Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:31 AM ET, 02/22/2011

Maybe putting a KKK founder on license plates IS a rotten idea

By Jennifer Rubin

It took the better part of a week, but Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has decided it's not a good idea to be seen as indifferent to a scheme to put a founder of the KKK on state license plates. Politico reports:

Under pressure to address racial issues swirling around a potential presidential bid, Haley Barbour said on Monday for the first time that he wouldn't sign legislation in Mississippi to honor a former Ku Klux Klan leader with a state-issued license plate.

"The bureaucracy denied it, the legislature won't pass it and if the legislature passes it, it won't become law because I won't sign it," Barbour told the Associated Press in an interview - a change from when he had earlier declined to take a position against the measure.

You can take this belated reversal in one of two ways. On one hand, he might actually realize he does have a race issue and he needs to clean it up (or at least diminish it) before he formally announces a run for the presidency. A GOP consultant tells me this is all part of his "I'm serious about this" tour. Alternatively, this might be part of a graceful retreat and effort to maintain his reputation. There does seem to be some ambivalence about moving from the "thinking about it" stage to the announcement stage:

"You've got to be prepared for a 10-year commitment and that's the majority of the rest of my productive life," Barbour told reporters during a stop at the Iowa capital, echoing comments he made on Fox News on Sunday. "I have to see if I have the fire in the belly and the willingness, to the exclusion of all other things, to take that on."

(A ten year commitment? Well, I suppose if he had started running last year that would make sense.)

Many Republican insiders, even those who admire Barbour's political skills, tend to think a presidential run is unlikely. One experienced GOP operative told me last night, "I always thought Barbour was a long shot. Too much baggage, even though I think he'd make one hell of a president." The GOP consultant says, "I don't see his interest in running lasting all that long."

The number of Republicans "thinking about it" is large, but when the actual 2012 presidential campaign gets underway the field might well be devoid of some often-mentioned names (e.g. Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin). A smaller field will be good news to those candidates who need to break out of the pack (especially Tim Pawlenty). It also allows a late comer -- any number of Republican governors or Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), for example -- to enter the race and make a splash.

In short, we still don't know the contours of the 2012 Republican field, and there's more than enough room for some Republicans who are fast becoming household names because they are standing up to unions (e.g. Gov. Scott Walker), leading on fiscal sobriety (e.g. Chris Christie) or showing how to pull back from the brink of a fiscal catastrophe (e.g. Paul Ryan).

By Jennifer Rubin  | February 22, 2011; 10:31 AM ET
Categories:  2012 campaign  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Public employee unions vs. the rest of us
Next: The Tea Party still no big deal?

Comments

The Republican field should be limited to those who have a plausible chance of beating Obama. The test should be: Can this candidate carry Ohio? That rules out Barbour, Palin and Huckabee. This election is too important for Republicans to screw around with likely losers.

Posted by: eoniii | February 22, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

It would be priceless to see Boss Hog debate Barack Obama. Only in America!

Keep casting about, Republicans. Someone in that underwhelming field will definitely lose to Obama and keep your heads spinning another 4 years.


Posted by: danw1 | February 22, 2011 12:10 PM | Report abuse

White Americans of a certain age in the Deep South, and I was raised there, have a romantic attachment to the Civil War and Reconstruction. The see the Civil War not as an act of treason against the United States of America, but rather as an expression of State's Rights, the right to hold slaves among other things, and the Reconstruction Era as an act of pitiless and unjust revenge.
White Southerners who hold these beliefs should but probably won't ever realize that their ancestor's rebellion against the United States could have been punished far more harshly by the Union victors but for the uncommon mercy and understanding of Abraham Lincoln.
The Union could have justifiably hung Jefferson Davis and his entire government along with Robert E. Lee and the rest of his generals, and perhaps every tenth White male Southerner who served in or supported the Rebel Army.
The failure of these White Southerners to even now admit that the Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist organization is reprehensible, whatever they may feel or believe about the Civil War itself.
The KKK was not only an anti Black organization, but was anti Catholic, anti Jewish, and anti foreigner. Along with the huge number of American Blacks the KKK tortured and murdered, the KKK also murdered Jews and Catholics, and burned down churches and homes.
Tragically for the American Deep South, many of the leaders and supporters of the KKK, like Eugene and his son Herman Talmadge in Georgia, were also leading members of the community and the state, and held back the Deep South from developing economically, educationally, and socially for decades.
These people do not deserve any honor whatsoever, but should be remembered as the hatefilled and ignorant racists and fascists they really were.

Posted by: Beniyyar | February 22, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

“[Barbour] might actually realize he does have a race issue and he needs to clean it up (or at least diminish it) before he formally announces a run for the presidency.”

Is anyone surprised that Ruben views racism as something you “clean up” when the need arises? Don’t bother to actually rid yourself of racism, Haley; just “clean up” a bit for the presidential run.

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

If the Democrats could "clean up" Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd enough to make him Senate Majority leader, why can't the Republicans "clean up" a non-member who fudged his hometown history and flunked the license plate test?


Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by Inagua1: If the Democrats could "clean up" Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd enough to make him Senate Majority leader, why can't the Republicans "clean up" a non-member who fudged his hometown history and flunked the license plate test?

There was a time when Democrats were scum of the earth. (Remember the Confederate States of America?) There was a time when the GOP had great heroes – Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, to name a few. But the Dems didn’t just “clean up” racism. They repudiated it entirely. That is one of the truly admirable things about Robert Ryrd. The GOP, on the other hand, . . . .

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Beniyyar,

Are you sure about the Klan? I ask because a rather well respected Princeton professor wrote in his book, A History of the American People, that

"In May 1866, a little group of young men in the Tennessee village of Pulaski, finding their time hang heavily on their hands after the excitement of the field, so lately abandoned, formed a secret club for the mere pleasure of association, for private amusement—for anything that might break the monotony of the too quiet place, as their wits might work upon the matter, and one of their number suggested that they call themselves the Kuklos, the Circle."

The main activities of the Klan, wrote the professor, were "pranks," "mischief" and "frolicking." Occasionally they did prey upon blacks, he conceded, but black fears of the Klan were "comic."

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Benniyar, I also grew up in the Deep South during the segregation era. My great-great grandfather commanded a Confederate brigade at Gettysburg. I well remember the casual racism of everyday life during the 1960s. The Alabama Democratic Party's emblem on the ballot was a crowing rooster with the motto, "White Supremacy for the Right". George Wallace was a folk hero.

That era brought nothing but infamy to the South, redeemed only by the triumph of the Civil Rights movement. Likewise, the early KKK was a terrorist organization lynching and intimidating blacks who tried to live as free men and women. Anyone who romanticizes it as resistance to Carpetbaggers and Scalawags is beyond the pale of intelligent discussion.

The Civil War is somewhat different. While the cause itself was evil, many southerners properly revere the great Confederate generals and the bravery of the soldiers. It's really impossible to study the great battles without admiring both sides, especially the badly outnumbered and out-supplied Southerners.

Nathan Bedford Forrest, according to historian Shelby Foote, was one of only two geniuses produced by the Civil War, the other being Lincoln. His cavalry tactics revolutionized warfare, and his fierce bravery and leadership skills were almost unmatched. Reportedly, he killed 31 men in close combat and had 30 horses shot out from under him. His career, though, is badly marred by the Fort Pillow massacre and his role in founding the Klan. He shouldn't be honored.

Posted by: eoniii | February 22, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Eoniii -- First class post.

There were of course any number of brave and (in a sense) honorable Confederates. However, secession was engineered by the uber-rich southern plantation owner class over formidable opposition amongst the white labor class. The southerners forced to do the actual fighting during the rebellion referred to the conflict as “the rich man’s war.” By 1865, the Confederate government was so despised by rank and file southerners that it would have collapsed even without the losses on the battlefield that year. After the war, the plantation owner class, most of whom maintained their wealth, initiated the propaganda campaign that glorified the rebellion as a “glorious cause.” It was, in actual fact, a catastrophe beyond imagination.

The best book on the subject that I know of is “A People’s History of the Civil War” by David Williams.

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Since I have actually seen the KKK in action in the small Southern town where I grew up, I can assure you, Inagua1, that the vicious and bloody beatings they handed out to Blacks who tried to use the public park in the center of my town was anything but pranks or mischief.
I am also sure that the Colored Only signs the local KKK demanded on certain water fountains, or on the separate restrooms of the Sears Roebuck store were grossly insulting and infuriating to the local Blacks and meant to "keep them in their place." There was nothing mischievous about these signs, they were a form of savage psychological warfare against American citizens.
The KKK didn't just destroy any hope for a better life for Southern Blacks, it managed with it's primitive hatred and use of violence to keep most Southern Whites almost as disadvantaged.
The KKK was a blight on the South.

Posted by: Beniyyar | February 22, 2011 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Beniyyar,

Sorry my attempt to humorously out Woodrow Wilson as a despicable racist failed. My question was rhetorical. It was a great mistake to let the failed southern political leadership get away with the Lost Cause mythology. It was the only war I know of where the losers got to write the dominant historical narrative for several generations.

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The more important issue is how and why Presidents Clinton and Obama would honor KKK leader Robert Byrd at his funeral.

Then to even further support hatred, Obama dismissed criminal charges against the New Black Panther hate group and invited their racist leader to the White House.

And of course all of America is already familiar with Obama's relationship with the hateful and racist Rev. Wright.

Posted by: fury60 | February 22, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

When we discuss Haley Barbour and racism, I would invite all who would bring up Senator Byrd's KKK association to remember that Senator Byrd did not, and could not, run for President.
Being a hero in a bullfrog pond does not qualify you to sail in the ocean, whether you are a Democrat or Republican.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | February 22, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

TO: eoniii who wrote:
"The Republican field should be limited to those who have a plausible chance of beating Obama. The test should be: Can this candidate carry Ohio? That rules out Barbour, Palin and Huckabee. This election is too important for Republicans to screw around with likely losers."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Fortunately, all Repubicans have are losers.

I would NEVER vote Republican, and why should anyone?

Republicans are AGAINST the American People and are only in favor of the Rich and Big Business, not to mention the fact that they ran our economy into the ground and then lambasted anyone who tried to clean up their mess.


Posted by: lindalovejones | February 22, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

TO: fury60 who wrote:
“The more important issue is how and why Presidents Clinton and Obama would honor KKK leader Robert Byrd at his funeral...”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So your theory is that Democrats would want to vote for Boss Hogg, who was set to praise KKK founder because you mentioned the name “Robert Byrd”?

Robert Byrd saw the error of his ways, apologized, and asked for forgiveness.

Haley Barbour is still a member of “citizen councils” (aka the KKK).

The KKK is strictly again minorities of any color, Catholics, Jews, Hindus and Muslims, now Barbour would dare ask for their votes?

Don’t count on it.


Posted by: lindalovejones | February 22, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Klan denial like Holocaust denial is a symptom of a disordered mind.

It is not a coincidence that when Ronald Reagan was governor of California he systematically began closing down mental hospitals, later as president he would cut aid for federally-funded community mental health programs.

The more mental illness remains untreated in our society, the more easily Republican ideology finds a home. I imagine this explains Glen Beck's audience almost entirely.


Posted by: karenfink | February 22, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Ten years, eh? Barbour hopes he'll die in nine so he won't have to pretend giving up his racism.

Posted by: jckdoors | February 22, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see the idiots trying to excuse Barbour by bringing up Robert Byrd's KKK history.

Both men were raised in a time & place where racism was very much the norm. Only one of them rose above that.

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." - Robert Byrd

Posted by: Uncle_Joe | February 22, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: karenfink: It is not a coincidence that when Ronald Reagan was governor of California he systematically began closing down mental hospitals, later as president he would cut aid for federally-funded community mental health programs.

Not to mention RR’s dog whistle appeal to racists in his 1980 reference to “state’s rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi. I’m not accusing RR of racism, I’m accusing him of pandering to racists in order to win what are now commonly known as “red states.”

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Those in power, whether in politics, media, or in financial sectors, will always use divide and conquer to keep their power. After all is said and done, the only thing that makes us different is what we have been told, and what we continue to want to believe. We have a lot of growing up to do. Until then, all we can do is to refuse to play their games, and do good whereever and whenever possible.

Posted by: mariarodriguez1 | February 22, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

A Haley-Obama debate would be great for a drinking game, just take a shot everytime he calls the President uppity or chug a full beer everytime he drops the n-word...

Posted by: ozpunk | February 22, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

This is what stands for "leadership" in the Republican Party.

He mayyyyyy reject the KKK, but only after a week of political pressure.

Unreal.

We have a race and minority problem here in the USA and it is exclusively the Republican Party that is causing it.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 22, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The program to let people do this sounds like a good idea to me. We all know there are people out there who would get a KKK license plate if they could... its in the interest of the rest of us to know exactly who they are.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | February 22, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

J_B_A,

Here is the man you say repudiated racism speaking in 2001:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 6:00 PM | Report abuse

look this guy is a fat southern racist who's stse is the 49th state in poverty. what the heck has he done for anybody? nothing. he will never ever win the presidency. period!!! so now he walks back where he stands. he is a fat southern rib eating liar. game over.

Posted by: donincardona | February 22, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

If Gov. Barbour had any intelligence at all he would have made that decision in 10 seconds. I wonder what he would do on a license plate honoring the American Nazi Party.

Posted by: JohnFr | February 22, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Inagua1: Here is the man you say repudiated racism speaking in 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0

Can we agree that if Robert Byrd in fact remained a racist after purporting to condemn racism, then he deserves the same condemnation as Haley Barbour, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, and all the others in that long, sordid list?

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

J_B_A,

No, I would not agree that these people all deserve the same level of condemnation. Byrd tops the list because he was the only open Klan member on your list, and because he used racist language in public as recently as 2001.

I was merely trying to correct your statemenet about Byrd repudiating racism, not set up a ranking system for offensiveness. But if you insist I would rank these offenders Byrd, Thurmond, Helms, Lott, Barbour.

BTW, did you see that some Indiana Democrats are now on the lam? Do you now understand that there are state laws about legislators attending sessions? That the absconders are breaking the law?


Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Imagine a Barbour presidential inauguration. The chief justice administering the oath of office would be wearing a black robe and Barbour a white one plus goofy hat and mask with holes for his beady eyes.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | February 22, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Inagua1: Do you now understand that there are state laws about legislators attending sessions? That the absconders are breaking the law?

I’m sorry to break the bad news to you, but you are mistaken in your view of law. There neither is, nor could possibly be, a law that prohibits legislators from leaving the state of Wisconsin for the simple reason that such a law would violate the United States Constitution, and therefore would be no law at all. In the case of teachers who fail to report to work claiming illness, it might well be that civil law – perhaps the law governing contracts – could be brought to bear, but it is far from clear which side would prevail in such a dispute, given the fact that the governor’s proposed legislation could well be argued to be a material breach excusing performance by the teachers in question.

Fox views cannot be expected to know these things. Why you are misinformed, I haven’t a clue.

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

J_B_A,

Why do you think the legislators of Texas, Wisconsin and Indiana left their states to prevent a quorum? Why didn't they stay in their offices and simply not report to the floor? Or stay home? Or hold a press conference in the state capital? Because there are state laws requiring legislators to earn their pay by attending sessions. Look it up, Sparky.

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 7:30 PM | Report abuse

As my boss soothed me when one of my retired, former Marine Colonel employess told me of a "big Indian chief he met in Alaska with a feather in his hair", he's just a product of his generation.

Let's just hope we don't elect any more "products of this generation" President.

Posted by: areyousaying | February 22, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Nothing to look up. I know the law, and it is exactly what I posted.

I know you and the Fox viewing public think there is a law that the Wisconsin Dems have violated, but -- as we know -- most things that Fox viewers believe are not true.

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I repeat, Sparky, why do you think legislators in three states left the state to prevent a quorum? Bonus question: What Senate Majority Leader ordered the sergeant at arms to bring Senator Packwood from his office to the floor to make a quorum?

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The reason Barbour is fitting in so well with the rest of the Republicans is that they are have become over-run by John Birch Society Bigoted Lunatics. The John Birch Society believes believe (1) that the Constitution is based on christian principles thus making only christians valid citizens; (2) that Democrats are the "collectivism" party and therefore "socialists"; and (3) that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is in violation of the 10th Amendment and that states should be allowed to have Jim Crow laws if they so desire.

When Arlen Specter retired, after working 44 years as a Republican, he referred to them as "cannibalistic". I think what The really meant to say was:

THIS CURRENT BATCH OF REPUBCLICANS ARE BRAINDEAD BATCHIT BIGOTS...

or something to that effect.

Posted by: jakrdy | February 22, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

For Sparky,

From the Wisconsin Constitution:

Article IV, §7
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. Section 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 8:13 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with these idiots. First Steve King Republican of Iowa wants to make his State all white and now Haley Barbour reverses course on the plates. When will the people who elect these fools actually realize that they are Racists and hate anything not "white"
These people make me sick.

Posted by: sumo1 | February 22, 2011 8:39 PM | Report abuse

It appears that a lot of "right thinking" people want white Southerners to wear sack cloth and ashes. I hate to tell you folks but we aren't going to do it. Ridicule us if you want, it only nurtures our narcisism and sense of superiority. Sure, we had African slavery and we clung to it longer than the North did. What of it? Those who want an apology should go see Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, they'll be happy to play to your prejudices and need for affirmation. If you were to take a poll, however, I think that you would find that history does not bother us. Does your conscience bother you? Tell the truth.

Posted by: lmmbham | February 22, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Inagua1: From the Wisconsin Constitution: Article IV, §7
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. Section 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.

There are some bona fide morons in USA. It makes absolutely no difference what the Wisconsin constitution says about compulsory attendance. The United States Constitution guarantees US citizens the right to travel, and therefore there cannot be a constitutional law in the state of Wisconsin, or any other state, that prohibits legislators from leaving the state.

I know you want to believe Fox News. Please try to comprehend that Fox is a propaganda outlet, not a source of actual information.

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Once again the repubs show their true colors. Wake up people everyone except the elite whites are considered their enemy. All of the rest of you fools are just pawns for their agendy which does not include you.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | February 22, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Sparky,

Nice try at a Strawman argument. I did not say it was illegal for the Wisconsin state senators to leave the state. I said that there is a law that compels attendence in the state senate. Your assertion that "It makes absolutely no difference what the Wisconsin constitution says about compulsory attendance" is incorrect. It is the law in Wisconsin. Which is why the Senators left the state -- to get beyond the reach the state law. If denial of a quorum was a legal legislative tactic under state law all they had to do was stay off the senate floor. But they left the state. To flee the jurisdiction. Get it?

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Memo to Inagua1: I will try one more time, then give up. Here is an analogy -- a kind of picture, if you are not familiar with the word.

If the state in which you live (assuming you live in a state of the United States) were to enact a law -- or pass a constitutional amendment -- requiring you to report to the Governor's office every Monday at 12 noon, you would of course be free to obey that law. If, however, you chose to leave the state one Monday morning and travel to the other side of USA, you would be free to do that as well. That is because the United States Constitution contains a number of provisions (the Bill of Attainder clause, the 14 Amendment, etc.) that would render the law requiring you to report to the Governor's office flagrantly unconstitutional. Of course, folks might very well declare you to be a lawbreaker, and in a narrow sense they would be right. But since the (purported) law we are hypothesizing would be unconstitutional, only people of exceedingly impaired intelligence would actually believe you to be a criminal.

Now do you understand why the Wisconsin legislators are free to leave the state of Wisconsin any time they like?

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Haley Barbour is a joke with no spine...he and Obama would make a nice matching set of book-ends.

Posted by: JCM-51 | February 22, 2011 10:04 PM | Report abuse

"Now do you understand why the Wisconsin legislators are free to leave the state of Wisconsin any time they like?"

Yes, and I have always understood that, and I have never asserted anything to the contrary. I further understand that they left the state to avoid being in violation of Wisconsin state law. Do you understand that? For perhaps the fifth time, why do you think the Wisconsin state senators left the state, if not to get beyond the reach of Wisconsin state law?

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

As I said, a US citizen cannot be "in violation" of an unconstitutional law. Go away.

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

>>As I said, a US citizen cannot be "in violation" of an unconstitutional law.<<

This is progress, Sparky. You began by denying the existence of the state law. Now you admit it exists. But you say it is unconstitutional.

If state compulsory attendance laws are unconstitutional, then why did the legislators of Texas, Wisconsin and Indiana all leave their states to deny a quorum? Why not do it from in state?

Posted by: Inagua1 | February 22, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Legislators are free to travel. You don't like it. So what? No one cares what you like.

Posted by: J_B_A | February 22, 2011 11:36 PM | Report abuse


everyone will remember that the dim-witted haley barbour was for the KKK license plate before he was against it.

i believe this is the second or third major gaffe this man has made.

is he presidential material? hell no!

Posted by: potomacfever00 | February 22, 2011 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Haley, it's time we stop honoring our racist past. It's time we confront the fact that the United States was built on the obscene denigration of millions of people -- slaves and their "free" labor.

Posted by: jcluma | February 23, 2011 1:38 AM | Report abuse

eoniii ..right on! well said... to bad it most likely will fall on deaf ears as personal egos rise above everything else.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 23, 2011 6:45 AM | Report abuse

" jennifer says: Maybe putting a KKK founder on license plates IS a rotten idea."

Of course that hasn't bothered the Democrats in West Virginia, and elsewhere, who have bestowed honorifics on the late departed Robert Byrd - who admitted that to get elected as a Democrat he HAD to join the KKK. In fact, he started his own chapter and recruited many members.

I guess that was OK because he was a Democrat - Fiercely anti-Negro for decades; fought against adoption of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960's... a real Democrat leader!

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 23, 2011 6:51 AM | Report abuse

J_B_A

Public employees commit common law and most likely, statutory fraud, when they call-in sick and take a sick day, if they are NOT ill. Providing a false statement by a licensed medical doctor presents another violation by the public employee, as well as a serious fraud by the licensed medical practitioner. In spite of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". The ends do not justify the illegalities being committed.

Such an action is a violation of their obligation to provide fair services in exchange for their compensation from public funds.

If you bothered to listen to FOX News perhaps you would actually begin to think on your own instead of merely parroting the DNC and miscreant Demoid leadership.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 23, 2011 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Hazmat77 wrote:
If you bothered to listen to FOX News perhaps you would actually begin to think on your own instead of merely parroting the DNC and miscreant Demoid leadership.
-----
I have listened to Fox News and IT IS NOT NEWS. It is propaganda. If you read The New York Times or listened to PBS, RESPECTED sources of news, perhaps you too would not be the ignorant tool you are.

Moron.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | February 23, 2011 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Hazmat: [I] listen to FOX News . . .

_____________

That would explain why you would express an opinion about "common law" and "statory fraud" without having the slightest idea what either means. No one familiar with the studies on Fox News viewers' misinformation coefficient is the slightest bit surprised.

Posted by: J_B_A | February 23, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White countries for everybody?

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Posted by: wlewis2009 | February 23, 2011 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company