ChrisWeigant.com

Martin Luther King's Words

[ Posted Monday, January 17th, 2022 – 17:29 UTC ]

Today, on the federal holiday celebrating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, his son Martin Luther King III travelled to Arizona to express his displeasure with Senator Kyrsten Sinema after she crushed the hopes of all those wishing to see modern voting rights legislation pass into law. "History will remember Sen. Sinema, I believe unkindly, for her position on the filibuster," said King's eldest son and namesake, and he pointed out in an interview: "Our daughter has less rights around voting than she had when she was born. I can’t imagine what my mother and father would say about that. I'm sure they’re turning over and over in their graves about this."

Those are some pretty strong words, but Sinema has earned such condemnation. Together with Joe Manchin of West Virginia, they have stood firmly for the rights of a minority of senators to prevent a majority from enacting federal voting rights laws -- which would stop or overturn the voter suppression measures that have passed on party-line votes in legislatures all over the country. Sinema sanctimoniously tried to take the high road and paint her stance as one for "bipartisanship," but by doing so she completely ignores the fact that we are in this situation precisely because of partisanship at the state level and partisanship in the Senate. She is unilaterally disarming the Democrats in the face of such partisanship, seeking a bipartisanship which simply does not exist anymore in the United States Senate. She stood up for parliamentary procedure (that is included nowhere in the U.S. Constitution) over basic constitutional rights. King is right -- history will not remember her actions kindly.

Two quotes from his father stand out for me, today. The first is from a speech King gave in 1957, three years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, but many years before federal civil rights laws made that promise of equality a reality for much of the country. In the speech, King identified four areas which were lacking in leadership. The second stands out today, when contemplating Sinema and Manchin:

A second area in which there is need for strong leadership is from the white northern liberals. There is a dire need today for a liberalism which is truly liberal. What we are witnessing today in so many northern communities is a sort of quasi-liberalism which is based on the principle of looking sympathetically at all sides. It is a liberalism so bent on seeing all sides, that it fails to become committed to either side. It is a liberalism that is so objectively analytical that it is not subjectively committed. It is a liberalism which is neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm. We call for a liberalism from the North which will be thoroughly committed to the ideal of racial justice and will not be deterred by the propaganda and subtle words of those who say: "Slow up for a while; you're pushing too fast."

Now, neither Arizona nor West Virginia is "northern," but the sentiment is obviously still necessary.

The other quotes come from a televised interview from 1963 (which initially only aired outside of the United States). In it, King was questioned about pending civil rights legislation and what he thought its chances were in the Senate.

[Q:] If the president's program were incorporated -- or such portions of it which would lend themselves to this -- how would you feel about submitting this to a vote of the people of the United States who have never really had an opportunity to express themselves in this area?

[MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR:] Well, this would certainly be alright with me because I think the vast majority of people in the United States would vote favorably for such a bill. I think the tragedy is that we have a Congress, with a Senate, that has a minority of misguided senators who will use the filibuster to keep the majority of people from even voting -- they won't let the majority of senators vote. And certainly they wouldn't want the majority of people to vote because they know they do not represent the majority of the American people. In fact, they represent in their own states a very small minority. Senator Eastland of Mississippi represents a very small minority of the number of people who live in that state. And I think this is true all across the South.

. . .

[Q:] Dr. King, the impressions that one seems to have, from the initial hearings on the president's proposed civil rights measure seem to be that there will be an uphill fight to get the bill through. Should either there be a filibuster, or for that matter if, when it comes to vote, the bill is defeated, what sort of action do you propose to fight for the attainment of equality, and for that matter, do you anticipate working much more closely with the other separate Negro movements?

[MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR:] I think there will be, I'm sure, a filibuster, and we'll definitely protest this, we will lobby in Washington, seeking to get congressmen, senators, to stand up in a very firm, forthright manner with the determination to see this bill through. We plan to have a march on Washington on the twenty-eighth of August, at which time we will take a stand, letting the nation and the world know that we are determined to see civil rights legislation. Beyond this we will have to wait it out and see what happens.

It's pretty obvious what King thought of the filibuster. Indeed, he calls it a "tragedy" that it could be used by a "minority of misguided senators" to block basic constitutional rights from being enshrined into federal law.

It's also pretty obvious which side of this legislative fight King would be on today. While his son's words towards Sinema were pretty damning, if King were alive today his own words might have been even more scathing.

My hope is that the media will (for once) get beyond that one sentence in one speech (from that March on Washington) that they play on an endless loop every Martin Luther King Junior Day, and instead dig into the vast ocean of other recorded words from King to accurately show his thoughts on the machinations used to stop the movement towards equality and voting rights for all. Because they're there, if you look for them.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

42 Comments on “Martin Luther King's Words”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just had a thought upon reading this piece ...

    I'm thinking that getting rid of the filibuster outright might just make bipartisan votes more prevalent on issues that have the support of the majority of the American people, Republicans and Democrats alike.

    I mean, Republicans or Democrats wouldn't be so forced into following the party line to support a filibuster.

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    MLK2 might be upset about gerrymandering and the filibuster, but he'd be very excited by the mcrib sandwich.

    https://youtu.be/MmFqAuVZMTY

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I must point out the incongruity of Democrats honoring Dr King out one side of their mouths and then supporting segregation and race-based actions out the other side of their mouths..

    Some might even call it hypocritical..

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's be factual here..

    All the politicians that gave Dr King grief were all Democrats...

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just had a thought upon reading this piece ...

    I'm thinking that getting rid of the filibuster outright might just make bipartisan votes more prevalent on issues that have the support of the majority of the American people, Republicans and Democrats alike.

    I mean, Republicans or Democrats wouldn't be so forced into following the party line to support a filibuster.

    Four words for you, Liz...

    Tyranny Of The Majority

    How would you feel about getting rid of the filibuster if the GOP ran the Senate???

    We need to face reality here..

    Does it make sense to kill the filibuster for these two voting acts that will likely be ruled unconstitutional anyways, knowing full well that the GOP might own the Senate after Nov of 2022 and get the White House in 2024???

    Democrats are thinking VERY short term and not fully realizing the consequences...

    I mean, think about it..

    A 54-46 GOP Senate, President Trump in the Oval Office and NO Filibuster....

    Is that REALLY what ya'all are advocating??

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look how Democrats choose to honor Dr Martin Luther King Jr....

    Race based health care...

    Forced segregation..

    Racial quotas..

    Are these really the best ways to honor MLK??

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Imagine what Dr King would have to say about Critical Race Theory being taught to our children..

    Imagine what Dr King would think of "equity" in the context of race-based advantages...

    Many of the policies and beliefs that today's Democrats hold dear spit on the legacy of Dr King...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Abrams treads carefully in relationship with Biden

    A poll released this week by Democratic firm HIT Strategies found that Biden’s approval among Black voters had dropped to 54 percent in December, down from 76 percent in June.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/589836-abrams-treads-carefully-in-relationship-with-biden

    Oh.... SNAP....

    That's gotta hurt....

    Once again... My prediction of waning support for Democrats amongst black Americans is becoming more and more factual...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    But let's play Devil's Advocate here for a moment.

    Let's suspend facts and reality and postulate a scenario whereas Sinema and Manchin roll over and agree to gut or eliminate the filibuster...

    The Election Cheating acts pass and are summarily ruled Unconstitutional by the 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS..

    You people don't realize how the Senate operates.. Hundreds of times a day, Schumer asks for unanimous consent for hundreds of piddly administration functions and gets it.. Hell, the Senate has to get unanimous consent to take bathroom breaks..

    If the filibuster is changed, McConnell can make it so Schumer NEVER hears another 'AYE' for unanimous consent on even the most mundane of Senate functions ever again...

    The Senate screeches to a halt and NEVER gets a damn thing done between now and Nov...

    Being that Democrats failed on EVERY bit of their agenda, Democrats are routed in the midterms and the Senate is now 57-43 in favor of the GOP..

    So...

    Democrats didn't get their Election Cheat laws...

    They didn't pass a single bit of legislation in 2022...

    And NOW the Senate is in the hands of the GOP and the gloves have been taken off... No more filibuster....

    So, for 2022 and 2023, the GOP have carte blanche to pass whatever enters their angsty little noggins... Sure, it will all likely be vetoed.. But some (maybe even most) will be goodies for Americans that Americans would really like to see...

    So, President Harris will have to make a choice..

    Give the GOP win after win after win and the GOP makes a great case for President Trump in 2024 who wins the election in a landslide...

    OR

    Hand the GOP loss after loss after loss and put the entirety of Public Opinion behind the GOP who make a great case for President Trump in 2024 who wins the election in a landslide...

    It's now 2025 and President Trump has been sworn in as President Of The United States...

    He has the House at his back and the Senate, no longer constrained by the filibuster, is firmly in President Trump's pocket..

    Is THIS what ya'all want???

    President Trump in FULL control of Congress and the Senatorial totally unrestricted warfare under the tyranny of the majority by the lack of a filibuster option??

    If Democrats harm one single hair on little Filibuster's head, then the above scenario is the most likely scenario that will play out..

    "You must choose. But choose wisely as the true grail will bring you life, and the false grail will take it from you."
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    MLK2 might be upset about gerrymandering and the filibuster, but he'd be very excited by the mcrib sandwich.

    https://youtu.be/MmFqAuVZMTY

    Hehehehehehe Now that was funny..

    But seriously, let me ask a question..

    Why is it when Democrats do it, it's called "redistricting"...

    But when Republicans do it, it's called "gerrymandering"??

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And since we're on the subject of the filibuster...

    Another midterm worry for Biden White House: probes and impeachment attempts
    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/another-midterm-worry-biden-white-house-probes-impeachment-attempts-2022-01-17/

    Ya'all just HAVE ta know that, when the GOP takes the House and Senate, there are going to be a BUTTLOAD of investigations and impeachments, right??

    Ya'all just HAVE to know this...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reflecting on Dr. King's vision – how are we faring in pursuit of the just society?
    All Americans should continue the fight for Dr. King’s dream
    Ben Carson, M.D.

    As we remember the birth of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it is worth reflecting on his message, and on whether we are moving in the direction of accomplishing the great vision he laid out for our nation.

    Dr. King’s admirable efforts to ensure that we become and remain a nation where an individual is judged based on the content of his character, not the color of his skin, is well known by most Americans. Indeed, this message comes from the King of the Universe himself, who tells us in his Love Letter to us, that He "hath made of one blood all nations of men." (Acts 17:26). This beautiful admonition puts to rest once and for all the idea that some races are inherently superiority to others, and even the very idea that we should be divided based on race at all.

    Yet, we’re starting to see troubling signs that our nation’s dedication to the principles of Dr. King, or at least the dedication of the elites and those who control our institutions, is beginning to wane.

    Many of those in leadership positions no longer ascribe to the noble aspiration that all of us should be judged based on the content of our character. Instead, they’re increasingly embracing the notion that a person’s worth and future potential are determined by their race. If you’re White, that means you’re automatically guilty of racism and discrimination, totally independent of how you actually treat other human beings and love others. If you’re Black, that means you’re automatically doomed to a life bound in poverty and unable to achieve the American dream, due to alleged White privilege and systematic racism, independent of your actual work ethic, dedication and tenacity.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/martin-luther-king-vision-just-society-dr-ben-carson

    Today's Democrat Party is dedicated solely to the idea that men and women should be judged by the color of their skin and not the strength of their character..

    No where is this more obvious than Democrats falling all over themselves to HONOR George Floyd..

    A bully.. A coward.. A criminal.. A druggie.. Just an all around scumbag..

    Yet Democrats want to NAME laws after this scum of the earth...

    Like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin and the lot of them...

    Society is better off for those bullies and cowards and criminals passing..

    Yet Democrats judge them SOLELY on the color of their skin...

    Why is that???

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    "As the voting rights bill finally comes to the floor of the Senate, there is only one vote which will really matter. Will 50 Democrats vote to override the filibuster, protect American democracy and pass the bill, or will Manchin and Sinema vote with the GOP and let the bill die?"

    If Democrats have ANY semblance of intelligence and strategic thinking left in them....

    They will hope and pray that Sinema & Manchin hold strong...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting to note..

    The current commentary was posted at 1729hrs local..

    My first comment was a little after 0100hrs local the next day...

    People had over 7 and a half hours to comment in a Michale Free comment section..

    Yet, only 2 Founders were the ones who commented..

    So, this begs the question..

    How.... EXACTLY... are my comments preventing anyone else from commenting???

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the filibuster goes, let's try something..

    Let's wait til the GOP is in control of the US Senate...

    THEN... If Democrats STILL want to nuke the filibuster...

    I will support them.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the IS IT JUST ME department??

    Is it just me or is Sinema really hot??

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting to note..

    During President Trump's Administration, Senate Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times..

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Another exciting edition of the Filibuster Follies.

    The solution is not to get rid of the filibuster, it is to get rid of the one big money party pretending to be two parties that use excuses like the filibuster to not be able to do what they promised while appearing to try to do what they promised.

    Then they can promise to do it again in the next election.

    The only voting rights you are interested in is that people have the right to vote for Deathocrats or Republikillers.

    If you believed in equality and voting rights for all you would not keep spewing the Deathocrat propaganda and would be writing about the Peoples Party and One Demand.

    Because they're there- if you look for them.

    Get Real.

    TAKE THE VACCINE.

    Stop being a super spreader of propaganda.

    It is pretty obvious which side of the legislative battle King would be on today. King would be on the side of the Poeples Party and/or One Demand.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, Don.. I'll be yer huckleberry...

    How, exactly do we get rid of the 2 dominant political Partys???

    Seems to me the only way to do so is to outlaw them..

    But who would create the law to do so?? Surely not the Partys themselves...

    So, how would we go about it??

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Eliminating the filibuster would be doomsday for Democracy."
    -Democrat Chuck Schumer

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    The first step in getting rid of the Deathocrats and Republikillers is to recognize that they are not two parties but are two divisions of the one big money party.

    Your solution of outlawing them is too liberal for me.

    The solution to every problem is not legislation for the very reason you point out that the Deathocrats and Republikillers will not pass those laws.

    Some things people need to do for themselves.

    There will be no reason to outlaw the Deathocrats and Republikillers if citizens do not vote for them.

    As it will make no difference if they are replaced by third party or independents if they are also controlled by big money the solution is for citizens to demand small donor candidates and enforce that demand with their votes.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    The first step in getting rid of the Deathocrats and Republikillers is to recognize that they are not two parties but are two divisions of the one big money party.

    I would conditionally agree with this..

    "Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
    -Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK

    Some things people need to do for themselves.

    There will be no reason to outlaw the Deathocrats and Republikillers if citizens do not vote for them.

    As it will make no difference if they are replaced by third party or independents if they are also controlled by big money the solution is for citizens to demand small donor candidates and enforce that demand with their votes.

    So, all you have to do is get enough Americans to vote your way.. :D

    Easy Peezy Lemon Squeezy :D

    Since that is unlikely to happen within any of our lifetimes, do you have any ideas for the short term??

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Schumer is going with the Democrat suicide option... There are at least 5 Dem Senators who will vote NAY on changing the filibuster..

    Poor Democrats.. They are committing hari-kari for no reason at all...

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Ideas for the short term?

    Yes. In 2022 get some people to participate and add more in 2024 which would be well along the way in removing big money from our political process by 2026.

    As the alternative is to wait for Deathocrats and/or Republikillers to pass legislation which you admit they will not meaning that getting big money out of politics by voting for Deathocrats and Republikillers will NEVER happen, One Demand is the short term answer.

    2024 or 2026 is much sooner than never.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And just because you say it is highly unlikely, does not make that statement true.

    The amount of small donors has increased in recent elections which shows a trend in the direction of making it more likely than it was just 10 years ago.

    In 2005 and 2006 it was unlikely that there would be a black or woman nominee as the Deathocrat or Republikiller presidential candidate and even if there was they would not be able to win.

    Conventional political wisdom has not proven to be eternal. It has only been proven to be temporary.

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    Today, on the federal holiday celebrating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, his son Martin Luther King III travelled to Arizona to express his displeasure with Senator Kyrsten Sinema after she crushed the hopes of all those wishing to see modern voting rights legislation pass into law.

    Nice writeup, CW.

    I could not help but notice that this is most assuredly one of those times where history rhymes: Martin Luther King speaks out against a Senator from Arizona. Of course, MLK III follows in his father's very large footsteps, and while Martin Luther King, Jr. had generally refused to endorse candidates, he was not the least bit averse to campaigning against them:

    Each of us has a moral responsibility, if we are of voting age and if we are registered, to participate in that decision. So I come to California today, and I will leave here and go to Chicago and then to Detroit and then Baltimore, Maryland and New York to say the same thing. I come here to urge every person under the sound of my voice to go to the polls on the 3rd of November and vote your convictions.

    Now I know you're intelligent people, and I don't need to tell you who you should vote for; I don't have any fear about that. You know who to vote for. I'm just asking you to vote. Now just if you need... Now if you need a little information on my convictions at this point, I must honestly admit to you that I am not going to vote for Mr. Goldwater.

    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr., October 27, 1964

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tRhyqhC_7o&t=110s

    Senator Goldwater (R-Arizona) had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and shortly thereafter was elected by Republicans as the GOP presidential nominee. Goldwater went on to lose the presidential election in spectacular fashion in November '64 to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide. Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and only five states, all located in the deep South: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

    Anyone wondering why it is that Black support for the Democratic Party coalesced into the reliable voting bloc that it remains to this day need only look to the 1960s when President Kennedy, President Johnson, and the Democratic Party took up the mantle of Civil Rights and Martin Luther King, Jr. crisscrossed the country campaigning vigorously against the Republican who opposed it.

    So, yes, please put on record every single person impeding/opposing civil/voting rights for every American. It won't be the first time a human rights advocate named King has done it where Republicans have left a stench that's going to linger for decades.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senator Goldwater (R-Arizona) had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    As did 78% of Democrats.. The infamous 74-Day filibuster was the product of the Democrat Party.. As was the KKK and Jim Crow...

    What's your point??

    "She has no point. She never has any point. It's part of her charm."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    it where Republicans have left a stench that's going to linger for decades.

    Except the stench exuding from the Democrat Party is far FAR *FAR* stronger...

    Funny how you ignore that fact...

    Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, fighting against the Civil Rights Acts of the 50s and 60s was a Democrat Party thing much MUCH more so than it was a Republican Party thing..

    Matter of fact, it is fair to say that the Civil Rights Acts passed *BECAUSE* of the actions of the GOP and *IN SPITE* of the actions of the Democrat Party...

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    27

    Senator Goldwater (R-Arizona) had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

    ~ Kick

    As did 78% of Democrats..

    *laughs* You are just insistent on proving your rank ignorance, or what? You seriously think 78% of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it still passed and was signed into law by the leader of the Democratic Party at that time, President Lyndon Baines Johnson? So you're clearly ignorant of the fact that 67% of the Senate at that time were Democrats? So how does anyone figure that 78% of them voted against that Act and yet it still passed? *laughs*

    Incorrect! Obviously ridiculous on its face and bullshit. You got any common sense? The answer is "no" if you're gullible enough to believe the asinine claim that a Southern Democratic President of the United States could sign into law a bill that was opposed by 78% of the Democrats of his political party. Not rocket science.

    While it's a fact that Northern Democrats were in serious opposition to Southern Democrats on the issue of slavery and civil and voting rights, how do you figure that 78% of Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's asinine. Is there a brain cell in your head? Rhetorical question. Are you seriously this damn dumb? And determined and insistent upon proving it? Rhetorical questions.

    This isn't hard -- even for the uneducated -- but, of course, if 78% of your Party opposed your own Party's bill and you also held a supermajority in the Senate, how does your bill ever pass the Senate?

    Misinformation is certainly nothing new for you around here. You are what is commonly referred to as a right-wing useful idiot. You visit the right-wing lies and propaganda sites and then deposit whatever drivel, spew, and bullshit you find over there onto another man's website. Pathetic.

    I shouldn't have to explain this, but obviously, the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is easily verifiable information to anyone with a keyboard, Internet connection, a brain, and the desire to not post right-wing bullshit, lies, and shit-tons of verbal diarrhea.

    Listen up, right-wing useful idiots, this one isn't even hard, and history will set your clearly obvious ignorance free.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in its final form) passed in the Senate and House by a bipartisan vote of "aye" as follows:

    Senate: 73-27 with 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans
    House: 289-126 with 153 Democrats and 136 Republicans

    So you see, without even doing the simple math, the majority of those voting in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were actually Democrats, and this applies in both chambers of Congress. You insist on the math? Need your nose rubbed in it? Okay.

    67 Senate Democrats: 46 (69%) "aye" 21 "nay" (31%)
    244 House Democrats: 153 (63%) "aye" 91 "nay" (37%)

    Not sure how you figure 78% of Democrats voted against it when around two thirds of Democrats voted for its passage and a Southern Democrat signed it into law.

    So, nope, 78% of Democrats definitely did not vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964... not even close, but, like I said, Barry Goldwater, Republican from Arizona, did vote against it, and Martin Luther King, Jr. campaigned heavily all over the United States against Barry Goldwater.

    You bet your ass the Southern Democrats were against it, but not all of them. The President was definitely a Southern Democrat, and he sure as hell was in favor of it and signed it into law.

    Any more questions? Crack a book.

    The infamous 74-Day filibuster was the product of the Democrat Party..

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the product of the Democratic Party, and no amount of your pathetic attempts to paint Democrats as racists will change the fact that it was Democrats who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that were signed into law by a Southern Democratic President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, after the majority of his Party voted in favor of it, of course.

    Also, no amount of your pathetic attempts at revisionist history will change the fact that John Tower of the Republican Party was part of the Southern Bloc who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You seem infinitely and forever ignorant of the fact that there are indeed racists in both parties. There were definitely racists that were members of the Democratic Party, but they obviously were not the majority of Democrats who voted against them. Your modern-day racists are therefore primarily members of the Republican Party because they know exactly where their racist drivel and spew is welcomed with open arms.

    None of your misinformation, drivel, spewage, and verbal diarrhea can change the fact that the majority of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that spelled out in no uncertain terms the end of the application of Jim Crow laws of the South, and you bet your ass that the "Southern Bloc" who filibustered civil rights were against it, but they definitely weren't all Democrats. Dixiecrats they were called... and outnumbered they definitely were.

    As for the Dixiecrats after the passage of the Civil Rights Act? Strom Thurmond wasted no time at all endorsing Barry Goldwater for president and becoming a member of the Republican Party. Martin Luther King, Jr. opposed and campaigned heavily against Barry Goldwater, and he lost in a landslide to the Democrat who signed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at which point the Southern democrats boycotted the 1964 Democratic National Convention held August 24-27.

    The remarkable thing about Strom Thurmond's change of political parties in 1964 was that the GOP was so eager to have him join the Republican Party that they allowed him to keep his committee seats and his seniority. The GOP nearly got Herman Talmadge and John Stennis to join them also, but the Republican Senators balked at letting any more people jump in line ahead of them so they wouldn't agree to make them the same offer they made to Strom Thurmond. Many of the Southern Democratic officeholders therefore kept their positions and seniority but essentially worked as Republicans in all but Party affiliation, even endorsing Republican candidates. Example? William Colmer, Democrat of Mississippi, who endorsed Republican Party presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Nixon in 1972. Colmer did not run for reelection in 1972 but endorsed his administrative assistant, Trent Lott, as his successor, although Lott ran as a Republican. Another example? Jesse Helms, ran for office as a Republican after working for Democratic officeholders earlier in his career. Need more examples? Crack a book.

    What's your point??

    My point was quite obviously that Martin Luther King, Jr. campaigned all across America against Barry Goldwater in 1964 because he opposed the Civil Rights Act that was signed into law by a Democrat that same year... so no one need ever wonder why it is a fact that Black support for the Democratic Party coalesced into the reliable voting bloc that it remains to this day. You need only look to the 1960s when President Kennedy, President Johnson, and the Democratic Party took up the mantle of Civil Rights and Martin Luther King, Jr. crisscrossed the country campaigning vigorously against the Republican who opposed it. Not rocket science.

    The vast majority of modern-day racists today belong to the Republican Party, and no amount of your right-wing lies or revisionist history will change that fact.

    Also, you're hands down the biggest source of misinformation on this blog. #SSDD

    Except the stench exuding from the Democrat Party is far FAR *FAR* stronger...

    You are entitled to your misinformed opinions; however, you seriously couldn't recognize a fact if it took up residence and lived smack in the middle of your face.

    Funny how you ignore that fact...

    Your opinions aren't facts. Hell, your so-called "facts" aren't even facts... case in point, your lie that 78% of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pure bullshit and easily verifiable. As per usual, you're wrong.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    28

    In other words, fighting against the Civil Rights Acts of the 50s and 60s was a Democrat Party thing much MUCH more so than it was a Republican Party thing..

    Your problem with your multiple and redundant attempts at revisionist history on this blog is your incessant lumping of all Democrats under the same label. You want to blame the KKK and Jim Crow laws on the entire Party? Might as well blame racism on Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party since Lincoln was definitely a white supremacist; take his word for it.

    Oh, wait. Did Lincoln (R) sign the Emancipation Proclamation? Well, Lyndon Johnson (D) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. Try to keep up. Your standard operational spew wherein all the Party is lumped under one label is revisionist trollshit.

    Matter of fact, it is fair to say that the Civil Rights Acts passed *BECAUSE* of the actions of the GOP and *IN SPITE* of the actions of the Democrat Party...

    Bullshit... revisionist history bullshit.

    The Civil Rights Act of the 60s was introduced by a Democrat, John Kennedy. It was taken up by his Vice President, also a Democrat and a Southern Democrat, mind you, upon President Kennedy's assassination. The Civil Rights Act passed the Senate with more votes from Democrats than from Republicans and it passed the House also with more votes from Democrats than Republicans. But you want to give Republicans the credit and blame Democrats? And that's why no one here need ever take your bullshit seriously. You drank the GOP revisionist history Kool-Aid, meaning you're one dumb gullible duck and definitely and admittedly (your words) "not a history buff."

    Crack a book... or don't and just continue sounding like a ridiculous rube to the majority on this forum who know history versus the GOP revisionist bullshit attempting to label an entire Party as racists because you're obviously gullible and/or clueless and don't know any better. Martin Luther King, Jr. sure knew better, and Martin Luther King III sure as hell knows better, and the vast majority of Black voters all across America definitely know better. You? Not so much.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Why is it you always come back to these old commentaries days after they are past???

    Is it because you are too afraid to face current commentaries and get your ass kicked in the here and now??

    The facts on this issue are clear..

    The Democrat Party gave this country the KKK. This is fact..

    The Democrat Party gave this country Jim Crow.. This is fact..

    The Democrat Party started a civil war in order to keep their slaves. This is fact.

    The Democrat Party fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Acts of the 50s and 60s..

    This is fact..

    The claim that those Democrats became Republicans is a myth, as I have already proven and given the facts that prove it..

    Once again, you hide in past commentaries where other Weigantians can't see you getting your ass kicked over and over..

    But you and I both know the truth.. You simply can't hang because you have no facts. Simply hate and bigotry is all you have to hold onto..

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    STILL no facts to support andygaus' claim that marijuana arrests in MA was due to racism??

    And yet, you are STILL here arguing a throwaway point that is IRRELEVANT to the original question..

    You people are so easily led and distracted.. :D

    I lead you around by the nose and you go where ever I point you to go.. :D

    It's hilarious!!! :D

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Moron Michale
    31

    Why is it you always come back to these old commentaries days after they are past???

    Easy answer: You're a liar. I quite obviously don't always, and I don't post on anyone's timetable except my own.

    Is it because you are too afraid to face current commentaries and get your ass kicked in the here and now??

    Nice projection you got there, Moron. If you will check your date stamp, you will -- surprise/not surprise -- discover I responded to your lie about history the exact same day you posted it because you always come back to these old commentaries days after they are past because you are too afraid to face current commentaries and get your ass kicked. Thanks for letting us all know, Moron.

    The facts on this issue are clear..

    The facts are that you responded to a post of mine with more of your lies and false information. I responded to your lies the same day you posted them. The other fact is that you seriously suck at math and are hands down the largest source of misinformation and trollshit propaganda on this forum, bar none. You are the quintessential useful idiot for the right-wingnut crazies whose misinformation you regurgitate in redundant fashion on another man's blog, facts be damned, and thanks again for proving it.

    Once again, you hide in past commentaries where other Weigantians can't see you getting your ass kicked over and over..

    Once again, Moron, I responded the same day you posted your misinformation because -- we accept your concession -- you were obviously hiding in past commentaries. And, once again, Moron, thank you for making yourself look stupid. Your obvious ignorance is truly the gift that keeps on giving dang near daily and the whole year through.

    But you and I both know the truth..

    Clearly and quite obviously, truth isn't in your wingnut wheelhouse. I posted the facts, and you responded with your stale redundant regurgitated wingnut bullshit like the good little spoon-fed useful idiot sheeple you are.

    You simply can't hang because you have no facts. Simply hate and bigotry is all you have to hold onto..

    Instead of going on your pissy little rant, you could have at least admitted you were wrong about the lie you posted in response to my post. It is ridiculous on its face to claim that 78% of Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and about as dumb as it gets... in other words, same dumb regurgitated bullshit from the board right-wingnut useful idiot, just a different day.

    I see you are here hiding in past commentaries begging for attention from Bashi because your ass has been kicked by him and anybody with a brain cell, a modicum of common sense, and the ability to perform simple math and have a scintilla of a clue about history or the ability to do a little research before posting utter nonsensical ridiculous data. Obviously, you're too afraid to face Bashi due to your redundant dearth of knowledge and your status as a right-wingnut useful idiot with demonstrably absolutely no common sense whatsoever.

    Have a nice day, Mugshots Moron. I always do. :)

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Weigantian(™michale) Troll, still hiding in past commentaries because she is too chicken-shit to show her face in the current commentary says "blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa"...

    Yer pwn'ed biatch.. :D

    Have a nice day,

    PWN'ing you day in and day out?? It's ALWAYS a nice day.. :D Sucks to be you..

    But, by all means, continue hiding out in past commentaries because yer too askeer'ed to face me in the current commentary..

    BBBBWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only real question is who is the Weigantian(™michale) Troll more askeer'ed of...

    Me or the Warden Of Weigantia(™michale).. :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where did ya go, Victoria??? :D Nothing to say...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    PWN'ed.... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we know Victoria has been chased out of THIS commentary!! :D

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA PWN'ed... :D

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    34

    Yer pwn'ed biatch.. :D

    So you're just dead set insistent on prattling on and on about your family on the political forum? Not interested, and I would wager no one else is either.

    PWN'ing you day in and day out?? It's ALWAYS a nice day.. :D Sucks to be you..

    I agree you are obsessed with me "day in and day out."

    Also: No, you penniless poon, it definitely does not suck to be me. Perhaps you have me confused with your "biatch" in your Shithole. Your problem; not ours.

    But, by all means, continue hiding out in past commentaries because yer too askeer'ed to face me in the current commentary..

    BBBBWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    First: Please post more redundant trollshit as if no one here has ever seen it. You're making my point for me in spectacular fashion.

    Next: Write your admittedly ginormous weight on the wall and then post the equivalent amount of redundant trollshit on each day's commentary. Thank you in advance for proving without doubt how everyone else on this forum is dead on accurate about the Michale Troll and his daily redundant trollshit mountain.

    Finally: Make sure to do multiple posts wherein you whine like a toddler for my attention, proving without any doubt whatsoever and without any question that you are definitely obsessed with me "day in and day out." That'll show me! :)

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the Weigantian Troll spews more blaaa blaaa blaaa while she hides in past commentaries..

    And, of course, she obeys my commands for her to post..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Bitch be PWN'ed!!! :D

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    39

    And the Weigantian Troll spews more blaaa blaaa blaaa while she hides in past commentaries..

    Yes, the Michale Troll cannot stop itself. It's quite obviously obsessed with me daily, as it freely confessed.

    And, of course, she obeys my commands for her to post..

    Obviously, as anyone who can comprehend the written word can see: The Michale Troll didn't command me to post, but it definitely did whine like a toddler seeking some attention using the same stale repetitive shit... as if it was new... lather, rinse, repeat. Same trollshit mountain, different day. Whine more.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Thank you for proving my point in spectacular fashion.

    Bitch be PWN'ed!!! :D

    But enough already about your spouse, you pathetic penniless poon. Please take your discussion of your family's personal sleaze and shove it up your backside... but not before removing your tiny head from your own ass. :)

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the Weigantian(™) Troll, Victoria is sill hiding in old commentaries and, as per her norm, she knows her personal attacks on me are useless, she starts attacking my family...

    My gods, how low in the mud and muck can you go??? You truly are a pathetic creature...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the Weigantian Troll has been chased away again..

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

    Face it, bitch.. Yer PWN'ed!! :D

Comments for this article are closed.