/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Monday, May 15, 2006

White race reawakening by AG

--posted by Tony Garcia on 5/15/2006

Remember when Bush gave a speech at a college deemed to be racist? The simple act of giving a speech was said to be showing support.

Well, check this out.
A Democratic candidate for attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.
Wonder if the same outrage will come from the Democrats or if the same dismissals will come from the Republicans. Somehow I am betting neither of the parties meant what they were saying back in 2000 on this issue.
Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to ty phus.

Historians say about 6 mil lion Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

Darby said he will speak today near Newark, N.J., at a meeting of National Vanguard, which bills itself as an advocate for the white race. Some of his campaign materials are posted on the group's Internet site.

"It's time to stop pushing down the white man. We've been discriminated against too long," Darby said in the interview.
Now, right or wrong, offensive or not, this guy should be allowed to speak his mind and believe what he wants. You read what he thinks and you can make your own conclusions on his sanity. So don't think there should be a call for banning the speech or forcing an apology from him. The world is better off knowing what he believes and then making decisions based on the knowledge.

What I am pointing out is simply how both parties will "flip-flop" on their positions in similar situations.


Post a Comment

<< Home