skip to main |
skip to sidebar
By Nicholas Stix
Surprise, surprise!
As I predicted, Knoxville Horror carjacker-kidnapper-rapist-torturer-murderer Letalvis Cobbins was spared proper punishment by a jury which was comprised of six (originally seven) blacks, five (originally four) whites, and one Asian. Now, the predominantly white taxpayers, including the families of his victims, Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, will have to pay for Cobbins’ three hots and a cot, Cable TV, weight lifting, etc. in prison, where he will no doubt be lionized by his fellow racist black felons.
Cobbins was officially sentenced to “life without parole,” but that should read, “life until parole or pardon,” since he can still be released from prison. The jury’s pretext for not sentencing Cobbins to death for the most heinous crimes ever committed in Knox County was a transparently ridiculous set of what it called “mitigating” factors, which it asserted outweighed any aggravating factors: “a horrific childhood, the pleas of his relatives and his alleged role as subordinate to an evil mastermind.”
The jury’s solicitude for the wishes of the convicted murderer’s relatives
did not extend to the families of his victims.
Knoxville News Sentinel commenter “Local Girl” asked rhetorically,
“What more could [Letalvis] have done to them to get the death penalty? Please tell me? One more type of rape? another bit of torture? Did you hear that Chris was burned BEYOND RECGONITION? cobbins started that fire by following in the get away car.
It was cobbins that looked in that sweet girls eyes and raped her, tore her mouth, slammed his body inside her unwilling body. Yet, you say, mm not enough bad. It was cobbins that helped savagely rip her body to shreds in the area she considered most sacred. But apparently, he didn't shred it enough!...
She spent hours in a trashcan KNOWING that no one was coming….
You 12 did nothing more than look at Gary & Deena Christian, Hugh & Mary Newsom and say "it was bad, BUT it wasn't bad enough."…
["Life without parole: Jury rejects death penalty for Letalvis Cobbins" by Jamie Satterfield, Posted August 27, 2009 at midnight, Knoxville News Sentinel.]
Such a sentence is ludicrously inadequate as punishment for what Cobbins did to
Christian and Newsom. Cobbins’ victims meant so little to him that, as Knoxville News Sentinel reporter Jamie Satterfield noted, even two-and-a-half years after committing his crimes, and after having heard his victims’ names cited thousands of times in court and on TV, he still didn’t know them. He referred to Channon Christian as “that girl,” and to Chris Newsom as "Mr. Hodge Newsom." Properly feigning remorse would require that one at least learned the names of one’s victims.
Ideally, punishment would require that Cobbins endure the same torture, gang-rape, mutilation (while living), and murder that his victims suffered, but for better or worse, the U.S. Constitution forbids such sanctions. Even worse, in minority-dominated prisons, the prisoners are often in charge, and crime never takes a break. Thus, far from being punishment, Cobbins’ sentence will be more like a holiday, and will not prevent him from committing additional crimes. He had already been charged with assault on a jailer while awaiting trial, and prison will present him with the opportunity to deal and abuse drugs, just like when he was “free,” and to gang-rape countless additional white men.
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution proscribes “cruel and unusual punishment,” (a proscription that is rarely honored in the case of white men) but it does not prescribe a country club vacation.
How does the jury trying a man for a crime in which both victims were white, committed in a predominantly white jurisdiction (Knox County), where only 8.8 percent of the residents were black, get chosen in a jurisdiction (Davidson County) where 27.5 percent of residents are black? The answer: The judicial mischief of presiding Judge Richard Baumgartner, who personally chose Davidson County.
In order to thwart the interests of justice, Judge Baumgartner used a valid argument—that pre-trial publicity mandated a change in venue—as a pretext to rig the possible verdict. Moving jury selection for the trial of a black defendant in a death penalty case to a venue where the jury can be packed with blacks virtually guaranteed that a guilty verdict would not issue in a death sentence.
As KNS commenter “Local Girl” noted, the black jurors had to have lied during voir dire, when they said they were willing to choose the death penalty, in the event of a guilty verdict on the most severe charges.
Why, in this age of black jury nullification, it’s a wonder that Cobbins was convicted at all!
Judge Baumgartner should be thrown off the bench and disbarred, but instead will more likely be toasted and given awards.
By Nicholas Stix
Longtime black reader Brenda Verner just wrote to express herself regarding my blog on the conviction, on Tuesday, of Letalvis Cobbins in the first Knoxville Horror murder trial.
In a message dated 8/27/2009 2:35:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bjverner writes:
The last paragraph of your post was an insult to the black citizens who sat on the jury, and to the black citizens of Davidson county. What group has experienced American violence more than African Americans? Who is more like to be the victim of violence than African Americans? African Americans are not only likely to convict black criminals. They are more inclined to call for the death penalty, and indicated by the jury foreman.
My response follows.
Dear Brenda,
First of all, you don't write an old friend like me, without first greeting me by name, and giving me some love! (Smooch, smooch.) There. Now that we've gotten the pleasantries out of the way, let's see what I wrote in that last paragraph:
And that was before I learned that the jury would be packed with blacks, who increasingly oppose pronouncing death sentences even on the most heinous black killers. It would be very unlikely for a jury so constituted to vote unanimously for the ultimate sanction. Should this jury confound my expectation, it would represent a very hopeful sign, regarding the moral fiber of blacks in Davidson County.
First of all, that last paragraph was not “an insult to the black citizens who sat on the jury, and to the black citizens of Davidson county.” I have not yet begun to insult the black jurors, et al.
If anything, in holding out hope for the blacks of Davidson County, I was too nice. All in vain.
Secondly, since the paragraph in question was true, in predicting that a jury packed with blacks would not sentence a heinous killer like Letalvis Cobbins to death, you should be congratulating me on my perspicacity, not blasting me with empty bombast.
What group has engaged in violence more than black Americans? What group has supported violent criminals more than black Americans? What group is targeted for violence by black Americans more than any other? And who has experienced more obscene violence than Channon Christian and Chris Newsom?
There is no group less likely to convict black killers or call for the death penalty against them than blacks.
Gee whiz, Brenda, you of all people ought to know better than to try and cow me with lies and bombast. Who do you think I am, some pussywhipped Republican writer? (Don't answer that!)
Love,
Nicholas
By Nicholas Stix
The Knoxville Horror was committed over two-and-half years ago, but slowly turn the wheels of justice. Yesterday morning, in the first state trial for the January 7, 2007, Knoxville, Tennessee carjacking-kidnapping-gang-rape-torture-murder of Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, a jury of six blacks, five whites, and one Asian pronounced Letalvis Cobbins, alias “Rome,” guilty of 33 out of 38 counts, including:
· First degree felony murder
· First degree premeditated murder
· Especially aggravated robbery
· Especially aggravated kidnapping with a weapon
· Aggravated rape with a weapon
· Aggravated rape with bodily injury
· Aggravated rape while aided by others
· Theft of property
[Letalvis Cobbins found guilty in Christian - Newsom murders, Posted: Aug 25, 2009 6:50 AM EDT; Updated: Aug 25, 2009 5:48 PM EDT, WATE]
Since Cobbins had initially been charged with 46 felony counts, at some point eight counts must have been dropped. No matter; many of the counts were redundant. (How many different ways can you be convicted of the same murder?)
The jury deliberated for over ten hours from Monday into Tuesday. Today the jury will enter the penalty phase, as it decides whether to sentence Cobbins to “life without parole,” or death by lethal injection. (The scare quotes are because, as any homicide detective will tell you, as long as a killer draws breath, he can be paroled or pardoned.)
The jury that was seated—bussed into Knox County from Davidson County (county seat: Nashville), based on the judge’s argument that pre-trial publicity would have tainted any local jury—somehow managed to have seven blacks, only four whites, and one Asian. That still was unsatisfactory for Cobbins’ defense co-counsel, Scott Green, who insisted that too many black jurors had been excluded for admitting themselves unwilling to entertain the death penalty, in the event of a conviction. (From Green’s perspective, things would get even worse: One black juror, who was herself a rape victim, was so upset by the pictures of rape wounds, that she was excused, and replaced by a white man.)
From a legal perspective, as lead prosecutor Takisha Fitzgerald (who is black) previously argued, the death penalty ought to follow automatically from the verdict. However, in this day and age, juries often ignore the law in such cases. And as as I wrote in March,
DNA evidence ties Cobbins to Christian, but as no co-defendant statements claim he carried out either killing, I give him a 50 percent chance of getting a death sentence.
And that was before I learned that the jury would be packed with blacks, who increasingly oppose pronouncing death sentences even on the most heinous black killers. It would be very unlikely for a jury so constituted to vote unanimously for the ultimate sanction. Should this jury confound my expectation, it would represent a very hopeful sign, regarding the moral fiber of blacks in Davidson County.
By Nicholas Stix
Alexander Hart’s VDARE front page story,“Hal Turner Charged with Advocating Violence—But Who was He Really Working for?”, is a conspiracy theorist’s dream, except that it’s apparently true.
White supremacist/neo-Nazi/whatever Hal Turner was for several years a paid agent provocateur in the employ of the FBI. Turner is now charged in state and federal court with advocating violence against two Connecticut state legislators and three federal judges, respectively.
This case recalls the federal “COINTELPRO” ("counterintelligence program") program, which was founded in 1956 by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, was active largely during the 1960s, and was shut down in 1971, or at least the media’s demonization of same.
In COINTELPRO, FBI agents infiltrated revolutionary leftwing groups, and acted as agents provocateur, while in other cases engaging in covert actions from outside groups, seeking to sow dissension within them (e,g., through poison pen letters). The media and socialist, communist, and racist black pols were so upset when they learned about the program, that they demanded and got law enforcement handcuffed in all sorts of ways, the better to help their revolutionary comrades.
But there is one huge difference between the Turner case and COINTELPRO: COINTELPRO typically targeted leftwing groups that were either already violent revolutionaries, or were infested with Communists, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Turner was used to target WN/NN groups that were non-violent.
(Hoover had this crazy notion that the government shouldn’t passively wait around to be destroyed. Since his time, we have made such progress from his madness, that the chief agent seeking to destroy the American government is now secreted at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. Hoover’s mistake was in inciting already criminal groups to commit further crimes. He would have done better to publicly expose such groups, but the primarily Democratic presidents he worked for during COINTELPRO did not permit him to do so.)
As Hart notes, “Turner is virtually unique among those on the ‘far right’ for his promotion of violence.”
Where “rightwing extremists” are concerned, the feds have long been sleeping with the SPLC (or as we at VDARE call it, the “$PLC”) and ADL.
Imagine all the good folks whom Turner’s lawyer, Michael Orozco, must be planning on subpoenaing: FBI domestic counterterrorism officials, folks from the ADL, my good friend Mark Potok from the $PLC, and yet others.
Even though the MSM could blame this program on the Bush Administration, I would not hold my breath, waiting for them to jump all over this story. But we at VDARE are already on the case.
By Nicholas Stix
Political scientist Bob Weissberg has wrestled for years with affirmative action, and his brilliant new VDARE article, “Is the Affirmative Action Frankenstein on Its Last Legs?,” shows his characteristic intelligence. And yet by my reading, most of the facts he cites—the 1,001 euphemisms officials use to hide affirmative action, and the terrible price that AA’s supporters exact on those who publicly criticize AA (the latter of which both Weissberg and yours truly are intimately familiar with)—fail to support his conclusion that AA is on the way out.
Since the mid-1990s, California, Washington, and Michigan have passed referenda outlawing AA, which have accomplished … nothing. California’s state university system has simply ignored the law, or conspired to thwart it.
Last I noticed, conspiracy—whether to violate Prop. 209, or to defraud the taxpayers—was a crime everywhere, even in Detroit. However, while spending the majority of the 1990s teaching college, I noticed that my full-time colleagues and the administrators where I taught more often than not held the taxpayer, the law, and education in contempt. These people believe they operate in a law-free zone. They would likely claim that the “autonomy” of higher ed requires things to be this way.
Nonsense. Higher ed is a trillion-dollar graft machine dominated by hustlers and nihilists. Sure, they can come up with sophistry rationalizing their crimes. That’s not hard. But one orthodox pc tenure holder once had a lapse into honesty. In spring 1994, the philosophy department at the New Jersey state college where I taught was sitting outside for a faculty colloquium (I taught philosophy that semester). This man, who had not one, but two Ph.D.s—in math and philosophy—sadly confessed that the only value philosophy had for him, was in paying to send his son to accounting school.
Owing to the pleasant weather, a few students were present, and I tried to explain to the man that the value of philosophy is not utilitarian, but in the ability to give young people spiritual orientation that will transcend the shifting economic winds.
Since I was just an adjunct lecturer, he ignored me.
Affirmative action has ruined morale in higher ed, but more importantly, it is an instance of crime and corruption. We have to look at many college “educators”—presidents, remedial skills program heads, admissions officers, etc.—as the criminals that they are. At present, they see no cost to their lawlessness, and huge benefits. Thus, they have no incentive to cease their criminal activities. Only when a prosecutor goes Earp and sends police into a college, arrests “educators,” perp walks them before the TV cameras, and prosecutes them, will these outlaws see that the ill they wreak has consequences. In many cases they may ultimately go straight, switching to a more honest trade, such as mortgage refinancing for dead-beat homeowners.
Revised on Wednesday, September 3, 2009, at 3:43 a.m.
by Nicholas Stix
Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau - Here at WEJB, we got a call on 21 July of a race hoax in progress.
Crime scenes: The Boston Globe, Washington Post, Harvard University Department of African-American Studies, Harvard Law School, Cambridge Police Department, Cambridge Mayor’s Office, Middlesex District Attorney’s Office and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
Current suspects: Henry Louis Gates Jr., alias “Skip”; Charles “Show Me the Money, Whitey” Ogletree; Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas; Boston Globe Editor Martin Baron, and alleged reporters John R. Ellement and Matt Collette; Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, and alleged reporter Krissah Thompson; Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone; Cambridge Mayor E. Denise Simmons; a John Doe currently calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama” and assorted John and Jane Does, whose number is bound to increase, as the offense escalates and spreads.
Black race hoaxes go back over 40 years, but due to insufficient social infrastructure, prior to the mid-1980s, often failed to “take.”
The fathers of the paranoid black mentality and the black race hoax were W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963), and James Baldwin (1924-1987). DuBois was a brilliant but mercurial scholar and writer. Baldwin was initially a successful novelist, but found publishing as “books” brief broadsides of rabid racial propaganda, seeking to incite American race riots from the safety of his Parisian perch more remunerative and less taxing than writing and re-writing 400-page novels.
One hundred years ago, DuBois, the token black co-founder of the NAACP, decreed that blacks’ problems were entirely the fault of whites.
The pseudo-intellectual foundations for the black race hoax were first provided by Baldwin in the two essays which were published in magazines in 1962, and re-published the following year as the slender pamphlet The Fire Next Time, which has been cited by countless black “scholars” and intellectuals who never read it as presaging the next riots, when in fact Baldwin wrote it before the 1960s’ black race riots, which began in 1964.
(Such towering intellects remind me of, and are often the same blacks who cite W.E.B. DuBois’ phrase “double-consciousness,” as if it merely expressed DuBois’ condemnation of living as a black under white racism, when in fact it expressed equally his embarrassment over black readers, whom he considered—in contrast to whites—unable to appreciate his gifts. My hunch is that many of those approvingly quoting DuBois never read the essay in question.)
Baldwin exerted himself, in particular, in creating what would eventually blossom into the racial profiling hoax, in order to divert attention from, and ultimately cover up a series of organized racial lynchings of whites by blacks in 1963-1964 Harlem. Thus was Baldwin one of the authors of the first successful, modern black race hoax.
The notion that the 1960s’ black race riots were a response to white “racism,” rather than the expression of murderous black racism was a race hoax, but one created largely by white leftist politicians, “scholars,” and “journalists,” though with a big assist from Baldwin.
Though Baldwin helped generate much violent black racism, his success as a race hoaxer was limited. Before outrageous race hoaxes could be successfully perpetrated, assembly line-style, by blacks against whites, a “critical mass” or “tipping point” had to be reached, in which there were sufficient numbers of racist, incompetent, black affirmative action hires in newsrooms, college faculties and “shadow university” offices, local and state agencies, non-profits, police departments, and federal agencies, including the Justice Department.
To my knowledge, the first successful black race hoax of this, the era of the black race hoax, was Howard Beach I in 1986, which was so successful that 22 years later, few people even know that it was a hoax.
Jared Taylor first exposed Howard Beach I in his 1992 book, Paved with Good Intentions. In Carl Horowitz’ new exposé of Al Sharpton and the “civil rights” racket, Mainstreaming Demagoguery: Al Sharpton’s Rise to Respectability, Horowitz subjects Howard Beach I and other race hoaxes to the sort of investigation that the MSM, academia, and the authorities are duty-bound to undertake, but who instead prefer aiding and abetting the hoaxers.
The black race hoax du jour, “Gatesgate,” is much different than those of the first few years of this period.
With the early race hoaxes, the general public was unaware at first that a hoax was afoot, because the hoaxers’ journalist accomplices variously withheld the truth, and lied to the public. By contrast, via a combination of hard-won knowledge which permits us to engage in the early (often immediate, as in the noose hoaxes) identification of likely hoaxes; the medium of the Internet, which (still) permits one to elude the MSM news blockade; and certain courageous individuals, such as Larry Auster and his readers, Johnny Simpson, and my colleagues at VDARE, it is possible for the public to observe a hoax unfold, almost in real time.
Salient Points in the Genesis of the Gates Hoax
1. Gates had already decided to do what I call “pulling a racial” as soon as he saw the white policeman standing on Harvard’s property (the home does not belong to him). At that moment or only seconds later, Gates had decided to extort money out of the City of Cambridge, and called someone on his cell phone, telling the person on the other end get a hold of the Cambridge police commissioner;
2. Consistent with his racist history, Gates was incredibly abusive towards Crowley. The abuse was entirely racial in character, even going to the point of responding to Crowley’s request that he speak with the sergeant outside, "I'll speak with your mama outside." As Gates and Crowley fully well knew, blacks consider any putdown containing “Your mama” (“Yo mama!”) the gravest of insults. (Of course, as with Moslems, blacks consider anything and everything “the gravest of insults,” and a justified provocation to riot.);
3. Gates e-mailed everyone in his address book, in order to create the ensuing media maelstrom;
4. Even the statement that Gates’ friend and fellow Harvard affirmative action hire, the law professor, reparationista, and Black Panther Charles Ogletree fashioned for Gates shows that Sgt. James Crowley, the first responding officer, who eventually arrested Gates, had every reason to appear at, and enter the home in which Gates was present;
5. While Gates claims, in Ogletree’s statement, to have been physically unable to yell at Sgt. Crowley, a widely published photograph shows him screaming his head off on the porch;
6. The Boston Globe aided and abetted Gates, by removing the Cambridge Police Department’s official report on the incident. The Globe has since partially restored the Web page, but without Sgt. Crowley’s arrest report, the most important and information-rich document from the original Web page, thus deceiving readers who will assume that they are getting the complete Cambridge PD documents on the case.
Globe alleged reporters John R. Ellement and Matt Collette misrepresented the incident, by asserting that Sgt. Crowley had arrested Gates “after the two had exchanged words,” thereby improperly implying all sorts of equivalences: As if both men had said roughly the same things in the same tone and volume; as if Gates had not just spewed racial insults at the Sergeant, who had not done likewise; and as if they were equals in the situation, the Sergeant had had no legal right to be in control of the situation, and Gates had not repeatedly refused to cooperate with Sgt. Crowley’s lawful orders. The Globe’s suppression of Sgt. Crowley’s report rigs the situation, by making it impossible for readers to compare Crowley’s report with Ellement and Collette’s which, of course is the point of the suppression. The newspaper’s censorship also helps poison the jury pool, should Gates sue the city, by making potential jurors more sympathetic towards Gates’ hoax than they otherwise would be;
7. Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas aided and abetted Gates by refusing to press charges against him; by calling the incident “regrettable,” thus implying that Sgt. Crowley had somehow done something wrong, and that Gates had done nothing wrong, i.e., was somehow a victim; and by suppressing the arrest reports, which had to be leaked, in order that they could be published. Haas then added, “July 16 is a painful moment for all of us. We need to move on. If we focus back on July 16, we are not going to make any progress.”
One thing I can say with certainty, is that July 16 was not a painful moment for all of us. We need to not move on, and instead to stop and focus on July 16. What Commissioner Haas calls “progress” is not worth having;
8. The Washington Post, which is already embroiled in its own “WapoGate” influence-peddling scandal, has likewise aided and abetted Gates, by running stories (including at least one opinion piece that was misleadingly presented as a “news” story) in support of Gates which misrepresent key facts, and at least some of which did not mention the newspaper’s business relationship with him. One “news story,” in particular, by alleged reporter Krissah Thompson, reads like a press release prepared by Charles Ogletree’s publicist. It states all of Ogletree’s dubious claims, as if they were Gospel truth, in its present form states little from the police report (I could have sworn that the original mentioned nothing from the police report), nothing from witnesses or policemen contradicting Ogletree, and adds the “reporter’s” own racial propaganda (“in a country where one in nine young black men are [sic] in prison, where racial profiling is still practiced”);
9. A John Doe presently calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama,” who has stated that he is a friend of Gates’ has, while acknowledging that he is not familiar with the facts of the incident, misrepresented those facts, and then lied about police treatment of black men in Illinois and nationally, in seeking to use the general racial profiling myth as a trump card and a diversion against examination of the facts in this particular incident.
The Paranoid, Black Supremacist, Jailhouse Philosophy of Law
Whereas, black race hoaxes were once the m.o. of common criminals, they are now seen as respectable forms of extortion by the black elite. Thus, the misconduct of Gates, Obama, and Ogletree exemplify what I call the paranoid, black supremacist, jailhouse philosophy of law, which is supported by all levels of black society in America. That “philosophy” is characterized by the following “principles”:
• No black is obliged to respect or obey the laws of the United States of America, because those are “the white man’s laws”;
• Blacks who break “the white man’s laws” must be left alone by the police;
• Whites who have not broken any laws must be arrested, not in spite of, but because they have not broken any laws, and because they are white (see the Duke Rape Hoax and the Jena Hoax);
• No black is obliged to respect or obey any white police officer enforcing the white man’s laws (or any black police officer, either, because they just work for the white man);
• No black is obliged to tell the truth to any white, or about any interaction with a white;
• No lie is too small or too tall for a black to tell during or regarding any such interaction;
• All black-white interactions must consist of the white showing deference to the black, and/or somehow paying the black as punishment for the latter’s inconvenience at having to deal with a white;
• All black-white non-interactions must consist of the white showing deference to blacks, in absentia, and somehow paying blacks, as punishment for his having avoided them; and
• Blacks have demanded and received their own system of laws and rules—civil rights laws and affirmative action rules—which contradict and trump the laws and rules which whites must obey. This system must be continuously enforced, reinforced, and expanded.
Given their miscalculations, it is understandable that “Obama” and Gates want to “move on”—an old Clintonism—from their little folly. (What is less understandable is why people like Commissioner Haas would want to “move on.”) It is essential, however, that we not move on. Since the 1960s, we have perpetually been “moving on.” It’s time to stop.
By Nicholas Stix
(Note to NSU readers. We Stixes just got back Monday morning from 20 days in Trinidad, visiting The Boss’ family. Rather than dwell on our visit, about which I have much to say, I have chosen instead to jump back into the breach.)
Although I shall not change its name, this blog shall henceforth also serve as the home of what I am dubbing the Wyatt Earp school of journalism, which is a fancy name for what I’ve been doing for over 20 years.
An Earpist has “cop’s eyes,” but not those of today’s emasculated, politically correct, diversity-trained policemen and police persons, who lie at the drop of a pair of handcuffs, in denying the racist character of black-on-white atrocities and everyday outrages alike, and who abuse law-abiding whites and Asians.
An Earpist neither averts his gaze from the crimes being committed around him, nor does he lie about what he sees.
For but one example, an Earpist treats so-called educational institutions, be they Head Start pre-schools, K-12 schools, or universities, as crime scenes, where the taxpayers are daily defrauded, as the sites of violent crimes, and as places where people’s constitutional rights are daily violated.
Like all those claiming to be journalists, an Earpist routinely contends with the professional liars called variously “publicists,” “public information officers,” etc. By contrast, MSM “journalists” treat such conversations as opportunities to further deceive and defraud the taxpayer.
Again, by contrast, while claiming to be part of an enterprise characterized by “organized skepticism,” an MSM “reporter” is glad to serve as the mouthpiece of mouthpieces.
An Earpist follows the dictum of Arnold Dornfield of Chicago’s legendary City News Bureau, which long served as America’s greatest journalistic training ground: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” (As recounted by F. Richard Ciccone, in Mike Royko: A Life in Print)
In short, in contrast to over 90 percent of the MSM, an Earpist is no more and no less than … a journalist.
By Nicholas Stix
I came across a July 17 blog shilling for race hoaxer Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr., “So, Is A Prominent Havard [sic] University [sic] Being Charged With Owning-A-Home-In-A-Good-Neighborhood-While-Black.” I bring up the blog essay because it is a generic defense of Gates.
It was written by Sandy Gholston, proprietor of The Gholston Post, which he calls “A Blog For The People.”
Henry Louis Gates Jr. one of the most respected scholars in the United States of America, may have become the latest victim of racial profiling. Essentially, it appears that Gates was harassed by police officers because he forced his way into his own home a woman reported seeing “two black males with backpacks on the porch” with one “wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.” Ah, the infamous two black males accusation. Apparently, two black males look a little bit more suspect in an upscale neighborhood, huh?...
It’s a disturbing tale because it does make (or should make) a person wonder would white guys trying to get into a house have been perceived the same way….
Yeah, why would a guy be upset about being harassed by police for trying to get into his own house and having a dime dropped on him by someone worried about the two black guys? The police come and harass a man getting into his own house and then arrest him on his own property for disorderly conduct. How much of an insult/slap in the face is that? I think most people would have “exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior” (how broad a description is that?) if they found themselves in a similar situation.
The quotes from Gholston are wrapped around a story by the AP’s Melissa Trujillo, “Black scholar's arrest raises profiling questions,” which quotes unchallenged assertions by a couple of Gates’ fellow tenured, Harvard race hustlers that “the arrest is part of a pattern of racial profiling in Cambridge.”
Police didn't “harass” Gates, Gates harassed the policeman.
By the admission of Gates' own lawyer, Gates and the cabby were trying to break into the home. Thus, the 911 call and the police response were entirely justified.
Gates does not own the home, Harvard does, so Gholston’s premise is false, and his title misleading.
White guys would have been treated the same way, but they would have been unlikely to have reacted as Gates had. I recall breaking into my apartment in the middle of the night once, circa 1987, when I had forgotten or lost my keys, and my roommate was out for the night. As I climbed the fire escape to my kitchen window, I was scared to death that someone would call the police, and I’d get shot. So, no, there is no justification whatsoever for Gates’ racist abuse of, and refusal to cooperate with Sgt. Crowley.
Had a white man reacted to a black police sergeant in the same racist, abusive, tumultuous way that Gates did, the Cambridge PD and Middlesex Prosecutor’s Office would not have dropped the charges.
The writer’s racism is showing.
Note that Gholston accepts the report that Gates and his driver were attempting to force entry into the residence. As far as he is concerned, one may not call the police if one sees black men breaking into a residence. Thus, like Gates, he supports black criminals.
Gholston’s racist attack on witness Lucia Whalen for calling the police is part of a widespread campaign of vilification against Whalen, designed to intimidate people out of notifying the police about apparent crimes in progress committed by black boys and men.
From 1962, when James Baldwin began laying the pseudo-intellectual groundwork for the black racial profiling myth, through 1999, when the engineers of the racial profiling hoax enjoyed their breakthrough and beyond, black racists and their white supporters had always been careful to insist that police were variously arresting, assaulting, or murdering innocent blacks who had merely been minding their own business. Because Gates’ supporters acknowledge, as does his own lawyer, that Gates was attempting to break into the home that Harvard provides him, yet still assert that he was a “victim” of “racial profiling,” the Gates race hoax thus represents a new level of confidence and thus of racist evil on the part of black supremacists. How many additional innocents must be murdered by black felons, in crimes that could easily have been prevented, had the authorities not surrendered to the felons' black supremacist accomplices?
Over four weeks after posting his support of Gates’ race hoax, Gholston still hasn’t corrected the mistakes in his title, let alone those of logic and morality in his essay. Gholston has a handsome-looking blog. Unfortunately, as the United Negro College Fund says, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
By Nicholas Stix
The man calling himself “Barack Obama” now says that he has given up on his ambitious “Obamacare” health care program, and is ready to “compromise.” Don’t be fooled by this ruse for a minute. He has no intention of quitting on this idea, and his idea of compromise is, ‘What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine.’
However, in a quirkily positive development, the ruse has apparently succeeded at fooling many of “Obama’s” own white, leftwing followers.
One of the motives behind Obamacare is to provide aliens—illegal and legal alike—with “free” healthcare, i.e., entirely at the expense of the citizen taxpayers.
The “compromise” plan foresees health care “cooperatives,” private non-profit insurers. Only they aren’t private; they are to be paid for, initially, to the tune of “$3 billion to $4 billion,” by the taxpayer (“With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government…”). The real tab will be anywhere from that range to a gazillion dollars, and the taxpayer in question will be white, and possibly Asian.
“Obama” has endured some of his most vociferous opposition from leftists who failed to read between the lines of his “compromise” plan. Meanwhile, some major media operations, such as Yahoo News, have sent the original “compromise” story down the memory hole. I can’t even access it via my own download; instead of “Obama Backs Away from Public Health Insurance Plan,” the file that comes up on my screen is the new AP talking point, “Health care concession riles left; right unmoved.” The original AP talking point story is still up at Republican CNS News.
(Apparently, in order to save news stories from certain powerful media outlets, one must now either take a screen capture shot, save the page as a photo, or copy and paste it, and save it as an email.)
As “Obama” has himself testified, he got his “dreams”—our nightmares—from his father. What the son neglected to mention was that although the father had a Harvard M.S. in economics, he was a racist and an economic illiterate. In the father’s 1965 racial socialist economics manifesto, “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” he called on the Kenyan government to seize all white and Asian-owned property, and implied that all government action must be based on the goal of dispossessing, robbing, and generally harming all whites and Asians (Indians), and giving all power to blacks.
Since the son knows he can't seize whites' property directly, he plans to do so through confiscatory taxes to pay for racial socialist schemes in education and health care, whereby he forces American whites to fund their own dispossession.
Whether out of expediency (as I believe), or a broader kind of racism, the son has embraced Hispanics, while his attitude towards Asians has been ambiguous. However, he is as unambiguously racist toward whites as his father was. His devotees have only been able to suppress criticism of his racism through constantly vilifying the critics, and projecting onto them the label of “racists.”
In the summer of 2004, when David Axelrod initially rolled out his media campaign for president for the man who was then only an Illinois state senator, I exposed “Obama’s” racism.
To me, Barack Obama comes off like Bill Clinton, a former professor of constitutional law who also apparently never read the document. Like Clinton, Obama also is a man of great charm. That charm and a historical decline, such that policy proposals that once would have been publicly denounced as racist nonsense are now taken seriously, makes Obama so much more dangerous, than if he were simply a crudely vicious racist like Gus Savage.
At the moment, many of “Obama’s” white supporters apparently find him to be insufficiently racist on health care. The question arises: Is Axelrod about to impose discipline on the ranks, or is the split the result of his failure to do so?
