January 14, 2015 11:30 am -

This gun range has been applauded by gun lovers for banning Muslims. Can you imagine if the NRA were a black group? Guns would be immediately banned in America. Anomaly gives us the latest on gun range owner Jan Morgan.


[su_thin_right_skyscraper_ad]An Arkansas firing range that declares itself to be a “Muslim free zone” turned away a father and son because they have brown skin. Because we all know that brown skin means you’re a Muslim, right?…

“My dad and I used to go to this gun range,” the young man said, who asked not to be identified by name, according to the Arkansas Times, “but we haven’t had as much of a chance to go in recent years since I’ve been at college. It’s changed ownership recently.”

“When we went in, a woman asked, ‘Where are you guys from?’ We told her we were from Hot Springs. She said, “this is a Muslim free shooting range,” so if we are [Muslim] and if we don’t like the rule, then leave. We said that we’re not Muslim, but my dad asked, ‘Why is it Muslim free?’ and they started having a conversation. Then, all of a sudden, I don’t know what went wrong, but she stopped us from filling out the paperwork and said ‘I don’t think you guys should be here.’ She told us to leave or she’d call the cops on us.”

The Dad and his son left.

“We’re brown; I don’t know if she assumed we were Muslim,” he said.”When she first asked us, she said, ‘I would hope if you were Muslim you guys wouldn’t be cowards and would be up front about it.’”

Can’t this bigot confine her racism to Muslims? Musts she ban all people of color?

If you like our content, “like” us on Facebook.

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

83 responses to Gun Range Owner Turns Away Customers Because They Have Brown Skin

  1. Spirit of America January 14th, 2015 at 11:33 am

    Just to add a minor ‘stupidity’ to the larger one:
    “She said, “this is a Muslim free shooting range,” so if we are [Muslim] and if we don’t like the rule, then leave.”

    Anyone see the loophole?

    • arc99 January 14th, 2015 at 12:12 pm

      I got a C-minus in logic my freshman year in college, but I’ll play.

      If I am a Muslim and I absolutely LOVE the rule, that means I can stay?

      Or if I am not a Muslim and absolutely HATE the rule, I can stay?

      Or maybe I am wasting way too much brainpower on this woman’s ignorance.

      • Spirit of America January 14th, 2015 at 4:08 pm

        You just went up to B+, nice job 🙂

  2. Khary A January 14th, 2015 at 11:37 am

    Am I wrong for hoping that her range burns to the ground and then a roving pack of wild dogs pee’s on the ashes all the while her insurance claims fall into a irretrievable void of bureaucracy?

    Cause if I am I don’t want to be right.

  3. tracey marie January 14th, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    she looks very brown to me, the dark hair skin and eyes…is she self loathing?

    • rg9rts January 14th, 2015 at 4:47 pm


      • whatthe46 January 14th, 2015 at 9:21 pm

        morgan is her married name… what’s her muslim maiden name?

        • rg9rts January 15th, 2015 at 1:19 am

          Your guess is as good as mine

  4. William January 14th, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    She said, “this is a Muslim free shooting range,” so if we are [Muslim] and if we don’t like the rule, then leave.
    She is clearly NOT a real American.
    Americans don’t judge others based upon faith.

  5. Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    Every time I read an article like this one, and the outrage that it sparks, I can’t believe that single-sex colleges are NOT controversial. Engineering schools are constantly looking for ways to attract women. They are constantly emphasizing that it’s not what’s between your legs that counts, but what’s between your ears. Meanwhile, there are dozens of single-sex colleges that continue to promote the myth that women and men need to be segregated in order to achieve their potential. These colleges are doing the same thing as the shooting range; basing admission upon characteristics over which a person has no control.

    Suppose the son in this story lived in Boston and wanted to study Nursing. If he applied to Simmons College, they would ask “Do you have a penis between your legs?”. If he answered “yes”, they would say “Get lost. We don’t want your kind around here.”.

    Sure, the boy could go to a different college. He could also go to a different shooting range.

    • arc99 January 14th, 2015 at 2:57 pm

      I can;t believe how you consistently attempt to change the subject when there is a graphic example of the kind of discrmination and bigotry that many if not most conservatives would have us believe, no longer exists.

      The fact is that like it or not, single sex colleges are not violating the law if they are private as opposed to state-run institutions.

      On the other hand, this woman’s actions are in direct violation of the federal public accommodations act as well as the laws of the state of Arkansas. The woman is committing a criminal act.

      If you honestly believe that single sex colleges are a heinous equivalent to racial and religious bigotry, then instead of tilting at windmills in this forum, go ahead and do your part to make such practices illegal nationwide. The rest of us will continue to point out the criminal acts of unrepentant bigots such as the owner of this gun range.

      The Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 states in part:

      (a) The right of an otherwise qualified person to be free from discrimination because of race, religion, ancestry or national origin, gender, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

      The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

      The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges or any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

      • Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 4:02 pm

        I am not changing the subject. The subject is discrimination. The fact that it is still legal in certain situations doesn’t change the fact that it is discrimination.

        It seems that you only want to talk about discrimination when it is practiced by conservatives. If I had been present at the gun range when this incident occurred, I would have given the owner an earful, and then I would have left promising never to return. I will not patronize any establishment that discriminates on the basis of gender, religion, etc. And that’s why it really irks me that these single-sex colleges get a pass. I don’t want them to shut down. I just want them to stop discriminating.

        It took a while for Obama to evolve on same-sex marriage. Maybe, in a few years, you will evolve on this issue.

        Just think about the science. In recent decades, science has shown that people do not fit into binary male/female categories. At the genetic level, most people are either XX or XY, but there’s a lot more to sexuality than just genetics. It is getting harder and harder to define what constitutes “male” and “female”.

        The idea of excluding all males or all females reinforces the notion that there is something which all males or all females have in common. Apart from XX or XY chromosomes, that assumption is simply false. These colleges are reinforcing the notion that we can tell something important about a person’s character or intellect simply by looking at their gender. I think the scientific evidence for that is very slim.

        Colleges have every right to dictate standards of behavior, both inside the classroom and elsewhere on campus. Any person who adheres to those standards should not be excluded simply because of their genotype or phenotype.

        • burqa January 14th, 2015 at 10:06 pm

          You’re changing the subject by redefining the subject of the post, which is specific, to a more general one where you can slip away from the subject at hand to repeat what some pundit has been droning about; who, likewise is loathe to stand up for Muslims being discriminated against.

    • arc99 January 14th, 2015 at 3:01 pm

      and I have to ask why you rely on women-only colleges when you make your point. a woman applying to Morehouse College will get the same answer as the man applying to Simmons.

      frankly, I find it difficult to take your concerns seriously when you attack women’s colleges which for generations were the only option available to many women.

      • Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 4:31 pm

        That’s easy. I am a male, so I picture myself being denied admission.
        Man, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses. The fact that Simmons’ graduate program is coed does not change the fact that males are denied at the undergrad level. Some people don’t start college until they are in their thirties. So a 25 year old male could be admitted to the graduate program while a 35 year old male is denied admission to the undergraduate program. If a 35 year old married couple both applied to the undergraduate program, only the wife would be eligible. And yes, if they applied at Morehouse college, the situation would be reversed, which is equally absurd.

        • whatthe46 January 14th, 2015 at 9:19 pm

          stay on fk’n topic. your posts have absolutely nothing to do with the article.

          • Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 9:33 pm

            Why would anyone be outraged about what happened at the shooting range? Because it is an example of discrimination. If you don’t think my posts are on topic, then you either don’t understand the concept of discrimination, or else you are deliberately overlooking the practice when it suits you. Why the selective outrage? You need to apply your principles consistently, or else you are a hypocrite.

          • burqa January 14th, 2015 at 10:01 pm

            Robert M. Snyder: “Why would anyone be outraged about what happened at the shooting range?”

            I fail to see why anyone would wonder. Yet you’ve put up 8 posts so far in a thread on the topic of a shooting range that bans Muslims and have yet to offer an opinion on the policy at this shooting range.
            You keep slipping away to other subjects, but it’s as if you don’t want anyone to know what you think of banning Muslims at a shooting range.

          • Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 10:33 pm

            The question was rhetorical, and I answered it myself in the following sentence: “Because it is an example of discrimination.”

            I got to know two Muslim men personally during the five years when I worked at a university research lab. One of them attended my Roman Catholic wedding. I think it is DEPLORABLE to exclude Muslims, or members of any other faith, from a place of business or from an educational setting. I feel exactly the same way about gender discrimination.

            Why do people feel the need to defend single-sex education? It seems to me that the DEFAULT position should be that both sexes are treated equally in every setting, unless there is a COMPELLING reason not to do so. Nobody has yet provided anything approaching a compelling justification.

            I make no secret of the fact that I am fiscally conservative. But I also believe in equal opportunity. I believe that each person should be judged on his or her individual merits, without regard to factors over which they have no control, such as gender and race.

            On religion, I believe that if a Buddhist temple or a Muslim mosque want to exclude people of other faiths, that’s their right. But in shooting ranges and other places of business or in educational settings, a person’s religion should never be an issue. And I fail to understand why gender should ever be a factor for college admission in the year 2015. How can you justify it? What is the compelling reason for treating males and females differently in that setting?

            Title IX, which was passed in 1972, only allows it in undergraduate programs of higher education. It explicitly prohibits gender bias at vocational schools, professional schools, and graduate schools. The exception for undergraduate programs was needed, 42 years ago, to get the bill passed. I can’t believe we’re even having this discussion in 2015.

          • burqa January 17th, 2015 at 5:49 pm

            Then why wait all this time and do the boogaloo all around the place instead of just standing up for the Muslims in the first place, directly dealing with the OP?
            Good grief, man, all that other stuff was a waste of time.

            The problem with solely judging people on merit that conservatives have always failed to get is the bias in the marketplace. Recruiters for colleges, businesses, etc. would merely find enough qualified whites to fill various slots and thus perpetuate discrimination and preserve the caste society.

            This is why we had to have set-asides and affirmative action, otherwise all-white coaches on the field, all-white TV shows up and down the dial, all-white management teams in business, etc.

            Our society was integrated because we overcame bigotry that would have prevented that from happening had we only judged by merit.
            Affirmative action has worked and we are a better nation for it.

          • Robert M. Snyder January 17th, 2015 at 7:20 pm

            “Affirmative action has worked and we are a better nation for it.”
            Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, Affirmative Action says that you need to take affirmative steps to welcome minorities, such as explicitly stating that they are given equal consideration and even advertising jobs in publications that minorities are likely to read. But when two candidates apply for a single job opening, it is my understanding that you have to (A) have a written job description that clearly spells out the requirements, and (B) hire the candidate that best meets the requirements. So, for example, if the Ferguson Police Department has one opening for a police officer, and two candidates apply, with one being white and one being black, they are legally required to hire the applicant who is best qualified, without regard to race. Affirmative Action may require them to have an outreach program, but if they are an Equal Opportunity Employer, then the are legally required to hire the best qualified candidate.
            The shooting range and the single-sex colleges have a built-in bias against a particular religion or gender. That is very different from Affirmative Action, isn’t it?
            I haven’t really looked into Affirmative Action, so maybe you can fill me in if my understand is wrong. But my gut tells me that when two or more people apply for a position at my company, I am supposed to hire the best qualified applicant, without regard to race, gender, height, age, acne scars, or any other attribute that is wholly or mostly outside the person’s control.
            Surely you’re not suggesting that I need to favor a minority who is less well qualified, simply because of their race. Outreach? Sure, I’m all for it. But when it comes time to hire, I’m going for the best qualified person every time. If the best qualified person happens to be a one-legged transgender woman with tattoos covering her entire face who is better qualified than all the other applicants, I would hire her without hesitation. Where am I going wrong?

          • burqa January 18th, 2015 at 3:58 pm

            The way to look at Affirmative Action is to begin with the problem it addressed.
            We had a society with a caste system. The goal was not just equality, but to integrate our society.
            There was widespread opposition to hiring minorities. Countless lawsuits of the time testify to how widespread this refusal to hire minorities has been.
            Without Affirmative Action, a large number of companies hiring people and schools accepting students would have remained nearly all-white because they would have simply kept the standards such that white candidates would qualify. This way, every time they had a white and black candidate who met the qualifications, they would always hire the white person. This was viewed as a sort of loophole. Affirmative Action took away that loophole. The desire to refuse to integrate was so strong that countless lawsuits had to be filed to force integration.

            Affirmative Action worked and we are far better off because of it. I remember a time when everyone on TV was white and it was a HUGE deal when Dihann Carroll got the lead role on “Julia.” It’s a whole new ballgame now and it is gratifying to see how far we have come. It’s something we have achieved as a country and should be proud of.
            We still have a ways to go. There are times when we need to focus on that, but there are other times when we should also look at the progress we’ve made.

          • Robert M. Snyder January 18th, 2015 at 10:24 pm

            Thank you for the thoughtful response. I’m not convinced that Affirmative Action is the main reason why things have improved, but I don’t see any point in quibbling.

            A German friend of mine once told me that Germany is twenty years behind the US in terms of race relations. Judging from recent events, I would say that it is an ongoing challenge and we shouldn’t rest on our laurels.

            My white older sister eloped with a married, black father of eight in 1972 when I was in seventh grade. It tore my family apart and I didn’t see my sister again for twenty years. Of course race wasn’t the only issue that caused the rift, but race was definitely part of the mix.

            Since that time I have always been very conscious of race. I have always tried to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, and I hope that things keep moving in the right direction.

            If I were in a shooting range, or any place of business, and I witnessed discrimination, my adrenaline would start pumping and there would definitely be a heated confrontation between myself and the proprietor.
            As you know, I feel exactly the same way about single-sex colleges, but I’ve said all I have to say on that issue.

          • burqa January 18th, 2015 at 11:07 pm

            Nice reply, Mr. Snyder. Even if we do not agree, I prefer an exchange of views that is more convivial than what is, unfortunately, so common in forums such as this.
            To your first point, it is rare in human affairs that only one thing causes something as significant as the integration of our country. The countless lawsuits and all the trauma of busing attest to the resistance, even after the laws were passed and upheld in the courts. I think they also attest to the necessity of Affirmative Action and show how slowly progress would have come otherwise.

            I can’t speak for Germany, though what you said agrees with what I’ve read. I have been to France many times for visits that lasted up to 4-1/2 months. My impression is they are far behind us, too.
            One guy who later turned out to be a good friend once tried giving it to me on racism about 20 years ago and I nailed him, but good.
            First I asked him, “What do New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Memphis, New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit, and St. Louis have in common?”
            Of course he didn’t know and I replied, “They all have black mayors. About 13% of our population is black and about 10% of France is Arab. Tell me what major cities in France have an Arab mayor.”
            He just sat there speechless with everyone else just looking at him and me grinning like a fool.
            That was the end of that.

          • richtxn January 19th, 2015 at 12:49 pm

            But what can you do if you are Chinese and own a Chinese restaurant in say, Dallas, and you want to hire only Orientals so as to keep the “Chinese” motif? If you were forced to hire where race is not a consideration, wouldn’t it be odd to have a waiter that wears hip hop clothing, or another that is dressed in cowboy boots and hat, another wears a head to foot burka thing, and the cashier wears a turban? Isn’t that going a bit too far?

          • burqa January 19th, 2015 at 8:55 pm

            Believe it or not, Chinese restaurants have to follow the law. Affirmative Action is not a proposal being debated in Congress, it has been established as law for quite some time now.
            Affirmative Action first came into the popular lexicon before the Beatles – in 1961 with an executive order by President Kennedy. It was reaffirmed and expanded upon by presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter before the Bakke decision by the Supreme Court.

            But you illustrate why we need to keep Affirmative Action even though we elected a black president. After all these decades there are still plenty of people who don’t get it and are trying to figure out ways to discriminate in hiring.
            This is the societal ill that Affirmative Action has served to reduce dramatically and we are a far better country now that we have integrated our society.
            On Martin Luther King Day, this is cause for celebration.

          • zarnon January 17th, 2015 at 10:18 pm

            The knock on Conservative posters is they never stay on topic, they post hastily assembled ‘facts’ that are usually flat out incorrect then when shown how idiotic their ramblings are start on the next. Do you see why you might be a tad bit irritating?

          • Robert M. Snyder January 17th, 2015 at 10:32 pm

            Please point out any facts that I have provided which are incorrect.

          • richtxn January 19th, 2015 at 12:45 pm

            imo, football players should not even be permitted to walk by a woman’s college because they might give in to their baser instincts and go on a raping spree. Jameis Winston , anyone?

          • burqa January 19th, 2015 at 8:17 pm

            ALL football players or just the black ones?

          • richtxn January 19th, 2015 at 8:26 pm

            I dunno; I haven’t run the numbers by color. Lots of white high school football players go rape crazy, but, like I said, I have no data on college rapists.

          • burqa January 19th, 2015 at 10:38 pm

            Can’t help you with the numbers.
            Don’t need-em.
            I favor the notion of standing on the foundational principles this nation was founded upon, established by the Founding Fathers.
            In this case, the principle of being innocent until being proved guilty is worth preserving, rather than tossing overboard.
            Punish those who commit the crimes, not everyone who happens to share a hobby, profession or other common interest with a criminal.

          • whatthe46 January 14th, 2015 at 10:06 pm

            i answered your question on yesterday. and you’re still attempting to beat a dead horse. and this is more than an example of discrimination.

          • burqa January 17th, 2015 at 5:41 pm

            So you’re supporting the Muslims on this one? Is that it?

          • whatthe46 January 17th, 2015 at 5:53 pm

            are you trying to send him into a coma?

          • Robert M. Snyder January 17th, 2015 at 10:31 pm

            Absolutely. As I said, I once had two friends who happened to be Muslims. One was from Iran, and the other was from Bahrain. They were nice guys. I would not want anyone to discriminate against them, or anyone else, based upon their faith, race, gender, etc.

          • whatthe46 January 17th, 2015 at 10:43 pm

            “I would not want anyone to discriminate against them, or anyone else, based upon their faith, race, gender, etc.” since when?

          • Robert M. Snyder January 17th, 2015 at 10:53 pm

            What have I ever written that would lead you to believe that I would support discrimination? I have believed in and advocated equality for as long as I can remember. I can remember when I was five years old, in 1965, my Protestant Sunday school class used to sing “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight.”. It’s the way I was raised. Why are you even questioning this? Do you think that all conservatives are prejudiced? If so, you need to get out more.

        • zarnon January 17th, 2015 at 10:16 pm

          Good LORD. Are you still beating this to death? Hurry, there’s an article on the Higgs Boson where you can post your hypothetical problems getting a Latte in Harlem.

          • Robert M. Snyder January 17th, 2015 at 10:28 pm

            The article was about discrimination. The fact that it was religious discrimination in a shooting range is immaterial. The underlying issue is discrimination.

            The issue of single-sex colleges is indeed hypothetical for me, because I have no plans to apply to one. The issue of shooting ranges is hypothetical to just about every member of Liberaland, since the overwhelming majority are strongly in favor of gun control and unlikely to possess firearms of their own. So my example of single-sex colleges is no more hypothetical than the shooting range issue. For virtually everyone posting here, they are BOTH hypothetical.

            I believe that race, religion, gender, age, height, attractiveness, and any other factor over which people have no control should NEVER be used to deny admission to a school or a place of business unless there is a COMPELLING reason to do so. Therefore, I condemn what the shooting range did. I also condemn what single-sex colleges are doing. At one time, 100 years ago, there may have been a compelling reason for single-sex colleges. Those days are over. Not one person has provided a single compelling reason why these colleges should not be required to admit persons of both sexes.

      • tracey marie January 14th, 2015 at 7:08 pm

        the college he searched high and low to use has graduate programs for both male and females…he is a bona fide idiot like what the46 stated

      • burqa January 14th, 2015 at 9:56 pm

        So what’s holding you back from enrolling now, Mr. Snyder?

        • whatthe46 January 14th, 2015 at 10:04 pm

          hypotheticals. he’s not interested in going anywhere. smoke screen to avoid the issues at hand. just like all rwnj’s. what do you think about how great the economy is…? but, he doesn’t put katsup on his burger. dope.

          • burqa January 14th, 2015 at 11:24 pm

            Get ready for a redirect into another rut such as Benghazi….or Obama’s birth certificate……or Fast and Furious…….or abortion….

          • Robert M. Snyder January 15th, 2015 at 2:29 pm

            “hypotheticals. he’s not interested in going anywhere.”

            When was the last time you visited a shooting range?

          • burqa January 17th, 2015 at 5:40 pm

            Why ask whatthe46 about visiting shooting ranges when you are so loathe to visit the one in the OP?

          • Robert M. Snyder January 17th, 2015 at 7:25 pm

            They suggested that my criticism of single-sex college was not valid because I had no plans to attend one. I turned it around by suggesting that their criticism of the shooting range owner was not valid since they had no plans to attend a gun range. Maybe I didn’t word it clearly enough. Sorry.

          • zarnon January 17th, 2015 at 10:15 pm

            Right. The whole wasted dialogue was on your hypothetical. Then when it’s wrong you change the subject [applauds]. Awesome job troll in training.

    • whatthe46 January 14th, 2015 at 3:27 pm

      you are a bonafied idiot.

      • Hirightnow January 14th, 2015 at 3:42 pm


      • Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 4:23 pm

        I’ve been called worse – by my friends!

        • rg9rts January 14th, 2015 at 4:46 pm


    • rg9rts January 14th, 2015 at 4:46 pm


    • Chinese Democracy January 14th, 2015 at 9:07 pm

      and you could also be a bigot using pretzel logic to justify it

      • Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 9:27 pm

        Why not provide your own logic to justify continued gender discrimination by these colleges?

        Suppose that my wife and I live in Boston. She has a great job with career advancement potential. Our children are enrolled in public school where they have developed many friendships. There is an undergraduate program of study at Simmons College that provides exactly what I am looking for, and no other college in Boston offers a similar program. How would it hurt female undergrads if I qualified and were admitted into the program?

        Under the current policy, I would either have to choose a different school (which would entail choosing a different program of study), or else move to a different city. Why? Because my chromosomes are XX instead of XY. That’s the very definition of sex discrimination. Any argument you make to justify it could be used to justify racial discrimination.

        People don’t choose their sex or their race. They shouldn’t be factors for admission. Not in 2014.

        • whatthe46 January 14th, 2015 at 10:02 pm

          comment on the article. considering your post is based on a hypothetical and the article isn’t.

        • Chinese Democracy January 15th, 2015 at 1:33 pm

          those colleges dont ban Muslims do they?

          • Robert M. Snyder January 15th, 2015 at 2:23 pm

            Only if they’re the wrong gender.

          • Chinese Democracy January 15th, 2015 at 4:52 pm

            so no… they dont ban Muslims .. good

        • zarnon January 17th, 2015 at 10:13 pm

          Yes, it’s all about you isn’t it?

          • Robert M. Snyder January 17th, 2015 at 10:46 pm

            “Yes, it’s all about you isn’t it?”

            Would you say that to a woman who posted the phrase “My body. My choice.”?

            I believe that we all have a right to express concerns about how public policy issues affect us personally. That doesn’t mean we don’t care about others.

            Can you provide a single, compelling reason why, in the year 2015, colleges should be permitted to refuse admission to qualified applicants based solely upon their sex?

          • richtxn January 19th, 2015 at 12:40 pm

            male football players would not be raping if they weren’t students at a women’s college. I don’t know of any women’s colleges where students are busy raping each other.

          • Robert M. Snyder January 19th, 2015 at 1:00 pm

            Do you want to live in a society that believes young men and women are capable of self control, teaches them how to exercise self control, and holds them accountable for their behavior? Or do you want to live in a society that does not believe they are capable of self control?

            Because when a society does not believe that its citizens are capable of self control, then that society imposes external controls, including segregated schools, segregated workplaces, segregated seating in public places, and requirements for how men and women must dress (e.g. niqab, burqa, etc).

  6. Hirightnow January 14th, 2015 at 3:40 pm

    Blowhard self-promoting camp follower…she’s doing this for the hits to her site.

    • allison1050 January 14th, 2015 at 10:03 pm


  7. Suzanne McFly January 14th, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Who didn’t see this coming?

  8. rg9rts January 14th, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Land of the free and home of ….

  9. tracey marie January 14th, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    juanita from sanantonio texas is self loathing

  10. Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    I make no apologies for Mr. Limbaugh, but I don’t see how controversial statements by talk show hosts in any way justify discrimination on the basis of gender by colleges.

    Here is a NY Times article from 2011 that discusses the merits of single-sex education. Just some background info I thought might interest you.

  11. tracey marie January 14th, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    he is trolling you arc, just refuse to take his bait.

    • Robert M. Snyder January 14th, 2015 at 9:15 pm

      Tracey Marie, how about reviewing the text of Title IX:

      This law was passed forty two years ago. It explicitly prohibits single-sex graduate programs, vocational schools, and professional schools. It’s pretty clear that they carved out exceptions for existing single-sex colleges in order to get the law passed. Forty-two years later, these undergraduate programs are still being permitted to do what no graduate program, vocational school, or professional school is legally permitted to do. Forty two years.

  12. Chinese Democracy January 14th, 2015 at 9:09 pm

    Mexican cartels are ok .. Muslims not so much

  13. burqa January 14th, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    Reminds me of the time when Malcolm X went to – I guess it was Mecca. He was expecting to just see brown and black Muslims and was surprised to see Muslims of all races.
    This nitwit needs to know that Muslims are the ones mostly on the front lines fighting Islamist terrorists and we need them as allies. We also need to recruit among them in order to penetrate the various jihadist groups in the Middle East.

  14. allison1050 January 14th, 2015 at 10:04 pm

    I know I’m not quite getting those warm fuzzy feelings against my beautiful cafe au lait skin.

  15. Warman1138 January 15th, 2015 at 7:34 am

    Ah yes…..back to the good old days of ”whites only” establishments. All she needs now is a large angry dog and a big fat cracker with a club and a firehose to complete the look.

  16. GoingBackToCali January 16th, 2015 at 9:29 pm

    Where exactly did she say that brown skinned people were banned? Oh that’s right, she didn’t. And isn’t it ironic that there is no name of the *victims*? It is probably made up. Just another liberal lie to deflect all the damage and chaos the current administration is causing.

    • whatthe46 January 17th, 2015 at 5:50 pm

      stop being stupid on purpose.

    • burqa January 17th, 2015 at 5:54 pm

      Her actions said it – y’know, that wacky “actions speak louder than words” – thingy.

    • zarnon January 17th, 2015 at 10:23 pm

      Does she ask white people if they’re Muslim?

      • whatthe46 January 17th, 2015 at 10:40 pm

        this is exactly what’s wrong with racist when it comes to judging people. how many white males have taken the side of the extremist? quite a few.

    • tracey marie January 17th, 2015 at 11:05 pm

      she did with her policy, the arkansas paper is hardly a bastion of liberal views

    • tracey marie January 17th, 2015 at 11:07 pm

      what damage…the record high stock exchange, rising home values, 5.6% unemployment rate, 8 million more Americans with HC, low gas prices, cleaner air and water…those damaging and chaotic things?