Differences Between Civil Rights Movement of 1963 and Today’s Illicit Nonsense is Stark

Comparing the wholly American and sensible demands issued by the real civil rights movement during the event that saw Martin Luther King deliver his “Dream” speech in August of 1963 to the mishmash of self aggrandizing nonsense belched forth by today’s “BlackLivesMatter “movement” reveals a startling difference and exposes today’s protesters to be disjointed, illogical, filled and with race-hate not to mention insensate and childish.

When King mounted the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in that great American moment to begin to change forever how Americans treated its black citizens he didn’t do so alone. He stepped out to give his soaring “I Have a Dream” speech backed by hundreds of key members of the burgeoning civil rights movement, organizers who themselves were backed by hundreds of thousands of Americans, black and white, spread all across the country.

Before that great rally in Washington in 1963, the civil rights movement had already coalesced into a concerted effort replete with demands that they hoped would bring relief to millions of Americans yearning to be as free as the rest of the country.

At the August 28 march, dubbed the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom,” demands were issued that were almost to a point entirely in keeping with the American ethos, highly logical, Constitution-based, and reasonable. Not only that, but at one point in the list, organizers went out of their way to include whites.


The Demands: Page four of the original committee
program for the 1963 civil rights march on Washington.

In only a few instances the demands were skewed toward an un-American socialism, but the bulk of them were wholly in keeping with our national character and our rule of law.

The list of demands included the demand that Congress pass meaningful civil rights legislation; the elimination of racial segregation in public schools; the passage of a law prohibiting racial discrimination in public and private hiring; and an Executive Order banning discrimination in all housing supported by federal funding.

These demands were from people who only wanted to be treated as equals in society, people who just wanted a chance to make their own way in life unhindered by government sponsored oppression.

In only two instances the demands were not in keeping with American ideals. In the one case the protesters wanted a $2 an hour minimum wage–a minimum wage being a socialist, not a proper capitalist policy. And in the other they wanted a public-works program to provide jobs for unemployed workers. This is also not an endeavor in which government should ever engage. Government does not make jobs. It only burdens taxpayers with undue spending.

To be sure, both these points were ideas that many left-wing Americans and Democrats would have then taken as proper roles for government then, but they weren’t proper American actions in WWI, they weren’t in the Great Depression, not during WWII, nor the era of The Great Society just as they aren’t today. Still, this is mild criticism of the goals of the civil rights protest movement in 1963.

Further, it should be noted that the demand for the jobs program–despite that it isn’t a proper role for an American government–were formulated to include both “the Negro” and Whites.

Ultimately, the protest in 1963 was righteous and entirely peaceful quite despite the fact that protesters were trying to stop the lynchings, false imprisonments, and oppression of a single segment of the American polity that had been ongoing for some 200 years.

Now comes the BlackLivesMatter/Furgeson/ICan’tBreathe/Eric Garner (et al) protests. In contrast to those of 1963, these protests are built on lies.

In the case of Ferguson, Mike Brown wasn’t “murdered” by a white Missouri police officer, nor was he an “innocent” or a “gentle giant.” He was a criminal who had just committed a strong arm robbery and seconds before he was shot he had physically attacked the officer and tried to take away the man’s gun.

In the case of Eric Garner, he wasn’t “murdered” by New York cops with an illicit “choke hold.” He died because he was an unhealthy, obese man who couldn’t take the physical action of resisting arrest he had initiated.

Yet, these two incidents launched several violence-filled months that have resulted in disparate groups issuing all sorts of infantile manifestos and demands, none of which are either logical or in keeping with the American ethos.

In fact, the only known national leader of these groups is Al Sharpton, a shakedown con man who has a history of inciting violence, lying, abetting murders, tax evasion, theft and hucksterism.

Worse, though, are the “demands” issued by Sharpton and these other groups. These “demands” being made by the disparate protest groups are based on the fantasy that protesters can force their version of “justice” by misusing the legal system to arrive at their own preconceived notion of what that means. Their only goal is to punish evil white people. Period.

To a group, these “demands” are filled with claims that white officers should simply be arrested regardless of guilt–the guilt is predetermined in their form of “justice.” Further, the protesters insist that the federal government step in and serve more of this illicit “justice” based on selfish desires of punishing evil white people instead of based on true justice as were those demands in 1963.

Sadly, they don’t really want justice as their “No Justice, No Peace” chant proves. They want retribution or revenge based on hate and emotionalism, not justice.

The civil rights movement of 1963 was legitimate in every way. What we have today is hate-based and illegitimate.

How Al Sharpton Rakes in Millions Not to Call Corporations 'Racist'
Yet Another Bad Surprise for Obamacare Users, Their Year-End Taxes Will Soar
  • Retired military

    Maybe more people would see things differently if we didn’t have so many strains at this time on safety nets put into place to help people.

    T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border-a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before. Not all these fears are irrational. The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century. If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole-especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan-it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.” – Obama, Dreams of my father

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Here’s all you need to know about today’s civil rights “leaders.”

    “Want to influence a casino bid? Polish your corporate image? Not be labeled a racist?

    Then you need to pay Al Sharpton.

    For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence.” http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/how-sharpton-gets-paid-to-not-cry-racism-at-corporations/

  • JWH

    Part of the difference is organization. The leaders of the 1960s civil rights movement were very savvy about public relations. The NAACP searched very carefully for a lead plaintiff to be the face of the movement before they chose Rosa Parks. The new generation doesn’t seem to have coalesced around a leader or group of leaders.

  • Commander_Chico

    I generally agree with Warner on this piece. On the one hand, there are too many protests trying to support or excuse social pathologies like crime and laziness.

    Some civil rights leaders and academics do address the problem of these social pathologies. Calvin Butts, Eugene Rivers and Glenn Lowry come to mind.

    On the other hand, even though black people commit more crimes per capita, they also get less fairly treated by cops and courts and get hammered more for small stuff. So it’s not as if there is full equality before the law, at least in the criminal courts.

    • Brucehenry

      Of course the 1960s civil rights movement was different than today’s, and of course Sharpton is no MLK, and of course Brown and Garner weren’t Emmett Till. But, also OF COURSE, your last paragraph is the point of “BlackLivesMatter.”

      No, the police brutality and bloodsucking that many black people must endure nowadays doesn’t compare to the lynchings and legal discrimination of the Jim Crow era, despite the exaggerated rhetoric of the protesters. But the rhetoric of “Don’t Tread on Me” and “watering the tree of liberty” is exaggerated too, and I don’t see Warner’s outraged article pointing out the differences between Obama’s America and King George III’s.

      Modern conservatives who play glowing tribute to MLK and the civil rights movement slay me since it was their rhetorical ancestors who opposed everything King tried to do back when he was trying to do it. And their selective memory! As if the line about “content of their character” was the only thing that ever came out of King’s mouth!

      Yes, King fought for the increase in the minimum wage — something Warner calls “anti-American” or was it “not properly capitalist” LOL — to $2.00/hr. That’s the equivalent of…guess how much? FIFTEEN BUCKS, just like today’s activists are asking for. And he was killed while TRYING TO ORGANIZE A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION for chrissake.

      • jim_m

        “Black lives matter” is on its face racist and demeaning to all other people. It takes as its premise that ONLY black lives matter and anyone who has expressed the sentiment that “ALL lives matter” has met with ugly hatred and bigotry from the left.

        And it was not the ancestors of the GOP that opposed desegregation and the Civil Rights Act. It was democrat John KKK Byrd who filibustered it. It was a legion of elected dems that set dogs and fire hoses on protestors. Try to rewrite history all you want but YOUR SIDE has always been the side of bigotry and hate and remains so today.

        • Brucehenry

          More yada yada sleight of hand. Conservative vs liberal did not equal Republican vs Democrat in the 1950s and 60s as anyone who was alive and sentient at the time well knows.

          Here’s some information for you about the “intellectual founder” of modern conservatism and the publication he founded and led for many years:

          http://www.alternet.org/story/155124/the_racism-conservatism_link%3A_%27national_review%27_firestorm_over_racism_calls_up_william_f._buckley%27s_troubling_legacy

          • jim_m

            Bruce responds with, “Oh look, a shiney!” Because he has no valid response to the fact that the dems of the 90s were the same dems as the 60s.

            Precious few people are as openly racist as they were I’m the 50s but the civil rights activists ( mostly not democratic) didn’t suddenly convert to the dems in the early 70s like you constantly claim.

            As recently as 2008 dems like Bill Clinton were joking about how Obama would have been serving them coffee, and Biden was remarking how unusual it was to find a clean articulate black man. Just because you are better at hiding your bigotry doesn’t mean that you are no longer a bunch of bigots.

          • Brucehenry

            Yada yada imaginary gotchas

          • jim_m

            Bruce has a new reply when he’s got nothing. Ignorant coward unwilling to defend his position.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are such unrepentant racists that they got over 90% of the black vote when they ran for national office. Black voters can tell the difference between a white politician who makes an unfunny joke or a clueless gaffe on the one hand, and a white politician who maintains a “friendly relationship” for over 10 years with David Duke’s campaign manager on the other.

            EDIT: Got anything to say about the National Review, the flagship publication of modern conservatism, and its founder Buckley?

          • Retired military

            I could care less about the Ballless Boehner’s boy in Congress. But since you want to mention David Duke and 10 years how about mentioning Jeremiah WRight and sitting in his church for 20 years. Oh wait Obama is a democrat so I guess that doesn’t count.

          • Retired military

            “Precious few people are as openly racist as they were”
            Except for folks like Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, my democrat relatives, etc etc.

      • Commander_Chico

        Correct. Where are the civil rights leaders working to help service workers now?

        They squander their efforts on things like Ferguson, which was so bad I suspect it was a false-flag operation to discredit civil rights protests. It was odd how the MSM inflamed that situation without disclosing the facts.

        • Brucehenry

          There are many, just not as noisy as Sharpton.

          I don’t think you appreciate how flawed that grand jury process was. The DA has admitted parading several witnesses in front of the grand jury who supported Wilson’s version who HE KNEW TO BE LYING.

          • Vagabond661

            I would like to read that story. Link?

          • Brucehenry
          • Vagabond661

            Ah yes as I thought. The witnesses who lied were found out by the physical evidence presented in the Grand Jury.
            Appreciate it.

          • Brucehenry

            It is a violation of legal ethics for a prosecutor to knowingly allow testimony he knows to be false to be presented to a grand jury.

          • Jwb10001

            But as the prosecutor explained he was damned if he did damned if he didn’t. If he had not allowed all the testimony those folks he knew were misinformed would have been on MSLSD screaming that they saw Michael Brown with his hands up on his knees being executed, but the racist prosecutor suppressed their “evidence”

          • Retired military

            Dman didn’t see JWB’s response which was about the same as mine.

          • jim_m

            I’m failing to see where Brucie has copped to the fact that he was calling for more of this fraudulent evidence to have been presented in the first place.

          • Retired military

            So when they weren’t called the MSM can say “There were witnesses and they weren’t allowed to present their stories which made the cops look bad’

          • jim_m

            So if they had refused to present the liars who claimed that Brown was kneeling on the ground when he was shot, who claimed that he was shot in the back while running away, you are telling us that you would have called it justice?? Lying POS. You know damned well that you would be outraged that the other side of the story wasn’t presented. You know damned well that you would be claiming that it was a total set up job that no evidence of your bogus and fraudulent meme was offered to the Grand Jury.

            Don’t lie to us now and say that it was wrong to present false evidence when you know that you were claiming that not enough of that evidence was presented in the first place.

          • Commander_Chico

            I’m not sure from that story the only ones lying supported Wilson’s story. Some appeared to support the other story.

          • Brucehenry

            No one the DA knew to be lying should have been presented to the grand jury. “Witness 40,” Hannity’s BFF, was one of only 3 witnesses who claimed Brown never had his hands up during the whole encounter. Wilson himself was one of the other two. “Witness 40” was also one of only two witnesses who claimed to see Brown “charging” at Wilson. The other one was Wilson.

        • Retired military

          They are too busy trying to scam businesses out of extortion money. You know like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

    • Retired military

      “On the one hand, there are too many protests trying to support or excuse social pathologies like crime and laziness.”
      THe OWS crowd to name one. Oh wait.Cheeko agreed with them.

      • Commander_Chico

        OWS was protesting the social and economic pathology of financiers robbing the world.

        • Retired military

          OWS was committing crimes and you supported them.
          Cheeko’s motto “the end justifies the means, especially when it is the end that I want”

  • GarandFan

    They keep up their bullshit “demonstrations”, there is going to be a backlash. Doesn’t have to be violent. You just pepper spray the assholes every time they show up on private property to disrupt lawful business.

    • Brucehenry

      Yes you should go with that. Nothing wrong with those optics.

      • jim_m

        Bruce condones lawlessness because he knows he will accuse anyone of being racist for expecting a black person to obey the law.

        • Brucehenry

          I condone civil disobedience

          • Vagabond661

            Sure civil. These people were anything but civl. Burning down de house is not peacful protesting.

          • Brucehenry

            “Burning down de house,” huh? What is that, an “ebonics” joke? Nice.

          • Vagabond661

            Why you go there? Racist much?

          • Brucehenry

            “The” not “de” there’s your difference. As you well know. Clumsy attempt to wiggle out of what you did.

            About as funny as most “ebonics” jokes. Good job.

          • Vagabond661

            Folks what we have here is a liberal being racist and projecting it on someone else.

            Do you think “de” implicates blacks, Bruce? If anything, it would be imitating a person from the Bahamas, mon. Like “Welcum to de bahamas, mon”. A quick google search, would turn up ebonics use of “da” for “the”. As in “welcome to da hood”.

            Rioters in Ferguson, et. al. burned down businesses, NOT HOMES, Bruce. That song popped into my head as I was writing my comment. I don’t sing it “burning down the house”. I sing it “burning down de house”.

            But hey, glad to know where your racist mind goes. Good job, racist.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure.

            But to be clear, I don’t think you’re a racist just because you made an ebonics joke, any more than I think Bill Clinton is a racist because he made a crass remark about Obama getting him coffee. Just don’t lie about it.

          • Vagabond661

            Well, to be clear, you are a liar….and a racist. But you are apparently fine with it if you are sticking to your lame argument.

            Just because you disregard facts don’t make you right. It just makes you a liberal.

          • Brucehenry

            the “He Who Smelt It Dealt It” school of racism-detection

          • Vagabond661

            Seriously elementary school playground argument? That’s the best you got? Wow….just wow.

            Scroll up and see who called who a racist first.
            “”Burning down de house,” huh? What is that, an “ebonics” joke? Nice.”

          • Brucehenry

            Yes. I smelt it and now you say I dealt it. It’s what conservatives do. LOL.

          • Vagabond661

            Wow. It means the person who detects it is the person who is actually doing it. Again. Wow. So clueless you type lol afterwards. Smh. Sad.

          • Brucehenry

            Wow indeed. Read the exchange again. What I was saying is that you were a proponent of the He Who Smelt It Dealt It school, genius.

            As are many conservatives. “Ha! Who me? I didn’t say anything about race! Liberals must be the real racists because they think about it ALL THE TIME.”

            It’s not my fault you are embarrassed to be caught telling an ebonics joke. If you are gonna tell ’em you should own ’em. Claiming that it had something to do with Talking Heads’ song “Burning Down THE House” is weak.

            Again, telling a bad joke doesn’t make you a racist. It just makes you insensitive and unfunny, but not necessarily racist.

          • Vagabond661

            You made a lame swipe at me using an ebonics reference which I wasn’t. You assumed “de” was about blacks which is racist, Then you keep up the lie because you got nothing. Hope that connects the dots for you. I can’t explain it any simpler.

            And again just because you make up your own facts, which liberals do when they are devoid of any argument, does not make you right. It makes you a dishonest, lying liberal who displays his ignorance willingly.

            Genius? I wear the title proudly. Thanks.

          • Brucehenry

            You should indeed be proud.

            Your denial is cute, especially the part where you say you aren’t talking about black people — just maybe people from the Bahamas LOL.

          • Vagabond661

            I guess you think everyone from the bahamas is black?

          • Brucehenry

            The vast majority are yes

          • Vagabond661

            And the other 15% have no accent? Or is it just the blacks, you racist.

          • Perhaps you should stop wrassling that pig?

          • jim_m

            You are the only one who made that connection.

          • jim_m

            Those who hear the dog whistle are usually the dogs.

          • jim_m

            I suppose it is now racist to say “da Bears!”

          • Very much indeed.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, and you would raise holy hell if they were actually arrested. You condone and amount of lawlessness as long as it advances your agenda. Seems to me that you were adamantly against it when it came to Bundy ranch. You don’t believe in civil disobedience. You believe in lawlessness and intimidation in the name of your ideology.

          • Brucehenry

            Heavily armed defiance is not civil disobedience it is rebellion.

          • jim_m

            They weren’t rebelling. No one was arrested. No one was accused of treason except by little tin pot fascists like you who think that the law, should not apply to their side but should be arbitrarily applied to others whether they break the law or not.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes refusing to comply with a lawful court order and then threatening to shoot any federal agent who attempts to enforce it, backed up by legions of heavily armed yahoos in paramilitary garb, is just Gandhi-style civil disobedience.

            Even you know the difference you’re just too stubborn and dishonest to acknowledge it. Do me a favor never type the word “hypocrite” again your keyboard’s liable to be struck by lightning.

            Still no comment on Buckley?

          • jim_m

            I never made any claim about they style. But the point is that you are claiming treason. Back it up buttercup.

          • Brucehenry

            I said “rebellion,” to be more accurate, not “treason,” but even if it ain’t rebellion or treason, it for damn sure ain’t “civil disobedience.”

            So are you going to defend the comments of the father of modern conservatism or ain’t you?

          • jim_m

            So it is not treason to start a rebellion? That’s a real bs parsing of words.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said, it might not be treason or rebellion, but it ain’t civil disobedience, as you claimed it was.

          • jim_m

            It was as much civil disobedience as Ferguson.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            I see. So black people cannot be expected to obey the lww, so it is OK if they burn and loot. But white people who stand in the way of the government seizing someone’s property are treasonous criminals.

            If only you could see how bigoted that is that you think blacks are incapable of civil behavior so you dumb down the definition to excuse their criminality

          • Brucehenry

            If that’s what you read in that link I am vindicated when I say you can’t fucking read. Try this one then you delusional moron:

            http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25418-where-were-the-soldier-cops-at-bundy-ranch

            What about Buckley, chickenshit?

          • jim_m

            Your link said that at Ferguson they were simple unarmed folk who were upset at a perceived racial injustice (a criminal black man was justifiably killed for attacking a police officer). The link claims that this is a sufficient excuse to cover the actions in Ferguson.
            At the same time it says that all actions with regard to Bundy ranch were illegal because they were white men with GUNS!!!!!! The latter fact being cause to claim that anything they did was illegal regardless of whether they actually did anything (which they didn’t)

          • Brucehenry

            Yep, you can’t fucking read. Especially these words: What about Buckley?

          • jim_m

            Last I heard he was dead.

          • Buckley did disavow his earlier stance and said he was wrong. You know that, right? Plus his original objection wasn’t race-based, but Constitution-based.

          • Brucehenry

            Didn’t read the link obviously, where it was explained his “admission” was more like a nonpology.

            His objection was “constitution-based” ha ha sure.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Preparing for a “demonstration” at the Bundy Ranch.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Yippee-ki-yay MF

          • jim_m

            SO? How many people were assaulted? How many businesses were destroyed (other than by the feds)? How much looting was there?
            This is a false equivalence.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            But still funny.

            As Aaron Rodgers of the Packers said earlier this season, “RELAX”.

          • jim_m

            In other words you are happy to promote a bogus false equivalence and then when you are called on it you will simply claim it is a joke. That’s pretty dishonest.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            You are obviously taking this far more seriously than me.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            More of an “all liberals must be vanquished” point of view.

          • jim_m

            More seriously than I 😉

            Yes I am.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            “More seriously than I”
            Oh, we’re doing petty things of that nature?
            Well, I stand corrected and will remain vigilant.
            By the way, I think one of your parentheses fell off, but forget it, as I would be jerk to point it out.
            In addition, as “than” is a conjunction, the use of “me” is acceptable, but I can see you are having fun, so please, by all means, continue.

          • jim_m

            It was a wink, as in I was being humorous. Get a life.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Sorry, I don’t, or didn’t know, what a “wink” was, as I am old.

          • jim_m

            😉 a wink

          • More so. No one was assaulted nor battered in the Bundy Ranch protests.

          • jim_m

            I’m not going to address your attempt to change the conversation away from your racist bigotry.

          • To rebel is to wage war against one’s own government, which fits the Article Three Section Three black letter definition of Treason.

          • jim_m

            Yes, Bruce is in favor of civil disobedience racial intimidation where black people take over “white spaces” that have nothing to do with their protests but seek to attack and intimidate people solely on the basis of the color of their skin. like terrorizing a distinguished war vet because he is a white man . Shame on you for supporting this.

          • jim_m

            Bruce claims that there is nothing wrong with the optics of racially intimidating a 90 year old war hero.

          • Sky__Captain

            Li’l Brucie just doesn’t get that the incidents in Portland and the “Black Brunch protests” are not civil disobedience, but merely bullying by racists. Thus, he approves.
            It is a transparent attempt to intimidate. If attempted in the wrong venues vs real Americans, it will blow up in their faces.
            Then, L’il Brucie will accuse those standing up for their rights against the bullies of being RAAAAACIST!!!!11!!

            There are none so blind as those who will not see.

          • Brucehenry

            Hadn’t heard of these incidents and don’t condone them. It is not I, but Jim, who attempts to characterize lawlessness like the Bundy ranch incident as “civil disobedience.”

          • jim_m

            Yep, Bundy Ranch was lawless, where no one was hurt and property was only destroyed by government agents. Whereas, in Ferguson we had civil disobedience where the town was burned and looted, shorts were fired at police.
            Kind of hard to see where your claim that Ferguson was civil is in any way anything more that total bullshit.

          • jim_m

            Gee Bruce, had you bothered to follow my link you would have heard of them. Funny how you won’t come out a condemn them straight without having to bring up something that you feel is worse. It’s almost like your disavowal of them is half hearted and really just an excuse to claim that it wasn’t as bad as something someone else did (thus effectively justifying the actions of your fellow travelers).

          • jim_m

            Notice how Bruce wants to talk about some old quotes from Wllm F Buckley rather than have to address the link I posted above. What a coward and a fraud. He’s all for civil disobedience and he will excuse anything a black person does even when it includes intimidating a 90YO war hero.
            Rather that address something directly related to the topic he goes off on a tangent and dredges up some irrelevant quote from a dead man.

          • Brucehenry

            Except I asked about Buckley first and your link is, to use your stupid term, “a shiney.”

            The subject was the irony of conservatives adopting a reverential tone about the civil rights movement and MLK, when it was conservatives who opposed him and the movement.

          • jim_m

            Not a distraction. It goes straight to the heart of what you consider ‘civil disobedience’. In the civil rights era, people refused to go to the back of the bus, they demanded to be served at a whites only lunch counter.
            What you call civil disobedience is blacks intimidating white people. You call civil disobedience blacks shouting down white people who are talking about something totally unrelated to their issues.
            You are promoting racial intimidation and racism.

            Straight up Bruce. You are promoting racism and racial conflict because you think it advances your agenda. You will accept any tactic as long as it serves your ideological purposes. You have no moral compass and you are willing to tolerate any action whatsoever as long as you benefit from it.

          • Brucehenry

            I guess your definition of racial harmony is black people allowing police to run roughshod over their rights and their acceptance of police treating them like an occupied population.

          • jim_m

            Unlike you my definition of civil disobedience does not include the racial intimidation of a 90yo war hero. You disgust me.

          • Sky__Captain

            “…it was conservatives who opposed him and the movement.”

            *Citation required*

          • jim_m

            Bruce believes that Bull Connor was a republican. And he just knows that George Wallace was a republican too. And of course Sen Byrd was acting at the behest of the GOP when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
            Bruce is so full of crap.

          • Brucehenry

            Again you are conflating Rep v Dem with conservative v liberal. Wasn’t the case back in the day.

            I can’t tell if you are being dishonest or if you are honestly so fucking ignorant that you are unaware of how stupid that conflation is. My bet is dishonesty.

            Liberal Republicans in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller and the recently deceased Edmund Brooke supported civil rights for all. Conservative Republicans, like Barry Goldwater, found convenient “constitutional” reasons to oppose it. As advised to by William F Fucking Buckley, the founder of modern conservatism.

          • jim_m

            How convenient it must be to claim that anyone on your side that you disagree with is really not on your side, was never on your side and was only ever on the other side.

            That has to be the single most dishonest argument you have ever made.

            So according to your argument Byrd was a Republican when he was a member of the KKK but became a dem afterward. Tell me… was Nathan Bedford Forest a Democrat or not? How many Klansmen would have identified as members of the party of Lincoln?

            This is why I call you a lying POS.

          • Brucehenry

            Never ever ever claimed any of those people were Republicans. However, many of them were conservative. There used to be a difference, as I keep telling you and you know damn well.

            Unless you are going to tell me that Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, and Edmund Brooke were conservatives.

          • jim_m

            idiot. Even the most liberal of people in the 60’s was conservative by today’s standards. You can’t be measuring people 50-60 years ago by today’s standards of liberal vs conservative.

          • Brucehenry

            The conservative candidate for president in 1964, backed by Buckley and most conservatives, opposed passage of the CRA. The liberal candidate for president in 1964, backed by MLK, supported its passage.

            Forget “Republican” and “Democrat.” Conservatives of both parties opposed the civil rights movement. Liberals of both parties supported it.

            Your attempts to twist shit around to Rep v Dem are dishonest, ESPECIALLY in light of how you now say one can’t judge the actions of 50 years ago by today’s lens. Yes you can.

          • jim_m

            It isn’t dishonest. The dems were adamantly against civil rights. You know it. You are embarrassed to have someone telling the truth.
            I said that you cannot compare liberal vs conservative by today’s standards. There is a difference. I believe that you could make a judgment about whether or not a person was a socialist. I believe that you can make judgments about other ideological positions, but liberal vs conservative is a moving standard and it isn’t reasonable to claim that all people were conservative in the 60’s and therefore today’s conservatives are the inheritors of racism.
            THAT is what you are claiming and it is BS.

          • Brucehenry

            I never said all people were conservative in the 1960s, YOU DID.

            Lots of people weren’t conservative in the 1960s.

            But despite your desperate, flailing attempts to make this into a Dem v Rep as opposed to a lib v con issue, you are quite obviously wrong, as you would know if you had a few more years on you.

            Get your revisionist head out of your ignorant ass and read these links you historical illiterate:

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121598863003949317

            http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html

            Especially the second one.

          • jim_m

            Your constant claim is that republicans today are the dems of yesterday because the southern dems were all conservatives.
            I am telling you that by today’s standards ALL dems were conservative so your claim is BS.
            Is that still too difficult for you to follow?

          • Brucehenry

            Except I never said that.

            I have said that the Southern Strategy was a real thing, a set of positions designed to appeal to white racist voters, and it worked.

          • Brucehenry

            The whole Buckley thing, genius. Ever HEARD of National Review? James J Kilpatrick?

            Here it is again. There are hundreds like it on the Internet. Or you could read, you know, a fucking history book.

            http://www.alternet.org/story/155124/the_racism-conservatism_link%3A_%27national_review%27_firestorm_over_racism_calls_up_william_f._buckley%27s_troubling_legacy

          • jim_m

            WFB was not as influential as you think. He did not found modern conservatism. No single person could make that claim. The fact that you are claiming that a single person did only serves to demonstrate your dishonesty and ignorance.

          • Brucehenry

            William F Buckley was indubitably the single most influential conservative thinker of the second half of the 20th Century. As you well know.

            Many if not most of the other influential conservative pundits of the time worked, at some time or another, for National Review, his publication, then and still the most influential conservative organ in America.

          • jim_m

            Yep WFB was the single most influential conservative in the second half of the 20th century. Unless you count Rush. Or Reagan. Or half a dozen other conservative boogie men that you will trot out when convenient.

          • Why even respond to the racist sack of excrement?

          • jim_m

            Because ignorance and lies should never go unconfronted.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s why I come here, Jim, to confront ignorance and lies. As I have done quite ably on this thread, if I say so myself.

            I have stated that conservatives opposed the CRM. You have responded that Republicans supported it. That is partially correct LIBERAL Republicans did. CONSERVATIVES of both parties opposed it.

            You have not refuted that assertion in any way. Because you can’t.

            Because your knowledge of history begins with your own adolescence. Like nearly all conservatives, anything outside your own personal experience is dismissed as unimportant. No empathy. Virtual sociopaths lol.

          • jim_m

            Republicans supported it in far greater numbers than democrats asshole. It’s a matter of record. It’s a truth you will not admit and you go to inordinate lengths to conceal and lie about.

          • Brucehenry

            I have “admitted” many times on these pages that the Democratic party has a shameful racist past. Especially the Southern wing prior to 1972. But I’ll go further than that and say that liberal Democrats were guilty too — guilty of selling out black people in order to win the electoral votes of the racist Democrat “solid South.” I’ve never denied it — anyone who looks at history would have to admit it.

            What I have been saying on this thread is that CONSERVATIVES opposed MLK and the movement. And they did.

            You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that there used to be such a thing as a “liberal Republican.” You insist that when I say conservatives opposed the CRM I mean Republicans opposed it. But that’s NOT WHAT I HAVE SAID.

            It is indisputable that racist Southern Democrats opposed the 1964 CRA and the 1965 VRA. They were joined by conservative Republicans in that opposition. But LIBERAL Democrats from the North and the West supported both acts, as did LIBERAL Republicans from the same regions. And there were enough of both so that the acts passed and were signed into law by a liberal Democrat, Lyndon Johnson.

            Those are the facts, Jim, sorry they are not the revisionist nonsense you prefer to hear.

          • jim_m

            >I?I have “admitted” many times on these pages that the Democratic party has a shameful racist past
            No you haven’t. You have constantly claimed that these people were really republicans. You have claimed that these people were conservatives and that the dems went from conservative to liberal.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. Dig up a quote.

            Or, as the ever-useless M. Soi Disant might say:

            *citation required*

          • jim_m

            Dig up a quote to show that you didn’t say what you claimed you said. Um, can’t quote what you never print.

          • Brucehenry

            Dig up a quote where I say what you claim I said.

          • Brucehenry

            What I have said, and what is indubitably true, is that both parties used to contain both liberal and conservative members.

          • jim_m

            Yes but according to you only the Republicans are racists and the dems of the 60’s and earlier were all republicans at heart.

          • Brucehenry

            Dig up a quote where I say that. LOL.

          • You should demand citations of the racist swine…

          • Brucehenry

            I have already supplied them genius just read the links I already posted all the way through — if you can.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I am just curious; it appears you would prefer that Bruce Henry disappears from the comment pages and never darkens your door again. Is that true?

            Would you rather have the same eight people simply telling each other, “You’re right.” “No, you are right”?

            I simply see things as a difference of opinion, but your comments toward Bruce Henry certainly appear to be somewhat personal.

            Do you dislike people that do not agree with you politically?

          • Brucehenry

            All of whom, if asked, would eagerly pay homage to Buckley.

          • jim_m

            Just like the dems paid homage to John kkk Byrd.

          • Robert “sheets” Byrd…

          • Sky__Captain

            Li’l Brucie, do you realize just how much credibility you lose when you use profanity in a debate? Like-all of it.

            Anyway, the link you provided is an allegation (from a wacko site I have never seen before) about ONE person, yet you claimed “…it was conservatives who opposed him and the movement.”
            That’s a blanket statement.

            Citation is still required proving your blanket statement. Preferably not for a wacko site.

          • Brucehenry

            One, the fact that you think profanity lessens my credibility doesn’t fucking faze me lol.

            Two, William F Buckley was not just ONE person, he was a person who was nearly unanimously recognized as the most influential conservative thinker of his time. He was George Will, William Safire, and Jonah Goldberg put together times 10. Ask anybody with memory of the political events of the 1950s and 1960s. He founded National Review, STILL recognized as the premier conservative journal in America.

            And three, I posted these elsewhere on this thread.

            http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121598863003949317

            But I’m sure they won’t convince you so look at this page you amnesiac buffoon:

            https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1ASUT_enUS465US465&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=conservative%20opposition%20to%20cra

          • Scalia

            Williamson responds to Chait’s (and others’) rebuttals in Yes, the Party of Civil Rights. Moreover, the New Deal was heavily supported by Southern Democrats, whose votes were essential in its implementation.

          • Brucehenry

            Williamson jumps from critic to critic, cherry-picking some points he thinks he can refute and ignoring others. Plus Chait’s article is not only about Williamson but about many modern “conservatives” who have made similar arguments. But when he does refer to Williamson’s original piece he’s pretty effective — and Williamson doesn’t succeed in refuting Chait’s criticism, especially in regard to Goldwater.

            Elsewhere on this thread I discussed, or at least mentioned, the unholy alliance between racist Southern Democrats and more liberal Northern ones. I do freely admit that many of the racist Dems of the 50s and 60s were supporters of the New Deal but that was mainly because their constituents demanded it. They were “conservative” on race matters in the sense of “wishing to preserve the status quo” — the status quo being Jim Crow.

          • Scalia

            Actually, Williamson does a good job in jumping “from critic to critic” and effectively responds to Chait in particular. Chait’s piece clearly demonstrates his view that if you’re pro-civil rights, you’re a liberal, and if you’re against civil rights, you’re a conservative.

            You claim that Southern politicians were New Dealers in name only because “their constituents demanded it.” And just who were their constituents? Did they also happen to be Democrats?? So, if I read you correctly, voters in the South were New Dealers (significantly liberal), but their representatives were conservatives pretending to be New Dealers. If that’s the case, they were pretty consistent because they never repealed it. Moreover, it appears to be a tacit admission that the conservative/liberal label used by many liberals makes them guilty of equivocation. It acknowledges that Southerners were liberal racists and not “conservatives” as traditionally understood, and you repeat the mantra that supporting civil rights is a liberal thing to do–a question-begging assumption.

            As to Goldwater, I think Williamson makes it clear that one can be principled and wrong. If one believes that certain actions of the government are beyond its constitutional scope, then one should oppose those actions no matter how popular they are. When the ACLU defends the KKK, one could not reasonably conclude that it is a racist organization merely because defending the KKK appears reprehensible to most citizens.

            I could not read the WSJ article because I don’t have a subscription. If you know of a legal unlocked version, I’d be happy to look at it. As far as Chait goes, I’m unimpressed.

          • Brucehenry

            See if you can read this one. It appeared for me.

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121598863003949317

          • Why do you bother with the racist jackass?

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe it’s because I’m discussing issues, and articles we both have read and you are taking lame potshots as uselessly usual.

          • Scalia

            Hi, Rodney. My reaction to Bruce cannot be based on his interaction with others on this site. My dialog with him in the past has been mostly respectful, and so long as that continues, I’ll keep the channels open. What others do is up to them.

          • Lie down with dogs…

          • Brucehenry

            In any event my original observation was that it was ironic that today’s conservatives adopt this reverential tone when discussing King and the CRM, given that the conservatives of King’s day opposed him and the movement. Whatever else has been said here, that point still stands.

            The intellectual leader of the conservative “movement,” Buckley, vociferously and vocally opposed it. Its political leader, Goldwater, opposed it too.

          • jim_m

            Scala does an artful takedown that completely eviscerated your argument and the best you can do is double down on your bs about select conservative figures must be racists. You’re pathetic.

          • Brucehenry

            If Scalia “completely eviscerated” my argument he damn sure did better than you did, with your conflation of “Republican” with “conservative” and “Democrat” with “liberal.” Even HE is still doing it, a little, though he does a better job than you.

            And again your implied claim that Buckley and Goldwater were just some random, unimportant dead guys is ridiculous. Buckley and Goldwater were the two most influential conservatives of their time, and Goldwater was the nominee of one of the two major political parties. Since their respective deaths both have been eulogized , lionized, practically beatified by today’s conservatives.

            Whatever the party affiliation of the opposition to the CRM, conservatives were in the vanguard. Buckley and Goldwater were just two, albeit perhaps the most important two, conservative figures in that opposition. Those who lived in North Carolina in the 1960s may remember Jesse Helms, then a Democrat and a commentator on WRAL-TV, and his venomous video editorials condemning the “communists and fellow-travelers” in the CRM. There were conservative commentators writing similar pieces all over the country, most of them making their arguments in terms of “states’ rights” — a conservative position. Oh and let’s not forget “law and order” as if America couldn’t see the police lawlessness in Birmingham and Selma on their TV screens.

            You may think Scalia “eviscerated my argument” but I suggest you do some reading outside the fever swamp. Start with the WSJ piece I linked to and go from there.

            And next time try to argue with what is actually said in the page in front of you, not your bizarro twisted version of what you WISH your opponent had said. Oh and if you want to sound credible you might refrain from linking to news accounts of incidents of intimidation I wasn’t even aware of and claiming I support them. Everyone can see the transparent liar you are when you do that.

          • Add “disingenuous” and “racist” to “pathetic” and you’ll have nicely summed his [lack of] character.

          • Scalia

            Bruce, I respectfully disagree that the “point still stands” on conservative opposition to the CRM. Let’s say arguendo that opposition to the CRM is a conservative position. It does not follow that voting against the CRM made one a conservative any more than voting for the CRM made one a liberal. For example, Charles Halleck (R-IN) was a staunch conservative but was also one of the most ardent supporters of the CRA. His vote for the “liberal” CRA did not make him a liberal–or a moderate for that matter.

            Southern Democrats were segregationists, but they consistently supported the New Deal and the Great Society. You’ve said that their support for such things was merely a nod to their constituents, but even conceding that does not change the fact that they voted liberal. That makes them liberals as to voting and conservatives as to their hearts. Nonetheless, I’d like to see some quotations from them that they were merely bowing to the electorate on those matters.

            Given the voting record of the Democrats who opposed the CRA, the best one can say is that opposition to the CRA was a conservative position, but the Democrats who opposed it were overall liberals.

            You are correct to note that the states-rights argument is a conservative one, but you will also recall that there was another very significant argument against Title VII: Racial preferences and quotas. That’s what prompted Humphrey to say that he would eat the bill page after page if such were found there. One did not have to be a conservative to be opposed to preferences. McGovern and Muskie voiced opposition to them as well (not, of course, to the bill itself), but if they had voted against the CRA due to a concern over quotas, McGovern would not be considered a conservative by any stretch of the imagination (just, perhaps, a racist liberal). Affirmative Action notwithstanding, I think that adequately illustrates, in part, why the opposition-to-CRA-makes-one-a-conservative thesis is question-begging.

          • Brucehenry

            All good and valid points. What I SHOULDN’T have said, in my original observation, and a later one, was that “…it was conservatives who opposed King and the CRM.”

            That gives the impression that it was conservatives AND ONLY conservatives who opposed him. As you have pointed out, politicians who supported New Deal legislation can fairly be described as liberal, so if you were a New Dealer AND a segregationist you were probably a Southern Democrat.

            What I SHOULD have said was something like “Modern conservatives who pay glowing tribute to MLK and the civil rights movement slay me since their heroes, like William F Buckley and Barry Goldwater, joined with racist Southern Democrats to oppose everything King tried to do back when he was trying to do it.”

            That might even have saved me from the tortuous pissing match I had to contest with ol’ Jim, who kept trying to conflate Republicans with conservative and Democrats with liberals, and trying to put words in my mouth, making me somehow responsible for the disrespect shown to an elderly veteran at a ceremony I didn’t know had occurred.

            Enjoyed it and learned something too. Thanks.

      • LiberalNightmare

        optics uber alles.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Protests are tools.

    While we regard the civil rights movement as a valid, even noble cause, the tools used then are the same tools that have been used for protests related to Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, Duke University, Occupy Wall street, Gamer gate, Anti Bush/war protests etc.

    SEIU busses, minimum wage (if they’re lucky) rent-a-protesters, Printed signs – none of it happens by accident.