Quote of the Day
Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.
Holly Sullivan
CCRKBA Director
July 9, 2026
CCRKBA DIRECTOR AT THE HELM OF AR BAN CASE TO BE HEARD BY SCOTUS – CCRKBA
I hope it works out that way. Some people have their doubts. And I get that.
But the courts, strong action from the executive branch, and determined community action eventually stopped the Democrats from socially acceptable lynching, separate water fountains, only sitting in the back of bus, suppressing voters, illegal mixed-race marriages, and a multitude of other injustices.
A culture shift with support from the courts allowed homosexuals out of the closet and the right to marry.
It is now our turn to change the culture in a dramatic and nearly irreversible way.
With a specific constitutionally protected right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to back us up, why can’t we achieve our goals as well? I think we can and will. I think we are on the edge of a widespread collapse of the resistance to our destiny. I think wins in the “assault weapon” cases will break their will to continue.
I will admit, I have been surprised at how well we’ve done in the courts.
When Heller was being decided, I had a nasty feeling that the Supreme Court would split the baby. I expected them to say that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, and then put so many restrictions on that right that it would become useless.
Even if they struck down the DC ordinance, I was expecting that the media would manage to turn the populace against the decision. After all, at the time, the incumbent Republican president was highly unpopular, and Obama was running to replace him.
In fact neither of those things happened. If I recall correctly, people were actually showing up at the Supreme Court building to party over the decision.
McDonald and Bruen have not been under attack to any degree, other than by the extreme left. Most Democrat candidates seem to think that taking the decisions on is a political loser.
The NRA had the same fear you did about Heller. This is why they were late to the party and got much abuse for that. What the Supremes need to do is suppress the insurrection in the lower courts. They can do this with summary judgements each time a case pops up. We are seeing this in areas unrelated to guns which has got to piss them of, having to intervene in obvious cases. Don’t know if they can hold inferior courts in contempt but they should try.
The fight is not over. Look at Colorado: their AWB is not a ban at all but a shall-issue licensing scheme with arbitrarily high (and so far undefined) hurdles to clear.
That was on purpose: they deliberately scuttled their AWB bill to pivot to licensing. They are already fortifying the next hill.
“But the courts, strong action from the executive branch, and determined community action eventually stopped the Democrats from socially acceptable lynching, separate water fountains, only sitting in the back of bus, suppressing voter, illegal mixed race marriages, and a multitude of other injustices.”
That brought something to mind: is there a list of such things (“obvious” injustices to the modern mind) that were supported by Republicans and put down by action from Democrats? You know, to match that list, just on with the parties switched?
I mean, there’s the homosexuality issue, as you mentioned, but I’m still not sure that’s how history will view that one, and you were *quite* generous of your description of it – the did with that what they are trying to do to guns: just get things put in place and keep them there long enough to shift the culture without ever really convincing any of the older generations.
I suppose that would still count. Anything else?
Forced Christian pray in public schools? Or even the use of public facilities, such as schools and other public buildings, for Christian activities while disallowing other faiths the same access.
I used to write letters to the editor in various newspapers about that 1st Amendment violation.
I didn’t bring it up in the blog post because I didn’t think it was well known enough to resonate with people today.
A case could be made for abortion, but that is, a best, more nuanced than clear cut.
Recreational drug use? Again, it is a nuanced topic.
The “blue laws” regarding alcohol sales, Sunday closing laws, restricted gambling, dancing, movies, etc.. Again, nuanced. Mostly Democrat implemented then inherited and maintained by Republicans.
That’s all I can think of. Does anyone else care to contribute?
Well, sticking with the civil rights act, the two parties basically flipped between 1964 and 1968. From a Gemini conversation:
“The shift in how both parties approached civil rights between 1960 and 1968 is one of the most dramatic realignments in American political history.
At the start of the decade, both parties actually competed for the Black vote and had strong pro-civil rights factions. By 1968, the parties had effectively sorted themselves along geographic and ideological lines, cementing the “Southern Strategy” that transformed the South from a Democratic stronghold into a Republican one.
The turning point that truly separated the parties was the 1964 presidential election. When Barry Goldwater (the Republican nominee) voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it signaled to the country that the national GOP was willing to abandon its traditional pro-civil rights stance to capture the white Southern vote.
By the end of the 1960s, the national Republican Party realized that its path to the White House relied on securing the South by appealing to white voters who opposed federal civil rights mandates.
Between 1964 and 1968, the parties swapped roles. The Democrats shed their southern segregationist identity to become the party of federal civil rights enforcement, while the Republicans—via Goldwater and Nixon—consciously capitalized on that Democratic split, using “states’ rights” and “law and order” to court the white Southern voters who felt betrayed by the expanding civil rights movement.”
And yet, the Republican still voted for the Civil Rights Act at a much higher percentage than the Democrats.
That entire “they switched” Just So Story has always been a pile of BS.
The Interwebs says it’s not BS, but if you have actual evidence to support that…argument…I’m all ears. But if your only response is “bullshit!” I assume it is in fact correct.
First off, it’s completely ridiculous on it’s face.
At the end of the movie, after the good guys have convinced enough of the bad guys to join them and improve the situation, the good guys drop the act and claim, “Ha, we were the bad guys all along! And we convinced you to do good things because… uh… we’re so evil, yeah!”
But beyond that silliness, people have actually done analysis of voter registration and such, too, and yes, that confirms that the whole thing was indeed just as ridiculous as it sounds.
Politicians in general are horrible, unethical slimeballs, and Republicans are not remotely immune (and this is not remotely a new position for me – I’ve said similar things here plenty of times). That a few Republicans would attempt something like that, without regard for ethics or morality, is not remotely surprising.
And I am equally sure their efforts were not utterly without any impact at all.
But by FAR, the primary thing they accomplished was to give Democrats this cover story.
It’s useful both as a means of claiming unearned virtue for the Democrats AND as dirt to smear topics the Democrats no longer wanted to use.
“States rights” is a serious concept that deserves serious treatment, for only the most obvious.
(Doesn’t mean every invocation of it is proper or good, of course.)
And of course, besides the fact that Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in much higher percentage than the Democrats, how did things turn out for Barry Goldwater? That seemed to be the lynchpin of the claim, at least in this particular telling (I’ve seen several versions over the years).
What “it” are you referring to? The Southern Strategy? That’s in lots of history books, so I’m pretty sure that’s not BS. And Lee Atwater was definitely a person, and he definitely said what I posted above, so I don’t think that’s BS.
If you’re referring to “the flip”, the idea that the dems and republicans switched places, then:
For the “no flip” theory to be true, the voters who supported segregation in the 1950s would have to be the same group of voters supporting the Democratic party today. But the exact opposite happened:
– The Voters Transferred: The white, conservative Southern voters who made up the segregationist “Solid South” for Democrats in the 1940s and 50s are the grandparents and parents of the voters who make the South a solidly Republican stronghold today.
– The Ideology Remained Constant: The political ideology of the Deep South—states’ rights, strict constitutionalism, social conservatism, and resistance to federal civil rights mandates—did not change. What changed was the party label those voters chose to represent them.
– The Black Electorate Shifted: Prior to the 1930s, Black Americans voted almost exclusively Republican (the party of Lincoln). Today, Black voters are one of the most consistent voting blocs for the Democratic Party. If the Democrats “always have been the party of race” in the same way, this massive migration of Black voters makes no logical sense.
But maybe you have some other “it” in mind?
First off, Nixon didn’t win by a “Southern Strategy”. He won because there was a split of the vote between Democrats and a Segregationist candidate — which enabled Nixon to pick up a couple of Southern States, and took away votes in the Electoral College from the Democrat. (This may have been the last election where a Third Party got Electoral College delegates.)
Second, there is almost no “switcheroo” of Senators and Representatives from one Party to the other during this time.
Third, if you look at the character of the platforms of the two Parties before and after the alleged “switcheroo”, there is no real change between Parties. The Party of Coolidge and Lincoln is the Party of Reagan, and the Party of Wilson and FDR is the Party of Clinton and Obama.
Fourth, you don’t have to dig far to find that Democrats are still racist: consider inner cities and the fight against school choice, or the belief that blacks are inferior to whites and hence need “affirmative action” and “DIE”, or that blacks can’t get basic IDs, among other policies. To really drive the point home, go see what Democrats have said about Clarence Thomas or Condie Rice!
“The Southern Strategy? That’s in lots of history books, so I’m pretty sure that’s not BS.”
As I explicitly wrote, I’m not surprised that an unethical politician would try it – “it” being “the Southern Strategy”.
But did it work? No. No it did not.
“The Voters Transferred”
No, that’s what I’m telling you – they didn’t. Oh, sure, a few did (as I said, I’m sure “the Southern Strategy” had at least more than absolutely no success), but people doing actual voter analysis found that, by and large, no, it did not.
It sorta LOOKS like it did if you just clump people up by race (*like a racist*), but the change was generational – the older people stayed racist and Democrat, and the younger people moved away from both. No, I don’t have a link – it’s been a number of years since I saw that stuff, but it was thorough.
“The Black Electorate Shifted”
This one is correct. The “we don’t need them” strategy of the Republicans was indeed foolish… but it leaves out that the Democrats also changed their behaviour, not from “racist” to “not racist” (they were still rather explicitly racist), but from “keep them in poverty” to “give them stuff (in a way that traps them in poverty)”. Bribery works annoying well on human beings, generally speaking.
Alpheus covers several other points I would have written.
1964 Civil Rights Act Vote
Senate
Democrats: 46 yea (69%), 21 nay (31%)
Republicans: 27 yea (82%), 6 nay (18%)
House of Representatives
Democrats: 152 yea (61%) 96 nay (39%)
Republicans: 138 yea (80%), 34 nay (20%)
“The Southern Strategy? That’s in lots of history books, written by Leftist propagandists like Beiseilles and Zinn.”
FTFY. I’m reminded of Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne, loser of Saratoga, who when asked what “history” would say about his lechery, replied:
“History, sir, will LIE.”
There’s enough truth in it to cover the lie, if you don’t look very hard.
The way I read this is that the Republicans hinted they would support the segregationist white voters, got their vote because they were the lesser of the two “evils” (in the eyes of the racist southerners). They then failed to deliver on a racist legislative agenda. Unless you are saying the northern Republicans became racist and voted for segregation and other racist agendas after being contaminated by the racist voters of the south. I’m pretty sure that would be an alternate timeline which has not been introduced into evidence yet.
Would you like to show us some racist legislation these racist Republicans passed, or at least proposed?
Depends on how you define “racist legislative agenda.” As noted above, the Republicans understood they couldn’t pass or even propose overtly racist legislation after 1964, so they started encoding it into other ideas like opposing the voting rights act, or opposing desegregation and school busing, or calling for “state’s rights” or “preventing federal overreach” that were much harder to confront directly. Are you contesting the validity of the Phillips and Atwater quotes I posted earlier (or maybe later…depends on how this thread is organized)? Those both directly address this idea.
As if there were no other reason that racism to oppose those things. Would you like to do a deep dive on school busing sometime?
I “love” the “encoding” claim. That reminds me of personality disorders where people believe they can read the minds of other people. When you can literally write something down and they will claim it means something completely different than what the words say.
“Encoding” isn’t a claim, it was their explicit strategy. I paste again Lee Atwater:
– Lee Atwater (Reagan/Bush Strategist)
Though his interview took place in 1981, Republican strategist Lee Atwater (who worked on Southern campaigns starting in the late 60s and later became chairman of the RNC) gave a famously candid explanation of how the Southern Strategy’s language evolved from the 1950s to the 1960s and beyond:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic prompts and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
Yes, and clearly, that single example (and maybe two more) is representative of all Republicans.
As I said, THAT most politicians of any party are slimeballs with no morals isn’t surprising.
But the main result of Atwater’s actions is cover for BS, not magically making the Republicans racist and the Democrats not.
Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he believed that it was unconstitutional, as he said at the time. It wasn’t some quixotic repudiation of equal rights for blacks.
While it’s true there were some prominent racist Democrats in the middle of the 20th century (the “Dixiecrats” from the south), the Republican party decided racism was a selling point, and started focusing on it during the civil rights era with The Southern Strategy. Particularly Nixon and Goldwater:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
So sure, you can rightfully point to the Dixiecrats as an example of Democratic racism, but you can’t present that without acknowledging that it all flipped in the 1960s, with the Republicans fully taking on the mantle of “party of racism.” The new Southern Strategy has morphed, and now it’s “Great Replacement Theory.” Same strategy, different name.
Please supply some racism examples of the Republicans in the 1960s.
Gemini characterizes 1960s Republican racism thus:
“The Republican Party did not win the South by adopting the overt, aggressive racism of the Ku Klux Klan or old-school Dixiecrats. Instead, starting in 1964 and refining it in 1968, they won the South by sublimating those racial anxieties into respectable, policy-based code words—like “states’ rights,” “law and order,” “neighborhood schools,” and “busing”—offering a political home to voters who wanted to resist the rapid pace of racial integration.”
A couple examples:
– Kevin Phillips (Nixon’s Political Strategist)
Kevin Phillips is widely considered the architect of the Southern Strategy. In a 1970 interview with The New York Times, he laid out the mathematical coldness of the strategy:
“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are.”
– Lee Atwater (Reagan/Bush Strategist)
Though his interview took place in 1981, Republican strategist Lee Atwater (who worked on Southern campaigns starting in the late 60s and later became chairman of the RNC) gave a famously candid explanation of how the Southern Strategy’s language evolved from the 1950s to the 1960s and beyond:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic prompts and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
Or you say, “Black men in prison shouldn’t be allowed a holiday to rape and murder.”
That actually WAS Atwater’s position, and it won not only the South for Bush, but all but a handful of states.
It was extremely objectionable to the Democrats, who love the fantasy of using violent blacks to crush whites and then inheriting the power.
So basically the Democrats adopted the Charles Manson strategy.
Please do a little more research and not just search for the words you want to find. Hint: Ask as neutral as possible question or even with a bias toward the answer you do not want to hear.
Here is part of what Grok has to say about your Atwater quote:
In other words, whoever created that out of context quote from Atwater was, at best, deliberately deceptive. I would call it closer to a lie.
I don’t have time to dig into the context of the Phillips quote. Would you like to do that and get back to us?
The Atwater quote wasn’t “created,” it’s just what he said. And whether you think it was “in context” or not depends on whether you think Atwater was trying to leverage racial animosity or not. Given his use of Willie Horton not that many years later, I’m gonna go with yes, he was going for the racial angle. Which as a sidenote he apologised for on his deathbed. Better late than never, I suppose.
Read the quote in context. It was about resolving the racial issues. It was not about continuing them.
That story has been BS since it was born.
And, considering who generally tells it, *self-serving* BS.
It wasn’t true when it was made up, and it hasn’t been true at any time since.
The Party of Race has been and still is the Party of Race. They rearranged the deck chairs a bit…
1964 Civil Rights Act Vote
Senate
Democrats: 46 yea (69%), 21 nay (31%)
Republicans: 27 yea (82%), 6 nay (18%)
House of Representatives
Democrats: 152 yea (61%) 96 nay (39%)
Republicans: 138 yea (80%), 34 nay (20%)
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » ABSOLUTELY RIGHT: It is Our Turn.