Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

History refresher- Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
Human Events ^ | 08/16/2006 | Frances Rice

Posted on 08/29/2010 2:16:46 PM PDT by NoLibZone

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

Ms. Rice is chairman of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) and may be contacted at www.NBRA.info.


TOPICS: Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: drking; martinlutherking; mlk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 08/29/2010 2:16:51 PM PDT by NoLibZone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
"Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. "

They had to carry Byrd out feet first. That's how much the DNC loved this man.

2 posted on 08/29/2010 2:18:33 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Communities regularly fight the construction projects, Walmarts Starbucks and even tree removal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

How did it get so screwed up?


3 posted on 08/29/2010 2:19:45 PM PDT by GoCards ("We eat therefore we hunt...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Only the dems can get away with glorifying both of these men...


4 posted on 08/29/2010 2:19:45 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
I'd like to see bumper stcikers and rally signs that say:

MLK

WAS

GOP

5 posted on 08/29/2010 2:21:37 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Congressmen should serve two terms: One in Congress and one in prison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Great article! Now all we need to do is to give subscriptions to Human Events to all Blacks. Then force them to read them. No problem.


6 posted on 08/29/2010 2:24:42 PM PDT by BruceS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

.


7 posted on 08/29/2010 2:27:36 PM PDT by sourcery (United We Stand, Divided We Fall: You have to give in order to get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

With cartoons for both MLK and GOP for the literacy-challenged. Yes, Dr. King was in the “Elephant” party. Since when has a leading political figure who was willing to go to jail for his non violent opposition to a regime written the most cogent set of letters since St. Paul did in biblical times?

Some criticize King for borrowing heavily in his speeches and writings without giving proper credit, often belonging to White sources. That’s a whole ‘nother issue, but it doesn’t make what he stood for any less true.


8 posted on 08/29/2010 2:29:39 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GoCards

In the quest for Utopia any lie is acceptable to stop the evils that ‘don’t want Utopia.’


9 posted on 08/29/2010 2:31:11 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GoCards
"How did it get so screwed up?"

Democrats realized two things long ago.

1) Welfare buys votes.
2) Welfare keeps blacks on the plantation.

10 posted on 08/29/2010 2:33:24 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
If confronted, the Democrats will simply say "lots of blacks were Republicans back then, that doesn't mean he agreed with them." They'll make this claim just as easily and glibly as when the tell you that Hitler wasn't a socialist, even though the word "socialist" was part of the name of his political party.

These people think they can make the truth be what they want it to be. This is their weakness, of course. In the long run, anyway.

11 posted on 08/29/2010 2:35:14 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

That talk that MLK was a “Republican” is false. GA has no registration by party. There was no Republican primary in GA until probably 1970, several years after King’s death. King went all the way with LBJ in 1964 and favored JFK-LBJ in 1960. I don’t know his 1956 preference, but Stevenson won in GA.


12 posted on 08/29/2010 2:48:31 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Rush was right when he said America may survive Obama but not the Obama supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

GA’s 1970 gubernatorial primary was to pick the failed candidate (Hal Suit) against Jimmy Carter, with Governor Maddox as the lieutenant governor candidate. Maddox later said Carter was the most dishonest man he ever knew. Goldwater said the same of Nixon. Carter was “Nixon’s revenge.”


13 posted on 08/29/2010 2:51:16 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Rush was right when he said America may survive Obama but not the Obama supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Hell...by today’s standards...JFK would be a Republican if he were alive. I won’t go so far as to say he’d be a Conservative but he sure as hell wouldn’t be a Democrat. His views and statements on economics were right in line with the great Ronaldus Maximus.


14 posted on 08/29/2010 2:52:59 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (A fearless person cannot be controlled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
Tpopic: MLK Jr. was a communist, a rabblerouser, and a womanizer.

Discuss.

15 posted on 08/29/2010 2:57:26 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

That’s why it’s so frustrating that so many black Republicans voted for Obama, just because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote against the black candidate. Sad.


16 posted on 08/29/2010 2:59:34 PM PDT by tiredoflurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans.

That isn't anywhere near the truth, not by party identification or vote, figure roughly 22% Rep. party ID and roughly 29% Republican voting for blacks in that era, before the total collapse in 1964.

17 posted on 08/29/2010 3:22:14 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Hell...by today’s standards...JFK would be a Republican if he were alive.

I'm coming to the conclusion that JFK was the most destructive President in American history.

18 posted on 08/29/2010 3:24:37 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Why the hell was this debunked mess posted again ?


19 posted on 08/29/2010 3:25:40 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoCards
How did it get so screwed up?

Hell has nothing but free time.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

20 posted on 08/29/2010 3:34:32 PM PDT by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Well written ! How did blacks within the last forty years get duped to support their abusers. It is time to end the abusive relationship and walk towards of being free instead of being dependent !


21 posted on 08/29/2010 3:50:55 PM PDT by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

There are some accurate facts in the story, but the premise is false. MLK was disappointed that neither candidate offered support for civil rights in 1956, so he declined to endorse anyone; in 1960 he supported Kennedy, and in 1964 Johnson. I don’t think he had settled on a candidate when he was killed in 1968, but Bobby Kennedy would be the way to bet.


22 posted on 08/29/2010 3:57:11 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Black voters, including the few who managed to register in the South, identified as Republican until the mid-20th century. Harry Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces started to pull black voters to the Democrats. JFK’s support for civil rights, albeit mostly lip service, drew some more; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sealed the deal.

With the possible exception of LBJ, no one was more instrumental in passing the 1964 Act than Everett Dirksen, GOP Senator from Illinois; but the Republicans never made civil rights a national campaign priority.


23 posted on 08/29/2010 4:02:51 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError; Steely Tom; Steve Van Doorn
Black voters, including the few who managed to register in the South, identified as Republican until the mid-20th century. Harry Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces started to pull black voters to the Democrats. JFK’s support for civil rights, albeit mostly lip service, drew some more; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sealed the deal.

Those histories just aren't true, they are myths.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

24 posted on 08/29/2010 4:22:40 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GoCards
How did it get so screwed up?

A communist-adoring media, a racist welfare state, a lazy and unthinking public, millions of illegals allowed in and republicans who haven't effectively countered the propaganda. And RINO'S, aka wolves in sheep's clothing.

25 posted on 08/29/2010 5:19:10 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (We don't have a leader in the Oval Office, we have a odreader in the Oval Office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Perhaps. I was only speaking of his stated views on taxation and government’s role in the affairs of businesses.


26 posted on 08/29/2010 6:14:15 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (A fearless person cannot be controlled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

I know, and what I said didn’t really match up to the point that you were making, but I wanted to blurt it out.

By throwing it out there, it will force me to start working on the words that I need to describe why I think that he is the single most destructive President in American history.

Until recently, I had put him as a member of the Roosevelt, JFK, Johnson, triangle, but more and more I see that where we are today, and the doomed destiny that we face, would never have happened if he had lost that election.


27 posted on 08/29/2010 6:24:47 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone; gonzo

Bimp! ................. FRegards


28 posted on 08/29/2010 8:42:21 PM PDT by gonzo ( Buy more ammo, dammit! You should already have the firearms .................. FRegards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The split in the black vote in the 1936 election is not as dramatic as it might seem; FDR won 60% of the overall vote, so blacks were only slightly more likely to vote Democratic than the population at large. In the party ID chart, you can see the two effects I was talking about; black voters identifying as Republican start out at about half, drop sharply in 1948, then fall off the table in 1964.

I clearly did underestimate the effect of the New Deal in winning over black voters. From those numbers, there were clearly a large number of self-identified black Republicans voting for FDR (a lot of white Republicans did that, too). I wrote that the desegregation of the military, then the Civil Rights Act peeled blacks away from the GOP; allow me to amend that to the New Deal, then the desegregation, etc.

What’s the source for the data? I’d like to see the numbers before 1936. A regional breakdown, if one exists, might also be interesting; black voters were kept out of Democratic “white primaries” up to and including 1944 in much of the South.


29 posted on 08/29/2010 9:02:09 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The split in the black vote in the 1936 election is not as dramatic as it might seem; FDR won 60% of the overall vote, so blacks were only slightly more likely to vote Democratic than the population at large. In the party ID chart, you can see the two effects I was talking about; black voters identifying as Republican start out at about half, drop sharply in 1948, then fall off the table in 1964.

I clearly did underestimate the effect of the New Deal in winning over black voters. From those numbers, there were clearly a large number of self-identified black Republicans voting for FDR (a lot of white Republicans did that, too). I wrote that the desegregation of the military, then the Civil Rights Act peeled blacks away from the GOP; allow me to amend that to the New Deal, then the desegregation, etc.

What’s the source for the data? I’d like to see the numbers before 1936. A regional breakdown, if one exists, might also be interesting; black voters were kept out of Democratic “white primaries” up to and including 1944 in much of the South.


30 posted on 08/29/2010 9:03:21 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_17_17/ai_66884598/

It is very difficult to find information pre 1936, but from memory of something that I found and lost, it showed that the black switch to Democrat was instant in 1936 (or 1932), that means blacks were Democrats and then in one election the Democrats purchased a permanent, instant flip of party loyalties.


31 posted on 08/29/2010 9:13:22 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
The split in the black vote in the 1936 election is not as dramatic as it might seem; FDR won 60% of the overall vote, so blacks were only slightly more likely to vote Democratic than the population at large. In the party ID chart, you can see the two effects I was talking about; black voters identifying as Republican start out at about half, drop sharply in 1948, then fall off the table in 1964.

By the way, 71% black vote and 60% overall vote shows a huge, not slight, level of black support to me.

Your premises were mistaken and you don't need to try so hard to white wash them.

32 posted on 08/29/2010 9:19:52 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts; HiTech RedNeck; Theodore R.; ansel12; ReignOfError; Impy; fieldmarshaldj
>> MLK WAS GOP With cartoons for both MLK and GOP for the literacy-challenged. Yes, Dr. King was in the “Elephant” party. <<

While I'd like it to be true, there's no absolutely proof MLK was a Republican and Fieldmarshaldj has explained this several times. In this thread alone, posts #12, #17, and #22 debunk it. Georgia didn't register voters by party so MLK was never a "member" of the Republican Party and certainly didn't ever publicly claim to be a Republican OR ever support Republican Party events. At best, you could say his FATHER, Martin Luther King SR., leaned Republican pre-1960 and endorsed some Republicans. In 1960, MLK SR. switched to the RATs and his son followed suit and supported leftist Democrats from that date. By the time he died in 1968, MLK Jr. had become pretty solid left and supported exclusively Dems.

Posting stuff like this just makes our side look bad because the facts show otherwise. It's like the gays coming up with baseless claims that "Abraham Lincoln was gay". Come on.

>> Hell...by today’s standards...JFK would be a Republican if he were alive. I won’t go so far as to say he’d be a Conservative but he sure as hell wouldn’t be a Democrat. His views and statements on economics were right in line with the great Ronaldus Maximus. <<

I would certainly disagree with this claim as well. It's another myth that seems to have surfaced only in the past decade or so. Prior to that, conservatives wouldn't be caught dead praising the mobbed-up womanizing CINO (Catholic In Name Only) Kennedy.

Both Ronald Reagan and JFK himself refuted that Kennedy was in any way like modern day Republicans. Most telling is that Reagan was still a card-carrying Democrat in 1960, and even then he REFUSED to support Kennedy because Kennedy was too liberal. Reagan was a "Democrat for Nixon" in 1960.

Kennedy gave a speech to the Liberal Party of New York in the 1960 election, explaining why he wasn't conservative and why he believed in "progressive" values. He mocked conservatives as backwards looking, heartless, puppets of big business, etc., the same stuff you hear from leftists today. The Liberal Party only allows "progressive" Democrats to run on their line. They would never slate a conservative or even a "moderate" Democrat.

If you listen to the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates, Kennedy invokes the mantle of "progressives"" like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Harry Truman as his inspiration. He talks about how the wonderful RAT party passed all kind of important federal programs like social security, new deal legislation, etc. that the mean ol' Republicans opposed. Kennedy promised to continue in that vein and promised all kinds of wonderful social programs to voters, why pointedly NOT explaining how he would pay for it. Then he attacked Nixon for being against all these get federal handouts of education, health, etc. The only kind of "Republican" today that would bear any resemblance to Kennedy would be a RINO like Schwarzenegger.

It's true Kennedy passed tax cuts and was anti-communist, but that doesn't mean the other 80% of his agenda was anything like today's Republicans, especially on economic policy. Ronald Reagan was right that someone who is with me 80% of the time is not my enemy, and by the same token, someone who is with me 20% of the time is not my friend. There's probably several dozen RATs in the House who supported Bush's tax cuts and oppose communism, and they're no more "Reaganesque" than Kennedy was. They're simply liberals who occasionally cast a decent vote. Ditto with JFK.

There's a reason why leftists love the MLK and JFK of the 60s so much. They were liberals. History revisionism won't change that fact.

If you want to admire someone, there's an earlier post that mentions Senator Ev Dirksen (R-IL) was a conservative Republican and one of the most instrumental voices in fighting for race equality and getting the civil rights act of 1964. Now THERE'S something the media won't report on that we should be shouting from the rooftops!

33 posted on 08/29/2010 11:16:50 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Does anyone here really read what King said besides the flowery Obama type talk. No doubt King was a good speaker and more likable than his contemporaries in the civil rights speaker’s tour.

But for folks to imagine he was a conservative icon is nuts...pure nuts.

Imagining something to be true so we can continue to pander...that is not conservatism to me.

I’ll pass but ya’ll have fun.

Anyone here wonder why Goldwater, Magnus and WF Buckley all opposed the Civil Rights Act?

because they feared where it would lead and they were right.

King was a socialist and wanted redistribution of wealth as a means of redress and he was conciliatory to Communism...and that is just for starters.

Just look at his close circle and how they have behaved since his death. To find it plausible that he was so different than all of them when they were his closest advisors defies logic and reason.

Btw...I was alive then and don’t remember King like Beck who is 8 years my junior does.


34 posted on 08/29/2010 11:33:50 PM PDT by wardaddy (effed up times..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Thank God for some sanity.

When I see this King and JFK worship on a conservative forum I feel like someone musta slipped something in my Diet Dr Pepper.

Either these folks here touting this nonsense are agitators from the same nest...some are trust me...they are always on any race oriented thread saying the same viewpoint.

Or that dis-ingenuousness aside, it just shows how well even the Right has been programmed by a politically correct media and academia to where conservatives now think liberal icons like JFK and MLK were actually great...lol

If this is our future on the right...God help us.

What's next?

David Brooks will write a book about Ronald Reagan's fond memories of when Abbie Hoffman was hiding out at the Santa Barbara ranch.

Or we'll start to tout Nixon's wage and prices controls as sound governmental influence in the economy...Nixon was GOP afterall you know.

35 posted on 08/29/2010 11:41:52 PM PDT by wardaddy (effed up times..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; BillyBoy

If Kennedy had lived HE would have passed Medicare instead of LBJ. I’d like to see Republicans claim him after that!


36 posted on 08/31/2010 11:38:58 AM PDT by Impy (DROP. OUT. MARK. KIRK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Impy
Also, the current immigration mess can be linked directly back to JFK. He announced early in his adminstration that he would make it a priority to "update" America's immigration policies so that we would no longer make it a priority to admit immigrants that have the means to sustain themselves economically and who come from cultures and standards similar to our own. JFK died before the legislation could be drafted, so his dear little brother Ted took up the mantle and wrote the 1965 Immigration Act on the basis of an outline from the JFK administaration.

"When third brother Ted Kennedy was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962, his first assignment was to shepherd the bill through the Senate as Floor Leader for the bill. During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

Of course we now know the opposite was true. Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970, and doubled again between 1970 and 1990. It dramatic shifted the immigrant population from mainly european nations to mainly third world natons.

Well, I guess if you look at Bush & McCain's immigration record, maybe JFK is like "today's Republicans" after all.

;-)

37 posted on 08/31/2010 2:27:09 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Impy

thank you...another voice of reality...way too many here are ignorant...willfully or just too young


38 posted on 08/31/2010 7:49:11 PM PDT by wardaddy (effed up times..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

“Will Capitalism Survive?”

Karl Marx, the German philosopher, once stated that capitalism carries the seed of its own destruction. There is an obvious fallacy in this statement. The fallacy lies in its limitation. He speaks of capitalism as if it is the only social institution that carries the seed of its own destruction. The actual fact is that every social institution carries the seed of its own destruction, its survival depends on the way the seed is nourished. Therefore, just as every social institution carries the seed of its own destruction it also carries the seed of its own perpetuation.

Now after admitting that there is a definite fallacy in Marx’s statement, do we find any truth therein? It is my opinion that we do. I am convinced that capitalism has
seen its best days in America, and not only in America, but in the entire world. It is a well known fact that no social institution can survive after it has outlived its usefulness. This capitalism has failed to do. It has failed to meet the needs of the masses.

Strikes and labor troubles are but surface indications of the deep dissatisfaction and distress in this country. There IS a definite revolt by what Marx calls “the proletariat”, against “the bourgeoisie.” Every time we turn we hear the demand for socialized medicine. In fact, what is more socialistic than the income tax, the TVA , or the N R B? What will eventually happen is this: labor will become so powerful (this was certainly evidenced in the recent election) that she will be able to place a president in the White House. This will in all probability bring about a nationalization of industry. This wll be the end of capitalism.

What wll the new movement be called in Amenca? I must admit that I don’t know. It might well be called socialism, communism, or socialistic democracy. But what does it matter anyway, “a rose called by a different name smells just as sweet.” The point is that we will have a definite change. Capitalism finds herself like a losing football team in the last quarter trying all types of tactics to survive. We are losing because we failed to check our weaknesses in the begnning of the game.

[signed] M L King Jr

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/vol6contents


39 posted on 08/31/2010 8:58:06 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, the mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala

August 6, 1945, the date that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, marked the end of an age already passed, and the beginning of a new world era, the atomic age.

During the five years in which scientists harnessed the power of the atom as a weapon of war, man’s scientific progress leaped forward at least 500 years. The tragic situation now faced by mankind is that man’s social order has not leaped the 500 years parellel with science. This is a supreme example of what the sociologists call “cultural lag ” Man’s social progress has failed to keep abreast wth his scientific progress. Unless man by his will can bridge the gap, he is doomed to destruction.

Many, therefore, stand looking at the world’s calamity as at a gigantic spectacle, feeling that the problem is well-nigh insoluble. I do not see how we can take that position, however, if we perceive what the gist of the world’s problem really is a lack of world brotherhood. I am convinced that if our civilization is to survive, we must rise from the narrow horizon of clashing nationalism to the wide horizon of world cooperation. No longer can we be content wth a national ethical code, but instead we must have an international ethical code.

This is truly what Mr Wendall Wilkie called “one world,” and we can readily make an addition to that phrase by saying, one world or none. World brotherhood is no longer a beautiful ideal, but an absolute necessity for civilization’s survival. We must come to see that all humanity is so interwoven in a single process that whatever affects the man in Russia also affects the man in America. As Prime Minister Attlee said, “we cannot make a heaven in our country and leave a hell outside.” We had better realize that before it is too late. We must erase the centuries of waiting and quickly achieve that world brotherhood.
This is our great opportunity This is our only hope.

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol6/20Feb-4May1951ScienceSurpassestheSocialOrder.pdf


40 posted on 08/31/2010 9:44:46 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, the mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

” Senator Ev Dirksen (R-IL) was a conservative Republican”

I remember Everett Dirksen and his odes to marigolds. Dirksen was considered a moderate in his time.


41 posted on 08/31/2010 9:49:09 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, the mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

“Btw...I was alive then and don’t remember King like Beck who is 8 years my junior does.”

I was a teenager living in greater Washington DC when King made his famous speech. Beck’s version of King has very little in common with the real man. King was many things, but conservative wasn’t remotely one of them. He routinely praised socialism and he kept a couple of Communist Party members as advisors.


42 posted on 08/31/2010 9:58:02 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, the mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

“If this is our future on the right...God help us.

What’s next?”

I know! I know!

A Mondale speech writer, a man who tried to help him defeat Ronald Reagan, will be hailed as a “conservative”!

No, wait.. that’s already happened. His name is Charles Krauthammer.


43 posted on 08/31/2010 10:01:47 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, the mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

crazy isn’t it?

check my posting history to see the heat I get for pointing out what you and I say


44 posted on 08/31/2010 10:02:20 PM PDT by wardaddy (effed up times..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

no kidding ...a New Republic writer like Barnes and Kondracke


45 posted on 08/31/2010 10:04:36 PM PDT by wardaddy (effed up times..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Yeah, apparently if we live long enough we will get to see Barack Obama hailed as a great American conservative.


46 posted on 08/31/2010 10:04:36 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, the mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Yeah, there’s two prizes. What’s funny, in a pathetic way, is how much the current incarnation of National Review resembles The New Republic of the 1980s.


47 posted on 08/31/2010 10:09:34 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, the mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

When Johnson got the war on poverty program, he reportedly said, Those _ _ _ _ _ _ s(starts with N) will be voting Democrat for the next 30 years.

He was vile in the way he spoke.


48 posted on 08/31/2010 10:16:46 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Excellent. Someone (other than dear old mom) knows the truth about MLK.


49 posted on 08/31/2010 10:26:03 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
[LBJ] was vile in the way he spoke.

He was vile in the way he thought. And acted, as well.

Indeed, he was a vile man.

As personally corrupt, perhaps, as Billy Jeff Clinton.

50 posted on 08/31/2010 10:31:22 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson