Select Page

This is why the left is so afraid of a serious “Dialogue on Race”

This is why the left is so afraid of a serious “Dialogue on Race”

Six years ago, I entered the dialogue on race so dubiously desired by those on the left. As true to a dialogue, it provides a factual expansion to the current politically biased narratives that limit the dialogue to one narrow specious viewpoint.  So, here it is from February of 2018. 


DISCLAIMER:  I do not use pejoratives casually or offensively, but I also do not use euphemisms when quoting individuals.  Such words should be seen and heard with the impact intended by the speaker.  My apologies to those who may be offended.

We are entering our national celebration of Black History Month.  For generations, school curriculums in America have ignored black history – at least the positive aspects.  Oh sure, there was a general admission of southern slavery, but black oppression and positive contributions of black Americans was overlooked – some say censored.  In old Dixie, where the racist Democrats had maintained unconstitutional and illegal power by force, the history of black America was replaced with propaganda-based education.

Today, black history is taught more fully in our elementary and secondary schools.  Most colleges and universities have African American studies – some with entire departments and degrees in that subject.  Thanks to the signature of President Ronald Reagan, a black American, Martin Luther King, is celebrated with a national holiday.

Across the nation, schools, the entertainment industry, the news services, civic groups and local governments will unite in one purpose – to expand our national knowledge and appreciation of both the suffering and accomplishments of black Americans.

There is a problem, however.  Perhaps Black History Month should be cut back to two weeks because half of the real history is missing.  It has been censored, deleted, edited and ignored in favor of a one-sided history.  It is more of a political narrative than a history.

The foundation of what passes for factual black history in American is largely influenced by political narratives, misleading commentaries and outright falsehoods. This selective use of facts – or the exclusion of relevant facts — gives the impression that liberals in general and Democrats specifically have been the heroes of civil rights.  In too many cases, this corrupt bias is not only left to innuendo or impression but stated openly by ignorant or biased educators and the media.

It is virtually impossible to conceal the fact that the worst elements of institutional racism were the policies of the Democratic Party.  They were not only the party responsible for the management of the evil institution of slavery, but they also caused a civil war in its defense.  More than 618,000 young Americans died in the Democratic Party’s effort to preserve slavery for future generations.

Following the Civil War and despite three constitutional amendments and several federal laws passed by Republicans over the fierce opposition of the Democratic Party, Democrats were able to forcibly seize control of the old Confederate states – creating a bifurcated nation.  In a very real sense, the Democrat concept of a separate confederacy, with different laws, continued for another 100 years.

During this time, the major northern cities controlled by Democrats developed de facto racist policies to address the migration of blacks fleeing Democrat oppression in Dixie.  Hiding behind laws that appeared racially neutral, the urban Democrat political machines developed policies and management practices designed to keep masses of blacks segregated and impoverished.  These are racist policies and practices that remain the iconic character of Democrat regimes in America’s cities to this day.

The eradicating and exculpating of the Democratic Party for hits history AND contemporary role in oppressing the black community is one of the major reasons the issue of racial prejudice continues.  A problem cannot be resolved unless the people or institutions most responsible for historic and contemporary institutional racism are identified and called out.

So, what is NOT being included in the left-wing dialogue on race?  Did you know:

  • That one of the main policies of the Democrat progressive movement was racial purity?  That was embraced by such prominent Democrats as Woodrow Wilson (who segregated the military and the Executive Branch, blocked black job applicants from federal employment and blocked black admissions to Princeton University), Franklin Roosevelt (more about him below) and Margaret Sanger (whose Planned Parenthood predecessor promoted racial genocide, won praise from Adolph Hitler and was a speaker at KKK events). They embraced and advanced the racist pseudo sciences of eugenics, phrenology, and physiognomy.
  • That Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley was the head of a gang of thugs (fronting as a social club) that preyed on blacks.  He was undoubtedly involved in beating innocent blacks, played a major causal role in at least one race riot and was possibly – some say likely — complicit in murder.
  • That the 1964 Civil Right Act was not the first in modern times?  President Eisenhower and congressional Republicans passed civil rights acts in 1957 and 1960 – although they were watered down by overwhelming Democrat opposition and threats of filibusters.
  • That both Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson voted with southern Democrats to defeat or water down the 1957 and 1960 civil rights legislation?  Even on the Kennedy Library website, the history concedes that the 35th President was weak on civil rights.
  • That it was the overwhelming vote of Senate Republicans that broke the Democrat filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act – and that it passed over Democrat opposition because of the overwhelming vote by Republican senators? 
  • That President Johnson consistently referred to the 1964 civil rights legislation in private as “the nigger bill.”  One historian dubbed him “the connoisseur of the n-word.
  • That Senator Barry Goldwater had voted for the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, and that his vice-presidential running mate, Bill Miller, was one of the sponsors?  Goldwater also voted for later civil rights legislation.
  • That the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was drafted and introduced by Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and passed with overwhelming GOP support?  Dirksen’s fight for civil rights got him the cover of Time Magazine.
  • That Franklin Roosevelt was a white supremacist and that the New Deal programs were designed to take jobs from blacks and give them to whites — and that they were crafted by racists, including a one-time member of the KKK, Hugo Black?  That is the reason white unemployment rose to 15 to 20 percent during the Great Depression and black unemployment soared to more than 50 percent.  Incidentally, as a reward, FDR appointed Hugo Black to the Supreme Court.
  • That FDR and congressional Democrats repeatedly opposed Republican anti-lynching legislation.
  • That the health spa that FDR visited for 40 years, until his death there in 1945, barred blacks – a fact that was criticized by the NAACP and the Urban League at the time.  Oh!  And did you know he owned it?
  • That King voted for Richard Nixon because of the latter’s strong stand on civil rights?
  • That the affirmative action laws were supported and signed by Nixon.
  • That Chicago, the most Democrat city in America, was declared the most racist city in America?
  • That Martin Luther King was a Republican (breaking that tradition because of Goldwater), and who was the first civil rights leader to address de facto racism in the Democrat-run cities of the north – taking his first northern campaign to Chicago?
  • That starting in the 1930s, the modern Democratic Party has strategically replaced the civil and constitutional rights of equal justice, access to education, job opportunities, quality housing, safe neighborhoods and free mobility for the false civil right of generational welfare dependency and impoverishment?
  • That the plan to use welfare to keep inner city blacks segregated and dependent (that means impoverished and uneducated) was a plan first developed by black Chicago Congressman William Dawson?  He was elevated to the vice chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee to spread the concept throughout the nation – and indeed he did.
  • That President Johnson expanded on this concept of welfare-as-civil-rights with his War on Poverty, which he told two southern governors that the legislation would “keep niggers voting Democrat for 200 years?”  Years after the War on Poverty was declared, and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, the results clearly establish that lifting blacks out of poverty was never the purpose.
  • That the first black members of Congress – House and Senate – were all Republicans?  Many came from southern states after the Civil War.  They were eventually run out of office by illegal elections after the Democrats regained control of the southland.  The House was again integrated when Chicago black Republican Oscar DePriest was elected to the House in 1928 and Massachusetts black Republican Edward Brooke was elected to the Senate in 1966.  DePriest was ousted by the Democrat machine, but it took another 26 years for Democrats to elect a black senator.
  • That the Democrat’s opposition to school choice is based on a desire to maintain the status quo?  The poor quality of education in America’s inner cities is not an accident or an unanticipated outcome, but the result of implemented policies.
  • That virtually every race riot, based on black anger and frustration over oppressive policies and official abuse, has occurred in cities over which the Democratic Party as long ruled?
  • That radical black activist Malcolm X referred to black officials who draw their power, prestige and profit from the Democrat racist power structure “house niggers”?         

This list could go on and on.  It could be a very long history book.  I know, because I am just completing one.  Of course, getting it published could be a problem because most publishing houses are committed to false racial history narrative.

On a recent edition of his name-sake programs, Joe Scarborough suggested that the “other side” – meaning whites, Republicans and conservatives do not want to engage in that oft called-for dialogue on race. Au contraire, Mr. Scarborough.  It is you and your kind that censors and blocks differing opinions and who advance the false narrative for political purposes.  Your show is only a platform for bobble-headed panelists and contributors who represent only one view.

So, here is the deal, Joe. At this point, your show is only a monologue.  You say no one wants to engage in an honest dialogue on race?  Well, I am volunteering to appear as a panelist to provide the essential part of a dialogue – a second viewpoint – or to prove that you are phony baloney.  My only request is that I be included in at least a one half-hour segment on race in America.

And I shamelessly encourage any readers of this challenge to contact Morning Joe and recommend that they invite me to discuss racism in America – what it is and what it is not.

Finally, as we, as a nation, participate in Black History Month, I invite you to read a previous commentary of mine titled “America Ain’t Racist.”  After fighting against racism for some 50 years, I am more convinced than ever that our problem is with the politicians and not the people.

So, there ‘tis.

Postscript: I never did get invited to appear on “Mourning Joe.” 

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Dan tyree

    The left was mostly responsible for racism. Yes, some conservatives also. And even now many on the left are lecturing blacks that they need a nanny state government to survive. But thankfully their message is getting less traction. How dare the democrats to say that blacks would have a harder time getting voter ID? Wh? I see them driving, working, running businesses doing whatever they want. It’s just another way to control since the democrats can’t own them anymore. Or enforce Jim Crow.

    • Tom

      Dan, I respect your thoughts. Let me give you a little background on the voter ID issue. Those black folks are not the ones being talked about in the voter ID issue. What you are seeing is the more successful black folks.

      There is a significant size of the population that is not successful. The voter ID issue / problem comes from the fact that many of these folks do not drive. Also many do not own homes and move frequently to survive thus their ID location is not stable. Also many states have limited the days where voter IDs can be gotten, and then when black show up, the offices are closed or switched times – and this is particularly true in non-white locations. Some blacks cannot get to the state run places to get a voter ID. Minority voters are much more likely to vote as a church related activity on Sundays but this is not allowed by most states.

      My only intent on this comment is to expand your view. I hope I have accomplished this.

      • Dan tyree

        Thanks Tom. You did great

        • Tom

          Thanks Dan, I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

          By the way, this is one of several reasons why I am in favor of national ID cards so that we can document all of our citizens, and use it to qualify for services. I realize that many of the problems I stated would still be a reason why they may not have a voter ID card. But if voting locations had access to a voter ID data base to see if that person is in the database, it would help solve the problem.

          In NC a person can register to vote by mail but it requires that a person download the application. Many do not have computers or access to internet and cannot easily get to libraries for a variety of reasons. And even then, they must still have a stable location or their vote will be held aside if they vote out of district. When held aside, their vote will only be applied if it would change the overall result. In NC, you can use: Driver license, Voter ID picture ID, passport (most poor blacks do not have this), military ID and Veterans cards (most have not been in the military), Student ID cards, (most are not students and cannot afford college), Tribal ID cards but they are not members of Native American tribes, NC DMV Non-driver ID card or a postal ID card but most do not have the required stable residence address, and public assistance ID cards that have a picture included on them..

          I did a deep dive into our voter ID laws and what can be used. All require a stable home location.

          What would help is if a NC Medicaid card would have a photo of the beneficiary on it, but they do not have this. So it cannot be used yet most poor blacks and poor people of any race have a Medicaid card. Again, national ID card could solve this problem, and be used for both Medicaid and Voter ID, and could be issued through the Dept. of Health and Human Services!! But their must be a political will to do this and make it happen!

          • Tom

            And you know Dan, as I think about it, the real issue seems to be that in NC we have federal, state, and local elections all on one ballot, just as most states probably do. If they would separate the local election issues away from the state and federal elections, then any picture ID, even a library card, should be able to be used to vote in federal and state elections to document which state you live and vote in. Then if you want to vote on local elections, you must show a stable address in the precinct. This seems to be a solvable problem but there does not seem to be the political will to solve it. My observation in NC is that Dems seem to want to solve it but GOPs seem to always oppose it. So it goes nowhere. Just a thought….


          add to this line of thinking, the money it takes to travel from the South to get an abortion and you can see why 65,000 rape babies have been forced into this world. Now white people can enjoy the fruits of not having the money to get the medical attention they want even if they were raped.

          Although rich white people still get thier abortions as if the Supreme Court did not even exist.

          It’s a screwy world.

          If I was Horist-ing around, I might say Republicans are trolling for new voters by stopping all those white trash abortions. But that would be wrong, right?


    The most important outcome of this fractured fairytale is to see that, after six years Horist still can’t find all the typos :>) (joke Larry, remember, humor…..but there are typos, at least one)

    • larry Horist

      Frank stetson … What can I say? I went to school during a bad spell.

  3. Mike f

    Larry-Yet another example of republicans good-democrats bad-but that is what everyone expects from you. And I have no doubt that what you say is true, but for some inexplicable reason (not really) your tome stops nearly 60 years ago. As I have pointed out to you in the past-in the mid-60’s the democrats embraced civil rights. Nixon (yes that guy that highlights your career) saw this as an opportunity for the Republican Party and started dog whistling so that the racists of the old south would vote republican. And while I would not go so far as to say republicans are a racist party (merely the party of idiots) it is the party the racists call home. Your inability to grasp this fact does indeed make you an idiot (oh sorry, that is a childish insult, I need to instead use the word imbecile as the very mature Larry does-so from now on I will refer to you as an imbecile so as not to be though ‘childish’). So there tis, my comments on your whining post that Republicans don’t get enough credit for black civil rights-despite the fact that everyone knows they were the liberal party at the time who freed the slaves…

    • larry Horist

      Mike f … This commentary was to correct public perceptions on the HISTORY of civil rights — and the incorrect narratives about the relative roles of Republicans and Democrats. Democrat institutional racism occurs in virtually every major city in America where Democrats govern. That part of the story is well documented in my book that will be out this summer. It takes institutional de facto racism through the Biden administration. Only an imbecile would thing that “imbecile” is not as childish and gratuitous an unsultry as “Idiot.” And you declare all Republicans to be idiots?? LOL Does not sound very mature to me.


    In this, Horist weaves together a compelling story of the ever-present everlasting racist evil that IS the Democratic Party. It’s a false equivalency where he pretends numerous similar items (racism) are the same and part of a greater whole. It’s not that he’s comparing apples to oranges, he’s comparing macintosh with delicious and saying there taste the same. Yes they are both apples, but they don’t work together, plan together, or even live in the same time period in the same orchard. It a false reasoning to say they are all part of a larger plan.

    Northern and Southern Democrats don’t even associate with each other much. Horist cannot prove they are part of a larger plan, a coordinated plan, or even like thinking. He just cannot prove it that it’s some sort of coordinated Democratic effort between Northern cities and Southern States. And it does not help that he spins it horribly to score political points, his main objective.

    Because in the end, as always, Horist does not want you to know the truth. He wants you to vote Republican. He doesn’t need the truth, he needs to win. And he will spin the truth to his advantage in that regard. Truth is not as important to Horist as is winning politically. It’s not about us, it’s about us and them.

    He puts them all together as a single fabric that is now today’s Democratic Party. I think the funniest part is when the Democrats own the entire South and all the Northern cities. Bizarro carpet baggers? Turncoat Republicans looking for a grift, their specialty… You be the judge. Otherwise, Horist has shown us how you can be two places at once when you’re really nowhere at all. His personal specialty.

    Problem is that the factoids he spews could EACH be separate, individual actions, with no knowledge of others or what others are doing over time. Over a lot of time there can be a lot a distinct separate, unassociated actions. For example, half my family arrived in 1866, in the North. The other half, 1912, farther North. They did not own slaves. Their kids did not own slaves. They were Union members from the North. And so on and so on. I have never lived in the city. I have never voted for anyone in a city. I have never knowingly voted for urban systemic racism. I am a Democrat. Not what Horist thinks however. Because most of this is news to me.

    There is no cabal, no secret society of Democratic racists. There is no master plan. There are Southerners who owned slaves and created the Northern Democratic Party. There are Northern Democrats who have little in common, little to do with Southern Democrats. The Southern Democrats did not migrate North. After 64, many Southern Democrats turned in their secret racist ring and became racist Republicans. Northern Democrats said “yea.”

    Blacks began joining the Democratic party during FDR, but really with Johnson. What’s up with that Horist? Did they miss your memo? Southern Democrats became Republicans in large numbers in the 60’s. Surely Horist remembers Nixon’s Southern Strategy that failed to get him the job. But Dems mover to be Republicans, some were racists. However, I believe Horist is right and overt racism is not as prevalent and Dems moved to R’s not because of racism because the party went more progressive and Republicans went more conservative. Johnson was a inflection point, not so much the civil rights, but for all the progressive programs. Horist acts like a dem is a dem is a dem since the dawn of dem dems.

    So, a great gaggling of racist actions owned by Demcrats that do not portray the modern Democratic party and have absolutely no bearing on what this Democrat believes, has done, and will vote for.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … Institutional de facto racism is not grassroots driven. It is top down. Democrat folks are part of the non-racist culture I describe in America. It is the historic racist structures and methods that endure largely under democrat rule. They are often maintained and controlled by people who may not be personally racists. It becomes a matter of power for than race when you see the same institution oppression of Black citizens by Black mayors and Black administrations. It is racist in so far as those it subjugates. I think from the lack of change, it is obvious that Black mayors use the historic racist machinery to gain and maintain power. Black mayors may not look like racists, but they conduct business under the old paradigm, to understand American racism — where it exists and where it does not — you need to get on the ground and not just consumer the headlines and political narratives.


        Horist: I beleive I have shown that systemic racism is top down, bottoms up, and omnipresent in all locations in the United States.

        As well as a lot of the world I would gather. Is it the Democrats fault that systemic racism exists across the globe?

        Yes, the US may be worse given our history and our stupidity, yes, it may be worse in the cities, but in the US I have shown examples of systemic racism outside of the city borders. You have not disproven any of that. I have shown experts who claim you are wrong. You have not disproven any of that.

        But you did call me many names.

        And you pointing fingers at me for needing “to get on the ground and not just consume the headlines and political headlines” is bullshit that you cannot prove. Get on the ground? WTF does that even mean? Want me to tell you about all my black friends? Ist that your metric of quality? Once again, you avoid the facts and go for the person.

    • Tom

      Well, Larry is a opine. And opines always want you to believe them. They always present convincing arguments using strung together cherry picked events. Larry recently accused me of cherry picking presidential war responses – but he was very incorrect. I simply listed all of the responses in recent history that I could remember. And my comment involved equal number of Dem and GOP administrations, something that seemed to escaped Larry’s critical eye. And I think I got them all or close to all of the major ones that showed Biden’s response to recent Houthi’s was faster than previous presidents from both parties. But Larry excoriated me stating I was “Cherrypicking”.

      Truth is, both parties have used the black vote to their advantage. Where Larry is cherry picking is that in the late 1920’s to early 1930’s (And I wrote about this in his previous article) black folks in Chicago tossed out the GOP because of its racist antics and inability to fulfill their promises over at least one decade. Yes, the GOP drove black folks into the loving arms of the Dems who did make some improvements but then did not fulfill promises just like the GOP. Larry also fails to mention that in many cases, the top level leadership of many financial institutions were GOP, and to this day still are GOP leaning.

      Did anyone notice Larry also fails to point out that on September 24, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin by those organizations receiving federal contracts and subcontracts. Even when Dems try to do something for good reasons, GOP (and Larry) like to give it the ugly spin, or better yet, avoid discussing it like Larry just did because it does not fit his narrative – I call this cherry picking!

      The big elephant in the room is blacks have in some ways failed blacks. Nobody seems to want to talk about this. How the Sharpton’s of the world have done more harm than good, and only show up when there is controversy and fund raising potential. How many blacks vote on perception and do not actually check the facts, and then they trust the Sharpton’s of the world to tell them the truth, but the Sharpton’s spin it for fundraising and compliance. But this will end as more blacks acquire critical thinking skills and as their education opportunities improve.

      To your point Frank, Larry also likes to “broad brush” Dems while hating if you do the same to GOP. I agree with your comment about Northern Dems and Southern Dems. My father was a Northern Dem and did not have a racist bone in his body.

      In many ways, Larry’s Dem narrative is old and out of date, like much of his thinking, including geo-political thinking for which he claims to be an expert. Fact is, if you look at the demographics of the South, original Southern Dem families are a minority! Many Northern Dems and GOPs have moved into the South and have made the South much more integrated – which is why several Southern states are red or purple! The South is also well stocked with many Hispanics and other immigrants who do well so that his broad brush of the South and the Democratic Party down here is not accurate.

      I do not think Larry is concerned about the WHOLE truth. He is only concerned about the truth that speaks well for the GOP narrative – thus Larry cherry picks the truth to fit his agenda.

      • larry Horist

        Tom … i cannot begin to tell you just how ignorant your opinions are on the evolution of racism in America. You reference to GOP racism for the switch the Democratic Party is especially uninformed. The entire reason I wrote the book is to correct the false narratives and misinformation that is at the foundation of your personal opinion. Nothing I write here will alter you tightly held belief no matter how wrong. To use an old analogy … in terms of research, you reach for the lamppost like a drunk — more for support than enlightenment.


          Yeah Tom: you “ignorant,” “uninformed,” “false narrative,” “drunk.”

          Horist is the truth, the light, the glory, in his own words.

          It’s not that you are wrong, he cannot prove that. It’s that he is right. More right than you and that makes you wrong.

          Print the book, PP, and watch them rip you a new one.

      • Dan tyree

        Tom every ID card should have our picture. Carry permit, library card or whatever. And the stats should give ID cards to everyone after verification of their identity

        • Tom

          I agree Dan!


    Like I said, Horist weaves a solid fabric from a number of distinctly different threads across over 150 years to conclude all are the very foundation of the current, modern, Democratic Party. He must think Blacks are really stupid not to see the obvious that he sees. He’s had six years to make his point land — it did not. Or maybe they did see him for the spinmaster general that he is.

    Wilson is over 100 years ago. Sanger is over 75 years. And then he slums to a Reductio ad Hitlerum to drop the NAZI card on Democrats.

    He boldly exclaims: “That the 1964 Civil Right Act was not the first in modern times? President Eisenhower and congressional Republicans passed civil rights acts in 1957 and 1960 – although they were watered down by overwhelming Democrat opposition and threats of filibusters” fully admitting that Republicans then, like Republicans today, just can’t get er done, without Democrats doing the heavy lifting for them like Clinton did for them on welfare. Then he lies, a spin he does not change after six years. In the beginning, perhaps it was just extra partisan spin, the spin of exclusion, the spin of taking full credit for half the job…. But after six years, it’s a bald-faced lie.

    He says: “That the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was drafted and introduced by Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and passed with overwhelming GOP support? Dirksen’s fight for civil rights got him the cover of Time Magazine.”

    The truth: “The Poignant Voting Rights Act of 1965 was introduced in Congress on March 17, 1965, as S. 1564, and it was jointly sponsored by Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) and Senate minority leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL), both of whom had worked with Attorney General Katzenbach to draft the bill’s language.” WIKI

    Katzenbach is a Democrat brought on by Johnson, another Democrat.

    WIKI continues: “He (Johnson) enlisted Dirksen to help gain Republican support. Dirksen did not originally intend to support voting rights legislation so soon after supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but he expressed willingness to accept “revolutionary” legislation after learning about the police violence against marchers in Selma on Bloody Sunday. Given Dirksen’s key role in helping Katzenbach draft the legislation, it became known informally as the “Dirksenbach” bill. After Mansfield and Dirksen introduced the bill, 64 additional senators agreed to cosponsor it, with a total 46 Democratic and 20 Republican cosponsors.”

    Not quite the picture that Horist’s partisan politics paints with the knowing spin of omission. He knows it, he did it and now he does it again. He thinks you fools will not notice. This fool checked. After that, I stopped reading since having to fact check every subtle fact is a waste of time. This was a pretty big spin. Now pretty big lie. Egregious and hateful in nature. Not a casual mistake. Purposeful. Repeated often over time..

    It’s an example of how far Republicans will go to steal your vote.

    • Mike F

      Thanks for doing the heavy lifting of fact checking Larry, we all know he plays fast and loose when he writes his tomes. In my comment above I mainly wanted to point out (for the multipleth time) about the southern Democrats (racists) becoming republicans after the Dems moved forward on civil rights. That is a fact that he seems incapable of grasping….

      • larry Horist

        Mike f … What you repeatedly point out is factually untrue. The racist Democrat vote continued to support the racist candidates. When was that magical moment when the Democratic Party turned to civile rights — especially in the south. You may beleive the narrative, but you are way off base in terms of the facts. What I do not grasp is your ignorance of the facts.

    • Tom

      Very good points Frank. As an Independent / Unaffiliated voter I see the spin and the lies by omission, and the bending of truth Larry does. I read his articles with this awareness. And I have also noticed how Larry hates when the full truth is exposed. That is why I read your responses after I read Larry. Reading both gives me a better full view of the truth.


    Your post was spot on Mike, and I honestly did not read it before I posted about Nixon’s Southern Strategy, pretty funny. Wonder if Horist architected that one…. didn’t work, got spanked again…..

    I really loved the part where Democrats rules the South, rule the cities, oh my —- is this kansas? where did all the Republicans go, long time passing……

    In my latest readings on the Southern migration of Democrats, racist and otherwise, they noted that many Dems went Red around Johnson becasue Dems took a turn towards progressive programs for the people while Republicans moved away from progressive programs like civil rights towards more conservative positions. IOW — didn’t join for racism but moved to more conservatism. To Larry’s point, overall, there is less overt racism today while systemic racism runs rampant still.

    Systemic racism: it’s everywhere and everyone of us: One of my favorites is the Draft Registration for WWI that in the lower left corner, at a 45-degree angle, it says: tear off corner if of African descent. What a weird way to indentify race. You know it was meant to be a secret to blacks, and used by whites to segregate troops without making a scene. What an insidious way to call out something that has no need of being called out. Worse yet, today it’s both immoral and illegal to do that.

    Like your piece and Horist should note that we did not read each other before penning those pertaniant pieces.

    And yes, the lie I found was egreggious enough to discount the rest of the article but I assume there’s more of the same. And my obsession is with understanding the truth not fact-checking obvious political hacks. I did leave out one salient fact though:

    BUSTED for egreggious spin not discovered in six years of publication.

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … I do believe that you and Mike did not coordinate your responses. It is just that you and Mike … and Tom … are duped into the false narrative and ignorant of the facts and statistics of the racial evolution of the South and the Democratic Party’s overwhelming governance of institutional de facto racism. The book will be out this summer, so you guy will get exposed to the real story .. although I know you never allow facts to influence you acceptance of .. as Lincoln called them … an ill-founded widely held belief. The whole reason I wrote the book is to bring the proper perspective to the dialogue on race for the edification of the educable. Obviously, not you.


        Horist: My mother taught me how to deal with these stereotypical Republcan myths many years ago that you still regurgitate today.

        You say we are duped. What bullshit. I don’t think you are duped. You believe this crap you spew. The same old crap you have spewed since the 60’s.

        Tom, Mike, and I would love to talk the issues: you mostly just talk trash in your artilces and more in your comments. You support more trash, worse trash, out n out lies from your fans. You seem to feel name calling, bullshit, are forms of communication that you miust protect since you also like to use them yourself.

        Face us in your respones. Quit ducking by changing the issue, name calling, personal attacks and let’s talk issues.

        What are you waiting for? Why are you so afraid that you have to lower yourself to this useless demeaning rhetoric. Are you that insecure in the support of your articles that you need to continually lower yourself in your repsonses?


    Herr Horist: what do the experts say. This is a group of folks collaborating together: (citation may be banned)

    “Racism is not always conscious, intentional, or explicit—often it is systemic and structural. Systemic and structural racism are forms of racism that are pervasively and deeply embedded in and throughout systems, laws, written or unwritten policies, entrenched practices, and established beliefs and attitudes that produce, condone, and perpetuate widespread unfair treatment of people of color. They reflect both ongoing and historical injustices. Although systemic racism and structural racism are often used interchangeably, they have somewhat different emphases.

    Systemicracism emphasizes the involvement of whole systems, and often all systems—for example, political, legal, economic, health care, school, and criminal justice systems—including the structures that uphold the systems.

    Structuralracism emphasizes the role of the structures (laws, policies, institutional practices, and entrenched norms) that are the systems’ scaffolding. Because systemic racism includes structural racism, for brevity we often use systemic racism to refer to both; at times we use both for emphasis. Institutional racism is sometimes used as a synonym for systemic or structural racism, as it captures the involvement of institutional systems and structures in race-based discrimination and oppression; it may also refer specifically to racism within a particular institution.”

    How can that definition ever be applied as Horist has? It’s omnipresent, not just one political spectrum in one location: the city. You would have to say there’s a dividing line between Democratic and Republican controlled regions of the country. In Horists paradigm, if Blacks just left the city, they could leave systemic racism behind. Not bloody likely. You would also have to conclude that Blacks are incredibly stupid to stay in the cities if all they had to do was move to Republicanville.

    The authors give examples: “Political disenfranchisement and disempowerment through voter suppression and gerrymandering are an important historical and contemporary manifestation of systemic racism.” Like that has never happened in Red regions of the country. It just happened in a racist fashion in Horist’s home state of Florida. ” A Florida redistricting plan pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis violates the state constitution, a state judge ruled Saturday.” (citation may be banned) I got a million of these.

    “Because of segregation, African American and Latino people are more likely than White people with similar household incomes to live in neighborhoods with concentrated disadvantage, whose adverse health effects have repeatedly been demonstrated, yet most health and medical studies do not include variables representing neighborhood conditions.” As if there is no segregation or concentrated areas of minorities in Red regions. “Florida Communities Order Racial Segregation at Beaches” “Judge Choate expressly recognized that the city was legally authorized to continue practicing segregation and recommended that the commission segregate portions of the beach by race.” This was in 1956, Delray Beach where crosses were burned as a reminder. Yes, FL was Democratic, but the beach was hardly a city. And I bring it up because Catherine Strong, a NYC transplant, Democrat, changed it all for the better. It’s people, people, not politics in much of this. But today, the following map show segregation in Florida, a Republican State, with much of it right outside Horist’s front door. (citation may be banned) As to the causes, well, it must be the Republicans, he said, sarcastically, subtlety. Segregation exists everywhere, Mr. Horist, all shades of politics.

    “Widespread discriminatory public and private lending policies and practices are another salient instance of systemic racism and have created major obstacles to home ownership and wealth for people of color” as if this stops at the city’s edge and lending agencies curtail these practices in Red areas.

    “Predatory financial services disproportionately target communities of color, adding to the obstacles to their accumulating wealth.” It’s called redlining — not blue-lining :>), but do you think it stops at the city’s edge? Some headlines: “United States Alleges Florida Law Firm Discriminated Against Hispanic Homeowners With A Predatory Loan Modification And Foreclosure Rescue Services Team.” “Wells Fargo Bank sued for race discrimination in mortgage lending practices.” It’s national, but starts in Florida. When it comes to money schemes, Florida rules.

    “Environmental injustice is systemic racism with direct health consequences. Racially segregated communities have often experienced the damaging health effects of environmental injustice. Examples include well-documented patterns of selectively locating coal-fired power plants and hazardous waste disposal in or near communities of color, with adverse effects on the population’s health.” There’s an area north of Miami where this exact thing happened. Democrats?

    Criminal Justice System: I am not quoting this one, I am sure it’s pretty evident that the poor get the wrong end of the stick from the legal system across the entire country. But only recently: “’Hostile to Black Americans’: Breaking down 5 laws NAACP named in Florida travel advisory.”

    I hope Horist and others find the authors an interesting read in that these guys are looking at it as a health issue. But clearly the examples are not just found in Democratic cities. All you have to do is pick a topic, targer a Republican stronghold, and you can find it ez pz.

    The stories first line says it all: “Racism is not always conscious, intentional, or explicit—often it is systemic and structural.” That’s a hard one to fix. But we have to do better, all parties, all regions, all of America. Only when we no longer need to identify someone as black or white, except for police identification purposes, will we have succeeded. Otherwise, we just need to have sex with each other so we can have one color, under God, forever. I think we are better than that.

    In closing, 24/7 noted the States, by racism. And the top ten racist states: WI (b), MN (b), IOWA (r) IL (b) , MICH (b), CT (b), NB (r), NJ (b), OH (r), and PA (b). FL is 33rd. The best places: HI (b), NM (b), TX (r), WY (r), MT (r), ID (r), AZ (b), WV, (r) Alaska (r), KY (r), and TN (r). FL is still 33rd. (citation may be banned) I don’t know the exact criteria here, a lot of economic factors, but it points out 1) racism exists in many states, red and blue. It is where you expect (IL, CT, etc) and isn’t where you most expect it (TN, KY, TX). Hopefully that will inspire Horist to get off the blame game and onto the shame game, shame on all of us. Thank you Horist, for being woke to this and spreading your awakening.


      Sorry, but in the previous tome, one or more of the citations is BANNED under PBP rules for almost-free-speech.