Liberals (so-called) Are Racists, and Conservatives (who are not) Should Be Saying So

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” He is author of the newly published book The Great Betrayal (Regnery 2014), which is a chronicle of the Democrats treachery in the war on terror before 9/11 to the death of Osama bin Laden.


Michael Barone has an excellent piece on the the 6h Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to overturn a Michigan ballot initiative designed to enforce the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. The initiative was passed in 2006 and supported by 58% of Michigan voters. It was a constitutional amendment proposed by Ward Connerly and particularly designed to end racial preferences in Michigan universities. Like most universities in American, Michigan schools support separate dorms for blacks, separate graduation ceremonies, separate fraternities — everything, as Michael Barone points out, but separate drinking fountains (which, no doubt, will be reserved for Muslims). In other words, so-called liberals and progressives have re-introduced the segregationist idea that was thought to be buried with the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. The difference is that this segregation is desired by the former victims, while the former oppressors are too guilt-ridden and tongue-tied to express the outrage that would be suitable to this particular outrage. The racist appeal upheld by the court was filed by a group calling itself By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), the name itself trumpeting its fascistic modus operandi and anti-democratic agendas. What’s most troubling about this is that the Democratic Party is in basic sympathy with progressive racism and thus that the American consensus no longer includes a commitment to the values embodied in the once historic Civil Rights Acts.

  • voted against carter

    Why I will NEVER be a DemocRAT

    Planned parenthood AND the DemocRAT Party ARE INHERENTLY RACIST
    in their continued attempt at BLACK GENOCIDE.

    They are, and always will use abortion to accomplish this.

    So much the better as far as they are concerned,
    if they can get black women to do this themselves voluntarily.

    "the damage being wrought by government programs
    targeted at blacks and the poor",…

    ARE BEING DONE ON PROPOSE with the express intent
    of Black Genocide as the ultimate goal.

    ie Melanin IS THE issue.

    The removal of it in particular.

    This is why I WILL NEVER SUPORT the DemocRAT Party.

    It is too bad they along with the LAME-STREAM media
    have been able to con the black population into believing other wise.

    But hopefully the con is starting to show.
    And people ARE starting to wake up to it.
    The DemocRATs use one of the OLDEST leftist tricks,
    and PLAY THE RACE card AGAIN.

    Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson along with Barry are AWARE,
    but will play along for the power they THINK they are allowed to have.
    I DO NOT suport abortion, and this IS Planned Parenthoods charter,
    regardless of their claim otherwise.

    The Republican Party was created in 1854 to combat the threat of slavery's extension
    to the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy.
    Abraham Lincoln was the FIRST Republican to run for president, and won in 1860.

    Before that it was the Whigs and the DemocRAT Party.

    The DemocRAT Party was the party of the SLAVE OWNERS.

    And It hasn't changed ANY since then.

    • Jim_C

      "The DemocRAT Party was the party of the SLAVE OWNERS. And It hasn't changed ANY since then."

      Sure it has. THOSE democrats became republicans when the government began enforcing equal protection and civil rights.

      OOOPS!!!!!

      Nice try.

      • Supreme_Galooty

        Don't be so obviously stupid! It has nothing to do with party affiliation as much as it has to do with a certain disfunctional mindset – which YOU happen to be on intimate terms with. "Liberals" are NOT liberal at all, in any sense of the word. They are simply evil – marshalling the forces of death against the forces of life – in every single instance, in every single way imaginable.

        They have no decency, and neither do you.

        • Jim_C

          You're right. All I have are historical facts, all you have are hysterically half-baked opinions.

          • voted against carter

            Jimy,..

            LOL!! Are you REALLY as stupid as that? Try USING google.

            Your "All I have are historical facts" look pretty made up as far as I can see.

            Typical Libratard.

          • Jim_C

            From trickyblain's post:

            It was introduced by a Northern Democrat and strongly supported by Democratic administrations (JFK, LBJ).

            Here's the vote by region. Note that there was only one Southern Republican in the Senate until the CRA of 64 was passed- then their popularity exploded. Wonder why???

            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%)
            Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
            Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
            Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

            OOOPS! again, vac! Thanks for playing

          • Jim_C

            Ever hear of Nixon's Southern Strategy, vac? OOOPS!!!

            Here's it's architect, Lee Atwater:

            ''You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N****r, n****r, n****r.' By 1968 you can't say 'n****r' — 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 things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

            ''And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N***r, n****r.'''

            DOH!! Nice try dingdong!! You ain't fooling anyone.

      • voted against carter

        jimy,..

        Making stuff up is typical libratard deflection. Sorry. You lose. LOL!!

        The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced in Eisenhower’s presidency and was the act that kick-started the civil rights legislative programme that was to include the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Eisenhower had not been known for his support of the civil rights movement. Rather than lead the country on the issue, he had to respond to problems such as in Little Rock. He never publicly gave support to the civil rights movement believing that you could not force people to change their beliefs; such changes had to come from the heart of the people involved, not as the result of legislation from Washington.

        However, he did push through during his presidency the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Cynics have stated that this was simply to win the ‘Black Vote’. Up to 1957, and for a variety of reasons, only 20% of African Americans had registered to vote. In Britain, the government takes the initiative in sending out voter registration forms which individuals have to return. In America it is up to each person to take the responsibility to register their vote. In the South plain intimidation and official apathy and obstacles meant that very few African Americans registered their vote. Those that did not disqualified themselves from voting.

        The 1957 Civil Rights Bill aimed to ensure that all African Americans could exercise their right to vote. It wanted a new division within the federal Justice Department to monitor civil rights abuses and a joint report to be done by representatives of both major political parties (Democrats and Representatives) on the issue of race relations.

        Eisenhower, perhaps shocked by the news broadcasts of Little Rock, publicly supported the bill (it was, after all, his Attorney-General who had produced the bill). However, the final act became a much watered done affair due to the lack of support among the Democrats. The Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was a Democrat, and he realised that the bill and its journey through Congress, could tear apart his party as it had right wing Southern senators in it and liberal west coast ones.

      • Chris Nichols

        So then, you admit that Democrats were racist slave owners? Help me out here, I keep hearing this lie your side propogates that all of those racist Southern Democrats became Republicans. Explain that to me. The south, which was predominantly Democrat punished the party, which was a minority in that region at that time,(Republicans) by joining the party which voted overwhelmingly for the CRA of 1964?

    • Questions

      The problem with the Left is its need to punish "white racism," not practice it. And few things infuriate me more than pro-life radicals who buy into that cockamamie notion of ongoing white "genocide" against blacks via abortion, based on a cherry-picked quote or two from Margaret Sanger.

      • Supreme_Galooty

        You are another example of viciousness masquerading as "reasonable" in terms of discourse. Your point is ill-conceived, poorly presented, and – as is typical of left wing dips – simply wrong. I wish you a lifetime of anger.

      • voted against carter

        Q,..

        LOL!! RIIIIGGGHHHTTTT. Cherry picked indeed. Not necessary.

        The Negro Project
        Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans
        By Tanya L. Green
        posted at Concerned Women of America
        May 10, 2001

        “… I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”
        —Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)
        On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the “Say So” march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade (1973). The significance of each case—equal rights for all Americans in the former, and abortion “rights” in the latter—converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march's sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

        “'Civil rights' doesn't mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans—black and white—are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).1

        The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

        The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.

        Malthusian Eugenics
        Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.
        http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rl

  • theleastthreat

    Just when I thought the Left couldn't be any less appealing they go and prove me wrong.

  • StephenD

    Thank you David for the caveat regarding the word Liberal by pointing out it is “so called.” It is time we take the word back from Totalitarians. It isn't theirs, it doesn't define them, and we shouldn't let them hijack it. They do this with a myriad of words. They have attempted to hijack the words Choice, Tolerate, Harmony, Phobia (put any number of prefaces to it), Politics, Marriage…the list goes on and on. We should at each instance, take back what they try to steal.

    • Jim_C

      B-b-but you guys are the ones who made "liberal" a bad word in the first place!

      • Supreme_Galooty

        Don't be so obviously stupid. And merely sit back and be a smart ass, as is your won't. There was a time when you made semi-coherent comments. Obviously you have relapsed.

      • StephenD

        How "progressive" of you. You call going backward Progress. The words are not bad just the spin you place upon them. But before I'm less "inclussive" and become a "moronaphobic" I should stop.

        • Jim_C

          And you don't find it the least bit ironic that you use the term "totalitarian" to describe liberals?

          Despite what Fox and Rush and all the other yammering bozos think, words DO have actual meanings.

          • Chris Nichols

            See you got it wrong again, you don't find it ironic that people who call themselves "liberals" are really totalitarians.

      • voted against carter

        no jimy,..

        That would be the PROGRESSIVE DemocRATs that accomplished that.

        Sorry you lose AGAIN. Silly libratard.

  • BLJ

    All part of the Dems class warfare agenda. Lord help us if every person had to make it with hard work and some drive. These people make me sick.

  • Ghostwriter

    In heaven right now,Martin Luther King is probably weeping over this.

    • Questions

      Martin Luther King Jr. was anything but a sensible conservative or even a liberal. He was a radical and quite open about it. Let him weep. I won't.

      • Indioviejo

        Why questions, finally, something to agree on.

  • Jacjon

    I watched David Horrorwitz on a Bill Maher show. He was dumbfounded when asked by a so-called "liberal' also on the segment ( read Republican ) to support his racist rants. He was actually— and I mean ACTUALLY — sent into a frenzy of being flabbergasted !! Never thought I'd see it !!
    As with all who can only maintain an debate when yelling and screaming his pecuilar diatribe fell silent. At that point, I had no idea who he was. My conjecture was 'just another apologist for the 'let's kill anything that says or does ANYTHING that mention Israel or the Jew in any form OTHER THAN positive. Well….unless you're writing an article ( lol ) or can shout louder than the rest……the need to give an actual point of vie w that MAKES SENSE is required.

    • theleastthreat

      This is just a guess but, you're a comedian, right?

      • Jacjon

        Are you to dull to comment…..or are you just, as is usual with your kind, afraid of the onsequences when you're not surrounded by the PACK !!l

        • theleastthreat

          I was complimenting you. I could see you obviously weren't serious. I mean who comes up with comments right out of the 1930s Fatherland? So naturally…

          Anyway, i was right about your comedy vocation, right?

    • Jingo

      Lol. So what was this conversation about?

    • Supreme_Galooty

      How do you justify using the word "an" before the word "debate." I suggest that if you can't get your language right, where does your "thinking" reside? LOL

      • Jacjon

        Huh…delete my note….how dare you !!!

  • Jacjon

    Jacjon 2
    Now understanding not only who Horrorwitz is…..but also who he stands for….the Maher bluster makes sense. It's like anyone with an opinion sympathetic to the Palestinians o even SEEMING to side with those who condemn Israels ….and now I quote the international press..'the UN condems Israel for 'crimes against humanity'…and the Red Cross…'.Israel is quilty of war crimes ' Comments made as far back as Jenin ( remember ) and as late as the colloquial ' Turkey Flotilla ' Anyway..even APPEAR to poor-mout Israel or the Jew and you are —without a chance to rebutt the purported "arguement" an anti-semite' or a 'holocaust denier'. Tho I've often wonder which holocaust is being referred to….the Nazi holocaust of WW 2 where YES, I DO BELIEVE that 5-6 million Jewish were massacred…BUT I ALSO believe that another 14mm poor souls– the Poles, the gays and lesbians, the feeble, the Russians….were done in as well !!! Anyway, just my thoughts on Mr. Horrorwitz, et al.

    BTW…will someone….ANYONE……show me PROOF that Achmadinijad—or ANYONE states….(I, WE—) want Israel wiped off the map????'

    • theleastthreat

      Stop with joking around! You're killin' me.

      • Jacjon

        You are seemingly tow thins….Jewish..and stupid. Did you read my bit on imter-m,arriage….perhaps you should!!j

        • theleastthreat

          Oh, you weren't kidding. My mistake. I'm not Jewish BTW. I worship a Jew though. You should meet him.

        • theleastthreat

          And you have an opinion on marriage too? What could that be? I'm guessing again, but I'd say it's somehow tied into Jew hatred. Am I close?

    • Rifleman

      Ahmanutjob isn't running the country, the mad mullahs are, and If you didn't know that, you'd probably have tried to talk to medvedev, instead of putin. Hezzbutliks for one, is proof the mad mullahs want Israel wiped off the map.

      • Jacjon

        Who is Ahmanutjob???? And what I asked for was "will someone….ANYONE……show me PROOF that Achmadinijad—or ANYONE states….(I, WE—) want Israel wiped off the map????' Not your opinion !

    • Jingo

      BTW…will someone….ANYONE……show me PROOF that Achmadinijad—or ANYONE states….(I, WE—) want Israel wiped off the map????'

      I don't want to be mean, but try google.

      • Jacjon

        Please don't be mean. I applaud that, But IF you knoo where to look….IN PRINT….please cut and paste it for me.
        At last, PERHAPS, someone with some sense!

    • Supreme_Galooty

      I am quoting the international press: "It has been determined, after lengthy hearings of the Special Council, that Jacjon 2 is irremediably insensate and should be taken into custody and heavily sedated until such time as he can be rendered harmless to society. Suffocation has been widely recommended."

      • Jacjon

        Now that's funny. Congrats !!! But wouldn't GASing be more appropriate?

  • xexon

    Anyone who classifies themselves as either liberal or conservative is unfit for office.

    You'll never represent anybody but your own kind.

    The general consensus out here in the real world is Republicans represent racism. And that's because OF the civil rights movement. They did little to nothing in those days to help diffuse the problem.

    I know because I was there.

    Enough time has passed and the younger generations don't remember that. That's why you see more blacks and other minorities moving to the right and into the Republican ranks. Which is a good thing.

    Otherwise, some of you would still be riding around in sheets. But you've got a new negro now.

    Muslims.

    x

    • coyote3

      Uh, the Republicans weren't to the right of anything. Constitutionally correctness is about limited government period. Really has nothing to do with race, civil rights or otherwise. I was around as well.

      • trickyblain

        Yet the Constitution's critics (anti-federalists) felt very strongly that the Constitution was the very embodiment of big, centralized gov't.

      • Jim_C

        Well, "Constitutional correctness"…

        "It is naive to suppose that the [Supreme] Court's present difficulties could be cured by appointing Justices determined to give the Constitution its "true meaning," to work at "finding the law" instead of reforming society. The possibility implied by these comforting phrases does not exist…. History can be of considerable help, but it tells us much too little about the specific intentions of the men who framed, adopted and ratified the great clauses. The record is incomplete, the men involved often had vague or even conflicting intentions, and no one foresaw, or could have foreseen, the disputes that changing social conditions and outlooks would bring before the Court."

        Robert Bork

        • voted against carter

          Jimy,..

          Here have a cookie with your obama kool-aid.

          Now run along and play outside with the rest of the little kids.

          The adults are talking here.

          Silly libratard. Trying to deflect.

          • Jim_C

            Deflect? Nope, just showing up all y'all's precious pretensions to "constitutional correctness" using conservatives' favorite constitutional scholar, Robert Bork. That's all. Just another slam dunk on ya.

          • coyote3

            Who says Robert Bork is my favorite constitutional scholar? He is "a" constitutional scholar. I am not so sure he could even be considered a conservative. Nonetheless, what I am talking about has nothing whatsoever do to with conservatives

        • coyote3

          So, what does that have with it. Totally, irrelevant.

        • coyote3

          Certainly, if that is the case, just amend the constitution if you want to give the federal government the power to do something. The mechanism is in place.

    • Jingo

      Actually, today's conservatives would have been called liberals. And muslims have a lot more in common with the KKK than with American negroes.

      • ebonystone

        What Moslems do have a lot in common with is the leftist Democrats. Both want to have blacks for menial work, and both want to keep them under close control. The Democrats did this via slavery before the Civil War, and via Jim Crow for a century after that, and since then via massive transfers of tax-money to blacks as welfare. The Moslems did it via a slave-trade over millenium old — a trade that lasted openly until the 1960's, and still exists under cover. Boys taken in that trade were routinely eunuchized, and less than half survived the procedure — mass-murder, year-in, year-out, for over a millenium. Nowadays the Moslems continue the genocide: nearly two million blacks have been killed in the Sudan alone by Moslem rulers. And now in Libya the Islamist rebels have begun killing black immigrant workers.
        The main difference between them is that the Democrats wear velvet gloves over their iron fists, while the Moslems don't.

        • Jim_C

          Ah, so the resemblance between Democrats and Muslims is nebulously metaphoric, is it? Something about slaves, is it? How vaguely impressionistic!

          How about some actual facts? Militant Muslims are anti-homosexuality, religiously observant, believe women have a natural place in the home but don't belong in worldly affairs, moral absolutists, believe we're in a religious war, think prayer should be in classrooms and think their religion should be at the forefront of government.

          Gee, who does that sound like? Why, I've heard every single one of those views espoused by this website's readers!

          • voted against carter

            jimy,..

            Which is WHY all the leftwing nut DemocRAT friends of YOURs hold them in such high esteem.

            Silly libratard. Try and keep up.

          • Jim_C

            So we "hold Muslims in high esteem" because they are religious conservatives?

          • Chris Nichols

            Ah, so the resemblance between Democrats and Muslims is nebulously metaphoric, is it?

            Something about slaves, is it? How vaguely impressionistic!

            How about some actual facts? Militant Muslims are anti-homosexuality, religiously

            observant, believe women have a natural place in the home but don't belong in worldly

            affairs, moral absolutists, believe we're in a religious war, think prayer should be in

            classrooms and think their religion should be at the forefront of government.

            Gee, who does that sound like? Why, I've heard every single one of those views espoused

            by this website's readers!

            Uh, she just gave them to you half-wit. Do you dispute any of ebonytones statement

            with actual facts; no, you use, conjecture and projection.

            We oppose gay marriage, not homosexuals, and we don't believe any group should be able

            to have special rights, other than the ones afforded everyone in the Constitution. And

            yes, they do apply to homosexuals too. Time was you lefties hated marriage, saying it

            was too patriarchial and outdated, they only jumped on the marriage bandwagon when gay

            people wanted too to try and gain poltical points you gutless hipocrites.

            You also believe the stereotype of conservatives wanting women in the kitchen even

            though we love successful women politicians like Margaret Thatcher, Michelle Bachmann

            and Sarah Palin while people like you have to use lies to try and destroy destroy them.

            We do not think religion should be at the forefront of government, we believe that our

            rights come from God and that governments primary purpose is to secure those rights.

            This Holy War you refer to, was not started by us, it is just another lie propogated by

            lazy thinkers like you to try and claim some moral equivalency between a political

            movement masquerading as a religion trying to lay claim to the entire globe and the

            people who were and are actually fighting back against it. And it absolves lazy people

            like you from actually learning the real history about Islam. Actually, you don't know

            much about history at all. I'll ask you again, are any of the statements made above

            untrue, and if so, how.

          • Jim_C

            Yes, ebonystone's statements are untrue on their face because she uses a flimsy metaphor to make the connection. Democrats do not own slaves, "velvet gloves" or no. I use facts–fundamentalists are the same wherever you go. There you have it! Maybe someday you'll learn how grown-ups debate!

            Hey, did you read how your beloved Thatcher refused to meet with Palin because it was beneath her dignity to do so? Ouch! That's gotta hurt worse than those mean lefty "lies." Classic example of the divorce from reality from which you suffer.

          • Chris Nichols

            Democrats did own slaves you fool, that was the ebonystone made. And it was a fact, that southern slave owners were Democrats and the KKK was started as a terrorist wing of the Democrat party. And the Thatcher did not refuse to meet with Palin because she thought it was beneath her, her office issued a statement to the contrary.

          • Stuffed Shark

            Here we have a classic case of the leftist mind, undoubtedly a product of the public school system, in debate — the complete lack of historical knowledge, the complete lack of logic, the complete inability to stay on topic, the projection of internal faults on external foes…. I'm so glad that so many decades ago I stopped being a lefty!! [And it all started when I understood that there MUST be Absolute Truth for the universe to function and for life to mean anything -- 2 and 2 is 4; it's always been 4, it will always be 4, and it can never be anything BUT 4, not even "3.99999999 and let's round it off".]

            The poster denies the truth of ebonystone's statements because he thinks the metaphor is weak, but he knows nothing of the historical facts themselves. It was Democrats who owned most of the slaves, it was Democrats who founded the KKK (and even many years later lauded and treasured Robert KKK Byrd, a man so deeply in love with the KKK that he held the position of Kleagle), it was Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse doors to block black kids from entering, it was Democrats who raised the Confederate flags over the state capital buildings in the South, and it is still Democrats to this very day who work hard to destroy the black community by breaking up the black family and by walking hand-in-hand with Margaret Sanger as their leader in how to treat blacks.

            The poster says he "uses facts"…. and then immediately changes the subject! Because, of course, he has no real facts to use in the immediately previous discussion. But he immediately leaps into the complete fabrication that "fundamentalists are the same wherever you go". Really?? I am a deeply convicted Christian funadamentalist, which means, more than anything other thing, that I believe that Jesus of Nazareth really IS The Christ, The Messiah, the only One and the only Way whereby a man like me can hope to gain eternal life, as His guest in His home. While He walked among us, He instructed me (among other things) to be kind, to be honest, to give to the poor, and to carry His message of life to all who will listen…. how exactly does that make me "the same" as moslem fundamentalists, who are instructed to "be ruthless" to unbelievers and to slay them "wherever they may be found"?? So fundamentalists are not AT ALL the same everywhere you go…. so much for "I use facts".

            As for the poster's assertion of "how grown-ups debate", just one time I would LOVE to see a leftist debate as a grown-up…. I am bored by the childish lack of historical knowledge (self-centered leftists thinking that history began when *they* were born), I grow weary of trying to keep lefties on topic (what in the wide world of sports did Sarah Palin have to do with this discussion??), I'm frustrated by the total lack of honesty (NO lie is beneath a leftist if it will either advance the cause or derail the discussion), and I am utterly bewildered at the total disconnect between what liberals WANT to be true and what really IS true, which is "reality".

            And of course, in *that* reality, I will NEVER see a liberal debate as a grown-up, and especially not as a person of honor and dignity. And boy, does that ever make me sad.

            regards,

          • ebonystone

            "Militant Muslims are anti-homosexuality,"
            Yes, so much so that homosexuality is a crime carrying the death penalty in many Moslem countries. It never was anywhere in the U.S. nor do I know of anyone apart from Moslems who would make it so.
            "Militant Muslims … believe women have a natural place in the home ."
            Yes, and they believe that the woman's owner (be it husband, father, or brother) has the right, even the duty, to kill her if she tries to step beyond that place. What other religion believes this?
            " Militant Muslims … think their religion should be at the forefront of government. "
            No, they think their religion should be the government, and that followers of other religions should have no rights at all.
            "Gee, who does that sound like? Why, I've heard every single one of those views espoused by this website's readers! "
            It sounds like Moslems! There are often trolls on this website making such statements, as I'm sure you're aware.

    • Supreme_Galooty

      I was there as well – and miraculously I'm STILL there – or here – or somewhere. I challenge any lefty to define what is right and what is left. They cannot. Except this:

      Lefty: Anybody who disagrees with me is RIGHTWING! AND they are FASCISTS!!!! (I also wouldn't know my ass from my elbow, but that is beside the point.)

    • Iron Yank

      You are a flat out liar, most people with half a brain realize that it was the Republican led congress along with LBJ that made the civil rights act a reality. Oh and, if you were Really there (Liar) you would know this.

      • trickyblain

        Republican led? How was it Rebublican led? Not by "numbers."

        See the actaul numbers below and tell us how the Republicans made the 64 CRA?

        • Chris Nichols

          Voting % by party for the Civil rights act of 1964.

          Senate:
          Democrats 69%
          Republicans 82%

          House:
          Democrats 61%
          Republicans 82%

          Do some basic research next time before you make yourself look a bigger idiot than you already are.

          • trickyblain

            In the real world, when one says "Republican led Congress" it means that Republicans had majority control over both branches. They didn't have control over either one. So it's not really clear why you are insulting me, as you just demonstrated either a) a lack of understanding of the political process or b) acute unfamiliarity with the English language.
            In terms of numbers, no Southern Republican in either the House or Senate voted for it. In all, 198 Democrats voted for it and 165 Republicans did the same.
            Again, it's that "Republican led" thing you say that's confusing. What were they leading?

          • ebonystone

            "Republican-led" is a misleading term, since Republicans made up only 34% of the Senate and 41% of the House.
            Still, it's fair to say that the act would not have passed in either the Senate nor the House without Republican support. In the Senate, 46 Democrats voted for it, and in the House 157. And in each house, the Republicans voted for it in greater percentages than did the Democrats.
            As for Southern Republicans, they were a rare breed in the 88th Congress: one Senator (out of 22), and 11 Representatives (out of 106).

          • Chris Nichols

            Democrats did own slaves you fool, that was the ebonystone made. And it was a fact, that southern slave owners were Democrats and the KKK was started as a terrorist wing of the Democrat party. And the Thatcher did not refuse to meet with Palin because she thought it was beneath her, her office issued a statement to the contrary.

          • Chris Nichols

            Just to clarify the above was a reply to Jim_C

          • Chris Nichols

            I didn't say "Republican led", that was in your post, and as ebonystone pointed out they led the way it it's passage. Even though they were the minority party in both houses, the legislation wouldn't have passed if not for a larger majority of Republicans,by percentage, voting for it. So my understanding of the English language is fine.

          • trickyblain

            No, it was in the post I was replying to.
            "You are a flat out liar, most people with half a brain realize that it was the Republican led congress along with LBJ that made the civil rights act a reality."

          • Jim_C

            He did. See replies to underzog post below for a better look at the actual numbers.

  • http://home.comcast.net/~enjolras/site/?/home/ Underzog

    As everyone knows, the Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed primarily because of Republicans voting for it. I agree with Ronald Reagan that the 1964 act was bad legislation, but I am just pointing out who really voted for it.

    Also, as Bernard Goldberg pointed out, since Liberals are fond of calling Conservatives racists, especially since Jon Stewart mocked Herman Cain with an Amos n' Andy potrayal, we should return the favor and start calling Jon Stewart a racist. They lib/commies should not get a free pass on their name calling. As Rush Limbaugh said, it's time to take the gloves off!

    • trickyblain

      It was introduced by a Northern Democrat and strongly supported by Democratic administrations (JFK, LBJ).
      There's no doubt that many Southern Democrats were racist, like Strom Thurmond. There's also no doubt that after the act was passed, many became Republicans, like Strom Thurmond. I don't think Republicans are racist. Southerners are. And they mainly Republicans these days.

      Here's the vote by region. Note that there was only one Southern Republican in the Senate until the CRA of 64 was passed- then their popularity exploded. Wonder why:
      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%)
      Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
      Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
      Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

  • Steve Chavez

    BREAKING NEWS! Jewish Cemetery and grave stones vandalized in Las Vegas, New Mexico.
    http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Van

    (Also in today's santafenewmexican.com, a story on two Santa Fe residents who were in the Audacity of Hope flotilla. Article is now being hidden but if you go to the comments area, you can press on the article and you can post a comment.)

  • http://www.nanoback.com Redi

    Can't agree more…

  • Brujo Blanco

    If you tell a liberal that in the 60′s the Demcrats opposed equal rights they likely would not believe it. Now the dems are supporting the new racism. They have fixes it so race is read into everything from employment, education, and justice. We need to treat one another properly. The race card needs to be eliminated.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    The Supreme Galooty, who is black, but who has white skin, once played with the Harlem Globetrotters. That was during the time when there were not only separate drinking fountains, but also separate hotel accomodations. It is the considered opinion of the Supreme Galooty that ignorance has its faults, but bliss is without sin.

    It would have been better for Margaret Sanger to have focused on genetic imbecility instead of racial criteria.

  • Wesley69

    All Progressive Democrats want from Blacks is their vote. What has the Democrat party given Blacks, but a culture of dependency. You don't need to work, get an education, we'll take care of you,just vote to keep us in office. Look at all the major cities that have been run by the Democrats for some time. They are falling apart and dying. Is this the promise that Blacks want from this country Instead of diversity and separatism, maybe the idea of inclusion and assimaltion needs to preached to Black communities. Sure we have a diversity, but we are all Americans.

    • Jim_C

      One of the biggest preachers, and exemplars, of inclusion and assimilation and ending self-imposed separatism, has been Barack Obama. He's made the same points you make, time and again, which you'd already know if you listened. So he can count on your vote, then, Wesley?

      • coyote3

        Well I guess words are more important than deeds. Notwithstanding the words, your statement assumes those goals are desirable in the first place.

  • tagalog

    Ever since I first heard about this story early in the week, I've been laughing wholeheartedly over the idea of a court finding that a citizen initiative requiring race neutrality in college admissions is unconstitutional.

    Martin Luther King must be rolling over in his grave. I bet even Malcolm X is doing a double-take. Well, I guess we must have some respect for the consistency of the "by any means necessary" crowd

  • Iron Yank

    I think that you could easily say that Democrats support reverse racism with laws & decisions like this, which dictate who gets what based on skin color alone. As if somehow all whites were once racist and now need to be paid back to make things even. Only the Liberal mentality would support such policy. A much better solution might be to have preferences which would help low income students instead of it being dictated by skin color, which the left is obsessed with.

  • steven reeves

    in response to jacjon (what a stupid name that is)I would say the right stands with jews and the left stands with nazis