Posts Tagged ‘liberal’


from “The Second Coming” by William Butler Yeats

Marriage equality?

Marriage equality?

Well, it’s official.

Marriage equality has arrived in America. It seems appropriate to mark the occasion, seeing as the issue hits so close to home.

Where to start? First, I’ll begin by saying that I am happy beyond words that gays and lesbians throughout the Nation, finally, will have the exact same civil benefits and responsibilities everyone else is afforded. It is proper and right that we should have them.

No government of a nation dedicated to treating its citizens equally under the law should be allowed to discriminate against its own citizens. Moreover, no nation that claims to pride itself on valuing property rights can dare to deny to citizens the basic right to enter into a contract. That being said, this decision, the debate leading up to it and the aftermath that has followed, is not something I feel like dancing and smiling about. You will not find my profile pic draped in a rainbow flag. (more…)


While I’m no fan of President Obama, and while I think his actions have at times pressed (and occasionally surpassed) the boundaries of his Constitutional authority – not to mention those of common sense and good governance – I’m not one to let dangerous, deceitful, and downright ludicrous allegations about this or any President go unchallenged.

It’s well past time that those of us with a non Liberal perspective stand up to say “enough” to conspiracy theorists and fear mongering when it comes to Obama. If folks present facts and a cogent argument against a President’s policies or his actions, I’m all there to hear them.

When accusations, smears and/or paranoia driven speculation are substituted for reason and a cogent argument, however, I want none of it.


This ongoing series is not intended as ‘gotcha’ style one-upmanship on the issue of racism, but rather a counterargument to the view that racism is part and parcel of the Conservative/Republican movement as well as an indictment of the agenda of Liberals.  It will integrate the statements and the policies of liberals and will demonstrate that both  the policies and the statements are of a whole cloth – the very same race-obsessed cloth which stained the early Democratic Party. The series is a demonstration that Liberals and Democrats have not only not left their racist views behind them, but rather have developed a different strategy to achieve the very same ends of those early racists within their ranks.

The following are quotes attributed to prominent liberal and Democratic leaders and activists regarding blacks and Jews. All of these (with the exception of the Truman quote) date after the alleged switch in party affiliation based on racist leanings that is often alleged by Liberals today.

Excluded from this page are the myriad of anti-white statements from white, black, and Hispanic leaders and activists. These views are widely known. Inclusion of them here would be both redundant and counterproductive, as it is the alleged bias against blacks, Jews, and Hispanics of Conservatives and Republicans which draws the ire of so many liberals.




image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia



“(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t

sell watermelons if  you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” — Dan Rather

(for the video go here)








image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia


“A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been

getting us coffee.” — Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy

(Game Change by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann)





imaged owned by

imaged owned by






“Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies.”

— Abortionist Ashutosh Ron Virmani

(for the video go here)




image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia





“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless

you have a slight Indian Accent.” — Joe Biden

(for the video go here)








image owned by wikipedia

image owned by wikipedia

“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from

West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter]

that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . .

He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.”

— Former Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd (D.,Conn.)

(quoted in the Washington Times, go here)










image owned by wikipedia

image owned by wikipedia

“(Harry Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that

the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially

one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless

he wanted to have one.”

— Harry Reid’s comments reported by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann






image owned by wikipedia

image owned by wikipedia


“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a n*gger or a Chinaman.

Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud,

then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese

and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion

Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.”

-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess






image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia





“You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d

just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.” — Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

(reported by the New York Times, go here)











image owned by wikipedia

image owned by Wikipedia




“Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos”

to learn how to read and write.” — Mike Wallace, CBS News

( during preparation for a 60 Minutes TV program on insurance fraud in 1981.)














image courtesy of google images and is owned by John Morrison (flickr)

image courtesy of google images and is owned by John Morrison (flickr)





“‘Hymies.’ ‘Hymietown.’” — Jesse Jackson’s description of New York City

while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.












image owned by wikipedia

image owned by wikipedia






“You f*cking Jew b@stard.” — Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in “State of a Union: Inside

the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton” and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.






And perhaps the most relevant quotes. This from President Lyndon B. Johnson, Liberal hero and signer of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:


“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years”

(from Inside the White House by Ronald Kessler)


and this


“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

— Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights


This is by no means a complete quotations page, and it will be updated continuously and as needed.

image courtesy of google images and is owned by wikipedia

image courtesy of google images and is owned by wikipedia

On his Sunday social issues column Hunter wrote about the possibility that there could soon be a Constitutional Convention. On the possibility of a Constitutional Convention (Con Con), Hunter observed that

“As history is made around us, we are called to great acts of self-governance and personal responsibility. These are a high calling, and ought not to be taken lightly.”

Here he will make his case for one.

One of the reasons Hunter supports a Con Con is precisely the one that most folks give for their opposition to it – the off-chance it could become a runaway Convention – a convention that is not limited to one or two specific, previously identified Amendments.

Not only does Hunter not fear such a thing, he welcomes it.

He welcomes a Con Con despite the other, barely disguised reason that many oppose it, the alleged inability of the general populace to govern ourselves and our supposedly limited intellectual and moral development. Put bluntly, today, as in the past, many of our intellectual and civic leaders believe us too evil or stupid to govern ourselves. They believe that in a Constitutional Convention there runs the risk of stupid, evil people running away with government power.

In making the case against a Con Con, the John Birch Society, as do most of those who object,  oppose it on the grounds of fear of a ‘runaway convention’. They maintain that a runaway Convention would likely occur due to the theory of popular sovereignty, asking “how could any limits be placed on a convention for proposing amendments representing the sovereign people [emphasis mine] convened according to Article V?”. One’s immediate response should very will be “why would you limit the sovereign people’s authority if a Convention is called?’

The implicit reason for most folks’ opposition can be found in the words of Jefferson when he discussed those who were reticent in giving authority to the people:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion,[emphasis mine] the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional power”


We need not look just to the past to find those who fear we, the people are ‘not enlightened enough to exercise…control with a wholesome discretion’. Another prominent opponent of a Con Con, Chief Justice Warren Burger, explicitly says as much.

In his letter, dated June 22, 1983, to prominent political and moral activist Phyllis Schlafly, Burger wrote of his fears of a Con Con. Burger expressed his concern that ‘such a convention would be a grand waste of time’, adding that there would be  ‘no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention’. One is tempted to ask,’Mr. Chief Justice, if the Constitution was designed for ‘we the people’, why do you believe that we ourselves do not recognize or understand the things that ‘need attention’? The former Chief Justice is kind enough to give us his answer.

The honorable Chief Justice observed in his letter that a Con Con might be ‘a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation’. Before we move on to his more notable objection, let’s pause for a moment and reflect.

Since ‘special interest groups’ are nothing more than collections of individuals with specific, concrete concerns, given his complaint that a Con Con of the people offers ‘no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention’, one can assume that the Chief Justice considers the focused interests of such people unworthy of concern. The good Chief Justice acknowledges thus, stating his worry that  ‘after a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda’. Presumably the ‘we’ in this statement is not ‘we the people’, but rather such elites as the good Chief Justice and Ms. Schlafly, the moneyed and politically influential ‘elites’ who of course have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Presumably also, given the Chief Justice’s worry regarding ‘television coverage and press speculation’ he’d prefer a Con Con, were one to occur, be hidden from public view. Why? Perhaps the good Chief Justice believes we, the people may not like the issues discussed were we to learn of them. Perhaps he prefers a government that operates in secrecy.

On the issue of a runaway Convention, the honorable Chief Justice plays his hand, exposing his actual beliefs regarding we, the people. He lets us know what he believes ours and the governments respective roles are. Mr. Burger complains that ‘Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey’. ‘Obey’?

Mr. Chief Justice, we, the people are not your servant, you are ours. We have no need to ‘obey’, but you do. We recognize that your authority comes solely at our consent. It is past time that our leaders recognize this fact, and act on it.

This, not some ‘lack of attention’ to ‘issues that need be addressed’, is the reason most folks, particularly those in elected and appointed positions, oppose a Convention. They understand that we the people are the government. They fear that once the reins of power are firmly in our grasp, as would occur in a Con Con, their influence, authority, control, and interests may well become moot.

Hunter supports a Constitutional Convention because he understands that we, the people recognize, perhaps better than those in Washington, precisely the ‘subject(s) needing attention’.

62% of citizens polled say that the nation is on the wrong track. 72% identify the size of government as the biggest threat to the nation, and 78% of U.S.  disprove of the job the U.S. Congress is doing. These numbers, which cut across party or ideological affiliation, demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens have identified our government as the cause of the bulk of our problems. When the good Chief Justice shows concern that Congress might not ‘be obeyed’ at a Constitutional Convention he is certainly correct – they would not be.

The Chief Justice and the good folks at the John Birch Society, like many elites from our past,  fear that we are ‘not enlightened enough to exercise…control with a wholesome discretion’. They are mistaken.

Hunter concluded his Sunday column with this

“As history is made around us, we are called to great acts of self-governance and personal responsibility. These are a high calling, and ought not to be taken lightly. Our future – and that of our posterity – is watching to see what we do with the awesome responsibility that awaits us”

Are we prepared to ‘exercise…control with a wholesome discretion’? Are we ready to answer the call of “great acts of self-governance and personal responsibility”?

What do you think?