Replies

According to Senator Hillary Clinton, the decision has “turned the clock back” on the history of hard-won gains in the realm of civil rights; it is “a setback for all of us who are on the long march toward racial equality and the building of a stronger more unified America”; and it demonstrates the John Roberts-led Supreme Court’s “willingness to erode core constitutional guarantees.”

Remember, now:

It's OK to look at a person's skin color when deciding what SCHOOL they can go to (because skin color matters so much when it comes to reading and writing, uh, right?) ...but it's NOT OK to look at a person's skin color when it comes to national security (because skin color DOESN'T matter when you're looking for MUSLIM terrorists--they could be blonde, blue-eyed or Jewish).

The Democrat idea of a colorblind society--forced desegregation-yes; profiling to prevent terrorism-no!

Good point. The Democrats ARE for racial profiling when it suits their desire to re-engineer society's racial make-up but they are against it if it would eliminate those ridiculous TSA checks of every one out of a politically corrective directive to avoid "offending" Muslims. So the Democrats haven't made a rational showing for why one kind of racial profiling is more advantageous than the other kind. What is the criteria for deciding which one should be public policy? Perhaps their candidates can outline for it us instead of spouting meaningless platitudes about "diversity" and "tolerance."

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus