Excerpt from ANN COULTER’s brand-new book, DEMONIC: THE LIBERAL MOB ENDANGERING AMERICA

Human Events ^ | 06/07/2011 | ANN COULTER

[Yosemitest]

DEMONIC: THE LIBERAL MOB ENDANGERING AMERICA CHAPTER 10 (excerpt)
CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE MOB: GEORGE WALLACE, BULL CONNOR, ORVAL FAUBUS AND OTHER DEMOCRATS
By Ann Coulter


It was the Democratic Party that ginned up the racist mob against blacks
and it is the Democratic Party ginning every new mob today—
ironically, all portraying themselves as the equivalent of the Freedom Riders.
With real civil rights secure—
try to find a restaurant that won’t serve a black person
—modern civil rights laws benefit only the mob,
not the victims of the mob, as American blacks had been.
Just as fire seeks oxygen, Democrats seek power,
which is why they will always be found championing the mob
whether the mob consists of Democrats lynching blacks
or Democrats slandering the critics of ObamaCare as racists.

Democrats have gone from demagoguing white (trash) voters
with claims that Republicans are the party of blacks,
to demagoguing black voters telling them Republicans are the party of racists.
Any mob in a storm.

The liberal fairy tale that Southern bigots simply switched parties, from Democrat to Republican, is exactly wrong.
What happened is:
The Democrats switched mobs.
Democrats will champion any group of hooligans in order to attain power.
As Michael Barone said of the vicious segregationist (and Democrat) George Wallace,
he was “a man who really didn’t believe in anything—
a political opportunist who used opposition to integration
to try and get himself ahead.”

This is why the Democrats are able to transition so seamlessly
from defending Bull Connor racists
to defending Black Panthers, hippies, yippies,
Weathermen, feminists, Bush derangement syndrome liberals,
Moveon.org, and every other indignant, angry mob.

Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat
and remained a Democrat except one.
Even Strom Thurmond—
the only one who later became a Republican
—remained a Democrat for eighteen years after running for president as a Dixiecrat.
There’s a reason they were not called the “Dixiecans.”

A curious sleight of hand is required to hide from the children the fact
that all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats.
In history books, such as Robert A. Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson, the seg- regationists are not called “Democrats.”
They’re called “Southerners.”3

Except it wasn’t just “Southerners” voting against civil rights.
Not every senator who opposed black civil rights was a Southerner,
but every one was a Democrat.
In addition to the Southern Democrats who voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the Senate calendar, for example,
there were five Democrats from nowhere near the South:
Democratic senator Wayne Morse of Oregon—a favorite target of Senator Joe McCarthy
—Democratic senator Warren Magnuson of Washington,
Democratic senator James Murray of Montana,
Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana,
and Democratic senator Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming.4

According to Caro, the Western Democrats traded their votes on civil rights
for a dam authorization on the Idaho-Oregon border.
That’s how dear black civil rights were to liberals—
they traded them away for a dam.

While Democrats are the party of the mob,
Republicans are the party of calm order,
willing to breach the peace only when it comes to great transgressions against humanity—
slavery, abortion, and terrorism.

After the Civil War, it was Republicans
who passed the Thirteenth Amendment, granting slaves their freedom;
the Fourteenth Amendment, granting them citizenship;
and Fifteenth Amendment, giving them the right to vote.
It was Republicans who sent federal troops to the Democratic South
to enforce the hard-won rights of the freed slaves.

Then, as now, the Democrats favored the hooligans.
The Ku Klux Klan was originally formed as a terrorist group to attack Republicans
who had come to the Democratic South after the Civil War
to help en- force legal equality for freed slaves.

It was—again—Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866
and the Reconstruction Act of 1867, both signed into law by Republican president Ulysses S. Grant.
Under the “living Constitution,” the Supreme Court upheld fraudulent “separate but equal” accommodations
for blacks in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson.

Republicans kept introducing federal civil rights bills
and Democrats kept blocking them—
a bill to protect black voters in the South in 1890;
antilynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938;
and anti–poll tax bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946.

With a lock on the racist mob vote, Democratic politicians won elections
and promptly resegregated the entire South with Jim Crow laws.
In 1913, Progressive Democrat president Woodrow Wilson even instituted segregation in Washington, D.C.,
bringing Jim Crow to the federal workforce.
Wilson summarily dismissed black officials from their federal jobs in the South and in D.C.

A friend of Wilson said that with him running the country,
“Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race.”7
There’s your post-racial Democratic Party.

A crucial part of the Democrats’ victim folklore is that
they have been losing the South to Republicans over the past half century
because the Democrats stood on principle to oppose race discrimination,
while the Republican Party pandered to racists in the South
—a region of the country liberals believe is composed primarily of Klan members.
(That might be your first clue as to why Southerners don’t like liberals.)
The Republican Party’s allegedly racist appeal to Southerners
is darkly referred to seventeen times a day in the mainstream media as the “Southern Strategy.”

In fact, it was Eisenhower who broke the Democrats’ hold on the South in 1952,
and if anyone was appealing to bigots that year, it wasn’t Eisenhower.
Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience “personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes,”12
chose as his running mate John Sparkman of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist.

And yet the Old South—
which according to mainstream media accounts
voted Republican solely out of racial resentment
—suddenly started voting Republican in 1952.
Ike carried Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida outright,
and nearly stole Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia from Stevenson.
(Eisenhower lost Kentucky by a microscopic .07 percent
and lost West Virginia and South Carolina by fewer than 4 percentage points.)

This was just four years after Democrat-turned-Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond won four Southern states.
But running with a segregationist didn’t help Stevenson in the South a few years later.

Then, in 1956, the Republican Party platform endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools;
the Democratic platform did not, and would not,
as long as Democrats were winning elections by appealing to the racist mob.
This led the black congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. to break with his party
and endorse Eisenhower for president.

Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School
with the state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend.
In response, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to take it out of Faubus’s hands.
Then he sent the 101st Airborne Division to walk the black children to school
and stay with them throughout the day.

Eisenhower implemented the 1948 executive order President Truman had issued—but then ignored—desegregating the military.
Also unlike Truman, Eisenhower hired blacks for prominent positions in his administration.

It was Republicans who overwhelmingly introduced, promoted, and passed every civil rights act
from the end of the Civil War right up to and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights,
to be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

During the endless deliberation on Eisenhower’s civil rights bill, Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats,
“Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.”
Senator Sam Ervin, another liberal luminary—
instrumental in the destruction of anti-communist Republicans Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon
—told his fellow segregationists,
“I’m on your side, not theirs,”
and advised them to face up to the fact that
“we’ve got to give the goddamned niggers something.”14

Until 1964, every civil rights act had presented no possible constitutional problems—
those federal laws were fully within Congress’s enumerated powers to enact
because they were directed at government officials (Democrats)
who were violating the Constitution by denying black citizens the right to vote.

Federal laws aimed at discrimination by government actors are expressly within Congress’s authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Democrats opposed these civil rights laws
not because of any questions about Congress’s authority to enact them—
they couldn’t care less about the Constitution
—but because they wanted to keep discriminating.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was again supported overwhelmingly by Republicans and less so by Democrats.
As with the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, it was Republicans who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act by huge majorities,
with a distinctly smaller majority of Democrats supporting it.
In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
compared with only 66 percent of Democrats.
In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the ’64 bill,
compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.

The only reason Democratic majorities were beginning to support civil rights for blacks was
that by 1964—thanks to Republican voting rights acts—more blacks were voting.
Democrats couldn’t keep winning elections in some parts of the country by appealing to the racist mob.

As Democratic senator Carter Glass of Virginia had explained years earlier,
“Discrimination!
Why that is exactly what we propose,”
saying the Democrats sought to
“remove every negro voter who can be gotten rid of,
legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.”
The Democrats’ position on civil rights depended on where the votes were.

Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob.
Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors,
raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee.
Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act.
But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like many other conservatives opposed to a living, growing, breathing Constitution,
Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions of the bill—
those regulating privately owned housing and public accommodations.
But there were other provisions he would have made tougher.
For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory
that federal funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination,
rather than discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.

Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation.
He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona,
donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars
to the organization’s efforts to integrate the public schools.
When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard
before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military.
As the Washington Post said, Goldwater
“ended racial segregation in his family department stores,
and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants
and in the Arizona National Guard.”

But he was also a believer in limited government.
It was, after all, racist Democratic politicians in the South
using the force of the government to violate private property rights
by enforcing the Jim Crow laws in the first place.
As Sowell points out, it wasn’t the private bus companies
demanding that blacks sit in the back of the bus,
it was the government.

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he belonged to a party
that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism.
Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate.
But by the time he became president, he had flipped 180 degrees.
Appealing to regional mobs wouldn’t work with a national electorate.

Unlike mob-appeasing Democrats, Goldwater based his objections to certain parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on purely constitutional principles.
Along with other constitutional purists in the Republican Party,
Goldwater opposed federal initiatives in a lot of areas, not just those involving race.
By contrast, segregationist Democrats routinely criticized the exercise of federal power and expenditure of federal funds
when it involved ending discrimination against blacks—
but gladly accepted federal pork projects for their states.

It would be as if,
after fighting the Democrats for a hundred years over the issue of abortion,
Republicans finally got Roe v. Wade overturned,
and then, out of pure political calculation, Democrats jumped on the bandwagon
and demanded a federal law outlawing abortion.
Some pro-life Republicans would probably object
that federal law outlawing abortion
is not one of Congress’s enumerated powers.

On the basis of Republicans’ constitutional objections,
Democrats would then reverse the entire history of the pro-life movement
and start claiming the Democratic Party alone
fought to end abortion in America.
That is exactly what they have done with the history of civil rights.

[Scotswife]

on a side note - I just finished reading a book about the Secret Service - their history - how they got along with all the different presidents.

According to the book - Johnson was a vile creature - psychotically so. There were mixed feelings about the other guys, but when it comes down to naming the numero uno villain? That would be Lyndon Johnson.
Vile, vulgar,disgusting, rude, belligerent. He comes off as belonging in a mental institution rather than the Oval Office.

[Clintonfatigued]

What, no pictures?

[Yosemitest]

If you're insulted by Ann, then you're the one with the problem.

Ann's always defended the Constitution.

[RonDog]

From Ann's "affiliate link" to barnesandnoble.com:

Demonic:
How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America

Publication Date: TODAY!
June 7, 2011

[RonDog]

ping

[DJ MacWoW]

I understand that she has fans but you have to understand that she also has detractors that dislike some of her stands on homosexuality and Constitutional eligibility. Keep in mind that no one is perfect.

You have a wonderful day.

[RonDog]

See also, from the Daily Caller:

Matt Drudge responsible for Ann Coulter’s ‘Demonic’ book cover

11:11 PM 06/06/2011

‘All he wanted to tell me was ‘No! You need an all black cover. No picture of you on the cover. Your name and the name of the book”

Top 15 jokes in Ann Coulter’s ‘Demonic’

9:59 PM 06/06/2011

‘Of course, as the leader of twelve apostles, even Jesus had more executive experience than Obama’

Top 10 shocking things in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Demonic’ that will drive liberals crazy

9:56 PM 06/06/2011

Its very title is par for the course for the author of such liberal-bashing classics as ‘Godless’ and ‘Treason’

Exclusive Chapter 1 excerpt from Ann Coulter’s new book ‘Demonic’

9:51 PM 06/06/2011

‘The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic’

TheDC’s Jamie Weinstein talks with Ann Coulter on her new book ‘Demonic’

9:51 PM 06/06/2011

‘Page after page, this is liberals, this is not conservatives. We do not turn our political leaders into messiahs’

[RonDog]

Missing from the cover of her new book, however, is a PHOTO OF ANN, like this one:

Missing from the cover of her new book, however, is a PHOTO OF ANN, like this one:

[Yosemitest]

"Vile, vulgar,disgusting, rude, belligerent"

That reminds me ....

... the eyes of them that see
shall not be dim,
and the ears of them that hear
shall hearken.
The heart also of the rash
shall understand knowledge,
and the tongue of the stammerers
shall be ready to speak plainly.
The vile person shall be no more called liberal,
nor the churl said to be bountiful.
For the vile person will speak villany,
and his heart will work iniquity,
to practise hypocrisy,
and to utter error against the LORD,
to make empty the soul of the hungry,
and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
The instruments also of the churl are evil:
he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words,
even when the needy speaketh right.
But the liberal deviseth liberal things;
and by liberal things shall he stand.
Rise up, ye women that are at ease;
hear my voice, ye careless daughters;
give ear unto my speech.
Many days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women:
for the vintage shall fail, the gathering shall not come.
Tremble, ye women that are at ease;
be troubled, ye careless ones:
strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.
They shall lament for the teats, for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine.
Upon the land of my people
shall come up thorns and briers;
yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city:
Because the palaces shall be forsaken;
the multitude of the city shall be left;
the forts and towers shall be for dens for ever,
a joy of wild asses,
a pasture of flocks;
Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high,
and the wilderness be a fruitful field,
and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.
Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness,
and righteousness remain in the fruitful field.
And the work of righteousness shall be peace;
and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.
And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation,
and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places;
When it shall hail, coming down on the forest;
and the city shall be low in a low place.

[Blind Eye Jones]

I like parts of Anne but I don’t like her getting freaked out because the liberal media don’t like her and don’t want to interview her — what does she expect? Yes, she has to sell a book, and will go onto the View but again, Joy on the View, repeats that her conservatism is an act, just business... so why does Anne bother? Anne is witty, bright and does great research but she caves to the MSM (and almost reinforces what Joy says). That and her phony laugh prep school bugs me... but she does have a lot of good points too.

[Yosemitest]

The View?

Does anyone take the View seriously?
What a joke!

[Syncro]

Hay little guy, you have been exposed many times here at Free Republic for not doing a good job on the birther issue.

You spend more time finding people to insult for not doing it your (wrong) way then you do to expose Obama.

Coulter has done so much more to defend the Constitution and bring Obama down than you could if you had a thousand lifetimes.

Time to get a clue and stop posting your snarky cranky comments that only go to prove Coulter’s point.

[Syncro]

she also has detractors that dislike some of her stands on homosexuality and Constitutional eligibility.

Those types don't have a clue what her stands on those issues are, that's the problem.

[Syncro]

Here is a link to her talking about the book on the Hannity show last nite

http://www.popmodal.com/video/7817

She will be on the show tonite also.

[DJ MacWoW]

Those types don't have a clue what her stands on those issues are, that's the problem.

I'm afraid that they do. As I said, no one is perfect and that includes Ms Coulter.

I hope that your day is Blessed.

[RonDog]

Linking RELATED threads posted here on FR -- now tagged with the keyword "demonic":

Exclusive Chapter 1 excerpt from Ann Coulter’s new book ‘Demonic’
06/07/2011 5:48:32 AM PDT · by Meet the New Boss · 7 replies
The Daily Caller ^ | 6 June 2011 | Ann Coulter

Top 10 shocking things in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Demonic’ that will drive liberals crazy
06/07/2011 5:10:50 AM PDT · by radioone · 18 replies
Daily Beast ^ | 6-6-11 | Jamie Weinstein

Excerpt from ANN COULTER’s brand-new book, DEMONIC: THE LIBERAL MOB ENDANGERING AMERICA
06/07/2011 3:53:29 AM PDT · by Yosemitest · 28 replies
Human Events ^ | 06/07/2011 | ANN COULTER

Demonic: Broadwater Attacks Unread Ann Coulter Book
04/27/2011 3:29:43 PM PDT · by AustralianConservative · 6 replies
Weekend Libertarian ^ | April 27, 2011 | B.P. Terpstra

A new Ann Coulter book: 'Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America'
04/24/2011 10:15:26 AM PDT · by EveningStar · 47 replies
Los Angeles Times ^ | April 19, 2011 | Carolyn Kellogg

COMING THIS SUMMER: THE DEVIL AND MS. COULTER! (Ann Coulter's new book, "Demonic" - via Drudge)
04/19/2011 5:35:48 PM PDT · by RonDog · 76 replies
www.drudgereportarchives.com ^ | April 19, 2011 | Matt Drudge (links to amazon.com)

[Syncro]

No they don’t.

No one is pushing that Coulter is perfect, but some people are sadly misinformed and wish to marginalize her with falsehoods.

Thanks you for the blessing!

[DJ MacWoW]

You are most welcome! :-)

[jellybean]

Ann's new book, Demonic: The Liberal Mob Endangering America is out!

The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. The Democratic Party activates mobs, depends on mobs, coddles mobs, publicizes and celebrate mobs – it is the mob. Sweeping in its scope and relentless in its argument, Demonic explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard groupthink behavior. To understand mobs is to understand liberals.

---

Let me know if you'd like to be added to the Ann Coulter ping list.

[Yosemitest]

Thanks for the links.