Candace Owens Congressional Testimony (New PragerU video)

[_SPG]

Again, I linked multiple examples demonstrating Candace lying about verifiable historical facts as demonstrated with primary sources. I also linked extremely detailed rebuttals of the kind of revisionist and fabricated history she is attempting to promote with ample references to the underlying primary sources.

The notion that Planned Parenthood was motivated by a desire to prevent black people from reproducing is false and is generally supported with misrepresented and fabricated quotes from Margaret Sanger, which Candace Owens has personally attempted to spread.

Regarding the "Democratic plantation" argument that's been floating in conservative circles for years, with Bill O'Reiley being a popular driver of it, canpakes's point is that everyone has access to social benefits based on need. If the existence of such benefits is enough to keep African-Americans slavishly devoted to the Democratic party, then why isn't that true of other racial groups? White people can qualify and do qualify for Quest benefits too, right? So, why hasn't the Democratic party captured them if it is as simple as available government benefits = political devotion? Looks like a little more is needed to make this thesis work.

I appreciate your effort to "educate me" but this is just spin. I don't pretend I know "exactly" what was said one hundred years ago. What I see is "like now" stuff. I see spirit, attitude, ambitions, and stuff. And then, sure, there is some evidence about why that stuff exists. It is pure? No? On another section of this site, in the Mormonism area, its the same. I see stuff like "right now" and wonder how it got there. Do I believe that Joseph Smith had actual gold plate? No, not really. But I do support Mormonism for the goodness I see in it.

I'll will continue to support Candace because I see goodness in her, not because there was a promotional video of her that looked good. I see black people struggling over things that seem VERY related to what she is talking about. You can decide it's because they are poorly treated, or because they were tricked into giving up their power. Is the result basically that same thing? Or the solution to continue to blame white people, or empower them to take control of their lives?

[_EAllusion]

Sure, let's try one of these.

SPG asserts:

But the Democrats never moved. With the exception of one Dixiecrat, Sturm Thurman, they never switched.

Professor Kruse:

https://Twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/ ... 6615322624

As I've noted before, focusing solely on Southern Democratic politicians who officially switched parties -- instead of ordinary voters, as scholars emphasize -- intentionally misses the thrust of the party realignment on matters of race and civil rights:

[Link to extensive detailing of realignment of ordinary voter attitudes on race and civil rights in the Democratic and Republican parties]

But, sure, let's ignore what scholars have written on this and meet this question on D'Souza's own chosen ground -- racist Southern Democratic politicians who switched to the GOP.

No, 200 politicians didn't switch -- that's a laughably high bar -- but there were plenty.

1. First and foremost, of course, there's Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat presidential candidate, who was welcomed into the GOP in 1964 -- and, importantly, allowed to keep his seniority and thus all the power that came with it in Congress. (No other Southern Democrats were.)

[See Link for reference to multiple contemporary newspaper articles establishing claim]

2. But before Thurmond, John Tower left the Democrats in the early 1950s and won election as the first GOP senator in the modern South.

Tower spoke out against civil rights, joined with S. Democrats to plot filibusters, and voted against the Civil Rights Act & Voting Rights Act.

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim]

The House was quicker to see changes.

3. Rep. William C. Cramer, the first GOP rep in Florida, for instance, switched from the Democrats in 1949, won election in 1954, urged Ike to withdraw troops from Little Rock in 1957 and voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

4. Likewise, Rep. Edward Gurney, the second GOP representative in Florida, also abandoned the Democratic Party in the early 1960s, ran for Congress as a Republican in 1962 and won, and then voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

5. Rep. Dave Treen (R-LA) -- protege of legendary segregationist Leander Perez and a 1960 elector for the States Rights Party (a.k.a. "the Dixiecrats") -- switched to the GOP in 1962.

He lost a few early races, but then won his seat in 1973 and later became governor in 1980.

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim]

6. Rep. Iris Faircloth Blitch, a segregationist who represented Georgia in Congress as a Democrat from 1955-1962, left the party over civil rights in 1964 and campaigned for Barry Goldwater.

7. Rep. James D. Martin (R-AL), originally a Democrat, joined the GOP in 1962 & won a House race in 1964.

During the Selma protests, he denounced MLK Jr. as a "rabble-rouser who has put on the sheep's clothing of non-violence while he pits race against race, man against law."

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim]

8. Rep. Bill Dickinson (R-AL), originally elected as a Democratic judge, likewise switched to the GOP and made headlines during the Selma-to-Montgomery march.

He insisted, from the House floor, that the civil rights marchers were actually a radical group engaged in wild orgies.

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim. This one is a particularly fun read if you have time.]

9. Rep. Bo Callaway (R-GA) likewise abandoned the Democrats over civil rights and won a spot as the first Republican congressman from Georgia since Reconstruction.

A staunch segregationist, he promised to repeal the Civil Rights Act & then voted against the Voting Rights Act.

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim]

10. Meanwhile, in South Carolina -- where Sen. Strom Thurmond, the original Dixiecrat, had just bolted to the GOP -- a congressman did the same.

Segregationist Rep. Albert Watson publicly backed Goldwater in 1964. In retaliation, House Democrats stripped him of his seniority.

So Rep. Watson resigned from Congress in 1965 (after voting against the VRA), became a Republican, and retook his old seat in a special election.

After he won, he called for investigations into "subversive" civil rights groups.

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim]

11. In Mississippi, Thad Cochran -- a lifelong Democrat -- switched to the GOP in 1964 in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

He then went on to head Nixon's Mississippi campaign and then win elections as a congressman and then senator.

12. Meanwhile, Rep. Trent Lott had been an aide to Dixiecrat William Colmer, who stayed a Democrat because seniority made him the head of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

Colmer chose Lott to succeed him in 1972, but had him run as a Republican.

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim]

13. Jesse Helms made the same transition.

He'd grown up a Democrat, helping Democrat Willis Smith run a race-baiting campaign for a senate seat in 1950 (see the ad below).

When Helms ran for the Senate on his own in 1972, however, just like Lott, the former Democrat ran as a Republican.

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim]

These are just examples of party switchers who *won*.

Several Democrats switched to the GOP for Senate runs and didn't make it.

See:

15. Taylor O'Hearn in Louisiana
16. W.D. Workman in South Carolina
17. Marshall Parker in South Carolina

[See Link for reference to multiple contemporary newspaper articles establishing claim]

If you look beyond Congress -- again, the place where party switches were *least* likely to happen for institutional reasons -- you can see several more examples.

Governors, for instance, could switch more easily.

18. In Virginia, Democratic Gov. Mills Godwin, an outspoken leader of the state's Democratic segregationist resistance, switched parties and won re-election as a Republican in 1973.

[See Link for reference to multiple contemporary newspaper articles establishing claim]

State legislatures had more switches.

Again, this isn't what historians stress in party realignment, but yes, it happened.

Here's a terrific new book on it, by the way:

[Link to academic book detailing party realignment at this level]

For some examples in state legs:

19. SC Rep. Arthur Ravenel Jr.
20. SC Rep. Floyd Spence
21. Texas Rep. Jack Cox
22. Mississippi Sen. Stanford Morse
23. Alabama Rep. Albert Goldthwaite
24. Louisiana Rep. Roderick Miller
25. South Carolina Sen. Marshall Parker

Etc etc.

Or you can consider the switches made by state-level elected officials.

26-30. For instance, in 1968, five of the top officeholders in Georgia switched from the Democrats to the Republicans:

[See Link for reference to a contemporary newspaper article establishing claim]

All right, that's probably more than enough to make the point.

Again, looking at elected officials is the worst way to measure these changes. (And, of course, that's why D'Souza insists on doing it that way.)

Professional politicians -- even more so then than now -- rarely switched tracks, because it usually meant starting over from scratch.

There were efforts to get more S. Democrats to switch (see below), but without the Thurmond Deal, few wanted to switch.

[Link involving discussion of evidence demonstrating that other Democrats could only be persuaded to switch if they were given Thurmond's deal]

Individual careers changed course slowly, though, and in piecemeal fashion. The idea that the region's representatives switched parties at the same time is a straw man.

What did change were public perceptions of the parties on matters of civil rights, as @edsall noted here.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhJi8ILX0AEU8M3.jpg

Hmm, I seem to have broken Twitter again, as several tweets are failing now. I'll take that as a sign to wrap it up.

Well, if you want more on this, check out Merle Black and Earl Black's classic:

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Southern-Re ... 0674012488

[_EAllusion]

So, in response to, "just Strom Thurmond" there is a partial list of a whole hell of a lot more politicians than Strom Thurmond while also putting the errors of using that as your sole measure of party realignment in context.

You're welcome, SPG.

[_EAllusion]

Again, I linked multiple examples demonstrating Candace lying about verifiable historical facts as demonstrated with primary sources. I also linked extremely detailed rebuttals of the kind of revisionist and fabricated history she is attempting to promote with ample references to the underlying primary sources.

The notion that Planned Parenthood was motivated by a desire to prevent black people from reproducing is false and is generally supported with misrepresented and fabricated quotes from Margaret Sanger, which Candace Owens has personally attempted to spread.

Regarding the "Democratic plantation" argument that's been floating in conservative circles for years, with Bill O'Reiley being a popular driver of it, canpakes's point is that everyone has access to social benefits based on need. If the existence of such benefits is enough to keep African-Americans slavishly devoted to the Democratic party, then why isn't that true of other racial groups? White people can qualify and do qualify for Quest benefits too, right? So, why hasn't the Democratic party captured them if it is as simple as available government benefits = political devotion? Looks like a little more is needed to make this thesis work.

I appreciate your effort to "educate me" but this is just spin. I don't pretend I know "exactly" what was said one hundred years ago. What I see is "like now" stuff. I see spirit, attitude, ambitions, and stuff. And then, sure, there is some evidence about why that stuff exists. It is pure? No? On another section of this site, in the Mormonism area, its the same. I see stuff like "right now" and wonder how it got there. Do I believe that Joseph Smith had actual gold plate? No, not really. But I do support Mormonism for the goodness I see in it.

I'll will continue to support Candace because I see goodness in her, not because there was a promotional video of her that looked good. I see black people struggling over things that seem VERY related to what she is talking about. You can decide it's because they are poorly treated, or because they were tricked into giving up their power. Is the result basically that same thing? Or the solution to continue to blame white people, or empower them to take control of their lives?

I'll answer canpake's rhetorical question. The answer is that the argument is false and relies on people's implicit stereotyping of blacks as lazy and welfare dependent. That's the hidden distinction that explains why a person can believe that black people are kept in the thrall of the Democratic party against their own interest because of attraction to and reliance on government benefits while this isn't hypothesized to have the same effect on other racial groups not traditionally stereotyped in this manner. One clue for you should've been that partisan splits among American American voters are much, much higher than utilization of benefits.

[_SPG]

So, in response to, "just Strom Thurmond" there is a partial list of a whole hell of a lot more politicians than Strom Thurmond while also putting the errors of using that as your sole measure of party realignment in context.

You're welcome, SPG.

My claim was that "one" Dixiecrat made the switch.

I looked through your list, very willing to be wrong. And it seems, that according to your list, I was wrong.

According your list, there are "two" Dixiecrats that made the switch. I wasn't claiming the democrats didn't switch. But, going from my memory, there were about 700 officials or politicians in the Dixiecrats, (a.k.a. States Rights Democratic Party.)

How someone took that times to research all of that, I'm grateful. But even according to your list, which I'm mildly tempted to trust, I see "two" that were Dixiecrats and switched. I'm sorry, maybe I was wrong.

[_SPG]

I'll answer canpake's rhetorical question. The answer is that the argument is false and relies on people's implicit stereotyping of blacks as lazy and welfare dependent. That's the hidden distinction that explains why a person can believe that black people are kept in the thrall of the Democratic party against their own interest because of attraction to and reliance on government benefits while this isn't hypothesized to have the same effect on other racial groups not traditionally stereotyped in this manner. One clue for you should've been that partisan splits among American American voters are much, much higher than utilization of benefits.

I've seen this is different forms. My own father, a cult leader in Southern Utah, warned against people taking support from the government. But hey, it made things easier. Pretty soon, they were addicted to the support, begin to look for ways to getting more support. Those that took government support became "gullible" for lack of a better word, and eventually became part of the Warren Jeffs cult. Those that decided against government support, which they qualified for, remained independent are now basically doing very well, on their own. Those that got catch up in taking support are now trying to rebuild their lives.

I don't think black people are lazy. I think they want to work, they want to be independent, to walk around with the self-confidence that they are productive and self-sufficient members of our nation. But I've seen real cases where government workers have told mothers that if they want to get support, they have get rid of their man. If they want benefits, they must give the government more control and they cannot earn too much money or they lose benefits. It's an ugly trap. And I don't blame them at all.

[_honorentheos]

SPG -

Did you grow up believing that the LDS church in Salt Lake was wrong to extend the priesthood to all people? Was your dad the leader of one of those groups that split off over that? Or did it go back further to some other issue like one of the statehood/polygamy compromise splinter groups?

[_canpakes]

... I never implied that blacks cannot think for themselves ...

Sure you did. Here you go:

Democrats stole the black vote, in the continued effort to dominate and control them, continued from the slave days. ...

They have used the black vote ever since to enslave them. ...

So they broke their families and gave them benefits to keep them reliant on government.

These are your statements. If you can’t explain the mechanism behind these claims, then you’re merely repeating racist tropes.

Or can you think for yourself past repetition of racist and partisan talking points provided for you by grifters with an agenda?

[_SPG]

It looks like 1 contains a typo, and you meant to say it wasn't enlightenment, which I am assuming you mean to say the form of modern democracy we enjoy in the US wasn't a result of the enlightenment. Well, I don't know if that's what you meant to say but that's what it appears you are saying anyway. Because it's pretty clear your belief is democracy is a form of strong-arming people into following the "strongest" whatever that may mean.

-snip-

You don't get it. It isn't about politics. Small "d" democracy is an ideological view of the world that suggests the best society is one where people are able to realize their potential rather than one built on hierarchies and accidents of birth. It goes hand-in-hand with the idea behind free markets giving rise to innovations if allowed to compete. It's a rejection of the idea that imposed views of superiority or executive control can't be as effective as simply letting the cream rise to the top. So, along those lines one has to realize that race is a construct (yeah, I know your eyes popped out of your head on that one but it's true. Go do some reading) and a version of the accident of birth that has real consequences for people because of how we behave not because of who people innately are. That's what is the real truth that you pretend Candace is saying while using the idea that acknowledging society has work to do to make it an even playing field to try and maintain a status quo that works against people. it also happens to be holding you down, but hey, you're a big boy with big boy thoughts that are all your own so who am I to say otherwise?

I really appreciate that you took the time to reply, but hey, that is just too much for me to make a blow-by-blow come back. First, thanks for catching my typo.

You mentioned democracy with a little (d) but maybe you mean a big (D). Because, democracy as an action like in Iraq, where one group vastly out numbers another, but the smaller group has the most power. If there was a vote, the larger, less powerful group would wipe the others from face of the earth. So, my "might makes right" stands. If America put down its weapons, the rest of the world, (the majority) would wipe us out. They wouldn't lovely treat us with respect. They would eat us for dinner.

When I said Democracy with a big (D) I am referring to the philosophy of Democracy. Yes, America has a system, and some ideals, and rules that make it work. But right now, Democrats are trying to give illegal immigrants the right to vote, while promising them benefits, like free school, free health care, etc. That is still democracy, just not Democracy. Sure, they can get the majority to vote for them because they are promising things that either existing citizens have to pay for, or they will not provide. This goes against the "ideals" of democracy. One person said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

If I were to revise that ideal, maybe two wolves and a 800lbs tiger vote on what to have for dinner. That is sort of what America is. Even if the wolves vote to eat the tiger, the tiger will likely eat them. The conservatives might lose the vote, but they won't anyone eat them if the vote happens to choose them for the supper.

Democracy with the big (D) is sort of what we have right now with the Democracy and Republic. The Republic is supposed to protect us from the whims of the majority. But Democracts are trying to dismantle the Republic part of our country, and make rules that suit them. That is sad.

[_EAllusion]

I'll answer canpake's rhetorical question. The answer is that the argument is false and relies on people's implicit stereotyping of blacks as lazy and welfare dependent. That's the hidden distinction that explains why a person can believe that black people are kept in the thrall of the Democratic party against their own interest because of attraction to and reliance on government benefits while this isn't hypothesized to have the same effect on other racial groups not traditionally stereotyped in this manner. One clue for you should've been that partisan splits among American American voters are much, much higher than utilization of benefits.

I've seen this is different forms. My own father, a cult leader in Southern Utah, warned against people taking support from the government. But hey, it made things easier. Pretty soon, they were addicted to the support, begin to look for ways to getting more support. Those that took government support became "gullible" for lack of a better word, and eventually became part of the Warren Jeffs cult. Those that decided against government support, which they qualified for, remained independent are now basically doing very well, on their own. Those that got catch up in taking support are now trying to rebuild their lives.

I don't think black people are lazy. I think they want to work, they want to be independent, to walk around with the self-confidence that they are productive and self-sufficient members of our nation. But I've seen real cases where government workers have told mothers that if they want to get support, they have get rid of their man. If they want benefits, they must give the government more control and they cannot earn too much money or they lose benefits. It's an ugly trap. And I don't blame them at all.

Why doesn't this "ugly trap" also take over other racial groups? Why doesn't the Democartic vortex of dependency via SNAP benefits consume whites? Why does this thesis explain the 90ish+ percent of African-American voters who vote Democrat when less than half use any welfare benefits and even fewer are substantially reliant on them? Why doesn't this phenomenon apply to other forms of government benefit the Democrats are much more apt to protect and extend, such as Medicare or Social Security, where the majority of beneficiaries are Republican?