NAACP chief: This is too much like the period before Kristallnacht

posted at 8:00 pm on September 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via the Blaze. Isn’t this the same Benjamin Jealous who spent a week in July appearing on any chat show that would have him in order to lament the destructive impact of incendiary rhetoric by some tea partiers? And now he’s playing with … Kristallnacht analogies? Like him, I have Jewish friends (not all of them conservative), and I’ve got to say: The words “This reminds me of Kristallnacht” don’t often escape their lips. Maybe something for the media to pursue, though, the next time one of them interviews a Holocaust survivor. “I’m so sorry that you lost your parents that way. Speaking of which, have you heard about the coming Kristallnacht?”

Is he thinking of a different Kristallnacht than I am, maybe? Or is this really the left’s new analogy for the GOP taking back the House in November?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

annoyinglittletwerp on September 27, 2010 at 8:49 PM

But I’d rather be corrected by you than just about anyone on this blog.

massrighty on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Is there NO IDEA,THAT THE LEFT WON’T RIP OFF!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on September 27, 2010 at 8:07 PM

And they never forget a bad idea, either.

Night of broken glass will find a lot of D’rats barefoot. Just keep preachin’, Jealous. Besides teh Won has been the alltime best salesman of supplies for those who understand the Second Amendment. Two years and going.

Better put those froggy pills back in the bottle.

Caststeel on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Can one apply Godwin’s Law society-wide, outside the Interwebs?

Suffice to say, it’s one thing to play the race card. But when you find yourself playing the Nazi card, you’ve already conceded defeat.

JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2010 at 8:09 PM

“Godwin’s Law” is not a law at all. It is just a false shield which is manly used either when it is not needed or when it doesn’t suffice. What if someone noted similarities beween Islam and Nazism, would they have ‘conceded defeat’? Of course not as Islam does resemble Nazism in many ways. In fact, these days, democrats resemble Nazism in some ways. All in all, “Godwin’s Law” is intellectual trash.

Luka on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Dude, every day is “call a conservative a Racist” day.

massrighty on September 27, 2010 at 8:48 PM

oh yeah…I guess its so common that it’s no longer unique or effective any longer.

Guess Jon Stewart was right, the Race Card is played out.

ted c on September 27, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Malcolm X. Louis Farrakhan. Julian Bond.

Jealous is keeping good company. /sarc

madmonkphotog on September 27, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Meanwhile………Purple Shirted,and Bloused Union Thugs
and ThugEttes,are going to have a good ole’ fashioned,
window smashing spree,

and the MSM,will say,thousands od Tea Partiers went on a
rampage,

with as per usual,zero evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(sarc).

canopfor on September 27, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Which does raise the question, exactly which demographic does he think he’s appealing to?
Seth Halpern on September 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM

The one that can appoint him to a cabinet position.

logis on September 27, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Better put those froggy pills back in the bottle.

Caststeel on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Caststeel: Or ICK,Toad Licking!!!!!!!!!!:)

canopfor on September 27, 2010 at 8:57 PM

thanks canop. It was a bit long but it was hard hitting.

ted c on September 27, 2010 at 8:41 PM

ted c:)

canopfor on September 27, 2010 at 8:59 PM

All in all, “Godwin’s Law” is intellectual trash.

Luka on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Have to agree. Deal with the argument being made, and if its that poor then it shouldn’t be a problem.

sharrukin on September 27, 2010 at 8:59 PM

But I’d rather be corrected by you than just about anyone on this blog.

massrighty on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Thanks-I think.
*smiles*

annoyinglittletwerp on September 27, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Malcolm X. Louis Farrakhan. Julian Bond.

Jealous is keeping good company. /sarc

madmonkphotog on September 27, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Oh come on! Dude, don’t forget the NBPP thugs and the master thug himself—the guy that shoots pretty girls in the chest and leaves them to bleed to death in the streets…..Yes, give it up for Mr. Dinnerjacket himself….

ted c on September 27, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Me thinks someone never read the tale as a youngster…

… “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.

Seven Percent Solution on September 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Seven Percent Solution:I do love your posts,always nailing
it,short and sweet to zee point!:)

canopfor on September 27, 2010 at 9:01 PM

The NAACP concern for Jews is laughable, given its history of anti-Semitism.

In the not so distant past I was persecuted for being Jewish, and my persecution came at the hands of a NAACP leader who presumed that I am a Jewish liberal. In the NAACP hatred hierarchy, Jewishness overcomes all political sympathies.

I am and have always been a Christian. There was no reason to correct my opponent, better to be hated as a Jew than applauded for non-Jewishness.

obladioblada on September 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Give that man a Segway.

Philly

and a cliff to ride it off of.

BD57 on September 27, 2010 at 9:08 PM

You know, this would be a great “Point-counterpoint” debate.

Point: “Your opposition to tax increases and government-mandated health care purchases is like Kristallnacht.”

Counterpoint: “No it freaking isn’t, you freaking idiot.”

It’s too bad we don’t have as many town-hall style debates AWAY from campaigns, because it might (*MIGHT*) weed out a few of these inane assertions.

Merovign on September 27, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Actually, when most of the people I know invoke Kristallnacht (which isn’t often), the analogue to the Nazis is the Obami.

J.E. Dyer on September 27, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Caststeel: Or ICK,Toad Licking!!!!!!!!!!:)

canopfor on September 27, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Warts on his tongue!! Oh My!!
And there is no cure. Heh

Caststeel on September 27, 2010 at 9:16 PM

“Godwin’s Law” is not a law at all. It is just a false shield which is manly used either when it is not needed or when it doesn’t suffice. What if someone noted similarities beween Islam and Nazism, would they have ‘conceded defeat’? Of course not as Islam does resemble Nazism in many ways. In fact, these days, democrats resemble Nazism in some ways. All in all, “Godwin’s Law” is intellectual trash.

Luka on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM

The point of Godwins Law is that, from experience, most people who frequently take part in political debates have noticed that comparisons to the Nazis are almost always meant disingenuously, and there are very few times it is in anyway appropriate.

Godwin’s law came about because comparisons to Hitler became so common in political discourse that it became tiresome to refute each obviously disingenuous one individually. It is pretty obvious that the point of most of them is to try to tie an opponent, disingenuously, to the horrors of Nazism and the Holocaust. That might not be the explicit argument, but it is rather transparently the aim. Obviously there are going to be a few select cases where the comparison is valid. But they are few and far-between.

As awful as the democratic agenda is, there is no evidence that they have any intention of rounding anyone up. There is not any significant level of political violence the way there was in the early stages of Nazism. There have been several appalling incidents, including a beating and a mob of SEIU thugs accosting a banker. Those are terrible, but it is absurd to put a handful of incidents in a country with 300,000 people anywhere near the level of daily political violence during the rise of Nazism.

Your comparison to Islam would be a bit more valid, if you were limiting it to Jihadism. There are well over a billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority of them are peaceful, so comparing them to Nazis is pretty over the top too. If you had stuck to Jihadis and their supporters, you would have had a point.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Perhaps someone needs to explain to the hyperbole-prone Mr. Jealous that Kristallnacht happened in Nazi Germany…a place where people were actually oppressed…not the present United States, where folks were once oppressed…the march of history having made him and his rhetoric largely irrelevant….

…his argument for the parallel between 1938 and 2010 is that he feels that a) folks aren’t getting enough free stuff, and b) folks aren’t agreeing with him closely enough, which he seems to deem “hateful”…all the “my lawd”‘s and “amen”‘s won’t make this dismally self-serving comparison valid…my lawd….

Puritan1648 on September 27, 2010 at 9:18 PM

The Left is just trying to amp-up this entire dead horse issue of “racism” and anything else Boogey-Man/Woman-ish they can.

Someone inform Benjamin Jealous of who and what the Nazis were: socialists. Socialists left unchallenged left to run their full course of fascism. Socialists. Nationalizing Socialists. Many a cultist, occultists, pagan, false-propheteer among them.

Perhaps the fact that they wore fancy uniforms and had a snap to their step has prevented today’s Leftwing in the U.S. from thinking any farther than their fancy uniforms and snapping stepping. That was the method in Germany, too.

Lourdes on September 27, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Luka on September 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM

“Godwin’s Law” simply asserts that as an online discussion grows larger, the probability of a Nazi comparison being made approaches 1. It makes no judgment on the value of those comparisons, and it’s really just poking fun at the reality of the observation.

VerbumSap on September 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Do you black “leaders” even have the remotest clue how absolutely INSANE this kind of talk sounds to the average american?

And for those of us who actually abhor real racism when it happens, all this crap does is remove the meaning from the word.

MikeknaJ on September 27, 2010 at 8:03 PM

(1.) No, they don’t have any idea how absolutely INSANE this kind of talk sound to (general humanity);

(2.) They’re not aware of anyone who is not a Democrat who is NOT actually “racist”; and,

(3.) They see “racists” everywhere except in their own beliefs, assumptions, INSANE accusations about Americans and among Democrats.

—————————

Obviously, what with the plethora of Democrats in the media wailing about “racism” in the Tea Party (where it isn’t but they “see it” anyway because a few hapless taggers run around with signs depicting Obama as he actually is, which is “of darker skin than some” — HOWEVER, this isn’t an aspect of the Tea Party, to discuss skin tone in any way, despite reality that Obama is, indeed, “of darker skin tone” but perhaps the Left would have everyone show him…as…a…White…man [?]).

It’s a Democrat smear campaign, all this ranting about racism that they “see” that doesn’t exist. Or, rather, more specifically, it’s them projecting THEIR actual racism onto others. <–I think it's that latter thing.

Lourdes on September 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Mr. Jealous has no clue how fortunate he is to live in a country and time when he can spout such nonsense with no consequences. Nor any idea how many white people sacrificed for his race at various points during our history. Nobody is asking for thanks as, “We hold these truths to be self evident…”

Hang up the race, victim and all the other stupid rhetorical cards. They have been punched, folded, spindled and mutilated. And it is you and your ilk, Mr. Jealous, who have done it.

Caststeel on September 27, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Remember when Rep. Clyburn was in national media yelling (he, indeed, was yelling) that “Republican Governors who oppose the Stimulus are racists”? Remember that?

Was anyone aware of anything race-based or race-specific in the Stimulus? Or why Clyburn railed ONLY against “Republican Governors” and not Governors in general (as being “racist” for opposing the Stimulus money).

No, most Americans were not aware of anything like that. The Stimulus was opposed based upon the economic insanity of what the country was TOLD was “in it”, what the purpose of the Stimulus was being sold as being (and that wasn’t anything “racial” or race-based, the sales points about the Stimulus).

So Clyburn quite despicably defamed other Americans as “racists” if and when the Stimulus was opposed…

…which was Clyburn sounding both INSANE *and* racist, inexplicably so as relates to the Stimulus at that time.

Lo and behold, Stimulus rammed through despite taxpayers’ majority objections and what was IN it was a lot of redirection of taxpayer money FROM taxpayers to a large portion of race-based people not paying taxes (among which were Clyburn’s favored and racialists among “Blacks”).

Clyburn revealed the true nature of the Stimulus and that was an Obama/Democrat reassertion of welfare TO people by way of their race using resources taken FROM other people by way of their race, which is racism, racialist in nature, certainly. As is Clyburn also the actual racist among us…

…along with many a Democrat like him.

Lourdes on September 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM

This speech was given in Raleigh, NC when he came to town to support the NC NAACP filing a lawsuit against the Wake County (Raleigh and surrounding towns) school system. The school board changed to a conservative majority in the last election and is getting rid of busing low income students all over the county and changing to a zone system so students will attend schools closer to home. The NAACP says that this will reintroduce segregation and is a civil rights violation. Never mind that the graduation rates of African American students is 63% vs 89% for Caucasion. This shows me that the current system is failing our minority students. Now money that should be used on educating our students will go to fight a lawsuit instead.

ConservativeMom on September 27, 2010 at 9:47 PM

The Race card expired last year. The Victim card expired this year. The NAACP is always tripping itself over the past.

TN Mom on September 27, 2010 at 9:54 PM

“Godwin’s Law” simply asserts that as an online discussion grows larger, the probability of a Nazi comparison being made approaches 1. It makes no judgment on the value of those comparisons, and it’s really just poking fun at the reality of the observation.

VerbumSap on September 27, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Well, that was the original idea, but I would say colloquially it now refers to what was originally called merely a “Corollary” to the law – that whoever invokes it forfeits the debate.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

The Race card expired last year August.

TN Mom on September 27, 2010 at 9:54 PM

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

These retards are projecting! What about dinnerjacket meeting with Farahkan and New Black Panthers this week in NYC? These freaks are running around out there planning all sorts of sordid episodes I beleive!!!

sonnyspats1 on September 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Lie about what is going on in the Tea Party? Yeah, that is what “One Nation” is all about all right.

mankai on September 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM

sonnyspats1 on September 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Funny you should ask…

kingsjester on September 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Quite so, but I don’t believe it is fair to Mr. Godwin to be imprecise when disparaging it.

VerbumSap on September 27, 2010 at 10:29 PM

I think the proper Nazi analogy is to the Reichstag Fire. Remember that? What do we think the Democrats and their hard core followers are capable of? Voter fraud is already an established fact, voter intimidation has been seen before. Is it much of a leap to think blaming the Tea Party crowd for some act that they do is beyond the realm of possibility? I do not think so.

Blue Collar Todd on September 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM

There are well over a billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority of them are peaceful, so comparing them to Nazis is pretty over the top too. If you had stuck to Jihadis and their supporters, you would have had a point.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Why? There were plenty of peaceful people in the nazi party, even good nazis.

According to folks like you, it was very wrong of us to de-nazify Germany, since so many were peaceful, for the wrongs done by the extremist SS types.

Rebar on September 27, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Rebar on September 27, 2010 at 10:41 PM

The same people who accuse Muslims of practicing Islam, also accuse Socialists of behaving like Socialists.

We must always remember that not all fools are merely misguided. Some people consider truth to be the source of all evil.

logis on September 27, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Your comparison to Islam would be a bit more valid, if you were limiting it to Jihadism. There are well over a billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority of them are peaceful, so comparing them to Nazis is pretty over the top too. If you had stuck to Jihadis and their supporters, you would have had a point.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 9:17 PM

You don’t know much about Islam, do you? If someone is a real Muslim he can not even criticize any Muslim who does the kind of things that Mohammad, Islam’s ‘Perfect Man’ did. If he does he is an apostate.

Luka on September 27, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Why? There were plenty of peaceful people in the nazi party, even good nazis.

According to folks like you, it was very wrong of us to de-nazify Germany, since so many were peaceful, for the wrongs done by the extremist SS types.

Rebar on September 27, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Don’t be ridiculous, one or two examples of individual Nazis going against the party don’t change the behavior of the vast majority of them, and the fundamentally violent and evil nature of the ideology.

While there are plenty of violent and extremist Muslims, there are in vastly in the minority. Take Indonesia, for example. 86% of the population is Muslim, yet there is no state religion. They could easily adopt Islam as the official religion if extremism was in their nature. But they haven’t, because of course it is not.

And Indonesia is hardly a tiny exceptional case, since it has by far the world’s largest population of Muslims – over 200 million.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM

You don’t know much about Islam, do you? If someone is a real Muslim he can not even criticize any Muslim who does the kind of things that Mohammad, Islam’s ‘Perfect Man’ did. If he does he is an apostate.

Luka on September 27, 2010 at 11:22 PM

What nonsense. Who are you to tell Muslims who is a true Muslim or an apostate?

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM

When are the dems and the media going to condemn this?

Schadenfreude on September 27, 2010 at 11:26 PM

When are the dems and the media going to condemn this?

Schadenfreude on September 27, 2010 at 11:26 PM

When their audience demands it.

VerbumSap on September 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Your comparison to Islam would be a bit more valid, if you were limiting it to Jihadism. There are well over a billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority of them are peaceful, so comparing them to Nazis is pretty over the top too. If you had stuck to Jihadis and their supporters, you would have had a point.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.
Albert Einstein

The silence of those peaceful Muslims is deafening on the subject of those Jihadist. I know its been 9 years, but I still remember the celebrations in the streets of the Middle East when the towers came down on 9/11. There may be a billion Muslims, but since the ‘radicals’ are not shut down by the moderates, then at some level they must support them. Of course, when one of the major tenets of your religion is the slaughter, conversion or enslavement of those who dont believe the same as you, its little wonder why the Jihadist have free reign over them.

Wolftech on September 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM

The silence of those peaceful Muslims is deafening on the subject of those Jihadist. I know its been 9 years, but I still remember the celebrations in the streets of the Middle East when the towers came down on 9/11. There may be a billion Muslims, but since the ‘radicals’ are not shut down by the moderates, then at some level they must support them. Of course, when one of the major tenets of your religion is the slaughter, conversion or enslavement of those who dont believe the same as you, its little wonder why the Jihadist have free reign over them.

Wolftech on September 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM

But this is much more of a middle-east thing than an Islam thing. There is basically none of that – there are terrorists in Indonesia, but they are in many cases fighting against the moderate Muslims themselves. These people are our allies, and in many cases are shedding blood against the same enemies.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 11:56 PM

But this is much more of a middle-east thing than an Islam thing. There is basically none of that [in Indonesia] – there are terrorists in Indonesia, but they are in many cases fighting against the moderate Muslims themselves. These people are our allies, and in many cases are shedding blood against the same enemies.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Meant to add that, because my point isn’t that there isn’t social support for terrorism, but that it is largely a function of the particular radicalism promulgated in the middle-east, doubtless in large part as a result of the prolonged influence of Stalinism on the region.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:00 AM


Give that man a Segway.

Philly

and a cliff to ride it off of.

BD57 on September 27, 2010 at 9:08 PM


Unnecessary.

Shy Guy on September 28, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Last I looked, the brownshirts were wearing SEIU purple, and the NAACP was defending two of the three SEIU members charged with assaulting Kenneth Gladney at a townhall. The third guy, I guess, was left out to dry because he is white.

unclesmrgol on September 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Since there seems to be some debate about what a “moderate Muslim” is like. Maybe the fact that they still view radicals as their brethren means something? Remember the Muslim in our military who did not want to deploy because he’d be killing other Muslims? That means he views them as members of the same faith.

Blue Collar Todd on September 28, 2010 at 12:13 AM

The silence of those peaceful Muslims is deafening on the subject of those Jihadist. I know its been 9 years, but I still remember the celebrations in the streets of the Middle East when the towers came down on 9/11. There may be a billion Muslims, but since the ‘radicals’ are not shut down by the moderates, then at some level they must support them. Of course, when one of the major tenets of your religion is the slaughter, conversion or enslavement of those who dont believe the same as you, its little wonder why the Jihadist have free reign over them.

Wolftech on September 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Most muslims say they oppose terrorism. Many of them are actively fighting against terrorists. In this country, many help to expose terrorist plots.

You don’t hear about Muslims speaking out on the news too much, because Muslims simply don’t have very many high-profile people in the first place.

Groups like CAIR are obviously evil, but they are rejected by most Muslims; their membership dropped by 90% in the last decade.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:19 AM

The silence of those peaceful Muslims is deafening on the subject of those Jihadist.
Wolftech on September 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Of course there were lots and lots of moderate Nazis, just as there are lots and lots of moderate Muslims.

But there is no such thing as “moderate Naziism,” or “moderate Islam.”

logis on September 28, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Since there seems to be some debate about what a “moderate Muslim” is like. Maybe the fact that they still view radicals as their brethren means something? Remember the Muslim in our military who did not want to deploy because he’d be killing other Muslims? That means he views them as members of the same faith.

Blue Collar Todd on September 28, 2010 at 12:13 AM

What about him? He obviously wasn’t very moderate. Is this how you form your opinions about other groups of people as well? Based on anecdotal evidence?

Do you have any actual basis for saying that most Muslims feel the way that guy did? Did most muslims in the military do what he did? Of course not. Another guy with Jihadist sympathies was a traitor. By your logic, that would suggest that the thousands of Muslims in the US Military, including the ones that fought in Iraq, putting more on the line than most here including myself, are also disloyal. Are you really trying to argue that?

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:29 AM

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Meant to also ask, what is your basis for saying “they” view radicals as brethren? I see plenty of evidence that a handful have this belief, and no evidence that a majority do.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Of course there were lots and lots of moderate Nazis, just as there are lots and lots of moderate Muslims.

But there is no such thing as “moderate Naziism,” or “moderate Islam.”

logis on September 28, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Again, what nonsense. There were not “lots and lots of moderate Nazis”. Joining a political party is completely different than being raised in a religion. A member of the Nazi party, by definition, took active part in the poursuit of the Nazi goals.

Meanwhile, for the vast majority of Muslims, their faith consists of facing Mecca and praying a lot. What an absurd comparison.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Meant to also ask, what is your basis for saying “they” view radicals as brethren?
RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Sometimes it helps in understanding a word, if you break it down into its constituent elements.

This is not one of those times.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Sometimes it helps in understanding a word, if you break it down into its constituent elements.

This is not one of those times.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 12:36 AM

What word are you talking about?

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:39 AM

Stop playing the “Nazi card”!!!

It is NEVER appropriate, unless someone is parading around in public with a swastica armband…

Khun Joe on September 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM

Meanwhile, for the vast majority of Muslims, their faith consists of facing Mecca and praying a lot. What an absurd comparison.
RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM

Believe it or not, you are actually illustrating a very important point here. Liberals are utterly incapable of understanding literally the first thing about Islam: that it is a DIFFERENT belief system than their own.

In the (with all due respect) utterly insane and idiotic religion of Moral Relativism, all of the liberal’s own beliefs are believed to not be beliefs; they magically become “reality” in the instant he adopts them as the currently percieved concensus, and they stop being reality when he stops seeing them as collectively adopted by his circle of friends (i.e., mass media.)

Even more importantly, this makes all other belief systems just sort of vanish into a homogeneous blob of silliness. A “Christian” is a guy who worships two intersecting pieces of wood; and a “Muslim” is somebody who bends in a given direction sometimes.

Crazy? Of course. Stupid? Even more so. It’s the like philosophical equivalent of having a “blind spot” — except that it is all-encompassing.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 12:51 AM

Don’t be ridiculous, one or two examples of individual Nazis going against the party don’t change the behavior of the vast majority of them, and the fundamentally violent and evil nature of the ideology.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Evidently you know as much about nazism as you do about islam – nothing. The large majority of the nazi party consisted of minor bureaucrats, small land owners, and small businessmen, who were just trying to get by in the current environment. In fact so many regular people were nazis, that the allies had to relent on the policy of not using them in the new German government, all they had to do was sign a paper saying they were no longer nazis, which “rehabilitated” them.

But you’re right: that nazism was a “fundamentally violent and evil” ideology, regardless of the actions of the large peaceful majority of party members. The exact same fully applies to islam. Islam is, by any measure, much worse than nazism, far more evil, far more violent.

Even a cursory knowledge of islam reveals barbarism and horror which has no place in the modern world:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4nemgNNK4

That most muslems don’t act on the duty of jihad demanded by islam, is a factor of lack of opportunity, or basic human nature not to murder innocent people. The idea that because most muslems are not violent means islam isn’t a violent ideology is a logical fallacy, and a highly dangerous one at that.

Rebar on September 28, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Believe it or not, you are actually illustrating a very important point here. Liberals are utterly incapable of understanding literally the first thing about Islam: that it is a DIFFERENT belief system than their own.

In the (with all due respect) utterly insane and idiotic religion of Moral Relativism, all of the liberal’s own beliefs are believed to not be beliefs; they magically become “reality” in the instant he adopts them as the currently percieved concensus, and they stop being reality when he stops seeing them as collectively adopted by his circle of friends (i.e., mass media.)

Even more importantly, this makes all other belief systems just sort of vanish into a homogeneous blob of silliness. A “Christian” is a guy who worships two intersecting pieces of wood; and a “Muslim” is somebody who bends in a given direction sometimes.

Crazy? Of course. Stupid? Even more so. It’s the like philosophical equivalent of having a “blind spot” — except that it is all-encompassing.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 12:51 AM

This is a fair point – I should have been more precise – the material actions involved in their faith consist of praying to Mecca a lot. I absolutely recognize that they have real, serious beliefs about Allah, Mohammed, the nature of the universe, etc…

But I see no evidence that the majority of them believe they are called to commit or support violence.

If you define Islam to refer to the specific beliefs of the violent ones, then of course, you can say “It’s a fundamentally violent belief system. The ‘moderates’ simply aren’t practicing it right.” But there is no basis for taking the Jihadists definition of the Islamic belief system as being the “True” one.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:59 AM

Evidently you know as much about nazism as you do about islam – nothing. The large majority of the nazi party consisted of minor bureaucrats, small land owners, and small businessmen, who were just trying to get by in the current environment. In fact so many regular people were nazis, that the allies had to relent on the policy of not using them in the new German government, all they had to do was sign a paper saying they were no longer nazis, which “rehabilitated” them.

But you’re right: that nazism was a “fundamentally violent and evil” ideology, regardless of the actions of the large peaceful majority of party members. The exact same fully applies to islam. Islam is, by any measure, much worse than nazism, far more evil, far more violent.

This is fair – I should have said “Nazi activists,” or “ideological Nazis.” But by your own admission, the other people were just trying to get by, and they had no serious beliefs in the Nazi party’s goals.

That most muslems don’t act on the duty of jihad demanded by islam, is a factor of lack of opportunity, or basic human nature not to murder innocent people. The idea that because most muslems are not violent means islam isn’t a violent ideology is a logical fallacy, and a highly dangerous one at that.

Rebar on September 28, 2010 at 12:58 AM

The problem is, and this is where your analogy breaks down, that a religion doesn’t “require” you to do anything. There may be religious authorities who attempt you to do what they tell you to do, but that is not the same thing.

A political party is an actual organization, with a leadership. A religion may have a religious authority, but one can practice it however one feels is appropriate. One does not “pracitce” a political ideology, whether it be conservatism, Nazism, etc…

It is plain that the majority of people who consider themselves Muslims Muslims do NOT believe that violent Jihad is a religious duty – they either don’t consider that part of their faith, or they interpret it as a spiritual battle, or they view Jihad as only justified in actual self-defense.

You can protest that these people aren’t “true” muslims or whatever, but unlike a political party, they have just as much right to decide what a true muslim is as anyone else.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 1:11 AM

It appears the NAACP is racist, after all, they are saying terrible things about a group of supposedly all white people.

scotash on September 28, 2010 at 1:13 AM

A religion may have a religious authority, but one can practice it however one feels is appropriate. One does not “pracitce” a political ideology, whether it be conservatism, Nazism, etc…

I meant to add here, that one can practice it how one pleases, and still legitimately claim to be a follower of the religion. I of course do not mean that one is physically able to practice religion freely, if the self-appointed religious authorities don’t allow it.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 1:14 AM

This is another case of leftist projection. What they blame the conservatives/republicans of doing they are in fact planning or doing. Libs accused us of wanting people to die during the healthcare debates. Canada and England prove that Socialist Medicine does that. Libs accuse us of raiding Medicare/Medicaid, and that is what they do. He is projecting, meaning that the left is planning a holocaust on conservatives and Christians. Go ahead call me crazy, but only after you read all the vitriol the left constantly spews against us everyday in the blogosphere. Far too many comments from libs such as “the sooner we get you idiots off of the planet the better” and “go ahead and keep your powder dry, it won’t do you any good”. My favorite is from James Cameron, “I want to meet all the Global Warming Deniers in the middle of the street and have a shootout”. Where else in history do we see socialists dragging conservatives or religious people into the streets to shoot them? Oh yeah, Kristallnacht, Viet Nam, China, Iran, etc. There is more of this rhetoric from the left each day and their useful idiots eat it up. It wasn’t a majority of Germany that killed thousands of Jews and sent over 28,000 to the camps in one night. Just enough of the useful idiots to turn over complete control to one leader. That’s all it took then, and they have more than enough today to accomplish the same thing all over again.

nwnelson on September 28, 2010 at 1:16 AM

That most muslems don’t act on the duty of jihad demanded by islam, is a factor of lack of opportunity, or basic human nature not to murder innocent people.
Rebar on September 28, 2010 at 12:58 AM

That is not an accurate statement. Don’t feel bad about that, because it is completely impossible for a poor, dumb infidel to make an accurate statement regarding the concept of “Jihad.”

Mohammadists use that single word to mean absolutely everything that advances the cause of Islam: i.e., gaining more land, slaves and converts under submission to the Islamic Empire. Basically, they use that one word to refer to everything from a bake sale to genocide.

And they seem to get a perverse kick out of making fun of all of us stupid “infidels” because we can never seem to realize precisely how wonderful and/or terrifying that word is supposed to be each time it’s used in a different context or by a different Muslim. Call me intolerant (please, feel free, I honest to God don’t give a flying sh!t one way or the other) but I take absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for my lack of respect for that.

Because, let’s face it, 1200 years is more than enough time for them to have come up with a second word. And it’s way past time for foolish infidels to stop taking responsibility for discerning the vaguarities of “moderate” Islam from the identical beliefs, customs, goals and customs of “unmoderate” Islam.

Because, of course, it is not OUR job to make that distinction; it is THEIR job. And they constantly do everything they possibly can to blur that line as much as possible.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 1:18 AM

I have to turn in, so let me say one more thing – doubtless this conversation will continue on other threads.

My whole point is that a religion is a general classification of a system of beliefs. Strictly speaking, one can’t really say “The Christian religion teaches X” unless the majority of people who call themselves Christians believe X, or at least claim to believe it.

This is the same as any belief system, including Islam, and to some extent political ideologies, but obviously completely different from a political organization or party.

So if most people who consider themselves Muslims don’t believe that they are on a Mission to forcibly convert other people to their religion, than it is really a stretch to say that “Islam is a violent religion”.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Because, of course, it is not OUR job to make that distinction; it is THEIR job. And they constantly do everything they possibly can to blur that line as much as possible.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 1:18 AM

Ambiguous pronouns aren’t very good for making distinctions either.

Muslims are hardly unique in having a word with both benign and malevolent meanings. In English we often use words like “war”, “battle”, “fight” and more or less the same way.

There are Violent muslims who use the word ambiguously just like violent people all over the world use all kinds of words ambiguously. This is nothing specific to Islam.

Of course, here I am typing away after I said I’d turn in. Damned compulsive arguing. Trying again to leave…

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 1:27 AM

This is another case of leftist projection. What they blame the conservatives/republicans of doing they are in fact planning or doing.
nwnelson on September 28, 2010 at 1:16 AM

That’s what Kristallnacht was all about. I’m a little fuzzy on precisely which radical Socialist coined the phrase, but I think it may have been Joseph Goebbels who said: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

Manufacturing crises to help centralize control is what liberals have been doing since day one. And by that I don’t mean the first day of this election cycle; I mean since the day Marx first published their theology’s bible.

Because, when you stop and think about it, Kristallnacht was like a nationwide electoral rejection of Socialism, but for one tiny detail: the fact that it is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

Unfortunately, once the crisis mentality has been evoked and emotion comes to the fore, then what radical Socialists refer to as the “lizard brain” takes over. And that’s when those tiny little details tend to get overlooked.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 1:37 AM

What nonsense. Who are you to tell Muslims who is a true Muslim or an apostate?

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM

It’ not me, it’s their own koran, you idiot.

Luka on September 28, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Again, what nonsense. There were not “lots and lots of moderate Nazis”. Joining a political party is completely different than being raised in a religion. A member of the Nazi party, by definition, took active part in the poursuit of the Nazi goals.

Meanwhile, for the vast majority of Muslims, their faith consists of facing Mecca and praying a lot. What an absurd comparison.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM

That’s great, but that’s not all the Koran tells them to do.

We should be thankful than 90% of Muslims are terrible at their religion. Doesn’t mean that Islam as an ideology isn’t evil.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 28, 2010 at 2:44 AM

My whole point is that a religion is a general classification of a system of beliefs. Strictly speaking, one can’t really say “The Christian religion teaches X” unless the majority of people who call themselves Christians believe X, or at least claim to believe it.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Actually, if it’s in the holiest book of their religion, you can.

Like I said, 90% of Muslims suck at their own religion. Which is great. I wish 100% of them sucked at Islam.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 28, 2010 at 2:46 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on September 28, 2010 at 2:46 AM

I’ve often said that I hope Muslims in Europe become as indifferent and ignorant about their religion as the Christians have become.

Lefties get very upset when you say that.

They approve of atheism only when it rejects Christianity.

NoDonkey on September 28, 2010 at 2:53 AM

What nonsense. Who are you to tell Muslims who is a true Muslim or an apostate?

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM

It’ not me, it’s their own koran, you idiot.

Luka on September 28, 2010 at 1:52 AM

So? Leviticus says blasphemers should be killed.


16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Does that make Christianity violent? Does that mean someone isn’t a Christian if they don’t kill blasphemers? And please don’t try to say that this is somehow invalidated, abrogated, or altered by the New Testament:


17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 3:24 AM

We should be thankful than 90% of Muslims are terrible at their religion. Doesn’t mean that Islam as an ideology isn’t evil.

Good Solid B-Plus on September 28, 2010 at 2:44 AM

According to your exact reasoning, Christianity is evil as well. Unless stoning blasphemers is somehow morally superior to killing infidels.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 3:30 AM

Let us, for a moment, consider the term in psychology for the pathological behavior called “transference.”

Then, consider the group “Democrats.”

And “One Nation.”

Ein Volk.
Ein Reich.
Ein Führer.

Lockstein13 on September 28, 2010 at 5:02 AM

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 3:24 AM

I don’t want to get off-topic, which a debate about Christianity or Islam (or both) would be, but I do want to say that the New Testament verse you quoted counters your own point. Christians do not stone the blasphemer, etc., because Christ took the burden of all sin on Himself. There are still earthly laws to maintain order in society, but God handles affronts to His holiness through Christ.

DrMagnolias on September 28, 2010 at 5:24 AM

Christianity went through a period in which Christians turned on Christians and realized that killing each other in the name of the Prince of Peace was not a good idea. That left 20% of Europe dead due to the fighting during the Thirty Years War.

That war brought about the establishment that freedom of religion (then amongst the three main sects of Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist) is tolerated by all those involved in the Peace of Westphalia and are to practice that in their governments and societies in perpetuity afterwards. Due to Cromwell the heirs to the British Crown were in Europe and covered specifically by the Peace of Westphalia, thus the Restoration brought that with it as the Peace was never renunciated.

Islam has never had anything like the Peace of Westphalia.

And we have forgotten it so badly that we no longer even know that we are supposed to keep the State from deciding which church you should attend as it gets millions dead when it does so. Until Islam gets something like a war amongst factions that leaves tens of millions dead and causes a realization that the State enforcing a religion is lethal, it will remain impossible to separate State based Islam from privately practiced Islam that is personal as the people who practice Islam are unwilling to take a stand on the topic. They are inviting, amongst the variants of Islam, the equivalent of what happened in Europe with the Thirty and Hundred Year Wars…

Christians have identified why the State should not be involved in religious affairs and the practice is so well established it is now used to suppress religion… which is the opposite of the Peace of Westphalia as written. As Westphalia is one of the keystones of what we consider modern religious pluralism, forgetting about it, its impact, why it is important and why we each must practice it as children of Westphalia and Westphalian States is now setting us all up for the conditions that caused those horrors.

Tyrannical centralized States deciding on religion only makes this more likely, not less. And, yes, that was something the NSDAP did in Germany, too… and Austria… everywhere they went the cross was replaced with a picture of the leader. That is how you can get to a Kristallnacht – using religious venues to preach intolerance and racial hatred. And if that sounds like ‘social justice’ being preached to the ends of a leader at a church near you, then you are catching on as to why that is barbaric and never, ever comes to a good end.

ajacksonian on September 28, 2010 at 5:29 AM

Racism? That’s nothing, I like the Tea Party gathering where we eat our kids…yeah, carve them up and eat them so they won’t have to face the liberal policies put in place.
Of course grand ma and grand pa, well if they get sick, they are next.
Yeah, nothing more funny then having a mouthful of child and someone says “Pass the dark meat”…
Isn’t next week “Burn a black church” week?
Why the hottest Christmas gift this year will be “My little porch monkey” play set.
These guys are such fools, their party, the dems, were the birth place of racism…Republicans are the ones who sent the troops down to make sure they could go to school, we are the ones who pushed back the dems in congress, our racism consisted of trying to get them into school and educated.
Our racism is trying to get them out of the welfare line, and into the production line…

right2bright on September 28, 2010 at 6:51 AM

Looks like my rant is being “reviewed”…

right2bright on September 28, 2010 at 6:52 AM

Or is this really the left’s new analogy for the GOP taking back the House in November?

You got it.

maverick muse on September 28, 2010 at 7:51 AM

Then, consider the group “Democrats.”

Lockstein13

“ONE VOICE” — Obama’s new administration mantra

maverick muse on September 28, 2010 at 7:53 AM

logis on September 28, 2010 at 1:18 AM

Touché!

maverick muse on September 28, 2010 at 7:56 AM

According to your exact reasoning, Christianity is evil as well. Unless stoning blasphemers is somehow morally superior to killing infidels.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 3:30 AM

the difference is, nowhere in the New Testament does it compel christians to stone blasphemers – or to any violence for that matter. The koran does have many, many passages stating that believers should commit acts of violence against blasphemers, non-believers and the like.

And, many organizations, such as MEMRI, do invaluable work in going into “moderate” mosques and find that they preach in arabic the same anti-western, violent jihadi stuff that the non-moderates do. True, not all the muslims actively engage in teh violence. But, until the Koran is changed I don’t think it is intellectually honest to say that Islam is not a violent religion.

One could argue that the old testament – Judeasim – was violent b/c it too had many calls to violence against sinners and the like. However, the difference here is one of practice. There are not thousands of jews engaged in financing and acting out violent acts against people worldwide.

Nor are christians creating gov’t making Islam the law, or stoning homosexuals and rape victims to death in the year 2010, nor are the western gov’ts confiscating other religion’s books, etc. and burnnig them a la Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Sure, there aer non-violent, moderate muslims. But it is intellectually dishonest to claim that they are the vast majority or that their verision of Islam is the “right” one.

Perhaps it is true that Islam is simply where Chrisianity was 4 or 5 hundred years ago in terms of blasphamy and violence. But, that is too bad for them. We can’t simply sit back and wait for a few hundred years until they have some kind of reformation like the Christians did. we can’t even be certain they will have such a reformation.

Monkeytoe on September 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Gas in the car, mortgage paid, Bush blew up the levees, Guam might capsize, cops act stupidly, free Mumia… – gotta keep your race-baiting simple Ben. None o’ this highfalutin’ foreign history crap.

IronDioPriest on September 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM

It’s good to have you here, IDP.

Jaibones on September 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Christianity is evil
RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 3:30 AM

Like everything else in the world that you don’t understand (i.e., everything in the world, period) it depends on your definition of the word.

The Bible is a chronicle of mankind’s transformation from barbarism to civilization.

So, yes, the Koran is the same the Bible — but for one tiny detail: the fact that it is exactly the opposite in every possible way.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 9:24 AM

this is about hating white people. racism, straight up.

Aquateen Hungerforce on September 27, 2010 at 8:13 PM

More precisely–conservative white people.

Gang-of-One on September 28, 2010 at 10:16 AM

It’s interesting that democrats like to compare those who disagree with them Nazis. But it’s the democrats who are using Nazi tactics. Projecting, I guess.

abcurtis on September 28, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Democrats:

Supported slavery, even initiated a war about it.

Invented Jim Crowe laws.

Implemented segregation federally under Progressive President Woodrow Wilson.

Defeated the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

Reluctantly supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Implemented anti-two-parent welfare laws that devastated the black family.

Still support Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” through Planned Parenthood.

Still protect an education system that systemically underserves African Americans and Latinos.

Attack any minority that dares to vote against them as a traitor to their race.

Consistently implement race-based policies at all levels of government and academia.

Practice voter fraud to favor one racial group or another.

The Democratic Party has been the party of racism for the last 175 years. It still hold that title.

theCork on September 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

I am always amazed that in liberal black churchs they can talk politics day after day and even call politicians out by name and support them.

Meanwhile, my church had a politics series in 2008 and all he said was vote for Jesus. They never mentioned a single person by name nor did they talk up either party.

jeffn21 on September 28, 2010 at 4:09 PM

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 3:24 AM

I don’t want to get off-topic, which a debate about Christianity or Islam (or both) would be, but I do want to say that the New Testament verse you quoted counters your own point. Christians do not stone the blasphemer, etc., because Christ took the burden of all sin on Himself. There are still earthly laws to maintain order in society, but God handles affronts to His holiness through Christ.

DrMagnolias on September 28, 2010 at 5:24 AM

Unfortunately, the off-topic ship already sort of sailed, but I agree its probably good not to dwell too much on this. Having said that, I will of course proceed to dwell on it, though this isn’t as far off topic as it seems.

I don’t actually think Christians are supposed to stone blasphemers. But the first verse doesn’t just say blasphemy is a sin, it says it is our job to punish it. And the second one says none of the law shall change even a tiny bit. It’s the Law that the blasphemers be stoned.

the difference is, nowhere in the New Testament does it compel christians to stone blasphemers – or to any violence for that matter. The koran does have many, many passages stating that believers should commit acts of violence against blasphemers, non-believers and the like.

Guess what. The old testament is part of the Christian Bible too. When people in Jesus’ time talked about “Law”, that’s what they were talking about. The law of Moses. That’s the whole point of the second quote. It says very plainly “Not one jot” shall pass from the law. That law includes Leviticus’s insctruction to Stone people.

I don’t think Christians should stone blasphemers, and I don’t think Jesus wanted to either. But if you rigidly interpret that passage, you must conclude otherwise.

There are some Muslims who rigidly interpret the “Kill infidels” stuff. But most don’t.

burnnig them a la Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Sure, there aer non-violent, moderate muslims. But it is intellectually dishonest to claim that they are the vast majority or that their verision of Islam is the “right” one.

Perhaps it is true that Islam is simply where Chrisianity was 4 or 5 hundred years ago in terms of blasphamy and violence. But, that is too bad for them. We can’t simply sit back and wait for a few hundred years until they have some kind of reformation like the Christians did. we can’t even be certain they will have such a reformation.

Monkeytoe on September 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM

That is insane. There are something like 1.5 billion muslims on this planet. There is nothing close to that number of violent ones. Even if you think that there are a million violent ones, that would still be a fraction of a percent. That’s the whole point of this argument – Logis, Luka, et al have been arguing that no matter how small the percentage of non-violent muslims there are – violence is dictated by there religion on the basis of certain passages in the Koran, whether or not the Muslims themselves think that they are supposed to be violent; If they don’t read it the same way as the commenters here, then they “aren’t real muslims”.

My point is, one can make the exact same argument, with the exact same level of validity, about Christianity – there are parts of the bible whose plain meaning is that people are supposed to committ violence. You can try to contradict them with other parts of the Bible, and your interpretation may even be the right one, but the non-violent muslims obviously have a similar interpretation of their faith.

These debates always seem to have the same form:

1. Someone says Islam is a violent religion.
2. Someone protests – that is false because the vast majority of Muslims are non-violent.
3. Doesn’t matter – they aren’t Real muslims because the Koran has this passage saying you should be violent.
4. What about this Bible passage that calls for violence.
5. Clintonian explanations for why the situation is different. But more importantly, the Koran is clearly different, because Muslims really are violent. See #2. Rinse, Repeat.

And, getting back to the topic at hand, this sophistry is used to paint a quarter of the worlds’ population as belonging to a religion as evil as the Nazis. How can anyone complain about the NAACP and still make this argument?

People could just as easily refer to Islamists, or even better, “Jihadists”. If you said that “Jihadis are evil” or “Islamists” are evil, then you would be dead-on, and you wouldn’t be slandering anyone. But for whatever reason, people seem to want to go all Godwin on over a billion people.

RINO in Name Only on September 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Benjamin Jealous could not be more right. The hatred pulsing from the GOP and its Tea Party minions may not be along ethnic lines (yet), but it is upon political lines.

bifidis on September 28, 2010 at 6:33 PM

The Democratic Party has been the party of racism for the last 175 years. It still hold that title.
theCork on September 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

175 years ago, the Democrat Party advocated government discrimination among individuals based on race.

Today, the Democrat Party advocates government discrimination among individuals based on race.

The more things change, the more liberals stay the same.

logis on September 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Oh my oh my; one third of blacks support the Tea Party: Racists!… One-Third of Blacks Support Tea Party

How on Earth will they spin this one? Lack of information? Ruh-roh, -that would be racist! Racist? Ruh-roh -that would be racist.

slickwillie2001 on September 28, 2010 at 7:40 PM

More evidence the concept of separation of Church and State does not exist in the mindless (D)emons lexicon.

MSGTAS on September 29, 2010 at 9:58 AM

ecause, let’s face it, 1200 years is more than enough time for them to have come up with a second word. And it’s way past time for foolish infidels to stop taking responsibility for discerning the vaguarities of “moderate” Islam from the identical beliefs, customs, goals and customs of “unmoderate” Islam.

Logis, you are correct. There is NOTHING moderate about Islam. Consider that Mohammed on his deathbed ordered his followers to kill all nonbelievers. Does that sound even vaguely moderate? Don’t think so….

chai on September 29, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Pretty sure Mr. Jealous’ name popped up on the White House visitors list a few times. Good to know that these are the sorts of people PrezBo is hanging with.

Being I’m a Judeo-Christain blogger I do fear soscialist coming for me in the night… that’s why I sleep armed!!!

HotAirExpert on September 29, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2