Democracy under attack - by the U.S.A.

Yeah that’s the one. Her handle escapes me.

You all won't get an argument from me about communists in the Democratic Party and in many aspects of our society.. but thank you for the excellent summary.

That does not mar the people of whom I speak: the rank and file. They were the Democratic Party and they were overwhelmingly traditionalists and patriotic. Over the recent decades the rank and file are seeing more and more how their Democratic Party ain't no more.

There was talk of Communists in the Democratic Party back then but the overwhelming MSM disparaged it.

I am not going to debate Parties. I truly do loathe both Parties beginning with the reason I stated above -- and the latest reason: those of both Parties who are trying to destroy Sarah Palin.

The MSM? disgusted with them too. I wrote letters to the networks in the '60s -- to which they replied "we're professionals and you're not."

Communists? I was a supporter of Joe McCarthy. I remember Murrow's signal (1953 I believe) that it was time to attack and destroy him.

I valued the American Opinion book stores (1960s) as one of the few sources for the rest of the news.

Democrat/Communist Henry Wallace you say?

Wallace, a Communist it was known at the time, ran as the "Progressive" Party candidate in '48. The rank and file Democrats would never have accepted him as their candidate. He was too much even for socialist leader Norman Thomas who left the Progressive Party because of communist influence over Wallace. Thomas would not have been accepted by the rank and file Democrats either.

The Democratic Party has long been acknowledged as harboring extremists, that's why it was so easy for the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble to take over the Party -- and Democrat stalwarts, et al did in fact leave the Party.

Now it looks to me that many of the apolitical, rank and file Democrats finally are about to prove that America is more important than any damn political party. We can -- I hope soon! -- replace both Parties but there's only one America.

>> Some guide was talking about Republican Lincoln and Democrat Douglas and how one was against slavery expanding and how the other thought it should be voted on and either the guide or someone from the peanut gallery added something like "of course that would the opposite today". (referring to the parties). <<

It's amazing how many freepers want to help the media spread their propaganda about how the parties "switched sides" and don't realize the media's motives for doing so (mainly to whitewash the RAT party's criminal history so minorities think all conservatives are evil racist sexist bigots and the RATs are their friends).

Some of these "conservatives" trying to spread the media propaganda actually do fit the media sterotype, since they're neoconfederates who do seem to harbor some bigotry against minorities, and they're not in any way "conservative" (I call them the hate America wing of the GOP, since they despise the United States of America as such as the Obama crowd), they're just anti-government anarchists. The only reason they're not in the RAT party anymore is the RATs no longer tolerate openly racist people in their party. Most of them refuse to use the GOP label (good, we don't want them), and instead say they are independent.

The problem is most people refuse to study the historical record for themselves. Most of those so-called "conservative" southern Democrats opposing civil rights were all gung-ho FDR loving New Dealers who were all for massive expansion of government. A few New England Republicans who supported civil rights were indeed RINOs (as is STILL true in New England today), but the MOST prominent civil rights supporters on the GOP side were conservatives, such as Senator Ev Dirksen of Illinois. Those few on the GOP side who did oppose desegregation, like Barry Goldwater, did so out of libertarian concern out of the powers of government overreaching and becoming big brother, not out of any racist convictions of "keep the Negros in their place" that the southern RATs were esposing.

I looked it up once, and as far I can tell, the ONLY southern RAT Senator who opposed the 1964 civil rights act and later "switched sides" was Storm Thurmond, and yet he assimilated into the GOP's support for integration as a Republican Party. The remaining southern RAT "conservatives" who were anti-1964 civil rights act all remained lifelong RATs and happily supported the likes of Carter and Clinton.

>> Some guide was talking about Republican Lincoln and Democrat Douglas and how one was against slavery expanding and how the other thought it should be voted on and either the guide or someone from the peanut gallery added something like "of course that would the opposite today". (referring to the parties). <<

It's amazing how many freepers want to help the media spread their propaganda about how the parties "switched sides" and don't realize the media's motives for doing so (mainly to whitewash the RAT party's criminal history so minorities think all conservatives are evil racist sexist bigots and the RATs are their friends).

Some of these "conservatives" trying to spread the media propaganda actually do fit the media sterotype, since they're neoconfederates who do seem to harbor some bigotry against minorities, and they're not in any way "conservative" (I call them the hate America wing of the GOP, since they despise the United States of America as such as the Obama crowd), they're just anti-government anarchists. The only reason they're not in the RAT party anymore is the RATs no longer tolerate openly racist people in their party. Most of them refuse to use the GOP label (good, we don't want them), and instead say they are independent.

The problem is most people refuse to study the historical record for themselves. Most of those so-called "conservative" southern Democrats opposing civil rights were all gung-ho FDR loving New Dealers who were all for massive expansion of government. A few New England Republicans who supported civil rights were indeed RINOs (as is STILL true in New England today), but the MOST prominent civil rights supporters on the GOP side were conservatives, such as Senator Ev Dirksen of Illinois. Those few on the GOP side who did oppose desegregation, like Barry Goldwater, did so out of libertarian concern out of the powers of government overreaching and becoming big brother, not out of any racist convictions of "keep the Negros in their place" that the southern RATs were espousing.

I looked it up once, and as far I can tell, the ONLY southern RAT Senator who opposed the 1964 civil rights act and later "switched sides" was Storm Thurmond, and yet he assimilated into the GOP's support for integration as a Republican Party. The remaining southern RAT "conservatives" who were anti-1964 civil rights act all remained lifelong RATs and happily supported the likes of Carter and Clinton.

btt