Farah’s Ignorant Slander

We’re all used to Joseph Farah saying dumb things; hell, if you took out all the dumb things his “news” outlet would barely exist. But in a column about Paula Deen he simply invents an alternate history. In other words, he tells a great big whopper of a lie:

Paula Deen is a Democrat through and through – which really shouldn’t surprise anyone given that her party was founded as the political wing of the Ku Klux Klan and fought desegregation and civil rights through the early 1960s.

No. That’s a lie. The Democratic party was founded decades before the KKK existed, in the 1830s, by Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson. The KKK did not exist until after the Civil War. And while it’s true that it was the Republican party on the right side in the civil war and for decades afterward, that all changed in the late 50s and early 60s when LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Act and nearly all the Dixiecrats — racist southern politicians like Strom Thurmond — switched parties and joined the Republicans precisely because they were the party in opposition to civil rights at the time. Farah knows this, of course, he just doesn’t care even a tiny little bit about the truth.

But what makes this especially amusing is that Farah lists a bunch of reasons why he doesn’t like Paula Deen. Remember, she’s a Democrat and they’re all racist and stuff. And then:

So it comes down to this: Whom do I like least – Paula Deen or her persecutors?

For me, it’s an easy call. I despise her persecutors.

That’s why I directed my company’s retail division to offer all of Paula Deen’s books to the public – and to promote them as well. Why? To stick a finger in the eye of those pompous, self-righteous publishers, TV networks, big-box chain stores and everyone else looking to raise themselves up by tearing down Paula Deen.

In fact, I’ll go one further: If Paula Deen is looking for a publisher who still believes in free enterprise and the First Amendment to distribute her new book, I’m just a phone call or email away.

Let me translate that: “I don’t like her. She’s a typical racist Democrat. But I’d sure love to make a buck off her.” Very principled, Joe.

"Thank you for confirming my assessment of you: more lies, the "p" word- twice, the ..."

Moore Controversy Shines Spotlight on Evangelical ..."
"I thought he was in it to see just how far he can work his ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."
"You can see actual pictures of the Groper in Chief lusting after her daughter. President ..."

Moore Controversy Shines Spotlight on Evangelical ..."
"He will find it in his heart to exemplify Christian mercy by forgiving those poor, ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • oranje

    Could have played MadLibs with that. Farah’s Ignorant ___________.

  • slc1

    The Democratic party was founded decades before the KKK existed, in the 1830s, by Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson.

    Of course, the Democrats like to claim that the party descended from the one that Thomas Jefferson ran under (that’s why the call them the Jefferson/Jackson day dinners).

  • Chiroptera

    Well, you know what they say about the enemy of my enemy….

  • gshelley

    “Of course she’s racist. She’s a Democrat. She’s said some things that people have claimed are unpleasant and I’m going to imply I also thing the they are bad things to say. But you know what I dislike more than racism? Calling people out for being racist”

  • Chiroptera

    …party was founded as the political wing of the Ku Klux Klan….

    Actually, the Democratic. Party before the Civil War was deeply divided on the question of slavery, which contributed to Lincoln’s victory in 1860.

  • http://mikejmayberry.com blorf

    Oranje, just forget the blank at all, Farah’s ignorant, full stop.

  • iplon

    It also ignores the issue that it was the self-identified Conservative Republicans in the 1860s who were most hesitant within their party to end the practice of slavery.

  • Don Williams

    1) I myself find it amusing that Ron Paul — one of the few politicans to openly stand up and oppose the Iraq Invasion — was pilloried by Democrats as being racist based on some 20 year old newsletters and tortured guilt-by-association arguments.

    2) Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton — who voted for an unnecessary war that has killed more black men in the past decade than than the Ku Klux Klan managed in the past 150 years — is the Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 Presidential race.

    Joseph Farah’s reluctance to point this out shows that he is actually a closet Democrat.

  • Don Williams

    Correction: shows that Joseph Farah is Probably a closet Democrat.

    There may be some other explanation that I’ve overlooked.

  • Nemo

    @9: Perhaps that you have your head up your ass.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    The Democratic Party was founded as a populist party. As an ideology, populism is based on a “average person vs. the privileged elite” ideology. In the US, populism has espoused a great many seemingly disparate positions and, like other populist parties, the Democrats have always embraced the loudest mobs and changed their positions often. The Democratic Party has long history of presenting itself as the protectors of Real American Values, including opposition to civil rights and the promotion of Protestant Christianity as the cure for all social ills; they have always been a windsock to public opinion.

    The party didn’t really begin to change until the Reagan Revolution, when the Republican Party made a concerted effort to include the hard-core religious right and steal the mantle of “protecting Real American Values” away from the Democrats. This pushed the Republicans farther and farther to the lunatic right and, true to form, the Democrats followed popular opinion rightward as well.

  • slc1

    Re Don Williams @ #8

    Farah’s reluctance to point this out is due to the fact that he supported the Iraq adventure.

    As for Ron Paul, his opposition to the Iraq adventure is a textbook example of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

    Of course, the real reason why ole Don has a hankering for Paul is because the latter want’s to end aid to Israel (and to be fair, all other countries too).

    As for Hillary Clinton, it should be pointed out that she was the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007. How did that work out? The big question that Cuomo, O’Malley, Biden, and Warner have to consider is whether they can raise sufficient funds to mount a credible challenge. Obama who was about as known in 2007 as they are did it. We also have to consider some dark horses such as Cory Booker, if he wins the Senate nomination in New Jersey (although 2016 seems a little early for him), or a real dark horse, Senator Gillibrand from New York.

  • naturalcynic

    If you look at the numbers, in the mid ’60’s the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were supported by a larger proportion of Republicans than Democrats. It was the southern Strategy of Nixon-Agnew that was the key in the reverse of strategy for southern racists conservatives.

  • lpetrich

    That was because there were hardly any Southern Republicans in Congress back then. Southern Democrats opposed those laws, while most Democrats elsewhere supported them. Southern Republicans also opposed them, while Republicans elsewhere supported them, though by a somewhat smaller fraction.

  • scienceavenger

    @11 Arguing that Hillary is a racist because the Iraq War killed a lot of blacks is like arguing that a pro-choice person is sexist because many aborted fetuses were female.

    As for Paul, if he has openly, and without qualification, repudiated those old racist newsletters, then IMO he should be taken at his word. Otherwise, he deserves to be called a racist.

    Regardless, you make the mistake in your arguments in equating SOME democrats with ALL democrats. Not remotely the same. Remember the wise words of Will Rogers, as true today as they ever were: “I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat”.

  • Chiroptera

    scienceavenger, #15: As for Paul, if he has openly, and without qualification, repudiated those old racist newsletters, then IMO he should be taken at his word.

    Only if he has also changed his stance on policies based on racism and that promote racism, like that “states rights” bullshit.

  • skinnercitycyclist

    If you look at the numbers, in the mid ’60′s the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were supported by a larger proportion of Republicans than Democrats.

    And show me one of those Republicans who voted for the VRA and CRA who would still be a Republican in today’s party…or claimed by today’s Republicans, for that matter.

  • bmiller

    @11

    I agree that the War Party’s activities (the GOP except for Paul and 90% of the Democratic Party), along with the bi-partisan War on (Some) Drugs is functionally racist.

    To claim that Paul has changed dramatically from his original paleo-conservative views on race? I don’t know. OTHER Paul views will, however, be a disaster for African Americans and non fundamentalist Christians in general. So while I get a little bit of frisson when Paul calls out the War Pigs, I remind myself that he has Gary North as his advisor on education policy. No thanks, man.

  • bmiller

    Dittos to Chiroptera at 16!.