Newsletter subscribe

Features, Politics, Top Stories

LBJ: I’ll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years

Posted: March 25, 2014 at 9:55 am   /   by

Civil rights history has been an interest of mine since I saw “Emancipation Revelation Revolution” at the Liberty Film Festival in Los Angeles in 2005. It was at that moment that I learned, as if being swept away in a flood, 150 years of a history that has long lay hidden by the dominant powers in America.

Allen West knows that history well.

The first black members of the US House and Senate were Republicans. The first civil rights legislation came from Republicans. Democrats gave us the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and failed policies like the “Great Society.”

Republican President Eisenhower ordered troops to enforce school desegregation. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen enabled the 1964 civil rights legislation to pass, in opposition to Democrat Senators Robert Byrd (KKK Grand Wizard) and Al Gore, Sr.

As a matter of fact, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.

Yep, and who are the real racists? So far, thanks to a Republican Party that is ignorant of its own history and gave up on the black community, Democrats have 50 of those 200 years under their belt.

There’s so much more. The Democrats have always been the party of racism, enslavement, and control. They started with blacks, and now they seek to control everyone.

But the point I want to make today isn’t specifically about the Democrats’ vile history on civil rights, but rather, the vile history they have on everything. To borrow from the character “Fly Guy” from I’m Gonna Git You, Sucka . . .

the left isn’t wrong about some of what they believe or espouse, or half of what they believe—they’re wrong about all of it.

Look at France, where 50% of young people say they would leave if they could, and where the productive members of their society are fleeing in droves, leaving behind a collapsing welfare state and a hard-left still devoted to Marx and still willing to use kidnapping and violence to push their failed ideas.

Look at the 20th century, where social and economic totalitarianism slaughtered over 100 million, oppressed millions more, and ruined economies and lives across the planet.

Look at the mountains of evidence, from study after study, that more economic freedom makes people’s lives better, and less economic freedom makes people’s loves worse.

Look at here in America, where we were winning the war on poverty until we launched the War on Poverty:

I know correlation isn’t always causation, but look at the text and chart below!

Take a look at the graph below. From the end of World War II until 1964 the poverty rate in this country was cut in half. Further, 94% of the change in the poverty rate over this period can be explained by changes in per capita income alone. Economic growth is clearly the most effective antipoverty weapon ever devised by man.

The dotted line shows what would have happened had this trend continued. Economic growth would have reduced the number in poverty to a mere 1.4% of the population today ? a number so low that private charity could probably have taken care of any unmet needs.

But we didn’t continue the trend. In 1965 we launched a War on Poverty. And as the graph shows, in the years that followed the portion of Americans living in poverty barely budged. In 1965, 18% of the population lived in poverty. Today we are at 15%, or 50 million Americans. That’s after spending $15 trillion on antipoverty programs and continuing to spend $1 trillion a year.

 photo graph_zps0fa1646a.png

Poverty was declining and then AS SOON as we started massive government entitlements to combat poverty, the rate of decline leveled off. Not years later. Right away. Why?

Unfortunately, we have an answer, and it is not an answer that people who believe in the government as the solution to poverty are going to like . . . keep reading

We could look at case after case and the story would be the same. The left claims to “care” about “people,” and yet their policies hurt people at every turn, and they claim that we—those who oppose them—are uncaring monsters. And yet, in truth, we are the finger in the dyke. Take that finger out, give them complete power, and watch society collapse. The 20th century was a case-study in this, and yet, what is the left’s rallying cry?

YES, GIVE US MORE OF THAT! Give us more socialism and fascist corporatism. Give us more command and control. Give us more rule of “experts.” We can find no place in the world where these ideas have ever, Ever, EVER worked, but we believe in them nonetheless. Give us more.

So my question is this:

Their tactics have long been to hold themselves out as having superior compassion for the plight of man, and to accuse their opponents  of lacking that compassion.

Our response has long been defensive—to say, “No, we’re compassionate too—look, see—our policies work better. No, really, they do.”

Is it now time to stop defending our compassion and, instead, start questioning theirs?

How long do we continue starting every debate by ceding them the ground that they “mean well.”

Do they?

Why should we give them that, after 100 years of evidence to the contrary? Might it not be time to take a new tack—to question their compassion the way they question ours. Does anyone who pursues the same failed, hurtful, oppressive policies over and over for more than a century deserve to be given the deference that they “mean well”?

I am starting to think the answer is no. Yes, that might make for some unpleasant discussions, but maybe it’s time for some unpleasantness.

The Great Society metastasized poverty and dependence into the tissue of American society. It shredded families, and crushed innovation, self reliance, and dignity. It created generational dependence and a permanent lower class, one that free markets and human innovation was in the process of slowly eliminating. There is more harm in the welfare village than is dreamt of . . .

And yet, on the eve of the launch of the Great Society, President Lyndon Johnson confided in aides as to its real purpose: “I’ll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years,” he said.

Perhaps that is the real face of the left. And perhaps it is time that we start saying so at every turn, rather than bowing to their supposed superior compassion and meekly asking them to acknowledge that we’re compassionate too.

Christopher Cook

Christopher Cook

Managing Editor at Western Free Press
Christopher Cook is a writer, editor, and political commentator. He is the president of Castleraine, Inc., a consulting firm providing a diverse array of services to corporate, public policy, and not-for-profit clients.

Ardently devoted to the cause of human freedom, he has worked at the confluence of politics, activism, and public policy for more than a decade. He co-wrote a ten-part series of video shorts on economics, and has film credits as a researcher on 11 political documentaries, including Citizens United's notorious film on Hillary Clinton that became the subject of a landmark Supreme Court decision. He is the founder of several activist endeavors, including (now a part of Western Free Press) and He is currently the managing editor of and principal contributor to
Christopher Cook


  1. cmdorsey says:

    You have it all in a nutshell. People like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton couldn’t make a living if it not for their made up falsehoods of ‘racism’. They will be kicked in the backend someday after they have cried ‘wolf’ one too many times. There is REAL BAD racism going on in some places. They have made a mockery of the word and and what the word means.

    1. dleeper47 says:

      Well said, but I would add the following, starting with two explicit definitions:

      A racist is a person who believes there are significant differences in abilities or character among people of different races, attributes those differences directly to race, and almost always believes that his own race is somehow superior to other races.
      A racialist, on the other hand, is a person who believes that racism is itself the primary driving force of events, behaviors, and outcomes in all societies.   Anywhere there is a perceived injustice or inequality of outcomes, a racialist looks first to racism as the underlying cause.  To an avid racialist, any other contributing factor is either subordinate or is itself tied to racism in some other form at some other time or place.
      While old-fashioned racism is all but gone (and good riddance), racialism is thriving, and the Left is teeming with racialists. Sharpton and Jackson are indeed professional racialists, earning their living by being racialists. Eric Holder is another, and far more dangerous professional racialist. 

      Racialist politicians like Barack Obama and his minions win votes through racialism. Through their virulent brand of racialism they are re-creating, and even re-inventing, racism itself.

      Republicans in general are far too polite to engage in name-calling. The Left has no such reservation. When the Left cries “racist!”, I wish those on the Right would holler back “racialist!” and put the Left on the defensive for a change. David Horowitz calls this fighting fire with fire. He also says it’s not in the character of the Republicans or even most Tea Party conservatives.  Alas, I think he’s right.

      1. dleeper47 cmdorseyThen we have to make it part of their character. Time to get angry. Time to fight fire with fire.

      2. cmdorsey says:

        dleeper47 cmdorsey I can’t thank you enough for this new word!! I have never seen or heard it before. And as you probably couldn’t help but notice, I am VERY intelligent. LOL! I try to act like it anyway. The only thing I differ with you about is that the character of republicans, tea party conservatives of which I am, doesn’t allow for fighting fire with fire. I HAVE AND DO snipe right back at them even when I just come along a post by some idiot who is repeating the ‘talking, yapping, jabber-jawing points of their progressive puppet masters. Now I’ll use THIS word ‘racialist’! I can’t wait to get started cornering these racebait mobsters. I got into a little twitter squabble with that representative from TN Steve Cohen after he was on national TV calling all of us domestic terrorists – what a dope. I told him how far off WRONG he was and then my twitter buddies started in on him. Cohen tweeted that we were all HATERS.  Ya, Stevie, whatever. Then I got into it with that libertarian who split the vote that helped McAuiffe win the VA governor election against Cuccinelli, Robert Sarvis. Sarvis’ platform was freedom and good government. But after splitting the vote, he helped give Virginia the opposite of what he was running for. But I digress. Mr. Sarvis wasn’t happy with me on twitter either. Oh Well! 

        Today I found an Oct. 2013 by the American Humanist Society about how they have and will continue to push congress to stop tax exemptions for churches because churches only try to indoctrinate and PUSH God on everyone. Well…..No, I don’t think so. I don’t remember any Christians grabbing athiests off the street and dragging them into a church. But, no matter, they will continue to receive their $90 million govt grant (my money) to indoctrinate the university students that science is good, God is bad cuz God doesn’t exist. But in the meantime, they want ALL TAX EXEMPTIONS for churches STOPPED.  Isn’t that just something? Sorry, I digressed again. I have so much information in my brain after 6 years of fighting this communist Godless, lawless regime, I could burst. So now I am just trying to help some of the good conservative candidates for US Senate win their state primaries and hope and pray for the best. 

        But again, THANK YOU SO MUCH for this new word. I will use it wisely!! LOL!

        1. dleeper47 says:

          cmdorsey dleeper47  
          Thanks, cmdorsey! The word “racialist” has actually been around for a long time, but most people don’t use it … I heart it first from others as I wrote in the old article at this link, “”.

          The Left uses language much more effectively than we do, and they have the Democrat-servile media to help them spread “the word” whenever they settle on one … like “denier”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, and especially “racist”.

          It would be great if conservative talk-radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham, Prager, and others would do the same for words like “racialist”.  Repetition would set the meaning of the word to be what we want it to be, and we’d have a one-word retort when the intellectually lazy and vapid Leftists hurl the word “racist” about like some sort of trump card. It would be nice to put them on the defensive (fairly) for a change …

  2. GregoryConterio says:

    I believe there are some on the left who genuinely do have good intentions, but those people never look at the record of the left, much less take responsibility for the swath of destruction left in its wake.  They just merrily go along, wanting credit for their “good intentions” and sneering are those “evil, heartless, greedy S.O.B.s on the right.”  But it is beyond belief that everyone on the left is simply ignorant of the true record of their ideology.  I have for years divided those on the left into two admittedly simplistic categories: True Believers and Useful Idiots.  Useful Idiots are the ones who still believe in the whole “good intentions” bit.  They are the Low Information sorts, the ones who don’t understand the purpose of the Constitution, who may not be able to name their senators, much less their U.S. Representative, who are often outrageously ignorant of everything they don’t hear on The Daily Show or American Idol, but who revel in vilifying the right, if nothing else just because it’s “cool.”  True Believers on the other hand are a totally different matter.  They know the true nature of the left is coercive and elitist.  They may truly believe that all people are not fit to govern themselves, and need an elite ruling class to watch-out for their own best interests.  On the other hand, they may simply like the power and privilege of being one of the elites.  Either way they continue to mouth the words of compassion and equality, all while knowing there is nothing really compassionate or liberal (in the classic sense) about anything they do.

    1. GregoryConterioI think that’s right. But even if the rank and file (useful idiots) DO mean well, what does it matter? Their policies are devastating to poor people, to black people, to businesses, to growth and jobs, and to free people everywhere. Every time we say they “mean well” we give them a little power, and giving them power prolongs the pain for all the human beings they supposedly “mean well” towards. Enough. I am not even willing to play that game with people who probably do mean well. It’s gives them too much power to do more harm.

  3. Frances Byrd says:

    I don’t think very many on the left mean well. Call me a cynic, but I think most fall into 2 categories.
    1. Those who want the power of deciding who gets what… and
    2. Those who want to be on the receiving end of redistribution – even if it means just getting by
    Those who mean well are the minority and they have no excuse for what can only be called willful ignorance at this point.

    1. Frances Byrd Whether they mean well or not—-NO EXCUSES! No more failure. No more oppression. No more “experts.” No more control. NO MORE MASTERS.

      The results of what they do is bad. We know this for sure., Their motives no longer matter.

      1. Frances Byrd says:

        WesternFreePress Frances Byrd
        I agree!
        #Take Back the Culture
        # Own the Narrative

        1. Frances Byrd Amen, sister.

          Take back the culture!

  4. JJBT says:

    It seems Allen West missed that crucial part of history when Nixon annexed all those Racist White Southern Democrats who were alienated by LBJ’s support of the civil rights movement. This is where the Goldwater-esque conservatives began to take a backseat to the Racists, Neo-cons & Bible-thumpers that eventually elected Reagan, Bush & G.W.
    I’d ask that someone please explain how GDP has continued to increase(even through the crash of 2008) & yet poverty is increasing simultaneously. This seems at complete odds with the notion that “Economic growth is clearly the most effective antipoverty weapon ever devised by man”. By all measures the U.S. has never been more profitable than now. There is greater wealth, and less taxes than ever before. Why is poverty increasing?  Unless this can be adequately explained I’d suggest expanding your reading to include some Robert Reich, or Paul Krugman. Otherwise your just cherry-picking facts to support an miscalculated interpretation of what is actually happening. I find that Milton tends to do this quite a bit. He looks at the economy
    backwards, insisting that the when people are less poor it’s
    because the free market is working, rather than realizing that the free-market works
    because people aren’t crippled by poverty. He doesn’t seem to comprehend that people don’t spend money because we’re allowed to. We spend when we have the means to spend it. Side note: It’s important to note that federal standards for poverty haven’t changed since 1964. They don’t adjust for inflation. When’s the last time you got a gallon of gas for 30 cents? Inflation must be factored in to accurately determine our current poverty level.

    1. anarchobuddy says:

      JJBT”I’d ask that someone please explain how GDP has continued to
      increase(even through the crash of 2008) & yet poverty is increasing
      simultaneously. This seems at complete odds with the notion that
      “Economic growth is clearly the most effective antipoverty weapon ever
      devised by man””
      I think it’s because GDP is not a great measure of economic growth. Consider this: there are several technologies that have improved peoples lives but probably actually decrease GDP. These are things like desktop publishing, cheap and high quality audio and recording equipment, websites that replace travel agents, torrents, etc. That is, people are consuming more but since they are spending less money to do so, it is not showing up in GDP figures. Now, this isn’t meant to account for a whole lot of the variation in GDP, but only an example of a weakness of GDP as a measurement of economic growth.
      Another reason is that dollars printed and spent by the government contribute to GDP but don’t necessarily contribute to economic growth. The recession supposedly ended several years ago according to the NBER’s method of calculating recessions, which pretty much relies exclusively on quarterly GDP figures.
      It’s also definitely not the case that there are “less taxes than every before.” The federal income tax used to not exist.
      I’m also not sure what you’re talking about with poverty standards not adjusting for inflation.

      1. JJBT says:

        Thank you for your response, but your point seems to contradict itself both in scope & reasoning. If
        GDP should be decreasing as a result of technological advancements then
        how has it continued to increase & how does that point to GDP not
        being a valid measure of economic growth? GDP measures the over-all market value of goods
        & services produced. It is, in fact, a direct measure of the economic
        growth, or shrinkage in a society. It doesn’t, as you’ve suggested, measure consumption. I get that it’s not the end-all be-all of living standards, but
        it does provide a fairly clear picture of the economy is doing. Either growing, or dying. 
        As per your suggestion of the Govt. compensating for lulls, if the Govt. did print an excess of dollars in an effort to
        falsify economic growth, or counter a lull in growth it would have the counter effect of causing
        inflation to suddenly decelerate & then cause hyperinflation as the dollars value plummeted to zero. Total economic collapse. This scenario is well-known by most economists & hasn’t happened, so it’s not likely that this is how GDP has managed to maintain it’s steady increase.

        To clarify my point
        about the FPL not accounting for inflation; try living as a family of
        three on 18k, or a family of five of 25k. Scraping by isn’t growing, and(in economic terms) if you aren’t growing, you’re dying. Poverty is an economic prison. I think lack of growth should be factored into the federal standard.

        As for the “federal income tax used to not exist” line of reasoning, well we used to think the world was flat which meant that we didn’t have to pay for NASA… it’s a totally irrelevant argument. The point is that tax rates are lower now than they have been since 1930, so we can’t blame taxes for a lack of economic growth(which we know hasn’t been happening anyway) The problem is that corporate & esp. capital gains taxes are even lower than income tax so the burden of the national debt is placed unevenly on the middle-class. G.W.’s cuts to capital gains have reduced tax revenues by 1-1.5 trillion annually(our national debt could have been paid in full in 16 yrs). This allows guys like Romney to pay(after deductions) 6% on a 20 million dollar dividend pay out that his father probably made the initial investment on. I’m sorry, it’s just really sad to me that so many smart people are duped into thinking that the 1% of the federal budget that goes into social welfare programs is somehow responsible for all the ills of the middle-class, or as this article proposed, perpetuating poverty. Shit, sorry. Tangent. Again, thanks for your response.

        1. JJBT anarchobuddyIs poverty increasing? Or is use of certain programs ostensibly designed to alleviate poverty increasing?

        2. JJBT anarchobuddyAlso, when it is said that free markets are the best anti-poverty program in existence, micro fluctuations are not what is being discussed. The rise of the free market allowed, and fueled, the explosion of technology, innovation, and advances that has taken place over the last 300 years. Today’s “poor” have access to amenities, conveniences, technologies, health care, transportation, and luxuries that the kings of old did not. These advances would not have taken place had not the engine of human creativity been unleashed by freedom.

          We also have to be careful how we define “poor.” There are, in America, some people who live in the kind of grinding squalor that characterized the lives of most humans who have ever drawn breath on planet earth prior to the modern era. But they are a small group. Most of the lowest quintile in America, while not having it “good” compared to the higher four quintiles, have it really good in comparison to many people around the globe and most humans who have ever lived. (Air conditioned homes, adequate living space, ample food, multiple vehicles, etc.). Also, thanks to having a dynamic, comparatively free economy, most of the people who start in the lowest quintile do not stay there.
          Numerous studies have shown (as has the evidence before our eyes) that government welfare programs provide an incentive to take relief rather than work. This is not my opinion. The study I learned of recently was done right before the launch of the Great Society. It showed that even when it was a negative income tax (popularized among us libertarians by Milton Friedman), people who could otherwise work chose not to. Now, today, welfare pays significantly more than work in a large number of states.

          IOW, welfare programs today aren’t relieving the genuinely poor (or at least not exclusively so); rather, they are creating a semi-permanent dependency class. That is not compassionate. That is morally criminal. The damage that that does to the recipients and society, not to mention the hopes, plans and rights of those from whom the relief money is forcibly taken, is morally criminal.

          Belief in one’s own compassion is no longer sufficient shield for the failure and moral wrongness of these policies. Government is an inefficient source of anything; we should use it only when absolutely necessary. And human beings can take care of each other far more efficiently than government can.

        3. anarchobuddy says:

          JJBT No, my points do not contradict themselves in “scope” (not sure to what you’re referring there) or reasoning. I did not say that GDP should be decreasing as a result of technological innovation, only that greater wealth that is not exchanged for does not show up in GDP figures.
          My second point about government spending was referring to expenditures that show up in GDP but really have nothing to do with economic growth. For example, most defense spending shows up in GDP, but it really doesn’t contribute to economic growth as the term is used in the above post (that is, an increase in productivity). As something like defense spending grows (and especially if fueled by borrowing or printing to do such spending) so does GDP. Now, I’m not saying that this accounts for all growth in GDP; I am simply saying that GDP can increase without a corresponding increase in economic growth (if we are to think of economic growth as more goods and services being available to consumers).

          “As for the “federal income tax used to not exist” line of reasoning,
          well we used to think the world was flat which meant that we didn’t have
          to pay for NASA… it’s a totally irrelevant argument.”
          If you’re going to make the claim that tax rates were never lower, it’s relevant because your claim is false (just like the claim about the poverty line not being adjusted for inflation). If you want to make the claim that tax rates are lower than some period of recent history or that the poverty line does not properly distinguish between poverty and non-poverty, then please do that. 
          I agree with you that it is unfair that income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains (though I think most workers would rather see a reduction in the income tax rate than an increase in capital gains). Parenthetically, I also think that the middle class, many of whom have
          IRAs, would benefit from a reduction in capital gains. However, I would request that you please provide a citation for the annual $1.5 trillion tax revenue reduction, as it’s hard to believe that the level of investment would not be heavily affected by such a swing in the tax rate. I would also ask for a citation for the 1% figure, as this page from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ( says that 12% of the federal budget in 2013 was spent on “safety net programs.”

    2. PatHouseworth says:

      JJBT  Beam this one up Scotty…..the Vulcan Mind Melt has done it’s job on thin one.

  5. cmdorsey says:

    I beg to differ with the persons on here who said the TAXES ARE LOWER than they’ve ever been. WRONG! I love making out a check to the govt for $8000 for yearly taxes and tomorrow I’ll make another check out for $2000 more for property taxes. So, NO, the taxes ARE NOT lower. Michelle spent that check for just one night at her luxury suites in China. So, tell me, where is the income inequality really happening? 

    Poverty is worse because people have become dependent. It’s really no different than being addicted to drugs or booze or anything you want to name. All I know is, when the takers have finally consumed the hosts, what then? What then?

    Cutting taxes for businesses makes the economy stronger. The people who keep talking about those evil people who own businesses need to open their eyes and ears to the fact that if not for people who own businesses, there would be no employees. The labor unions are doing a good job of screwing non-union businesses over, too. Those people who are working FOR someone just make my skin crawl when they keep screaming that they want MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY! Maybe we should try having a National Role Play Change Day. Let the employees deal with the headaches of running a business, thanks to this god awful govt crap and paperwork and fees and surcharges and payroll taxes and medicare taxes, blah, blah, blah. Let them see that just because money comes into the business from services they provide, it does NOT mean they are rich, Running a business includes Accounts RECEIVABLE and Accounts PAYABLE. Business have to pay their bills, unlike our govt idiots. 

    If only people would stop and just try to let it sink into their brains. But, alas, I fear that is not gonna happen.

    1. cmdorsey Teach! Testify!

      One of the reasons it’s not going to happen is because of some of the more negative aspects of human nature. Given the opportunity, traits like envy and the impulse to do the least amount necessary to survive rear their ugly heads. People lose perspective, or never had it to begin with. People get into very selfish, solipsistic frames of mind. 
      And of course you’re right about dependency. There is less poverty now, and less reason for people to be in poverty, than there ever has been in all of human history.

  6. edwardprzydzial1 says:
  7. FthatS says:

    anarchobuddy JJBT GDP had it’s method of calculation changed up to make it bigger. Smoke and mirrors while it continues to drop. Fedral income taxes didn’t exist, healthcare tax didn’t exist, 1000s of medical device taxes didn’t exist.

  8. FthatS anarchobuddy JJBT Smoke and mirrors on inflation calculation, too. And unemployment.

  9. …did democrats think he was joking? he is doing what he said he would do. we heard this in 2008 and and here we are so don’t act so surprised when we see him violate our constitution constantly… ;)

  10. edward przydzial Exactly. Some of us, however, knew exactly what was coming with this guy.

  11. MariaKyriakaki says:

    edward przydzial

  12. MariaKyriakaki edward przydzial Yes, I believe that is correct. In fact, Obamacare seems like it was designed to fail—knowing that when it fails, the sheep won’t ask for a free-market solution, they’ll beg for the government shepherd to make it all better with another program.

LBJ: I’ll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years