Showing posts with label KKK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KKK. Show all posts

Friday, August 6, 2010

Blood On Their Hands

Imagine if the KKK were acceptable in polite company. Imagine if the KKK made regular appearances on your television, compliments of a press that viewed them uncritically. Imagine if cable carried KKK-TV. Imagine if the message of the KKK was repeated daily to the people of America. What if there were KKK studies at every major university where their message of racism was taught, contemplated, and made the subject of acceptable academic discourse. Do you think that white racism would be endemic today? Of course.

So what would happen if the roles were reversed?

Well, in fact, they are.

The NAACP calls the Tea Party racist. The Congressional Black Caucus claims to have been subject to repeated acts of racism in March by the Tea Party - something that even the NYT now acknowledges is false. Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches Black Liberation Theology, an ideology premised on the belief that whites are the enemy and racism in America is pervaisive. When the worst act of violence on our soil hit home on 9-11, Wright called the violence justified as "America's chickens coming home to roost." Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has been even more vociferous than Wright in pushing these same canards. Indeed, he preaches a degree of racism and vitriol every bit as toxic as that of the KKK. The Nation of Islam is also a major player in prison ministries. Then there is King Samir Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panther Party, who, when he isn't trying to intimidate voters at Phillidelphia polling stations is advocating the murder of "cracker babies."

In academia, some of the most brilliant black minds teach Critical Race Theory, a belief system that racism is eternal and pervaisive. Others teach that all white Americans alive today are responsible for slavery and oppression that occurred before they were even born. These same academics teach that whites owe the black community penance for their sins in the form of reparations.

Jesse Jackson, a man who makes his millions throwing the race card with wild abandon, wants a new "black national anthem." Al Sharpton, well, he's a class unto himself. If you have not read the bloody history of this race baiter, do see this now decade old column by Katherine Jean Lopez. (H/T Soccer Dad)

The bottom line, what appears to be at least a substantial minority of blacks are taught to view the world through an entirely racial lens. If something happens that they do not like, than it must be racism. It promotes a lack of personal responsibility, mis-placed anger, simmering hatred and a deep-seated sense of grievance. It is toxic.

At best, this leads to massive and daily distortions in our society. At worst, predictably, it leads to violence. Though the reality of racial grievance as a motivating factor in black violence is studiously ignored by the press, it has shown up in some very high profile cases. The first time I noticed it was in the Virginia sniper case. No one seem concerned that it was The Nation of Islam that inspired the snipers John Muhammed and Lee Malvo. No MSM outlet that I am aware of paid any serious attention to the role of the toxic teaching of the Louis Farrakhan in that incident, though it certainly was not hidden in the testimony at trial. This from a local NBC affiliate reporting on the trial in 2006:

Muhammad trained Malvo in weapons, kept him on a rigorous diet that allowed only one meal each day, and introduced him to the teachings of the Nation of Islam, Malvo said. Muhammad hated America and thought white people were "the devil." . . .

Recently, in Knoxville during one of the trials for the subhuman acts of rape, torture and murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, two white UT students, perpetrated by a gang of four black men, one of the witnesses testified that one of the defendants was "Muslim and hated white people." Whether that hatred was a motivating factor in this crime - a crime itself studiously ignored by the MSM - I do not know. But it would seem likely based on the above testimony.

And now today, there is the following on the motivations of the black man who, the other day, killed eight people where he worked until being terminated for theft:

A black man who went on a shooting rampage at a beer distributor calmly told a 911 operator that it was "a racist place" and that he "handled the problem" but wished he had shot more people.

Omar Thornton called 911 after shooting 10 co-workers - eight fatally - on Tuesday morning at Hartford Distributors Inc. He introduced himself as "the shooter over in Manchester" and said he was hiding in the building, but he would not say where.

"You probably want to know the reason why I shot this place up," he said, his voice steady. "This place is a racist place. They're treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too. So I took it to my own hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people."

Connecticut State Police released the audio of the four-minute 911 call on Thursday, the day company and union officials rebutted suggestions that the company had ignored Thornton's complaints of racism.

Thornton, 34, went on his rampage moments after he was forced to resign when confronted with video evidence that he had been stealing and reselling beer.

The 911 call confirmed suggestions from his relatives and girlfriend that he believed he was avenging racist treatment in the workplace.

Hartford Distributors president Ross Hollander said there was no record to support claims of "racial insensitivity" made through the company's anti-harassment policy, the union grievance process or state and federal agencies.

"Nonetheless, these ugly allegations have been raised and the company will cooperate with any investigation," Hollander said.

The union said 14 of 69 dock workers, or 20 percent, were racial minorities - four black, nine Hispanic, one Asian.

The idea that Thornton's motive may not have been retaliation for losing his job has not sat well with many of the people who knew the victims and have firsthand knowledge of the environment inside the enormous distribution center in Manchester.

"Everybody just thinks this race card is such a wrong thing," said Michael Cirigliano, whose slain brother, Bryan, was Thornton's union representative at the disciplinary meeting and the president of the local union.

Michael Cirigliano also spent three decades working at the warehouse before he retired two years ago.

"The Hispanics and the blacks were telling me they've never seen anything they're accusing the company of in the bathrooms or anywhere else at HDI," he said. "It's never been separated white, black, Asian. It's never been like that."

He said the company had increased its hiring of minorities in recent years.

"They've been bringing in more and more minority people to fill the positions," Cirigliano said. "You could almost go as far as that's reverse discrimination. They were hiring the groups to balance the workplace, because that's what we are in America, there's a balance."

Anthony Napolitano, the son-in-law of victim Victor James, 60, of Windsor, said James treated everyone equally, regardless of race or religion.

Truck driver David Zylberman, a 34-year employee of the company, said that the racism claims "pissed me off because they were good people."

Thornton's ex-girlfriend, Jessica Anne Brocuglio, told The Associated Press on Thursday that he had a history of racial problems with co-workers at other jobs and believed he was denied pay raises because of his race. . . .

Nine people dead because of a black man who saw everything bad that happened to him through the prism of race. That act, like the Virginia snipers and possibly the Newsom-Christian murders noted above, are the extreme but wholly foreseeable results of those who preach racism as their meal ticket.

So this is where I think we are . . .

It is long past time that we on the right start demanding an end to the hatred and reverse racism that pervades and is accepted by so many on the left.

It is long past time for we on the right to stop accepting uncritically the teaching of Critical Race theory and similar canards in our colleges and universities.

It is long past time that we allow people like Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan to exist in America without demanding that everyone, blacks and whites alike, denounce them utterly and fully to the point that they are not tolerated on the left or the right.

It is long past time for the MSM be held to account for reporting unsubstantiated claims of racism.

And, I think, it is now time for an end to affirmative action and the use of disparate impact to persecute companies and people for racism where none actually exists.

Bernard Chapin wrote a few days ago, "racial blindness is a conservative thing." It is true. But it is not enough. Conservatives need to demand equality for minorities and condemn racism whenever and whereever it is found. But equally, it is time to vociferously demand the same from the press and from minorities. The current situation is untennable and immoral.

Read More...

Friday, April 9, 2010

Over The Top

I. Just How Bad Do You Have To Be For The KKK to repudiate you?

This from the Ku Klux Klan, LLC website:

News Release

NOTE: The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The "Westboro Baptist Church". We absolutely repudiate their activities.

The Ku Klux Klan, LLC.

www.kukluxklan.bz

870-427-2819

. . . . you really have to be off the chart nuts for the KKK to issue a press release disclaiming any relation . . . and, I might add, Westboro Baptist Church is led by Fred Phelps, a lifelong Democrat.

(H/T Rocket Surgery)

II. More Crazy Nancy-isms

Crazy Nancy Pelosi, who told us a few weeks ago that we had to pass Obamacare in order to find out what's in it, has decided there's no need for anyone looking too closely now that its been passed:

It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest. All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on.

Bryan Preston, memorialized at Instapundit, believes that Pelosi's analogy falls far short:

Sticking with the refrigerator analogy, here’s something that I think gets us a lot closer to reality than anything Pelosi is likely to say. You’re lured to buy a refrigerator, only to find out that once you add up all the hidden costs the price is probably 30 times what was advertised, and the thing ends up taking over your entire house and bankrupting you and your whole neighborhood. You call somebody to come fix it, and the IRS shows up.

III. From the "live by identity politics, die by identity politics file.

There is blatant racism going on . . . and the race card is flying - all within the Democratic Party.

While Democratic strategists back Case because they think he has a better shot at winning, "Case is roundly loathed by the Hawaii party establishment" for a few reasons. First, in 2006 he challenged Sen. Daniel Akaka in the Democratic primary. Second, he's white. The Asian American Action Fund is attacking the DCCC for quietly siding with Case:

“It is unseemly for party officials to step into a special election with more than one Democrat, particularly in a district where 58 percent of the population is Asian Pacific American," says the Asian American Action Fund executive director Gautam Dutta in a statement, provided to POLITICO, that's likely to be the first shot in a campaign to resist DCCC's efforts.

"Imagine the disgruntled reaction were the DCCC to step into a contested special election in a predominantly African-American or Latino district," Dutta pointedly added.

Yes, well, as Democrats regularly remind us, any action that a minority group doesn't like is per se racism, regardless of the motives.

IV. Democratcy In Action

In California, the state's Democratic party is stacking the deck in favor of Barbara Boxer against primary challenger Micky Kaus. They have decided to only allow Boxer to speak at the state's Democratic Party Convention. No need for the electorate to make an informed decision when the party heads have made their pick. Why bother with a primary?

Read More...

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Slavery, The KKK, Jim Crow, The 14th Amendment, Guns & Chicago


The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument today in McDonald v. City of Chicago. At issue is whether the Second Amendment, whose broad contours were decided in Heller, applies to States. Chicago has gun laws equally as restrictive as those struck down in Washington D.C. by Heller. But there is so much more here. This is anything but a normal case.

There has not been a case so intertwined with the issues of slavery and racism since the Civil War. Here is the big, big, big rub. Ultimately, for opponents of the Second Amendment, in order for the Court to find that the Second Amendment does not apply to states, the Court would have to uphold a series of racially charged, post civil war decisions that gave free reign to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and which forgave the slaughter of hundreds of blacks one Easter's day in post-Civil War Louisiana. Those cases were an attempt to limit the rights of blacks in post Civil War America and they are a stain on our nation's history that should not be left standing.

Here is the background to McDonald. The starting point is with perhaps the most reviled Supreme Court decision of all time, the 1857 case of Dred Scott. In that case, Chief Justice Taney, a Democrat, held that no black, whether a freedman or a slave, could ever be considered a citizen of the U.S. entitled to rights under the Constitution.

Dred Scott was one of the many fuses that led in 1861 to the Civil War. In the immediate aftermath of the war, the abolitionist Republican Congress, in answer to Dred Scott, amended the Constitution. They passed the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery. They passed the 14th amendment, of concern in the instant case for the Privileges & Immunities clause as well as the Due Process clause. Specifically, it states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . .

They also passed the 15th Amendment, preventing States from interfering with the right of anyone to vote based on such person color.

At issue for originalists in McDonald is what the drafters intended when they wrote the 14th Amendment. You can read the Petitioner's brief in McDonald for some very good historical research on that topic. It is pretty clear that the drafters intended the "privileges or immunities" clause to extend the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights to individual citizens in each state as an answer to Dred Scott. The due process clause - of such importance today - was then considered purely procedural.

But in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court gutted the "privileges and immunities" portion of the 14th Amendment, holding that it only applied as a brake on federal power, while states were free to establish their own laws in contravention. On the heels of this decision, in 1875, came the decision in Cruikshank - a decision that led directly to the growth of the KKK and the era of Jim Crow.

The background to Cruikshank is that, on Easter Day, 13 Apr 1873, hundreds of black Republicans were meeting in the Colfax, Louisiana courthouse to protect it from a Democratic takeover during a political dispute. Hundreds of whites surrounded the Courthouse and attacked, burning it down and killing somewhere between 100 and 280 blacks. Several members of the white mob were arrested and charged under The Enforcement Act, a federal law that made it a crime to conspire to deprive anyone of their Constitutional rights.

The Cruikshank Court held, on the basis of the Slaughterhouse Cases, that the federal government could not hold individuals liable for violating another citizens civil rights. Among other things, the Court held that individuals could only look to the States for the enforcement of their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights:

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. . . .

The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States. . . .

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, . . . the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States. . . .

The end result of the Slaughterhouse-Cruikshank line of cases from a legal standpoint was to nullify and atrophy the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. Later Courts would get around that by developing the legal canard of "substantive due process" to bootstrap federal enforcement of civil rights. As a practical matter, as already pointed out, Cruikshank gave rise to the growth of the KKK and the imposition of Jim Crow laws.

The original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, by the Privileges or Immunities clause, was to apply the Bill of Rights to all citizens of our country. It may be that the court in MacDonald does not reach this issue, but rather finds the Second Amendment is "incorporated" under the Due Process clause. But those on the Court who do not want to see the Second Amendment applied as a universal right of all citizens are going to have to reach Cruikshank - and uphold it. The irony here is just delicious.

Read More...