History is all well and good but I've got a better idea, lets worry about who's racist now. Does it really help the Republican's cause to say that it was the democracts in the KKK in 1923? What does that prove?

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican - the Southerners were defeated by Republicans!! The KKK was organized by defeated Confederates to protect themselves and their families from resentful former slaves who were given a free range on revenge against Confederates by Union soldiers - also carpetbaggers and Union soldiers who raped and stole at will...the KKK later evolved into something else, a disgusting, revolting organization . Most ex Rebs didn't belong to the party of Mr. Lincoln!

"Notable Quotations from George Santayana
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284"

"soft bigotry of low expectations"

Fighting Back

Robert, you just have to recognize the new battle.

Hence the Liberal “white guilt” and shame that the democrats inflict on society today that the conservative right wants no party to. It’s the Liberal “sins of their fathers” that now force the rest of us to dig deep into our pockets to buy their indulgence and build their stairway to heaven.

The racists now were the same as the racists then, they’ve only changed the color of their hate onto themselves. The vengeance of which is brought to bear on right thinking people who wish to protect their liberties of freedom and equality for ALL - not only segmented factions of society consisting of special interest groups and minority reminders that daddy is roasting in hell because he was part of a liberal lynch mob. That’s what revisiting history does RSP it reminds us again that it’s not our cross to bear and we shouldn’t be deluded into paying penance built of false accusations of the past.

"That’s what revisiting history does RSP it reminds us again that it’s not our cross to bear and we shouldn’t be deluded into paying penance built of false accusations of the past."

I'm not talking about ignoring history, I'm talking about applying past occurances to current events without thought.

Were past KKK members Democrats, yes, are current KKK members Democrats, I would doubt it.

"The racists now were the same as the racists then, they’ve only changed the color of their hate onto themselves."

Racism may not be as overt as then but it's certainly not gone. Many, many people still hate other races and it is definitely not merely putting 'hate on to themselves.'

Robert S. Porter>

“Racism may not be as overt as then but it's certainly not gone. Many, many people still hate other races and it is definitely not merely putting 'hate on to themselves.”

Actually I agree wholeheartedly. But it does depend on what angle your viewing the statement from. If you mean globally I will agree with “many people still hate other races” as you can attest this occurs on every nation on earth. Name a nation then do the search and you will find it, whether it’s overt or not - use Malaysia as a starting point.

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

My statement “putting hate on themselves” is a uniquely a western European phenomena originating from the early slave trade from Africa throughout the Middle East, Europe and the Americas. This modern day “white guilt” has infiltrated our society though thin-skinned mentalities predisposed to mental self-mutilation championed by the liberal left who wish to cleanse the imagined blood off their hands. They do not wish to do this penance alone and demand that anyone else of their color make reparations with them. This is self loathing and racism of another form, but it is racism non the less. Of course racism is “certainly not gone” nor will it ever be, overt or clandestine it is a human condition that is not naturally overcome in an individual if ever at all. The worst form of it is the kind that imposes it’s personal demons on the rest of society as the left does every time they claim it only exists in one place and with one race, their own. It’s delusional and it’s false.

Robert S. Porter. Foolish man. Painful to read.

In answer to the question, he's wearing the fake "Al Smith for President" button.

Cheers

Well, let's not forget what the modern Democrat party has done TO black people - including the Federal harassment of MLK by the Kennedy administration, the destruction of the black family and warehousing of blacks in Federal housing projects far removed from union-dominated jobs under Johnson. And, of course, we can't overlook that antics of the "senior and most respected" Senator from Virginia, "former" Klansman Robert "KKK" Byrd, who just can't help himself from uttering the "N" word now and then.

Sure, modern Democrats have made their peace with Blacks...as long as they keep their place as compliant wards of the State. Heaven help any Black who wakes up and deigns to walk off the Liberal plantation to seek true liberation in the arms of the conservative movement, however.

Sorry. I meant "West" Virginia. Fingers seem to be working faster than the brain.

Isn't it amazing how the Democrats manage to pin their problems on the Republicans? When I read columns about how Iraq is like Vietnam, with the implication being that Republicans screwed up Vietnam it always irritates me. It isn't only the bad stuff that gets revised in history either. Lately I've seen trailers for a movie called "Charlie Wilson's War" Only problem is that the war they are talking about is more like Ronald Reagan's war. Charlie Wilson being a Democrat of course. All this just shows the importance of reading history, but most of America doesn't do that.

Knight 99: "That’s what revisiting history does RSP it reminds us again that it’s not our cross to bear and we shouldn’t be deluded into paying penance built of false accusations of the past."

I couldn't agree more and I won't have anything to do with the "assumed guilt" of the actions of groups from the past who haven't done any genuine penance but, like Dippers and lib-lefties everywhere, expect EVERYONE ELSE to pay for what they, themselves, have done.

If one is guilty, that's what confession is for, before God, and then personal reparation, at a cost to the INDIVIDUAL not the collective.

Collective guilt/collective reparation is a leftie scam by which most North Americans are easily duped as most of us have no concept of personal guilt, the need for confession, penance, reparation, forgiveness, and healing.

This is another historical loss we have suffered, having shucked our need for the God of our fathers and mothers, and we are paying dearly for it. The Humanist Hucksters have been given carte blanche to take us all to the cleaners--and far from feeling washed whiter than snow (something that happens in confession, believe me), we're all made to feel guilty and bad.

No forgiveness, no healing, just mea culpa all the time and here's my money...

Bad, bad, bad = pay, pay, pay.

Your ultra-partisanship is getting obsessive and pathetic. So the early members of the KKK were "Democrats" in name -- big deal. Do their political beliefs reflect those of modern-day Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter)? No. So this little "revelation" of yours -- complete with sneering, sarcastic headline -- is about nothing more than juvenile bragging rights.

So bravo on the impressive accomplishment, Kate. What a hero for the far-right you must be.

Today's Democrats are about as far removed from them as today's Republicans are from Lincoln.

Turning to a more recent era, the Knights Party, the modern political incarnation of the KKK:

- believes in small government
- is anti-immigration
- supports a single, flat tax
- is pro-gun
- is pro-life
- opposes foreign aid
- opposes affirmative action
- believes that whites, especially white men, are discriminated against

Remind you of anyone around here?

I'm not saying you are, I'm saying maybe you should be.

I agree with jema54 and I. sanderson. Dixiecrats were in many ways more conservative than republicans - far more so than rockfeller conservatives. Just ask Richard Nixon.

So just because the socialists of today do not represent the socialists of yesterday,we should allow them to make us feel guilty for THEIR screw-ups? Don't think so!
Besides,I think the theme of this post is the way socialists/leftards try to rewrite history,knowing they have got the schools,colleges,MSM,etc on their side. It's easy when kids are taught in school that the late,great (not dead enough) Turdeau is being taught as the one who helped rescue Americans from the Iran embassy hostage taking,when it was a conservative gubbermint in at the time.Hell.Our leftards don't even know who we fought,and where,during WWII.

This is true. Then in the famous "Southern Strategy" Nixon's GOP successfully courted the south. This included many who still formally called themselves Democrats, since it was a bad thing to be a Republican even 100 years later in the South (in reality you were probably only talking the grand kids of Civil War Soldiers)

However, that was politics, and it was politics that led the Democrats to hang on to that faction for as long as they did. It is useful to remember that the Democratic party does not have an past either.

Parties tend to not move from one group until they have another in hand to replace them. So the dems went on to capture the "black vote" with promises of welfare etc. Prior to the great society there was a thriving black middle class in Harlem, Detroit etc. There are many studies that have looked at what some of these programs did to these communities, almost as devestating as cocaine, crack and heroin.

Just like one needs to remeber the past about where the Klan came from, you need to remember that what Harlem and Detroit were before. Nothing says you can hang on to that culture of community, family and hard work forever...look at Glascow for a white example....but nothing says it has to remain in that state either.

Generally, government can do more getting out of the way and or at least not penalize the normal and natural human inclinations for local community and culture.

Anyway, history is important to understand. Some threads change colour but the thread remains.

There aren't any Republicans in the picture. As a son of the old south, they are all Democrats,

lets worry about who's racist now.

Right, so long as you get to define who is racist?

You have no clue how much you sound exactly like the Stalnists and Maoists who chose to redefine history and co-opt language in order to gain power.

Are current Democrats 'racists'? Yes. They are racist in the same condescending, superior mode that characterizes so many leftist and socialist perspectives of 'Others'.

I think that Democrat support for illegal aliens, i.e., allowing Mexicans into the US without going through due process of immigration, is racist.

This support suggests that the Democrats know that these people would fail normative entrance requirements, they would fail the criteria even for temporary work permits, they would fail any and all requirements for working and living in the US.

The Democrat reaction to criticism against the Mexican refusal to apply properly for work permits and permanent residency actually has one agenda - to assert their own moral superiority, in their claim of 'pity' for these people'.

The Democrats show no interest in the cost to Americans in providing the societal infrastructure to support these 12 million non-tax paying people. After all if the aliens were paying taxes, such an increased tax base would provide better schooling and services for these illegal aliens rather than overcrowded and underfunded schools and hospitals.

They show no interest in demanding that Mexico look after its lower class itself rather than fobbing them off to the US taxpayer.

No, the Democrat support for illegal aliens has a specific agenda - their own image as 'Saviour'. That's a political strategy and they use it to appeal to the urban socialists.

A while ago I read, "Team of Rivals - The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It was very good - from what I remember here is how things started.

The whole biz about slavery in the US was an issue that the American founders were confronted with because half of the original colonies used slave labour and half didn't. Each colony had moral issues for and against it. The US Constitution therefore did not directly address the issue of slavery (because the primary problem was developing a nation as a new republic free of the second-rate treatment from Britain and ensuring a healthy discourse on freedom - as defined at that time - but still sidestepping the slavery issue).

This caused a problem that kept seething and growing over 50 years and so as new states would join the union there was a constant battle - one of the biggest for example was Missouri - because Pro-slave states (southern) wanted new states joining to be pro-slave states whereas anti-slave states (northern) wanted new states joining to be anti-slave. The reason for this is pure power and control (i.e. the southern way of life directly conflicted with the northern way of life and each side did not want to change). So, many laws were passed over decades to address which new state would be a northern type or a southern type state - obviously something was going to give.

Lincoln was a Whig and came late to the slavery issue. He had completed a tour of the south in the early 1850's and realized (and he actually writes about this - and was originally on the fence concerning slavery) that from a purely academic economic point of view alone (i.e. excluding the moral and freedom aspects of the issue) was wrong because he saw poverty and overt class distinction and he saw the non-willingness to work and he saw the fact that the entire southern economy was dependent on slaves doing manual labour - there was no industry (whereas in the north railways and canals and new industries and businesses were being built out - and it was the fact that everyone knew that if they worked hard they too could succeed - regardless of race or creed or colour.

Around that time, there was a movement to create the Republican party (the Democratic party had been around for a long time already) to draw the various parties together (such as the abolitionists, the whigs, etc.) to be a viable alternative to the Democratic party. Lincoln became a Republican.

The KKK was initiated by ex-confederate soldiers as a counter-insurgency. They targeted Union soldiers and any activities by the government to transform the south (the south would need a lot of economic help and support to go from slave labour to modern economy). The insurgency started to fade away after about 10 years. The KKK then morphed into a kind of white only and anti-catholic and anti-jewish cult (sort of like masons) - these were real racists - it's our way or the highway (or grave) - partly because of a core of individuals refusing to recognize the diversity in the north and individuals everywhere who actually hated certain groups.

The thing that bothers me though is that some guy is in trouble for reading a book at Purdue because it mentions KKK. It let's you know that HRCs don't just exist in Canada - they are alive and well in the good ol' USA.

Re. the KKK - "Do their political beliefs reflect those of modern-day Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter?" Hmm,yes,actually. One of the most amusing things about my Democrat family members and friends is how Obama has brought their racism has bubbled to the surface, not that they or any other Liberal/Lefty would admit it, of course. It's all in the condescension.

I'm sorry Robbie, but I am not familiar with the Knights Party. However, what does what you purport to be their platform have to do with racism? The majority of the items appear to be one side or the other of pretty much all the primary political issues in North America today.

Or are you saying the last line (where they feel white men are discriminated against) is what makes them racist? Wouldn't that mean that ALL parties who think one ethnic group or another is discriminated against is a racist party?

Or is it only white people that think they are discriminated against that are racist? Isn't that a racist opinion? Or are you trying to smear anyone who is of another political stripe to marginalize their beliefs?

I'm not saying you are a bigot, but you certainly look like one.

ET: "No, the Democrat support for illegal aliens has a specific agenda - their own image as 'Saviour'. That's a political strategy and they use it to appeal to the urban socialists."

I totally agree with your assessment--and am quite sure you'll not agree with what I say next!

When we deep-six the real Saviour of the World, whose feast is fast-approaching (next week is Holy Week and Easter is a week from this Sunday, followed by an Easter Season of 50 days), we create any number of other-substitute "saviours," the lefties and Communists being the best at these.

They usually turn into Frankenstein's monster.

As Mr. Porter's is the first comment right out of the box, my observation is all the more sweet:

Socialists just HATE history. Too many inconvenient facts. I mean, how are they going to fool us today with all this truth kicking around?

We don't have to go back into the mists of time to find racist Democrats, we only have to go back to the 1960's. Like Algore's dad, ferinstance.

Algore has changed the details of his beliefs but not the substance. Instead of keeping the Black man in line for the good of the country, he's expanded into keeping EVERYBODY in line for the good of Mother Gaia.

No doubt when Warming Deniers like myself are lynched, the burning cross will be replaced by something more eco-friendly. A nice rosebush perhaps, then they can do the whole crown of thorns thing.

Lefties will please note that effective gun control is a prerequisite to any lynching campaign. Yes that's right folks, the KKK and their DemocRat supporters were the first to enact gun control. Its purpose was to keep the Blacks from being able to shoot back. Funny how they are still at it, eh?

See? History IS important.

cconn- yes, I think that the real argument between the US North and South was economic, with the north industrializing and thus permitting the establishment of a middle class and a progressive technology and the south remaining non-industrial agricultural and two class (elites/peasants with the peasants in this case slave labour).

I think that the economic reasons are always the most pressing and important. You can't have one nation operating within two contradictory economic systems. The south's economy was 'no-growth' and would have a very limited capacity to support an increase in population; it would have eventually become heavily dependent on the north.

I think the Mexican illegal immigration in the US has similar aspects. It's economic, with the Mexicans supplying immediate cheap labour. But in the long run, it's economically very expensive because it puts the burden of paying for the long term infrastructures used by both legals and illegals only on the legal workers.

Plus, essentially, the US worker is also absorbing the costs of supporting Mexico's lower class - rather than the Mexican worker. That is, the illegals in the US send billions back to support their relatives in Mexico.

So, the situation in both eras has less to do with morality and more to do with economic viability.

batb - well, since you obviously know I'm an atheist, then, yes, I don't agree with the notion of God. But, that doesn't mean I'm a socialist or communist or...that is, I don't accept that Mankind is the focus of power.

I think that 'the logical order of the Natural world' is the basic power. No agenda, no intention, no randomness either. Just Pure Reason. (Rather Aristotelian). But certainly, not man, who must be careful not to become too arrogant and too 'full of himself'.

phantom - yes, that's a nice allegory. The Democrats, with their insistence that their way is The Only Way, and making this Way a matter of faith rather than reason, moves 'climate change' into the same mindset as racism.

Had the CIA and FBI devoted a tenth of the resources they use to infiltrate the Klan to infiltrate radical pro-Palestine groups 9/11 never would have happened.

Indeed, the gap between the FBI and CIA's hardon for the Klan versus their disregard of Palestinian saboteurs suggests that the FBI and CIA weren't really trying very hard to prevent 9/11.

Liberal Rhetoric 101:

Liberal: The KKK are Republicans. The KKK are Republicans.

Conservative: Actually, they were Dems. Here's proof.

Liberal: Well, who CARES what they are anyway? Let's change the subject...

I just love the way progressives ignor or dismiss history and facts if it doesn't suit their needs. History is just that: history. What you learn from it is what counts.

A good history lesson could come from the Canadian political parties. Any reccomendations as to any recent publications on that subject. By that I don't mean Politics as seen from the CBC, but a more balanced summary.

Fun Fact: David Duke endorsed John Kerry for president.

Hillary and Obama are doing a pretty good job of splitting the Democrat Party down racial lines.

Being raised in the South I can still remember the 3 Bathrooms at the Dairy Queen, one said Men, the other said Women, and the 3rd said Colored.

But, it is quite interesting looking back at History to note that Civil War was declared by Lincoln immediately after the South started printing their own currency, the Confederate Note.
,

I posted on this quite some time ago.

Progressives, I've found, don't want to think that it means anything that the Democrats invented the KKK and murdered many Blacks and Republicans, both Black and White, for being inconvenient and refusing to support the Democrats's racist agenda.

Today, when people refuse to support the Democrats's agenda, the Democrats accuse them of being racists.

How ironic is that?

And don't forget that there's actually a serving Democratic Senator today named Robert Byrd... used to be a Grand Kleagle, I believe...

Jema54 said: "The KKK was organized by defeated Confederates to protect themselves and their families from resentful former slaves who were given a free range on revenge against Confederates by Union soldiers"

Partially true.

I read a historical account of the pre and post war south some years ago and there was an excellent accounting of the roots of the KKK.

The KKK originally existed as an elite network of wealthy freemasons, in a secret rogue lodge, prior to the southern states secession... they referred to themselves as the "knights of the golden circle".

They formed to carry out a north American Anglo manifest destiny in which the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America would become American "slave colonies" supplying raw material and slave labor to a pseudo imperialist US run by circle associated members and agents....this was the "political agenda"

After war was declared, they became financiers and organizers of; Southern war financing and alliances, blockade runners, free booters and guerilla fighters.... as well as providing a spy and security network for the south. Jesse James, William Quantrell and John Wilkes Booth were members of this elite KGC rogue order.

After the war, factions of the crumbling KGC order split off into a southern vigilante security force(with many local detachments under the organizational trappings of their masonic roots) This was a response to Washington running martial law in the occupied southern states. During this period, northern "republicans" (called carpet baggers) who were connected politically to large eastern finance and banking interests came south to buy up land at fire sale prices. They did so with agents and friends of the same eastern finacial interests who were refusing the original owners loans to redevelop their shattered war-torn properties, forcing them into poverty and open to the sale of land and industry for a pittance of its value to these agents of eastern establishment wealth...mostly Republicans.

This off-shoot of the old Knights of the Golden Circle, called themselves the KKK and they staged night raids on carpet baggers (rich northerners/republicans who were profiteering on the south's misery) and also dealt out retributions for injustices done by the military occupation to locals.

They also were bold and violent in their methods, as you say, "to impress former slaves not to get any revenge ideas" with former owners. As time went on this KKK organization became less a kind of reactive vigilance posse and more a tool for racial repression and intimidation.

Just the same, the first KKK crosses burned on the land of carpet bagging Republicans who were both Black and White.

Today the Klan is a totally racist organization widely denounced for its agenda of racial superiority, Mandated Apartheid and ( many suspect) racial genocide...they have had a US senator in office (Robert Byrd a Democrat)since 1959 and David Duke a Louisiana rep who ran as a Democratic Presidential candidate.

Personally I think the US learned their lesson in how to deal with these mutts. These days the political power and status of the KKK has waned in the US after the authorities stopped actively infiltrating and stirring up these racist fringe groups to get criminal convictions. Left to openly spew their inane racial gibbering they have lost even more power/credibility with the public actually mocking their ideological insanity. I see the only people attracted to these organizations are uneducated or mentally deficient social misfits...hardly the personnel to worry about fomenting a political coup in the US.

Here's a recent article about affirmative action, the new, improved racism...

How Mismatches Devastate Minority Students

The Republican Party was originally known as the Emancipation Party. The Democrats, on the other hand, were the proud party of the KKK up until the early 1920's.

History = Culture = Destiny

The Liberal invention called 'multiculturalism' is nothing more than sanitized racism.

The Liberals support Hezbollah (anti-Semitic racism), because if they didn't, Coderre would have been at least censored, if not kicked out of the party for marching in support of them in the streets of Montreal. Instead, he is now their foreign affairs critic, if I'm not mistaken. Currently the Liberal Party attracts and has members that feel empowered enough to say (at their leadership convention), "Don't vote for Rae, his wife is a Jew." It's also a well known fact that Liberal 'hero' Trudeau was a Nazi sympathizer in his earlier years.

This is not to say that all Liberals are racist, however, the foundation of the party is steeped in racism, as is the NDP (Tommy Douglas), which is normal for leftist parties. And it's normal for these foundational tendencies to slither to the surface and inform party prejudice and bias on an ongoing basis.

It's about time Liberals publicly acknowledged this, condemned their past and got on with a non-racist and non-bigoted future.

By substituting two words in ET's quote we describe Canada's current state.

"I think that the economic reasons are always the most pressing and important. You can't have one nation operating within two contradictory economic systems. The (south's) EAST'S economy was 'no-growth' and would have a very limited capacity to support an increase in population; it would have eventually become heavily dependent on the (north) WEST."

Back to the point ... There is a striking similarity in the way the Left operates where their way is the only way. That is the cry of the Islamists as well.

The Mexican slaves that the American left is so eager to keep in the USA at all costs serve to do the dirty work of keeping their food and other cost's low and to be duped into voting en mass for their Democratic saviors.

The Left may be generally stupid in what they believe and what they want, but they are clever and devious in fooling the unwitting masses.
That is why they are so intense in controlling the young in schools and universities and the lowly educated black, Hispanic and white trash communities... they do know where their bread gets buttered don't they?

'Seeing as we're talking about history and HISTORICAL FACTS, it is an historical fact that the Christian Church has been in existence for well over 2000 years--the oldest, continuing institution in existence, in fact--and that it has been a force for good throughout its 2000 years.

(I know, ET, that you are an atheist and have never thought that you were either a socialist or a Communist. What you call "the logical order of the Natural world" I call God--or, I believe that there is an Intelligence behind this logical order of the Natural world, that is, a Creator God Who created both the world and the logical order within it.)

Whatever its weaknesses, sins, foibles, transgressions--it's full of mere mortals, after all, aided immeasurably, however, by the power of the Holy Spirit--it is not a coercive institution, unlike all socialist/Communist institutions which are. I well know, as I once did not profess belief in the Christian faith--'left it far behind when I "grew up," regarding it as hypocritical, a crutch of the unthinking and weak, etc. (Of course, in my leftist arrogance, I WASN'T hypocritical, unthinking, or weak...LOL)

No individual is forced to become a Christian or believe in Christian doctrines. Becoming a Christian is a completely individual choice, unless you have been born into a Christian home. Even then, however, in most cases it becomes a choice when you reach "the age of reason." You are free to embrace the faith of your childhood or reject it--which I did for many years.

So my thesis stands: Now that most North Americans (and Europeans) have foresaken the faith of their forefathers and mothers, a faith that has provided the pillars of all modern democracies--another fact: read George Weigel's
The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God--we have become increasingly more prone to substitute Saviours and "isms": Communism, socialism, feminism, secular humanism, etc., etc.

I'm not aware that any of them have had the "common good" as their main purpose. They tend to push for the agenda of their particular focus group and, IMO, have led to untold misery and the coercion of millions.

Rather than be arguing left/right, Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative, I think it would be instructive to take seriously the miserable consequences resulting from the erosion of the Judeo-Christian pillars of today's democracies and re-examine the positive role that Christianity has played in building and maintaining non-coercive and free democratic jurisdictions.

Robbie

Is your list supposed to be describing Lou Dobbs of CNN? You know, those protectionist democrats?

Please. Your fantasies of what you believe others to be is nothing more than your imagination. Your list describes lunatics of the left and right in equal measure. In fact, what you describe is Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan mind-melded into a single idiot.

This post is useful because the leftards always assume they did all the good stuff and the right did all the bad stuff. It's good to put sanctimonious leftards on the spot by questioning their delusional world view.

From the environment, to civil rights, to wars, the right is on the correct side far more often than the left (although obviously not exclusively.)

The left talks about doing the right thing far more often than it does it and takes credit for all kinds of stuff they had bugger all to do with (when they weren't actively on the wrong side.)

Abolishing the slave trade was the republicans going against the southern democrats (dixiecrats.) The EPA was passed by the GOP, the clean water bill was the GOP, the acid rain treaty was GOP and CDN conservatives, Vietnam was the Dems, Korea was the Dems, the bay of pigs and the Cuban missile crises was the dems, etc.

The GOP has both good and bad and so does the Dems. The point is that the leftards in media and academics claim credit for everything good and deny blame for everything bad. Without exception. They still blame Nixon for Vietnam which is incredible.

You never hear the leftards credit the GOP for civil rights - they're too busy pretending they did it themselves just like they pretend they were at Woodstock.

Here in Canada, the greenest PM was Mulroney. Harper has protected more land in 2 years of minority rule than the liberals have in 50 years. I would have liked Harper to have fully protected the rainforest out in BC but part is better than the liberals managed.

This is the same attitude that makes people like Kinsella bravely fight the second world war in 2008. They love to be on the right side of history long after it happened - much less dangerous.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/title/Cube-and-the-Cathedral/FuseAction/store.ItemDetails/SKU/20354/

A Synopsis of The Cube and the Cathedral

Why do Europeans and Americans see the world so differently? Why do Europeans and Americans have such different understandings of democracy?

One of America's foremost public intellectuals argues that Europe's abandonment of its spiritual and cultural roots raises urgent questions about democracy's future around the world - including the United States. Contrasting the civilization that produced the starkly modernist "cube" of the Great Arch of La Defense in Paris with the civilization that produced the "cathedral" of Notre-Dame, George Weigel argues that Europe's embrace of a narrow secularism has led to a crisis that is eroding Europe's soul and threatening its future -- with dire lessons for the rest of the democratic world.

Weigel traces the origins of "Europe's problem" to the atheistic humanism of the nineteenth-century European intellectual life, which set in motion a historical process that produced two world wars, three totalitarian systems, the Gulag, Auschwitz, the Cold War and, most ominously, the Continent's de-population, which is worse today than during the Black Death.

And yet, many Europeans still insist-most recently, during the debate over a new EU constitution-that only a public square shorn of religiously-informed moral argument is safe for human rights and democracy.

Precisely the opposite, Weigel suggests, is true: the people of the "cathedral" can give a compelling account of their commitment to everyone's freedom; the people of the "cube" cannot. Can there be any true "politics"-any true deliberation about the common good, and any robust defense of freedom-without God?

George Weigel makes a powerful case that the answer is "No," because, in the final analysis, societies are only as great as their spiritual aspirations.

Right, so long as you get to define who is racist?

How about I try Doug, anyone who votes for a party that supports affirmative action or any type of race based hiring, or government program giving an advantage based on "Race".

Or an immigration policy that has as it's sole goal changing the race of the country.

lets worry about who's racist now.

Robert S. Porter, Indeed we should why should my white son not get jobs because of racists who wrote section 15.2 into the charter of rights.

Liberal: The KKK are Republicans. The KKK are Republicans.

Conservative: Actually, they were Dems. Here's proof.

Liberal: Well, who CARES what they are anyway? Let's change the subject...

Too true Kathy, wasn't there a liberal MP in Canada who was a member of the KKK?

Then tomorrow when no ones looking,

"The KKK are Republicans."

The Left also conveniently forgets how gun control laws were initiated by democrats in the US to prevent blacks from being armed. Republicans of course opposed this.

batb, many thanks for the fine analysis of George Weigel's fine book.

"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything": G.K. Chesterton, Catholic convert and apologist, who predicted the whole 20th century capitulation to the "isms" you mention, which, BTW, are responsible for many millions more deaths in one century than the Christian Church was in 20 centuries.

History and truth count.

Cconn>

Good post.

Rat>

“I can still remember the 3 Bathrooms at the Dairy Queen, one said Men, the other said Women, and the 3rd said Colored.”

Sounds like the American university system to me. You know black colleges and Harvard.

irwin daisy>

Good point - “It's about time Liberals publicly acknowledged this, condemned their past and got on with a non-racist and non-bigoted future”.

I would like to see all the Libs and Dems on either side of the border have a big apology day. Dion and Hillery Al Gore all at the forefront hand in hand with long sad faces streaked with tears and a huge “We’re so so sorry” banner behind them.

There is certain problem with modern terminology regarding Democratic Party of US and Liberal Party of Canada.
It is becoming, as the time goes by, increasingly obvious that the term ‘Democratic’ is being hijacked by socialists and other ‘ists in the sense of German Democratic Republic, if anyone remembers, or well known People’s Democratic Republic of Korea.
That is like calling a black hole, shining star. Those apart from socialists know, how much of an oxymoron that was and is.
However the people that have one track view of the world around them, will never distinguish the difference. It would not be surprising if a student, let’s say junior high, thought, if they think about this stuff at all, what was wrong with East Germany being Democratic, then obviously the West Germany must have been something horrible other.
You see, words are tools. Because words have intonation, are used in context. Words are malleable to suit. As is sometimes said, it depends on your spin.
It is up to individuals to extract what is being said, of course the schools don’t do classes in critical thinking and the students may get inappropriate ideas, not following the direction of the flow. Skepticism is something you do not do if you are a Democrat or a Liberal.
On the other hand if you are a democrat or a liberal you will recognize that Democrat or Liberal are neither.

Funny how with the historical predominance of Liberal Democrats in government in the US and the Liberals in Canada ... that these leftards keep blaming ALL their problems on Conservatives!

Funny too how a provocative picture and caption generates the predictable responses from the lefty tools!

Bingo! OMMAG

lookout: "History and truth count."

History isn't history, it's propaganda, without truth.

Just to clarify: The analysis of George Weigel's fine book is not mine. It's from the link I provided at the top of my post.

George Wallace was a .... Democrat!

As many have already pointed out, the southern Democrat still harbours resentment toward the Republicans who were, in fact, the party that freed the slaves.

Democrats also speak for the Socialist International constituency ... Big Labour and all manner of utopian totalitarians.

The individual, of course, is too stupid to make day-to-day decisions for himself, much less having a vote.

That's why we need the nanny state.

And, the reason the Pilgrims came to America in the first place was because of the superior social programs they could find here.

While we are on the topic of History; giving the Union side of the Civil War too much credit for being 'morally pure' is a mistake. The North wanted all raw material produced in the South shipped to Northern Mills (England had been purchasing raw cotton at a better price) to be processed - processed by 'wage slaves' (mostly Irish and Scottish people who had been forced out of their own countries by starvation); the mills did not 'own' their slaves by buying them but they were economically owned: they lived in Co housing and bought at the Co. store.

Most Confederate soldiers were not slave owners and most did not fight for rights for slave owners, most fought for states rights and for their families. Many of the Union soldiers were new immigrants who were bought by a Northern man who didn't want to fight (there was a draft in both North and South). For both of the above reasons the war lasted much longer than it ever should have - it brought the new Republic almost to it's knees and American people lost many of the individual rights that had been guaranteed by the founders of the Republic in 1789.

The Civil War, IMO, was the most horrendous set back the United States of America ever jumped into - it destroyed the south and it divided the nation. If cooler heads (like that of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Lee) had prevailed things could have been ironed out - slavery was on the way out in the South (the Cotton Gin had had a major impact) - people did not want to own other people in a prosperous society. The burden of guilt and responsibility for so many souls was worming into the southern conscience and it was only a matter of a few years before the South would have unburdened it's citizens by making slavery illegal. People in the South would have been forced to be responsible for educating their former slaves so they would have become responsible independant citizens - men ex slaves likely would not have had the vote right away (probably before women got the vote though!) but the ex slaves would have never suffered the humiliation of being freed by an army that didn't have any respect for them and certainly did not consider them peers.

Hot heads and self righteous hypocrites ruled the day and the Civil War was the terrible result.

Hindsight is always 100%.

"Spot The Republican!"

That's easy. He's the one taking the photograph of the Democrats burning the cross.

I see one Democrat is holding the US flag which is surely the next thing to be torched.

"Hindsight is always 100%."

Well, unless you're a Liberal. Then its only 100% when convenient.

Bottom line Jema, you've got your people committed to personal freedom and the sovereignty of the individual, then you've got your people committed to Anything Else But. I like to call them the Forces of Darkness, kind of puts things into their proper perspective.

DemocRats have been and are now firmly among the Forces of Darkness, right beside the Jihadeenies, the Communists, the fanatic Christian Right (both of 'em!) and the Ecowarriors. These morons think of themselves as being different from each other, but the points upon which they differ are mere details.

What they agree upon is that people are evil, stupid, venal creatures which must be controlled by The Enlightened Few, and guided to the Promised Land. The details are mostly about the precise location of the Promised Land and how many of the stupid masses they are prepared to sacrifice on the way there.

So far the Commies win for tolerance of casualties with the Nazis a distant second, but I shudder to think what the Ecologists will do if they ever really get going. In comparison the KKK was a frickin' Boy Scout troop. On the same path for sure, but with no stomach for stacking up the really big numbers.

A pox upon the lot of them.

lets see.What did the democrats of old times have in common with modern dems.Oh I know, they want to find ways for other people to do the work instead of having to do it themselves except now instead of slaves they are looking to those who are industrious to pay for their crazy socialist policies with higher taxes!Yep my daddy was right if you want to figure out something just follow the money.

Phantom ..... Too Bloody Right! :)

Well said Phantom. Communism, IMO, is the most human hating theory of government ever dreamed up. Far more brutal than the Feudal System. The repressions of the past stole people's lives and property and $$ - Communism does that in spades; far worse, Communism steals souls and negates all Justice for individuals.

[quote]Most Confederate soldiers were not slave owners and most did not fight for rights for slave owners, most fought for states rights and for their families.[/quote]

Jema54,
Well Said! I would only add the untold truth that some Southern descendants have "since" fought for the Stars & Stripes, but died "under" the same Confederate flag as their G/Grand Fathers. That is why Southern States still fly the Confederate Flag, nothing to do with slavery. (Hint! look inside the helmet)

(maybe Americas 1st black prez Clinton should read this?)
from one of Kathy Shaidles links:

After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today. Congressional records show that all previous legislation (since 1964) had strong bi-partisan support, even though some Democrats debated and voted against these laws.

After reviewing all of the evidence, many believe America would have never experienced racism to the degree that it has, had not the Democrats promoted it through:

Racist Legislation
Terrorist Organizations
Negative Media Communications
Bias Education
Relentless Intimidation
And Flawed Adjudication.

The racism established and promoted by members of the Democratic Party affected and infected the entire nation from 1856 with the Dred Scott decision, to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. But they never offered or issued an apology.

Today both parties must remember their past. The Democrats must remember the terrible things they did to Blacks and apologize and the Republicans must remember the terrific things they did for Blacks and re-commit to complete the work that their predecessors started and died for.

Posted by: The Phantom at March 11, 2008 5:54 PM

Phantom, you are correct on all accounts.

batb

you woul;d do well to quit pounding the bible, as the good kristian fellows have not been quite so benevolent as you would have us believe, many a person has died at the hands of good kristians because they were not quite the rite kind of kristian. As of recently the southern baptist churches were as white as hell, no matter wot the color of their structure.

And timmy mcveigh was not defending one of us athiests, it was the actions of a good kristian that was the spark the ignited that wee bit of kristian good will!!!!!

so please, keep your kristianism personal

GYM,

You are wrong. McVeigh was an athiest, whether he was defending athiests is another matter.

"...many a person has died at the hands of good kristians because they were not quite the rite kind of kristian."

When, how many and compared to what? Athiest Communism perhaps? Socialist Naziism? The French revolution?

And what's with the "kristian" bit? If it's your bigotry you are trying to make clear, you are doing a bang up job.

You might also watch the number of screamers (!!!!!) you employ, it denotes a high level of emotion. Unless, of course, that's what you want to convey publicly.

batb @ 11:22am, is there an Intelligence behind this (il)logical order of the Natural world? yes it's Mother Nature. we know next to nothing about the natural order of things. of earthly affairs however we know dems pigs when we sees em

Kate,

The Republican is the guy taking the picture of all those Democrats wearing those white dresses.

Ooooooooo, Is that Jacques Parizeau I see on the far left?

Where's Hedy Fry?

Here we have actual burning crosses on real people's lawns and she's nowhere to be heard.