Reflections on the Wichita Horror


carrtrial[To order David Horowitz and John Perrazo’s Black Skin Privilege, click here.]

If the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case demonstrated anything, it is the gross, and grotesque, double standards in race relations that exist in America.

A few weeks ago, I published a piece at Front Page Magazine, “Paula Deen and the Fundamental Transformation of America,” in which I relayed the unimaginably brutal fate that a young white couple, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, met six years ago in Knoxville, Tennessee at the hands of four black men and one black woman.  I noted that the usual suspects in the Racism-Industrial-Complex who demanded Deen’s head on a platter for having used a notorious racial epithet some 30 years ago or so have been utterly silent with respect to this atrocity.

There is, though, another scandalously underreported instance of black-on-white cruelty that, with shocking clarity, illustrates the hypocrisy and cowardice of contemporary racial discourse.  It occurred in Wichita, Kansas 13 years ago.  It is with good reason that it has since been dubbed “the Wichita Massacre” or “the Wichita Horror.”

On December 14, 2000, two black brothers, Reginald and Jonathan Carr broke into the home of three white men, Jason Befort, Bradley Heyka, and Aaron Sandler.  Also at the home were two white women, Heather Muller and a woman who, for the purpose of her own privacy and protection, is now known only as “H.G.” The latter is the sole survivor of the evil to which the Carr brothers subjected her and her friends.

Over a span of hours, the brothers Carr forced their victims to get naked and have sex with one another. According to an Accuracy in Media report, when Sander “failed to perform” sexually, he “was beaten with a golf club [.]”

Yet the Carrs also forced the two women to have sex with them. Repeatedly, Muller and H.G. were raped, both vaginally and orally.

The rapes, though, were interspersed with multiple robberies. At different times, Reginald Carr drove Heyka, Befort, and H.G., individually, to the bank where they were made to use their ATM cards to withdraw funds. The temperature that evening was at least 15 degrees below freezing, and yet the Carrs permitted H.G. to wear nothing but a sweater during her excursion to the bank.

But it wasn’t only the bank accounts of their victims that the Carr brothers depleted.  According to the AIM report, the Carrs “ransacked the house looking for money and valuables.” Sadly, they “found the engagement ring that Befort had planned to give H.G. a week later.”

At around 2 A.M. the Carrs took their captives—three of whom had been stuffed into the trunk of Sander’s Honda Accord—to a deserted field covered in snow. The men were stark naked while the women wore nothing other than a shirt.  All five were made to kneel down. The Carrs then shot each one of them, execution-style, in the backs of their heads. Then, they rode over the bodies in one of the vehicles that they stole before leaving their victims to rot.

The Carrs failed to realize that not all of their prey had died.  AIM states that H.G. took off her sweater to stop Jason Befort’s bleeding. “Blood was squirting everywhere,” she later testified in court.  It was even “coming out of his eyes.” Naked, raped, shot and left for dead, H.G. walked one mile to a home where she implored strangers to help. Most tellingly, she would not let them call 911 until after she had told them all that happened that night.  Thinking that she too would die, H.G. wanted to make sure that her grisly story was known. AIM reports that “the couple listened in amazement at her courage and determination.”

H.G. is indeed courageous and determined. Thanks to her virtues the Carr brothers were convicted and sentenced to death (though, unfortunately, they haven’t yet been executed).

Had H.G. been black and her attackers been white, there isn’t anyone in America who wouldn’t know her name.  More than one Lifetime movie would’ve been made about her and her friends.  Oprah Winfrey would have interviewed her several times over.  Along with that of Heather Muller, her name would already be in the annals of “Women’s History.” She would be a feminist icon.  The President, and most certainly the First Lady, would have given speeches singing her praises and reminding Americans that “racism” is still very much alive, etc.

And the Carr brothers (deservingly) would be the most vilified men in the country.

But H.G. and her four late friends were white and their assailants black.  Thus, if they were ever noticed at all, they have long since been forgotten.

In the spirit of that “honest discussion of race” that Eric Holder claims to want, we should acquaint and reacquaint ourselves with them.

While we’re at it, it is high time that we decry the outrageous racial double-standards on which the Racism-Industrial-Complex feeds.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • UCSPanther

    Just as sickening as the Hi Fi murders, and the animals who committed that horrid crime were black too. That was enough for NAACP to try and get them off the hook, but thankfully, it failed and they got sent to hell. When I read of that fact some years back, what little respect I may have had for the NAACP died right then and there, for I saw what they stood for.

    Race is no excuse. Commit the crime, pay the price. It shouldn’t matter if you are Arab, Black, White, Asian, Jew, etc. Anyone who says different is scum.

  • UCSPanther

    I think the old Chinese execution of “Death by a Thousand Cuts” would be a very suitable method for those two brothers.

    • Pat Hines

      I can tell you what used to happen to these negro animals, but it would be a bit gristly for modern society.

      What it did was to keep these events to the extremely rare, unlike today when they’re weekly events.

      Duluth, MN: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Duluth-lynching-postcard.jpg

      • unionville

        We are a country that is based on the rule of law. We did not always live up to that ideal as this disgusting picture indicates. Everyone, no matter how loathsome we feel they are, deserves their day in court. The men in this article have been tried, convicted and hopefully will be put to death soon. There is no need to resurrect the evils that have been done in the past.

        • CowboyUp

          Amen.

        • Pat Hines

          The law comes from the people who delegate it to government. When government fails to do their duty it is incumbent upon the people to resume their delegated power and exercise it.

          Lynchings has a much lower error rate than does government today.

          • hiernonymous

            “Lynchings has a much lower error rate than does government today.”

            And you know this how?

          • Pat Hines

            Historical research, son.

            In case y’all want to know, the person calling himself “hiernonymous” follows me around the various places that use Discus. Kind of like a progressive-fascist gadfly or monkey.

            In a sense, I’m the organ grinder, he’s the monkey.

          • hiernonymous

            What historical research? Let’s start with the “error rate” of lynching – what was that error rate, and what’s your source?

            (Even portly reserve nurse captains don’t normally refer to their seniors as ‘son,’ but I think it’s pretty funny – drive on, Nurse Pat.)

          • ziggy zoggy

            Why don’t you start with the government error rate and end with a money shot that proves most lynch subjects were guilty…….or Black.

          • hiernonymous

            “…and end with a money shot that proves most lynch subjects were guilty…”

            Why would I try to prove something I don’t believe to be true? I’ll be happy to accept it if the data is sound and reliable, but your say-so is neither.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You don`t believe most lynch subjects were Black? Neither do I, because they weren`t. Troll attempt denied, loser.

          • herb benty

            Hi there and good for you! I live in Canada and if we make any sense at all, especially if you throw LIGHT on leftist notions, out of the woodwork they come. Keep the common sense going, they can’t handle it!

          • ziggy zoggy

            How? Barack Hussein Obama.

          • hiernonymous

            Question: How do we know that lynchings victimized fewer innocent people than do the courts?
            Answer: Barack Hussein Obama.

            If that actually made sense to you, maybe you could elaborate?

          • ziggy zoggy

            You questioned whether the error rate of lynching was lower than the error rate of the government. Poor reading comprehension is a given for DNC trolls but you`re so stupud you don`t even understand what you wrote yourself! A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Barack Hussein Osama is the driving force behind incessant government errors.

          • keyesforpres

            Pat you are a despicable person….and a lefty to boot…trying to pretend to be a conservative so you can make conservatives look bad.
            This site should scrub all your comments and permanently ban your despicable piece of garbage self.

      • Edward

        Hey Sociialist, crawl back to storrmfront.

        • Pat Hines

          Do yourself, progressive.

      • Spartacus

        That’s a pretty picture.

      • Drakken

        I do have the original postcard of that event. It shows what happens when justice is done.

      • keyesforpres

        Yes Pat, it is horrible what the democrat KKK did to blacks….they lynched blacks for being blacks….but the KKK was actually founded to go after Republicans. Over 3000 black Republicans were lynched, but did you know that over a thousand white Republicans were also lynched by racist democrats?
        “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White” by David Barton talks about that and there is a picture of two blacks and two whites that had been lynched by democrats.

        • hiernonymous

          Just out of curiosity, of the folks here expressing approval of lynchings, do any of them self-identify as Democrats? Anybody?

          • OfficialPro

            Every single member of the Ku Klux Klan.

          • hiernonymous

            In your grandfather’s day, or today? If the former, I doubt that every one, but close enough for government work. Today? – source, please!

          • ProgDestroyer

            OK chucklehead first lets get you on the record. Are you saying it is OK for these feral beasts to do what they did because of sins committed against their race in the past? I mean lets be clear here, and you seem to be saying that these evil bastards are justified in doing what they did. If you are saying this you are a moron and deserving a night alone with them in their cells. I will pay for your transportation. Now, lets review the history and none of it ancient by any means. First, ALL of the governors in the south preventing desegregation were Demo-rats, period. The one in South Carolina placed the stars and bars above the capital building as a sign of protest and later became the “junior” senator from that state and his name was Fritz Hollings. Interestingly enough when the race baiters whined about that flag flying in 2000 nobody thought to ask the opinion and justification for doing so from the a$$ clown who put it there even though he was a sitting senator at the time. In 1994 slick willie presented the Medal of Freedom to his “political mentor” former senate majority leader William Fulbright, a non-apologetic segregationist. And of course Al “the sky is falling” Gore’s daddy was the same. But last and certainly not the least or last, we have Robert “Sheets” Byrd who was not only the longest serving troll as senator in US history he also had the notoriety of being a Grand Keegle in the KKK. Oddly my search of Republican leaders of the same period and since don’t have any of these sleazy disgusting “pedigrees”. That would be your party a$$-hat. Oh, and by the way zippy this is just a sample of the evil your demo-rat party has done and continues to justify.

          • hiernonymous

            Let me start by recommending decaf. Couldn’t hurt, anyway.

            Are you saying it is OK for these feral beasts to do what they did because of sins committed against their race in the past? I mean lets be clear here, and you seem to be saying that these evil bastards are justified in doing what they did.

            Really? What did I say that led you to that curious conclusion?

            What I’m saying, of course, is that lynchings are unjustifiable, and that mob retaliation is not “justice.” I’ve also noted that, in the case under discussion, the perps were caught, convicted, and sentenced to die, so it’s not clear just what, exactly, is missing from this equation. How any of that translates to “these evil bastards are justified in doing what they did” is not doubt a product of either your imagination or some unfortunate limitations in your reading skills.

            I’m not a Democrat, and it’s not my intent to paint one party as good and one as bad, but it’s arrant nonsense to try to portray today’s KKK as an exclusively (or, based on any evidence I’ve seen, even primarily) Democratic organization.

            In terms of the ludicrous claim to which I responded – that all members of the KKK are Democratic, one need only say: David Duke, Clarence Morley, Rice Means. To bring it into the here-and-now, we have Eddie Moore, South Carolina Republican, who admitted last October to having been a Klan member. In short, the “all-Democrat KKK” line is demonstrably wrong; and now, before offering generalities, my question is – what are your sources? How do you know?

            “Oh, and by the way zippy this is just a sample of the evil your demo-rat party has done and continues to justify.”

            I’m not a Democrat. Since we baring our hearts to one another, I’ll offer that your post is a good example of the sort of tribal, my-tribe-good, your-tribe-evil simplemindedness that makes people so easy to manipulate. You’re not engaged in political thought or analysis, you’re simply rationalizing “your side” and demonizing what you erroneously believe to be “my side.”

          • ProgDestroyer

            First, your posts seemed to me to be the kind we see often that rationalizes the barbarity that ensues every so often where lefties get to hide behind the race card. I personally sick and tired of it being played incessantly to justify horrific behavior and you seem to be doing so. If not, oh well. As to your insistence that I provide you sources to what I wrote, for us constitiutional conservatives this is common knowledge. But I will play your game I will provide you sources if you provide me yours. As an aside; your comment about David Duke is a joke. He may self-proclaim himself a republican, but I would like you to show me where he was endorsed by either his state or the federal party office. Sadly you can’t. As to tribal loyalty, I am a former republican but haven’t been since about 2005. I am of the opinion that the leadership and most of the representaitves in DC are statists and that is something I will and can no longer abide. Your comments came off as the typical leftist prog and of all creatures on this planet, I “shoot” first (proverbially speaking for now) and ask questions later. But if I am off base I will sort that out once you clarify yourself. In the end the racists today are primarily found among those that are sans the need for sunscreen, not the progeny of yesteryear’s pale faces.

          • hiernonymous

            “First, your posts seemed to me to be the kind we see often that rationalizes the barbarity that ensues every so often where lefties get to hide behind the race card.”

            In other words, you read what you expected to see instead of what was there. Not my problem.

            As to my sources, not sure which source you’re asking for; I assume that it’s the Eddie Moore as Klansman, so here you go: http://www.independentmail.com/news/2012/oct/15/deposition-county-council-member-moore-was-in/

            Your point about David Duke is actually a very good one, and one worth keeping in mind – when we dredge up fringe figures as examples of bad behavior by a party, it matters whether the party in question endorses and supports that behavior. That’s probably also worth keeping in mind if you assert a KKK – Democratic Party link today.

            “Your comments came off as the typical leftist prog…”

            To be fair, when I see phrases like “leftist prog,” it comes off to me as second hand political sloganeering with precious little actual thought behind it, and I’d be surprised if the typical person employing it could actually articulate what the progressive movement was about, or why it’s not a synonym for socialist which is not a synonym for communist which is not a synonym for liberal which is not… well, you get the drift.

            “But if I am off base I will sort that out once you clarify yourself.”

            I haven’t yet been unclear; you’ve been sloppy in your reading.

            “In the end the racists today are primarily found among those that are sans the need for sunscreen, not the progeny of yesteryear’s pale faces.”

            Evidence on this thread to the contrary notwithstanding. Or did you not catch the pro-lynching pictures and comments before they were removed?

          • ProgDestroyer

            You lefties come on these sites and make innuendos and inferences all the time and then try to play coy, much like you are doing now. I suspect you have an issue with comprehension so I will attempt to explain. The story is about how there is a huge double-standard with how black on white crime is reported vice white on black. As a matter of mere statistics, a white is four times more likely to be attacked by a black than a black does being attacked by a white. The preponderance of comments talked about justice and if necessary self-defense. Now this is where you come in. Some jackass posts a picture from the 1930s of a black being lynched and you proceed to make comments that to the average folks justifies what the animals in the story did. “Pat” made a comment that most murders are committed by black men, a very small percentage of the population, your comment was that he/she should refer to the picture fo the lynching. Drawing the lynching picture into the main conversation had nothing to do with the conversation and certainly had nothing to do with Pat’s comment. You drew a link from Pat’s crime statistics to the lyching and asked Pat to rethink his post thus making a justification for blacks to do what the Carr boys did. SARC ON// Because you know lynching occurs so much these days. SARC OFF// Like most lefties your knowledge of history is distorted. The bottom line is that the entire history of the Demo-rat party is one of racism and anti-constitutional activity. As to the fact you don’t like the moniker of

          • ProgDestroyer

            As to your issue with the leftist prog moniker and comment implying I and everybody here throw it around as a meaningless pejorative, in my case I actually do know what I am talking about. The term is just a polite way of describing a leftist, a Marxist to be more precise and a Fabian socialist to be even more so. Leftists in the USA still operate in stealth mode because they still know that if the truth is exposed they stand to lose a great deal of the gains they have made over the past 100 years or so. So you and the others come to sites like FPM and make accusations that we are racists and bigots, in most cases in those precise words, but every once and awhile we get a slickster like yourself who plays the game a bit more subtley. To argue that every party has a bad history is just another way of saying everybody is guilty even though the unvarnished history is far different. Meanwhile western civilization and America in particular are being undermined by the statists and we are here bickering about which poster is the closet racist.

          • hiernonymous

            Sounds like a bit of a paranoid fantasy. I don’t have much use for Manichaean fanatics who divide the world up into two camps – their own personal “us” and “them.” It’s simply polysyllabic tribalism. I have Palestinian and Jewish friends who insist on viewing every issue, however arcane, through the lens of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Bad banana crop in Honduras? Mossad’s behind it!

            The thought that there’s a ‘good’ party and a ‘bad’ party may provide some comforting simplicity to your life, but it’s an artificial simplicity, and not helpful in doing the hard work of making policy decisions. The real world is much more complex, and no single platform or set of policy preferences has yet proved to be ideal. The free market has thus far proved to be the most efficient way of allocating resources, and in general seems compatible with the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment of protecting the individual against governmental tyranny. But the late 19th century also exposed many shortcomings of laissez faire capitalism, and the progressive movement was a response to the abuse of workers, local governmental corruption, corporate profiteering at the expense of the pockets and health of the public (e.g. the sale of diseased meat to the public, using chemicals to cover bad odors and colors, a la Sinclair’s The Jungle). Social idealists, including progressives, also pushed for reforms that turned out to be bad, as well, such as forced sterilization laws in the misguided application of eugenics.

            To think that you can just make a single decision – Party A or Party B, Philsophy A or Philosophy B, and then just dedicate the rest of your life to cheerleading for the one or the other is to abdicate your responsibility for thinking and evaluating every day.

            As for your approach to racism, one of the reasons there are so many accusations of racism is because there are so many manifestations of it. We see a good amount of the-best-defense-is-a-good-offense approach to racism on the internet, but that doesn’t make the problem go away. When someone posts to me that all blacks want to murder unarmed whites, there’s nothing “closet” about that racism. I simply say that in my years, I’ve noticed that people get angriest, most defensive, and most violent, not when they’ve been wronged, but when they’re caught being wrong.

          • ProgDestroyer

            Paranoid fantasy? Really? Perhaps if you got your information from some place other than a university campus you would see the evidence that is all around you. The statist never stops his march to consolidate power and the tactic he uses most often is “divide and conquer”, and they have been wildly successful. That is not paranoia just an honest interpretation of the reality around us. Of course you folks on the left want all of the minions to believe the world is a complex place and the solutions are myriad and difficult and of course no one group has a monopoly on justice and so on. But the truth is that usually most problems and conflicts are in fact quite simple to figure out, the difficulty comes when courage is needed to do the right thing. You leftys have convinced too many folks that morality is relative and everybody’s perspective is right, which is just another way of saying nobody’s perspective is right, except of course your tired worn-out failed statist ideas. I suspect you aren’t a complete lefty given your comments about capitalism being the fairest economic system around, but unfortunately life is more than economics. In the end there are folks out there who will never be satisfied with the indidual choices you, I and others make and will seek to exercise their vision upon us. To that point I would strongly disagree with your assertion that so far no set of ideals has proven to be better than another. Our Constitution is the proof that your assertion is false, period. Of course that is why lefties always seek to undermine it and impose their own statist agenda upon us in its place. The irony is that you can’t point to one statist success story anywhere in the annals of time but you will insist that we still try it anyway because our system didn’t avoid the nasty periods in our history as though what happened here is as bad as what the statists have done. Sorry, but there is not parody between the statist systems and ours. I am sure that when you and your friends meet for cocktail parties you spend the requisite time at the outset to participate in a 30 minute hate-fest about how horrible this country is, not realizing that if you did this in the statist utopias around the world today you think we should emulate you would find yourself in a dark nasty hole. The solutions aren’t as complex as you would like to think, but perhaps you only think so because you lack the courage to do the right thing. But of course feel free to live on believing its all too complex to sort out and it is best to leave it to self-appointed masterminds to sort out. I mean that has worked out so well for us so far, hasn’t it?

          • hiernonymous

            I’ve spent my fair share of time on campuses, but I spent a lot more in uniform, so I’m not sure where you get the idea that I get all my ideas from an ivory tower, or express hatred of my country at cocktail parties. Sounds like a bit of ad hominem there.

            The Constitution that you hold up as an example is, in fact, an excellent example of the tension between different philosophical approaches. As you denounce statism, you seem to forget that the Constitution was written specifically to address the inadequacies of the centralized state under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was written to make the Executive Branch more, not less, effective, and to provide more, not less, power to the central government. You also seem to ignore the fact that the Constitution was born out of strong, often bitter, disagreements between different political approaches, represented largely by Federalists such as Hamilton, and anti-Federalists such as Jefferson. In even broader terms, the Constitution embodies the tensions between the democratic principle of majority rule, and the liberal principles of inalienable rights; the genius of the Constitution was not that it chose one over the other, but that it found a way to incorporate both in a workable manner. I agree that the Constitution has proved to be an enduring and far-sighted piece of work, but you’re strongly mistaken if you think it didn’t involve compromise between different political philosophies.

            Again, you’re trying to make this a tribal conflict, us versus them, when, in fact, it’s an ongoing process. Ironically, one could look at it as a Hegelian dialectic, in which the conflict between two extreme positions produces a result better than either alone. You might not like that way of looking at it, though, as Marx also admired the Hegelian dialectic, though he applied it to class warfare.

            Bottom line: states are both necessary and dangerous, and simply crying out “states are bad!” isn’t helpful, nor even consistent with what the Founding Fathers were trying to achieve.

          • ProgDestroyer

            Yes the constitution is a far-sighted document. As to the product being the result of compromise; of course it was. Anybody who has had to take an old-fashioned US Government course knows the point of the convention was to fix the problems of the Articles of Confederation and what started as an attempt to tweak the Articles became a complete do-over. But that said the founders certainly understood the importance of creating a system that limited the powers of the central government and clearly we have grown well beyond those limitations. Lets not forget the States agreed to give up a portion of their individual sovereignty only in exchange for those limitations. Without them we would not have had the result. My apology for the snarky ivory tower characterizations, but that is how your comments sometimes come off. But your comments about the KKK crowd moving to the republican party just aren’t factual. Twenty years ago the only folks saying that was the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton wing of the civil right crowd. Just as you think your anecdotal evidence is valid so do I. The folks I have met in the south who make no bones about their bigotry were disaffected democrats and would tell you so, but when asked whether they would consider voting for a republican they would launch on a tirade about how they were just for the rich. The veiled point of course being that they completely bought into the class warfare of the democrat party.
            As to your use of the Hegelian Dialectic; I will say that it is usually misapplied. For example there often are problems where the two thesis are not equal. For example, Islamists state that non-believers must convert to islam or die. The two sides are not equal. Marx tended to use this method to strip away morality from the discussion so as to stack the deck in favor of his solution. As long as there was a moral component in the opposing thesis, he had a hard time convincing folks that his solution was the superior one. This is how we have come to a time where moral relativity has become the norm.
            KKK. I would say that your two comments about the KKK being the home of republicans versus the republican party being the home of the KKK is a distinction without a difference. In the end you are at least implying that the republican party is where these idiots have found a home ostensibly because the republican party embraces the racist ideas and offers sanctuary to those who are. But the important fact is that the republican party has never embraced them when in the rare case they are discovered. It is also true that the democrats no longer do either, but the KKK is still a part of the party history, and that does in fact matter.
            I too have spent a great deal of my life in the Army. The vast majority of it in units that work within the final 50 meters of foreign “diplomacy”. Life does get pretty simple in those situations, but to say that the folks who do it are “simple” people would be a gross exaggeration. For most in that line of work the world’s problems are easy to identify, the problem comes when applying the solutions. Courage is required to do the right thing and sadly that is lacking these days among our leaders. Surely that isn’t what you meant when you made your comments about tribalism and Manichaean fantatics being simplistic. Life isn’t as complicated as the left wants us to believe but the belief it is plays into their hands.
            I never simply said “states are bad”. The people who run them sure can be, and all of one party and a majority of another think that centralizing power in DC is a good thing. I don’t. History is rife with examples of how bad things get when men of moral turpitude get complete control of the levers of power and we are getting to that point now.
            We are led by moral cowards in both parties. Over time I have concluded that a return to constitutional principles is needed as a start. A return to a common morality that existed for most of our country’s history is needed as well. That means we won’t be using the Hegelian Dialectic too often because unfortunately for the left, the evidence of their failure no longer makes that necessary. Of course those who wish to thwart this attempt will sure try. RLTW

          • hiernonymous

            I’ve only a few minutes before I leave for a dinner, but as the conversation has taken a more productive turn, I’ll address a couple of points before I go.

            Regarding the KKK, let me draw a distinction between my point – that the traditional KKK constituency has migrated to the Republican party – and the idea that the “KKK crowd” has migrated. It’s a subtle but important difference. My point is that the people from whom the KKK traditionally drew its support – white, conservative Southerners – has migrated. When you say “the KKK crowd” has migrated, that implies that a bunch of actual Klansmen have joined the Republicans. The Klan is a shadow of its former self – no party could be much influenced today by the Klan, and what few reports I’ve seen on its current membership suggest that if every Klansman in America attended an NFL game, it would be a mildly disappointing gate. That said, the beliefs and thought processes behind KKK support have not simply disappeared, and when people make a point of drawing attention to the roots of the KKK in the Democratic Party – a historically accurate point – it’s very important, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, to note that the white conservatives that were the sort of person who founded the Klan have, by and large, abandoned the Democratic Party. Failing to point this out is to refuse to acknowledge the mid-century transformation of the Democratic Party, and – for that matter – the impact of Goldwater and the Southern Strategy on the Republican.

            Regarding Manichaeism and tribal fanatics, I would suggest that the simplicity found within 50 meters of foreign policy is the simplicity of failure. That is, by the time we have resorted to force, someone has already failed to completely grasp a problem and find a non-lethal solution. The problems a firefighter faces are also relatively simple – put out the fire or not – and by the time a fireman is risking his life to save someone in a fire, he’s not too worried about the water damage he’s causing an antique desk, or the fact that he’s smashing a priceless stained glass window to get to a trapped congregation. To him, the problems are very simple, indeed, and that doesn’t make him simpleminded. However, long before he was called into action, there were people who had the opportunity to make decisions that affected the probability of there being a fire at all; someone who could have voted for tighter electrical codes, someone who could have installed sensors and sprinklers, etc, but didn’t do so. Similarly, the fellow on point in a war may find that certain aspects of war are very simple indeed, and that doesn’t make him simplistic – but the fellow who is looking at the larger political picture, and casts that picture in a “me right, you wrong – by definition” manner, IS guilty of being simplistic. A very good example is the history of Japanese-American relations between the Russo-Japanese War and 1941. In popular American mythology, the Japanese more or less went berserk in 1941 and, out of the blue, launched a madman’s attack on a United States that was just minding its own business, the innocent victim of militarism gone mad. And there’s a kernel of truth there – there’s no denying that Japan did represent the problems of militarism operating without effective civil control. But Japan also highlights two other relevant aspects of the conversation. First, Japan adopted the same sort of “if Japan does it, it’s right” mentality that many Americans display today; it’s a dangerous way to think. Second, Japan didn’t just go berserk one day and decide it hated Americans – there was over a half-century of policy decisions behind that attack, and involved everything from American racism (decisions to exclude Japanese from schools, immigration policy, etc, that almost led to war in the first decade of the 20th century – something not often taught in public schools), and the U.S. Navy was planning for war against Japan as the most likely future conflict decades before Pearl Harbor. My point is not to digress, but to point out that even in one of our most legitimately black-and-white foreign policy conflicts, matters were not as black-and-white as we like to think. War was not an inevitability.

            For lack of time, I’ll also address your comment in the other post. My lynching picture comment was not in any way intended as a ‘cheap shot;’ rather, I thought it a perfect illustration of the sort of cognitive dissonance involved in painting the Democratic Party of today as somehow the more racist of the two, when the stalwart conservatives, on one of their own forums, were (apparently unconsciously) displaying precisely the behavior they claimed characterized others. Yes, there were those who spoke out against those comments, though I note that there were two sorts of those, as well: some who seemed genuinely perturbed, and some who seemed concerned that making such comments so openly would make the party vulnerable to accusations of racism.

            Regarding the Tea Party, I understand that its platform is nebulous, because it isn’t a party and doesn’t have a platform – it came into being as a more or less spontaneous confluence of interests. I happen to agree with some of its earlier ideals, but the problem with any mass movement is that anyone can join, and the wingnuts came out in force. Sadly, they can’t be ignored, either, and there’s also no denying the polarizing effect they’ve had on the Republican Party. One may approve or disapprove of that effect, but for better or worse, moderate Republicans – and, ironically, especially fiscal conservatives who don’t embrace the increasing social conservatism of the party – are finding themselves marginalized, dismissed as “RINOs.” The question I’d ask you is – where does the American voter who embraces fiscal conservatism and social liberalism turn to these days? In years past, there were the Rockefeller Republicans, but that wing of the party has no juice at all today. The Tea Party initially looked like just such a movement, but that’s not where it has moved. I appreciate the viewpoint that the Tea Party represents a movement toward constitutional limitations, but I don’t think it’s really that simple – for example, most self-identified Tea Party sites I see involve an awful lot of anger over homosexual marriage, immigration, racial issues – all exactly the sorts of things that one would expect out of the white Southern conservative demographic, and none of it to do with fiscal responsibility. The latter almost seems to be an afterthought to many later Tea Party adherents, a plank adopted less out of genuine concern for the fiscal health of the state, and more as just another example of “stuff that proves Washington is corrupt.” (Which, sadly, it is, but that’s another conversation.)

            Have to run, sorry if I left a few points uncovered.

          • ProgDestroyer

            I agree the conversation is more edifying. I suspect you would have called no joy yourself if it had been otherwise. I hope you had a pleasant dinner.
            To your point about where the southern racists went after the 1960′s I still take issue with some of what you are saying. I certainly agree there is an element of truth to what you say, but as all things evolve the terms seem to have as well. I loathe the left for the way they twist the meaning of words by coopting them and giving them the opposite definition they had before. The word “liberal” is an excellent example. The traditional definition was that a liberal supported the inalienable rights all individuals receive from God. It doesn’t matter one’s personal opinion about the existence of God, the point is that a being far superior to man is responsible for these rights and no man can take them away, and those that placed the rights of the individual over the interests of the State were the original liberals. Now the term means that one supports a Leviathan sized powerful government that provides all things needed or wanted to the individual. And the insidious part of this is that the individual enslaves themselves willingly to this notion. I delved into the side-bar as a way to show that just as the word “liberal” has been bastardized, so too has the word conservative. In the 60′s the terms more or less meant what their traditional definitions had been, now they of course are essentially reversed. I don’t mean to play word games, but in the context of the 1960′s definition of the word “conservative” all that you ascribe to the racists was unarguably true. They sought to create an inferior class of folks who would be in fact if not outright slaves to them. But the key is that they did so because they did not acknowledge the inalienable right for all men to be free of the tyranny that segregation so completely encapsulated. I truly believe that today’s Tea Party types are classical/traditional liberals, in that they believe in the sanctity of the individual and sometimes that will delve into areas that are outside of the economic realm. Personally I am comfortable with that since I don’t think one can separate moral issues from economic issues for long. It works fine at the start, but in the end we run up against the left and their immorality and war against natural law. At some point one must make a stand against immorality and that is uncomfortable for many. John Adams famously said that our constitution was written for a moral people and would not work for any other. It is this belief that led to the end of slavery and segregation. And it is because of this reasoning that I have a hard time buying that folks who thought it was OK to effectively enslave another would find a home politically among folks who ardently oppose the evil of racism. One may be able to camouflage those evil beliefs for awhile, but eventually they would manifest those thoughts and risk being called out and ostracized. Today though I find it amazing that by simply reversing the races in question, the evil of the 1960s is alive and well, and of course it is again within the democrat party. I don’t think most democrats buy into this crap themselves, but by their silence they are complicit. I think the disgust of this reality is what is expressed in some of the posts here. After working in over a dozen countries on five different continents, I can say without hesitation, that in comparison to those places America is not a racist country. We rebuke and revile those who espouse those ideas, for the most part anyway. The white racists have had to either genuinely reform or have become disaffected and marginalized. On this issue there won’t be a 100% solution to our satisfaction, but it is a far better situation today than it ever was before. cheers.

          • hiernonymous

            I enjoy a civil disagreement – thanks for the conversation. I’ll offer a couple of closing thoughts, and read your response with interest.

            I agree that the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have been distorted in modern American usage – ‘conservative’ was actually applied as a pejorative in the 1920s, as I recall.

            One reason I object to dualistic worldviews is that they lead people to root for one ‘team’ or the other, without being willing to objectively evaluate all the players and options. In the context of the progressive movement, I think that it’s good history to recall that laissez faire capitalism had, in the 19th century, led to abominable working and living conditions for the bulk of the population. Workers were disposable in every sense of the word; if a steelworker was burned, it was cheaper and easier to simply fire him and hire a healthy man. It was more cost effective to accept a higher workplace casualty rate than it was to accept the expenses involved in safety measures. The Carnegies could hire private armies, break nascent efforts to create unions, and, in effect, were the indisputable masters of their workforce. Similar abuses occurred in other industries. It’s in this context that the progressive movement must be understood – that the progressives saw the power of the state, not as an objective or good in its own right, but as a natural counterbalance to the power of the great capitalists. Absent some effective regulatory power of the state, the capitalists in effect wielded the power of government, but with none of the checks and balances of government.

            This is why I look at most human systems, whether it be government, economics, education, or workplace management, as a wave function, or a pendulum. Any particular approach – whether we’re talking capitalism, a workplace organizational style, what have you, will eventually be corrupted and exploited. In the late 19th century, the capitalists had exploited the system, and the progressives – no more organized than today’s Tea Party, and even less monolithic – responded to that, and achieved some great successes. We must attribute the growth of the middle class in the 1950s to the workplace and economic reforms of the progressives. Obviously, however, some of those reforms can and have been corrupted and exploited, and systems put in place to solve real problems – such as those designed to take care of injured workers – accumulate expenses, bureaucracies, and free riders. The answer to such problems is not to try to turn back the clock to the time of the Carnegies, but there’s no doubt that a periodic shift in our approach helps clear out the inefficiencies and abuses.

            On the issue of racism, I’d offer two observations. First, one of the valuable lessons I got in the Army was in generational change. The first class of female cadets had graduated two years before I arrived at the Academy, and there was still a great deal of resentment, there and in the Army, at the still relatively new presence of female soldiers. I don’t know when you were in, or in what branch, but those of us from the ’80s and early ’90s probably remember the monthly training sessions, where we had the rules of sexual harassment explained, were constantly briefed on acceptable and unacceptable behavior, had to role-play various scenarios, etc. As a lieutenant, I thought my time was being wasted – how could this sort of training change the ingrained prejudices and biases of soldiers? People would just say what they thought the trainers wanted to hear, and then go on doing what they wanted. A couple of decades on, I realized that the system was actually quite effective – I just hadn’t understood as a young man what the objective was. Of course, the grizzled old sergeants never changed their attitudes. BUT – their behavior had to go underground. Things they’d said openly were now said after work, or behind closed doors. Their minds were never changed. But the younger soldiers stopped hearing the open contempt and stopped seeing the openly dismissive behavior, and they began to internalize that such behavior wasn’t accepted in the Army. Some of the biases no doubt wore off on them, and they were still exposed to the real deal after hours, but a subtle shift had taken place. After a couple more ‘generations’ of recruits had come up and through, things were genuinely different. Of course, other factors came into play – the more women there were in the Army, the more obvious it became that they could pull their weight, but still, the conscious generation change in the Army was slow but impressive. A notable exception is in the infantry and armor, because women were not allowed in either branch, and they were holdouts in more ways than one. I think the same sort of change is slowly taking place in America in regards to racism – with the caveat that there are still a lot of holdouts.

            The second observation I’d make is that I think it’s a mistake – or worse – to try to pretend that racism is a bit of history, that ‘terrible things were done to the blacks, but that’s long ago, and now we should all be over it.’

            I’ll start by noting that when the slaves were freed and Reconstruction ended, a concerted and institutional effort was made for nearly a century to prevent black Americans from joining the educational, political, and economic mainstream. I note this because the effects of poverty and lack of educational opportunity don’t simply affect the individuals suffering in such conditions – they are multigenerational. There have been some excellent studies conducted, for example, of how children perform in school based on the literacy of their parents and on their functional vocabulary when they first come to school. Children of poorly educated parents have, themselves, a vocabulary thousands of words smaller than those of well-educated and prosperous parents, and this smaller vocabulary correlates closely to worse performance in school, lower graduation rates, and lower economic prospects. It can take many generations to break this cycle, and in America, we didn’t even try to break the cycle until Brown v Board got the ball rolling. I’m old enough to have been in the first integrated classes in my school in Virginia. I don’t tell you this as a simple anecdote, but to illustrate that when we portray these events as being a century and a half ago, well, no – we didn’t really start trying to break the cycle until our own lifetimes.

            This has several profound implications for us, and for this conversation. First, when we talk about black resentment of whites, it’s most emphatically not the same phenomenon, just in reverse; we’ve never been systematically abused and marginalized, and we aren’t still living with the results of that abuse. More important, we’re still grappling with how to make things right. This is a very hard subject, because the right answer isn’t obvious. Affirmative action, or something like it, was and is obviously necessary to break the cycle. That said, opponents of such programs raise some legitimate concerns, the most telling of which is that programs such as welfare, or preferential hiring, etc, can lead to dependency and counterproductive outcomes. This suggests that the best course is likely to be threading a path between the two; my own inclination would be to engage – here, in the 2010s – in a sort of educational Marshall Plan, in which we commit military-sized budgets to a full-blown overhaul of our educational system, and we do so with an eye toward providing first-rate educational outcomes to black Americans. This should be an effort with a defined start and end date, running over the course of a few decades – perhaps two complete generations – and include follow-on college and technical training. The objective, going in, would be to make a genuine and massive effort to level the playing field, and with a clear end date at which all race-based preferences, etc, would be formally ended. I can’t say that I’ve thought this through with any rigor, and there may be holes in it, but I hold no truck with those who pretend that blacks are in the social and economic conditions they’re in in the U.S. through their ‘own damned fault,’ and I also don’t think that the current approach to education, welfare, etc, is sustainable. Bottom line: I don’t think that what you’re seeing today is simply a reversal of 1060s racism, it’s the natural consequence of our previous appalling policies.

            I disagree with you that America is not a racist country. Yes, I’ve seen other countries that also bad, in their own ways. Korea and Japan are very insular and homogeneous, and don’t treat outsiders particularly well. Germans don’t cotton to their Turkish Gastarbeiter, the Arabs and Jews in the Middle East are horrible to one another, Cairenes look down on Saidis, and in many Latin American countries, one’s social status is in large part determined by how much Indian blood one does or doesn’t have. On the other hand, our treatment of our black population raised eyebrows around the world, and even Hitler had some well-aimed comments about our hypocrisy. I’d like to agree with you that we rebuke those who are racist; I’d say that, in the context of my comments above, we’re getting better – and it’s in that spirit that I commented on this thread to begin with.

            Regards!

          • ProgDestroyer

            Sorry this is so long in coming back to you. It has been busy the past few days.
            I will agree that there was some good to come from the progressive movement of the late 19th to early 20th century. Your points about workplace safety are legitimate, but keep in mind that much of that issue was a problem that many groups were working on. In my opinion the progressives have just been very successful at taking all or most of the credit, when it is at best a shared result that came about. But just because they did some good things for society like initiatives to fix work-place safety problems doesn’t mean that the group on a whole was noble. I mean some good can be found in all groups, even the most evil. The Italians said that at least Mussolini made the trains run on time. Regardless of their past what they have done since has been terribly destructive to our country. But to stay in the same time period one has to look at what else was being done. They met in the UK the year after Marx died and started the Fabian society which advocated socialism by evolution vice revolution and sought to merely create a persistent move toward that ideology all the while pretending to be moderates. For heaven’s sake they adopted the wolf in sheep’s clothing as their logo. That creation lead to the creation of the Frankfurt school here in the US (with financial support from leading industrialists here), which sought to use issues like work-place safety, women’s issues, and other initiatives that promoted a decay of the US culture (ie: Christian values). This is undeniable. The result is that for the rest of the 20th century we have seen a steady, and at brief times rapid, movement to the far left of the spectrum. The Fabians and the Frankfurt School used legitimate issues and problems of the day to camouflage their true intent which was at best to move us away from our Constitution and at their worst, to a radical egalitarian system, which is all socialism is anyway. The irony is that while they made themselves the “champions” of the poor and disadvantaged they were foisting upon those folks a philosophy that would fool the masses into choosing bondage to the State over liberty and freedom. So the Fabian’s logo was most apt. They have been so successful that the majority of this country, or at least a very large plurality, now believe that all forms of government assistance and largesse are their constitutional right or at least believe that it is owed to them for perceived or real injustices from the distant past. In short all smart communists and radical socialists call themselves progressive, even today. I mean how can one argue with “progress”? It is a more benign version of ridicule to silence critics, much like the more pejorative term “racist” is used today.
            At this point I will move to the issue of whether America is racist. It is true we are, but not the way I think you are saying. One item that has been added to the definition of racism is the ability to control institutions to enforce it (ala, Jesse Jackson et. al.) As such, we have been told that blacks can’t be racist because they don’t control the institutions. Of course at this point complete control handed to them wouldn’t be good enough either because then we would be lectured that there is still latent racist thoughts that certain terms function as “dog whistles” to activate said latent racist thoughts. In other words the goal posts are always moved when success is about to be achieved. It is why even before Obama was inaugurated the race baiters were out there saying his election didn’t prove the USA wasn’t racist at all. I and others predicted things would get worse, a lot worse because now the race hustlers were in charge. In the end that is all a “community organize” is. A prog plant whose purpose is to “rub raw the wounds of discontent”, to affect social change. A change to a more “just” society. Of course bigotry, racisms ugly cousin, will never be eradicated as long as individual differences are present. The key is whether a society allows them to be a part of any decision making, and by that measure we have achieved a very impressive amount of success at least with regards to white on black racism/bigotry. Unfortunately it has been replaced with the reverse. Here is an interesting question; blacks are only about 12% of the population. If they control the bureaucracy and institute policies designed to get pay back doesn’t that come awfully close to apartheid, particularly when apartheid is defined as minority rule over a majority based upon racial justifications? Something to discuss at least. I will address your interesting ideas on education in another post.

          • ProgDestroyer

            Education is an interesting discussion in all cases. I agree that absence of it has a very detrimental effect over time. Ignorance is the most expensive problem our country pays for. There is no question that over time we have seen a steady erosion to the quality of knowledge our kids graduate with at any level. Our Grandparents in many if not most cases graduated with an 8th grade education, but I would argue they knew more after 8 years than our kids do today after 12. We spend more per child than any other industrialized country save Switzerland and Sweden, but they are only spending a little more than we are, yet we are damn near last in the industrialized world in every measured category among them. As the subject pertains to race, it seems to me that blacks are the author of their own demise. Anytime a black child shows an initiative and talent and chooses to pursue a dream to better themselves to escape the crushing poverty they find themselves in, they are told they are a sellout to their race. If they speak proper English they are said to be acting white and derided for it. I find it sad that the majority of black children express a desire to be a professional athlete or rap artist instead of being doctors, scientists, and such. Look at the smack-down Bill Cosby got a few years ago when he said as much himself. As long as you have a culture that thinks education is anti-black they will never improve their lot in life, and I would argue that this pernicious message is far more dangerous to their future than the number of words their parents have in their vocabulary, even though it is part of the same problem.
            The next problem we have in education are the teachers unions, AFT and NEA. These organizations are a cancer on the education system and the dirty little secret is that they couldn’t care less about educating children to a sufficient level as to create productive citizens. I came to this conclusion in 1998 or so, when I watched the outgoing president of the NEA list his accomplishments and not a single one of the five or so he mentioned had one solitary thing to do with the children he and his minions are charged with educating. The reason we don’t get much bang for our educational bucks is because we have a system where administrators make more than teachers and generally attract folks into that track based on ideology rather than finding the most successful teachers to run the show. Nation-wide administrators outnumber teachers 4:1, which is ridiculous as it is the source of some of the dumbest teaching ideas ever devised. In some districts like NYC the ration is 7:1. Of course there isn’t any accountability because the administrators either don’t even listen to school boards or ensure their acolytes are the ones sitting on it. PTAs are a joke and have no teeth or oversight. In short our schools are setup to ensure their agendas remain unknown and parents are at best humored, but never respected. To add injury to this, the parents stuck in these situations have no recourse at all. And anytime you advocate for “school choice” initiatives we hear the same song about how that steals money from the public schools. In DC they had a choice program that was very successful and what happened to it? The unions wanted it gone and the Obama dutifully did away with it. Who was punished? The very people the dems claim to defend. Look at the Milwaukee Wi experiment in school choice for a success story on that issue and juxtapose it with the Kansas City MO experience when a federal judge took over that public system. The details of each are very astounding. KC ended up spending billions of dollars on ridiculously expensive buildings and such and ended up having a worse drop out rater afterward than they had before the money was spent and the poor drop-out rate was the reason the feds took over the system to begin with. Here is my “marshall” plan for education:
            1) Eliminate 80% of all administrator positions everywhere.
            2) Take 50% of the savings realized from cutting this payroll and give it to the teachers as merit pay bonus’
            3) Eliminate teachers unions.
            4) If this is too much, then the teachers unions have to negotiate their contracts with a board comprised of equal number of participants from the PTA and School Board with the head of the PTA being the tie-breaker.
            5) Get the feds out of the game altogether by eliminating the Dept of Education. Education has gotten far worse since their inception and they are nothing but a home for crappy teachers and administrators to dream up the latest stupidity.
            6) Eliminate indoctrination. BS like “Heather Has Two Mommies”, graphic and radical homosexual education, AGW fantasies, and such have no place in education and take precious time away from real subjects like math, science, English, American History.
            7) Take the remaining savings from ditching the useless administrators and place that money into team sports, music and art programs.
            8) Eliminate tenure in the Universities.
            9) Eliminate federal funding for college education. Let the States handle this as they see fit.
            10) Make college regents more accountable to the States by having to answer to their respective State legislatures.
            11) Push for universities to abide by their free speech codes, rather than the commie PC crap they push. Colleges have become little gulags where if you are ideologically opposed to socialism you are a pariah. Open debates should be encouraged not a systematic enforcement of provably wrong and evil ideologies.
            12) Institute School Choice into primary education in every school district. Giving parents this choice will improve the public education system as well, so everybody wins.
            I could go on but these ideas would be cost effective and enormously improve our education system. The novel idea would be that we will re-start education in this country rather than indoctrinating children with failed ideologies of the past.
            Cheers!

          • hiernonymous

            Thoughtful comments – thanks for taking the time to make them. In response to your two posts, the only thing I’d add, from the perspective of someone who just retired from the military and entered the teaching profession (I chose to work at a parochial school, as the administrative burden and standardized testing issues of the public schools were matters I didn’t really feel like dealing with at my point in life) is that the single biggest problem with our education system is not the unions, corruption, inefficiencies, etc, though those are all fair points, but in the underlying concept. We adopted an industrial, mass-production model of education, in which large groups of children are moved from teacher to teacher in an assembly-line fashion. The process was conceived during the height of the industrial age, and is designed to achieve maximum efficiency – i.e., highest output (kids with diplomas) to lowest input. Any proposed solutions that retain that industrial model as its underpinning will fail. I don’t care how well a teacher knows his subject, and how engaging his personality is, if he has 25+ kids in a classroom for 50 minutes, he is not going to educate the majority of them. He may reach a few, but there are too many students and too little time. I think we do need to throw massive amounts of money at education – comparable (perhaps in lieu of) our defense budget, but not aimlessly, and not to companies like Pearson. Rather, we need to re-thing the basics, and re-design schools so that there are many more teachers with much smaller groups. There are other things to consider – more specialization, more years of education, perhaps a return to German-style differentiation (I have mixed feelings about that), but I think our root problem is that we’re trying to get our education on the cheap (even if we spend a great deal of money on it), and it just isn’t working anymore.

          • ProgDestroyer

            I completely agree with your description of the source of our problems being our assembly-line style of education. If we could deal with this issue free of the pressures exerted by unions, politicians at the national level and pushed this down to the local level, I really think our system could be fixed. The problem is that will never happen short of some kind of shock to the system that I can’t even imagine of at this point. The German method overall I think is superior, with one major bone of contention for me. Some folks mature later than others and the German method doesn’t allow for folks like that to change the track they are on. This is an issue in that system since children are identified early on for the track they are put on. I was a chucklehead as a youngster and no doubt would have been destined to work a shovel had I been in the German system. It wasn’t until my senior year that I realized I had “leadership” capability and a knack for a few other talents that would have been wasted in that system. But it does seem to be a more productive and thorough system overall for the majority. In any case it does a better job than what we deal with here.
            Congrats on the retirement! I am hanging in for a few more and may do thirty, but that depends on my attitude and my tolerance level for the BS. I too have thought about teaching afterward and have thought that if I do I will avoid the public system as well. A lot of that depends on many factors, but you nailed a couple of reasons I was thinking of too.
            Take care and good fortune on your transition and thanks for your service, especially the past twelve years or so.
            Cheers!

          • ProgDestroyer

            I got off on a tangent and forgot to say; no worries about hitting all of my points, I am sure missing the opportunity to reply to all of yours. Only because we seem to cover a helluva lot of ground and I end up bloviating about one or two of your points and miss the others. I think we would be able to kill a day in short order were this being done in person. I live in N. Va now so maybe that is possible. On this post I wanted to explore your comments about the failure of decision makers that results in the active participation of “final 50 meter boys”. I couldn’t agree with you more!!!! I have been in the Army for over 25 years and I am appalled at the quality of our national leadership, both civilian an military. Many folks of my political persuasion would saw me into pieces and spread the parts in a field if they heard my take on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I will say that in my opinion the first one really was stupid and unncessaray and has bred the chaos we see in the middle east today. Afghanistan was required only for the purpose of making the entire country a grunt’s nirvana by turning it into a gigantic impact area and live fire range. Once Osama was taken out, we should have left, period. I agree we needed to be there until that bastard was dead, but the mission should have been anything but nation building. I seem to recall that as a country we decided in 2000 that nation-building was a fool’s errand, but now 13 years have past and that is all we have done. I wish we had real statesman, but that notion has become an anachronism. I hope some emerge soon though.
            As to your comment about the need for republicans who are fiscal conservatives and social libertarians. I must admit I did get a chuckle because your overall comment is what I have said for twenty years, only as it pertains to constitutional conserviativism. I turned 18 before the 1988 election, so since I have been old enough to vote all I have had as an option for President on the republican ticket is precisely the folks you wish for. In the end I will be happy if we can just get somebody who is a social libertarian on social issues because for the most part we get democrat lites and I am beyond fed up. Both parties truly are a joke and the old assumptions don’t apply any longer. I will cover this more later if it is of interest to you. Cheers.

          • Gunrunner1

            Notice he always opens with an Ad Hominem attack, “Paranoid fantasy” or “fanatics” or “recommending Decaf” as if your passion was merely a mental illness. Progs are great at this. In Countries where they ruled, they built insane asylums and invented new things called “Gulags” for “Counter-revolutionaries” (i.e. people) who were passionate about freedoms or saw through their constant critique. The fact is that socialism is bad, bad for people, bad for society and fatal for the Country that adopts it. The collapse of the Soviet Union, that progressive wonderland, should be proof enough, but the other examples of socialism being social dead (Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and the Mega-death required before people regained their sanity are available too. Read “Democide” by Rummel.

          • hiernonymous

            “Notice he always opens with an Ad Hominem attack, “Paranoid fantasy” or
            “fanatics” or “recommending Decaf” as if your passion was merely a
            mental illness.”

            Does he really always open that way? I find that he generally does so only in response to an accusation, insult, or ad hominem.

            I think you’ll also find that such a comment is not, in fact, an ad hominem. Here’s the difference:
            “You’re crazy.” Not an ad hominem. Insulting? Yes. Ad hominem, no.

            “You’re crazy and you’re wrong.” Also not ad hominem.

            “You’re wrong because you’re crazy.” Ad hominem!

            “In Countries where they ruled, they built insane asylums and invented new things called “Gulags” for people who were passionate about freedoms or saw through their constant critique. ”

            Um, sure. You’ll forgive me if I don’t consider being accused of some sort of subtle skullduggery an indication of the other fellow’s “passion.” Come to think of it, I don’t consider that “passion” even if you don’t forgive me.

            You also seem to be confusing “communist” with “progressive,” a sign of sloppy thinking, disingenuous rhetoric, or an indifferent introduction to political science.

            Regards.

          • Gunrunner1

            You are speaking to about yourself in the third person. Are you lonely? As far as I know, Kings, Editors and Chiefs, and people with tape worms speak in third person.

          • hiernonymous

            “You are speaking to about yourself in the third person. Are you lonely? As far as I know, Kings, Editors and Chiefs, and people with tape worms speak in third person.”

            You addressed a post directly to me but spoke in the third person rather than the second; I assumed you had your reasons and jumped on board.

          • ziggy zoggy

            So do Obama trolls.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Troll boy, you absolutely do use ad hominems and every other effete lefty tactic.
            Blacks and democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            “Troll boy, you absolutely do use ad hominems and every other effete lefty tactic.”

            Do you, in fact, understand what an ad hominem is?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Do you, in fact, understand what that d!ck in your mouth is?

          • hiernonymous

            See, that’s not an ad hominem. It’s a stupid thing to say, and probably reveals more about your personality problems than you intended, but it’s not an ad hominem.

          • ziggy zoggy

            It’s not an ad hominem because it’s not an insult to you. You dig it.

          • hiernonymous

            An insult is not an ad hominem unless it’s standing in place of an argument. “You suck” is an insult, but not an ad hominem. “Your argument is wrong because you suck” is an ad hominem. One type of ad hominem, at any rate; there are several.

            “…because it’s not an insult to you.”

            Correct. But you haven’t worked out why, yet. It’ll dawn on you.

          • ziggy zoggy

            I personally attacked you rather than your idiotic argument. That was ad hominem, you utter dolt.

            “…because it’s not an insult to you.”
            Because you like to slurp on dongs.

          • hiernonymous

            “I personally attacked you rather than your idiotic argument. That was ad hominem, you utter dolt.”

            You are still mistaking “ad hominem” for “insult.” They’re not synonyms.

            I don’t know how to make it any plainer, but let’s give it one more shot.

            An insult – a personal attack – may or may not be an ad hominem, depending on how it is used. To put it as simply as possible, what makes something an ad hominem is not that it attacks the person rather than the argument, but that the personal attack stands in lieu of one’s own argument.

            A: “Racism is a problem in America today.”
            B: “You slurp on dongs!”

            Not an ad hominem. There’s an insult, and there’s no substantive response to A’s assertion, but there’s no ad hominem. Now let’s look at how it would become an ad hominem.

            A: “Racism is a problem in America today.”
            B: “You’re racist yourself, so you’re in no position to claim that racism is a problem.”

            That’s an ad hominem – the insult is used to discredit the individual making the assertion, and thereby the assertion itself.

            That’s a bit oversimplified, but you need to walk before you run.

            “Because you like to slurp on dongs.”

            Is that your final answer?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Yeppers. Everything you wrote is true and people need to realize demicode killed more people than any war in history. DNCnonymous is a paid troll, by the way. Overpaid judging by his wimpy comments
            Blacks and democrats OWN racism and violence in America.

          • OfficialPro

            The entire source of the Ku Klux Klan was actually a wing of the Democratic Party. Why would they let Republicans in?

          • keyesforpres

            Exactly. The whole reason it was formed was to go after Republicans…..blacks back then were all Republicans.

          • hiernonymous

            I’d agree that most early members of the Klan were probably Democrats. What’s your source that the KKK is an arm of the Democratic Party, though?

          • keyesforpres

            “Most were probably democrats”??????? They were ALL democrats. The KKK was formed after the Civil War to go after Republicans….since it was Republicans that freed the slaves and blacks were dominating all of the South’s state legislatures. We even had a number of blacks elected to national office and even had a black Speaker of the House shortly after the Civil War. ALL Republicans. The dems founded the KKK to kill Republicans….black AND white.

          • hiernonymous

            You need to brush up on your history. They were not all Democrats, as the Democrats were not the only party that existed in the South to oppose the Republicans. I invite your attention to the Conservative Party, for example, in North Carolina. It managed to elect a Representative in the 1866 electioins, and in 1870, gained control of the NC legislature, running on a platform of white supremacy and containing government expenditures; one of the first acts of the Conservative Party legislature was to impeach Republican governor Holden.

            Again, you’ll get no argument from me that the bulk of KKK founders were probably Democrats, but when you start speaking in absolutes, make sure you actually know what you’re talking about.

          • ziggy zoggy

            How many members of the “Conservative” party were in the KKK, you imbecile? “Democrats only need apply.”
            You Dimocrats have always been elitists and quota lovers.

          • hiernonymous

            Presumably, any number of members of the North Carolina KKK. Given that the party’s overt platform was white supremacy, and that one of its first acts was to get rid of the Republican governor, it was clearly built on the same constituency, and serving the same goals, as the KKK.

            “You Dimocrats have always been elitists and quota lovers.”

            I’m not a Democrat. Keep plugging away, you’re bound to get something right – even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Presumptions aren’t facts, dimwit.

            You are DEFINITELY a Democrat Obama worshipping troll.

            Blacks and you Democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            “Presumptions aren’t facts, dimwit.”

            Well, let’s see. You have offered exactly no facts demonstrating that KKK membership was exclusive to Democrats; we’ve identified a political party that represented the majority of white Conservative voters in North Carolina and, at the time, it wasn’t the Democratic Party; we know that white conservative voters were the primary base of the KKK. If you’ve got something more to go on, feel free to contribute.

            “You are DEFINITELY a Democrat Obama worshipping troll.”

            More Tourette’s, though this one is preferable to your earlier obsession with my hindquarters. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

          • keyesforpres

            The KKK was actually part of the democrat platform in the late 1800s. They were part of the democrat convention. They were openly KKK through the 60s.

          • hiernonymous

            While supporting the Klan doesn’t make them a ‘wing’ of the party, I’ve noted several times that I fully agree with a historical – i.e. 19th century – link between the Democratic Party and the Klan. But after the resurgence of the Klan in the 1920s, that link starts breaking down, and pretty much collapses in the period 1964-1990, with the massive migration of white southern conservatives out of the Democratic Party, some into or via third parties, but largely to the Republicans. This is not offered to demonize the Republicans, but to note that the Republicans today are in much the same position that the Democrats were around 1960. That is, there are now multiple centers of power in the Republican party, and one of them is the white conservative constituency that was once solidly pro-Democrat and pro-KKK. To imply that this migration never happened, or that the KKK is still somehow affiliated with the KKK, demands more support than an allusion to 1880 or 1921.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The KKK has never been a conservative group and neither has the Democrat party. The claim that Southern White racists moved to the Republican party is a canard. And yeah, the KKK was founded by Democrats - no Republicans allowed.

          • hiernonymous

            “The KKK has never been a conservative group and neither has the Democrat party.”

            You appear to be using words you don’t understand to describe history you haven’t read.

            “And yeah, the KKK was founded by Democrats…”

            That is the only accurate phrase in your post. That said, the question is not who founded the KKK, but who supports it today, and I’ve seen no evidence or indication that the answer is still “the Democratic Party.”

          • ProgDestroyer

            That is probably because you have never lived in the south. The “trailer trash” crowd throughout the entire south and much of the mid-west come from families that have always voted Demo-rat and they still are for the most part. Their daddy’s and grand-daddy’s were the foot soldiers for the KKK. Now they are disaffected. They don’t vote for either party, but they are still there even if their personal opinions have modified over time. But to suggest these reformed KKK types are now conservative republicans is just plain stupid at best. Nice try Fabian.

          • hiernonymous

            “That is probably because you have never lived in the south.”

            You tend to offer with certainty comments that don’t reflect reality. I’ve lived 32 years of my half century in the South – southern Virginia, Florida, and Texas. Of the rest, I spent 10 abroad with the Army, 4 at West Point, just under 3 in California, and about a year in Arizona.

            In every one of those Southern locations, my friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and even people I didn’t much like – and there were many of each category who lived in trailer parks – tended to be overwhelmingly conservative, and most of them were openly Republican. Of the openly Democratic folk I knew, most were of the sort you associate with “liberals” today – school teachers, medical (though – again, not offering this as a trend, just personal experience – dentists tended to be more conservative – and Republican – than other doctors, and doctors also seemed to split on their type of practice). I did know some old die-hard white Southern conservative Democrats, but they were relatively few, and what I noticed in talking with them was that they tended to be Democratic in local and state elections, and vote Republican in national elections, since they thought the Democratic Party had gone all soft and liberal on them. Of course, that’s all anecdotal, but anecdotal is clearly what you were looking for in discussing where I’ve lived and what I’ve observed.

            “Now they are disaffected. They don’t vote for either party…”

            Then they’re not Democrats, are they? And attempts to smear the current Democratic Party with the “Democrat=KKK” line is rather undermined by your observation.

            “But to suggest these reformed KKK types are now conservative republicans is just plain stupid at best.”

            No, it’s pretty much just observing election returns and the last half-century’s worth of trends among white Southern conservatives.

            You seem to be responding defensively because you mistake “old KKK constituency is now largely Republican” for “Republicans are now largely a KKK constituency.” The two statements are not equivalent, and to imply such would be a logical error on my part. Nor does it imply that the constituency that once supported the KKK – white Southern conservatives – still joins or supports the KKK.

            That said, the comments on this very thread attest to a link between racist points of view and particular policy viewpoints. I’ll let the thread speak for itself in that regard.

          • keyesforpres

            Racist points of view on this thread?
            What….for talking about this heinous crime? You lefties seem to think it’s racist to talk about black on white crime. You little bigot you.

          • hiernonymous

            Yeah, I’d say that expressing support for bringing back lynchings is racist. Interesting that you don’t.

          • keyesforpres

            Nice try.
            This article is about black on white crime and how the media ignores it. Then your lefty buddy (maybe it’s you using more than one name) posts a lynching photo and that despicable lefty says they think lynchings are the way to go……we then tell that person NO. That person has had that post removed as well.
            You have posted that to change the subject. Whether you posted it or another lefty troll posted it…it was a lefty pretending to be a Conservative. A conservative would NEVER post such evil garbage….only a lefty trying to make us look bad would do such a thing.

          • hiernonymous

            “Then your lefty buddy (maybe it’s you using more than one name)”

            Interesting – did this occur to you because it’s the sort of thing you do, or are you simply lashing out?

            “Whether you posted it or another lefty troll posted it…it was a lefty pretending to be a Conservative. A conservative would NEVER post such evil garbage….only a lefty trying to make us look bad would do such a thing.”

            All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Exactly. He needs to earn thatr troll paycheck. Blacks and Democrats OWN violence in America.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nobody cares about your phony anecdotes and ignorance of which states are Southern states. Just more fallacious argumentation from a moonbat trying to distract from the fact that Blacks OWN racism and violence in America.

          • hiernonymous

            “Nobody cares…”

            Were you elected to represent everybody on this matter, or are you simply saying that you are nobody?

            “…and ignorance of which states are Southern states…”

            Uh huh.

          • ziggy zoggy

            NOBODY cares about your phony anecdotes. That is 100% correct. And learn which states were part of the Southern Confederacy and which were part of the Union. Listing states like CA as part of the South is idiotic. Blacks and you Dimocrats OWN racism and violence in America.

          • hiernonymous

            “And learn which states were part of the Southern Confederacy and which were part of the Union. Listing states like CA as part of the South is idiotic.”

            I know that you find syntax challenging, so let’s break it down. In my post, I said “I’ve lived 32 years of my half century in the South – southern Virginia, Florida, and Texas.” Note the period after Texas – it indicates the end of a sentence and of a thought. Three states were listed as part of the South, and every one of them was part of the Confederacy. Now, move on to the next sentence, which begins “Of the rest…” – which is your cue and you clue that I am now talking about the rest of my half century, or the years not spent in the South. In that category, I included my time abroad, my time in New York (West Point is in New York, before your brain starts smoking again), California, and Arizona.

            So, yes, I agree, reading CA as part of the South was idiotic, though ordinarily I’d be too tactful to say so. You’re beginning to remind me of Kevin Kline’s character Otto in A Fish Called Wanda.

            Otto: “Apes don’t read philosophy!”

            Wanda: “Yes, they do, Otto – they just don’t understand it!”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI

          • ziggy zoggy

            Pettifoggery. A moonbat standard. There is no state named Southern Virginia and “of the rest” means of a kind, you hopeless ret-ard.

            When I read your worthless screeds I think Of Brad Pitt’s rant against Kevin Spacey in 7even. A good looking guy slamming an insane retard with the truth.

            Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You referred to West Point, (?) CA and AZ as “Southern locations,” you lying ape.
            I wont bother adding an appropriate video to humiliate you.

          • keyesforpres

            No one in the Republican party supports it.
            I can’t stand you lefties. You have changed the subject completely. This article was about the out of control black on white crimes and how our media ignores it.
            Then your lefty buddy posts a lynching photo and you come on here and accuse conservatives of the democrats’ sins. Typical Alinsky tactics…..project your sins onto us and accuse us of your sins and then we start defending ourselves against your despicable LIES.
            You folks on the left are truly despicable. You are such losers. You can’t just live your lives and build your own wealth….you want to take over and steal other peoples’ wealth….

          • hiernonymous

            “I can’t stand you lefties.”

            Not sure what led you to conclude I’m a ‘lefty,’ but no matter. Is there a reason that what you can or can’t stand should matter to me?

            “Then your lefty buddy posts a lynching photo and you come on here and accuse conservatives of the democrats’ sins.”

            Again, I’m not sure how you conclude that Mr. Hines is a ‘lefty’ or, worse, my ‘buddy.’

            “Typical Alinsky tactics….”

            Polly want a cracker?

            “You can’t just live your lives and build your own wealth….you want to take over and steal other peoples’ wealth….”

            Fascinating. Do you actually know something about me and my life, or are you still just free-form ranting?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Blacks and Democrats OWN violence in America. Troll attempt denied.

          • hiernonymous

            “Ziggy Zoggy” has spoken, eh? For whatever that’ worth.

            Just out of curiosity, how’d you come up with the moniker “ziggy zoggy?”

          • ziggy zoggy

            It`s worth more than your trolling is. Ziggy zoggy, ziggy zoggy, oy oy oy! Not surprised you don`t get the reference.

          • hiernonymous

            I didn’t get the reference because it’s wrong. I lived in Germany nearly 8 years and speak it fluently. It’s “zicke-zacke, zicke-zacke, hoi hoi hoi hoi!” and it’s pronounced “tsicke-tsacke.”

            Not surprised you got that wrong, too.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Damn, you lefty trolls are dumb. I guess you were too busy watching the Lifetime Channel and the Vagina dialogues to get my reference……
            And oh, yeah….I live in America so I use English instead of German – not that I believe you speak fluent German…….much less possess literacy in that language. You did a Weakipedia search on ziggy zoggy and pasted it here like a good little DNCtard.

            Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            “Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag.”

            How can I stop doing something I never started? I’ve never defended the Carrs; I’ve noted that they were caught, convicted, and sentenced to die, so justice is being served. Not joining in your hysteria is not the same as defending them.

            “And oh, yeah….I live in America so I use English instead of German”

            This is why you selected a bastardized German call-and-response for your nick? Okay.

            “…not that I believe you speak fluent German…….much less possess literacy in that language.”

            Ist mir Wurst. As with so many other things, your ‘beliefs’ don’t alter reality, they just alter your response to reality.

            Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

            You may not realize that Tourette’s can be treated. If you don’t know where to go for help, I can offer a few suggestions.

          • ziggy zoggy

            I’m referencing “The Man Show,” you fem, not the origin of the toast. I use English because I live in an English speaking country.

            I seriously doubt you speak “fluent” German. More likely you did a Weakipedia search.

            Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m referencing “The Man Show,” you fem,…”

            Yes, hence the reference to getting your German second hand from Jimmy Kimmel in my last post. You’re always running a little behind, aren’t you?

            “I seriously doubt you speak “fluent” German.”

            So doubt it.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Maybe you should watch “The Girl Show.”

          • hiernonymous

            “Maybe you should watch ‘The Girl Show.’”

            I rather thought I was.

          • ziggy zoggy

            That was a non answer followed by a strawman about current KKK membership. Congtatulations, troll. You accomplished your mission to waste our time!

          • hiernonymous

            “That was a non answer…”

            There was no question. To argue that the Democrats, or the KKK, were never conservative, is so breathtakingly unhistorical as to demand a week’s correction, or none.

            You might find it instructive to look up the Conservative Party (of North Carolina) and follow its activities and fortunes in the immediate post-war era to get a better handle on conservative actions and beliefs in the post-war South.

          • ziggy zoggy

            There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING conservative about The KKK or its founding Democrat party, you unmitigated @$$hole.

          • hiernonymous

            Are you wholly unfamiliar with the Redeemers?

            Not sure why you are so adamantly trying to deny a very basic piece of American history – it’s as if you were insisting that there was absolutely nothing – sorry, I suppose I should write ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – Federalist about Alexander Hamilton.

            What, exactly, do you think the Southern Democrats were if not conservative?

          • ProgDestroyer

            “That is, there are now multiple centers of power in the Republican party, and one of them is the white conservative constituency that was once solidly pro-Democrat and pro-KKK.” Prove it!

          • hiernonymous

            Sure.

            There are a couple of ways to look at it. The first step it to observe the electoral votes in elections between 1960 and today, and note how the Southern voting pattern shifted from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. This is a well-known phenomenon, but if you dispute either contention – that the South was once solidly Democratic, or is now solidly Republican – I’ll be happy to post the numbers.

            The second step is to look at voting patterns within the south to determine which constituencies vote for which parties. I recently ran the district numbers for Georgia and Louisiana, as it’s relatively simple to identify some congressional districts that are largely African-American, urban, and normally associated with ‘liberal’ positions, and more rural districts with predominantly white populations and more traditionally associated with ‘conservative’ positions. The black urban districts – such as in Atlanta and New Orleans – voted strongly Democratic, while the rural, white-dominated districts tended to vote Republican.

            That supports the conventional wisdom that white Southern conservative voters migrated in large numbers to the Republican Party in the wake of the civil rights era and the emergence of the Republican Party’s “Southern Strategy.”

            How do we know that these white Southern conservatives don’t simply dominate the Republicans today? Well, there are two good indicators. One is that the Republicans are sharply divided, and contain several ideological factions today. One of the more obvious is the Tea Party, which began as a party-neutral movement focused on fiscal restraint, but has morphed into a more extreme wing of the Republican Party. Other factions – the moderates, the fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal or socially-indifferent, such as the old Rockefeller Republicans – are dismissed by the more activists as “RINOs,” Republicans in Name Only. Regional aspects of this divide have rapidly become apparent, as Southern (and Southwestern) conservatives have latched onto issues such as immigration control as matters of key importance, blasting Republicans who want to take a more relaxed approach to immigration reform.

            Second, the regional aspect of Republican factionalization has been noted in public by Republican politicians. As one example, I offer Peter King’s salvo at Southern Republicans:

            http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/peter-king-declares-civil-war-against-southern-republicans/62637/

            I also invite your attention to this analysis by the Grey Lady, examining why hard-nosed Republican approaches that are starting to lose voters elsewhere are still scoring wins in the South:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/southern-republicans-consider-changing-tone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

            Regards.

          • ProgDestroyer

            I see why you would come to the conclusions you do about voting patterns, but I don’t think it is the only or the best conclusion for a few reasons.

            First one has to look at the drift of politics in general. Overall both parties have moved decidedly left. I think it is a very heavy lift to argue otherwise. For a myriad of reasons these statist policies play better in the urban settings than they do in the rural parts of our country. That fact has more to do with the reasons why rural folks vote a certain way than any other reason. The Tea Party is just one manifiestation of this. You wrote “One of the more obvious is the Tea Party, which began as a party-neutral movement focused on fiscal restraint, but has morphed into a more extreme wing of the Republican Party”. This is just not true, but it is what the mass-media has been pushing since the Tea Party’s inception. Name for me please one aspect of the Tea Party that is something other than an opposition to statist ecomomic policies? You can’t because it isn’t so beyond a few individuals within the group. Of course if I come with a few of the more crazy quotes from democrats you will say I am trying to apply “guilt by association” and dismiss the charge all together, meanwhile the entire Tea Party has become the extremist wing of the republican party because of one or two local leaders are trying to pull in non-economic issues to the cause. In the main the Tea Party is embraced by a lot of folks in the country because we see the federal government far exceeding its constitutional limitations. Of course this is viewed as an assault on the legion of government give-away programs the urban crowd so loves and depends on. It isn’t a race thing its a “government is too big and bossy” thing. I think this persistent march to a more statist form of governance is what explains the voting pattern you describe than anything else. Most of the ardent racists of the past are in nursing homes or dead and don’t have any sway. The south has changed a great deal from those dark days of segregation. Of course the democrat party will never believe it or accept that fact because there is a lot of money to be made perpetuating the fantasy that nothing has changed in 50 years. The funny thing is that Tea Party ideas are gaining traction everywhere, even in the cites and precisely because it is party neutral. I take it you haven’t spent much time among the Tea Party crowd. If you had you would know that they hold the republican party in at least as much contempt as they do the democrat party because they have supported the vast majority of the statist agenda. Most in fact waste no time telling everybody who will listen that they are NOT in agreement with most of the republican establishment and not members. To recap; the role and intrusiveness of government is what explains the voting pattern you describe, not some BS belief we should return to the dark past of segregation. Politics like life is dynamic and therefore always changing.

          • hiernonymous

            Just a couple of quick comments:

            “Name for me please one aspect of the Tea Party that is something other than an opposition to statist ecomomic policies? You can’t because…”

            Actually, I can, and pretty easily. The most obvious is immigration, where Tea Party advocates call for extremely strict control of the borders. That’s not an opposition to statist economic policy; in fact, to the extent that it’s economic, it’s a protectionist measure, and it’s very much statist. Gun rights advocacy has also spread in the Tea Party, which has nothing to do with fiscal restraint. One can understand the dynamics – the initial fiscal restraint movement was very much related to a libertarian small-government approach, and as the Tea Party gained momentum, it attracted any number of new adherents whose sole common characteristic seems to have been disaffection with Washington, but given the influence that these issues – particularly immigration – are having on the Tea Party and within the Republican Party, you can’t wish them away.

            “Most of the ardent racists of the past are in nursing homes or dead and don’t have any sway. The south has changed a great deal from those dark days of segregation.”

            Well, you assert that, but then I come onto boards like this, and see pictures of black Americans murdered by a white mob, followed by approving comments about the good old days, and assurances that lynching is a better form of justice than arrest and trial. I see regular references to “wiggers” and regular reference to race war. Unless all of these people are posting from nursing homes and don’t vote, I’m not inclined to take your word for it.

            Nor, for that matter, does it square with my personal observations of life in the South – where I have spent decades, and where I’ve been living for the last ten years. Heck, I drive past a giant – and I do mean giant – Confederate battle flag flying off the interstate about two miles up the highway from my house.

            “To recap; the role and intrusiveness of government is what explains the voting pattern you describe, not some BS belief we should return to the dark past of segregation.”

            You don’t appear to understand my root contention, which is not about aims and goals. I haven’t suggested that anyone is advocating for a return to segregation. I’ve said that the sort of person who would approve of such a thing – who might have openly supported it in the past, and who supports whatever policies in the present time are aimed at accomplishing much the same thing – have largely (note that I didn’t say entirely, but largely) migrated from one party to the other. Politics, like life, is dynamic and therefore always changing; but people don’t change all that rapidly, and the constituency that shut down public schools rather than integrate didn’t just disappear. I invite your attention to Mr. Pat Hines on this thread, who hasn’t learned to dissimulate.

          • ProgDestroyer

            Good points, and naturally I have something to add. :)
            I am not going to say that there aren’t racists in the republican party, because as with any large group there probably are. The key is whether the larger group gives voice to that element and I don’t think they do. However, racism isn’t merely a “white” problem, it is a “black” one too. You hear things in the democrat party that certainly lean that direction. Groups like the Congressional Black Caucus sure do advocate decisions be made on the color of one’s skin, and although that is not technically racist in and of itself, it sure allows for some to think it is OK to move that way. For the most part I think it is an advocacy arrangement but some of the less sophisticated crowd would think otherwise and based on comments by the likes of Rep Sheila Jackson Lee, I see why others would think the CBC has a racist strain among them. I did see some of the comments you refer to in the thread although I missed the disgusting picture in question. I won’t defend the inaction of some, but I read more rebukes than I did support. You were the only one that tied an unrelated post to the picture seemingly to link the two ideas together. That was a cheap shot.
            As to the Tea Party and your assertion that immigration reform and gun advocacy are examples of the tea party straying from its non-partisan founding, I would say you don’t understand the point of the Tea Party. The Tea Party founding is nebulous because it doesn’t have a designated leader and because it is a true grass roots organization. But the foundational principle they all for the most part further is that we need to get back to the constitution and rule of law. Obviously there is direct linkage from this foundation to gun rights advocacy since it is covered by the second amendment. As to immigration reform we don’t need it. They just need to follow current law and that gets to the Tea Party idea of following the rule of law. When POTUS can simply ignore laws he doesn’t like, do you really think the aspects of the current proposal he dislikes will be enforced. I know he won’t because he has done this on many issues already. In the end the democrats will get about 30 million reliable voters that don’t share our love of the constitution. Since you had to swear an oath to protect it like I did, this no doubt means more to you than the average joe. I would like to suggest you get your Tea Party information from someplace other than the mass media, especially since they are a huge part of our national problem of moving away from constitutional principles.

          • Edward

            Let us not forget that WV Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat, was a member of the KKK.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

          • ziggy zoggy

            The invasion of America by Mexican colonists absolutely is an economic issue, the troll attempt to smear this site was rejected by every conservative here, and White racists from the segregation era did not switch to the Republican party. Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and vioience in America, you racist little troll.

          • keyesforpres

            Duh…we KNOW the South has gone conservative….AFTER race became a NON ISSUE. I’ve lived all over the country and race relations are the best in the South.
            When I was in school in Boston..I had a black girl in my class and she couldn’t wait to get back to the South. She said people were so much nicer in the South.

          • hiernonymous

            “…AFTER race became a NON ISSUE.”

            When did that happen?

          • keyesforpres

            It actually started in the 1920s….little by little some folks in the South were voting Republican on economic issues…they decided that was the way to vote instead of being little racists.

          • hiernonymous

            There were a couple of significant mid-century changes. The black vote started shifting toward the Democrats during the Great Depression, as Roosevelt’s policies tended to help the poor, and blacks were disproportionately poor. That shift accelerated, and was cemented, in the mid-’60s. The movement of white Southern conservatives toward the Republicans was really just a trickle in the ’30s and ’40s; I’d suggest that the most significant development of that time was the creation of the Conservative Coalition, in which conservative Democrats, overwhelmingly Southern, cooperated with conservative Republicans in Congress, frequently bringing southern conservative Democrats in conflict with the progressive wing of their party. Nowhere was this more obvious than when the southern conservative Democrats filibustered their own party’s legislation.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Blacks didn`t switch to the Democrat party until Johnson creted the welfate state, you lying incompetent troll. Blacks and Democrats OWN violence in America.

          • hiernonymous
          • ziggy zoggy

            They became solid Democrat after they got their freebies. Waves arr meaningless metaphors.

          • hiernonymous

            “Waves arr meaningless metaphors.”

            Well, no, when phenomena happen at intervals, or in periodically increasing and decreasing amounts, waves are quite useful. There was a measurable surge in black support for the Democratic Party during the Great Depression – such as Roosevelt capturing 71% of the black vote in 1936.

          • ziggy zoggy

            “Increases,” you illiterate douchetard. Not “waves” and “Surges.” Metaphors are meant for fiction and not reality. That’s why you lefties love them so much. You want to subject the rest of us to your fantasy land.

            Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            “‘Increases,’ you illiterate douchetard.”

            “Increasing” and “decreasing” in the previous post were adjectives modifying “amounts.” Substituting “increases” in lieu of “increasing” would have made grammatical hash of the sentence. You’re trying to play a game you’re not equipped to play.

            “Metaphors are meant for fiction and not reality.”

            Of course; hence Huntington’s The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, or the traditional discussion of waves of immigration. Heat waves are not literally waves, but we find the term useful in conveying the idea of a temporary surge in temperature. McQuivey’s Digital Disruption: Unleashing the Next Wave of Innovation doesn’t deal with a literal wave, but he’s not dealing in fiction, either. We frequently discuss crime waves – were you under the impression that those were literal, as well?

            Where in the world did you ever get the idea that metaphors were useful only in fiction?

            “…you scumbag… You are a POS….”

            Again, Tourette’s is treatable. You don’t have to embarrass yourself like this.

          • ziggy zoggy

            1965, $hit for brains. The only race issue now is virulent Black and Democrat racism.

          • hiernonymous

            “1965, $hit for brains.”

            So things were all better in 1966? That’s an interesting perspective.

            “The only race issue now is virulent Black and Democrat racism.”

            Perhaps that’s the only race issue you’re prepared to recognize, but that’s not quite the same thing.

          • keyesforpres

            I’m sorry you don’t know when it happened.
            I’m sorry you are such a racist. You are so obsessed with race.
            Facts don’t penerate your brain.
            I can certainly see why you are a democrat….all you see is race. Such a pathetic way to live. YOu have shown that racism is alive and well in the dem party.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m sorry you don’t know when it happened.”

            I don’t know that it did happen, and posturing on your part won’t establish it as a fact. Try the logic-with-supporting-facts route if you want to lend your pronouncements credibility.

            “I can certainly see why you are a democrat.”

            That would be some trick, as I’m not a Democrat. Truly, some people see what they want to see.

            “…all you see is race. Such a pathetic way to live.”

            A remarkable conclusion to have drawn from our short correspondence.

            “YOu have shown that racism is alive and well in the dem party.”

            One wonders if you might not fit a few supporting arguments among these pious pronouncements. At the risk of treating you more seriously than you deserve, perhaps you could offer an actual argument demonstrating how you’ve concluded that I am 1) racist, and 2) a Democrat?

          • ziggy zoggy

            There is no racist wing of the Republican party, you incompetent troll. Not only that but the civil rights era generation continued to vote Democrat and suceeding generations chose the Republican ticket - those with integrity did, anyway. Racists and ret@rds still overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Southern racism is now Black racism against Whites – and everybody else. Troll attempt denied.

          • keyesforpres

            The migration happened AFTER race became a non issue. Racists dems did not decide to become Republicans. Their children became Republicans because race was a non issue.

          • hiernonymous

            “The migration happened AFTER race became a non issue.”

            That’s a peculiar statement, as race has never become a non-issue. The migration began in earnest when the liberal wing of the Democratic Party began championing civil rights legislation, and the Southern white conservative wing began fighting that trend, to include filibusters. None of this is particularly controversial.

          • keyesforpres

            LMAO. Most of the dems voted against the Civil Rights legislation…Robert Byrd filibustered it. It was Republicans that got it through Congress.
            Of course, it would have never been necessary in the first place if racist dems had just let blacks flourish after the Union troops pulled out.
            “SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: AMERICAN HISTORY IN BLACK AND WHITE” by David Barton of http://www.wallbuilders.com
            Blacks were doing amazing things with Republicans help right after the Civil War.

          • hiernonymous

            “Of course, it would have never been necessary in the first place if racist dems had just let blacks flourish after the Union troops pulled out.”

            No argument there. As for the civil rights legislation, you can’t understand the politics of the time if you don’t understand that Democrats sponsored the legislation, and Democrats fought it. Both sides of that are essential.

            “Blacks were doing amazing things with Republicans help right after the Civil War.”

            Again, no argument there. That part of Republican history is no less – and no more – real and significant than the Southern Strategy of the ’60s and on.

          • keyesforpres

            Oh really? What democrat sponsored the legislation?
            There was no Southern strategy…all that Nixon said was the South would probably go Republican in the future.
            Please…give us the details on the strategy.

          • hiernonymous

            Kennedy called for the legislation; it was introduced by Emanuel Cellar, D-NY. Kennedy got the support of both the Senate Majority and Minority leaders (Mansfield, D, and Dirksen, R). Lead sponsor of the final version (there were 40-some co-sponsors) was Hubert Humphrey.

            The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the brainchild of Democrat Johnson, with Democrat Mansfield and Republican Dirksen as sponsors.

            Of course there was a Southern Strategy. One of its early architects was Kevin Phillips. You can find an early (1970) article covering his analysis here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

            An excerpt (pardon any typos; this is handjammed from the image of the original newpaper article, but the article’s well worth reading:

            Sterilized and scientific as are the terms by which Kevin Phillips plots the emerging Republican majority, its common denominator is hostility to blacks and browns among slipping Democrats and abandonment of the Democratic party because of its identification with the colored minorities. In the Northeast, the slippage is among blue-collar Catholics who find their jobs threatened and their neighborhoods and political clubhouses overrun by invading Negroes, while their erstwhile party seems to cluck approval. In the Outer South, the national Democratic Party has begun to replace the G.O.P. as the symbol of alien causes – the Negro politicians and Federal interference with local autonomy. Hence, the shift to Republicanism, a trend which for the same reasons has engulfed the milder border states and will, Phillips insists, capture the perfervid Deep South when events force the abandonment of the more extreme Wallace alternative.

            In the “Latin crescent” – lower Florida, Louisiana, Texas – the political emergence of the Cuban and Mexican-American minorities, joined with Negroes and white radicals in a Democratic alliance, will drive the majority constituency of traditional white Democrats into the G.O.P. Phillips sees California and “the heartland,” the 25 interior states, many of which are dominated by Southern immigration patterns, as the great electoral bastion of a Republicanism that is against aid to blacks, against aid to big cities and against the liberal life style it sees typified by purple glasses, beards, long hair, bralessness, pornography, coddling of criminals and moral permissiveness run riot.

            Lest you be tempted to claim that Phillips is engaging in observation, not strategy, note his words here (ellipsis in the original; I have not edited):

            “All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even “Jake the Snake” [Senator Jacob K. Javits] only gets 20 per cent. From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 per cent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

            Such candor in the Attorney General’s office is air-clearing, but, like ammonia, it does not endear. And besides, nobody likes learning worldly lessons from an enfant terrible; in an old man’s game like politics, an under-30 sage is tough to take.

            Detailed enough?

          • hiernonymous

            My first, rather lengthy response, didn’t make it past the moderators – apparently Kevin Phillips’ quotes were too racist to get through. I’ll offer an abbreviated comment here:
            1. Re the legislation: the CRA of 1965 was conceived by Kennedy, introduced by Emanual Celler (D-NY), final version lead sponsor (of 40-some) was Democrat Hubert Humphrey. For both the CRA and the VRA, both minority and majority leaders (D & R) were on board and pushed the legislation. Bottom line: both were conceived by Democratic presidents, both received bipartisan support in being sponsored, both were opposed by Southern white conservative Democrats.

            2. I recommend reading this article, start to finish. It’s an extensive piece on Kevin Phillips, the primary architect of the Southern Strategy, written in 1970. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

            It’s not simply an observation, but an active strategy. Note particularly this passage in the 3d column of the 3d page, quoting Phillips:

            All the talk about Repulicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage…From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 per cent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than than . . . but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

          • keyesforpres

            Race has never become a non issue for you folks that stayed on the dem plantation…THAT is the point. For those that decided race did not matter…they became Republicans….the racists stayed on the dem plantation.
            I’m so glad you get it now!!

          • hiernonymous

            Ah – race has become a non-issue for those who don’t want to have to think about it anymore. I see.

          • keyesforpres

            For example:
            Strom Thurmond became a Republican AFTER he saw the light and realized his racists past was wrong. In 1971 he hired a black man to work on his staff.

          • hiernonymous

            Strom fathered a child with a black woman while he was Democrat, too. What was your point again?

          • keyesforpres

            Sorry you are so obtuse.
            He switched parties after he saw the light.
            What is your opinion on the out of control black on white crime ….that has gotten worse under Obama and his “Just Us Dept”, which have said they will not prosecute black on white crime.
            How do you feel about that? You know…staying on subject.

          • hiernonymous

            “Sorry you are so obtuse.”

            I forgive you.

            “What is your opinion on the out of control black on white crime…”

            I don’t have any strong opinions on the matter; I’m not even convinced that there is “out of control black on white crime.” I think that crime is generally associated with poverty, especially generational poverty, and I think that blacks are disproportionately poor, and that the institutional mistreatment of blacks plays a very large role in that. As with all crime, I think that the long-term prognosis is likely to improve through education and economic opportunities, not ‘get-tough’ posturing and building yet more prisons.

            I don’t recall the Justice Department announcing that it would not prosecute black-on-white crime; when did they do that?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Poverty and institutional mistreatment. Hilarious. When Blacks really were poor and mistreated, there was no ZBlack on White crime rampage. Now that they have Black skin privilege, thefe is. Troll attempt denied.

          • hiernonymous

            “Poverty and institutional mistreatment. Hilarious.”

            You have an odd sense of humor, but that’s your privilege.

            “When Blacks really were poor and mistreated, there was no ZBlack on White crime rampage.”

            There’s a rampage going on now? Odd, the crime stats I’ve been following show a pretty significant decline over the past couple of decades.

            As for “when Blacks really were poor and mistreated,” you’re suggesting that’s no longer the case? When did it stop? Brown v Board? Civil Rights Act of 1964? When did things magically get all better? Just curious.

            “Now that they have Black skin privilege, thefe is.”

            “Black skin privilege?” What might that be?

            “Troll attempt denied.”

            Not sure what you mean by “troll attempt,” but in what way are you in a position to ‘deny’ anything?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Damn, you lie a lot. You have read about every fact I listed many times on this site from multiple sources. Blacks and Femocrats OWN racism and violence in America.

          • hiernonymous

            “Blacks and Femocrats OWN racism and violence in America.”

            Certitude, repetition, and insult may play well down at Bubba’s Bait-n-Beer, but they’re no substitute for education, research, and factual support.

            That you don’t know that the southern Democrats of 1866 were conservative; that the New Deal and Roosevelt’s active courting of the black vote brought the first major wave of black voters from the Republican to the Democratic Party in the 1930s; that racial discrimination against blacks did not disappear in 1965; etc, etc, does not change your history, it merely displays your personal ignorance of it. Adding repeated insults and slogans simply makes you aggressively ignorant. You probably need to look beyond “this site” for your facts, and I’ve offered you some places to start already.

            You’re difficult to converse with, because you offer so little of substance to actually dispute. When the substantive content of your posts is to figuratively shout down the other person with repeated slogans – who knows what you actually mean by “Blacks and Femocrats OWN racism and violence in America – there’s really very little to respond to.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Projection from the DNC Huffpo buffoon? Standard stuff.

            How were “the Southern Democrats of 1886″ conservative?

            Waves are in the oceans. Blacks didn’t become overwhelmingly Democrat until Johnson handed out the Kool-Aid.

            Accusing others of being insubstantive while you lie, pettifog and misdirect? Another moonbat standard.

            Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            “How were “the Southern Democrats of 1886″ conservative?”

            Okay, for starters, I wrote 1866. Normally, I’d just pass that off as a typo, but you’re proving to be consistently unable to read and respond to what is actually written. The difference is significant – although Democrats were conservative at both times, 1866 is the immediate post-war period in which the KKK emerged and which we’re discussing. 1886 is long after the end of Reconstruction.

            How were the Democrats conservative? The most obvious answer is that they were very much traditionalists – they were attempting to preserve the status quo – socially, and, to the extent that they could, politically and economically. They were fighting change – such as the extension of political power and economic opportunity to black citizens. These are classic hallmarks of conservatism. Southern conservatism at the time was rooted deeply in racial concerns, as opposed to the Northern conservatives, who were more focused on economic conservatism. The Northern conservative Democrats were known as Bourbon Democrats; the Southern conservative Democrats were known as Redeemers, with the emphasis on restoring political power and pride to white Southern men.

            Again, nothing I’m saying is controversial, and as I asked you in another comment, if you don’t understand the Democrats to have been conservative at the time, what in the world do you imagine them to have been?

          • keyesforpres

            Of course you have no strong opinion on the matter of the out of control black on white crime.
            A year or so ago, a man quit the Justice Dept. because he was instructed that they would not prosecute black on white crime.
            The problem with the black community is welfare has been made into a career…having babies out of wedlock and no daddy in sight. That is the problem…and the left convincing blacks they are still victims of slavery.

          • hiernonymous

            “A year or so ago, a man quit the Justice Dept. because he was instructed that they would not prosecute black on white crime.”

            Really? Who? Source?

          • crazyottojr

            Hate to jump in here but the justice Department led by an extremely bigoted AG will never equate Black on White crime with White on Black crime and he has admitted as much. I do think that Conservatism of the South is a little complex than many make it here. Likewise Goldwater was not a Racist but an ardent States rights and civil libertarian. No one could accuse Barry of being a racist.

          • hiernonymous

            Wow, a blast from the past!

            I don’t associate Goldwater with racism. Rather, I associate him with moving the Republican Party to a much more conservative position, which made the Republicans much more palatable to the white Southern conservatives who found themselves in such conflict with the liberal wing of their own party.

          • Gunrunner1

            Liar.

            Wallace in the School house door was a Democrat.

            On a larger note, do you deny that Whites have racial interests? That Whites, in the Country that they founded, should not have racial interests?

          • hiernonymous

            “Wallace in the School house door was a Democrat.”

            Yes, he was. Wallace also jumped ship, ran as a third-party candidate, returned to the Democratic Party. Tearful Wallace begging forgiveness was also a Democrat. Did you have a point?

            “On a larger note, do you deny that Whites have racial interests? That Whites, in the Country that they founded, should not have racial interests?”

            What do you mean by “racial interests?”

          • keyesforpres

            You don’t think they would admit now do you?

          • hiernonymous

            If someone is willing to publicly admit supporting lynching – and we’ve had a couple do so on this thread already – why would they be unwilling to admit their party affiliation?

            If all this KKK=Democrat theorizing is correct, then the pro-lynching crowd on this thread should be enthusiastically Democratic.

          • ziggy zoggy

            What do historical lynchings have to do with the vicious Black crime wave against Whites?

          • hiernonymous

            You should probably ask the individuals who brought them up.

            However, having been brought up, the obvious relevance is that lynchings were the prototypical KKK activity, and if the comments characterizing the Democrats as the party of the KKK and the Republicans as the party of civil rights accurately describe today’s party, then one would expect that the individuals expressing their approval of the lynchings would be Democrats, and the Republicans would be shocked and offended. Just wondering if that’s actually the case here.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The actual case is that Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America and you are a paid troll. You ret@rds crack me up. Every time you paste yoour lies, they are promptly refuted by honest commentators. You accomplish nothing but your own humiliation and tne destruction of your warped agenda. Just go hand a pistol a Democrat registration form and an EBT card to the first Black gang member you can find and get it over with.

          • ProgDestroyer

            Ziggy, nice catch on hiernonymous. He is the one who turned this entire thread into one about blacks being lynched because some jacka$$ posted a pic of a black being lynched. He is trying to be cute saying that those who are critical of the Carr bros and the lack of honest reporting on racist inspired crimes of the black on white variety are the real racists. He tries to play coy but I and others are onto his gig. cheers

          • Edward

            “If all this KKK=Democrat theorizing is correct, then the pro-lynching crowd on this thread should be enthusiastically Democratic.”

            But it’s not.

            It’s anti-lynching and anti-FAKE Democrat party and anti-FAKE progressive AKA socialist.

            It’s the Socialists and hijacked Democrat party who defend jihad, islamism and racism of the islamist flavor and bury Black on White hate crimes.

            Since the Zimmerman verdict, whites have been beaten.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nobody here supported the lynching of innocent Blacks, you lying POS. Those of us with integrity do approve of lynching the monster described in this article. Troll attemptdenied. Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America.

          • hiernonymous

            “Nobody here supported the lynching of innocent Blacks, you lying POS.”

            The picture being spoken of so approvingly, since taken down, was of a 1920 Duluth lynching, in which a mob murdered black circus workers they believed had raped a white girl – a girl who, on examination by a physician, was found to have no indications of having been raped or assaulted in any way.

            edgineer to Pat Hines:
            “Kept the crime rate down didn’t it.”

            You might want to wait until someone actually lies about something before making such loose accusations.

          • ziggy zoggy

            NOBODY here expressed approval of lynching any innocent, much less Black innocents, YOU LYING SACK OF $HIT!!!!!!

            Shove your pettifoggery and misdirection up your flabby left-wing @$$.

            Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            “NOBODY here expressed approval of lynching any innocent, much less Black innocents, YOU LYING SACK OF $HIT!!!!!!”

            I just quoted you just such an approval. Do you imagine that if you write in caps, add enough quotation marks, and froth enough at the mouth, that edgineer and Hines’ comments will never have been?

            “Shove your pettifoggery and misdirection up your flabby left-wing @$$.”

            You’ve never seen my “@$$” – another excellent example of you confidently describing something of which you have no knowledge.

            “Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag.”

            And that has happened only in your fevered imagination. Do you actually suppose that repetition, emoting, and loss of control make your case more impressive?

          • keyesforpres

            Actually, that is how Pat’s post came across….Pat said the lynchings kept the crime rate down. It was a despicable comment by Pat.

      • edgineer

        Kept the crime rate down didn’t it.

    • putthehammerdown

      How about using a sharpshooter, .22 cal. H. P.’s and “The Death of 25 Shots” ??
      I’ll bring the ammo, the rifle and do it for Time and Material…and I’ll only bill for the Federal Minimum Wage to boot……

  • alyssa651

    what Miguel answered I am alarmed that someone able to profit $5658 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you look at this website w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  • camp7

    The horror, the horror..

    “Come to me oh Brothers discontent, we will walk to the place of repent. Try your deeds on those that know, your worst is best of sorrows row.”

    It sucks to be a bully racist murderer.

  • Elizabeth capecod

    The race hustlers don’t speak out to condemn Black killers because they believe Black killers are victims of society…code for victims of whitey. So they shouldn’t be held to the same standard as white people who kill.

    • logdon

      Victims of whitey doesn’t quite work in South Africa or Rwanda.

      The former is the murder and rape capital of the world. Whites are hounded off farms and out of government jobs and consequently the place has descended into a hell hole.

      That’s not racist hyperbole, just sad facts.

      The latter a place which matched the Nazi industrial killing machine at it’s height in both pro rata numbers and time taken for the executions.

      And remember the Hutu killers had no einsatzgruppen, gas chambers, railway transport or disciplined SS guards. Just good ol’ machetes and hate.

      Like black IQ’s no one will touch these facts as if ignoring will magic it all away.

      What mystifies me, and even writing the above disturbs my senses of equality is why?

      Both African Americans and Africa itself have had shovel loads of money and goodwill hurled their way, most of it by that very whitey they seem to think hates them, and its almost become a given, yet seemingly it’s made little or no difference.

      If academia had any degree of integrity or honesty this phenomena would be a bona fide subject of exploration, discussion and search for solution.

      That it isn’t shows how far the path from genuine equality to patronising gush we’ve traveled.

  • Omar

    Good article, Mr. Kerwick, but you forgot something else about the Wichita Horror. The crimes that the Carr brothers committed on the night of December 14, 2000 were only the most serious and notorious of their week-long crime spree in Wichita. In the week leading up to the most serious incident, the Carr brothers have robbed a man named Andrew Schreiber at gunpoint when the brothers entered the convenience store he was at and forced him into his car, where the brothers forced Schreiber to drive them to various ATM machines to withdraw $800. That was December 8, six days before the Carr brothers’ worst crimes yet. In addition, on December 11 the brothers also fired their weapons at a woman named Ann Walenta as she tried to escape the crooks by trying to back out of her home’s driveway by car. She was injured badly, but survived for several days in the hospital until she died of her injuries. In the hospital, Walenta was able to speak with the police about the Carr brothers and what they did to her. In addition to this case, there was also another quadruple homicide case in Wichita that happened a day before the Carr brothers’ crime spree began. In that other homicide case, both the victims and suspects were black. What happened in Wichita throughout that week was horrible, yet both cases got little attention. This just shows that the double standards continues in this country.

    • herb benty

      Wow, and where was the race-hustlers is a very, very good question.

      • MarilynA

        The Race hustlers were in the same place where the gay pride people, and the people who have canonized Matthew Shepherd were when 13 year old Jesse Dirkingshen was sodomized repeatedly and smothered with his underwear stuffed in his mouth by two “well respected businessmen” who were living together in a committed relationship, and when the 5 year old adopted black son of a white Duke U. Prof. was being pimped out to the Prof’s buddies. Common, everyday normal decent people do have not rights any more. It’s only the misfits, those with special victim status, and the other than whites who have rights . Think Sodom and Gomorrah. We are there already.

        • herb benty

          Thanks M-A, Living here in Canada onthe “left coast” as it is dismally called(Vancouver,B.C.), we have had many instances of what you described. Today is the “Pride Parade” with all the men practically hanging out their privates, gleefully exposing their antics on streets with men women and children watching. This can’t end well. I know of several remote cabins in the Rockies where my family would be safe, however, I want to see if this decadence can be voted out first. Also, I would fight to remove them if it came to that, but I don’t think it will, God said that in the latter days mankind will descend into wickedness, calling good bad and bad good. Why is being white now a reason for shame, when these same whites created this country that the leftists use as a soapbox against us? Who turns a freedom loving child into a self-hating radical marxist?

  • Mo86

    Horror doesn’t even seem an adequate word.

    And the racists in this country have kept it quiet, while making a national case about some woman making a comment 30 years ago in a private conversation, and a man rightfully defending himself against violent attack.

    Why don’t we speak out? Why do we just sit here and take this crap? Why?

    • putthehammerdown

      In part, because we’re a nation of ‘big talkers’, and when push comes to shove , ‘outrage’ shrivels to insignificance.
      No matter what group I have joined, be it the Libertarian Party or TEA Party, It’s all big talk and rumblings, and then it heads steadily downhill.
      See,… it involves actually ‘doing something’ and running more that your mouth.
      Eventually, it comes down to a core in the group doing virtually everything, and then, burnout takes over.
      Secondly, the horror stories we all see where, if you speak out , you then get targeted are not fiction. Look at the Proposal 8 donation-mapping that occurred in Calif. to see what can & does happen. Who wants to be harassed at their houses, or places of business ??

    • Joe Dokes

      Fear.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Fear of being branded racist.

  • JamesPF

    These pig animals must be executed. When are enough white Americans going to not tolerate the double standards?

    • hiernonymous

      What double standards? When you’re commenting on articles, it pays to actually read the article first. Had you done so, you’d discover that the perps in question were convicted and sentenced to death.

      Sorry to rain on your parade, but you’ll no doubt find some other reason to express your fear and indignation soon enough.

      • keyesforpres

        The double standard in this case was the lack of national press coverage. This case should have been national and would have been if the races had been reversed.

        • hiernonymous

          Why should the case have been national? The justice system worked exactly the way it should have. Cases usually go national when there are additional factors of broader concern – the perps have not been caught, the wrong person is accused, the system appears to be corrupt or biased, etc. None of those factors were in play.

          As for your contention that black victims would have received more attention, again, that doesn’t seem to be borne out by the facts. White female victims get so much more national coverage that social scientists coined a phrase for the phenomenon, MWWS – “Missing White Woman Syndrome.”

          • Edward

            This story should have been national due to the savagery of the crime – the number of victims, the race of the perpetrators and victims is not incidental.
            This story was buried because it would be un-PC to give the same spotlight on blacks torturing and killing multiple whites as when a white kills a black.

          • hiernonymous

            Is this backed by any serious study, or do you just sort of have a gut feeling that this is so?

          • just my ideas

            Hiernon, do you have the inability to understand, the FACT that obama injected himself into the Zimmerman case, oh, you cannot see that,,,,,,,,why did obama inject himself into it ? gee, ya suppose it is because he is a first class racist, why did he not inject himself also into the case of that innocent WHITE BABY shot in the face by a black thug??? why did the media not focus on this case,,why one case but not the other,, you see, it is because of the so called socialist, communistic tactic of propaganda to seperate and destroy this country, I know, off topic, but this is the basis of the CRUCIAL destruction of our country and the freedom it has had…..which is why this topic is focus of the difference of who gets a pat on the back, and who is ignored…pat on the back goes to the black racists, the whites are the ones ignored by …..BOTH OBAMA AND THE MEDIA,and is done for the damage it can create.

          • hiernonymous

            “…why one case but not the other…”

            I suspect that it’s because in the Georgia case, the crime was taken seriously, the perp promptly identified and arrested. The Zimmerman case didn’t become a national sensation because a black kid was killed; it became a national sensation because of the perception that a black kid was killed and a police force with a recent record of ignoring crime against black victims (2 cased in the previous 2 years) appeared to be doing the same thing yet again.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Liar. The Carr bros case was buried because they were typical Black racists preying on unarmed whites and the MARTIN case was trumped up because you usual suspects thought you had a case of Whitey – a Jew! – killing an innocent little Black boy that could gin up your false narrative of Whitey murdering Blacky willy nilly.

            The only thing the police force there ignored was teenaged and BLACK crime, you lying POS. 2 fake cases in 2 years about Whitey the criminal? Weak, dude. Really f—— weak.

            Blacks and Democrats OWN racism and violence in America. Stop defending the Carr bros, you scumbag. They are not a boy band for you to drool over. They are cowardly and horrific murderers. You are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re starting to get so incoherent that it’s hard to tell what you’re actually saying.

            “The only thing the police force there ignored was teenaged and BLACK crime, you lying POS. 2 fake cases in 2 years about Whitey the criminal? Weak, dude. Really f—— weak.”

            Okay, I think we’re back to talking about Sanford? We have one case of a white police officer beating a cuffed prisoner and getting rehired, and a case of the white son of a police officer being treated with kid gloves after he beat a homeless black man to death. There’s nothing obviously ‘fake’ about either case, and both gave the appearance of a justice system giving a pass to connected white perps. Two high-profile cases in a small community in 2 years doesn’t strike me as weak, but feel free to make your case that such a rate is reasonable.

          • keyesforpres

            It should have been national because it was so heinous.

          • hiernonymous

            I agree that it was heinous, but heinous, sadly, happens quite a bit, and doesn’t in and of itself demand national attention.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Because the victims were White. You POS

          • hiernonymous

            Well, no. White victims actually tend to get broader coverage, your resentment notwithstanding (cf Missing White Woman Syndrome). No, the reason is more along the lines that what makes national news tends to be along the lines of the involvement of people we all know or recognize; or a significant miscarriage of justice; a significant failure of the state; or something just out-and-out bizarre. Sadly, rape and murder are commonplace enough that most large communities have plenty of local examples.

            Still don’t understand why that is? Every murder is a tragedy – but the annual murder rate in the United States is well over 14,000, and the incidence of rape over 83,000. If every murder or rape were national news, we’d be trying to digest 40 murder and 230 rape cases a day. Face it, nobody has the reservoirs of attention and empathy to keep up with that sort of homicide rate and not get numb to it. You don’t need to come up with some sort of racial conspiracy theory to explain that.

          • Pat Hines

            That’s simply not true, it is a lie. Negro thugs are almost always protected as to their race.

            Negroes commit violent crime between 900% and 1200% more often than whites, this should be on the front page of every newspaper in the land.

            Yet, it is not.

            In fact, there’s an unspoken rule that negroes “shall not be identified as such” regardless of what they’ve done.

            Negroes are dangerous animals and need to be treated as such if they are discovered.

          • hiernonymous

            “Negroes are dangerous animals and need to be treated as such if they are discovered.”

            And somebody on this thread assured me that racism died in 1965, and that all racism today is of blacks against whites.

            Well, you’re a disgrace to your uniform, but by being so open about what others have learned to conceal, you serve a useful function, at least.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The case should have gone national long before it went to trial. Name one White person murdered by a Black in the last year that made the news. Leftwing liars who infest web threads that there are worfs for tem. Trolls. Mobys. Spammers. Felc&ers. Ret@rds.

  • Pat Hines

    We need to bring back lynching, there’s no excuse for these animals to still be wasting oxygen.

    Mississippi wind chimes.

    • hiernonymous

      Yeah, because adding mob murders of innocent victims would really improve the country. The perps were caught, convicted, and sentenced to death. Our country won’t be improved by setting aside the rule of law because you have the attention span of a toddler and want your execution NOW NOW NOW or you’ll hold your breath until you turn blue…

      • Pat Hines

        Progressive-fascists like you have drawn out the execution of sentencing so far that it can no longer be called true justice.

        This case is a classic case of not just beyond a shadow of a doubt, there was never any doubt raised at all.

        That the Carr brothers are still alive, at state expense, 13 years after their horrendous crime is in and of itself a crime.

        Hang them NOW1

        • hiernonymous

          “Hang them NOW1″

          As I said…

          • ziggy zoggy

            As I said…… you are a POS.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, you did say that. I understand that you don’t like me; what I don’t understand is why you think I should care.

      • ziggy zoggy

        How are the Carr bros “innocent victims,” you repulsive racist?

        • hiernonymous

          Who said that the Carr brothers were “innocent victims?” I was objecting to Mr. Hines’ proposal to bring back lynchings, which unquestionably involved killing innocent victims.

    • Edward

      Bring back the Death Penalty.

      Why is OJ Simpson killing two people, and being found Not Guilty of the crime by a jury is Justice,

      but a beaten George Zimmerman being found Not Guilty by a jury is not Justice?

  • mtnhikerdude

    Hypocrisy runs rampant when it comes to Black on Cracker crime.

  • Mekus Milkdud

    blacks are terrified their race will be portrayed as evil so the media pushes to hide their hate crimes. the bottom line is whites are not safe around blacks as a whole, it is not safe for whites to send their kids to school with blacks welfare kids that are programed to hate them to rape them to bully and beat whties the smart whites are moving as far a s possible from blacks but like lions after zebras the preditors follow the poor white prey and murder them

  • CowboyUp

    Looking at how far out of their way the msm goes to rile up black people, and how far out of their way they go to keep from riling up white people, it’s obvious they know exactly what they’re doing.

  • http://twitter.com/optionsfool gerry

    the issue of the racial double standard in media and politics is a serious one, and I understand the bitter anger against one of any race who would commit such monstrous crimes, but the comments such as those posted by pat hines serve only to discredit us as bigots. I wish that commenters here would refrain from racist comments and that frontpage would remove and block them. I like fronpage mag, but this is shameful. I am ashamed to be associated with you pat.

    • Drakken

      So in other words you want everybody to ignore reality because it hurts your feelings? Get bent, the race card has been used and abuse by you liberal/progressives to the point it is a bludgeon to avoid facing what is happening in America today.

    • keyesforpres

      Agreed. I believe Pat is a lefty trying to make a conservative site look bad.

      • Edward

        I agree.

        F the Left.

        BTW, hitler was a socialist – a national socialist.

        • hiernonymous

          Eh? The National Socialists were socialists in the same way that the German Democratic Republic was democratic – which is to say, not at all. The SA element that wanted to see the Nazis implement some socialist reform were eliminated on the Night of the Long Knives.

          • marsconi

            means nothing that the SA element were eliminated! Leftists killed leftists with abandon!

          • hiernonymous

            But it means something that the only people in the party that actually wanted to implement any form of actual socialism were killed or sidelined. I don’t suppose you could articulate in what way the Nazis were actually “leftist,” could you?

          • Edward

            The nazis called themselves National SOCIALISTS.

            hitler was a SOCIALIST.

            They NEVER eliminated the Socialist tag. Even today neo-nazis call themselves National SOCIALISTS.

            Google Images “hitler stalin pact” to see newspaper cartoons of the period mocking the two SOCIALISTS.

          • Pat Hines

            Progressive-fascists, like hiernonymous (he self identifies as that), always try to obscure their political DNA.

            Almost no one is fooled today.

          • hiernonymous

            “Progressive-fascists, like hiernonymous (he self identifies as that),”

            Really? Where?

            It’ll be interesting seeing you back this one up.

          • hiernonymous

            Or not back it up, as the case may be.

          • hiernonymous

            Still nothing?

          • hiernonymous

            No, they never eliminated the Socialist tag. North Korea still calls itself a Democratic Republic.

            As for the Nazi-Soviet Pact, tell me again how that ended.

          • Edward

            A bit of uncomfortable history swept under the rug by socialists.

            The National SOCIALIST hitler and Soviet SOCIALIST Stalin Non-Aggression Pact.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

            They both invaded Poland. Divvied up the spoils.

            The only reason Soviet SOCIALIST Stalin went to war with its National SOCIALIST partner Germany was because NS Germany reneged on the pact and invaded the Soviet Union. SOCIALIST Stalin was OK with imperialist cousin National SOCIALISM.

            The Night of the Long Knives was a putch against the Homosexual elements in National SOCIALIST Germany.

            The NSDAP – or National SOCIALIST German WORKERS PARTY exists today as the SWP SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY in SOCIALIST britain.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, yes, it’s good that you’ve found your caps key. Now struggle with this concept: there are any number of political organizations that adopt labels that aren’t, strictly speaking, accurate. I had hoped to convey this to you by the example of the German Democratic Republic, which was not a Democratic Republic. The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea is also not a democracy, not even if you resort to the caps key and write it People’s DEMOCRATIC Republic of Korea. One of the more famous cases is that of the Holy Roman Empire, of which generations of history professors have noted “was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.”

            The National Socialists were nationalists first and foremost, and the economic system they ended up adopting was not remotely socialist.

            Part of the problem with trying to understand Nazi Germany on the strength of Wikipedia articles is that Hitler’s method of rule was not to offer a clear directing vision and then to steer the country toward that vision, but to play off interest groups against one another, with himself as the arbiter. There were, in fact, ardent socialists in the formative years of the Nazi Party – but those same ardent socialists became disaffected after the Nazi rise to power, when Hitler was relying on the industrialists and other large capitalists for his rearmament and economic programs. The Night of the Long Knives was many things, but the most accurate representation would be that it was a purge against the populist and socialist elements that had been useful in Hitler’s rise to power, but were proving something of an embarrassment – or even threat – once he was ensconced as Chancellor.

          • Edward

            Show us an example where your People’s DEMOCRATIC Republic of Korea signed a pact, an alliance with another Democratic Republic as your National SOCIALIST / Soviet SOCIALIST comrades did.

            Perhaps you think that the SOCIALIST part of your National SOCIALIST Germany was a typo. That they dropped the SOCIALIST tag at some point.

            The Night of the Long Knives was a purge of the homosexual elements in the upper echelons of the nazi party.

            The fact remains that the two major SOCIALIST regimes of the 1930′s/1940′s entered into a pact where they would divvy up Europe into spheres of influence.

            A National SOCIALIST and Soviet SOCIALIST sphere.

            Just as the National SOCIALISTS invaded Europe, the Soviet SOCIALISTS invaded Eastern Europe.

            It’s kind of disengenuous to portray Uncle Joe as anti-Fascist, anti-National SOCIALIST from the get go.

            Google “hitler stalin pact”

          • Pat Hines

            The German National Socialists were completely and utterly socialist. They were born from the progressive milieu of the mid-19th century, just like the communists were.

          • hiernonymous

            “The German National Socialists were completely and utterly socialist.”

            Have fun supporting that one.

          • ziggy zoggy

            They nationalized industries, controlled the media, manipulated food distribution, persecuted dissenters, etc. AND LEFTARDS PRETEND BLACK AMERICANS DON’T LOVE TO MURDER UNARMED WHITES.

          • hiernonymous

            “They nationalized industries…”

            Really? I was under the impression that Krupp and Porsche went to Allied prisons after the war as owners of their firms. Thyssen’s industries were temporarily nationalized, but only after Thyssen fled to Switzerland and sent a letter to the Nazis announcing his opposition to the war. (Ironically, though, Thyssen was one of the people who encouraged Hitler to suppress the Socialists in the Night of the Long Knives; what he hadn’t banked on was that Hitler would also take the opportunity to settle scores with Schleicher, making Thyssen very nervous indeed).

            And, again, controlling the media, manipulating food distribution, and “persecuting dissenters” are not distinguishing characteristics of socialism.

          • Pat Hines

            That’s easily done, you see there’s the historical record for all to read, you know, as evidence.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, which makes me wonder why you keep insisting on something that isn’t supported by that record.

            Hitler was all over the map, economically; you’ll find quotes from him supporting socialism, you’ll find quotes from him denouncing it, and what the historical record supports is that he was an opportunist who would say what he needed to say in order to enlist the support he needed at any given moment – but that when the socialists called him on his promises, he killed or sidelined them rather than implement socialist policies. About the only part of the name that was consistently implemented by the Nazis was “nationalist,” in spades.

            I recall that you insisted that you had more formal education than nearly anyone on these boards, but as near as I can tell, that formal education was a degree in nursing. Did they sped a lot of time on Weimar in your schooling? If so, why are you forgetting the material now?

          • Pat Hines

            I have more than one degree, genius.

            Modern progressives in the US are the direct descendants, politically, of the fascists of the 1920-1945 time period. All came from the progressive era of the mid to late 19th century. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, as was Woodrow Wilson. Frank Roosevelt was almost pure fascist for all of his terms. Roosevelt was the Hitler of the US.

            Read “Three New Deals”
            http://tinyurl.com/n4e7kco

          • hiernonymous

            “I have more than one degree, genius.”

            Cool – so do I! The question is, are any of them relevant to Weimar?

            Teddy Roosevelt was, indeed, a Progressive, as was Wilson – which makes me wonder where you got the idea that American progressives are the ‘direct descendents’ of the fascists. Which degree covered that bit of creativity?

            You’ll find that Schivelbusch was not equating progressivism with fascism, but noting similarities to crisis response in the three countries – specifically, how three states used the power of the central government to combat the Great Depression. Progressivism is an entirely different phenomenon, and arose in response to a different sort of stimilus – namely, the economic and political corruption of the Gilded Age. And, for that matter, the intervention of the central government into economic matters is not how one defines “socialism;” if that’s the working definition you’ve been laboring under, it’s understandable – if incorrect – that you misapply the term so broadly.

    • Solo712

      I think racism (or better, a belief one’s race is better than the others,) comes from a natural human instinct. All races are by nature racist. Problem is nurture. Whites have been conditioned to feel guilty about racism (read ‘their race’) for a number of generations. Blacks have been conditioned to exploit this guilt to get whatever they can get away with. The Wichita Massacre is a shining example of affirmative atrocity.

  • Spartacus

    “Had H.G. been black and her attackers been white, there isn’t anyone in America who wouldn’t know her name.”

    ———————————————————————————————————

    But the reason no one knows is because the media is controlled by other usual suspects…

  • http://twitter.com/optionsfool gerry

    i am curious who took my comment down and why. You have chosen to leave up blatantly racist comments from those such as pat hines. David Horowitz started this site. He is a serious political commentator and analyst. He is not a bigot and would not approve what you are doing to his work

    • Drakken

      The race card has been played to the point it has zero meaning and the left uses it as a bludgeon to silence any type of criticism.

      • keyesforpres

        Oh for heavens sakes….Pat is clearly a lefty advocating for lynchings on a conservative site. He/she is clearly trying to make this site look bad. Stop defending Pat.

  • Gunrunner1

    In certain…extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to
    shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. To
    pursue… natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid
    motive, it’s an emotional response. No. Not vengeance. This, is
    punishment.

  • solinkaa

    US Marine Jan Pietrzak married Quaiana Jenkins. He was white, she was black. That murder was apparently to some degree motivated by the fact that they were a “multiracial” couple. They murderers were black. The silence about this case from the usual suspects (race pimps and feminists) is deafening.

    • hiernonymous

      Outrage over a case generally stems not from the crime itself, but from the failure of police to pursue criminals, or the failure of the justice system to administer an appropriate verdict or punishment.

      In this case, it looks like everything worked exactly as it was supposed to. Perps were caught, perps were convicted, perps were sentenced to death.

      What, exactly, is left to get outraged about?

      • Edward

        So if your entire family (parents, children, siblings) were murdered, as long as the perps were convicted and sentenced to death – or life in prison.

        You could blithely continue your life ignoring such a hole in your life – because presumably Justice has been served?

        • hiernonymous

          If my entire family were murdered, nothing could fill the hole in my life. I’m not sure what that has to do with the loss of my family thereby becoming a national or international news story.

          • Edward

            The hole in your life, the loss of your entire family,

            would be filled by knowing that the perpetrators would see Justice.

            That everything is fine. Their murder had been balanced by the prosecution of their murderers.

            I feel sorry for your family, having you as a cold, heartless member.

          • hiernonymous

            “I feel sorry for your family, having you as a cold, heartless member.”

            They manage, somehow.

            “The hole in your life, the loss of your entire family, would be filled by knowing that the perpetrators would see Justice.

            That everything is fine. Their murder had been balanced by the prosecution of their murderers.”

            Interesting. I can’t think of any amount of ‘justice’ that would fill the hole in my life if I lost my family, but perhaps that’s a reflection of my heartlessness.

            At any rate, you’ll note that the perps in this case were brought to justice. The question is – how would lynching them improve matters?

          • Edward

            Like islamists going on a killing spree,

            lynching is a Southern Democrat form of mob “jihad”.

          • hiernonymous

            Lynching, sadly, was not unique to Southerners or Democrats. I’d agree that any sort of rationalized violence or ‘justice’ is reprehensible, whether it’s jihad, Crusade, Inquisition, lynching, or pogrom.

          • Pat Hines

            The photograph of the well deserved lynching of criminals occurred in Minnesota.

            I wish it was happening in the south and most other states, crime would be reduced by a substantial amount.

          • hiernonymous

            Interesting idea of “well deserved.” The young lady who accused the six black circus workers of rape was subsequently (after the lynching, naturally) examined by a physician, who found no evidence of rape or assault.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Prove it, you serial liar.

          • hiernonymous

            http://collections.mnhs.org/duluthlynchings/html/lynchings.htm

            Accusations

            On the warm summer night of June 14, Irene Tusken, age nineteen, and James Sullivan, eighteen, went to the circus in Duluth. At the end of the evening the pair walked to the rear of the main tent. Nobody is sure of
            what happened next, but in the early morning of June 15th, Duluth Police Chief John Murphy received a call from James Sullivan’s father saying six black circus workers had held the pair at gunpoint and then raped Irene Tusken. Little evidence would be found to corroborate these claims. An examination of Tusken that morning by Dr. David Graham, a family physician, showed no physical signs of rape or assault.

            Again, your Tourette’s is getting in the way of intelligent communication.

          • hiernonymous

            Apology accepted!

      • SupremeGalooty

        Your first sentence, “Outrage over a case…” is a dogmatic assertion that you do not substantiate in any way. My problem with it is that it is argumentative without substance. In other words you have cleverly changed the subject without contributing a damned thing to the discussion. One thumb down.

  • Donald J DaCosta

    These are the kind of stories that need to be repeated indefinitely until the race hustlers have no where to go to play their game of “racial injustice.” For every George Zimmerman these stories of black instigated crime, black on white or black on black, some far more cruel, violent and egregious than that made out of Zimmerman’s self defense incident, need to be front page, above the fold, in living color alongside the distorted level of outrage and whining about the evils of white racism and the”besieged, oppressed, victimized” blacks invented by the race hustlers with the help of the America. But until America restores Journalistic integrity to its once noble state, those who recognize the level of hypocrisy and inequity represented by the race industry will continue to suffer outrage over the obvious injustice.

  • Pat Hines

    Race matters because negroes commit 55% of the murders within the boundaries of the US, while only being <13% of the total population.

    Narrowing that down, it's only 4% of the total population committing those murders, all of the black males between the ages of 14 and 25.

    • hiernonymous

      Might want to scroll up a few posts and have a look at the picture you posted and engage in a little reflection.

    • ssohara

      I am an American of Indian heritage. It is sad but true that young black men DO commit more crimes than those of other groups. Even black taxi cab drivers will not pick up young black men if they have a chance to avoid doing so. They will stop for black women, for older black men, etc.

      Statistically, young men are more likely to be criminals than any other group. BTW, this is why crime statistics are higher for Hispanics – because Hispanics in the US are younger, on average. If you correct for age in the statistics, Hispanic crime rates are very similar to that of other races of the same age. However, black crime rates for young men are still higher than crime rates for young men of other races.

      I suspect the cause of this is the breakdown of the black family. I’ve had friends who worked in prison ministries and they have told me that almost none of the male prisoners they work with have had a good relationship with their father. Children need both a mother and a father. This is a simple fact of life. Black men who were raised in a home with both parents are much more likely to achieve career and personal success. Why doesn’t the NAACP, etc., focus more on this issue?

      • keyesforpres

        Because the NAACP does not care. They are nothing but race hustlers today….making money off of crying “racism”.

  • CrazyA$$Cracka

    The media deliberately obscures the truth about the black crime epidemic in this country, because it doesn’t reflect their narrative. They won’t be satisfied until America is a 3rd-world, white-minority country where savage blacks roam the streets looking for blood, the Statue of Liberty is draped in a burqa, and the law recognizes marriages between people and farm animals.

  • handsomedan

    DEATH PENALTY !!!!!!!!!!

    • ziggy zoggy

      Death by pig rape.

  • http://www.luoamerican.com/baldilocks Juliette Akinyi Ochieng

    And let’s not forget, Jan-Pawel and Quiana Pietrzak…he was a white Marine and she was black. They had been married about three months when four of his fellow Marines–all black–forced their way into their California home, raped her, beat him and shot them both dead. This happened in 2008.

  • Edward
    • Edward

      The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

      • logdon

        Interesting.

        What I also find interesting are the outcomes of decolonisation from the British Empire.

        Somewhere there has to be research.

        Obviously America comes first and an unparalleled success. Then there’s Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia and Singapore. Again, all major successes.

        Then there are the others, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Kenya to mention just three. Corrupt failing states and riddled with crime and extremism.

        Another is the stark difference between Pakistan and it’s southerly neighbour India. Both in parts ostensibly from the same stock yet India is on stream as a global player and Pakistan a tribal and religious nightmare.

        * http://www.academia.edu/2002497/British_Decolonization

        • keyesforpres

          Pakistan’s problems is because of islam.

        • mrschristian

          You forgot to mention Canada in your list as a successful nations we seem to be forgotten as we hover about you in the north LOL we are a great success but only because of God’s continued blessings wich most fail to see, acknowledge or believe that He has had anything to do with our freedom that we enjoy and wich is quikly slipping away. the americans have already given up most or all of their freedoms, I hope we remain a place where we can critisize our government and not feel threatened, America had walked away from the Bible faith that they built their country on and that was the foundation that the US was built on. they abandoned God, and are reaping the consequences of this. we are guilty of leaving God out as well you see that was the reason our countries were great, not because of our race, our ansestors were pagans as well like in the countries mentioned, they were degenerates just like those who are committing genoside as we sit here. but for the grace of God we would be in the same sesspool of degeneracy like them and we are headed there in the future if people don’t go back to the roots of what made us great to begin with.

          • logdon

            I do apologise.

            The irony is that during the Fifties, as a boy I lived in Vancouver for three glorious years.

            From a Pacific paradise back to a grimy dank Britain still recovering from the War, the episode on reflection, was quite traumatic.

            You are right. A God given country, blessed and bountiful.

            I wish I was still there.

  • Edward

    keyesforpres,

    I agree.

    Same stunts were pulled at Tea Party rallies where a false flag neo-commie hurled racial slurs.

    F the Left.

  • OfficialPro

    wait wait wait.

    There were two perps, and 5 victims? What the heck? Can people not find a way to overpower two thugs when they CLEARLY OUTNUMBER them?!

    • SupremeGalooty

      Your change of topic does not contribute. One thumb down.

  • OfficialPro

    The answer is Communistic Race Theory.

  • m4253y

    i wait with baited breath for their deaths…no two vile pos are deserved of death than these

  • Barry Bathouse Queen

    BREATHING NI^^ERS are a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY!!!!!

    • UCSPanther

      Obvious troll is obvious…

    • Edward

      Hey socialist, Go to HELL/Mecca.

  • Pat Hines

    Umm, no, I’m advocating executing those who’ve ALREADY beem convicted of the crime, via evidence and testimony of the victims who survived. There isn’t even a scintilla of doubt about who perpetrated this vicious crime.

    Public hangings need to resume to foster additional deterrent, particularly in cases as horrendous as this one was.

    Punishment needs to play of the fears of the ethnic group involved so as to make it particularly meaningful. Hanging does that. Additional punishment immediately prior to the hanging ought be considered.

    • keyesforpres

      BULL. You were advocating taking the law into your own hands with lynchings. Posting a photo of blacks that were murdered by lynchings and then you said that it needs to be done today.
      You are depsicable.

  • StevenDobbs

    Eric Holder belongs in prison, along with the great Racist in Chief

  • cheechakos

    S Africa is a in a state of white genocide now.
    90 whites are killed a day and hundreds of thousands of people have fled to refugee camps.
    The NBPP has been there to support the genocide
    The MSM remains silent on it.

    • MarilynA

      Who’s going to feed all those black animals when they get rid of all the whites. Look at Zimbabwe. Blacks are humped on formerly white owned farms, starving and wondering why they aren’t rick like the white farmers were. Guess who si feeding them now. You and me. that’s who. The same will happen in South Africa. Once all the whites are gone they will be standing there with their tin cups begging Uncle Same for foreign aid. They either don’t have enough sense or are too lazy to work to feed themselves.

  • American1969

    These two scumbags should have been charged with a Hate Crime. They also should have been executed. Better yet, put them in with the main population—-they’ll take care of them!
    The point the article makes is a good one. Why was the Zimmerman/Martin case so exceptional? And where are idiots like Sharpton and Jackson when something like this happens? Oh. That’s right. It doesn’t support the victim narrative. If it doesn’t support that, they can’t enrich themselves. Therefore, it’s not important.

  • A_Nonny_Mouse

    You have to understand the liberal mindset: If a Liberal / Democrat/ Progressive (or a member of one of their “protected classes”) does something outrageous, it is the fault of that one individual. “Every group has its crazies, you know.”

    But if a white person, or avowed Christian, or anyone identified with Republican/ conservative / Tea Party/ gun-loving/ small-government values does something bad, weeeelllll!!! Whole different ballgame —- in *THAT* case, the crime is “typical of the mindset of those evil people over there” and they have a merry time assigning the guilt of the individual to the group-as-a-whole.

    As someone once said, if the Left didn’t have double-standards, it would have no standards at all…

  • mikegiles

    Once upon a time, any naval ship captain who lost his ship – no matter what the circumstances – faced a court martial; because some situations demand, by their very nature, demand an official inquiry. I think ANYONE, who is armed, who shoots an unarmed person, should be subject to an official inquiry. You shouldn’t be able to talk your way out of it. The inquiry, complete with a public hearing, should be automatic. SOMEONE has just been deprived of their life, and deserves to have the circumstances investigated and brought before the public.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Zimmerman was subjected to a public inquiry. He wasn’t arrested, charged or indicted because he didn’t break the law. The state of Florida broke the law when it used corrupt Obama stooges to indict and prosecute him anyway.

  • mikegiles

    As for a black on white crime – even when particularly heinous – not receiving the publicity of a a white on black “crime”; that’s because those white on black “crimes” are rarer – and rare events draw news coverage.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Good point but that isn’t why Zimmerman/Martin went viral. It was all about pushing phony critical race theory. Whitey as oppressor and Blacks as a persecuted underclass. Complete BS from the start.

  • Danny

    The press today is essentially acting as Obama’s press secretary. Unless you’ve made an effort to learn about Benghazi and Fast and Furious, and the dozen or so other scandals caused by Obama and his administration, you won’t know about them because the press has kept quiet about them. Even in the case of Obama’s privacy infringement against members of the press, they have still not exposed this charlatan President. As for the thesis of this article, it is right on the money; if a story goes against the current biased narrative on race, it is buried. I wonder how many people know of the Newsom/Christian murders (which are perhaps the most vicious and grotesque of murders in recent memory)? Are many people aware of how the press has taken out the essential element (that of Islamic terrorism) out of the Fort Hood mass murder and the Boston Marathon bombing? Excepting Fox News, talk radio, and various online sources, the press has its narratives and their sticking to them. This is what drove Andrew Breitbart to an early grave, and this is what we have to fight against–not because we’re conservative, but because it’s important.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    I am just shaking my head and am so disturbed by the enormous horror of this narrative. Thank you.

  • mrschristian

    I remember this in the news and your right if this had been white on black it never would have been forgotten, I hope those men are executed whats taking so long,? is the justice system in the states so afraid to kill these 2 animals, (no offense to the animals on this planet.) that they can’t get the nerve to do the deed ? put them down!!!! after giving them a chance to repent and get right with God, thats the only mercy I can think to give them, as well as my pity for their families who have to live with what they did. and for them, if they don’t repent they will suffer forever in Hell.

  • IndD

    You are so full of it!! There was another quadruple murder – this time with only black victims – the week before and it received almost NO media coverage. Why? Because they weren’t white victims. Four individuals were found shot to death Dec. 7. Raeshawnda Wheaton, 18; Quincy Williams, 17; Odessa Laquita Ford, 17; and Jermaine Levy, 20. Some of the victims were not even “adults” yet there was next to no news coverage of that atrocity. I am white and even I can see the racist disparity; and bigots like yourself only reinforce the problem. You’re sick.

  • Pat Henry

    Negroes have not evolved past common animals – crimes like this serve to remind us of that fact