David Duke Calls Ilhan Omar ‘Most Important Member of the US Congress’ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...mar-most-important-member-of-the-us-congress/
Well David Duke spent most of his political career as a Democrat. All of his time while being a KKK member was when he was a Democrat. Is any of this surprising?
Good background on this continuing dispute. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/7009...an-ignites-debate-on-israel-and-anti-Semitism I understand I am supposed to be absolutely outraged by her comments that the AIPAC swings a big line in congress and that a lot of jews don't always put our country first. Really the whole affair illustrates the sickening hypocrisy of our ruling class. Under truth serum, all of them would agree with every word she said and also tell you how annoyed it makes them. I can understand why the jews are pissed. They support democrats in close to the same numbers as blacks, and then this. A lot of people will have to learn their places on the new socialist totem pole though, not just jews.
Conservatives seem unable to get their heads around the concept that Omar can be loathsome on many levels but still telling the truth about this. Maybe diversity is adding something after all.
You guys just cannot wrap your head around middle school level American history. America has two distinct cultures with different values embedded into who we are. Northern liberals and southern conservatives. If you do not understand this dynamic you should not be commenting on American politics.
Are you now trying to claim there are no Southern liberals? Sounds like you have you history all twisted up. You better go start reading your history books to educate yourself. After all - a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
There’s all kinds everywhere but what I am saying is that liberals never had much political success in the south and conservatism, or the American version of conservatism, dominates southern culture.
You are the result of Fox News giving dinesh D’Souza airtime. Look, I don’t care what Coulter or D’Souza say, there was nothing liberal or progressive about Dixiecrats. The progressive movement in America is rooted In federalism and the conservative movement in anti federalism. These ideologies are based on states rights and nullification. Northern industrial progressives pushed the abolition of slavery against conservative rural southerners that opposed this federalist effort on the grounds of state’s rights. For 100 years the south simply did not vote republican because they were conservatives and resented the party of Lincoln, progressives. Again in the 1960s northern liberals pushed desegregation based on federalism and southern conservatives resisted based on states rights. If you look at the voting in congress on the civil rights act, it is a north verse south issue, not dem vs rep issue. Because Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat southerners moved away from democrats and were exploited by Nixon’s southern strategy.
You have the history wrong... The point is that the racist Southerners did not become Republicans. Here is two of a multi -part argument debunking the idea that the racists switched... https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/29/the-switch-that-never-happened-how-the-south-really-went-gop/ 1. "What happened to all those racist Dixiecrats that, according to the progressive narrative, all picked up their tents and moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? Actually, they exist only in the progressive imagination. This is the world not as it is but as progressives wish it to be. Of all the Dixiecrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948, of all the bigots and segregationists who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I count just two—one in the Senate and one in the House—who switched from Democrat to Republican. In the Senate, that solitary figure was Strom Thurmond. In the House, Albert Watson. The constellation of racist Dixiecrats includes Senators William Murray, Thomas P. Gore, Spessard Holland, Sam Ervin, Russell Long, Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Olin Johnston, Lister Hill, John C. Stennis, John Sparkman, John McClellan, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Herbert Walters, Harry F. Byrd, George Smathers, Everett Jordan, Allen Ellender, A. Willis Robertson, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Herbert Walters, W. Kerr Scott, and Marion Price Daniels. The list of Dixiecrat governors includes William H. Murray, Frank Dixon, Fielding Wright, and Benjamin Laney. I don’t have space to include the list of Dixiecrat congressmen and other officials. Suffice to say it is a long list. And from this entire list we count only two defections. Thus the progressive conventional wisdom that the racist Dixiecrats became Republicans is exposed as a big lie. The Dixiecrats remained in the Democratic Party for years, in some cases decades. Not once did the Democrats repudiate them or attempt to push them out. Segregationists like Richard Russell and William Fulbright were lionized in their party throughout their lifetimes, as of course was Robert Byrd, who died in 2010 and was eulogized by leading Democrats and the progressive media." 2. How the South Became Republican We still have one final mystery to clear up. If it wasn’t because of white supremacy, how did the South—not just the Upper or Peripheral South, but also the Deep South—finally end up in the Republican camp? This question is taken up in political scientists Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston’s important study, The End of Southern Exceptionalism. This work, relatively unknown and with an admittedly strange title, provides a decisive refutation of the whole progressive theory of the Southern Strategy and the big switch. The key to Shafer and Johnston’s approach is to ask when the South moved into the GOP camp, and which voters actually moved from Democratic to Republican. Shafer and Johnston show, first, that the South began its political shift in the Eisenhower era. Eisenhower, who won five Peripheral South states in 1956, was the first Republican to break the lock that the FDR Democrats had established in the South. Obviously, this early shift preceded the civil rights movement and cannot be attributed to it. Shafer and Johnston, like Kevin Phillips, contend that after the postwar economic boom of the late 1940s and 1950s, the increasingly industrial “new South” was very receptive to the free market philosophy of the Republican Party. Thus Shafer and Johnston introduce class as a rival explanation to race for why the South became Republican. In the 1960s, however, they cannot ignore the race factor. Shafer and Johnson’s ingenuity is to find a way to test the two explanations—race and class—against each other, in order to figure out which one is more important. Shafer and Johnston do this by dividing the South into two camps, the first made up of the wealthier, more industrial, more racially integrated South—this is the New South—and the second made up of the rural, agricultural, racially homogeneous South; this is the Old South that provided the historical base of the Democratic Party. Shafer and Johnson sensibly posit that if white Southerners are becoming Republican because of hostility to blacks, one would expect the Old South to move over first. But, in fact, Shafer and Johnson find, through a detailed examination of the demographic data, this is not the case. The wealthier, more industrial, more integrated New South moves first into the Republican Party. This happens in the 1950s and 1960s. By contrast, the rural, agricultural, racially homogenous Old South resists this movement. In other words, during the civil rights period, the least racist white Southerners become Republicans and the most racist white Southerners stay recalcitrantly in the Democratic Party. Eventually, the Old South also transitions into the GOP camp. But this is not until the late 1970s and through the 1980s, in response to the Reaganite appeal to free-market capitalism, patriotism, pro-life, school prayer, family values. These economic and social issues were far more central to Reagan’s message than race, and they struck a chord beyond—no less than within—the South. In 1980, Reagan lost just six states; in 1984 he lost only Walter Mondale’s home state of Minnesota. Obviously, Reagan didn’t need a specific Southern Strategy; he had an American strategy that proved wildly successful.