« Tancredo condemns continued use of giant crescent in Flight 93 Memorial | Main | Scientific discovery, MIC-1 --the hunger switch »

November 05, 2007



Thank you, Debbie, for posting this article. I so loved it when I first read it, I printed it out to use later. Then I promptly lost it somewhere around here! So, imagine how happy I am to read it here. I loved it. Still do.


Such a lovely article. I'm sure if Dr. King was alive today, he would still be a proud Republican. After all, the Republican party has not changed many of its positions since the 1950s and '60s.


I am not sure how to react to someone bringing Dr. King into the modern political fray. To start with, if one looks at the actual history of American politics, the roles of what we know as the Republican and Democratic parties have reversed over the last 150-160 years. Yes, it is a complicated history that our political landscape has.

Beyond that, considering that Senator Jesse Helms was a Republican I cannot fathom how anyone could believe that Dr. King would be of the same political sway. Frankly, the "Dixiecrats" of old were more like today's Neo-conservative Republican's than they are todays Democrats. Yes, RFK authorized the wiretapping, but it was J. Edgar Hoover's FBI that pursued Dr. King. J. Edgar Hoover became preoccupied with Dr. King's private life very early in the Civil Rights Movement, and this preoccupation was a significant factor in Hoover's pathological hatred of him and the movement.

WAIT! Are you suggesting the King, suspected of being a Communist (read that "Leftist") was actually a Republican? How about the fact that the cliams of Jack and Morris Childs (the sources of the rumors that Dr. King was a Communist), could never be proven. I am SO confused!

Civil Rights was [NOT] the "invention" of the Republican party, despite the fact that the racist Governor George Wallace was a Democrat...or that Robert Byrd is a racist old fool. "Dixiecrats!" Civil rights was the principal source of division between Northern and Southern Democrats. The Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Act was actually a bipartisan act by politicians like Dirksen and Humphrey working together, long before all of this vituperative and polarizing language that is used today.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy, March 12, 1962

"Our Constitution is color blind," wrote Mr. Justice Harlan before the turn of the century, "and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." But the practices of the country do not always conform to the principles of the Constitution. And this Message is intended to examine how far we have come in achieving first-class citizenship for all citizens regardless of color, how far we have yet to go, and what further tasks remain to be carried out -- by the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government, as well as by state and local governments and private citizens and organizations." -- John F. Kennedy, February 28, 1963

According to http://tinyurl.com/yqlgw9 ... "On October 19, 1960, Dr. King was jailed because of a sit-in in an Atlanta department store. On hearing of this J. F. Kennedy called King’s wife, Corretta to reassure her. Later the same day Robert Kennedy called the judge presiding over the case, soon after King was released. As a result, Kennedy won the Negro vote.

After the 1960 election, the Kennedy administration began its attack on discrimination in the U.S. The attack would be directed from the Justice Department by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. He would be ably assisted by Burke Marshall, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division, and John Doar in the field."

Here's an example of how the Civil Rights Movement was alot more bi-partisan than this post would suggest: "Kennedy also ordered his cabinet members and top advisors to avoid segregated facilities, functions and clubs. Kennedy (as Eisenhower) tried to make his administration set an example for the rest of the country to follow."

While admittedly the following is from an "academic" paper and therefore "suspect" from a conservative POV, http://tinyurl.com/2axa8b it should be examined...

Again, one cannot say that because DDE was in favor of civil rights http://tinyurl.com/23xkgx that JFK was not.

Did you know that the KKK started in Kentucky? The KKK was started by angry Southerners...they weren't "R" or "D" they were Southerners angry that the Union had been saved and that slavery had been abolished.

And by the way, the NAACP was started by WEB DuBois in the early 1900's assisted by white liberals and abolitionists. How "%$!*& Batman," look at the picture of that white woman! http://tinyurl.com/ywugdd

Civil Rights is no more the property of the Democratic or Republican Party than Dr. King was a Republican.

A further discussion and analysis of Dr. King was done by a professor at U. Texas in 2001, http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/mlkday.htm is shown here:

"If King were alive today, it is difficult to imagine him participating in the triumphalism and jingoism that is so common, especially around questions of the “victory” of the United States in economic and foreign policy. I suspect King would offer a different analysis. Consider this statement from a 1967 speech:

“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

For the first time, I truly have a problem with a post. To suggest that Dr. King, as this article quotes, http://tinyurl.com/wlfee :

"To suggest that Martin could identify with a party that affirms preemptive, predatory war, and whose religious partners hint that God affirms war and favors the rich at the expense of the poor, is to revile Martin," said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which the slain civil rights leader helped establish.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s, called the ads an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for."

Ms. Rice has an agenda. Her article represents that agenda and does a great disservice to the memory of Dr. King.


Not sure bout this one Deb but thrilled bout Tancredo speaking out!:)

Grouch at Right Truth

"Did you know that the KKK started in Kentucky? The KKK was started by angry Southerners"

Actually the KKK was started in Pulaski, Tennessee by angry Confederate veterans, December 24, 1865.

Grouch at Right Truth

If you will investigate presidential elections before 1964, you will see that the majority of southern states voted for the Democrat (blue states). That all changed in 1964 when most of the south voted for Barry Goldwater. The south has been mostly red ever since with some defections in 1992 and 1996 when Clinton was elected.

I think it's hard to label one party as racist versus pro civil rights. Remember, in the beginning, Lincoln didn't care so much about freeing the slaves but rather keeping the Union together at all costs. Before the civil war there were abolitionists all over the country, north and south.


I didn't know that MLK, Jr. was a Republican. I was 11 when he was assassinated. So I only know what I've read of him since.

Party labels aside, I surmise that MLK, Jr., would strongly disapprove of what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other like-minded characters have to done to his "dream". Of course, I can only surmise that. Only MLK, Jr., could speak for himself as to how he would view things today, were he able to.


Grouch re: Pulaski, of course, you are right. I mistakenly typed Ky. instead of Tn. I am familiar with Pulaski County in Ky. and it sort of slipped out.

However, I stand by the remainder of my comment. That article was pure "agenda" and the entire point is in my opinion, disrespectful to Dr. King.

And you're right as well, Dr. King would have taken Sharpton and Jackson into the woodshed for a thrashing...but then again, it Dr. King had not been assassinated - and if RFK had not been assassinated - the history of American in the 2nd half of the 20th Century would have been quite different.


MLK Jr. a Republican? What a joke. MLK, like Gandhi, transcended politics and even religion. Why don't you take some time to read their biographies instead of taking someone else's word (including mine).


Yes TA, that's true.

Grouch at Right Truth

I been thinking about this post quite a bit. First of all, Francis Rice is a member of the National Black Republican Association, and although she states that MLK was a Republican, I can find no sources or references that support her assertion.

Then I read some stuff about MLK and I could not find anything about him being connected with any political party. Rather it seemed he would approach any politician who would lend an ear to his cause and help him further his goal.

I did collect some statistics about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the number of votes in the House and Senate (got these from Wikipedia). The results are interesting to me:

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yes-No" format:

* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

[edit] By party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[edit] By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)


Looks to me like this divide was more of a north/south issue rather than Democrat/Republican issue. Interesting to note that Grand Wizard Byrd cast a nay vote as well as Senator Goldwater.....wonder if that is what made the south turn red in 1964?

At any rate, if MLK had depended on either southern Democrats or Republicans, I guess he would have been sorely disappointed.

I vaguely remember Jim Crow laws as a child. I remember white and colored water fountains. I also remember the medical clinic where my mother went had a white and colored waiting room, and I remember I would sneak around the corner to peek at the black people. I never thought much about it then, rather, that was just the way it was. In my senior year in high school (1970) our school was finally integrated. I remember that about 6 black kids came to our school that year. As I recall there was not any trouble and the black kids made friends rapidly with the white kids. I remember a couple of the black kids (both girls) were straight A students. The only people upset about the black kids being in the school were some of the adults and some people on TV.

It's hard to believe I graduated from high school a mere 37 years ago. I guess we all have come quite a way since then.

Grouch at Right Truth


Robert Byrd was an exalted cyclops, not a grand wizard.


"Then I read some stuff about MLK and I could not find anything about him being connected with any political party. Rather it seemed he would approach any politician who would lend an ear to his cause and help him further his goal."

Well said Grouch. Interesting stats, too.

Brett Clark

The fact that this post is so riddled with inaccuracies is shamefully deceptive at worst, shoddy research at the least. Even in this fantasy land where MLK was a Republican, such a fact would be irrelevant today given the current state of the Republican party. Remember Katrina under Bush? How about today's party "leaders" such as Limbaugh making racist remarks, or Palin referring to rural white Americans as the "real Americans." Since Michael Steele was elected chairman of the RNC, I am hopeful that this will change - however he has to take a strong stand against the extremists of the far right.

tinker bell

i am surprised that MLKJ was rep. can't believe omg


Wonderful article.
It is comical reading these posts by Democrats to smear the Republican party knowing the facts as they stand.
The Republican party is still the party for the people not the party for the Government.

T. Graham

Hurricane Katrina?....please look at the facts...it was a democratic mayor and a democratic governor that lacked the common sense to ask the federal government for assistance. Now before you gasp, please look this up and you will find out that the federal government cannot go in till the state request help.
My God democrats pull your head out of your ...


people need read this do a little research and find out the whole story .The truth will surpise alot of people if thier on the left.What told on news today is mostly fasle hoods.In fact civil rights bill was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875. It was declared unconstitutional[1] by the US Supreme Court in 1883[2].


Dr. Martin Luther King was not registered with any political party. The shift of focus and issues in both parties has been so dramatic over the years that if alive today, Dr. King wouldn't never support the Republican Party. He was anti-war for starters. He was suspected of being a communist i.e. a socialist, yeah. Dah. Francis Rice's agenda is so obvious it's ridiculous.

Caron Speas

To the guy who said the Republican Party is the party of the people. Are you brain dead? Anyone with a brain knows that the Republican Party is the party of the multi-billion dollar corporations and banks.

The Supreme Being

Regardless of how the Republican party behaved in the past, it is the PRESENT that is so alarming. The Republican party is behaving so badly these days, that what they did in the past is irrelevant. Any party that seeks to obstruct, to the detriment of the nation should be obliterated much like the Nazi party of Germany.


I didn't know that about King. Doesn't surprize me because Republicans WERE the more liberal party. I'm personally a Democrat, but would certainly not have advocated the "4 S's
mentioned. I think the Republican party has changed a great deal since it was formed. Think Abe Lincoln may have been Republican as well. If the Republicans were still the way they were THEN, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with them. As they are now ... no way.


Apparently many Republicans did not learn proper English in school and need grammar lessons. In studying languages there are many parts of speech one must learn, such as adjectives, adverbs, nouns, verbs, etc. I realize that the Republic(an) party only calls the Democratic party the Democrat party to annoy Democrats. However, it only makes Republicans look stupid, as though they don't understand proper English grammar. Perhaps they don't, in which case we should pity them or perhaps try to help them. Therefore. . .
A noun is a person (carpenter, George), place (the White House, a school), or thing (a ball, a saw, a bathroom). An adjective describes the noun (such as a green ball, an excellent carpenter, or the best dog in the world.) When one speaks of a noun (party) one must use an adjective to describe it. Therefore, in this instance, it is only proper English usage to say the word Democratic (see, it has the -ic ending indicating that it's an adjective?) and not the word Democrat, which is clearly another noun.
I hope this has been helpful, Republicans, and I am available for further language lessons should you desire them.


I have observed the politically faithful, when faced with a truth that they cannot spin, will argue by launching a personal attack. Thank you for illustrating this behavior. To stay on topic, the democrat party, back then, were extremely racist. The Blacks back then recognized the Democrats for what they were, simple as that. There will always be racists in both parties, and racists in every race. Personally, I see both parties as the same. So many political rivalries are engineered, by both parties, behind closed doors as a way to encourage side taking. Consequently, their followers will blindly defend the folly of their political party. Genius of them, it works.

Jess Strait

KKK was started in Pulaski, Tn as a social club. Nathan Bedford Forest was the leader. It later turned to the hate group it is now known for.

jess strait

The comments to this entry are closed.



  • Debbie Hamilton

Belize Mission Trip

  • Belize Mission Trip 2014, read, see photos, click on image

Most Influential Blogger Award

2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

2010 Fabulous Blog Award

  • Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Thinking Blogger Award

Support Right Truth


September 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Justified, A Christian Band, click image for FaceBook page

Never Again Is Now

Book Club Now Reading

Right Truth Mosaic

J. Post


  • Justified, A Christian Band, click image for FaceBook page

Jerusalem Post

  • Vote for Right Truth articles

I support Israel

Wikio Blogs

  • Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics

Blogroll Me

Thank You Troops



  • This blog is an exercise in the author's First Amendment Rights as pertaining to Free Speech with all the protections as afforded & granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. The blog owner is not responsible for content of sites linking to this blog or sites that this blog links to. Opinions quoted on this blog or left as comments on this blog, do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blog owner. Opinions included in articles written by anyone other than the blog owner, do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blog owner. If you are offended by anything written, quoted, excerpted, referenced, linked to ... on this blog: Then go somewhere else.

  • Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2005


  • Debbie Hamilton