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.
Barton's book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.
Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.
Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

Dems' website showing jump in history
The current version of the "History" page on the party website lists a number of accomplishments � from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William Jennings Bryan and women's suffrage.
A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the issues. "You're not going to get a comment," said the spokesman who identified himself as Luis.
"Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?" Barton asked. "Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about � perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website."
The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their racism.
"Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said.
It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., of pro-slavery Democrats. "Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years."
By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it wasn't until Harry Truman was elected that "Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender."
"That is an accurate description," wrote Barton. "Starting with Harry Truman, Democrats began � that is, they made their first serious efforts � to fight against the barriers of race; yet � Truman's efforts were largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party."
Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something Graham refused to do. "And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the facilities to the evangelist," Barton wrote.
The National Review noted that the Democrats' "Klan-coddling" today is embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."
The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, was "scorned" by national GOP officials.
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.
Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: "The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."
Barton's documentation said the first opponents of slavery "and the chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation's first abolition societies."
During the years surrounding the Civil War, "the most obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on slavery," Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while Democrats declared: "All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people."
Wallbuilders also cited John Alden's 1885 book, "A Brief History of the Republican Party" in noting that the KKK's early attacks were on Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the Republican identity en masse.
"In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the meetings of negroes and displaced them," Alden wrote. "Its ostensible purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real motives were essentially political � The negroes were invariable required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened with death if they broke their promises."
Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in American now is African-Americans. He said most consider their affiliation with the Democratic party longterm.
But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi, who recalled his grandmother never "would let a Democrat in the house, and he never knew what she was talking about." After a review of history, he knew, Barton said.

Citing President George Washington's farewell address, Barton told WND, "Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation."
"We shouldn't love a party [over] a candidate's principles or values," he told WND.
Washington's farewell address noted the "danger" from parties is serious.
"Let me now � warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. � The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," Washington said.

"Educate thyself My Friends, Educate Thyself."
Republicans threw away a reputation for helping free the slave just for some votes via the Southern strategy.

Anything for votes.
 
The Democrats never got over 1865.
They went from the KKK to Marxism ever since.
Now they are embracing Hamas and antisemitism.
What a hateful mess these idiots are.
🙄
they took out lincoln
 
Republicans threw away a reputation for helping free the slave just for some votes via the Southern strategy.

Anything for votes.
what a bunch of fking nonsense. all made up to deflect, deflections are always visible. you are what you are, a demofk kkker. School choice outs you !!!
 
what a bunch of fking nonsense. all made up to deflect, deflections are always visible. you are what you are, a demofk kkker. School choice outs you !!!
You don't think the southern strategy happened?

Have you been watching Prager U cartoon videos? Lol.
 
You don't think the southern strategy happened?

Have you been watching Prager U cartoon videos? Lol.
not the way you portray it at all. but hey, you go with what you were told and not what the facts are. I'm still waiting on those republicans that went to demofks and the demofks who became republican!!!
 
not the way you portray it at all. but hey, you go with what you were told and not what the facts are. I'm still waiting on those republicans that went to demofks and the demofks who became republican!!!
How did I portray it?

What's your source besides Prager U, the 2k Mules guy or YouTube pundits?
 

Forum List

Back
Top