Kamala Harris draws parallel between ICE and the KKK

Although Barry Goldwater famously voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the Senate (one of six Republicans to do so), he was no opponent of civil rights who sought to “re-segregate the nation.” You slander him when you claim he was against civil rights and deny that Republicans were much more supportive, as a percentage, of the 1964 civil rights bill than Democrats. It passed on Republican votes.

Goldwater had supported earlier attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960, as well as the 24th Amendment (which outlawed poll taxes that disenfranchised Southern black voters), and his stated opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which he otherwise favored) was based on his belief that two portions of the bill regulating the behavior of private enterprise were unconstitutional, would be unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action:

I realize fully that the Federal government has a responsibility in the field of civil rights, but it would serve no purpose at this juncture to review my position as to just where that Federal responsibility appropriately lies. I supported the civil rights bills which were enacted in 1957 and 1960, and my public utterances during the debates on those measures and since reveal clearly the areas in which I feel the Federal responsibility lies and Federal legislation on this subject can be both effective and appropriate. Many of those areas are encompassed in this bill, and to that extent I favor it.

I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of so-called ‘public accommodations’ and in the area of employment — to be more specific, Titles II and VII of the bill.

I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these two areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional republic in which fifty sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal government.

If it is the wish of the American people that the Federal government should be granted the power to regulate in these two areas and in the manner contemplated by this bill, then I say that the Constitution should be so amended by the people as to authorize such action in accordance with the procedures for amending the Constitution which that great document itself prescribes.

I say further that for this great legislative body to ignore the Constitution and the fundamental concepts of our governmental system is to act in a manner which could ultimately destroy the freedom of all American citizens, including the freedoms of the very persons whose feelings and whose liberties are the major subject of this legislation.

My basic objection to this measure is, therefore, constitutional.

But, in addition, I would like to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the people of America, regardless of their race, color, or creed, the implications involved in the enforcement of regulatory legislation of this sort. To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions.

It also bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life — neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an ‘informer’ psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society.

I repeat again: I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help — but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state. And so, because I am unalterably opposed to the destruction of our great system of government and the loss of our God-given liberties, I shall vote “No” on this bill.

The vote will be reluctantly cast, because I had hoped to be able to vote “Yea” on this measure as I have on the civil rights bills which have preceded it; but I cannot, in good conscience to the oath that I took when assuming office, cast my vote in the affirmative. With the exception of Titles II and VII, I could whole-heartedly support this bill; but with their inclusion, not measurably improved by the compromise version we have been working on, my vote must be “No.”​

 

Oh save your rant. I did not denigrate Goldwater he was indeed a real patriotic real Conservative guy. The reason that the Deep South loved them some Barry was exactly because he was indeed opposed to the Civil Rights act. They (Southerners) did not care that Barry may have had complicated reasons for opposing the Civil Rights act all that they cared about was that he did. The Southerners used Sates Rights as a tool as an excuse to oppose Civil Rights. Goldwater maybindeed had a philosophical reason the oppose Civil Rights being enforced by the Feds but the Yahoo!'s in Little Rock and the KKK in Mississippi who murdered Civil Rights workers only cared that he opposed it !

Save you lecture of comparing percentages of which party supported the Civil Rights act more than the other. The support for or opposition to the Civil Rights Act was not split on party affiliation it was strictly North vs South. Why was the percentage of Democrats voting against the civil rights act higher than the Republicans? Think! There were no Republican Senators from the South it was solid Democratic.
The only Southerner to vote for the Civil Right Bill that was Ralph Yarborough, Democrat from Texas. He was defeated for voting for the Civil Rights Bill.

Sen Connally D Texas and Sen Storm Thurman changed parties from Democrat to Republican because 80 of the Democrats voted for thevCivil Rights Bill. So anyone understanding history understands that the Civil Rights fight was nor party driven itvwas just lied the Civil War the South vs the North.

 

You always get cranky when you get your ears pinned back with facts.

 

Much ado about nothing.

Just a bunch of Kamala-Obsessed RW Tinfoil Hats twisting words.

 

You are correct. Harris is much ado about nothing.

 

Californians will elect her until 2060. But she can't run for national office. She's toast.

 

Kamala-toe Harris disgraces herself comparing ICE to KKK

Kamala Harris, the pathologically ambitious junior senator from California, signaled that she believes open borders will be a wining issue in the 2020 election

 

A "wining" issue?

Like California Napa Valley?

Cool.

 

I think it’s a great strategy for the Dems to run on an anti-ICE, pro MS-13 platform.........especially considering the fact that the majority of the Border Patrol are Hispanics.........

 

You can make up crap but you failed in your attempt to justify why the South voted for Goldwater and I presented you with facts and superior logic and truth.

Look again... All Southern Senators except one voted against the Civil Rights Bill. Since there were no Republican Senators at that time and this was North vs South split it stands to reason that the percentage of yea votes among the Republican was high- again they were all from the South.

You failed again in that you accused me of denigrated Goldwater and I did the opposite. Goldwater may have had lofty philosophical reasons to oppose the Civil Rights Bill but bottom line is that he opposed it and that is all that the Southerners cared about.

Instead of making up s.... to stroke or uplift your ego look closely at history and you will see that the Goldwater win of the handful of Deep South states is what propelled the Southern strategy and it is no mystery why Reagan opened his campaign announcement in Philadelphia Mississippi.

You can make up s..... and rant but history and facts are my side.

 

You presented me with self-serving mental construct, I presented you with the actual reasoning of Senator Goldwater.

The GOP fought valiantly and effectively for the Civil Rights Bill, despite your slanderous claims to the contrary. More than 80% of Republicans in both houses voted in favor of the bill, compared with more than 60% of Democrats.

 

Well, open legs got her to where she is today.

 

She opened more than that.

Crooked AG from CA:

U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state


Federal judges called upon state Atty. Gen. Kamala-toe Harris to respond to reports of a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct going undisciplined in state courts.

Judge Alex Kozinski asked if Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, wanted to defend a conviction "obtained by lying prosecutors." If Harris did not back off the case, Kozinski warned, the court would "name names" in a ruling that would not be "very pretty."

Judge Kim Wardlaw wanted to know why Riverside County prosecutors presented a murder-for-hire case against the killer but did not charge the man they said had arranged the killings.

"It looks terrible," said Judge William Fletcher.

The January hearing in Pasadena, posted online under new 9th Circuit policies, provided a rare and critical examination of a murder case in which prosecutors presented false evidence but were never investigated or disciplined.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html

 

If you read my words you would notice that I noted his reasoning of which I had known of from a long time ago. Goldwater nor husband reasoning was not the issue. I stated that and will again for the third or fourth time that the Southerners who voted for him did so solely based on the fact that he opposed the Civil Rights Act. The Southerners did not give two damn about his reasoning. His reasoning was like an academic exercise but very deficient in practicality of application. I can understand the issue of not wanting the government in our beds, churches, bathroom, diner tables, our doctors examining rooms or operating tables. His belief that each state would take care of the Civil Rights issue was fine in theory but not workable in application.

That gets right to my point that the several Deep South states who voted for him in 1964 were states that still would have our American form of apartheid today if the Federal Law did not exist.

The practical side is that if we did not move on Civil Rights and desegregation we would have had much more than the civil unrest we had in the mid to late sixties. We could very well have had open pockets of rebellion- e.g. warfare. My theory is that bybthe 1970's with so many Vietnam Vets who were Black men if they came back to a segregated America without Civil Right they would not have gone quitly back to share cropping in the South or digging ditches in the North as their fathers did after WWII. The Black Veteran of Vietnam had higher expectations and asperrations than their dad's did.

Us Whites can understand Goldwater's thinking as a philosophical excercise the young Black man by 1976 saw it as just another arm of oppression.

Without the Civil Rights Law we would have created a volcano of resentment that would have blown up on us.

I did not denigrate Republican of that era in any way. I told you the truth and that is the Civil Right law issue was nothing but South vs North.
Of course the Civil Rights law would not have passed without Republican votes. As I pointed out the issue being South vs North and with all the Senators of the Southern states being Democrats LBJ could not do it with Democrats alone and only a sampling of Republicans. He needed to replace the Southerners plus. The Republicans did the right think as did the Northern Democrats. They needed each other to pass the bill.

 

Yes it was.

No it wasn't. It was completely consistent with his Constitutional viewpoint.

That's right.

Only a "sampling" my ass. Over 80% of Republicans in both Houses supported it. The Filibuster was a Democrat Obstruction Operation that Republican votes broke.

 

Look at this link and you will see that what I have been saying forever that the Civil Rights battle was South vs North.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409
The senate voted by South nay, North yea. Texas had one Republican, John Tower he voted nay, the Dem Yarborough voted yea.. Every other Southern state from the Confederacy had all Democrats all voted nay, even Albert Gore Sr. voted nay. As I pointed out the one single only lonely Texas Republican voted nay. Look at the House and you will see that it was just like the Senate it was South vs North.

The filibuster was a Southern production ( plus crazy man Robert Byrd of W. VA) and a sampling of Republicans helped break. Look it up.

You 82 % was not as dramatic as you think because 78% of Democrats voted yes and that is minus all of those Southerners who voted no that included 18 of 19 Southern Democrats which were all obviously no votes. Every Southern Senator even Tower R Tx voted no.

Open he link and you will see that no Northern Democrat voted no except for crazy man Byrd-WVA. The chart bears out what I am saying that this was all South vs North.

 

RACISM, STRAIGHT UP: Missouri Democrat Says Oval Office ‘Needs to be Fumigated’ After Kanye West Visit.