The Party Of Lynching

warns (ignorant) Democrat voters in North Carolina of lynchings if Republicans win.

If they want to play that game, put together a few thirty-second ads with history lessons about the (Democrat) Klan, and the (Democrat) Bull Connor, and the (Democrat) Lester Maddox, and the (Democrat) George Wallace. And a reminder that Lincoln was a Republican, and that the voting-rights act would not have been passed without Republicans.

[Late-morning update]

Oopsie. Senator Pryor’s college thesis, called desegregation “an unwilling invasion” (as opposed, I suppose, to a willing one?).

Democrats, once the party of racism, always the party of racism.

12 thoughts on “The Party Of Lynching”

  1. Wow, that flyer is seriously f’d up. I can’t believe this isn’t national news and that DWS, Obama, and other Democrats are not being asked to condemn this. Of course, asking Obama to condemn it would expose him to charges of hypocrisy considering what his campaign did in the last election.

  2. The GOP might counter by having a cartoon with Obama lynching the Constitution. But that would probably be seen as racist. Because everything and everyone opposed to Obama is.

  3. We live in a fantasy world where truth doesn’t matter. How else can you explain these easily disposed of lies are not general knowledge?

    Blinding the eyes of unbelievers is not just a christian meme.

  4. The names of the parties stay the same. The demographics behind those party names change. See Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’. If you think you’re backing the party of Lincoln, you need to read more history.

      1. And Affirmative Action is based on the presumption that black people can’t compete on a level playing field with everyone else. “The soft bigotry of low expectations”. And don’t anyone give me any bullshit about “historically disadvantaged”. We don’t live in history. We live today. Nobody born in America and in high school or university today was ever a slave, nor were their parents or grandparents.

    1. Reading the wikipedia entry on the Southern Strategy, it consists nearly entirely of Democrat’s claims. In other words, not reliable in the least.

      I find it interesting that Republicans don’t view themselves as racist, in agreement with Democrats circa 1950, or having traded places with Democrats. These are all Democrat smears. The evidence trotted out to support these attacks are flimsy. The South voted for Nixon? So did almost every other state in the country…

  5. I don’t care what color you are or how poor you are. If you are a kid today you can succeed. Here’s how:

    1) attend the free school that’s available to you and make the best use of it you can.
    – ignore those people accusing you of being too white.

    2) Don’t have a baby and don’t get married until you are well established in life.

    3) If you did your best in that sub-standard school you probably got mostly A’s but still may have gotten a substandard education and perhaps you are deficient in some areas. No matter.

    Go to a community college. Study something USEFUL that will increase your job marketability. Your grades will win you grants and loans and scholarships.

    4) Attend CC for 2 years or maybe even 3 to get to the 2 year level because your local schools were so bad. No matter.

    Then decide whether it’s best to do another 2 years at the CC or transfer to a 4 year University.

    5) Finish your education.

    6) Get a freaking job.

    You have now achieved “Orbital Velocity” You will do well in life and if you then start a family and have kids they will do even better.

    In 1.5 generations the problem is solved.

  6. “If you think you’re backing the party of Lincoln, you need to read more history.” If “liberals”–and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators”) read mmore history, they wouldn’t be “liberals.” Be that as it may . . . . At least Lincoln had a basic grasp of certain realities the modern “liberal” doesn’t:

    “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.” Whereas the modern statists love masters–as long, of course, as they’re for “the Common Good.”

    “I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.” (I guess Lincoln wouldn;’t have been part of OWS–or as I call it, “Woodstock for Economic Ignoramuses.”)

    “They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. ” (Where would modern redistributionist “liberalism” be, without “you work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it”?)

    And my favorite” “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be as master.” (Whereas today’s sadomasochistic “liberals” seem to alternate between wanting to be the State’s slave, or–through control of the State–other people’s masters.)

Comments are closed.