Religions are largely kept together by the faith of the followers as opposed to proof. Whether it’s Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion, it’s not science or empirical evidence that keeps millions or billions of people believing, it’s faith. Indeed, religions are full of claims that our current scientific knowledge would say are impossible, but nonetheless, faith persists. Given horrific events that seem to fly in the face of what one would expect from a compassionate or just God, faith still persists. Believers believe, and they interpret events in their lives and the world in a way that comports with their religion. At the end of the day, religion is about faith, period.
By the above measure, liberalism is a religion. How else would it be possible that in the face of a history of demonstrable failure that there are those who continue to believe? Liberalism, in the form of outright Communism failed miserably everywhere from the Soviet Union to Cuba and a multitude of places in between. Yet the faith remains. Liberalism in the form of socialism has failed miserably across Europe as practically the entire continent is floundering in mounting debt, double digit unemployment and depressingly low growth rates. Yet the faith remains. Liberalism in the form of Democrat party policies have destroyed wide swaths of America’s landscape, from cities like Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia to black families that suffer from unprecedented rates of unemployment, unwed motherhood and tragically high rates of crime. Yet the faith remains.
Add willfully blind faith to presence of an anointed one among us and you get a cult. Which is exactly what liberalism and the virtual worship of Barack Obama has become:
Obamacare: Every day seems to bring new information that only adds to the understanding that Obamacare is a disaster of epic proportions. Yet faith remains.
Economic Growth: Barack Obama’s “recovery” has been the worst since the Great Depression and incomes have fallen over $4,000 per household since he took office. Yet the faith remains.
Welfare: Welfare has become so generous that in 35 states, it’s actually more profitable to sit at home and collect welfare benefits than it is to go out and find a job. In Hawaii the pretax wage equivalent of welfare benefits is $60,590 per year. In Washington DC it’s $50,820 while in Massachusetts it’s $50,540. Those are dollars that have to be paid for by taxes on those working. Yet the faith remains.
Race: In less than 50 years from the day Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial the United States elected a black man as president, twice! Yet race relations in the United States are worse than they have been in decades. Yet the faith remains.
On virtually every single empirically measurable measure, from education to economic growth as well as simple observable measures such as regulation and freedom, liberalism has been a failure in general and particularly so under Barack Obama. Yet, despite the fact that the consequences of this failure hurts the very people it’s supposed to help, the faith remains.
While the 1st Amendment enshrines the notion of freedom of religion, today the United States is being governed by the cult of liberalism, which seems more like a religion than many of the mainstream religions in the world.
It demands subservience to its policies and is willing to use the police power of the state to impose them while nonbelieving infidels must be marginalized. Speak critically of the Messiah and you are a racist. Disagree with gay marriage you’re a homophobe. Suggest that its culture and unwed motherhood that are ravaging black families and again you’re a racist. Advocate for limited government or state’s rights and you’re an extremist. Promote school choice and you don’t care about children. Advocate for lower taxes and you’re greedy. Champion free markets and you’re a selfish capitalist. Question man made global warming and you’re anti-science. Disagree and you must be discredited and vilified.
Liberals often champion a wall of separation between church and state. This may be the one time they might actually be right about something. However it isn’t Christianity that the country needs to be saved from, it’s the secular religion of Liberalism with Barack Obama as its messiah.
See author page
Economic equality means everyone enduring the same amount of suffering. Unless you’re a wealthy democrat.
Conservatives are always complaining about other people. “They” are always doing something wrong. Conservatives basically do not like the idea of majority rule. Conservatives think that even as a minority they should have control .
@john: John, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a Republic, where the rule of law is supreme, even if a majority of the people disagree with it. Democracy is, as they say, two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner…
Sorry, Vince.
We do not live in a Republic.
We live in a bureaucratic state. Laws are not written by Congress and signed into law by the President. Laws are written by unaccountable boards, which are immune from investigation. Rules are promulgated about every aspect of our lives, and there is no escaping them. Just take a look at Dodd-Frank or The Affordable Care Act (to give two examples).
Have a puddle of water on your property? You have a wetland.
Have a business? You better have exactly the right number of minority employees, or you are shut down.
Want a new lightbulb? Sorry.
Want a new toilet? You must get a government-approved toilet.
Want to cut hair or do fingernails? Better get a business license.
Want to sell lemonade (assuming you are 10)? Better get a health permit.
Contact your Member of Congress. Go ahead. You will actually contact a flunky, because the Member is out raising money for his/her next campaign. After all, Members are Members for Life. Bills are not written by Members, indeed they are not even read by Members; bills are written by lobbyists.
Some Republic.
Drudge linked an article about a woman sentenced to hanging over a sip of water.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/sentenced_to_death_for_sip_of_water_7zwT2vBrUGqhDzasfQxkKK/3
You can substitute the crime of refusing to photograph lesbians and re-read the way she is being treated by Muslims as if by Liberals in the Obama cult.
A perfect fit.
Bill Ayres said re-education camps for people like that photographer.
And DEATH if she refused to convert.
@john:
So John, may we count you among those who believe that the majority should be able to vote to take all the fruits of others’ efforts?
Sorta like Zimbabwe?
@vince, #3:
What happens in a republic when an inordinately wealthy minority buys enough political power to set up laws and the system to their own personal advantage, thereby acquiring an even greater share of wealth and power? Take away the element of democracy and we’ll soon find out.
We’re supposed to be living in a democratic republic. What we’re living in is turning into an oligarchy.
– Alexander Tytler. Or Alexander Tyler. Or Arnold Toynbee. Or Lord Thomas Macaulay. Or…
The point isn’t who said it, it is that it is true.
Obama has brought America to the point where mass numbers of people are in a steady-state of dependence.
He is trying to lead us all into bondage.
Will he have time in his presidency to achieve this?
I hope not.
But robbing people of their incentive to work hard is counter-productive even to O’s purposes.
Less money to spread around.
His toady even said it, ”there’s plenty of money, it’s just the the gov’t doesn’t have it.”
@Greg: What happens? “Hope and Change”.
Most religions have followers who behave in such a way as to reap a reward in the Next Life. Liberals strive to create their Heaven on earth. Anyone seen any Heavens around?
Dr Sowell had a good quote today
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/08/27/a-truly-great-phony-n1673702?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
It certainly describes what is happening to our country. The “low information voters” get continuous propaganda from the left.
@bburris, #9:
If we want to talk about bogus religious figures or lunatic cult leaders, maybe we should talk about the New and Improved Republican Jesus or Ayn Rand.
From my own perspective, Barack Obama is nothing more than a liberal-leaning Democratic president. It’s the right that has become totally obsessed with him. You see a propaganda poster. I see nothing more than a man’s picture on the cover of Rolling Stone.
How true.
Because almost all on the Left are agnostic or atheist, they cannot buy into a cause for our fallen nature.
So, we don’t have a fallen nature!
They, if only all of the rest of us would follow closely, would create a perfect paradise on earth here and now.
Unfortunately they are wrong on all counts.
They literally are led along by their own selfish longings…..as are ALL fallen men. (Proverbs 18:1)
Thus their ”paradise” will always be fatally flawed.
ObamaCare is a prime example of how the Left created a monstrosity while promising perfection.
@Greg:
Representative republic
This is true. Now if you admit that both parties are a part of the oligarchy, you will be that much closer to political freedom.
One thing you’ll notice here is the posts from the usual liberal suspects. None of those posts picked apart any of the original subject by Vince. It’s hard to argue when faced with facts.
What we got with Obama is an empty suit left wing zealot. Change was promised but few asked what kind of change does he mean? The media didn’t bother looking into his past because it would be found to be void of accomplishments and filled with radical associations. Perhaps not radical to the far left but to the average American it would. Jerimiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc. When asked what had he ever done to be qualified for the office he sought, no substantive answer could be found. What were his legislative accomplishments? The media never bothered to tell us. They were all caught up in the first ever non white person who could become President. If that person were a conservative no rock would have been left unturned to get the dirt and fill the airwaves to warn us. Wasilla Alaska ring a bell to anyone? Nobel peace prize winner, for what? No one really knows today. It’s all fluff and personification. The economy is not improving a rate for anyone to brag about. Poverty is up. Income is down. Yet he remains blameless to the cult followers. Pat Caddell had it right the media has become the enemy of the people.
And do you ever ask yourself how that came to pass? What changed, exactly, to allow a black man to become President, when fifty years ago he couldn’t have used the same bathroom as a white man in many parts of the United States?
That’s just silly. Obama will be gone in three years. I’ll take my chances with the imaginary cult of Obama for three more years any day over what the Rick Santorums of the world would attempt to implement permanently in its place.
@Greg: The article is completely accurate as to the lack of successes liberals can claim while liberals continue to proclaim that liberalism is the way and the only way. They do, indeed, on blind faith, follow liberalism and preach its benefits; like jihadists, they condemn anyone who “blasphemes” against liberalism. 53% of the electorate followed Obama, after 4 years of broken promises, outright lies and failed results, on nothing but faith that he will fulfill the dream of an earthbound liberal paradise. Heck, he even got a Nobel on faith.
Now, please point out those who are following Rand on any such faith. Conservatives have economic success and expansion to worship. Real and tangible. The true Golden Idol; RESULTS.
@mathman: #4
Laws are not written by Congress and signed into law by the President.
Whether or not the politicians write a bill or read a bill, they still have to sign them to introduce them into congress, and they are responsible for what they sign, just like we are, even if we don’t read the contract we just signed. obamacare was finished in the middle of the night, then voted on the next morning. I was one of the demonstrators there the day before.
@Greg: #7
When we have an election system where the ones running for office have to use someone else’s money, the ones with the money always win, because they give to both parties.
@Randy: #10
The article you linked to reminded me of this:
http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/gallery/image/3656-my-little-phony/
@Tom:
What happened was that during Eisenhower’s Administration, the President and Republicans in Congress began championing civil rights for racial equality. Bigotry by Democrats fought that hope and change, but slowly some Democrats, fed up with the ugly racism within their party, made up their minds to join the Republican law makers and support equal rights and justice for “colored people.” And eventually Democratic Presidents who agreed with the Republicans signed their bills into law.
Wow, you guys have really drunk the Fox News kool-aid. The ‘cult’ of wingnuttery has given us a country of renewed racists, haters and climate change deniers who wrap themselves in the flag while they try screw their neighbors out of good health care by supporting the corporatocracy who are out to destroy the middle class.
Funny observation how many liberals post as ‘john’. Must have something to do with their thinking being in the toilet. Not to mention Tomfoolery. Time to flush…..
It is more than a cult or a religion, I go as far to say it’s a disease. I wrote the following more for amusement for my medical friends, but it does get you thinking:
I often wonder why liberal Americans still exist. Now, even more than ever, the liberals have gone so far left that they have turned into America’s New Socialist Party. Ironically, many of these people are not stupid or uneducated. Yet, they embrace the failed liberal agenda despite of a continued failed track record for decades. The fact is that no socialist country is successful. Just look at what’s happening over in Europe. Plus, under Obama’s disastrous socialist term our economy is in the gutter, our unemployment/underemployment numbers are high and the standard of living has dropped for many throughout the country.
So I wonder, why in the face of undeniable facts and continued failure would any sane person remain a liberal? As a rational person and physician the only explanation I can provide is that liberalism is caused by some form of an infection. This infection must somehow alter the brain chemistry in a way that makes the person think in an irrational, liberal fashion.
You may think this sounds odd or that I must be writing to be facetious, but what I say is not unprecedented. There are infections which can alter neural chemistry aberrantly in order to make the infected host act in a way that is not natural or possibly even detrimental. I’d like to provide a few intriguing examples before I go on to explain my hypothesis any further.
I’ll begin with a parasite recently highlighted in the media known as Toxoplasma gondii. The definitive host of this infection is the cat. In order to reproduce the parasite produces an oocyte which is released in the cat’s feces. The oocyst is then ingested most commonly by rats or mice. These animals are then eaten by the cats and the whole cycle begins anew.
However, what makes this parasite so intriguing is that rodents affected by the disease lose their aversion to cat urine. In fact it believed that these animals are even drawn to cats instead of fearing them. Thus, the parasite aberrantly changes the animal’s neural chemistry so that it can continue its life cycle. In fact recent research completed concluded that this parasite can change dopamine levels in the infected animal’s brain, which can alter behavior
It’s also believed that Toxoplasma gondii can affect a human’s brain. It is hypothesized that those crazy old ladies who shackle themselves up alone and begin hoarding cats could actually be infected by these parasites. The parasite may make the person become some-what strange and begin to hoard cats in an almost irrational fashion. When you think of it- it is odd that most cat ladies are not much different from each other. Could it be the Toxoplasma gondii infection?
Another interesting example is the jungle-dwelling turtle ant. When infected by certain nematodes their hind end turns bright red like berry and the ant inexplicably climbs to the top of trees and waves its rear, just waiting to eaten by a bird that thinks it’s a delectable fruit. What happens is that a nematode affects the brain of the ant to make it think and act in a fashion that is detrimental to its survival.
To see the picture of the ant: http://stephenmartino.blogspot.com/2012/08/liberalism-is-disease_11.html
After understanding how the infection can cause alteration in the host’s brain, now you can begin to realize how liberalism might be caused by such a similar mode of action. As already mentioned, liberals seem to adamantly adhere to their belief system despite all rational argument, undisputed facts and a long track record of failure. My hypothesis is as follows:
Liberals seem to be infected by some sort of virus or parasite I’ll hypothetically label the L-Virus. This infection then causes the person to think irrationally and adhere to a liberal doctrine of failure. They tend to believe Obama is a fantastic president, capitalism is bad and that big government means big success.
It may seem coincidental but this infection tends to coalesce among Universities, media outlets, Hollywood, and those in the entertainment industry. You may wonder why but it may be a part of its natural life cycle. Possibly, in order for this infection to propagate to another individual a perspective host might have to be in the right state of mind with the proper neurotransmitters to become infected. Thus, listening to liberal propaganda and giving it at least some credence might make a person susceptible to infection. Once infected, the person’s neurotransmitters are irrevocably altered so that they not only believe in the liberal agenda but want to unnaturally propagate its flawed philosophy. Therefore, they are drawn to the Universities, media and Hollywood so that the life cycle of the L-Virus can continue and spread.
It may seem odd but how can anyone rationally explain why they would want to vote for Obama again. With ramped unemployment/underemployment, a space program in shambles, an insurmountable debt and no vision for the future a person would seem to be insane to vote Obama in office for a second term. It’s like the jungle-dwelling turtle ant waving its rear in the air, waiting to be eaten. Instead of waving their rear in the air the infected person goes to the poll and votes for the liberal candidate, who will eventually destroy American and leave our next generation destitute. So as stated above, the only explanation would have to be an infection from this hypothetical L-Virus.
@Ditto:
I thought this was about Liberalism and Conservatism. Is Eisenhower now your model conservative? Let me guess, you applaud his sending federal troops to Little Rock to enforce integration. Tell me, would one associate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with Conservatism or Liberalism? What about a President sending Federal troops to Alabama in 1965, because the State wouldn’t ensure the safety of Civil Rights marchers (this is a good time to ask yourself how you would react to Obama ordering similar measures)? If you want to embrace sweeping social legislation and Federal government authority, be my guest, but then I guess the point is already won.
Liberals should feel very good about the arguments presented here, for example the legislative contributions to the triumph of the Civil Rights movement, or the use of Keynesian economic policy to avert the collapse of the world economy. It’s almost as if the author’s point is that, in many cases, liberal policy has been so overwhelmingly successful as to practically put itself out of business. This is, after all, the argument presented by the conservative justices of the Supreme Court this year, when they stuck down a portion of the VRA, that it was so successful in accomplishing its stated purpose as to be no longer necessary. Apparently Conservatism , in this view, is nothing more than a means of putting on the breaks after liberal policy has proactively remedied a need. I can live with having that argument, but it’s a very strange way to attack Liberalism.
@This One: Racism, This One, has only reared its ugly head when Obama and the left have failed to accomplish a SINGLE POSITIVE GOAL and, as a desperate last resort, use accusations of racism (racism itself) to divert attention and make excuses. The GOP have supported numerous black candidates; the left attacks them with false accusations and personal attack (not on the basis of their policy, as Obama is judged on), so who, indeed, are the racists?
The Kool-Aid is guzzled by the left in huge quantities; amounts sufficient to wash away the stain of lies, false promises, scandal, failure and disillusion. Fighting Obamacare IS the defense of good, affordable health care since, as we see with new reports, day after day, Obamacare is driving up costs and reducing availability. Glug, glug, glug, This One.
@Tom:
Then why is the Obama/Eric Holder Justice Department suing states over voter I.D. when the statistics have proven that minority voting increases with voter I.D. laws?
You blather a lot about “liberalism” when I think you actually don’t understand true Liberalism. Perhaps you would like to name the person on this list that is actually a true liberal:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/
@retire05:
No that’s not the reason they’re suing, and we’ve been over this too many times before. The conservative argument that we longer need the very laws that made it possible for minorities to have unfettered access to voting rights is laughably flawed, as we’ve seen from these states not even waiting a day, in some cases, to push through new laws that the courts already ruled will make it more difficult for minorities to vote. And we all wonder why the Republican base is shrinking, and all those silly blacks and Latinos won’t do what you tell them is in their best interest and vote Republican. A true mystery.
@retire05:
BTW, that was a lovely job trying to side-track the conversation away from my critique of the main post. So perhaps you’d like to weigh in on the questions: “would one associate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with Conservatism or Liberalism? What about a President sending Federal troops to Alabama in 1965, because the State wouldn’t ensure the safety of Civil Rights marchers?”
@Tom:
Be happy to. Right after you answer my question:
Perhaps you would like to name the person on this list that is actually a true liberal:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/
I am fully aware of the progressive tactic of answering a question with a question. And you gritch about someone else
?
@Greg:
You’re seeing it with the Democrats, and that’s why most of us are upset. Obama is funded by people as rich, or richer, than the Koch brothers . . . yet once the Koch brothers were on the scene, that’s all the media reported. The Dems are using all the dirty tricks that their supporters are programed to fabricate in viewing their “enemies”.
The WH has been hijacked by those with power, money, and influence. From the exploitation of minorities to a cultural programing to stereo-type all non-dems as rich white Christian bigots, what you’ve said is exactly what’s happening. Unfortunately, you’re supporting it.
Of all the moonbats annoying the posters here at FA, obscuring the issues with utter nonsense, you seem to be only one close to renouncing your idiocy and thinking for yourself.
There’s always hope. If the Dems take over as the only party, you’ll become a non-dem real quick. I promise. Without a scapegoat, there will be nowhere else to point the finger…
@Tom: “Side-track” is your middle name. You sound like a football fan more than a citizen actually concerned about our republic.
You desperately need your “team” to “win”.
That’s why no one takes your posts seriously. You don’t have the maturity or insight to garner a real conversation on politics. You’re just parroting the division you see on the TV, and channeling your own insecurities into conflict here at FA.
“Challenge my facts!!” Your represent the real issue in our country: a false self-perception of intellect.
@Nathan Blue:
You’re not going to hear/read anything from the lap dog media about any other big, BIG donors to the left wing agenda. People like George Soros, Peter Lewis, or the dozens of other extremely wealthy progressives. Or will they ever talk about the group of millionaires that George Soros put together to try to beat George Bush in his second election.
The wealthy are only evil, in the eyes of the progressives, if they support conservative causes, but not if they support Socialism.
@Ditto: A fantasy—-civil rights achieved when Northern Repubs. and Dems., Moderates and Libs., out voted primarily Southern Dems. and the few Repubs. like Goldwater to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Anti Civil Rights Southern Dems led by Strom Thurmond then jumped ship and became Repubs.–the racist Dems. became racist Repubs. Over a 15 year period the white majority Southerners went from solid Dem. to solid Repub. The Blacks in the South are primarily Dem.
Civil Rights legislation passed primarily by NORTHERN legislators both Repub. and Dem.
@Richard Wheeler:
Bull Connor
Robert Byrd
George Wallace
Al Gore Sr.
Orval Faubus
Lester Maddox
Ross Barnett
Only three Dixiecrats became republicans:
Strom Thurmond
Jesse Helms
Mile Godwin
Sorry Rich, the racist democrats remained racist democrats.
@Aqua: Discussed this with Aye previously and he also pointed out on the state level “many racist Dems remained racist Dems”. and continued to be re-elected. Some racist Dems. became racist Repubs. More importantly, in my mind, I’d value your thoughts on why Southern voters who had consistently voted Dem for POTUS.(Ike got some support in 52 and 56 landslides) since late 1800’s, began in 1968 to consistantly vote Repub.? Georgian Carter and Arkansan Clinton received limited support but the South surely went from deep blue to deep red.
@This One: one thing I have learned during my extensive studies is that many people, primarily liberals, think that others people all gather their information and process the information they gather in the same way manner as liberals. Now, this one, drinks the kool aid from all the lefty sites, he believes that conservatives must drink the kool aid from the sites they read or from which they get their information.
Because most liberals parrot what they hear and read from liberal sites, they think everyone parrots what they see and read. It is inconceivable to them that others actually use their brains to think rather than to just store phrases to repeat periodically.
Look at all of the liberals who post ore and Michael Mann have distributed through out the media as talking points. Not one AGW proponent can show one scientific study that man is causing global warming. They only quote Gore’s statistics that 97% of the scientists can not be wrong. Because all liberals fit everything in life into their ideology, they refuse to acknowledge that others actually think!
Because of this liberal tendency and as liberalism becomes more prominent, there are more and more unintended consequences like “death committees in Obama Care, starvation due to failure to approve GM agricultural products, millions of deaths from banning DDT and many others. Liberals paint all of their thoughts with their ideology and can not see long range which in some cases are only few months.
Obama is the poster boy for what is wrong with liberalism. He calls Travon Martin “his son” causing racial issues where there were none. He needed to let the judicial system resolve the case. He became judge and jury. Unfortunately, despite the judge, the jury didn’t rule in Obama’s favor.
In Egypt, Obama didn’t like the current government, so he publically criticized them and look at the mess we have now! He sent weapons to the Libyan rebels and now those weapons are being used by Al Qaeda in Syria. He failed to act in Syria when the rebels were truly trying to earn their freedom. Now Al Qaeda comprises 60% of the anti-Syrian force. Look at his unintended consequences. I am sure everyone here except the liberals can add hundreds more unintended consequences Obama has propagated with his leftist ideology.
@Randy: Randy Don’t you read the talking points of Hannity and former Fox host Beck over and over on F.A.? Or is that O.K, because of course they’re all true?
@Richard Wheeler:
It is difficult to explain the south to those that have never lived here. We are fiercely independent people. We don’t like big government and we don’t like big cities. We prefer to live in smaller communities. Racism has nothing more to do with anything in the South than it does in any other part of the country.
Honestly, I don’t know that we even like republicans, we just refuse to vote for central government liberals. The only president I have ever voted for twice, enthusiastically, was Reagan. My first vote for Dubya was hopeful, but my second was a “hold my nose” and vote. I would have gnawed off my arm before voting for Kerry, but I wasn’t very happy about a Bush second term.
Northern democrats and southern democrats have always been split. The south voted overwhelmingly for FDR, but when he threatened to pack the Supreme Court, it was southern democrats and northern republicans that formed the conservative coalition that blocked liberal proposals.
The switch from blue to red has been a very gradual process. Many in the south voted democrat out of loyalty. I said in another post on another thread, that while the Civil War was bad, what the north did to the south afterwards was much worse. The democrats were the only thing standing in the way of a total northern takeover of the south during reconstruction. But the ideology of the “less government” republicans has always been more in line with southern ideology.
@Aqua: I appreciate your comments . Did you know I’m a Florida cracker by birth? My dad was Navy Jag Melbourne NAS.
The POTUS vote from blue to red came rather quickly and dramatically in Nixon 68 win over Humphry. Do you believe 64 civil rights legislation pushed by Dems.and LBJ, (albeit not enthusiastically and for political gain), and opposed by Repub. nominee Goldwater, wasn’t the primary reason for the Southern switch from blue to red?
@Tom:
If you don’t want to hear the answer, don’t ask the questions.
The enforcement was against rabid pro-segregation by racist southern Democrats including the Governor of Arkansas.
Conservatism and Liberalism are not mutually exclusive. A Constitutional Conservative believes in a conservative reading of state and Federal constitutions that provides for the most limitations on the power and scope of the government, with a liberal reading of the Bill of Rights for the most liberty for the people. The civil rights battle was against racist Democrats who wanted to treat “colored people” differently from “white people”. The use of troops were merely a show of force, as Posse Comitatus was still in effect. You Tom, should be ashamed and embarrassed of your continued support for a Democratic party that fought so hard to keep racism alive. It was conservative Republicans who won the civil rights battle for minorities and that truth eats away at your very soul.
@Ditto: The racist Democrats were Southerners many of whom became racist Repubs. after NORHERN Repubs AND Dems. led the Civil Rights fight. Bigger ? is why Souhern Dem voters became Repubs. after passage of Civil Rights laws.
@Nathan Blue:
I’ll settle for the truth to win. I didn’t realize taking Ditto’s forty year old National Review talking points to the wood shed would generate so many hard feelings, and so little in the way of a concrete rebuttal. It must seem like a scary world to some outside the echo chamber. Feel free to articulate an actual position when you finish up with your bizarrely detailed description of what ails my soul. When you honestly put yourself out on the line, as I’ve done, then perhaps credibility will follow.
As I was saying, any time you’d like to write something of consequence… although (cough cough), obviously, I’m flattered by your current choice of subject.
@Richard Wheeler:
(Yawn) That old Carter era leftist myth has been disproved many times.
@Ditto: I know you’re not foolish enough to suggest Southern Dem. whites did not switch allegiance after passage of Civil Rights Act of 64.That’s documented. What reasons would you give for this color switch from blue to red?
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich, don’t you remember the space ships that landed and took off all the racist Democrats and replaced them with God-fearing, Constitution-loving, decidedly non-racist, Republicans?
@Richard Wheeler: Actually no Rich. I am lucky to be able to watch FOX 2-3 hours in a week. I read probably more in a week than you read in a year. It is important to do more in life than to parrot liberal talking points. People need to prove their points, not just repeat them over and over. Many lessons can be learned from history, but liberals want to modify history to fit their ideology.
@Randy: Col. You don’t read more in a week than I read in a year. Sir
I assure you right wing talking points are parroted just ae frequently as left wing. Rationally, what would make you think otherwise?
” Liberals want to modify history to fit their ideology.” Example please.
@Richard Wheeler:
I never thought you would buy into an old urban legend but it seems you have. Perhaps you would like to name all the Southern Democrats (Dixicrats) you seem to think jumped ship and became Republicans after the CRA of 1964?
It would make a lot of sense to oppose a bill (the CRA) that was pushed by Republicans and then, when you have lost to Republicans, become a Republican. That’s kinda like saying someone was pro-life but when Roe was passed, they joined Planned Parenthood as a volunteer.
So let’s have the names of all those Dixicrats. You can start with the 5 governors and the 21 federal Senators that held office at the time.
You talk as if the South just turned red overnight, or within one election cycle. Didn’t happen. It was a slow process that involved a number of things, not just the CRA. One; the South saw its population grow. Two: desegregation was being accepted by a younger generation as well as the general population. Three: the South was becoming more industrialized and jobs and financial security were more important to Southerners than supporting a few guys in hoods riding around in a 1978 Chevy. Four: the old guard (Dixiecrats) were retiring and the Republicans that ran supported smaller, less intrusive government, a value of Southerners. Five: the nation, especially the South, was seeing the results of progressive policies like LBJs “Great Society.” The last remaining cause was the rise of evangelicals who were prominent in the South and due to their activism, we got Ronald Reagan.
So lets have the names of all those party-jumping Dixiecrats because the number must be in the dozens, right?
@retire05:
You don’t actually think you’re fooling anyone with this charade, do you? You’re using Democrat and Republican, conservative and liberal, interchangeably, to suit the needs of your narrative. When one asks you if a particular policy or event is “conservative” you ignore the question and point out that some decrepit old Southern Democrat did this or that fifty years ago. Too bad for your sad little narrative, those guys were what we call today “social conservatives” , and today they’re aligned with the Republican Party, and have been, for the most part, since the 1960s and the GOP Southern Strategy. As Rich has already pointed out, the Republicans who supported Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s were hardly conservative by the definition of today’s conservative wing of the Republican Party. And the right wing Republicans of that time, such as Barry Goldwater and William F Buckley, were on record, by the way, as opposed to the Civil Rights movement. William F Buckley: “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” .
So the only thing left to ask is, are you a mid-20th Century Rockefeller/Eisenhower Republican, or a small government, social conservative, because you can’t have it both ways.
@retire05: As usual you fail to understand my point. I was speaking of Southern VOTERS in PRESIDENTIAL elections. Overwhelmingly Dem. from after reconstruction through Johnson/Goldwater 64. Overwhelmingly Repub. from 1968 through 2012. Coincidence I think not .
Your 5 points 1 and 2 irrelevant to discussion 3 As Aqua pointed out some of those guys in hoods like Thurmond and Helms were Repubs, Agreed there were still local Dems in hoods.
4 5 and 6 Accept as factors. No question White Evangelicals are the party base–and good luck with that.
Once again It was NORTHERN Repubs. AND Dems that pushed Civil Rights legislation over Southern Dem. opposition. This isn’t complicated 05. The votes confirm the picture.