Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


The Myth Of The Republican/Democrat “Switch” On Civil Rights

In an attempt to break the Democrats’ near monopoly on the black vote, Donald Trump last week visited a black church in Detroit and held a roundtable meeting with black civic leaders in Philadelphia. But it was his remarks in Everett, Washington that really got Democrats’ knickers in a bunch.



In an attempt to break the Democrats’ near monopoly on the black vote, Donald Trump last week visited a black church in Detroit and held a roundtable meeting with black civic leaders in Philadelphia. But it was his remarks in Everett, Washington that really got Democrats’ knickers in a bunch. “It is the Democratic Party that is the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow and the party of opposition,” said Trump.

Democrats can’t deny these historical truths so they try to render them irrelevant by resorting to the Great Switch hypothesis. Yes, they will admit, the Democrats used to be a bunch of racist dirtbags but the parties have “switched,” so please don’t bring it up.

To be sure, there was a “switch” in American politics but it occurred within the Democratic Party. For the great majority of its history, the Democrats were a white grievance party that discriminated against blacks but from the 1960s onward they despised and scapegoated whites instead. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Today they offer blacks preference—a commodity that Republicans, most of whom still believe that people should be treated without regard to race, can’t compete with. Judging by voting patterns, blacks appear to like preference quite a bit. Whites who don’t like being treated as second class citizens are labeled “racists”and treated as the ideological heirs of Jim Crow.

That’s not of course how Democrats tell the story. According to their childishly simple version, white southerners were, are, and ever shall be racist. If you want to know which party pushes a racist agenda just take note of which party white southerners prefer. The South has traditionally voted as a bloc (the “solid South”) because it has always been animated by racism–or so the legend goes.

The Great Switch supposedly happened sometime in the 1960s when the Democrats repented of their bigoted ways and the Republicans rushed in to woo the racist voters they left behind. The precise moment that the Great Switch took place is hard to pinpoint though 1964 is often cited because it was the year of the Civil Rights Act. Democrats never explain how exactly the Republicans won over the racist South by voting 80% in favor of the Civil Rights Act (a horrible law, by the way), but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it. Another year often cited is 1968 when Richard Nixon employed a so-called “southern strategy”—coded appeals to southerners’ latent racism—to win election.

The South’s messy breakup with the Democratic Party is a lot more complicated than Democrats would have you believe. It involves third parties, double-talking politicians, and divergent party wings. It also involves imprecise definitions of what constitutes the South. For the purposes of this article, I will define the South as the eleven former Confederate States of America: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.

A perspective on the South’s political transformation can be found by examining Electoral College returns. Anyone who examines the evidence, I believe, will find that the Democrats’ tidy “switch” hypothesis disintegrates under examination.

The solid South really was solidly Democratic from the end of Reconstruction through 1924. Democratic unity, however, began to exhibit cracks when the party nominated Al Smith for president in 1928. Smith, a Catholic, lost five out of eleven southern states. While anti-Catholic bigotry may have played a role in his disappointing returns, Smith won only one state outside of the South. Southerners were in fact Smith’s biggest supporters.

Franklin Roosevelt was enormously popular in the South, winning every southern state in four consecutive elections. According to today’s liberal Democrats’ logic, I must conclude that Roosevelt was a racist; and as a matter of fact, he kind of was—at least toward Japanese-Americans. Is that why the solid South supported Roosevelt? Well, no. Race isn’t now and wasn’t then the be-all and end-all of southern politics. The South supported FDR because they were blind supporters of the Democratic Party and because the South benefited from the New Deal’s transfer of wealth from rich states to poor states.

In 1948, the South was again fractured with the Democratic incumbent Harry Truman winning seven southern states and losing four to the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. In late July of that year Truman had issued an executive order desegregating the armed forces and still he managed to win seven states and a supermajority of their electoral votes. Truman was less popular in the South than Roosevelt but he was still popular. I don’t know how this could possibly have happened unless southern politics was not singularly focused on the issue of race as we have been led to believe.

The solid South once again failed to live up to its name in the 1950s. In the first of two matchups between Dwight Eisenhower and the liberal Democrat Adlai Stevenson, the South was divided with Stevenson winning seven states and Eisenhower winning four. Four years later, Eisenhower fared slightly better in the South. In both elections, Stevenson was trounced almost everywhere outside of the South.

The 1960 election is problematic for the proponents of the Great Switch hypothesis because their darling John F. Kennedy was the racist party’s candidate—this being still four or eight years before the supposed switch took place. The electoral map that year was a patchwork—six southern states plus five faithless electors going to Kennedy, three states going to Nixon, and two states—Mississippi and Alabama—going to Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd, who wasn’t actually a declared candidate. Who was the racist candidate in this election? This being pre-switch, I guess it would have to be Kennedy. How else could he have won a majority of southern states and a supermajority of southern electoral votes?

In 1964 the South was again split, with six states going to Johnson (who was pretty racist, by the way) and five going to Barry Goldwater. Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act though his party didn’t. Johnson, on the other hand, had a long history of segregationist sympathies and he belonged to the party that filibustered the bill, though he signed it into law. Who’s the racist here? We can’t tell simply by looking at which candidate southerners preferred because they were divided. Also, was this election pre-switch or post-switch? That depends on whom you ask.

Dixieland was once again divided in 1968 when one state voted for Humphrey, five for Nixon and five for the independent George Wallace, a former Democrat who would later return to his party. Nixon crushed Humphrey across the map.

If Nixon had courted racist southerners in 1968, he burned them by introducing minority hiring quotas in his first term. I don’t mean to imply that Nixon’s support for discriminatory hiring practices (against whites) is in any way laudable but it does seem an odd way to win the redneck vote. And yet the South voted overwhelmingly for Nixon in 1972—just like the rest of America. That’s right, every southern state broke for the guy most responsible for minority hiring quotas. Southerners gave him more support than they had four years earlier. What happened?

Things got really weird in 1976 when the South was once again solid and blue. Four years after all eleven southern states voted for the Republican Nixon, ten switched back and voted for the Democrat Carter. As a southerner himself, Jimmy Carter knew how to talk to southern audiences but he was no conservative and certainly not a a crypto-segregationist. How could this have happened post-switch? Either the Democrats became racist again for one election cycle or the South stopped being racist for one election cycle.

The South turned on Carter in 1980 much like the rest of America though his home state of Georgia stuck by him. Southern support for the Democrats would continue to plummet through the elections of 1984 and 1988 but would resurge again with the candidacy of another liberal southern governor, Bill Clinton.

The theory that the perpetually racist South suddenly changed party allegiance because of “civil rights” reforms is simply not supported by the facts. A more plausible explanation is that racial issues were never the sole driver, or even the primary driver, of southern voting trends. Southerners did begin to leave the party in the 1960s and 1970s, though mostly because the Democrats were well on their way to becoming the anti-Christian party, the job-killing party, and the blame-America-first party. But here’s another idea—is it possible that white southerners began to leave the Democratic Party because they found that the party had already rejected them? It’s a theory worth exploring.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.






Democrats usually want a bigger government and higher taxes. Republicans want smaller government and lower taxes. For the most part, the American worker goes along with whatever their preferred political candidate tells them would be best for them. Businesses are a little different. A lot of big corporations have made political stands over the past few years because they’re ultimately looking out for their bottom line.

You can’t always trust that someone running for office is giving you the straight facts, but you can depend on a business to do what’s best for their financial health. Some of the most liberal companies have fallen into begrudgingly praising the President’s tax cuts. This is because it was structured in such a way that it’s better for them to pass a more substantial portion of earnings to their hard-working employees.

The number of companies that are giving out unexpected bonuses just keeps growing. Home Depot is the most recent corporate giant to produce an unexpected gift for their employees. This is something the workers will appreciate very much, and it’s great to see a corporation treating employees as an investment in their business.

The Gateway Pundit reported:

“Home Depot is the latest US corporation to announce Trump tax cut bonuses to their employees.


Over 2 million US employees will receive bonuses or raises this year thanks to the Trump tax cuts.

Home Depot sent out this announcement on Thursday morning.

‘Today, as a result of the recent tax reform bill and in appreciation for continued excellent customer service, we are pleased to announce that all U.S. hourly associates will receive a one-time bonus of up to $1,000 based on tenure.

This bonus will be paid during the first full week of February and is in addition to the company’s normal Success Sharing bonuses.

Please join me in thanking hourly associates across the company for their hard work and dedication to taking care of our customers and making us the #1 home improvement retailer in the world.’

The Disney Corporation announced Tuesday it is offering $1,000 bonus checks to 125,000 employees and contribute to an education program for employees.”

It’s hard to see significant gains for the middle class working American as anything other than a win for the debated GOP tax plan. Every person having a more profitable year because of the new tax plan will hopefully remember what the left told them. The stark comparison between that and the reality of more money in their pockets will come to fruition.

According to Fox Business, Home Depot is just one of 241 companies who have now announced similar tax cut bonuses to their employees. AT&T even went so far as to give credit to the Trump Administration:

“Starbucks (SBUX) became the latest company to increase wages and enact other perks for more than 150,000 U.S. employees as a direct result of recent tax reform, joining other corporations in rewarding workers.

The Seattle-based coffee chain said on Wednesday it will give all of its U.S.-based hourly and salaried workers an unspecified raise in April, in addition to a wage increase already dispersed earlier in the Starbucks’ fiscal year, which began last October. Starbucks says it is investing roughly $120 million in the wage increases.

Starbucks is also awarding workers stock grants worth a total of more than $100 million to those employed by the chain as of Jan. 1, 2018. Retail employees will receive at least a $500 grant, while store managers will receive grants of $2,000, the chain said.

The $1.5 trillion tax bill reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and changes the way the U.S. government taxes companies that also operate internationally.

The telecom giant said in late December that more than 200,000 of its employees, including union-represented and non-management workers, will be eligible for a $1,000 bonus. The checks will be in the mail in time for the holidays if Trump finalizes the tax bill with his signature before Christmas. AT&T (T) also said it will invest $1 billion more than expected in the U.S. in 2018, once the cuts are final.

‘Congress, working closely with the President, took a monumental step to bring taxes paid by U.S. businesses in line with the rest of the industrialized world,’ AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson said in a statement. ‘This tax reform will drive economic growth and create good-paying jobs.”

Both political sides have an agenda they wish to push. That will dictate how they frame a narrative when they bring it to voters. If the currently affected business owners say that a political tax play is good for the economy, then that’s good enough to take it to the bank. If you work for one of the companies giving out a nice bonus, then you’ll be going to the bank anyway!

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading


BREAKING: They’re Calling It Quits At CNN After 21 Years Because Of Trump!




CNN boss Jeff Zucker is separating from his wife, Caryn, after 21 years of marriage. In a joint statement, the couple who is worth over 50 million dollars, said they realized that their marriage was over and have come to the tough decision together that separating is the only way to go. They went on to state that they would remain friends and that their primary focus is the well being of their four children.

The two lovebirds met at the media network, NBC, when Jeff was an executive producer of the Today show. Caryn was a supervisor for Saturday Night Live. They went on to marry in 1996 in lavish style only royalty and wealthy could afford. They have four children together; three boys and one girl.

Confidentially several friends of the couple have told local news outlets that the couple was growing apart for over a decade now. One friend confirmed that Jeff is a workaholic who is obsessed with news and obsessed with being the best, along with an unhealthy obsession with taking down President Trump. His network promoted during the primaries because they thought he would be the easiest candidate for Hillary Clinton to defeat.  Caryn seems to be much more laid back, mellow, and social. She spends a lot of time with their kids and enjoys being part of the Upper East Side social circuit. Perhaps not far from other elitists who claim to know the plight of America’s working class.

Via Yahoo News:

“Jeff Zucker Seeks To Assure CNN Staff After Death Threats Cite “Fake News”

CNN Worldwide Chief Jeff Zucker has sought to calm Atlanta staffers after a report that a man had phoned multiple threats to the cable news network’s Atlanta operation, saying he was heading there to “gun” them all down because they are “Fake News.”

In a memo to staff Zucker said he would address the threat and increased security, at his regular weekly broadcast company “town hall.”

FBI arrested the man at his home in the Detroit area last week. CNN on Monday issued a statement: statement saying, “We take any threats to CNN employees or workplaces, around the world, extremely seriously” and “have been in touch with local and federal law enforcement throughout, and have taken all necessary measures to ensure the safety of our people.”

On Sunday, April Ryan, told CNN’s media pundit Brian Stelter that, in the President Donald Trump era, news outlets have “the FBI and local police on speed dial” for death threats against reporters, “for asking questions and reporting.” She counted herself among those who have received death threats.

Ryan concurred with Stelter that the Trump’s ongoing “Fake News” attacks on media are “poisonous,” adding, “There’s a war on the press by the White House, led by this president.”

From Zucker’s email about the “significant security threat that was aimed at our employees at the CNN Center in Atlanta earlier this month”:

I want to make sure you all know that we were in close contact with local and federal law enforcement from the moment the threats were made, throughout the entire investigation, and up until the suspect was arrested last week. We continue to remain in contact with them about this matter.

I know the details of this will seem frightening to some of you, and I understand. I can tell you that, at no time, as these phone calls came in did the federal law enforcement officials feel that there was an immediate threat of danger to any of our employees. With that said, we still stepped up our security procedures in Atlanta and elsewhere, as a precautionary measure.

Sadly, this is part of the reality we live in, as members of the media. I want to assure you that at every level of this company, nothing is more important than your safety. While you know we don’t talk publicly about security measures, let me assure you that we have addressed this situation.

I have a regularly scheduled broadcast town hall on Thursday at 1pm ET. I’ve asked Jeff Gilbert, who heads up Turner Security, to join me to update all of us, with as much detail as he reasonably can, on security at CNN. Please join me then, and send me your questions in advance or during the town hall.”

Did Zucker have an obsession with President Trump? Did that potentially contribute to the end of his marriage? How much did the pressure of President Trump contribute to this divorce that leaves three children in the middle of a million dollar problem?

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading


Woman With Damning Pictures Hillary Didn’t Want Out Was Found Dead By Insane Incident




Another day and another dead body with a connection that cannot be ignored as Hillary Clinton’s body count seems to be on the rise once again, after a brief reprieve of no sudden, mysterious casualties. The latest is possibly the most shocking yet in the truly startling trail of dead bodies that keep accumulating around this crooked woman with major secrets she’s desperate to keep hidden no matter who has she has to kill off to ensure it. The latest victim was added to the list of Clinton casualties after it was discovered what photos she had that exposed the scandalous couple but unfortunately for the Clintons, copies of those pictures still exist, even after the victim in them has perished.

In what was originally reported as a freak and unfortunate house fire is far more mysterious than is being said, based on who is now dead in their own home. Before the deceased was a victim of a residential fire, she was allegedly a victim of something else and has photos to prove it, which are now coming back to haunt the  Clintons after another dead body tied to them now has proof of one of Bill’s biggest secrets. This latest alarming incident sure seems like a convenient excuse to cover up a connection to the couple whose names always seems to come up in random tragic events like this.

The Daily Mail reports:

As more and more women line up to tell their stories about sex with Bill Clinton – both consensual and forced – there is one who is unable to relive the details of her alleged affair.

Penthouse Pet Judi Gibbs died in a mysterious house fire in 1986 amid rumors that she had pictures that proved she and the then-Governor of Arkansas had been regular sex partners.

And even now, 30 years after she died alongside her much-older other lover, doubts remain about how and why Gibbs and her long-time beau Bill Puterbaugh met their grizzly deaths.

But now has pieced together the life and death of Judi Gibbs, telling for the first time how the auburn-haired woman from a pin-prick of an Arkansas town managed to bed the man who went on to be one of the most powerful men in the world.

And the question remains unanswered: Was Judi Gibbs killed because Bill Clinton and his advisers feared the affair was about to become public?

“I have always been convinced that Bill Clinton was responsible for the fire, but I have no proof,” Gibbs’ older sister Martha, who still lives in Sims, Arkansas, told “And what would happen if I had proof – you can’t touch those people.”

At the time of her death, Gibbs was 32 and living with 57-year-old developer Puterbaugh in a large isolated home a quarter-mile drive opposite a tiny airport outside Fordyce, Arkansas. 

Their bodies were both found in the huge master bedroom. They died of smoke inhalation.

Puterbaugh’s son, Randy, who followed him into the real estate business, tells a similar story to Martha Gibbs, even though the two have not spoken since the days following the double death.

“There are so many pieces of the puzzle.” Puterbaugh said. “‘I believe it is a possibility that Bill Clinton was involved in their deaths. I know I wish I had hired my own private investigator but I didn’t, so I guess I will never know.”

Judi Gibbs

When so many people around and connected the Clintons in a number of ways that could be bad for them have been found dead, it can’t be coincidental. It’s time to start taking a closer look at all of these cases, both current and digging up those from the past, where there are probably far more mysterious deaths than what’s come up recently. MailOnline pointed this fact out with alarming facts that Democrats insists on ignoring to save the Clintons from indictment they deserve.

Many people around the Clintons have died in unusual circumstances over the years, leading conspiracy theorists to claim they could be connected. 

As reported earlier this year, five deaths in a six-week span between June 22 and August 2 this year had connections to the former first family.

‘I’m not saying the Clintons kill people. I’m saying a lot of people around the Clintons turn up dead,’ Larry Nichols, who worked with the former First Family before turning against them, told

And the names of Judi Gibbs and her lover Bill Puterbaugh could be added to that list.

Of all of the recent allegations of sexual misconduct by politicians and people in Hollywood, the biggest predator Bill Clinton who will never face the consequences of his actions. More importantly, Hillary Clinton never seems to be able to escape scandal and as long as she’s a free woman, rather than being locked up where she belongs, she will be continued to be questioned in everything that she has any kind of connection to.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Subscribe to our newsletter

Become An Insider! Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop on the top breaking news of the day.