Similar posts

So CAL Snowman #racist amren.com

Rand Paul forgets one MAJOR thing. Economic Freedom to blacks means something completely different than it does to Whites. To White people economic freedom means the freedom FROM government intervention with high taxes and obscene regulations, and the freedom to embrace personal responsibilities. Economic freedom to blacks means freedom FROM personal responsibility and freedom from having to provide for oneself. Of course the little black pea-brain student WANTS government involved in his life, how else is he going to get ahead? To that little pea-brain student the government is MAGIC and can produce money and material goods out of thin air. Why wouldn't he want the MAGIC government to help him? Of course he also knows that Whitey pays his taxes and that Whitey tax dollars get redistributed to his little black buddies through the government. He doesn't know how (it's magic to them) he just knows it works.

GROIDSSUCK and Jackson Jones & AntiNigWhiteBro #racist niggermania.net

(GROIDSSUCK): How interesting --- I wonder how the pea-brained pill peddler knows which pill (or how many) to give for which ailment....then again, they probably don't know or care (and neither should we)....anything to help those damnable niggers to die and drop off like flies is okay by me...let nature and their igmo-stupidity take their course over there...

(Jackson Jones): I bet those meds being exposed to direct sunlight for days on end does wonders for how effective they end up actually being. That being said, I bet the next related story is already being written about how street pharmacists are being machete'd to death and robbed by their fellow niggers.

(AntiNigWhiteBro): If we could be certain that the niggers eating these antibiotics like candy-- thus exposing themselves to stronger and more lethal (and incurable) infections, I'd say "Who cares?" But as we know, untold numbers of African jigs are pouring into Europe and North America constantly. And there's a strong possibility that they carry infections for which we have no cure. I'm not normally paranoid by nature but the risk of an African- (or Haitina-)borne pandemic is genuinely high.

Elder Lansing #fundie twitter.com

Dumbocrats don't know who they want to run against POTUS Trump in 2020. Do they go with bitter hateful racists like Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey? Do they go with the touchy feely Serial Molester Joe Biden???Either way you're still getting ran over by the Trump Train# MAGA

the Dirty Faggots troll, no doubt #fundie fstdt.com

THE FUCKING LIBERAL LEFT IS AT IT AGAIN!!!!!!! 3 DAYS AGO THE FUCKING DUMBOCRATS PASSED A BILL THAT WOULD LEGALIZE GAY MARIAGE AND SUPPORT THE GAY AGENDA. THIS HAS MADE ME SO SICK TO MY STOMACH I CAN BARELY TYPE RIGHT NOW.
FOR ANY LIBERALS HERE I ASK YOU FACE TO FACE. WHY THE FUCK CANT YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR CLOSED-MINDED MARXIST FUCKED UP MICROSCOPIC LITTLE BRAIN. MEN WHO FUCK OTHER MEN IN THE ASS ARE IMMORAL DO NOT BELONG IN OUR CHRISTIAN NATION. THIS IS ONE NATION UNDER GOD YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

PS: THERE IS NO FUCKING PROOF OF ANY GAY GENE SO SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU ASSHOLE LICKING MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!!

(one post later...)

YOU ARE ALSO FUCKING RUDE! YOU LIBERAL ATHEIST FUCKERS!!!

Wyatt Junker #fundie libertydwells.com

Atheism is to believe in the void.

The only true atheists I've seen are when I turn on the evening news and see rapists and murderers. Rapists and murderers hide their tracks so they won't get caught by society. But they don't believe there's an invisible cosmic force seeing what they do in private. Neither do they believe there's any recompense, neither now nor later. Atheism is nihilism.

It is rare to find true atheists, although they are a growing percentage. Atheism eventually leads to mental illness, antisocial behavior and at some point a life of in-the-moment carpe diem, the ultimate expression being selfish criminal activity. And at advanced stages, assault, rape, murder and drug addiction.

It is only when one begins to look at cosmic order and harmony and that the possibility of a Creator exists who will one day bring about justice on our lives here(and after here), that mental healing can occur. And with it, social order and community.

Socially, communism is a perfect example of this breakdown. Stalin's Russia led to state sponsored atheism which bled down to the people, destroying their will, incentive and drive. Even after the fall of the USSR in 1991, the rot of atheism had devolved into oligarchies of former KGB factions, criminal activity and former government thugocracies. The people simply did not have enough God belief culturally to allow them to be honest enough to confront their problems.

Atheism is for losers. Atheism eventually kills and destroys. Ironically, islam is very similar to atheism in that it believes in power only(through submission) and pursuing it in this life via the rise of the Caliphate. Islam believes in State power, which is why the left has joined forces with it. State power, coercion, totalitarianism whether through 'allah' or 'Obama', 'Stalin' or whoever, makes no difference. Faith is not required. Only force.

Thus atheism will always devolve into he who rules by might wins. Take what you want. 'Do what thou wilt' is the whole of the law. Whether by the sword of allah or the kalishnikov of Russia or the vote of one John Roberts upholding the bureaucracy, it is all force against the people that matters against the darkness of the night of the void, the State must come in to bring its imprimatur and assign it as law against heavenly, unseen law. The individual be damned.

I'd probably only vote for an atheist in name only. A real one like Obama or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad or Stalin or Charles Manson would eventually be too much to bear just like body odor is too much to inhale when an armpit is pressed into one's face all day, the smothering of the nanny state and its demands.

GOP Tea Pub #fundie gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com

Ahhhh you poor poor delusional moronic douche canoe. It is truly sad that people LIKE YOU have access to the internet and refuse to do any actual research. Then have the audacity to post BS statements that have ZERO actuality to them. But, let me just school you and show you EXACTLY how asinine you and those that follow and believe you, truly are. Those that know the truth are laughing at you and your followers…laughing hysterically as a matter of fact. It must be painful to be that out of touch.

Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button….
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “exclusive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th
Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to
all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides
Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell
and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a
Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by
Republican Congress

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell
of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to
vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups
which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871 After violence against
Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S.
troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists
seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated
administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875Civil Rights Act of 1875,
guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race,
signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican
support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat
President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act,
which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new
state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing
African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes
constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans
in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans
would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by
U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate
Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by
Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native
Americans

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time
Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the
Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife
of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the
White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition
to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black,
appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden
until after confirmation

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls
for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in
office, FDR refuses to order it.

August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry
Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and
criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima
bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a
friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing
of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s
three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential
nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown
v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in
Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of
Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights
leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican
Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from
Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President
Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR
to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs
Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour,
around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff
of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American
schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV)

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights
Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority
of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern
Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of
them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on
Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois,
to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally
rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order
authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan
establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal
education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan
Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of
Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably
with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The
most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious
appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population…so the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to
lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common
sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition
their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies
in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil
rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website,
to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights
movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the
same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is
not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is
accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post
1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft,
Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists
retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly
galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is
that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted
the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of
what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at
the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan
documentary) for input.
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to thoseacts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64
act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the
integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the
“private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater
believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only
to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to
refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was
because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt
many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed
Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian
who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights;
it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was asupporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate
Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy”
based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George
Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace
was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP.
The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of
Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched
to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc
etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because
they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to
segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small
government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted
less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states
to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan,
sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were
*integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution
and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited
government principles.

And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

So, there you have it. YOU are WRONG. YOU are UNEDUCATED. YOU refused to do RESEARCH. YOU look like a FOOL. Next time, try actually looking something up, instead of blatantly spewing lies and expecting people to believe you. BUT, if you need more clarification…I have that too, because I, unlike you, am not afraid to search for the truth.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DID NOT SWITCH SIDES ON RACISM By Frances Rice

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: “the parties switched sides”, a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article: “Detroit: The Moral of the Story” by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans. Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans. In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics.”

The racist Democrats of the 1950’s and 1960’s that Republicans were fighting died Democrats. One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white. Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.”

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment.” Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him. Below is Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975. He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat. In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.” After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said: “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The “Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet. Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense. Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

The Claremont Institute published an eye-opening article by Gerard Alexander entitled “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, an analysis of the decades-long shift of the South from the racist Democratic Party to the racially tolerant Republican Party. That article can be found on the Internet.

Another article on this subject by Mr. Alexander is entitled “Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?” and is posted on the Internet.

More details about the history of civil rights can be found in the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that can be found on the Internet.
An excellent video about civil rights history entitled “A pebble in Your Shoe: Why I am a Republican” by Dr. James Taylor is posted on YouTube.


Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.in

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the
Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in
the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian
who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University.
As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is
only the second person to serve as president of the three major
professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians,
American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku
Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon
of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of
the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who
was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was
not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in
reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat….
My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic
party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux
Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by
Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a
Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every
Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders
black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive
statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the
interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who
desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the
Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state,
reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial
subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of
terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted
on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a
victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi -
assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his
wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican
club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up
Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page
186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed
Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where
Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150
persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel
Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly
with black customers.“

Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/


Care to try again? I will be waiting for your response of hyperbole and rhetoric with no facts. I also doubt you lack the balls to post this info on your own wall, lest you look more like a fool. The golden part is, the notes will show my response and the TRUTH will once again be out there. This is what you call: game, set, match. Buh-bye!!

Mychal Massie #racist wnd.com

Many blacks felt they were owed special dispensation because of slavery and Jim Crow, and whites on both sides of the aisle agreed with them. Even though Democrats fought against it, Lyndon Johnson, owing to the indefatigable efforts of Republican Everett Dirksen and his fellow Senate Republicans, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it was President Nixon who ushered in race-based affirmative action. Blacks were given special entrance to universities and colleges based on skin color and quotas. This was later concealed under the cloak of diversity, but, in reality, it was still skin color and quotas. Employers were forced under penalty of law to have the correct color-coded balance in the workplace. And that extended to management positions. Standards were lowered to ensure those blacks who were not qualified would be employed and promoted.

Penitence has been made for slavery and Jim Crow. But, not unlike the retail customer who refuses to be satisfied, I believe there comes a time when we must give those who refuse to be satisfied the option of going elsewhere. Yes, I’m saying what you think I am saying. If, despite, America’s best efforts, blacks argue they are not treated fairly, that they are not given the same opportunity to succeed that whites are, if bad decisions that result in bad outcomes are the fault of white society, why stay here?

If blacks are so mistreated, if the realities of life that beset people of every description are more onerous because of white people here in America, why stay?

According to Sails, it is an act of disdain for blacks that leads to a white Santa Claus and a white Jesus. According to people like Sails, white people are happy that blacks aren’t living long enough to “grow old.” Jeremiah Wright uses God’s name in vain as he condemns America. Louis Farrakhan, Wright and even Obama have stated that America brought terrorism on herself because of her mistreatment of peoples of color. There’s Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the New Black Panther Party and the media, who are the pre-eminent expositors of the unfair treatment of blacks. There’s no way to get around it. Literally not a day goes by that blacks in America do not complain that they are mistreated and denied because of the color of their skin.

If that is truly the case, why do they stay here? Why not leave and go where they will be happy? Why not leave and go to a country where “true” opportunity exists? A place where they are taken care of and provided for better than they are in America?

It’s a conundrum to me as to why a group of people – who supposedly are as mistreated and persecuted as blacks are in America – would want to stay here. Let them leave, and let them take liberals, socialists and the Obamas with them. Because it’s obvious that America cannot satisfy any of them.

Let them go to Liberia. Maybe they can do more with it than Marcus Garvey was able to. But by all means, let them leave here, so that We the People who love America and what she represents can live in harmony enjoying the traditions that made her the envy of the world.

But alas, they won’t do that. They’ll stay here and spread immiseration and complaint because, in truth, they understand there is no other nation that will work as hard as America has to accommodate their malcontent.

Angry Harry #fundie angryharry.com

Well, in general, if men begin to see women as their adversaries rather than as their comrades, and a battle ensues, then the men will win hands down. The women will have no chance of succeeding.

The only question of real interest is, therefore, will there be such a battle? And the answer to this is that it is probably already taking place. The Men's Movement is NOT a major power player in this battle, as yet, but it will be.

For the moment, the battle is mostly taking place at the level of the individual (divorce, violence, avoidance of marriage, promiscuity, homosexuality) and it has been going on for some time.

But when enough men begin to realise that many of the world's problems arise because of the dissatisfaction of men, and they consider ways in which this might be best alleviated, the subjugation of women while increasing their number would seem to have a lot going for it - particularly given that most men on the planet would quite readily take to such an idea.

And even those who initially dissented could probably be persuaded to change their minds without too much effort.

Thus, and for example, it would not surprise me at all if men's psychology led them to create circumstances which allowed them to access a veritable harem of women whenever they wished to do so.

After all, the technology (e.g. the internet) will enable their psychology to have a huge impact. Future biological techniques will allow them to create females to specification. And globalisation will ensure that there is no escape and no alternative to a male-dominated landscape.

Indeed, the required male psychology is already in place, the appropriate technology is getting there, globalisation is progressing quickly, and appropriate biological techniques are not that far away.

So what, exactly, is likely to prevent men in the future from, say, breeding women like they breed dogs and cattle?

Nothing, it seems to me.

Supporting feminism will probably turn out to be the biggest mistake that western women have ever made. They have betrayed the very men who sacrificed much of their being and who worked and fought so hard in order to protect and care for them and themselves, and who have managed to provide the west with all the luxuries and benefits to which its peoples have grown so accustomed.

Compared to western men, western women have contributed very little to the stunning progress achieved in their societies and, currently, by supporting feminism they seem to be doing their damnedest to destroy what their men have achieved.

And when enough western men recognise that the current contributions of women, in the main, are more than offset by the problems that they are causing by their selfishness, I cannot foresee any other outcome than the one alluded to above; unless men simply continue to look on unthinkingly, and allow their societies to crumble and decay without any concern even for themselves - which, of course, might happen.

Cone of Shame #announcement fstdt.com

Having done my serious review of the code, I'm going to bump the full reworking of the site up rather than trying to get a handful more features added into what already exists. The code works, but that's about the extent of it, aside from search which I've completely re-written and some of the core quote retrieval code there's little to salvage in what I have.

But, the bits of good news:
*User accounts won't be removed, I have control over the data and can port accounts to whatever I need to.
*I'm going to do some improvements to general lay out, but I will keep the relatively simple layout because it works on damn near anything. Just some rounding or nicer menus. Maybe even a "Change your archive" selection that's actually visible.
*Friendlier URLS will be a thing, and I'll do my damnedest to continue to support core existing URLs. I don't see any reason I can't keep them as of now.
*The crux of my implementation is going to be tags, particularly in seeing if I can get them to work along with some of the key technology improvements I've been eyeing.

There are a few other smaller bits that I'm looking at working in based on people's suggestions, and I intend to have at least a high level specification for what I'll be producing for public consumption and critique before I start getting into the heavy lifting. But the core of this is, unless it's a bug fix it'll come along with the new version. I'll take reports of bugs and deal with them as they come up, but I've been fighting the urge to make myself a cone of shame as I looked over what I'm working with after four years of professional development, so it's not getting any more work done for it.

chuck in st paul #fundie moonbattery.com

"Adults recognize there are crazies on both sides." - Anonymous [a concern troll]

No. Our 'Side' is rational conservatism. That automatically excludes crazies of any stripe. The Left is by definition, crazy.

Insanity; def: doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome each time.

Marxist, redistributionist, thugocracies have been tried many times down though history. They always fail for the same basic reasons. Modern Leftists keep trying to make it work again and again. Fail. QED: crazy. Therefore, not 'us'.

Bomb throwing, killing, etc. is not a rational conservative response to a political issue. Therefore, not 'us' even if they call themselves Christians, etc.

So, there are NOT crazies on 'both sides'.

Rod Dreher #wingnut theamericanconservative.com

Hundreds of “anti-hate” protesters took to the UC Berkeley campus tonight to protest Ann Coulter’s speech, and to try to prevent people from going in to hear her. Look at this:


Andy Ngo

@MrAndyNgo
Left-wing protesters at @UCBerkeley form a human wall with linked arms to block others from entering the @AnnCoulter speech earlier tonight.

Embedded video
4,420
12:36 AM - Nov 21, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
4,302 people are talking about this
Yes, it’s Berkeley, but you know as well as I do that if right-wingers were forming a human wall preventing people from going to hear a prominent left-wing speaker, it would be on all the national news outlets, and we would be talking about the Coming Crisis Of Fascism. But as it is, this is just another day in progressive America.

Seriously, what if a mob of white people at a major American university banded together to prevent people of color and their allies from going into a hall to hear Ta-Nehisi Coates speak? How do you think our media would frame it? They would report the hell out of it, and they should report the hell out of it, because a mob preventing anybody from going to hear someone speak is un-American, and a serious violation of our traditions. This should not happen in America, and especially not at a university.

But like I said: just another day in progressive America.

Here police have to escort students in who just want to hear a campus speaker. Otherwise, they might be beaten up by the mob of peace-loving progressives:


Anjali Shrivastava
@anjalii_shrivas
Attendees are escorted by police into Wheeler Hall. T-minus 20 minutes until the event officially starts! #CoulterProtest

Embedded video
8
10:42 PM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Anjali Shrivastava's other Tweets
Look — but better not play this at work. The enraged mob chants, “F–k Ann Coulter!”

Ann Coulter entering Wheeler Hall with escorts

Also: two helicopters above Berkeley pic.twitter.com/aYcBJjP7TP

— Марк (@not_mapk) November 21, 2019

What is it going to take to fight this? It’s so exasperating how little people in this country care about the fact that left-wing mobs are taking our liberties from us, and our political leaders — including Donald Trump — are doing nothing about it. Barely even talking about it. I honestly don’t get it. We should not be living in a country where people who want to go hear a speaker have to be protected by police simply to get into the hall. You know what this looks like?

That’s a History Channel screenshot of an image of the Little Rock 9, black high schoolers who, in order to exercise their constitutional right to go to class, had to be accompanied by, and protected from the racist mob by, US soldiers. It was a disgrace to this country — a different sort of disgrace, because it had to do with race hatred, but nevertheless a similar disgrace to what happens at Berkeley, in that a fanatical mob attempts to stop free people from going to hear a speaker of whom they disapprove.

We know that the US media do not care about things like this. Look at how quickly they sided with the mob against the Covington Catholic boys, simply because the boys were wearing MAGA hats, and (therefore) fit the left-wing narrative. But what about the rest of us? Why don’t the rest of us care? I’m not interested in hearing Ann Coulter speak, but I am very, very much interested in fighting the mob culture that seeks to shut down speakers like Ann Coulter, in part by howling curses at, and attempting to humiliate, Americans who are interested in what she has to say.

If you think this is going to stay in Berkeley, you’re mistaken. This mob action might not spread to places outside of the coasts, but here’s what’s going to happen: those young people who join the mobs, they are going to graduate and move into the institutions of American life. They are going to carry their militant illiberalism, including their contempt for free speech and open discourse, into those institutions, and are going to do their damnedest to institutionalize them. One thing I have learned from the past few months spent studying Soviet-bloc communism: watch the intellectual class. It is a very big mistake to think that what they say and do only matters in the shadow of the ivory tower. They are the ones who produce the ideas that are eventually spread through society. If you don’t care about this stuff when it happens now, on campuses, you had better prepare yourself to be made to care later, when graduates of these campuses are setting corporate policy, or serving as gatekeepers to the institutions you want your “deplorable” kids to get into. This is not a joke.

UPDATE:More “Watch The Intellectuals” news, this time from Syracuse University, which has been going through a spasm of alleged racist threats. Read on:

Syracuse University Chancellor Kent Syverud told the university’s student senate on Wednesday that the latest episode of racist activity on campus was likely fake, following protests and criticism from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

“It was apparent that this rumor was probably a hoax, but that reality was not communicated clearly and rapidly enough to get ahead of escalating anxiety,” Syverud said Wednesday.

But:

At a campus forum later Wednesday, student protesters called for Syverud’s resignation and walked out when he wouldn’t promise to sign onto all their demands as written, according to news accounts. They marched to his house, chanting, “Sign or resign!”

On Thursday, Syverud announced he had signed on to “nearly all” of the demands, including mandatory diversity training for faculty and staff and $1 million to change the curriculum in order to better address diversity.

So, a likely hoaxer and his allies bullied the administration of this university into paying a million dollars to teach propaganda, and to compel teachers and staff to undergo political re-education. From what was likely a hoax.

Again and again: why aren’t Republicans talking about things like this every damn day?

UPDATE.2: A reader points to this passage from a local Berkeley paper’s story on the protest:

However, [UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo] Bennett said she was “sympathetic” to students concerned about the heavy presence of police in riot gear around Wheeler.

“I totally understand that,” she said. “We did messaging to impacted groups that felt the presence of police caused them anxiety.” [UC Berkeley spokesman Dan] Mogulof echoed Bennett. The concerns were “understandable on a lot of different levels,” he said. “We have work to do to continue to find ways we can accommodate profound differences of opinion. We believe we have met our obligations to both free speech and the rule of law, and to provide for the safety and well-being of students and campus guests,” he said. “Having said that, I understand that students are deeply disturbed and unsettled by someone whose views they deeply disagree with.” He said counseling and other services are always available to students.

Unbelievable. The authorities here — the police chief and the university spokesman — sympathize with the mobbed-up students whose fanaticism and violence required police presence so that a conservative speaker could address those who wanted to hear her. No wonder the First Amendment is losing. The authorities pity the tyrannical mob.

Brian Niemeier #wingnut brianniemeier.com

If you want sterling example of top-down social engineering, look no further than the death of the western.

The western genre dominated novels, magazines, comics, and movies for decades. Contrary to common misconceptions, westerns never faded in popularity. One day, the word came down that westerns were over. These days, this once noble genre is a haven for vanity projects by over-the-hill actors.

Our overlords hate the western. Gary Cooper's iconic 1952 film High Noon shows why.

[...]

Internet pundits are fond of declaring various films from Network to The Muppet Movie to be parables of our troubled times. In the case of High Noon, the parallels are chillingly accurate.

Here we have a town facing an existential threat. A gang of rootless sociopaths is coming to take over and bring in every vice and racket under the sun. The people know exactly the kid of fate they're in for. They suffered the same tyranny before and only freed themselves after a long, bloody, and hard-fought struggle.

Now the man tasked with defending the town from descending into a thugocracy comes around asking for volunteers to help him fight the invaders. One by one, they all say no.

The soggy denizens of the local saloon actually welcome the gangsters. They look forward to enjoying the debauchery Miller will usher in.

Both of Kane's remaining deputies are willing to help at first. But one makes his help conditional on taking Kane's job when the fight is over. Knowing that anyone so venal isn't worthy of the responsibility, Kane rejects his offer. His other deputy stands firm at first but backs out when nobody else shows up.

The congregation of the town's church vocally supports Kane. At first, I thought we might actually see Christian men fighting in defense of their homes and families. No such luck. Cowards masquerading as Kane's friends, enabled by a milquetoast preacher, rationalize taking the cowardly way out with legalistic rhetoric and BoomerCon style buck-passing.

Even Kane's new bride decides to abandon him because she swore off all violence and became a Quaker after seeing her father and brother shot dead.

Meanwhile, a Mexican immigrant who openly hates the town prepares to move on after extracting all the value she could.

It's not hard to see today's death cultists and popcult paypigs in the degenerate saloon patrons. They're the fifth columnists eager to open the gates for usurpers in exchange for a fix.

The deputies and the judge who turn their backs on the problem perfectly represent our corrupt law enforcement and court system. Today the authorities are too busy making up crimes to prosecute innocent citizens for to go after real criminals.

Reverend Millstone is the picture of a Church hierarchy that's so out of touch they don't even know there's a problem, much less how to tackle it.

Like I mentioned before, the cucks in the congregation who whine that they pay their taxes so they don't have to fight outlaws are Conservative leaders who stand on principles that somehow always mean giving the Left everything they want.

I trust that the woman who marries a man only to abandon her husband the second the chips are down needs no further exposition.

Hanakai #fundie feministcurrent.com

There have always been crimes and perversions, but the crimes and perversions are far, far worse and more common today than they were thirty, fifty, eighty, a hundred years ago. Pornography has, to my mind and according to the data, been a HUGE factor in the proliferation

Anal sex, much less anal rape, was not something in the realm of our consciousnesses when I was in high school. Now, the boys coerce or pressure girls for anal. The Yale chant of "No means yes and yes means anal" is a creature of the Millennial demographic and Age of Porn.

Porn is not the only factor. Rapid technological change and the predations of late-stage capitalism lead to widespread anomie and the breakdown of community. The teaching of such idiocies as queer theory and transgender normalism, the cultural adoption of the homosexual male sexual practices and norms, a general loosening of standards of honor and decency and goodness, the failure so far of humans to adapt wise sexual mores to the new material reality of The Pill giving women and other humans the ability to control fertility for the first time in history --- these and many other factors play into the remarkable depravity of these times.

Having watched things for several decades, it seems that there has been a huge regression in women's consciousness as a whole. Looking at popular culture with its stripper feminism and its support of porn and prostitution, it seems that rights earlier feminists won are being eroded and the cultural pendulum has swung to a severe hatred of women.

The social media, computers, ubiquitous screens have made modern young stupider than older generation; attention spans are short; the ability to think rationally or critically is impaired; mental illness has become the norm; research shows today's young are 40% less empathetic than two decades ago. . Not good on the individual or species level.

Knowing the importance of naming and language, earlier feminists and our foremothers struggled to have adult women referred to as women, instead of as girls, broads, hens, b*tches, c*nts, whores, sluts, etc. These slurs are ugly, they help normalize misogyny and perpetuate sexism. Many of these words should be retired or fade from the language as our consciousness evolves.

But what do young women do? They call themselves sluts and start a campaign called Slutwalk in which they dress like bordello workers and parade around in their underwear, while hordes of male perverts show up to watch, film and photograph. Ugh.

When was the last time men protested or ran a campaign or movement in their underwear???

I would like to have more hope for the god-awful human species, but the objective signs are not positive. C'est la vie.

Westboro Baptist Church #fundie godhatestheworld.com

Chile's Filthy Manner of LifeThe Araucanians (or Mapuche) – A tribe of Indians who are the natives of Chile, are a filthy bunch of people. God Hates the Araucanians or as they call themselves “The People of the Land”. Yes, they are earth dwellers, and proud of it! They are that regions answer to our “native americans”, and they are as perverse in all respects, enough said on that topic.

Santiago, Chile is their largest city (c. 6 Million people) and is full of every vice you would like. It seems they cannot decide if prostitution is legal or not in this country; it is best described that while prostitution is alright, “bordellos” are not. Whatever! Drugs more your thing? Whatever you want, they got, like any large city. That results in the known cases of HIV/AIDs being truly unknown. You have to love how God deals with the rebels of this world!

Divorce is legal (as of late 2004) in Chile. The rest of the Western Hemisphere was mocking them for being the last to legalize it. In reality, these brutes have been practicing it for centuries. 73% of these Spanish speaking God-haters claim to be Catholics, and in practice they show they are like all other Catholics the world over, i.e. pedophile enabling, discontented swine. Get real, God hates Chile.

Abortion is illegal in Chile, but never fear, on 5/28/09 the filthy waves of whores in Santiago launched a hotline for little baby killers to call. They have a website which even gives very specific information on “the morning after” pill(s). See what these bloody murderers do is anchor their ships on the water outside of the nations (like Portugal for example) and then get information (underground mostly, you know how these criminal witches can talk their fool heads off to one another) to the whores about how they can safely get to these ships and pay a fee to have their little babies murdered. They do their dirty deeds and think God does not see/hear/know what they are up to? If you don’t believe us, just check out their website: http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1945-en.html

Fags were given the right to sodomize Chile in 1998, but the fags are whining like their favorite chew toy was destroyed over not getting the same legal recognition as hetero couples. Just wait five minutes and these perverts will give them over to you. Have I mentioned recently that God Hates Chile? In a 2004 article on the topic the reporter proclaims that television and other media had begun putting a positive spin on the whole “it’s okay to be gay” lie. Once you get the media on your side, the rest is history.