State fights to fire trooper tied to Klan

Can the Nebraska State Patrol remove the officer because he is a member of the KKK?
Would membership in the compromise the Officer's ability to do his job and make him a liability? example easier to overturn his cases in court.

Does that liability give the Nebraska State Patrol solid ethical and legal standing to remove him given that he could be a liability to their ability to effectively do their job?

This does violate his 1st Amendment Rights, but given the position of a Law Enforcement Officer with its powers, Should this be an exception?

True he is a member of the Klan, but there are groups similar to the Klan for different minority groups and religious affinities.
If you support his removal because of Klan member ship, what are the boundries of what is acceptable associations and what is prohibited?

State fights to fire trooper tied to Klan

Can the Nebraska State Patrol remove the officer because he is a member of the KKK?
Would membership in the compromise the Officer's ability to do his job and make him a liability?

As much as I despise the KKK, I think the First Amendment provisions for free speech and peacable assembly have to be the trump cards in this instance. If, however, he is engaged in direct illegal or intimidting behavior aimed at minority groups, then that is another matter.

Does that liability give the Nebraska State Patrol solid ethical and legal standing to remove him given that he could be a liability to their ability to effectively do their job?

No. If Nebraska can fire someone for this then they can fire someone for other unpopular beiiefs or memberships.

This does violate his 1st Amendment Rights, but given the position of a Law Enforcement Officer with its powers, Should this be an exception?

I don't think there is any valid reason to violate the First Amendment.

I saw this and at first thought it was bogus for them to fire him because of his beliefs. But the only problem is, his beliefs could interfere with his job. It's like having a doctor who believes in compassionate killing, it's a sticky situation for the employer.

Just think if the cop kills a black man while on duty? Or treats black people badly? You definately can't assume he can seperate his beliefs from his actions and the police force shouldn't have people who preach racial hatred to begin with.

Private companies will do the same thing. I worked for a company that would not allow us to publicly demonstrate because of damage it may do to the company. That seems like a violation of my rights, doesn't it? But they do it.

What's the borderline? I guess a lawyer would have to figure that out. Obvioulsy companies can't discriminate, but apparently they can to some degree.

Can the Nebraska State Patrol remove the officer because he is a member of the KKK?
Would membership in the compromise the Officer's ability to do his job and make him a liability?

Unfortunately, I don't think they can. The First Amendment allows free association, including membership in groups such as the KKK. Unless there is conduct that points towards bias or unfitness to perform his duties, membership alone is not sufficient grounds to dismiss this officer.

Now, the membership could be used in conjunction with other evidence to dismiss him. If he did have confrontations with minorities repeatedly this could be used as evidence for why this was occurring.

However, the article says that a review of his record indicated no such behavior. The State is wrong here.

I'd have to wonder if this logic would apply to certain types of Communists as well, if there's a concern that they'd mistreat wealthy "capitalist pigs" while on the job. Or radical environmentalists, or for that matter any other type of radical who has a strong intolerance for attitudes and/or practices contrary to his own dogma.

The way I see it, there's no constitutional prohibition against employers, even public employers, using their own discretion and judgment in terms of whom they hire and fire. There may be statutory restrictions, but no consitutional ones. But if there is going to be such a prohibition, then it needs to be applied evenly, without regard to PC considerations.

I'm curious. In what way is the KKK NOT a terrorist organisation? It has been directly linked to literally hundreds of murders and terrorist acts in the past many years. As I recall, there is a 'war on terror' going on, and the fact that the KKK and other organisations like devoted to violent and illegal expressions of racist views are allowed to exist is an oddity I have never entirely understood.

The same people who want to bomb Lebanon or Palestine because they democratically elected Hamas and Hezbollah representatives seem quite generous in their desire to protect the 'freedom of speech' rights of an organisation known primarily for burning black churches, lynching black people and burning crosses on their lawns.

Maybe in the way they have been reduced to irrelevant buttholes.

I mean, really...show me examples in the last couple decades were they were either relevant or violent. I'm sure there are violent skinheads just like there are violent Black Panthers, but really - these groups are fringe. They mean next to nothing anymore.

If this person had ties to Arab groups, would this happen? If this person had ties to the Black Panthers, would this happen? My bet is no - the white guy will be held to a different standard.

With that being said, I see reason for termination for any of the groups I mentioned above. You've proven yourself not to be objective in issues regarding race and I would think that is a requirement for this particular job. I just question the consistency in enforcing this issue.

Well I can easily give you several dozen cases of them being violent and even murdering in the last decade with a simple google search. The most famous is the Byrd lynching, the attempted murder of William Hale, the beating death of Thomas Ladner, and so on. If you go back to the 60's and 70's, then the number goes up sharply.

You are correct that they are no longer a mass threat nor politically relevant, the FBI estimates nationwide Klan membership at less than 10,000.

But so what? They are an aknowledged terrorist group, by the US government in 1869, and their relative inability to carry out the mass violence they did 80 years ago makes them no less evil.



Are you SERIOUS?

There are men currently sitting their third year in prison without legal representation because they had 'links' with arab terror groups. Are you genuinely going to claim that this would NOT be an issue if the man was an arab and belonged to an extremist arab group declared a terrorist organisation? Are you honestly going to claim the white guy here is getting worse treatment than an arab guy woith links to an arab terror group would?


I think termination of job due to membership in a terrorist organisation seems reasonable enough, even a relatively irrelevant terrorist organisation.

If you're implying some sort of hypocrisy here you're making a pretty pitiful case for it. There's no discrepancy at all in defending the free speech rights of a detestable organization and taking action against a detestable organization that gets control of a government and begins committing acts of aggression using state or quasi-state power.

What use free speech if it only protects speech you agree with? I'm all for free speech among hate groups. I support fully their rights to hold rallys, membershp drives, have radio talk shows, music labels, and cute little girl singers who do interviews with the mainstream press. I support all this because I know that the more visible they are, the less dangerous they'll be. To deny free speech to the fringe is to drive the fringe underground, and in the case of hate groups what you don't see/hear can definately hurt you. One day, when some idiot in the movement decides to take a shot at someone, burn a cross, lynch a black man, beat up an arab, or blow some government building up, all the rallies, and public shouts of white power will come down upon them like a ton of bricks, and the police will have a far easier time of it dragging them in for prosecution and lengthy jailtimes, where hopefully they'll learn the joys of...well, learn to get along well with those of different races.



Yes, Nebraska State Patrol should be able to remove the officer because his membership makes him unable to be effective at portions of his job. Mainly in the testifying before a jury portion. Just look at Mark Furhman's effectiveness on the stand in the case against O.J. Simpson. If he's a liability to the successful prosecution of cases against minorities he should be removed to duties which will not call into question his reliabiality. A desk job away from evidence, guarding, and arresting.

Can the Nebraska State Patrol remove the officer because he is a member of the KKK?
Would membership in the compromise the Officer's ability to do his job and make him a liability?

I would not think they could remove him. Being a member of a group that they don't like is not a good enough reason. If he really believes like they do, then it will immediately show up in his daily work, then they will have indisputable right to fire him.

Does that liability give the Nebraska State Patrol solid ethical and legal standing to remove him given that he could be a liability to their ability to effectively do their job?

If you pick him out for being a member of the KKK, then how about people that are Christians, ACLU, NAACP, etc.

This does violate his 1st Amendment Rights, but given the position of a Law Enforcement Officer with its powers, Should this be an exception?

No, again if he truly believe like they do, he will make it obvious and give them a great excuse to fire him.

If you support his removal because of Klan member ship, what are the boundries of what is acceptable associations and what is prohibited?

That's the problem, in a public job, who makes the boundries. If it is a private employer, then totally different.

If he was a beauracrat who never had to deal with issues of race, I would, say sure. Or if he was mailman. Or if he was fighting forest fires, or something. But your talking about enlisting an armed officer of the law whose -- I don't see the difference between hiring an outspoken klansman and outspoken pedophile.

You wouldn't put a KKK member on the judicial bench, would you? Of course not. His expressed beliefs clearly interfere with his ability to objectively preside over any case involving a black defendant-- and a lousy judge's opinion can be appealed, reversed, poured over by the ACLU. But you're talking about arming an openly rascist highway patrol man and asking him to objectively decide in the span of a split second when a oddly behaving motorist is and is not an immediate threat? When there is or is not suspicion to search a vehicle?

I agree with RedCedar:






And yo,



Could you please name such a group? And similar in what ways? I keep up with my Black Nationalist movements, 5 percenters, Nation of Islam, Rastafari and so on. I can't think of one that advocates mass murder of whites; or forced deportation of whites to their ancenstral continent; or even approaches the racial determinism of the Klan. In fact, you can find white rastafarians (including 1/2 white Bob Marley), the Black Panther Party clearly denounced Black rascism as a response to White rascism, and the 5 percenters tend to invest more thought and rhetoric into the qualities and direction of the black race than dealing those of the white race. None of these groups comes close to the rhetoric of the contemporary Klan-- short of maaaaybe the obnoxious Jacobian nicompoops in Times Square who dress up as Egyptians and address the crowd as if idle-minded white people weren't there. But those guys are not only full of hot-air and self-defeating paranoia, they are definitely not working for the government.

Finally, I hope we don't live in a country that is loathe to accept gays in the military, but goes, 'well, that's the way the law is' when it comes to klansmen in the highway patrol.

Overlooked, or more accurately, ignored, is the recognition by the State that his beliefs have not, apparently, interfered with his job. Under the current legal climate regarding state workers, free association and free expression trump the state's fears of potential issues.

Now, my personal belief is that the State should be able to fire him, just like it should be able to fire someone for homosexual behavior, for participating in anti-war rallies, (or, for those folks hailing from Berkely, for participating in pro-war rallies), for any and any reason under the sun based upon the employee's behavior., on the job, and even off the job. What is "good for the goose is good for the gander", and I know many of y'all have "fired", i.e. refused to do business with, companies for reasons that have nothing to do with the product or service you might purchase from them. Labor is nothing more than a service that one individual (the employee) sells to another individual or organization.

Oddly enough, I believe that freedom of association also means freedom to not associate, and I also believe that nobody has a right to a job.

Overlooked, or more accurately, ignored, is the recognition by the State that his beliefs have not, apparently, interfered with his job. Under the current legal climate regarding state workers, free association and free expression trump the state's fears of potential issues.

Now, my personal belief is that the State should be able to fire him, just like it should be able to fire someone for homosexual behavior, for participating in anti-war rallies, (or, for those folks hailing from Berkely, for participating in pro-war rallies), for any and any reason under the sun based upon the employee's behavior., on the job, and even off the job. What is "good for the goose is good for the gander", and I know many of y'all have "fired", i.e. refused to do business with, companies for reasons that have nothing to do with the product or service you might purchase from them. Labor is nothing more than a service that one individual (the employee) sells to another individual or organization.

Oddly enough, I believe that freedom of association also means freedom to not associate, and I also believe that nobody has a right to a job.

Quoted from Bikerdad.

Now I will agree with you to a certain extent, save I don’t think its intrinsic biologically to belong to an ideology, its like saying it should be ok to fire someone for being white, just as it would be ok to fire someone for participating in a race based organization known for a long radical history of blatant hatred towards his or her fellow man that does not fit into a tight definition of what correct is.

Now I know that homosexuality is not 100% fact in regards to understanding it, so in that I guess I would have to agree with you, but there is another point. Cops are not a private enterprise, they are a body typically associated easily with government, its not like this guy is working as a security guard at some power plant, he is a cop, a police officer, this also has to be taken into account, that a person that’s follows the belief of white supremacy and the arian nation or neo nazi movement is to be an officer of the law over all Americans, I can easily see why some people might think such suspect or have a problem with that. It would be like taking this guy if he made a mistake, giving his history, and then at his trial having a jury from the black panthers come to judge him, would it simply be wrong to suggest that bias might come to exist in any decision that jury may come to?

If he was being fired from a job, a regular job at like a grocery store simply because of association with a group, with no history of it leading to bad actions, I might take offense to that in some regard, but as a cop, I really do not think he could conduct himself in that position without having to give to compromise more often then he would like overall, such as not looking to give speeding tickets to non whites, or not looking to do that more often then a cop not associated with the clan, overall I think there is to much room for corruption or error giving the position to feel comfortable with.

We also have to remember it’s the KKK that’s being talked about, its not some simple pro image group, or being proud of something, it’s a group with a long and current history of being rather negative to various groups of people, such as murder.

Ummm... I hate to inform you, as apparently your "google" search didn't help... but the Byrd gig was done by 3 guys in a fringe prison gang... not really the Klan. The search doesn't even wield anything Klan-esque, other than the fact that these folks don't care too much for minorities either. Frankly, that's like saying that Muslims are the same as the black panthers. Neither org's care too much for white people..... whatever.



Good Lord. Provide a link please. I personally believe Klansmen to be kooks, nut jobs, and otherwise silly. However, terrorism isn't the right word. Please, again, don't spew rhetoric, but SUPPORT YOUR CASE.

According to this link, the only things recently that the Klan have done are a house burning in Ohio after a man Sexually assaulted a girl. UGH... Not exactly your local Al Qaeda. I know that the press doesn't want you to think that.... as any white man w/ a Southern Accent is a war mongering fruit, but frankly, you mention people in prison for association to terrorist organizations. What you DON'T address is why. We didn't exactly round up muslim folks from Cleveland and throw them in the klink. We got them out of the DESERTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST WHILE FIGHTING THEM!!! Novel idea I know... arrest and detain those shooting at ya. Wild and crazy Americans!!!

I personally believe that if they fire this dude... they should fire that guy in the office that believes that everything is a conspiracy against black folks, that person that believes that everything in his life has been "prophesized"(sp?), that devout muslim that lives in the US but hates us (ahem- Ali Mohammed who joined the US Army!), etc.

Kooks, nuts, and weirdos are all around us. I used to have one that worked for me that believed that there was a plot against him because he was black, when like 1/2 of our office is black! Sure. We singled him out. If being a nut is a reason to fire someone... and an association to weirdness and fringe ideas is good enough... then I'd say we have to fire Star Trekkies, Feminists, Extreme Southern Baptists, Mormons, extreme left/right wingers, and that dude that things germs are everywhere and carries the antiseptic stuff even to the bathroom.

I can't say that I agree with the Klan, but have lived/worked around people that think that way... just as I have lived/worked around people that think that if you say something about the president in the phone that the Secret Service will swing in on a rope and snatch you up. All I have to say about America is ... read about Ali Mohammed. Our system protects all kinds of fruit cakes. I think my office is like 10 feet from some of them...

No, I was not trying to tie some specific link, I know there is no actual equivalency here, just an interesting discrepancy in trends of behaviour.



Well, if you are willing to ignore the fact that they had Klan tatoos, one of them claimed to be a member of the Klan and the Klan itself held a massive rally at the trial, you ignoring those I suppose you could say there is no link. Besides, that was only one of my three examples...



Firstly, the KKK was designated a terrorist organisation by the United States Government, so they disagree with you.

Secondly, I gave three examples above. If you are going to ignore my evidence, you do not then get to yell at me to provide evidence.

Thirdly, I admitted openly that the Klan is now nowhere near as pervasive or populous as it was 30 years ago, when murders, intimidation and violence were far more commonplace. (or do you deny that as well?)

So what is the statute of limitations on a terrorist organisation? They are not as bad as they once were (not because they are more moderate, but because their numbers have dropped dramatically) so that means they are fine now? I think the Klan is a bit worse than just 'silly' if you ask me, but if you disagree, please explain to me why you feel racist murder is nothing more than 'silly'.

Oh, and in the additional case of Klan violence you provided, they burned down a house (and threatened the life of) a man who was accused of sexually assaulting a girl. Subtle but important difference, don't you think?



Just to be clear, are you now asserting that NO US citizens, arrested in the US, have been imprisoned by the government without charge, or legal representation for years on end?



I am not a huge star trek fan, so I cannot speak with any knowledge on the debate, so perhaps you can enlighten me.

How many racist murders have the organisation of Trekkies committed? How many churches have they burned down? How many people have they intimidated by burning crosses on their lawns? Have they been declared a terrorist organisation by the US government?


Forgive me, I'm just striving to figure out the logic behind your declaring an equivalency between The Ku Klux Klan and Fans of Star Trek... Once you have explained that to me, you can go on to explain your stated equivalence between the Ku Klux Klan and feminists.



Listen, I am not saying you are not allowed to be a racist in the United States, nor that you are not allowed to speak out on your racist beliefs. Sadly, there are a LOT of people who do that freely and protected by the 1st amendment.

But joining a violent, murderous, terrorist organisation is a bit different from your garden variety racist, don't you think? Or do you still think the Klan is exactly like feminists and Mormons?

Again, I assert that you provide some evidence that the Klan is a murderous organization in recent years.

I HAVE provided information that asserts that the KKK is moreover a group of nut jobs, which is where my reference to feminists and Trekkies comes into play. The haven't really had a contemporary violent history, but moreover have had a recent history of being weirdos hanging out and talking about things most Americans don't agree with.

Want someone else's opinion? How about the Anti-Defamation league?
read this.



You haven't given a shred of evidence that the Klan has been a racist muderous organization. You gave a reference to 3 men that weren't even Klansmen, and some examples from 30+ years ago.

I believe that the Klan is a group of economically depressed and socially inadequate people that predominantly inhabit rural America and live out their odd ideas via Cross Burnings in the woods and wearing silly hats.

Again, please provide links to Klan activities in recent years that prove that the CURRENT leadership is full of murderers and terrorists.

My point is that violent crime happens from all groups, walks of life, and organizations. Rural militia groups might be a force to worry about, but the subversive nature of the KKK generally marginalizes their actions. Hence... why we have nearly no activity in a long time.

Heck- if the US allows people to say things (even on AD) as crazy as "white people today must suffer for the misgivings of their forefathers and give black people preferential treatment"... why can't some retarded cop wear a silly white hat and attend rallies in the woods? Whatever floats their boat I say... So long as they're not hurting anyone. (again, for like the 10th time, please provide information to the contrary if you feel differently... saying that they "used to be violent" just doesn't prove your case)

I am forced to repeat myself.

I gave you three examples, and no they were not from 30+ years ago, they were all in the last 15 years. Sorry. If you are going to completely ignore presented evidence, you do not then get to shout on and on about the apparent lack of evidence.

Secondly, I think this was a miswording on your part rather than actual intent, but when you say 'no evidence the Klan has been a racist organisation', are you actually asserting that it has never been? I certainly hope not, and will assume this is just bad phrasing on your part.

So, given that the evidence for the Klan's history of being a violent, murderous terrorist organisation is obvious and undeniable, I am forced to ask again, even if we ignore the recent Klanmember activity, what is the statute of limitations on a terrorist organisation? Are they less a threat now because they have reformed their ways and changed their opinions, or is it just because they are currently disorganised and have relatively few members?

I assume you are equally equaniminous about the PLF for example, another terrorist group which has not killed anyone in over 20 years, so they must be fine now?




On the contrary sir, it is rather you saying 'they have not killed very many people in the last 30 years' which does not make your case. They are a terrorist organisation responsible for the deaths of hundreds, that is not in dispute. The fact that their racist murders have tapered off in the last couple decades (though not stopped) seems to make them "just like feminists" according to you?

Jesus.... Ok. I'll address your nonsense.



Firstly, we already have proven that the Byrd deal wasn't the clan. Even Wikipedia states this.

Secondly, William Hale was only a part of a Murder plot, and no one even tried to kill him.

Thirdly, and most importantly... Thomas Ladner was the Sheriff in Hemphill TX who was charged with beating a black man to death!!!! He wasn't in the Klan, and moreover, wasn't beaten to death. Get your stories straight.

See this for information.

Again, You haven't proven anything, nor have you shown any reason for AD to believe that your notions are correct or more than rhetoric.

The most important thing to understand here, is that racists aren't necessarily in the Klan. The KKK is most likely full of racists, but those are mutually exclusive notions. If this cop wants to be a fruit cake (which is where my reference to odd groups in my mind come to play), then it's within his rights.

Can the Nebraska State Patrol remove the officer because he is a member of the KKK?
Legally speaking I think they're out on a limb. Affiliation is not an automatic probable cause. We don't fire Christian teachers because they might inject religion during class; we don't fire a socialist bureaucrat because he might undermine the government.

Would membership in the compromise the Officer's ability to do his job and make him a liability?
That, unfortunately, will likely depend more on how the community views his affiliation with the KKK than anything Henderson does or does not do. What is Henderson going to do, anyway? Help increase the number of minorities already being pulled over and their cars searched for drugs in “routine” traffic stops?

Does that liability give the Nebraska State Patrol solid ethical and legal standing to remove him given that he could be a liability to their ability to effectively do their job?
Not entirely, no. You can argue hiring female and minority police officers lowered the Nebraska State Patrol’s standing within the state, that doesn’t excuse keeping minorities off the payrolls. One could make the case that Henderson identifying with the KKK is not just an endorsement of ideology, but tactics, too. Maybe I’m the dunce here. Maybe I have too much faith in people being able to do their jobs without allowing their philosophies to stain their work ethics.

This does violate his 1st Amendment Rights, but given the position of a law enforcement officer with its powers, should this be an exception?
No exceptions. Although... watching Aevans compare feminism to racism makes me wonder if I’m in the wrong. They're all nutbag ideologies/affiliations unless they’re Christian ideologies/affiliations; then the comparison is warped.

And DR;


Dude, there's a time a place for knee-jerk race baiting. Try another ethnicity. Post 9/11 extraditions of "swarthy men" without trial or legal council to foreign countries and/or Gitmo makes your complaint look like a bad jape.

And it does come down to that. In Michigan, companies don't have to have a reason to fire you. I've forgotten the term that they refer to states like MIchigan, it's "Right-to" something.

There are laws however against discrimination that hold companies accountable from firing people for racial, sexual or gender reasons. Same with hiring.

But other than that, you can always be in the KKK but then again the company can always tell you they don't want to hire you.

As far as the KKK being a terrorist organization, I disagree with that. From what I've seen, the KKK could also be seen as a group pushing for white superiority which is not necessarily terrorism. They can do it through legislation, through whatever means, not necessarily killing and terrorizing people. Are groups that push for black interests or latino interests, terrorists groups? Why is it Mexicans can march in this country for their power, but when these white hicks do the same, they're terrorists?

I think it doesn't matter if the KKK committed crimes recently or not, It is not the point. It doesn't matter since as Vermillion said, that organization was declared a terrorist organization by the US government in 1869.

If a person accused of being part of another terrorist organization can be imprisoned for years without the right to see his family or his/her lawyer, I think that in the name of consistency, another one who is known to belong to another should be also fired. Unless of course you consider some terrorist organization are better (or not as bad) as some others.

I think you helped to prove my point, and I intentionally added feminism into the "bag of nuts" to see what would come out. Naturally, people who agree with feminism become the most enraged.

Because racism is widely accepted as "subversive" or "not politically correct" doesn't mean it's any more harmful/harmless than feminism to American society. The reality is that simply the Klan doesn't share views that we do, and some notions in the US are more "widely accepted" than others... which still doesn't warrant stabs at Christianity... but whatever. I suppose people get angry because my point is correct. As long as this man isn't acting in an illegal manner, isn't associated with a group coorelated to illegal acts, and as long as his racist notions don't affect his performance... guess a Klansman can be a cop.

Please excuse my “enraged” display at your insistent and warped comparison. When you write “As long as this man isn't acting in an illegal manner, isn't associated with a group correlated to illegal acts, and as long as his racist notions don't affect his performance... guess a Klansman can be a cop,” I thought you supported Henderson on the basis of the First Amendment, not on how unpopular his affiliation is. Does Henderson’s case give you a twinge of guilty pleasure?

“Whatever” is a popular dismissal from you. I can’t even say if you want respect don’t dole it out based on how “widely accepted” a philosophy is, because feminism’s popularity (at least compared with racism) apparently doesn’t clue you in on how normal, commonplace, and right it is—and it's all completely irrelevant to you. It's meaningless. I could dismiss Christianity for the same exact reason: popularity does not confirm helpfulness.

I don’t think I want to understand how burning one's own bra is on the same level as the intimidation brought about by burning crosses on or near someone else's property and lynching. In the future I’ll keep in mind that discussions only have the potential to turn ugly when a debater's ideas aren't lockstep with your unimpeachable standards.

Oh THANK you so much for generously agreeing to address my "nonsense" (also known as evidence) after denying it existed for three posts. Your munificence is most appreciated.



Firstly, why do you keep saying that? Why also do you keep ignoring what I post? The men were covered in Klan tatoos, two of the three men (John William King and Lawrence Russell Brewer) were members of the Aryan Brotherhood, a brother organisation to the Klan, and Brewer stated under questioning he was a proud member of the Klan. The Ku Klux Klan held a massive rally outside the courthouse in which these men were being tried.

Is this the 'no links to the Klan' you keep mentioning?

Secondly, Yes, Hale was part of a Klan murder plot, which was thwarted by the FBI before it could be accomplished. So that makes it non-violent because the Cops prevented them from carrying out the murder?

And thirdly, yes, EXACTLY as you say, Thomas Ladner was a Sheriff who (along with his deputies) beat a black man to death, all were convicted. Two of the three men claimed to be Klan members, though Ladner himself reversed that and denied it later.

So, what was your point about there being 'no violence' in the Klan in the last 30 years?

But hey, why stop there? Lets add some more to the list, shall we?
-Lynching of Michael Donald by the Klan in 1988
- In April 1997, three Klan members were arrested in a plot to blow up a natural gas refinery near Fort Worth, Texas.
-Three Klan members were arrested in February 1998 for planning to poison water supplies, rob banks, plant bombs, and commit assassinations.
-July 1998, the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, leader Horace King, and several other Klansmen convicted in a conspiracy to burn down Black churches.
-March 31, 1990, Darren Jessie shot to death by a Klan member.
-In March, 1993, a black woman in Little Rock was raped and beaten by two members of the KKK who claimed they liked to kill black people.
-Five Ku Klux Klan members were indicted in 1991 for burning nine crosses in the Shreveport area to intimidate blacks. Crosses were burned in front of the NAACP offices, two public schools, the home of a black family, the federal courthouse, a church, an apartment complex, and along two roadways.

Thats not including the hundreds of death threats, cross burnings and other minor offenses.

So much for your bizarre assertion that the KKK has committed no crimes recently. But, as you have also said, I am sure fans of 'Star Trek', mormons and feminists have been just as bad, right?



And furthermore (lord knows why I have to post my points three or four times before you address or even aknowledge them) EVEN IF you were right about recent Klan violence (which you aren't), so what? What is the statute of limitations on a violent, murderous terrorist organisation? Do you deny the hundreds of deaths and mass intimidation and burning of homes and churches the KKK is responsible for in the past? Is that perhaps why the US government officially designated it a 'terrorist organisation'?

If they are relatively less effective in killing now, I asked before, is it because they have become more moderate, or given up their violent ways, or is it just because disorganisation and limited recruitment have robbed them of the capacity to create the same havok?



MY rhetoric?

YOU are the one who is saying the Klan is 'just silly', who is saying the Klan is the same as Trekkies and Feminists. You are the one who seems to be denying any kind of violence at all on the part of the KKK. Why is that AEvans? I have presented arguments and evidence. Your refusal to aknowledge or respond to them them does not then give you the ability to pretend there are none. I label this the 'ostrich tactic', and it is as silly and ineffective as it sounds.



Well that is both staggeringly obvious and not at all under dispute. Of course there are many, MANY racists who are not members of the KKK. Hundreds of thousands probably. Only the violent fanatic racists would be drawn to join a terrorist organisation with a history of widespread violence.

Despite your repeated (and staggeringly insulting) assertion, a member of the Klan is not 'just a fruitcake' with the moral equivalency of Feminism and Star Trek fans.




Boggle

I sez Pardon? Racism (in this case, violent murderous racism) is no more harmful to society than feminism?

I am simply stunned. What is even weirder, is I would never have expected this from you, aevans176. I have debated you before, and you always seemed relatively coherent. Has Ted hacked into your account and is posting in your name?

How can you possibly justify your above comment?



No, people get angry because your point is not only wildly incorrect, but incredibly insulting. Besides, in your last statement, you yourself make the comment: "so long as the man isn't associated with a group coorelated to illegal acts..." except of course, he is. Thats the point of this whole debate.

Or are you now asserting that the KKK has never committed any illegal acts?

Those are individuals who happen to be KKK members. If you can prove that there is a central group called the KKK that is initiating these actions or is calling for terrorist actions, you better call the FBI because they can be arrested.

Can I list all of the abortion bombers and claim that the Christian Right is a terrorist organization? Or list all the black people that have commited crimes and claim blacks are terrorists?



http://www.awkkkk.org/aboutga.htm

If you can show that the KKK is an organization that promotes terrorism then you have a case. And no one would let the KKK go out in public and push people to commit terrorism.

No, its not, as I explicitly referenced "behavior", not biology.

Until the bias actually comes into play, this is nothing more than a witch hunt. Remember, if you will, the concern voiced by many that John F. Kennedy was unfit to be President because he might take his "marching orders" from the Pope?

"might"

This would be the same Klan that the ACLU fought to insure had the right of expression, ne pas?

Again, I want to reiterate that I think they should be able to fire him for any behavior, and therefore object the claim that belonging to the Klan is sufficient cause to fire him, but being a charter member of the ACLU wouldn't be... (incidentally, I would give serious consideration to firing a cop for EITHER membership.)

Lastly, I must remind folks that if having been a leader of the Klan is not sufficient reason to disqualify a person for serving in the United States Senate, I fail to see how a lowly trooper's membership is sufficient for firing. After all, the former passes laws that affect the entire nation, whereas the latter merely enforces the laws in a single state...

I'd like to say I'm amazed of your display of tolerance for the Ku Klux Klan, Aevans176, but when I see how quickly you pounce on Jesse Jackson for playing the race card, it really isn't all that much of a surprise.

So let me get this straight: The KKK is a racist, white supremacist organization that has a long and undisputed record of hatred, violence and murder BUT because they haven't killed anyone "lately" now they're about as harmless as a beer-guzzling bowling league?

What kind of doofy logic is that? By that measure of thinking, Charles Manson should be paroled because he hasn't killed anyone lately. Al Qaeda hasn't killed anyone on American soil for about five years now. Guess that means they're harmless as a ladies book club now, huh?

But let's go back to one of your points that the killers of James Byrd III were not Klansmen. True---to an extent. John William King and Lawrence Brewer were part of a Klan-inspired group of violent racists.

Evidence in the case indicated that King, a member of the Confederate Knights of America prison gang, and his buddies Berry and Brewer, took Byrd to a clearing in the woods east of Jasper, beat him, pulled his jeans to his ankles and chained him to the pickup.

Nearly every day of the trial, prosecutors produced incriminating letters and other documents, many handwritten and signed with King's distinctive signature, "Possum," with Nazi lightning bolts for the SS, and a triangular symbol with three interlocking K's.

King even scratched the words "White Pride" into his cell door...

Racist ties

One website suggested King joined the neo-Klan group in prison following being raped by black prisoners, but I question that information and have not found a corroborating second source to verify it. However, it's a sick joke to pretend John William King and his ilk aren't actively recruited by neo-Nazi and white supremacist prison gangs.

Referring to the Anti Defamation League's site you can find this information about the Confederate Knights of America.

In North Carolina: Other Klan groups include: the Confederate Knights of America, an especially militant faction based in Huntersville; and the Aryan Christian Knights, based in Browns Summit.

And in Virginia: The North Carolina-based Confederate Knights of America operate in Virginia.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/DiRaB_41/2766_41.asp

Was King a hood-wearing, cross-burning, card-carrying member of the Klan? No. But he was a wannabee and he shared the same bigoted sentiments most Ku Klux Klansmen hold regarding racial minorities, Jews and others.

In the case of Trooper Henderson, his motivation for joining The Knights Party is interesting.

According to a copy of Caffera's ruling, Henderson was interviewed by a patrol captain in February. He confirmed he had been a member of the Knights Party since June 2004 and made postings on its members-only Web site while off-duty.

Henderson also said he had joined the KKK, according to the arbitrator's report. He did so, he said, for two reasons: His wife had "divorced him for a minority" and the KKK gave him an avenue to vent his frustration.


What's so bad about a law enforcement officer who is supposed to uphold the law fairly without any hint of favor or bias belonging to a white supremacist group? Maybe this:

We envision an America in which our children are not confronted by anti-white and anti-Christian propaganda, where they are not confronted with the "joys" of homosexuality or race mixing, but rather the condemnation of these behaviors by God. We envision an America in which these anti-Christian behaviors are punished and serve as additional deterrents to anyone toying with the satanic notion of race mixing or homosexuality. We envision an America where our children can be raised in a wholesome environment.

Between General Forrest, the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800's and our national director, Thomas Robb, over 130 years later, the klan has come full circle, this time, not just the south but the whole of America is suffering at the hands of political despots who cherish not in the ideals of our forefathers but relish in the sins of tyranny. White Christian people in this nation have lost control of their schools, their neighborhoods, their children and their destiny. The entire future of you and your family is ruled by politicians in Washington D.C. who bow and scrape before every demand of so-called minorities, leaving our white Christian people disenfranchised.

Caution: Vomit Inducing

Soooooo....if i should happen to be trucking through Nebraska with a burnt-out tail-light and my White Christian girlfriend sitting next to me, I shouldn't worry if Trooper Henderson pulls me over, right?

It's wonderful to see how many White males on America's Debate see absolutely nothing wrong with a ticked-off bigot patrolling the highways with a gun and a badge? Wonder how many of these same folks were screaming "anti-Semitism" a month ago when anyone dared criticized Israel's bombing of Lebanon? Oh, but as long as Trooper Henderson is a bigot based on color and not overtly anti-Jewish, he's cool.

How nice to see good people standing up for the right to be racist. It's sweet in a sick and ugly way.

Frankly though, it's not the overt bigots with badges that bother me. It's the ones that aren't so obvious with their racism that give me pause. They're armed with a computer, not a gun.

Thanks for insulting us because we don't believe having a certain point of view is a crime. I guess its subtle racism (from guys with computers) to believe that you are entitled to hold an opinion.

Behaviors are crimes. If this guy has any incident of mistreating someone, fire his butt. But until then, having an unpopular viewpoint, even a violent view (which is not proven here, but possible), is not a crime.

As someone brought up, the honorable Senator from West Virginia is a former Klansman. Should we demand his resignation? He obviously has more power to effect more people than a patrolman in Nebraska.

You know, I've changed my mind. Why don't we just lock this guy up...better yet just lynch the guy. After all, his racist views might affect his future job performance...

On second thought, I'm going to stick to my original view: behaviors are crimes, thoughts are not. Job performance is what should be important when considering whether or not to fire someone. You know, the whole meritocracy idea. It just somehow seems better than punishing people for what we think that they think.

On the most basic level, an arbitrator found that Nebraska did not have the right to fire the officer. I don't personally agree but that seems to be consistent with the terms of the union contract held by Nebraska State Troopers. Somehow, though, I don't think this is what the thread is getting at...

It seems to me that removal of the officer was justified for the following reasons:

1) The KKK's historical use of violence and terrorist tactics (to say nothing of it's being declared a terrorist organization). To me, the analogy here is not with the Black Panthers but with La Cosa Nostra. You have a group which engages in illegal activities in furtherance of illegal purposes. It is inappropriate for a member of the law enforcement community to have membership in that group. Likewise, consider a scenario where The Weathermen are still an active organization. It would be inappropriate for a law enforcement officer to belong to the group given it's stated goals and methods.

2) The job of police officer is dependent (at least in part) in the perception of fairness (Nebraska's public trust argument). To put it more directly, we must have confidence that our laws are being enforced fairly and impartially (I recognize that many people do have doubts about this, but I suspect we all agree this should be the goal). Therefore, by means of his association with a group dedicated to unfairness towards a given group, the officers ability to perform his work is compromised.

I didn't see this as a free association issue as this is not the government preventing private citizens engaging in legal activity; this is an employer finding that a given association could be reasonably seen to impede job performance. A virulent anti-Semite would be inappropriate as a rabbi (to say nothing of a mohel) nor would I expect a corporate law firm to retain an associate who is openly calling for the downfall and destruction of large corporations. No one is denying the officer's right of association, nor is anyone suggesting that he not have all the benefits of citizenship. I think, however, that employment in the field of one's choice is not one of those benefits.

Obviously, I'm writing with no knowledge of the specific contract terms and this leads to the one "rub" the questions above. I believe the ethical standing of the State Police is solid; that is I believe firing the officer to have been an ethical decision (although it was likely also a political defence); legally is different. I don't know the terms of the officer's contract so I don't know what the legal arguments are nor do I understand the arbitrator's decision ( the article is vague).

I noticed that the article says that the officer resigned his membership in the Knight's party. I am curious if this influenced the arbitrator's decision.

Do you ever have a coherent point to make instead of just throwing the most juvenile temper tantrums at people you disagree with? Find one "white male" on AD who thinks a critic of Israel's defense against Hizballah has less of a right to work for a police or fire department than a Klansman, or is in any way more disreputable than a Klansman. We're all waiting with baited breath.

Sooo..... it's not that I've ever defended any biggots for their view points. Which is EXACTLY what I've said throughout this thread. Guess 3rd grade reading scores really are down in Public schools!!! hahahaha... just a joke.

My point, and has always been that biggots, freaks, weirdos, and other assorted nuts are protected equally. I've NEVER said that Jesse Jackson should be fired, of course I have argued that he's a fruit cake and his ideas normally lead only to divisiveness... but I guess we're back to the public school reading vs private school scores again! HA! I can't let that one go....

Anti-semitism? Man. A stretch. Seriously.

The only point I've ever made is that the Klan isn't necessarily an illegal/terrorist organization that people make it out to be. NO KLAN SPONSORED KILLINGS/BEATINGS, etc have occured in a LONG TIME... It's like saying that Mormons are all Polygamists.... the LDS church has spoken out against it, etc... sure, some may still do it, but not on account of the LDS church (I just watched a documentary). Not all Klansmen are out burnin' crosses, etc. I'd imagine that all are biggots, but why is that so offensive in comparison to other kooky ideas? ? ? ?

I believe that the Klan, again is full of folks with screws loose. However, I can't say that there aren't a NUMBER of groups that fit the same bill... insert my statements about feminists and whomever else.

OF COURSE you're not going to like it, NT, because you generally believe that Black people are still openly and regularly discrimintated against. However, this man should have the right to keep his job as much as anyone in the US who openly discriminates against anyone else outside the office. If he acts in an inappropriate manner, then that's another story...

In America, we can't draw a line in the sand where ever minority groups stomp, and lambast the very constitution that protects all of us. If this man thinks that Asians and Jews run the world, if he thinks that little green men are in his basement, or if he believes that 9/11 was planned by the gov't.... all retarded ideas in my mind... who cares??? He's still legally protected, until the very day that he acts in accordance with the crazy notions. If he loses his job, or anyone does due to this sort of affiliation... it'll be a sad, sad day in American history.

The real question for people at the lovely ACLU would be, is being a biggot any less protected than being an illegal immigrant, a homosexual, or _____ (Insert undesirable)???
I'm not surprised that you disagree with the notion of equal protection, NT....

However, to address your last statement. It's not overt biggots that bother me, it's ones that believe that a certain skin tone asserts a sense of entitlement not offered purely by being American. I suppose that having wild ideas is ok, so long as they don't contradict those of your own......

Try to debate my ideas next time.

I'm sorry, this is getting pointless. Why insist upon demanding evidence if you remain doggedly steadfst in refusing to aknowledge this evidence when it is presented? Why demand evidence and then continue to make assertions in direct contradiction to voluminous evidence presented?

Why insist on people debating your ideas, when you (post after post after post) routinely ignore and refuse to aknowledge it when people DO debate your ideas?

I have listed about 10 Klan murders or acts of violence in the past decade or so, all from about a 3 minute Google search.

I also asked you (again and again and again), even if there was no recent Klan violence (which there obviously is) what difference does that make? What the statute of limitations are on a murderous terrorist organisation?

You again compare the Klan to feminists and Mormons, (in a continuing attempt to be as insulting as humanly possible) but shoot yourself in the foot with your own comparaison. As You yourself said, the Mormon church has disavowed its actions and prosecutes people who still commit them internally. Has the Klan disavowed its violence? Has it broken from it? has it apologised?

Is the reason its murderous violence has comparatively lessened (though not, as you continuously assert, gone away) because the Klan has changed its ways, or because it is just disorganised and has relatively smaller number at the moment? In other words, is the reduction in the scale of murderous terrorist activities due to ideological change, or just circumstantial?


And, of course, the most important question of all, how many times do I need to ask the above questions before you will address them? Cause I think thats four and counting at the moment...




So says the Pot...

I would like to start off by saying that aevans176 there is no way you can compare feminists and Mormons to the KKK. The KKK is an organization based off hatred, even though I may not agree with feminists, I would never compare them to such a heinous group of people as the KKK.

As far as the debate questions:

Can the Nebraska State Patrol remove the officer because he is a member of the KKK?

I think some jobs in the public sector need to have a litmus test, and this is one of them. Racism cannot and should not be practiced in any form in civil service. I find it hard to believe that an individual who belongs to a group who's whole premise is about hating other races can work in an environment where there can benothing of the sort. Would you be ok with a member of NAMBLA being an elementary school teacher?

There's nothing in the constitution about being able to have whatever job you want. There are plenty of cases where your beliefs can interfere with your ability to do your job. If your boss says you can't wear a hat, Orthodox Jews can be fired. If your boss says you have to have a ordinary hair cut, Rafafarians can be fired. Now you may say racism doesn't interfere with being a cop but that's totally untrue. First of all, cops are public representatives of the state. Treating races unequally goes against 50 years of federal law. There is almost a guarantee that a KKK member will treat people unequally in regard to race. Second of all, racism isn't just a feeling people keep to themselves, it dictates how people act all the time. Nobody that hateful will just keep their hate inside. And need I remind you of the racist history white police officers have. If the state can avoid another Rodney King or Amadou Diallo case they should. Obviously racism has been a huge impetus for police brutality through the years.

And if the someone joins the KKK there's obviously something mentally/emotionally wrong with them. I mean if you're crazy and ignorant to be a KKK member you're too crazy and ignorant to be a police officer.

Good job. Next time we'll just have to go out to the monkey bars and solve this.

Realistically, no liberal on this board can debate legally (or chooses not to), how there is a legal difference between being a member of the NAACP and the KKK other than one is socially less acceptable.

Both have their own racially motivated agenda, both have people whom believe that their points are incorrect, and still... we have Canadians arguing that the organization was violent in the past... hmmm...

The notion of being guilty by association is completely against who we are as Americans. Frankly, I have a Korean sister and my wife isn't 100% caucasian, so I can't understand what makes a racist tick. However, I feel the same way about folks in Cults, the Church of Scientology, people that listen to techno music, etc.

If this cop had been a member of the Branch Davidians... how would it LEGALLY be different? I think you all are shooting from the cuff in that you are insinuating that your values should apply to everyone.

I don't care for people who have obese kids, folks who won't let you in on the freeway, $30,000 millionaires, angry but complacent/lazy people (especially if they're liberals), and hard core atheists who won't let kids have christmas parties in school anymore. Does that mean that I shouldn't be able to be a COP? I think what you'll find if you search our law, is that as deplorable as being a racist is, frankly it's not illegal. Neither is being upset about those retards that speed up when you try to merge on to I-635.

I wish Cube Jockey would come into this one and apply the ACLU-esque logic that he so often eloquently utilizes.... what does the law say?

BTW-


Actually, maybe the constitution doesn't, but US labor law does. There's a stark contrast between a belief system, according to Texas Labor law for instance, and behavior. Behavior is terminable, but belief isn't. For instance, I believe that I shouldn't have to wear a tie to work, but it's only a terminable offense if I don't wear the tie and it's part of our dress code. Can they let a guy go for that? Not at all...

I can't wait for the very same people that perpetually talk about Supreme Court precedent to see that this guy keeps his job. Frankly, if I was the police force, I'd give him a desk job in the back somewhere and prevent interaction. That's probably the safest way to handle this....

This debate is going in circles.

One side is saying that his extreme belief system compromises his ability to bear the responsibility of being an armed officer of the law. The other is saying that his belief system is his own personal matter and the State Patrol has no right to fire him on the basis of that system.

A few points:

1) almost nobody has actually cited US Labor Law or constitutional law on this forum, including myself, one reason being that this matter is obviously worthy enough for a debate among legal experts. So this has somewhat become a debate about whether or not the constitution -should- allow this trooper his job... in which case I say one emphatic, "probably not."

2) But interestingly enough in the article the Attorney General Jon Bruning states that the state should fire him becayse "the integrity of Nebraska's law enforcement is at risk." A point well worth considering. Let's say Henderson pulls over any non-white, non-protestant motorist in the near future. Suddenly, Henderson becomes a liability when the case hits the court. The state could be looking at whopping law suits at worse, or long drawn out legal battles about whether or not Mark Furhman said the 'N' word at... well, that too would be pretty worse.

A real shame is that, while I personally don't want the KKK driving my tax-paid for cop vehicles around, I still feel that this is the wrong way for us to enact that change. Here, some prelapsarian Nebraskan town has been invaded by legal experts and media from both sides of the political spectrum while a slew of people who don't know this guy contemplate whether or not he should keep his job. We should be able to settle these debates without wrapping up idyllic small communities and their residents in the cataclysm. There's a deeper problem here and ultimately the American people are going to have to prove themselves capable of working it out for themselves. This era of legislating a christian God verses legislating multicultural tolerance could find better outlets to reach equilibrium through than a disgruntled divorcee and his job.


Furthermore, I think there is a cultural problem here that extend the boundaries of the legal system. I'm sure that if I should up to my interview for a state patrol position with bee's wax dripping off a mane full of dreadlocks, sporting a Phish t-shirt and an unruly beard, I would not get the job. The logic I suppose, would be that the State just doesn't think that sort of character could make for a good cop. And, that's worth mulling over as well-- the idea that we are also chipping away the State Patrol's rights to not hire/fire a certain somebody. So the slippery slope extends in both directions.

Of course they can, and in fact I have, several times. Your repeatedly refusing to aknowledge posted evidence and arguments does not then allow you to demand evidence and arguments.

(Sigh)

I don't know why I bother, you have absolutely refused to address a single point in any of my last few posts, but continue repeating wild assertions as if you were the only one here, but hope springs eternal.

Thus, I will repeat a point I have made twice before, ignored by you both times of course, in the (vain?) hope that you might actually deign to aknowledge it.

Of COURSE there is a difference between the KKK and the other organisations or groups you have listed as their equals: Feminists, Mormons, Star Trek fans and the NAACP.

Please list me the hundreds of people brutally murdered by Star Trek fans over the years. Please cite me newspaper articles about the thousands of crosses burned on people's properties, death threats sent, assault and arsons committed by Feminists. Please cite me where the FBI described the Mormons as 'one of the most dangerous groups in the United States today'. Please show me evidence of the United States government oficially labelling the NAACP a 'terrorist organisation'.

The KKK is a murderous terrorist organisation. Period. Their hayday was in the 1930s and again in the 1960s and 1970s, but their murders and intimidation continue to this day. They continue on a smaller scale because of lower membership and internal disorganisation, but they have never changed their spots, nor disavowed violence, nor apologised. They have an openly violent philosophy which has never changed.

This is why your comparaison of the KKK to feminists and the NAACP is not only offensive and inane, but also bluntly illogical. This is a murderous terrorist organisation, still to this day. And even if it were NOT (which it is) what does that matter? 'They don't kill as many people as they used to' is a spectacularily weak argument.




And do you believe 'the Canadian' is wrong? Oh and by the the little jab at nationalities there was very mature.




And is also a complete red herring. This has nothing to do with guilt by association, and has everything to do with voluntary membership in a violent terrorist organisation. Precident for this already exist in spades both inside the US and internationally. RICO laws for example allow for investigation based simply on membership in certain organisations. Or for that matter there is the 1971 'Ku Klux Klan act' which is still law. This is not about making racism against the law, and it never has been. It has to do with legitimate repercussions of joining a murderous terrorist organisation.

While you have been ignoring my posts, I note you have been ignoring others as well. Such as Sleeper's question: Do you approve of a member of NAMBLA being a kindergarden teacher?

Or, how about a member of Al Qaeda being an airline pilot? Surely you CAN'T have any problem with that, as you insist this would persecution by association, right?

How about a member of the PLF being a border security guard or a nuclear technician? After all you obviously don't think the PLF is a terrorist organisation: they have not killed any Americans in over 20 years!

This has nothing at all to do with guilt by association, and has everything to do with reality.

You're quite welcome, but I don't believe I wrote all White males. I wrote most. You're also welcome to hold any opinion you like. But if you're giving nodding approval to racists, don't be so thin-skinned if you get called on it.



Pop a breath mint and exhale, Blackstone. My point was quite coherent. Whether or not you can process it is on you.

I don't throw "juvenile temper tantrums" at people I disagree with. First, they have to offer a position I consider worth debating. Second, if they have the nerve to offer a position, I assume they also have no problem in defending the position if it is challenged.

Debate. That's what we do here in case you haven't figured it out. Yet.



Since the correct word is bigots, not biggots, maybe you should let that one go.



It's offensive because the Ku Klux Klan has a long and established record of murder, bombing and brutality. There's no statue of limitations for murder and if you wish to belong to a group that has a history of violence, you deserve to be treated like a social outcast.

Despite your swipes at feminists, the NAACP and anyone else whom you are too reluctant to name, Aevans176 what feminist organization has targeted males for murder, voter intimidation or bombing the churches where they go to worship? Please point out when the NAACP or National Urban League burned a cross or sprayed racial epithets on the home of a White family intergrating a previously all-Black neighborhood. Show me where the ACLU committed atrocities against American citizens demonstrating for their civil rights.

The Klan is not merely a bunch of inbred rednecks guzzling brews, waving Confederate flags and longing for a good ol' night ride. Their present diminished numbers means the idea of dressing up in sheets lacks the cachet it once held for new blood. The Klan hasn't repudiated their violent past. They haven't become warm and cuddly just because they have lost most of their juice. But racism hasn't disappeared merely because its most visible proponents aren't having as much luck attracting recruits. White supremacists can sport suits and ties (or carry badges) instead of putting pillowcases with eye holes cut out over their heads.



In America people are free to be Klansmen, Nazis, Communists, survivalists, Black Muslims, radical environmentalists, NAMBLA sympathizers or members of the Flat Earth Society. I don't care what anyone believes or thinks.

Right up to the point where what you believe interferes with my right to simply exist. Then we've go