Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

[American_Jihad]

CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'
DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS
Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill
Published: 07/16/2017

JESSE LEE PETERSON

Not all, not all, not all, but most Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.

We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (worse than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their mama).

But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.

Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.

Democrats hurt blacks more today than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring criminals over the innocent.

...

Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics

 

[Pogo]

CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'
DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS
Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill
Published: 07/16/2017

JESSE LEE PETERSON

Not all, not all, not all, but most Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.

We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (worse than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their mama).

But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.

Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.

Democrats hurt blacks more today than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring criminals over the innocent.

...

Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics

--- Source: Whirled Nuts Daily. Home of Birferism.

What ever happened to Birferism? Did Soy turn it gay?

 

[American_Jihad]

CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'
DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS
Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill
Published: 07/16/2017

JESSE LEE PETERSON

Not all, not all, not all, but most Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.

We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (worse than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their mama).

But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.

Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.

Democrats hurt blacks more today than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring criminals over the innocent.

...

Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics

--- Source: Whirled Nuts Daily. Home of Birferism.

What ever happened to Birferism? Did Soy turn it gay?

Poo is the left's perfect example what to do when your rabid and got nothing...

 

[Pogo]

CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'
DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS
Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill
Published: 07/16/2017

JESSE LEE PETERSON

Not all, not all, not all, but most Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.

We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (worse than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their mama).

But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.

Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.

Democrats hurt blacks more today than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring criminals over the innocent.

...

Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics

--- Source: Whirled Nuts Daily. Home of Birferism.

What ever happened to Birferism? Did Soy turn it gay?

Poo is the left's perfect example what to do when your rabid and got nothing...

Uh nnnnno Jizzhat. That would be running photoshops and fake Googly Image memes.

Like you did here ---

...

 

[American_Jihad]

CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'
DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS
Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill
Published: 07/16/2017

JESSE LEE PETERSON

Not all, not all, not all, but most Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.

We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (worse than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their mama).

But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.

Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.

Democrats hurt blacks more today than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring criminals over the innocent.

...

Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics

--- Source: Whirled Nuts Daily. Home of Birferism.

What ever happened to Birferism? Did Soy turn it gay?

Poo is the left's perfect example what to do when your rabid and got nothing...

Uh nnnnno Jizzhat. That would be running photoshops and fake Googly Image memes.

Like you did here ---

...

Saving time - repeat post 283...

 

[Conservative65]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Unless you have their names and the dates each one changed, all we know for a fact is they are Democrats.

 

[Pogo]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Unless you have their names and the dates each one changed, all we know for a fact is they are Democrats.

Nope, we know nothing of the sort.

Way back in the thread this OP was busted --- the photo is actually from Wisconsin, nowhere near anybody's convention. Conventions are not held on the fucking street anyway.

Now being in Wisconsin, by the law of averages they're likely more Republicans than anything else, but this too is irrelevant. Being a Klanner is not voting, and you don't need a political party registration to be in it. All you had to be was white, Christian, Protestant and moralistically full of yourself.

Specifically the Klan at this time required:

• Being "native born"
• Christian
• Protects "pure American womanhood"
• Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"
• (believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights
• Promotes "pure Americanism"

(Fiery Cross, p. 151)

But speaking of Wisconsin, the National Security League (NSL) was a forerunner and ideological parent of that Klan:

>> Initially, the NSL worked to indoctrinate school children and the public. Under the guise of encouraging the teaching of American history, the league worked to eliminate the teaching of foreign languages (especially German, and later Russian). It encouraged physical education in the schools as a means of "strengthening American manhood" for war.[6] By advocating civil defense, the League proselytized for more defense spending and a stronger national military.[1][6] "Americanism" and universal conscription were not meant to merely strengthen the military but also to weed out "religious or political dissenters, sexual 'deviants,' those who frequented prostitutes, and people convicted of crimes who had completed their punishment..."[8] The goal was to create an elite meritocratic class which would take decision-making away from the electorate.[1][6]

The NSL reached its highest point of influence (in terms of its popular support and the adoption of its policies) during World War I. It whipped up anti-German hysteria through its Committee on Patriotism Through Education (directed by Princeton University professor Robert McNutt McElroy), and strongly supported the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. With United States Department of Justice support, the NSL began to question the patriotism and loyalty of thousands of Americans suspected of either pro-German or (later) pro-communist beliefs. League supporters published newspaper stories or wrote letters to the editor alleging that labor unions, universities, some churches (particularly those with large German congregations), the League of Women Voters, and a host of other organizations were under communist control.[1][6] << including.... the entire population of Wisconsin ---- Wiki
​

The Klan adopted and carried that moralistic torch about prostitution, adultery, gambling, going to church in general and of course, drinking, and the parallel with "100% Americanism" carried forth to the NSL from the daze of the nativist Know Nothing Party, as well as the hyperpatriotist/militarist bent, the anti-immigrant sentiment and the resistance to labor unions and socialism.


Oh by the way the OP who was busted, whose name is Geaux4it -- has not been back since the picture's actual derivation was exposed. He ran away.

 

[Conservative65]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Unless you have their names and the dates each one changed, all we know for a fact is they are Democrats.

Nope, we know nothing of the sort.

Way back in the thread this OP was busted --- the photo is actually from Wisconsin, nowhere near anybody's convention. Conventions are not held on the fucking street anyway.

Now being in Wisconsin, by the law of averages they're likely more Republicans than anything else, but this too is irrelevant. Being a Klanner is not voting, and you don't need a political party registration to be in it. All you had to be was white, Christian, Protestant and moralistically full of yourself.

Specifically the Klan at this time required:

• Being "native born"
• Christian
• Protects "pure American womanhood"
• Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"
• (believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights
• Promotes "pure Americanism"

(Fiery Cross, p. 151)

But speaking of Wisconsin, the National Security League (NSL) was a forerunner and ideological parent of that Klan:

>> Initially, the NSL worked to indoctrinate school children and the public. Under the guise of encouraging the teaching of American history, the league worked to eliminate the teaching of foreign languages (especially German, and later Russian). It encouraged physical education in the schools as a means of "strengthening American manhood" for war.[6] By advocating civil defense, the League proselytized for more defense spending and a stronger national military.[1][6] "Americanism" and universal conscription were not meant to merely strengthen the military but also to weed out "religious or political dissenters, sexual 'deviants,' those who frequented prostitutes, and people convicted of crimes who had completed their punishment..."[8] The goal was to create an elite meritocratic class which would take decision-making away from the electorate.[1][6]

The NSL reached its highest point of influence (in terms of its popular support and the adoption of its policies) during World War I. It whipped up anti-German hysteria through its Committee on Patriotism Through Education (directed by Princeton University professor Robert McNutt McElroy), and strongly supported the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. With United States Department of Justice support, the NSL began to question the patriotism and loyalty of thousands of Americans suspected of either pro-German or (later) pro-communist beliefs. League supporters published newspaper stories or wrote letters to the editor alleging that labor unions, universities, some churches (particularly those with large German congregations), the League of Women Voters, and a host of other organizations were under communist control.[1][6] ---- including.... the entire population of Wisconsin << Wiki
​

The Klan adopted and carried that moralistic torch about prostitution, adultery, gambling, going to church in general and of course, drinking, and the parallel with "100% Americanism" carried forth to the NSL from the daze of the nativist Know Nothing Party, as well as the hyperpatriotist/militarist bent, the anti-immigrant sentiment and the resistance to labor unions and socialism.

So much for the claim.

 

[Syriusly]

Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.

Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

Again, you're not answering the question.

I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.

First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.

Well I have no problem with admitting that Democrats were racists.

And so were Republicans.

Abraham Lincoln- a President I greatly admire- was a racist. Read his comments on 'negroes' and it is clear he didn't consider them the equal to the white man. That doesn't change what great things Abraham Lincoln did for African Americans- nor of his good will in general towards African Americans.

In 1865 virtually everyone was a racist. Hell even African Americans tended to think of themselves as inferior to white Americans- such was the prevelant propaganda at the time.

But the South was the base of the particular institution of slavery, and was arguably more racist than any other part of the country(arguably because it could be regional- California and the West Coast was horribly racist towards Chinese, and very little towards African Americans). The South was also staunchly Protestant and Conservative.

For the next 100 years- the white conservative Christians of the South institutionalized their racism- and voted Democrat- because the GOP was the party of Lincoln. African Americans- when they could vote, voted Republican.

You of course know all of this, but prefer to lie rather than admit this.

Starting in the '30's with the New Deal, African Americans started to vote more Democrat, and even more so during the War because of FDR's programs to integrate African Americans into the war industry- and of course Eleanor's championing of minority rights.

Most people in the United States, by my standards, would still be considered racists- but this was heightened in the South.

LBJ by our standards would easily be called a racist. Just like Lincoln. LBJ was certainly a political opportunist- but he was also a man with a very deep compassion for poor people- including poor people of color. As a politician in the South, he could not succeed by promoting civil rights for minorities(African Americans but also Mexican Americans)- until the time was ripe when he could do so.

LBJ did nothing for Civil Rights for minorities- until he was actually able to do something. And then he did.

Now lets go to 1965.

Were the Southern white Conservative Christians racists?

Yep.

Were they mostly Democrats? Yep.

Were there Republicans too? Yep- a few- and they voted just like the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Northern Democrats- were by the standards of the day- not racists. They voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- along with the Northern Republican.

What you want to try to argue though is somehow- starting in 1965- the Southern Conservative Christians racists- started to become less racist- and that is why they started voting Republican.

While Southern Christian African Americans- who transitioned to voting to Democrats- became racists.

How did those Southern Conservative racist Christian- whose families had often voted for generations Democrats- suddenly become 'not racists'?

 

[Syriusly]

Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.

Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

Again, you're not answering the question.

I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

That doesn't mean what you think it means, that "those states are still racist". What it does mean is that Republicans beat racism, since those states are waaaaaay less racist now that they're Republican leaning states. .

Where did I say that those states are still racists?

How did Republicans 'beat racism'?

Do you think that States switch from racist to non-racists when Republicans gain control and amazingly switch back when they lose control?

How did all of those white conservative Christian racist who voted Democrat- become white conservative conservative Christians non-racists who vote Republican?

 

[Pogo]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Unless you have their names and the dates each one changed, all we know for a fact is they are Democrats.

Nope, we know nothing of the sort.

Way back in the thread this OP was busted --- the photo is actually from Wisconsin, nowhere near anybody's convention. Conventions are not held on the fucking street anyway.

Now being in Wisconsin, by the law of averages they're likely more Republicans than anything else, but this too is irrelevant. Being a Klanner is not voting, and you don't need a political party registration to be in it. All you had to be was white, Christian, Protestant and moralistically full of yourself.

Specifically the Klan at this time required:

• Being "native born"
• Christian
• Protects "pure American womanhood"
• Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"
• (believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights
• Promotes "pure Americanism"

(Fiery Cross, p. 151)

But speaking of Wisconsin, the National Security League (NSL) was a forerunner and ideological parent of that Klan:

>> Initially, the NSL worked to indoctrinate school children and the public. Under the guise of encouraging the teaching of American history, the league worked to eliminate the teaching of foreign languages (especially German, and later Russian). It encouraged physical education in the schools as a means of "strengthening American manhood" for war.[6] By advocating civil defense, the League proselytized for more defense spending and a stronger national military.[1][6] "Americanism" and universal conscription were not meant to merely strengthen the military but also to weed out "religious or political dissenters, sexual 'deviants,' those who frequented prostitutes, and people convicted of crimes who had completed their punishment..."[8] The goal was to create an elite meritocratic class which would take decision-making away from the electorate.[1][6]

The NSL reached its highest point of influence (in terms of its popular support and the adoption of its policies) during World War I. It whipped up anti-German hysteria through its Committee on Patriotism Through Education (directed by Princeton University professor Robert McNutt McElroy), and strongly supported the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. With United States Department of Justice support, the NSL began to question the patriotism and loyalty of thousands of Americans suspected of either pro-German or (later) pro-communist beliefs. League supporters published newspaper stories or wrote letters to the editor alleging that labor unions, universities, some churches (particularly those with large German congregations), the League of Women Voters, and a host of other organizations were under communist control.[1][6] ---- including.... the entire population of Wisconsin << Wiki
​

The Klan adopted and carried that moralistic torch about prostitution, adultery, gambling, going to church in general and of course, drinking, and the parallel with "100% Americanism" carried forth to the NSL from the daze of the nativist Know Nothing Party, as well as the hyperpatriotist/militarist bent, the anti-immigrant sentiment and the resistance to labor unions and socialism.

So much for the claim.

Indeed, so much for the thread. Kind of the point I made when his OP was raked over the coals.

There's more besides the Wisconsin picture. See the part where he claims that at that Democratic convention a thousand miles away, "a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform"? That's basically accurate, although "Forney Johnston" is actually spelled "Oscar Underwood". Forney Johnston was dead for 11 years by then. Plus, his first name was "Joseph".

Nothing like due diligence in one's research. Right Geaux4it ?

 

[Syriusly]

[
And last, you do know that MLK was fighting Democrats, since they were ones denying blacks right to vote. Democrats had him jailed, the same ones who demand that Rosa Parks give up the seat to white folks. He was fighting Democrats who were hosing people on the street, releasing dogs on them. MLK saw wave after wave of Democrat institutionalized racism, but because of couple of cherry picks like Goldwater or Thurmond, and a quote you keep repeating you claim that MLK rejected Republicans and side himself with Democrat party? You do know that it was a Democrat who shot MLK, do ya?

Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting institutionalized racism- he wasn't fighting the Democratic Party.

MLK Jr. was fighting the white Conservative Christian men who were denying blacks the right to vote. The White conservative Christian men who had him jailed, who wrote the Jim Crow laws. The Southern white Christian conservative men who were hosing people on the street, releasing dogs on them.

MLK saw wave after wave of white conservative Christian institutionaized racism- but unlike you- he understood racism- and he understood the politics of racism. MLK Jr. stands out because of his stand for Civil Rights regardless of political party.

So when LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill- MLK Jr. wasn't there to complain about the Southern White Conservative Christians men who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill- he was there to applaud the efforts by Democrats- and Republicans- from outside the South- who passed the bill.

What MLK Jr. did recognize though was that the GOP made a pivot in 1964- when they nominated Barry Goldwater Jr. for President - one of only 4 non-Southern Senators to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

And then they nominated Ronald Reagan for President- who also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill

And then they nominated George Bush for President- who also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

George Bush is an interesting example- since he was getting his political start at that time- and as a Republican was able to get white votes running as a Republican opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I didn't cherry pick anything from Martin Luther King Jr. I quoted his calling out of the Republican Party in 1964- very eloquently- and very specifically:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy


What GOP apologists and attack dogs want Americans to believe is that they should believe the GOP revisionist lies- instead of Martin Luther King Jr.

But there is a reason why African Americans vote Democrat- not Republican- and Martin Luther King Jr. sentiment is part of the reason.

 

[Syriusly]

[
You lefties do not own MLK legacy, he criticized Republicans in one or two passages of his book, but what you are not saying is that his whole life work was about fighting against everything that Democrats did to black people. Got it?

I just quote Martin Luther King Jr..

Feel free to quote Martin Luther King Jr. and all of the bad things he said about the Democratic Party- certainly he complained that the Democrats didn't do enough fast enough to combat the Dixiecrats or the institutionalized racism of the Southern white Conservative Christians.

MLK Jr. was about fighting against everything that White Conservative Christians did that harmed black people.

And that includes Barry Goldwater.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Oh by the way the OP who was busted, whose name is Geaux4it -- has not been back since the picture's actual derivation was exposed. He ran away.

What a shock that is.......LOL...run away...run away.....GOP lies exposed!

 

[Syriusly]

[
Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
!

Gotta love PC and his claims that African Americans are the party of slavery, segregation and second class citizenship......

 

[Syriusly]

And, of course, there never was any such 'party switch.'

Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.

What lefties are dishonest about is when blacks switched votes from Republican to Democrat party.

Speaking of 'dishonest'- I have repeatedly discussed African Americans starting to switch parties in the 1930's- during the Depression under FDR.

And of course- the trend completed in the 1960's- specifically in 1964. As African Americans, seeing what was happening just like MLK Jr.- finished the switch to the Democratic Party.

So why exactly do you feel a need to make that lie to try to bolster your lies about Democrats?

 

[Syriusly]

[
I just can't imagine how desperate blacks were back in time do leave the party of emancipation and Lincoln and joining the party of the KKK and Dixiecrats who were running the south as Democrats.
.

If your entire point wasn't just to attack the Democratic Party- I bet you could imagine- or perhaps even read something.

The Republicans in the 1930's were doing nothing for African Americans. They believed FDR was doing something for them- and generally continued in that trend as FDR integrated the war industry, and Truman ordered the integration of the Armed Forces.

Because African Americans could distinguish between the liberal Democrats of the North- and the Conservative Democrats of the South.

Something you refuse to do.

 

[Syriusly]

The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.

Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.

More correctly these are "party shifts", evolving over time. Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one. In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded. It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.

The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.

Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation. By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now. These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.

World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest. This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.

Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.

Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).

The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable. As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did. FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924). The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates. Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.

Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won). Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate. Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.

Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give. Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general. When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended. The divorce was, finally, final. He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.

That's what the "party shifts" were. The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party. Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.

Thank you- very well put.

 

[Syriusly]

Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.

Slavery doesn't have a "party". It's a social construct. It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties. If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).

But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.

By now, everyone knows you to be a liar and an apologist for this:
Democrats ... the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.

And by 'everyone' PC means all of the voices in his head agree with him.....LOL

 

[Syriusly]

The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.

Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.

More correctly these are "party shifts", evolving over time. Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one. In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded. It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.

The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.

Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation. By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now. These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.

World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest. This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.

Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.

Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).

The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable. As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did. FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924). The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates. Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.

Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won). Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate. Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.

Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give. Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general. When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended. The divorce was, finally, final. He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.

That's what the "party shifts" were. The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party. Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.

Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.


The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....

...been a life-long racist.


Fits that party perfectly.

You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?

That's soooo cute. Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.

Lemme give you a hint.

​

From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".

Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat

--- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.

​

--- see how that works?

Nah, you probably don't.

You are currently a lying low-life, and, no need to re-monogram those towels...you'll always be a lying low-life.a

I love watching PC just melt down like this on USMB