Topic: The Hatred in the Heart of White America
willing2's photo
Sun 04/28/13 03:46 PM




I like that ter, Bored. Black Panties. So fitting. One on one, dey be cowards.

The Black Panties and Fairycan hate whitey with a passion never seen in the Klan.

I don't defend Klan. I just haven't heard much hate speech from them as I have heard out of Shabitch and Fairycan.



I agree, the Klan do blend in better, the panthers and farrakhan tend to stick out and be more noticable,,,

And, much more terroristic than the new Klan.



I dont know of much 'terroism' from either modern group really,,, but Im sure the internet holds information on any group we are seeking information about,,,,

Shabitch,"Kill all whites and skin their babies."

When was the lat time you heard any white individual hollering to kill all Negros and skin their babies?

msharmony's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:00 PM





I like that ter, Bored. Black Panties. So fitting. One on one, dey be cowards.

The Black Panties and Fairycan hate whitey with a passion never seen in the Klan.

I don't defend Klan. I just haven't heard much hate speech from them as I have heard out of Shabitch and Fairycan.



I agree, the Klan do blend in better, the panthers and farrakhan tend to stick out and be more noticable,,,

And, much more terroristic than the new Klan.



I dont know of much 'terroism' from either modern group really,,, but Im sure the internet holds information on any group we are seeking information about,,,,

Shabitch,"Kill all whites and skin their babies."

When was the lat time you heard any white individual hollering to kill all Negros and skin their babies?



that is the black panther party, and that is an empty threat from a member for whom no evidence has been found to back that it would be carried out,,,,

to answer your question, they are in every race,,,,,,even 'white individuals'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnZv8PZaxG8

msharmony's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:05 PM
Edited by msharmony on Sun 04/28/13 04:08 PM

its a pointless debate because its so subjective, why go back only 20 years? why should I gauge my perception of threat on your or anyone elses timeline?


Because we are discussing what are the present dangers to the USA.

Who is currently promoting terrorism?

Now, if you wish to go back in time to count past acts of terrorism, then how far back is too far? How far back in time do you go until you leave the "present"? Thirty years? Forty years? Fifty years?

If it is acceptable to count acts of terrorism that took place 50 years ago, then it is acceptable to count acts of racism that took place 50 years ago, and if you do the latter, then you will discover that racism was synonymous with the Democratic Party.



who is currently promoting terrorism?

RADICALS,, from all types of groups,, racist groups, religious groups,,,etc,,,


racism and terrorism are seperate issues, although terrorism can result from racism,,,,

I could set up another thread on racism, but this thread was about how people perceive 'threats',,,,,

my timeline for accessing threat is defined by me, just as yours can be defined by you, and whatever that timeline is is as 'acceptable' as the timeline anyone else chooses to use,,,,

for the sake of this discussion on the perception of threat,,,


the truth is, if 'terrorism' is a threat, and it is,,,it is a rare threat, not too rare to be cautious about, but too rare to have an all out paranoid movement over it

and the truth is 'terrorism' comes in waves that are by and large political and social,,,,and those political and social radicals act out in ways that are terroristic

and the truth is,, the majority of such terrorism,, in 'current years' (the past decade or two,, for sake of argument' , have not been carried out by muslim radicals

so, for me, as a black person, I dont perceive this rare muslim radical threat with as much urgency as I do the political/social/racial radical

Toodygirl5's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:07 PM


bigotry comes in all forms and so does 'terrorism',, no gender, religion, or race has ownership over either bigotry or terrorism,,,or the terrorism that results from bigotry


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Dodo_David's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:17 PM


who is currently promoting terrorism?

RADICALS,, from all types of groups,, racist groups, religious groups,,,etc,,,


Exactly who besides Islamic jihadists is currently promoting terrorism?

willing2's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:19 PM






I like that ter, Bored. Black Panties. So fitting. One on one, dey be cowards.

The Black Panties and Fairycan hate whitey with a passion never seen in the Klan.

I don't defend Klan. I just haven't heard much hate speech from them as I have heard out of Shabitch and Fairycan.



I agree, the Klan do blend in better, the panthers and farrakhan tend to stick out and be more noticable,,,

And, much more terroristic than the new Klan.



I dont know of much 'terroism' from either modern group really,,, but Im sure the internet holds information on any group we are seeking information about,,,,

Shabitch,"Kill all whites and skin their babies."

When was the lat time you heard any white individual hollering to kill all Negros and skin their babies?



that is the black panther party, and that is an empty threat from a member for whom no evidence has been found to back that it would be carried out,,,,



Empty threat???????????????????????slaphead

If a white dude had screamed that on youtube, it would be called hate speech and demands for charges filed.

andrewzooms's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:28 PM



who is currently promoting terrorism?

RADICALS,, from all types of groups,, racist groups, religious groups,,,etc,,,


Exactly who besides Islamic jihadists is currently promoting terrorism?



In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Utøya island. As a result of his attacks, 151 people were injured, and 77 killed. Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500 page manifesto detailing that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, and identifying himself as a "Christian crusader"

During the twentieth century, members of extremist groups such as the Army of God began executing attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States



The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), a rebel group operating in Tripura, North-East India, has been described as engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.The NLFT is currently proscribed as a terrorist organization in India. It is classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, and has been accused of forcefully converting people to Christianity


Dodo_David's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:37 PM



bigotry comes in all forms and so does 'terrorism',, no gender, religion, or race has ownership over either bigotry or terrorism,,,or the terrorism that results from bigotry


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


Yep. People can be so bigoted that they project their bigotry onto others. People can be so focused on race that they start to see racism where there isn't any.

Meanwhile, during the last 20 years, which has killed more Americans, racial bigotry or terrorism?

Toodygirl5's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:50 PM


Yep. People can be so bigoted that they project their bigotry onto others. People can be so focused on race that they start to see racism where there isn't any.

Meanwhile, during the last 20 years, which has killed more Americans, racial bigotry or terrorism?



who is currently promoting terrorism?

RADICALS,, from all types of groups,, racist groups, religious groups,,,etc,,,


racism and terrorism are seperate issues, although terrorism can result from racism,,,,

I could set up another thread on racism, but this thread was about how people perceive 'threats',,,,,

my timeline for accessing threat is defined by me, just as yours can be defined by you, and whatever that timeline is is as 'acceptable' as the timeline anyone else chooses to use,,,,

for the sake of this discussion on the perception of threat,,,


the truth is, if 'terrorism' is a threat, and it is,,,it is a rare threat, not too rare to be cautious about, but too rare to have an all out paranoid movement over it

and the truth is 'terrorism' comes in waves that are by and large political and social,,,,and those political and social radicals act out in ways that are terroristic

and the truth is,, the majority of such terrorism,, in 'current years' (the past decade or two,, for sake of argument' , have not been carried out by muslim radicals

so, for me, as a black person, I dont perceive this rare muslim radical threat with as much urgency as I do the political/social/racial radical


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Dodo_David's photo
Sun 04/28/13 04:54 PM

Exactly who besides Islamic jihadists is currently promoting terrorism?


In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Utøya island. As a result of his attacks, 151 people were injured, and 77 killed. Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500 page manifesto detailing that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, and identifying himself as a "Christian crusader"


Here is an excerpt from a story published by the International Business Times:

Anders Behring Breivik placed himself potentially outside of religious Christianity in a 1,500 page manifesto he has reportedly admitted to writing.

"A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it," he wrote.

"If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian," he wrote.

Breivik's initial explanation comes in a segment of the manifesto entitled "Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom - reforming our suicidal church."

Later in the manifesto, when attempting to justify his "martyrdom operation" Breivik did not see himself as being religious.

"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment," he wrote in a section of the manifesto.


So, no, Anders Behring Breivik wasn't promoting the Christian faith.

msharmony's photo
Sun 04/28/13 06:18 PM



who is currently promoting terrorism?

RADICALS,, from all types of groups,, racist groups, religious groups,,,etc,,,


Exactly who besides Islamic jihadists is currently promoting terrorism?



have you not read? neo nazi groups, anti government groups, anti government militias,,,

radicals,,,,

msharmony's photo
Sun 04/28/13 06:19 PM







I like that ter, Bored. Black Panties. So fitting. One on one, dey be cowards.

The Black Panties and Fairycan hate whitey with a passion never seen in the Klan.

I don't defend Klan. I just haven't heard much hate speech from them as I have heard out of Shabitch and Fairycan.



I agree, the Klan do blend in better, the panthers and farrakhan tend to stick out and be more noticable,,,

And, much more terroristic than the new Klan.



I dont know of much 'terroism' from either modern group really,,, but Im sure the internet holds information on any group we are seeking information about,,,,

Shabitch,"Kill all whites and skin their babies."

When was the lat time you heard any white individual hollering to kill all Negros and skin their babies?



that is the black panther party, and that is an empty threat from a member for whom no evidence has been found to back that it would be carried out,,,,



Empty threat???????????????????????slaphead

If a white dude had screamed that on youtube, it would be called hate speech and demands for charges filed.




I gave an example of an abortionist who promoted killing 'ugly black babies',,,,,who probably fewer people have heard about than have heard about a black panther members nonsense,,,,



msharmony's photo
Sun 04/28/13 06:24 PM
Edited by msharmony on Sun 04/28/13 06:29 PM




bigotry comes in all forms and so does 'terrorism',, no gender, religion, or race has ownership over either bigotry or terrorism,,,or the terrorism that results from bigotry


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


Yep. People can be so bigoted that they project their bigotry onto others. People can be so focused on race that they start to see racism where there isn't any.

Meanwhile, during the last 20 years, which has killed more Americans, racial bigotry or terrorism?



perhaps when we have a 'war on racial bigotry' those numbers will be easier to track

but I dont really use a body count to assess threats,,,violence and actions on their face are where threat starts for me,,,

the serial killer who successfully murders 10 people before being caught is no less a threat to me than the one who is able to murder 100

the subsect of a religion who kill people for their cause are no more of a threat to me than a subsect of a population who can kill or hurt people because they look 'suspicious' or a subsect that can plot to take out innocent people because they dont approve of certain people having power that was once nearly exclusively theirs,,,,

etc



Ras427's photo
Mon 04/29/13 05:49 PM







It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion.

Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want."

This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley.

We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people.

But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter.

Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were?

There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast.

Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques.

The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger.

Mona Charen's column is released once a week.
Do you believe her?



well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies


but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road

the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us

we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,,

so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,,





Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist.

Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves.

No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature.









the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,,


slavery and jim crow were not human nature. they were accepted and institutionalized by governments.

slavery and jim crow cannot exist without the complicity of government.

people of all races arose and said enough is enough.

the macro level of racism that was acceptable due to government involvement has passed.

the micro level of racism that exists amongst certain individuals that work outside the boundaries of entire groups will never cease regardless of what you do.

people preferring to associate within their own race or ethnicity is human nature and will never change.







I will agree to disagree about what 'human nature' is,,, I personally believe racism is learned behavior,,, my personal observation of children who are very young is they just wanted to play with each other,, they saw each other as another 'child' instead of another 'race'....


people seek to belong, they are taught what 'groups' they belong in,,,,,,


I will also agree to disagree with your examples.

Do you think that whites learning diversity and blacks learning about how evil whites were during slavery and jim crow is the kind of learning that will end racism?



Truth must always be told regardless of the effect it will cause. Slavery and Jim Crow are American history. Will we remove those facts from the history books? Im sure some will try as its been done before. I know and understand that Mantattan island was not bought or sold for 24$, yet we as a society prefer that it be the accepted version as it helps ease the conscious as well as remove guilt for future generations. In other words, we as a society prefer the lie. I dont, iv taught my children the truth, and erasing, altering or rewriting our history will do little to teach other generations. Racism has nothing to do with culture, tradition nor tribal identity, nationalism only exalts the social, economic and political asperations of a people, RACISM is the exact opposite, to deny others of those rights. America is suffering from a severe after effect it created from her very foundation. Two things will bring racism to its knees, truth justice and equality, without those three total SEPERATION is whats left. Our country is headed for destruction. I for one urge the truth be told always, denying it to WHITEWASH history is ubsurd.

Ras427's photo
Mon 04/29/13 06:20 PM

I like that ter, Bored. Black Panties. So fitting. One on one, dey be cowards.

The Black Panties and Fairycan hate whitey with a passion never seen in the Klan.

I don't defend Klan. I just haven't heard much hate speech from them as I have heard out of Shabitch and Fairycan.
Then you obviousely are selective in what you choose to here. The Ku Klux Klan have merged into American society through various camaflaged outfitts. They have thrown away their silly costumes for suits and ties. The kkk was and still is a generic name for literally hundreds of WHITE TERRORIST groups set up to force the ex slave back "in his place" on the plantation. Today, SKINHEADS, KKK, NAZIS, ARYAN BROTHERHOOD, VOLKSFRONT, NATIONAL WHITE ALLIANCE, HAMMERSKINS NATION and other groups continue their mantra of race war. You must not have ever listened to the racist misfits on STORMFRONT who openly call for the extermination of all n@#1#rs, Jews and others. Oppisition or resistence to such recedeing thinking is quickly met with "reverse racism", however the fact is that racist whites dont deserve anything other then what they created.

Dodo_David's photo
Mon 04/29/13 06:29 PM








It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion.

Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want."

This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley.

We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people.

But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter.

Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were?

There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast.

Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques.

The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger.

Mona Charen's column is released once a week.
Do you believe her?



well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies


but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road

the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us

we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,,

so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,,





Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist.

Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves.

No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature.









the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,,


slavery and jim crow were not human nature. they were accepted and institutionalized by governments.

slavery and jim crow cannot exist without the complicity of government.

people of all races arose and said enough is enough.

the macro level of racism that was acceptable due to government involvement has passed.

the micro level of racism that exists amongst certain individuals that work outside the boundaries of entire groups will never cease regardless of what you do.

people preferring to associate within their own race or ethnicity is human nature and will never change.







I will agree to disagree about what 'human nature' is,,, I personally believe racism is learned behavior,,, my personal observation of children who are very young is they just wanted to play with each other,, they saw each other as another 'child' instead of another 'race'....


people seek to belong, they are taught what 'groups' they belong in,,,,,,


I will also agree to disagree with your examples.

Do you think that whites learning diversity and blacks learning about how evil whites were during slavery and jim crow is the kind of learning that will end racism?



Truth must always be told regardless of the effect it will cause. Slavery and Jim Crow are American history. Will we remove those facts from the history books? Im sure some will try as its been done before. I know and understand that Mantattan island was not bought or sold for 24$, yet we as a society prefer that it be the accepted version as it helps ease the conscious as well as remove guilt for future generations. In other words, we as a society prefer the lie. I dont, iv taught my children the truth, and erasing, altering or rewriting our history will do little to teach other generations. Racism has nothing to do with culture, tradition nor tribal identity, nationalism only exalts the social, economic and political asperations of a people, RACISM is the exact opposite, to deny others of those rights. America is suffering from a severe after effect it created from her very foundation. Two things will bring racism to its knees, truth justice and equality, without those three total SEPERATION is whats left. Our country is headed for destruction. I for one urge the truth be told always, denying it to WHITEWASH history is ubsurd.


There is a difference between teaching children about the way things were during an earlier century and teaching children to have bitterness in their hearts because of what happened to their ancestors.

Dodo_David's photo
Mon 04/29/13 06:33 PM
The Ku Klux Klan have merged into American society through various camaflaged outfitts. They have thrown away their silly costumes for suits and ties.


Yeah. The late Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. Then he put on a suit and tie and became U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV).

Ras427's photo
Mon 04/29/13 06:45 PM









It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion.

Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want."

This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley.

We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people.

But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter.

Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were?

There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast.

Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques.

The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger.

Mona Charen's column is released once a week.
Do you believe her?



well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies


but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road

the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us

we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,,

so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,,





Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist.

Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves.

No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature.









the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,,


slavery and jim crow were not human nature. they were accepted and institutionalized by governments.

slavery and jim crow cannot exist without the complicity of government.

people of all races arose and said enough is enough.

the macro level of racism that was acceptable due to government involvement has passed.

the micro level of racism that exists amongst certain individuals that work outside the boundaries of entire groups will never cease regardless of what you do.

people preferring to associate within their own race or ethnicity is human nature and will never change.







I will agree to disagree about what 'human nature' is,,, I personally believe racism is learned behavior,,, my personal observation of children who are very young is they just wanted to play with each other,, they saw each other as another 'child' instead of another 'race'....


people seek to belong, they are taught what 'groups' they belong in,,,,,,


I will also agree to disagree with your examples.

Do you think that whites learning diversity and blacks learning about how evil whites were during slavery and jim crow is the kind of learning that will end racism?



Truth must always be told regardless of the effect it will cause. Slavery and Jim Crow are American history. Will we remove those facts from the history books? Im sure some will try as its been done before. I know and understand that Mantattan island was not bought or sold for 24$, yet we as a society prefer that it be the accepted version as it helps ease the conscious as well as remove guilt for future generations. In other words, we as a society prefer the lie. I dont, iv taught my children the truth, and erasing, altering or rewriting our history will do little to teach other generations. Racism has nothing to do with culture, tradition nor tribal identity, nationalism only exalts the social, economic and political asperations of a people, RACISM is the exact opposite, to deny others of those rights. America is suffering from a severe after effect it created from her very foundation. Two things will bring racism to its knees, truth justice and equality, without those three total SEPERATION is whats left. Our country is headed for destruction. I for one urge the truth be told always, denying it to WHITEWASH history is ubsurd.


There is a difference between teaching children about the way things were during an earlier century and teaching children to have bitterness in their hearts because of what happened to their ancestors.
Truth is often bitter and, no one including you can define what truth should be taught nor what the effect will be. The victim of injustice will taste the bitterness of truth, but through that bitterness comes understanding. Only fools love those who have created that bitterness. The TRUTH only hurt the guilty, only the guilty wants truth silenced as it reveals a pattern. TRUTH DOES NOT CREATE BITTERNESS, TRUTH EXPOSES ITS ORIGIN.

Dodo_David's photo
Mon 04/29/13 06:57 PM
Edited by Dodo_David on Mon 04/29/13 06:58 PM










It was cool and rainy Sunday morning when the bomb ripped through the building. At 10:22, a group of children was just heading into the basement to hear a sermon at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. According to a Washington Post account at the time: Dozens of survivors, their faces dripping blood from the glass that flew out of the church's stained glass windows, staggered around the building in a cloud of white dust raised by the explosion.

Four girls were killed. The head of one little girl was found far from her body. Twenty-two others were injured. Wandering through his devastated church, the Rev. John H. Cross found a megaphone and asked the enraged and stunned crowd to disperse. "The Lord is our shepherd," he sobbed, "we shall not want."

This week, Congress marked the 50th anniversary of that terror attack by posthumously awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley.

We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people.

But when it comes to other groups and other motives for the same kind of terrorism — we lose our moral focus. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin have become honored members of the faculties at leading universities. Ayers is even the friend of the president of the United States. Regarding his own record of setting bombs that kill and dismember innocent people, Ayers told The New York Times on the ironic date of Sept. 11, 2001 that "I feel we didn't do enough ... (there's) a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance." So says a retired "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn't committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter.

Attorney General Eric Holder, asked whether three attacks on the United States (the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and Maj. Nidal Hassan) could be attributed to "Islamic" radicalism, refused to say so. Asked repeatedly whether religious motives played a role, Holder would say only, "there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions." Janet Napolitano has been quick to dismiss terror attempts as "one offs." Would Holder and Napolitano say the same about white supremacists? Each one had his own motivations and we can't surmise what those factors were?

There is a tendency among many on the left to temper their disgust and indignation at political violence (i.e. terror) if the terrorist is from the "correct" group. "Muslim ... means not being white" Peter Beinert writes in the Daily Beast.

Beinert and other liberals imagine that the U.S. is a cauldron of teeming racism with the lid barely kept down. At the first acknowledgment that Islamists (some, but by no means, all of whom are dark skinned) present a continuing threat, the lid will fly off and white American vigilantes, given permission, will start shooting black and brown people on the streets, burning their shops, and bombing mosques.

The hatred that Islamism preaches, lauds and inspires is a nuisance, liberals may concede. But the hatred in the heart of "white America" is the greater danger.

Mona Charen's column is released once a week.
Do you believe her?



well, I think the author makes an irrelvant point about the color or muslims,, they are all colors, as this past bombing exemplifies


but as far as danger, I think the human tendency is to deal with the 'danger' in front of us rather than the one around the road

the nature of being an american,, and living in the USA, means we are most closely affected by the racism within our own borders,,,,rather than the hatred others around the world may feel for us

we are much more impacted on a much more regular basis by the racism that happens inside our country, than we are by the terrorists who slip in form other countries,,,,

so, I dont compare danger as being 'greater', but I feel racism is the most 'present and clear' danger that affects our country,,,





Racism exists throughout the world. It has always existed and will continue to exist.

Humans have never escaped their tribal roots and they will always maintain a comfort zone amongst others that are similar to themselves.

No amount of forced diversity or political correctness is going to change human nature.









the abolishment of slavery and jim crow shows that we can evolve and change 'human nature',,,,,not that we will ever completely rid the world or the usa of racist ideals or perceptions ,, but we can stigmatize racist behavior , actions, words,, and stigma can reduce how often we see things occurring,,,


slavery and jim crow were not human nature. they were accepted and institutionalized by governments.

slavery and jim crow cannot exist without the complicity of government.

people of all races arose and said enough is enough.

the macro level of racism that was acceptable due to government involvement has passed.

the micro level of racism that exists amongst certain individuals that work outside the boundaries of entire groups will never cease regardless of what you do.

people preferring to associate within their own race or ethnicity is human nature and will never change.







I will agree to disagree about what 'human nature' is,,, I personally believe racism is learned behavior,,, my personal observation of children who are very young is they just wanted to play with each other,, they saw each other as another 'child' instead of another 'race'....


people seek to belong, they are taught what 'groups' they belong in,,,,,,


I will also agree to disagree with your examples.

Do you think that whites learning diversity and blacks learning about how evil whites were during slavery and jim crow is the kind of learning that will end racism?



Truth must always be told regardless of the effect it will cause. Slavery and Jim Crow are American history. Will we remove those facts from the history books? Im sure some will try as its been done before. I know and understand that Mantattan island was not bought or sold for 24$, yet we as a society prefer that it be the accepted version as it helps ease the conscious as well as remove guilt for future generations. In other words, we as a society prefer the lie. I dont, iv taught my children the truth, and erasing, altering or rewriting our history will do little to teach other generations. Racism has nothing to do with culture, tradition nor tribal identity, nationalism only exalts the social, economic and political asperations of a people, RACISM is the exact opposite, to deny others of those rights. America is suffering from a severe after effect it created from her very foundation. Two things will bring racism to its knees, truth justice and equality, without those three total SEPERATION is whats left. Our country is headed for destruction. I for one urge the truth be told always, denying it to WHITEWASH history is ubsurd.


There is a difference between teaching children about the way things were during an earlier century and teaching children to have bitterness in their hearts because of what happened to their ancestors.
Truth is often bitter and, no one including you can define what truth should be taught nor what the effect will be. The victim of injustice will taste the bitterness of truth, but through that bitterness comes understanding. Only fools love those who have created that bitterness. The TRUTH only hurt the guilty, only the guilty wants truth silenced as it reveals a pattern. TRUTH DOES NOT CREATE BITTERNESS, TRUTH EXPOSES ITS ORIGIN.


It isn't unusual for people to become bitter about what happened to their ancestors and then to take their bitterness out on innocent parties.

Ras427's photo
Mon 04/29/13 07:17 PM
There are no "innocent" parties as all have benifited. There is no justification for not telling the truth. No one condemns Jews and their telling the truth of their past plights. Their mantra of "never again" is loudly exalted whenever they gather, celebrate, or worship. The only differance is that they have the mechanics to proclaim and shout there mantra, as they should. TRUTH OF A PEOPLES HISTORY SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN, ERASED NOR DILUTED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES NO MATTER WHO IT OFFENDS.