You Worry Me

The following letter was published in the Gazette, Hyattsville, MD, October 11, 2001, on the Community Forum page.

"You worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.

"I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, and professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.

On Sept. 11, nineteen Arab-Muslims hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants and children's mothers. So I notice you now.

I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that have destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help.

As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to differentiate between you. How do I differentiate between the true Arab-Muslim-Americans and the Arab-Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, ... [edited for brevity]... while they plot the next attack that will slaughter those very same good neighbors and children? The answer to my own questions that it is past the time for me to try to determine this. The events of Sept. 11th changed the answer. It is time for every Arab-Muslim in this country to determine it for me.

I want to know, I demand to know, if you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation that He will protect and prosper it? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots? Are you willing to preserve this freedom with the spilling of your own blood? Do you love America? And if this is your commitment, then I need you to start letting me know about it.

Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and religion to protect the United States of America. Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the "innocent" (I worry who you regard as "innocent") and condemnation of "unprovoked" attacks (I worry what is "unprovoked" to you.) I am not interested in any more sympathy; I am interested only in action. What will you do for America-- the country -- at this time of crisis, at this time of war?

I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America." I want to see Arab-Muslim young men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money and time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.

The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are. Deliver them up, now. But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisal.

The few Arab-Muslim representatives that have appeared on the media are defensive and equivocating. They seem more concerned with making sure the U.S. prove who is responsible before they act, and protecting their own people from any violence directed toward them, here in the U.S. and abroad.

If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up.

Because even if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true, it matters little if large numbers of current Islamic practitioners interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion.

I want to know where every Arab-Muslim in this country stands and I think it is within my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters.

I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here; as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no "gray" areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to you to show me where you stand.

Until then...you worry me."

Hugh wrote:

"I seem to recall in Matthew 14, Jesus talking about what a wise king does before going to war, and it wasn't precisely for the king to avoid the war. It was that the king would ensure that he would be able to vanquish the enemy."

That's precisely what Matthew 14 says, except that there's no enemy, no vanquishing, no wise king and no war. You're describing Luke 14, and deliberately misrepresenting what Jesus said (or perhaps your silly politics have distorted your memory). Luke 14:31-32 is a parable about how being unprepared for a walk with the Lord is like going into battle with 10,000 soldiers when the enemy has 20,000. The next verse, 33, tells a truth conservatives just hate to hear: "So with every one of you who will not part with all he has; he cannot be my disciple." Yup, turns out that the Right wing lie that the wealthy are entitled to hold onto everything they have and the poor are on their own is just another anti-Christian fairy tale.

"You may also want to consider Hebrews 11:32-34..." No, you may want to reconsider it. You took it completely out of context. Chapter 11 is about how nothing in the Old Testament, no valiant act of war, no great deed, can complete our relationship with God the way faith in Christ can. Verse 39 finishes the idea in 32-34 by saying: "And all these, while winning divine approval through their faith, did not receive the promised blessing." Ch 12:1-2 continues: "let us get rid of every impediment and the sin that ensnares us so easily, and let us run steadily the course mapped out for us, with our eyes on Jesus, the cause and completer of our faith." Then comes 12:14: "Seek eagerly for peace with everyone and for holiness without which no one shall see the Lord." Gee, seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

Now against your feeble attempts at distortion, we have turning the other cheek, we have Jesus' rebuke of Peter for cutting off the ear of the High Priest's slave, we have "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword," and we have all the verses thoughtfully provided by the other soul who replied.

Do you want to tell another conservative lie now, and make Jesus out to be a warmonger to fit your political beliefs? I have a revelation for you: God is strong enough to win any battles He cares to win without any help from any of us. Period.

"White Supremecists? Go to the website of Aryan Action and read what they are for- it is lockstep with your typical leftist socialist."

Are you high? Have you read any other material from ANY other white supremacist organizations, such as Aryan Nations, the American Nazi Party, the Brotherhood? There is nothing socialist about them. They hate the welfare state, they hate affirmative action, they hate public education, they hate tolerance, and they hate Liberals. I'm not suggesting that conservatives are racists. I'm saying that racists almost universally identify themselves with conservative philosophy.

"David Duke? You won't find him applauded here, but you will find him advocated on Overthrow.com"

...and supported by the Republican Party.

"If you claim to be pro-1st amendment, then we are in agreement. If you want to say that liberals are and conservatives aren't, then you are putting forth a lie."

Agreed.

"If you talk about Americans dying for the cause of liberty, I will join you in saluting them. If you claim that the left has been respectful of them or has been more involved in actually taking part in such actions than conservatives, then you are putting forth a lie."

There have been just as many liberal Democrat soldiers who have died for this country as there have been conservative Republicans who have died. If you proclaim anything different, then you are putting forth a lie.

"If you say that conservatives want to keep the black man down, then you are putting forth yet another lie."

That's a ridiculous lie. Conservatives fought to prevent the passage of Title VII, preventing discrimination based on race. Conservatives voted against civil rights reforms and against the right of black soldiers to die next to their white brethren. Conservatives like Lester Maddox and George Wallace fought to keep black kids out of white high schools. Conservatives rallied against, spit upon, and sent dogs to attack Martin Luther King and the thousands of whites and blacks marching with him to promote racial equality. Conservatives fought politically and physically to keep restaurants and offices segregated. Conservatives refuse to review the law that punishes crack offenders (most of whom are black) 10 times more harshly than cocaine offenders (most of whom are white), even though the two drugs are the same substance. Conservatives are opposed to Federal help for inner city schools attended mostly by exceedingly poor black children. And conservatives like W. Bush try to cut funding in their own states for subsidized school breakfasts for kids (many of them black) who have no food at home.

Now before you throw out your favorite term, "lie," can you try to refute some of those points? Can you refute even one?

"If you say that the statistics show gun control works, then you are putting forth another lie." Somehow it all comes down to that one for you guys, doesn't it?

"As a matter of fact, the entire liberal agenda nowadays is built upon a series of lies."

Really? I've provided all kinds of factual (that means "not lies") evidence to support my positions. I haven't seen much to support your positions, except a couple of misrepresentations of Bible verses. Do you have any conservative truth that you can actually support?

I love it when conservatives debate the Bible OR politics.

Here are some more White Supremacist writings for you, dumbass. Do they fit the conservative or the liberal agenda more closely? The first two are from the National Association for the Advancement of White People website. Enjoy:

"The welfare system of rewarding irresponsibility and illegitimacy only increases poverty instead of alleviating it. *Lowering standards to accommodate poorly achieving minorities harms everyone. *Discriminating against whites is as morally wrong as it is against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or anyone else. *Increased minority crime is destroying the social fabric of America. *Forced integration and unrestrained immigration destroy schools, neighborhoods, cities, and ultimately nations. *High, illegitimate, minority birthrates - if allowed to continue - will one day make them the majority and give them political control of our country - just as they now control major cities. *Unless stopped now, massive illegal immigration from the Third World will surely make America more like the Third World rather than the nation of our forefathers."

and

"Aren't you sick of reverse discrimination, busing, minority welfare rip offs, massive immigration, gun control, anti-white movies & TV shows? Do you want to see America become like Mexico or South Africa, or Uganda? Impossible? Examine nonwhite birth rates and immigration. America is heading toward becoming another third world nation... in the name of "diversity"!"

http://66.54.217.236/beliefs.htm

Here, dumbass, are three more from Richard Pierce's National Alliance at http://www.natall.com.

"What would you say if a Liberal "social scientist" told you to jump into a pool filled with five hundred ravenous piranhas? If you valued your life, you'd certainly refuse the invitation. But what if the Liberal "social scientist" tried to convince you to go ahead and jump in, with the argument that "not all of the piranhas are aggressive. Some of them probably just want to make friends with you, and really aren't hungry either. To say that a piranha is going to attack you, just because he's a piranha, is a wicked stereotype, and probably contributes to the piranhas' negative feelings about you..."...let's say you were foolish enough to listen to the Liberal "social scientist," and you did jump into the pool filled with piranhas. You somehow managed to survive. You made it to the other side of the pool, where you jumped out, but you were seriously injured in the process. After you got out of the hospital, where your wounds were stitched up and your lost blood was replaced, you were paid a visit by your old "friend," the Liberal "social scientist." "It's not the piranhas' fault that you almost got eaten alive. It's not the poor piranhas' fault at all! It's your fault!" "My fault!" you exclaim, "How the hell could it be my fault?" "Ah, how little you bourgeois middle Americans understand," sighed our Liberal genius, "Don't you see that what happened to you only happened because those poor piranhas were underprivileged and hungry? If you'd given them enough food and a decent chance at life, then they wouldn't have attacked you like they did."

and this liberal point of view:

"There is no doubt that a major decline in the economic and social fortunes of America is now taking place, with the rise to power of the Clinton administration. Clinton, who is at heart not so much a malevolent conspirator as he is a sleazy, lying politician with the morals of a carnival shell-game operator, has nevertheless sold out completely to those who do conspire to take away our freedoms and our heritage, to those who do plan to destroy everything we hold dear and which our ancestors struggled, fought, and died to procure for us."

and finally this:

"In spiritually healthier times our ancestors took as theirs those parts of the world suited by climate and terrain to our race: in particular, all of Europe and the temperate zones of the Americas, not to mention Australia and the southern tip of Africa. This was our living area and our breeding area, and it must be so again. After the sickness of "multiculturalism," which is destroying America, Britain, and every other Aryan nation in which it is being promoted, has been swept away, we must again have a racially clean area of the earth for the further development of our people. We must have White schools, White residential neighborhoods and recreation areas, White workplaces, White farms and countryside. We must have no non-Whites in our living space, and we must have open space around us for expansion. We will do whatever is necessary to achieve this White living space and to keep it White."

And finally, let's hear from the American Nazis themselves, who call themselves, as did their German counterparts, the National Socialist Movement. Guess what the pet cause is on their website? I'll let you read for yourself, from http://www.nsm88.com/index2.html:

"Gun Control By a Private First Class in the N.S.M. The shortsighted liberals state, "ban firearms." In this statement they refer to everyone. If they were to look at statistics and see where guns are most dangerous they would see that it is not in the home. A guns most dangerous location is in the hands of non-whites. Of all the murders in the U.S. in 1992, 58% of them were commited by just blacks (not counting latinos). Quite staggering, concidering they make up 13% of the U.S. population. Of course liberal reasoning also states it would be bias and racist to take guns from non-whites. It is in my belief that it is better to violate the rights of a small group of problem citizens, for the safety of that nations people, then to violate an entire nations citizens, most of whom work hard to obey the law. Here are some numbers where a gun may also be used:(Per 1000 people) Robbery - 27 (non-white) 5 (white) Assault - 61 (non-white) 25 (white) Violent Crime - 80 (non-white) 30 (white) Burglary - 138 (non-white) 46 (white) Vehicle Theft - 86 (non-white) 17 (white) Most Whites in these numbers live in non-white neighborhoods. They have had commercial announcements by actors speaking of the dangers of guns in the home. From 1988 to 1992 there have been 1,525 justified homicides by home-owners to persons endangering their family and home. Not to mention the countless other times when no one has been killed. Here are numbers and other causes of accidental death in 1992: 12,400 Died from falling. 5,200 from poisoning 4,000 from fire and burning 2,700 from suffocation 1,400 from FIREARMS With the kind of numbers above, I would worry more about my children falling down the stairs, getting drain cleaner under the sink or playing with a plastic bag.

Do those statistics, quoted by the Nazi "private first class," sound familiar? There's another interesting letter in the "articles" section, written by a conservative Republican activist whose name you will no doubt recognize:

"The Lessons Of History - The Founding Fathers On Right To Bear Arms By Phyllis Schlafly - The Schlafly Report June, 2000

I strongly doubt that Ms. Schlafly gave permission to have her article used by this group. My point is not that conservatives are all racists, my point is that racists, in the great majority of cases, align themselves with conservative causes.

Instead of calling me names and calling all liberals "liars," educate yourself and join us in fighting against people like this. I'll tell you a secret about liberals and conservatives: both groups have among them some intelligent people, some saints, and some liars. Painting all of either camp with the broad brush of dishonesty is ridiculous. You appear to be a reasonably intelligent guy; your case will be a lot stronger if you dispense with insults.

Explain to me how supporting the removal of gun rights for any law abiding citizen is a conservative cause? Sounds like the American Nazis want part of the Democrat platform- gun control, albeit where the restrictions are only on non-whites. I am glad that you realize that wanting to deprive a group of people of their right to own guns is a Nazi characteristic. You just want it on a larger scale.

But let's look at some other beauties from their 25 points of action, and see if these are the conservative causes you are referring to?

"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens...
"All citizens shall have equal rights and duties, regardless of class or station..."
"The activities of the individual must not clash within the framework of the community and be for the common good..."
"In view of the enormous personal sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation..."
"We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts)..."
"...the passing of a law instituting profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises..."
"...the creation of a livable wage..."
"...health care be completely revolutionized. We demand an end to the status quo in which people die or rot away from lack of proper treatment due to the failure of their medical coverage, Health Maintenance Organization, or insurance policy.
We further demand the extensive development of insurance for old age and that prescription drugs be made both affordable and accessible..."
"We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small trades in the placing of state and municipal orders..."
"...ensure all members of the nation receive affordable housing..."
"However, we support the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation when deemed necessary for land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare..."
"We further demand the abolition of ground rent..."
"The secondary land reform will be to ensure the environmental integrity of the nation is preserved. By setting aside land for national wildlife refuges. By cleaning the urban, agricultural, and hydrographical (water) areas of the nation. By creating legislation regulating the amount of pollution, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases , and toxins released into the atmosphere. And for the continued research and development of clean burning fuels and energy sources..."
"The state must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education with the aim of opening up to every able and hardworking American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement..."
"We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the state..."
"We demand absolute religious freedom for all denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend... feelings [of part of the society]"
"The common good before self-interest..."
"...we demand the creation of a strong central national government for the nation..."

A regular buffet of conservatism right there, eh? Except for being anti-abortion (well, for whites at least) and being pro-gun (except for non-whites), pretty much it is a liberal agenda. Certainly more in common with the Democrat platform than with George W. Bush's.

But they did quote the correct gun statistics, which does put them one up on the Brady Bunch.

You point to a blurb ranting about multiculturalism, yet you change white to black and it sounds exactly like a speech that could have been given by that noted conservative (LOL) Louis Farrahkan.

Your blurb about the Clinton administration sounds like what you can find leftist Ramsey Clark pushing three years ago. His IAC led the trashing of Seattle, protesting America's actions under Clinton.

You left out the conservative positions:

"...We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, common criminals, drug dealers, usurers, profiteers, race traitors, etc. must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race."

"...The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life."

"...The state must ensure that the nation?s health standards are raised by protecting mothers, infants, and the unborn. By prohibiting abortion and euthanasia, except in cases of rape, incest, race-mixing, or mental retardation."

"...By creating conditions to make possible the reestablishment of the nuclear family in which the father works while the mother stays at home and takes care of the children..."

"...We demand the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens."

NOTE - No, they are not taking a liberal stand by establishing gun control for certain citizens. They want every citizen to own guns, just as you do. They don't consider nonwhites to be citizens.

"...We demand the abolition of the mercenary army, the end to the over-use of our military as a ?Meals-on-Wheels? program in foreign lands of no vital interest to our nation."

"...We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press..."

"... We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand."

Because Liberals believe in fairness and in reporting the truth, I'm going to do something that you haven't been able to do so far: I'm going to acknowledge that the weight of evidence suggests that the National Socialist Movement has more leftist than rightist positions (see, it's not so hard to do). But we are talking about one organizaition, one which clearly does not represent the views of the other white supremacist groups I catalogued.

Re: the anti-Clinton blurb, let's be a bit realistic here - the tone of that piece is far more likely to be matched on this website than on any liberal website. And you know that. And Ramsey Clark would not have agreed with the post about the liberal social scientist, nor the anti-multiculturalism rant, would he?

Speaking of multiculturalism, I'm glad that you acknowledged, however sarcastically, that Farrakhan's position on that subject coincides in every way with the standard conservative rhetoric. We liberals, on the other hand, distance ourselves from that goofball, because we recognize that America is multicultural, always has been and always will be, and that's one of the beautiful things about the melting pot. It's ironic that conservatives, who claim to respect the past, have forgotten about the multicultural aspects of their own ancestors who brought with them to this great country different customs, different holiday traditions, and different economic models, and, speaking in Gaelic, Italian, German and Zulu, infused them into this country's heritage from their ethnically diverse neighborhoods.

You left out the conservative positions:
[snip]
"...The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life."

Considering that the liberals want federal control of schools and "school-to-work" programs, that is not a conservative position but a liberal one.

"...The state must ensure that the nation?s health standards are raised by protecting mothers, infants, and the unborn. By prohibiting abortion and euthanasia, except in cases of rape, incest, race-mixing, or mental retardation."

Other than believing the right to life, the rest of these are liberal positions.

[snip]
"...We demand the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens."
NOTE - No, they are not taking a liberal stand by establishing gun control for certain citizens. They want every citizen to own guns, just as you do. They don't consider nonwhites to be citizens.

Yes, and why do they want these non-citizens to not have guns? Because it is easier to deny fundemental rights to a disarmed person. Liberals want to do that to all people- except the government. Talk about a recipie for tryany!

"...We demand the abolition of the mercenary army, the end to the over-use of our military as a ?Meals-on-Wheels? program in foreign lands of no vital interest to our nation."

I thought the left was the anti-military side? I will agree, however, that the military should not be involved in meals-on-wheels programs.

"...We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press..."

This is a conservative position, exactly how?

"... We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand."

Sounds like they want PC enforced at the point of a gun. This one could go either way- conservative or liberal.

Because Liberals believe in fairness and in reporting the truth, I'm going to do something that you haven't been able to do so far: I'm going to acknowledge that the weight of evidence suggests that the National Socialist Movement has more leftist than rightist positions (see, it's not so hard to do). But we are talking about one organizaition, one which clearly does not represent the views of the other white supremacist groups I catalogued.

Well, let's see. You cataloged a handful. I took one at random. I had already pointed you to another, which came before your examples, so that makes two. I will go and look at the others at some point in the future, just to see. I don't like going to those sites, because these people make me ill. They make almost everyone on this forum ill, except for some pesky sorts who get banned and then sign up again under a new name. Why they do this, who knows. They certainly are not welcome. People like me would suspect that they are doing it to intentionally discredit conservatives. People like you might suspect that they are what conservatives really think.

Re: the anti-Clinton blurb, let's be a bit realistic here - the tone of that piece is far more likely to be matched on this website than on any liberal website.

Yes, and no.

Yes, you are right, when the context is comparing this website with typical liberal websites.

No, when you lump this website (and conservatives) in with the lunatic fringe. The left has a lunatic fringe as well (check out any of Ramsey Clark's umbrella groups). You go to those websites, and you will find that the hatred for Clinton was just as palpable. There is a reason that those leftist groups trashed Seattle- they were protesting Clinton policies.

And you know that. And Ramsey Clark would not have agreed with the post about the liberal social scientist, nor the anti-multiculturalism rant, would he?

Ramsey Clark would have agreed with whatever he felt was the most destabilizing for this country. But that is a whole other ball of wax.

Speaking of multiculturalism, I'm glad that you acknowledged, however sarcastically, that Farrakhan's position on that subject coincides in every way with the standard conservative rhetoric.

I did not acknowledge that. I acknowledged that Farrakhan's position shows that on the left, there is not unanimity about multiculturalism.

We liberals, on the other hand, distance ourselves from that goofball,

As well you should.

because we recognize that America is multicultural, always has been and always will be, and that's one of the beautiful things about the melting pot.

Agreed!

It always has been, and always will be. And it has worked, because the cultures assimilate into the United States. Recent multiculturalism efforts have hindered this process, and have led to an erosion of what has been to where many wonder if it will always be.

This country worked because the industrious in other lands, who strove to be free and to work to better their lot in life, would come to America and bring their unique culture and a spirit of individualism and entrepreuerism. Now, with all the freebies the government hands out, we are getting immigrants who come to America to get the benefits of our increasingly socialistic infrastructure. They don't have to assimilate, so they don't. They don't have to have an industrious spirit, so they don't. It is a recipie for disaster.

It's ironic that conservatives, who claim to respect the past, have forgotten about the multicultural aspects of their own ancestors who brought with them to this great country different customs,

And a conservative would argue that liberals, who claim to respect freedom and progres, have forgotten about the industrious and self-sufficiency aspects of their own ancestors who brought with them to this great country a desire for the freedom to work hard to improve their lot in life by becoming Americans.

different holiday traditions, and different economic models, and, speaking in Gaelic, Italian, German and Zulu, infused them into this country's heritage from their ethnically diverse neighborhoods.

Yet, back then, English was taught in all schools. Prayers were allowed and even required in schools. There was all this diversity that you just pointed to, without there being some federal agency mandating it, without diversity training, without a hypersensitive political correctness culture.

There is a lot that made America great. Conservatives fight hard to make sure that these things are not lost, as we work towards correcting what was wrong in this country.

We are good people.

Let me tell you a little history about me. It might explain to you why I was so hostile in my first few responses to you. I am going to focus on two events; one from my childhood and one from this past election cycle.

When I was a young teen, one day I was in an arcade in the next town over from mine. I had gone there by myself to play some videogames. While I was playing some machine, a black guy came up, told me that he did not like white kids coming into the place, and he punched me in the jaw (I wasn't even looking at him as he ranted at me, so it really caught me). I realized right then, there are people out there who hate me, and hate me for things I had no part in. Someone was teaching these people to hate, and to hate people like me.

This past year, I worked hard locally towards Bush's election. I put up yard signs on the major roadways. Each week, I would have to do it again, because the signs were being stolen or defaced. It wasn't a case of both sides doing it either. I put some tape on the Gore/Lieberman signs nearby to see if the same signs were staying up. They were. This was aggravating, but not too bad. Then came election day. As I was driving my kids to school, I passed by where I had put up some Bush/Cheney signs. They were gone, but in their place were new Bush/Cheney signs. Only these signs were done with a confederate flag as the backdrop. These were not homemade signs either. They were signs made up professionally, and done to do nothing but incite racial acrimony.

That guy that punched me in the face as a kid? He was taught to hate me not by his own experience soley, but also by liberals who use race baiting to win elections, to apply political pressure, to advance their agenda.

Maybe you are a good guy. But my experience has taught me that in general, politically active liberals are a machiavellian crew, who lie constantly about conservatives.

Conservatives oppose the welfare state, not because we hate seeing our tax dollars go to the poor, but because we realize that the welfare state encourages the need for welfare, and it traps the poor in an endless cycle of dependency. We hate the ravages of drugs, not because we want to control people's lives, but because we see what it does to the inner cities. We want to keep people having the right to bear arms, because we want the families that can't escape from the slums to be able to defend themselves, and because we want the families that live in rural areas where police can't be there within moments to be able to defend themselves. We want to lower the punishing tax rates in this country to allow single income families again, not to keep women in the kitchen but because we know what studies show continually- children raised without involved parenting face greater risk of unproductive, troubled lives.

And conservatives hate Nazis with a passion.

OK, here is another of the examples you gave. The National Alliance. Another bunch of assholes. Here are excerpts of their proposed "utopia":

The fact is that we need a strong, centralized government spanning several continents to coordinate many important tasks...

That does not sound very conservative.

It might not be too much to say that the most important single institution in the government we want will be the one which selects, trains, and tests the people who will be the judges and the legislators and the executives in that government people who will be more like secular priests...

Again, this hardly sounds conservative.

What do they think about capitalism?

Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the instability which leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves: they can buy the legislation they want, and they can block threats to their power in ways that may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the long-range consequences.

Does that sound conservative to you? Now, to be fair, they also do rail against Marxism, and they do acknowledge there is some good in stressing values in education (although I want nothing to do with their values) and some good in the competitive nature of capitalism. Are they conservative or liberal? I don't think a strong case can be made either way. They are, simply, lunatics.

Another example you gave was a group I have never heard of, the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Having never heard of them, I am less confident in what I say about them, so I am only going off their website here. Are you sure they are a white supremecy group? Here is what I see at their site:

We don't condemn minorities - we want the best for them, both from a compassionate Christian-point-of-view, and because if they escape from the cycle of poverty, drugs, and crime - then we too will be better off...
Discriminating against whites is as morally wrong as it is against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or anyone else...
The National Association for the Advancement of White People is a non-violent civil rights organization demanding: "Equal Rights for All Special Privileges for None"

Are they white supremecists? If so, they have a strange way of showing it, calling for equal rights for all and calling discrimination against blacks, hispanics, asians and anyone else morally wrong. Are they racist? It sounds like they may be to me, since it does seem as if they blame a lot of America's problems on non-whites. Yet, their stated goals are equal rights for all. It doesn't surprise me to find that of the groups you pointed me to, this would end up being the most conservative sounding, since conservatism is for equal rights for all. It is a liberal myth to believe otherwise.

So out of the four groups I have looked at as a result of our discussion, we have Aryan Action which is clearly socialist, we have the Nazi party which by your admission leans more to the left than right (although parts of their "platform" are conservative), we have the National Alliance which seems to hate both liberalism and conservatism, and we have the NAAWP which calls for equal rights for all. Yet, your original position was that clearly white supremecists find kinship with conservatism. I think I have shown that to be a misperception.

I just noticed that a few days ago I missed a few of your replies. I will go back and get to them as time allows.

"David Duke? You won't find him applauded here, but you will find him advocated on Overthrow.com"
...and supported by the Republican Party.

Quoting the Associated Press regarding Duke's failed attempt at running for Congress, "Running as a Republican even though the GOP has said it wants nothing to do with him, Duke becomes the eighth candidate in the May 1 contest."

I thought you said that you were interested in the truth? You see, it is precisely BS like this that gives credence to my assertion that liberals need to lie about Republicans, and it backs my original inclination to respond to you with hostility.

"If you talk about Americans dying for the cause of liberty, I will join you in saluting them. If you claim that the left has been respectful of them or has been more involved in actually taking part in such actions than conservatives, then you are putting forth a lie."
There have been just as many liberal Democrat soldiers who have died for this country as there have been conservative Republicans who have died. If you proclaim anything different, then you are putting forth a lie.

I would say that we really have no clue as to how many of our soldiers that died for this country were liberals or conservatives. So I would not say that putting forth that more of one group died than another is a lie. I would, however, say that asserting either way would be talking out of one's ass.

"If you say that conservatives want to keep the black man down, then you are putting forth yet another lie."
That's a ridiculous lie.

Once again, you prove that you have no interest in the truth, but instead need to promulgate a viscious untruth (that conservatives want to keep blacks down) to further your agenda. And you wonder why I respond with hostility to you, and dare to claim that you are interested in the truth?

Conservatives fought to prevent the passage of Title VII, preventing discrimination based on race.

Before I go back to a bit of the history of the battle to enact Title VII, let me ask you this. Which side now supports the tenets of Title VII, conservatives or liberals?

The legislative history of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially its famous section 703(j), is clear: it was intended to prohibit reverse discrimination and quotas. The Senate floor leader for the Civil Rights Act, Hubert Humphrey, declared that Title VII "would prohibit preferential treatment for any particular group," adding famously that if this proved not the case, he would eat the pages of the statute book where the Act appeared. "Do you want a society that is nothing but an endless power struggle among organized groups?" Humphrey asked. "Do you want a society where there is no place for the individual? I don't."
Neither did many other civil rights leaders. Frederick Douglass had opposed quotas back in 1871, writing that "equality of numbers has nothing to do with equality of attainment." Jack Greenberg of the NAACP said in the 1950s that "The chief problem with quotas is that they introduce a potentially retrogressive concept into the cherished notion of individual equality." And of course Martin Luther King held up a regime in which people were judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. [snip]
But, when it came time to choose sides on the California Civil Rights Initiative, which seeks to reestablish non-discriminatory principles with language virtually identical to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ACLU didn't even blink. It led the opposition in federal court the day after the election. ACLU executive director Nadine Strossen defends affirmative action as a "temporary" legal remedy for discrimination. Most amazingly, Strossen says she sees "no inconsistency between individual liberties and affirmative action." [Source]

It would seem that the positions conservatives now hold is more akin to what position liberals claimed was theirs back at the time of the legislation. Yet, you claim that conservatives now want to keep the black man down. I guess Herbert Humphrey wanted that too?

But let's get back to the history of Title VII a bit. Do you remember when during the campaign, Al Gore said that his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation? You are interested in facts, right? Al Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Not only did Gore Sr. vote against this act, but he also attempted to defang it by amendments. Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say "in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts."

So where were conservatives on the issue? Let's take that pariah of the left, Barry Goldwater. Goldwater voted against the Gore amendment. Goldwater eventually did vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its final form, and was forever branded a racist. His objection to it? He was afraid that the enforcement mechanisms would lead to a "police state". He was for the idea, but not the implementation. It was precisely the concerns of conservatives that Humphrey was trying to address when he said he would eat the act if it came to that. Goldwater, leading the conservatives, was unswayed. Time has borne out that his concerns were valid.

Yet liberals can't allow for the fact that a principled stand on the dangers of a particular implementation of an idea is about the implementation and not about the idea. It is much more convenient to demagogue the issue and brand conservatives as racist.

Yet even back then, the Republican party was the party of conservatives, as it had been for decades. And the Republican party voted 80% for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a much higher percentage than the Democrats.

Conservatives voted against civil rights reforms

Again, the winning margin for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 came from- Republicans. The party of Robert A. Taft and Barry Goldwater.

and against the right of black soldiers to die next to their white brethren. Conservatives like Lester Maddox and George Wallace fought to keep black kids out of white high schools. Conservatives rallied against, spit upon, and sent dogs to attack Martin Luther King and the thousands of whites and blacks marching with him to promote racial equality. Conservatives fought politically and physically to keep restaurants and offices segregated.

What you attribute to "Conservatives" in each case here is more accurate if you instead called them "White Southern Democrats". Yet, you don't hold it against Democrats but do hold it against conservatives, when in fact the views of today's conservatives are right out of the mold of Goldwater and Taft.

Conservatives refuse to review the law that punishes crack offenders (most of whom are black) 10 times more harshly than cocaine offenders (most of whom are white), even though the two drugs are the same substance.

They are the same drug but in different forms with different levels of addictiveness and therefore different impacts upon society.

However, if you are honest and spend some time at this forum, you will find that amongst conservatives, there is little consensus about drug laws.

I, for one, think that our war on drugs is about as smart and as efficient as Prohibition was. It wastes money, it encourages government infringements on our liberties, and it makes us jail many young people (regardless of skin color) and makes them a captive audience for the prison ministrations of Ramsey Clark and his radical, hate-America leftist "charity" outreach organizations.

Conservatives are opposed to Federal help for inner city schools attended mostly by exceedingly poor black children.

Indeed we are.

Until you grasp the fact that the reasons we oppose it are not because we want to keep poor black children down, then you are nothing but a shameless demagogue, lying (intentionally or not) about people like me- and that earns my hostility towards you.

Conservatives oppose Federal help because it is not the Federal government's proper role. Consolidating power upwards in the Federal government has a number of negative effects that I would be glad to explain to you, if you truly have the desire for the truth. You would not have to accept the arguments as being correct, but to be an honest person in my eyes you would have to accept that these are the reasons that people like me, conservatives, oppose items of this sort, and not racism or a desire to keep anyone down.

And even if you were to make that admission, and personally would drop your belief that conservatives are racists, it wouldn't make much of a difference. The left in this country has found too much success in race baiting. They will keep doing it, regardless of the truth, despite the fact that in doing so they are fostering the racial divisions that they claim they want to heal.

And conservatives like W. Bush try to cut funding in their own states for subsidized school breakfasts for kids (many of them black) who have no food at home.

There you go again with the typical liberal lie- any conservative who opposes a liberal program must be doing so out of racist beliefs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.