Posted on 03/24/2008 2:38:16 PM PDT by zimfam007
The National Black Republican Association is promoting its nationwide educational campaign by erecting a billboard announcing “Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.” ........The billboard is located at a busy intersection … and it is attracting a lot of attention,” said NBRA Chairman Frances Rice in a statement. “We welcome the opportunity to explain why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican....Of interest is the fact that Orangeburg is the hometown of black Democrat Jim Clyburn who is the majority whip for the U.S. House of Representatives. We hope he appreciates our informing his black constituents about their civil rights history.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Slow down a second. I did quote your post #33 in my reply. I put no credence in MLK's Dream speech, because he himself did not believe it. He himself was for treating people differently based upon race.
There is a reason why most blacks are Democrats and not Republicans - and it’s not because blacks are stupid.
When was the last time Republicans openly courted the black vote?
I am all for conservative principles, but if we think we can win over the black community without doing any serious work, we are deluding ourselves.
Blacks were nearly all Republicans from 1854 until the New Deal in 1932 and 1936 where the percentages flipped and they became one of the Democrats immovable blocks since.
And yes it was Republicans who have supported Black rights from day one including the LBJ years when civil rights was only passed because of Republican votes.
Not necessarily, but he was and continues to be accused of that.
Here is the lowdown:
"King was under surveillance because of his ties to communist organizations- Truth! David Garrow, the author of "Bearing the Cross," a book about Martin Luther King, says that King's criticism of the Kennedy administration drew administration scrutiny. There was suspicion that two of his associates, including Stanley Levinson, had disassociated from the Communist party as a cover to work with and influence King. Despite extensive surveillance, the FBI was never able to find any direct funding or other links between King and the Communist party."
So who tried to set him up the bomb? - Democrats! read more here:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/mlk.htm
RFK wasn’t Attorney-General, yet. This stemmed from the incident when MLK was incarcerated in Atlanta (in 1960) and then-Senator JFK phoned the Kings. MLK, Sr. then switched his support to JFK. That incident played a part in moving even larger numbers of voting Blacks into the Democrat party. By the time Southern Blacks were winning legislative office within a few cycles, NONE were Republicans.
Should be noted that it was Northern Blacks (mostly having to contend with Urban Democrat machines) that switched to the Dems in the mid ‘30s. Southern Blacks remained majority GOP (albeit holding zero offices federally and mostly only at the lowest levels of city offices, such as council) until about 1960/64.
Nobody can argue with the historical problems regarding the Democrat party and its anti-Civil Rights record, but the problem here is spreading falsehoods such as the title of this thread. Civil Rights was a lot bigger than just one man, and a very flawed one at that.
You are bearing false witness.
That is the clumsiest attempt,ever to court the black vote. Many blacks were Republicans before the sixties but changed to the Democrat party - for a reason.
Let’s stop pretending that Blacks had no good reasons for switching over to the Democratic party.
Black conservatives (I am one of them) have always had problems communicating the conservative message to the black community. Most in the Black community agree with social conservatism.
There are problems however, with the ‘Government is always the problem attitude’ of the modern conservative movement. You cannot tell Blacks that the same government that fought a Civil War to free them from slavery, instituted Reconstruction, sent in the National Guard to Little Rock and forced through Civil Rights legislation over the objections of several State governments is always a problem.
They have a slightly different experience of America than other communities, and we need to acknowledge that. Liberals keep eating our lunch in this community because they can make that connection and we can’t.
The deeper problem is that most major Republican politicians are not serious about courting the Black vote. I can tell of scores of Black pastors who have practically begged Republican politicians to make appearances. Has John McCain addressed the black community yet? Will he do so before November? I doubt it.
I agree you ONLY to the point that your "good reason" has recent roots. That and the "purists" turn me all the way off too.
NOW
In defense of millions of REAL conservatives, those whom America has freed and who have in return fought, bled and died for this country - but are Semitic or or Anglo like the Irish - I HAVE to say for MOST of us that we're NOT ALL THAT WAY.
DAMMIT, if Rev. Wright's mindless, bug-eyed, drooling, screeching, lunatic rants (so similar to those fire and brimstone things and accusations that I'm a freaking filthy, stupid SHEEP that turned me completely off to organized religion and made me believe that the WCC is the Whore of Babylon) and still be able to walk out with a couple of functional brain cells to rub together, they SHOULD be able to come here, read the flame wars, and know that with conservatives, the "purists" are NOT the mainstream.
By contrast, if what we're hearing is true, then the right Rev. Wright's ideas have been "mainstream" since Cone wrote his first book...which is decades. Are you blaming ALL us because decades ago this abomination was cloaked in religious garb and foisted on a "progressive" group of sheep? "Social conservatism" didn't free the slaves. It didn't free ANYONE. Social conservatism is what HITLER preached. It works, right? Your preacher told you so and millions of dead people can't be wrong, right?
That's an excuse, not a good reason, sorry.
Troll.
If your point is that the black community has, historically, found that the federal gov’t has been a greater ally than the state gov’t and that democrats tend to be for a ‘centralized’ govt and republicans tend to be for state rights....well then I can see your point why the black community might lean toward the democratic party. However, sending McCain into black communities to speak about the upcoming election is not going to change perceptions right away, yes it would be a start....and so is it a start with Ms. Rice’s campaign in SC..... We just need to continue to try and define the terms of the argument in this period of time that a government that has less regulation and power will enable all people to be successful vs. a strong central government which keeps people enslaved in a victim mentality.......keep up the good fight...sooner or later someone in the Republican party will listen and we can reach out to people of all communities. Conservatism at its base is color blind......
I think that even MLK would have problems with some of the current polices of the republican party.
You are in denial of reality. Face the fact that MLK was in favor of Affirmative Action as it was called. Affirmative Action supporters by definition do not believe people should be judged by the character, but by their race, just the opposite of the "Dream".
You have not stated reality.
You are wrong, MLK was supportive of race based solutions.
You said he himself did not believe his dream speech.
That’s bullshit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.