Fact Check: The campaign slogan for Liberian dictator Charles Taylor was “He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I’ll vote for him”

Fact Check: The campaign slogan for Liberian dictator Charles Taylor was “He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I’ll vote for him”

Published March 21, 2025
VERDICT
True

# The Claim: "The campaign slogan for Liberian dictator Charles Taylor was 'He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I’ll vote for him.'" ## Introductio...

The Claim: "The campaign slogan for Liberian dictator Charles Taylor was 'He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I’ll vote for him.'"

Introduction

The assertion that Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, used the slogan "He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I’ll vote for him" during his 1997 presidential campaign has circulated widely in discussions about his controversial leadership and the civil war in Liberia. This claim raises questions about the political climate of Liberia during Taylor's rise to power and the sentiments of the electorate at that time.

What We Know

  1. Historical Context: Charles Taylor became president of Liberia after winning the 1997 general elections, which were held following a brutal civil war that lasted from 1989 to 1997. His campaign was marked by significant violence and human rights abuses, and he was later convicted of war crimes related to the Sierra Leone Civil War 56.

  2. Campaign Slogan: Multiple sources confirm that Taylor's supporters used the slogan "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him" during the campaign. This phrase is often interpreted as a reflection of the complex emotions of voters who felt they had no viable alternative to Taylor, despite his violent past 14689.

  3. Election Oversight: The 1997 elections were overseen by the United Nations and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which aimed to ensure a fair electoral process in a country recovering from civil war 1.

  4. Public Sentiment: The slogan has been cited in various analyses of the psychological and sociopolitical factors that influenced the electorate. It suggests a form of resignation or acceptance among voters, who may have believed that voting for Taylor was a lesser evil compared to the chaos of civil war 2610.

Analysis

The claim regarding Taylor's slogan is supported by several credible sources, including academic articles, historical analyses, and reputable news outlets. However, the context in which this slogan was used is critical to understanding its implications.

  1. Source Reliability:

    • Wikipedia entries 15 are generally reliable for initial information but should be cross-referenced with primary sources or academic literature for deeper understanding.
    • The New York Times articles 68 are reputable and provide historical context, but they may carry a bias due to their editorial stance on war crimes and human rights issues.
    • The Georgetown University repository 2 offers scholarly insights, which can be valuable for understanding the narratives surrounding Taylor's regime.
  2. Potential Bias: Some sources may exhibit bias, particularly those that focus on the atrocities committed during Taylor's rule. For instance, articles that emphasize the horrors of his presidency may frame the slogan in a more negative light, potentially influencing reader perception 610.

  3. Methodological Concerns: While the slogan is widely reported, the methodology behind how it was popularized among Taylor's supporters remains unclear. It would be beneficial to have more qualitative data, such as interviews or surveys from voters at the time, to understand the sentiment behind the slogan more deeply.

  4. Conflicts of Interest: Some sources, particularly those linked to human rights organizations, may have a vested interest in portraying Taylor's regime negatively, which could affect their reporting on public sentiment during his campaign.

What Additional Information Would Be Helpful

To further substantiate the claim, additional information could include:

  • First-hand accounts or interviews with voters from the 1997 elections to gauge their motivations and feelings about Taylor.
  • Analysis of campaign materials or speeches from Taylor's campaign to see how the slogan was integrated into his overall messaging.
  • Comparative studies of voter sentiment in Liberia before and after Taylor's election to understand shifts in public opinion.

Conclusion

Verdict: True

The claim that Charles Taylor's campaign slogan was "He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I’ll vote for him" is supported by multiple credible sources, including historical analyses and reports from reputable news outlets. This slogan reflects the complex emotions of the Liberian electorate during a time of turmoil, where many felt compelled to support Taylor despite his violent past.

However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the available evidence. While the slogan is widely reported, the context in which it was used and the motivations of the voters require further qualitative research for a deeper understanding. Additionally, some sources may carry biases that could influence the interpretation of public sentiment during Taylor's campaign.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider the broader context when assessing claims related to historical events.

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Paul Krugman Paul Krugman We’re All Rats Now Time to take a stand, again, against racism Paul Krugman Jun 30, 2025 Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York’s Democratic primary has created panic in MAGAland. Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s deportation policies, waxed apocalyptic: Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, declared that New York is about to turn into “Caracas on the Hudson.” And Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama basically declared New York’s voters subhuman, saying: These inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt. And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers that are working very hard every week to pay taxes. These reactions are vile, and they’re also dishonest. Whatever these men may claim, it’s all about bigotry. Miller isn’t concerned about the state of New York “society.” What bothers him is the idea of nonwhite people having political power. Bessent isn’t really deeply worried about Zamdani’s economic ideas. But he feels free, maybe even obliged, to slander a foreign-born Muslim with language he would never use about a white Christian politician, even if that politician were (like some of his colleagues in the Trump administration) a total crackpot. And while Tuberville stands out even within his caucus as an ignorant fool, his willingness to use dehumanizing language about millions of people shows that raw racism is rapidly becoming mainstream in American politics. Remember, during the campaign both Trump and JD Vance amplified the slanders about Haitians eating pets. And now that they’re in office, you can see the resurgence of raw racism all across Trump administration policies, large and small. You can see it, for example, in the cuts at the National Institutes of Health, which are so tilted against racial minorities that a federal judge — one appointed by Ronald Reagan! — declared I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. You can see it in the renaming of military bases after Confederate generals — that is, traitors who fought for slavery. You can even see it in a change in the military’s shaving policy that is clearly custom-designed to drive Black men — who account for around a quarter of the Army’s new recruits — out of the service. So racism and bigotry are back, big time. Who’s safe? Nobody. Are you a legal immigrant? Well, the Supreme Court just allowed Trump to summarily strip half a million U.S. residents of that status, and only a fool would imagine that this is the end of the story. Anyway, when masked men who claim to be ICE agents but refuse to show identification are grabbing people off the streets because they think those people look illegal, does legal status even matter? Does it even matter if you’re a U.S. citizen? And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is set to massively increase ICE’s funding — basically setting up a huge national secret police force. Now, maybe you imagine that you yourself won’t suffer from this new reign of bigotry and imagine that everyone you care about is similarly safe. But if that’s what you think, you’re likely to face a rude awakening. I personally don’t have any illusions of safety. Yes, I’m a native-born white citizen. But my wife and her family are Black, and some of my friends and relatives are foreign-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, I’m Jewish, and anyone who knows their history realizes that whenever right-wing bigotry is on the ascendant, we’re always next in line. Are there really people out there naïve enough to believe MAGA’s claims to be against antisemitism, who can’t see the transparent cynicism and dishonesty? The fact is that the Trump administration already contains a number of figures with strong ties to antisemitic extremists. The Great Replacement Theory, which has de facto become part of MAGA’s ideology, doesn’t just say that there’s a conspiracy to replace whites with people of color; it says that it’s a Jewish conspiracy. So I’m definitely scared of what the many antisemites inside or with close ties to the Trump administration may eventually do. And no, I’m not frightened at all by the prospect that New York may soon have a somewhat leftist Muslim mayor. Anyway, my personal fears are beside the point. Everyone who cares about keeping America America needs to take a stand against the resurgence of bigotry. Because the truth is that we’re all rats now. MUSICAL CODA Discussion about this post Michael Roseman Jun 30 Edited For a while, American bigotry was ashamed of itself. Or pretended to be. Now it runs the government. Reply Share 106 replies Megan Rothery Jun 30 Edited Take a stand - Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly. Use/share this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Reach out to those in your own state, as well as those in others. Use your voice and make some “good trouble” ❤️‍🩹🤍💙 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit?usp=drivesdk Reply Share 31 replies 852 more comments... No posts Ready for more? © 2025 Paul Krugman Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice Start writing Get the app Substack is the home for great culture

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Paul Krugman Paul Krugman We’re All Rats Now Time to take a stand, again, against racism Paul Krugman Jun 30, 2025 Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York’s Democratic primary has created panic in MAGAland. Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s deportation policies, waxed apocalyptic: Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, declared that New York is about to turn into “Caracas on the Hudson.” And Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama basically declared New York’s voters subhuman, saying: These inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt. And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers that are working very hard every week to pay taxes. These reactions are vile, and they’re also dishonest. Whatever these men may claim, it’s all about bigotry. Miller isn’t concerned about the state of New York “society.” What bothers him is the idea of nonwhite people having political power. Bessent isn’t really deeply worried about Zamdani’s economic ideas. But he feels free, maybe even obliged, to slander a foreign-born Muslim with language he would never use about a white Christian politician, even if that politician were (like some of his colleagues in the Trump administration) a total crackpot. And while Tuberville stands out even within his caucus as an ignorant fool, his willingness to use dehumanizing language about millions of people shows that raw racism is rapidly becoming mainstream in American politics. Remember, during the campaign both Trump and JD Vance amplified the slanders about Haitians eating pets. And now that they’re in office, you can see the resurgence of raw racism all across Trump administration policies, large and small. You can see it, for example, in the cuts at the National Institutes of Health, which are so tilted against racial minorities that a federal judge — one appointed by Ronald Reagan! — declared I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. You can see it in the renaming of military bases after Confederate generals — that is, traitors who fought for slavery. You can even see it in a change in the military’s shaving policy that is clearly custom-designed to drive Black men — who account for around a quarter of the Army’s new recruits — out of the service. So racism and bigotry are back, big time. Who’s safe? Nobody. Are you a legal immigrant? Well, the Supreme Court just allowed Trump to summarily strip half a million U.S. residents of that status, and only a fool would imagine that this is the end of the story. Anyway, when masked men who claim to be ICE agents but refuse to show identification are grabbing people off the streets because they think those people look illegal, does legal status even matter? Does it even matter if you’re a U.S. citizen? And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is set to massively increase ICE’s funding — basically setting up a huge national secret police force. Now, maybe you imagine that you yourself won’t suffer from this new reign of bigotry and imagine that everyone you care about is similarly safe. But if that’s what you think, you’re likely to face a rude awakening. I personally don’t have any illusions of safety. Yes, I’m a native-born white citizen. But my wife and her family are Black, and some of my friends and relatives are foreign-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, I’m Jewish, and anyone who knows their history realizes that whenever right-wing bigotry is on the ascendant, we’re always next in line. Are there really people out there naïve enough to believe MAGA’s claims to be against antisemitism, who can’t see the transparent cynicism and dishonesty? The fact is that the Trump administration already contains a number of figures with strong ties to antisemitic extremists. The Great Replacement Theory, which has de facto become part of MAGA’s ideology, doesn’t just say that there’s a conspiracy to replace whites with people of color; it says that it’s a Jewish conspiracy. So I’m definitely scared of what the many antisemites inside or with close ties to the Trump administration may eventually do. And no, I’m not frightened at all by the prospect that New York may soon have a somewhat leftist Muslim mayor. Anyway, my personal fears are beside the point. Everyone who cares about keeping America America needs to take a stand against the resurgence of bigotry. Because the truth is that we’re all rats now. MUSICAL CODA Discussion about this post Michael Roseman Jun 30 Edited For a while, American bigotry was ashamed of itself. Or pretended to be. Now it runs the government. Reply Share 106 replies Megan Rothery Jun 30 Edited Take a stand - Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly. Use/share this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Reach out to those in your own state, as well as those in others. Use your voice and make some “good trouble” ❤️‍🩹🤍💙 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit?usp=drivesdk Reply Share 31 replies 852 more comments... No posts Ready for more? © 2025 Paul Krugman Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice Start writing Get the app Substack is the home for great culture

Jul 20, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/uscca-info/guide/concealed-carry-map-information/?tID=687ff663de571&utm_campaign=2_facebook_concealed-carry-map-lead_tofu_motorcycles+ad+set+-+universal&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ppc&utm_content=opt+in&cq_net=%7B%7Bsite_source_name%7D%7D&cq_plt=fp
is this a legit site
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/uscca-info/guide/concealed-carry-map-information/?tID=687ff663de571&utm_campaign=2_facebook_concealed-carry-map-lead_tofu_motorcycles+ad+set+-+universal&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ppc&utm_content=opt+in&cq_net=%7B%7Bsite_source_name%7D%7D&cq_plt=fp is this a legit site

Detailed fact-check analysis of: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/uscca-info/guide/concealed-carry-map-information/?tID=687ff663de571&utm_campaign=2_facebook_concealed-carry-map-lead_tofu_motorcycles+ad+set+-+universal&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ppc&utm_content=opt+in&cq_net=%7B%7Bsite_source_name%7D%7D&cq_plt=fp is this a legit site

Aug 9, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Mamdani campaign
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Mamdani campaign

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Mamdani campaign

Jul 23, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Did Anita Bryant opposed the gay and lesbian rights by framing the protection of social order and traditional family model during her campaign in 1977 ?
True

Fact Check: Did Anita Bryant opposed the gay and lesbian rights by framing the protection of social order and traditional family model during her campaign in 1977 ?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Did Anita Bryant opposed the gay and lesbian rights by framing the protection of social order and traditional family model during her campaign in 1977 ?

Jul 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Did Houston campaign in 2015 against the gender identity based discrimination is often framed as protecting women and girls in public bathroom?
True

Fact Check: Did Houston campaign in 2015 against the gender identity based discrimination is often framed as protecting women and girls in public bathroom?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Did Houston campaign in 2015 against the gender identity based discrimination is often framed as protecting women and girls in public bathroom?

Jul 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Trump's administration promised the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history.
True

Fact Check: Trump's administration promised the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Trump's administration promised the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history.

Jul 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The campaign slogan for Liberian dictator Charles Taylor was “He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I’ll vote for him” | TruthOrFake Blog