Ann Coulter: MODERN CIVIL RIGHTS: COCKFIGHTING AND SAME-SEX PROMS (Ban Either?)

Ann Coulter.Com ^ | May 26, 2010 | Ann Coulter

[Syncro]

MODERN CIVIL RIGHTS: COCKFIGHTING AND SAME-SEX PROMS
May 26, 2010

Watching TV this week, at first I thought Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul had flown a commercial jet into the World Trade Center. But then it turned out that he had only said there ought to be discussion about whether federal civil rights laws should be applied to private businesses.

This allowed the mainstream media to accuse Paul of being a racist. Twisting a conservative's words in order to accuse him of racism was evidently more urgent news than the fact that the attorney general of the United States admitted last week -- under oath in a congressional hearing -- that he had not read the 10-page Arizona law on illegal immigration, the very law he was noisily threatening to overturn.

And really, how could the U.S. attorney general have time to read a 10-page law when he's busy doing all the Sunday morning TV shows condemning it?

Eric Holder's astonishing admission was completely ignored by ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, Time or Newsweek, according to Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center.

I just want to say: I think it's fantastic that the Democrats have finally come out against race discrimination. Any day now, maybe they'll come out for fighting the Cold War. Perhaps 100 years from now, they'll be ready to fight the war on terrorism or champion the rights of the unborn.

It would be a big help, though, if Democrats could support good causes when it mattered.

But as long as the media are so fascinated with the question of why anyone would want to "discuss" certain aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, maybe they should ask Al Gore why his father was one of the leading opponents of the bill.

Or they could ask Bill Clinton, whose mentor, Sen. William Fulbright, actively supported segregation and also voted against the bill. Or they could talk to the only current member of the Senate to vote against it, Democrat Bob Byrd.

As with the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, it was Republicans who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act by huge majorities. A distinctly smaller majority of Democrats voted for it.

In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the act, compared with only 66 percent of Democrats. In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the law, compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.

With even all Democrats coming aboard on opposition to race discrimination (and it only took them 45 years!) I think we can stipulate that everyone in America is opposed to discrimination against blacks.

Now let's talk about the "civil rights" lawsuits that are actually brought in modern America. Today's "civil rights" lawsuits have nothing to do with black Americans. Worse, blacks are used as props to benefit the Democrats' favored constituencies: feminists and trial lawyers.

Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum pioneered the technique, running ads against Republican Ellen Sauerbrey in the 1998 Maryland gubernatorial race, accusing her of having "a civil rights record to be ashamed of." To really drive the point home, Shrum's ads showed sad-looking black people in front of a mural of Africa.

Of course, if I were forced to appear in political ads for Bob Shrum, I'd be sad, too.

Read more at Ann Coulter.Com

[RonDog]

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd:

Robert Carlyle Byrd (born November 20, 1917) is the senior [Democrat] United States Senator from West Virginia, and a member and former Senate Leader of the Democratic Party....

-- snip --

...Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him the top officer of their unit...

-- snip --

Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.

-- snip --

In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." — Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

Robert C. Byrd [RAT-WV]

[Syncro]

GRATE Picture!

[jellybean]

The question is not whether the federal government should be telling private businesses they can't engage in race discrimination. The question is whether federal civil rights laws should prevent any discrimination other than race discrimination.

Let me know if you'd like to be added to the Ann Coulter ping list.

[Rummyfan]

[Rummyfan]

As Ann Coulter has also said, the Democratic Party was pro-choice on the issue of slavery!

[Rummyfan]

LOL!

[Rummyfan]

Oh man I won't be able to work this morning!

[RonDog]

;)

[TheOldLady]

"The question is whether federal civil rights laws should prevent any discrimination other than race discrimination."

The whole point is to prevent any kind of discrimination at all by anyone about anything, ever. Being discriminating is a good thing, but discrimination is another word that has been tarred and feathered by the left.

"We're losing the language." -- Rush Limbaugh

[TheOldLady]

Some people lose weight when they’re stressed regardless how much they eat.

Some gain, also regardless their eating habits.

Oh, would that I were the former, but no.

[PaleoBob]

Another great one from the Great Ann.

[Syncro]

Being discriminating is a good thing, but discrimination is another word that has been tarred and feathered by the left.

Exactly!

How many normal heterosexual people used to be gay before the SSAD contingent changed the meaning to make homosexuality seem like so much fun?

[TheOldLady]

The posers grow out of it perforce. They aren’t really homosexual and eventually realize it. But in the meantime, they can do all sorts of damage by supporting the homosexual political agenda. More useful idiots.

[onyx]

Hi jellybean!

I waited for your ping so I could say “hiya” to you. I read the column when Syncro posted it. I think it’s one of Ann’s best, but I always think every column of hers is one of her best!

[spodefly]

This is a good example of how stupid the state run media thinks their audience is. They want to turn this into a simple “racist” moment for a politician they don’t like.

But everyone paying attention, and there are more everyday, knows that what Paul said was had he been there at the time (1964) there would have been some discussion about the provisions effecting private business. The other 90% of the Act he favored.

These days the federal government is so far up our asses that we forget it wasn’t always this way.

In 1964, passing a federal law that defined how a private business should behave was still new. They didn’t regulate everything from toilets to accounting to hiring to access, etc., etc. And at the time, having a federal law that told private business how to behave was a new and potentially dangerous precedent.

And Paul was right. Today, every business has so many government regulations on top of them it seems quaint to consider that there was once a time when we could have stopped it.

But of course, anything less that total supplication to absolute control by the Federal Leviathan is bad according to the media and political class.

[jellybean]

Hi onyx!

You don’t have to wait for my ping to say hi. Just ping me anytime! I’m sometimes very late with my pings - depends on what time I get home and whether I get distracted before checking in here.

Good to “see” you!

[onyx]

LOL. I know your schedule! Good to see you. I loved this column by Ann and just used the ping list excuse to see you! :)

[Recovering_Democrat]

Ann is on fire again, as always.

BTW, does anyone know: has Ann been ill lately?? When I’ve seen her on tv (which seems to be less and less), her personal “spark” seems to have diminished a bit—and though she is still stunning in a physical sense, her eyes seem to be a bit TOO “made up”; the false eyelashes are way over the top.

I hope she is okay, I know she recently lost her mom and her friend Ron Silver....perhaps those traumas and the book tours, etc. are wearing her down a bit.

[Syncro]

She has been on TV quite a bit lately, in fact more than ever I think.

QUOTATIONS FROM CHAIRMAN ANN
May 27, 2010, 11:45 PM
COULTER TV THIS WEEK - Friday, 3a.m. (Sat. a.m.): RED EYE! SUNDAY: FNC'S Geraldo	May 27, 2010, 9:55 PM
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . . - VIDEO: Ann Coulter on Joy Behar with Bill Press: Rand Paul and BP Oil Spill	May 26, 2010, 8:57 PM
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . . - VIDEO: Ann Coulter on Geraldo 5/23/10: Mexican President Felipe Calderon is setting immigration policy for the administration.	May 24, 2010, 6:19 PM
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . . - VIDEO: Ann Coulter on Fox & Friends 5/24/10: Republicans are like Charlie Brown and the football.	May 23, 2010, 5:52 AM
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . . - VIDEO: Ann Coulter with Megan Kelly, 5/21/10 As far as her health, I don't know. She looks the same to me, but I usually don't pick up on stuff like that except in person And even then, it's a little blurry what with them eyelashes battin' the way they do...LOL

[TheBigIf]

The fact of the matter is as well this un-Constitutional power of dictating to private business who they must be associated with and do business with is still being expanded today by the progressive movement thus making Rand Paul’s statement extremely relevant and worthy of debate.

The democrats (progressives) want of course to dictate to private entities that they must associate with openly perverse behavior as well. Both homosexuality and transexuality are being pushed to be forced on all of society today in a bill called ENDA.

So how far can the right to association be trashed and taken from us?

Also on a side note:

Though Rand Paul weakly made a stand for the right to association, his father Ron Paul has voted for a bill that would force all military personnel to have to associate (bunk and shower) with people expressing openly homosexual behavior. There is now an extreme double-standard in the military whereas men and women are separated in facilities based upon discrimination of possible heterosexual behavior but then the same right to separation in facilities is not given in regards to homosexual behavior. It is very ironic that the Paul duo are so inconsistent in this regard.