Last year, I published the following report on the campaign against AmRen. I'm proud to say that it was the first article on the campaign written by someone not an AmRen staffer. Unfortunately, it was also one of the only ones written,a sthe national MSM completely “disappeared” the story of the crimes committed against AmRen and everyone who had planned on attending, including yours truly.
“Obama” and Holder are Victorious, as Communist and Anarchist Terrorists Use Death Threats to Shut Down American Renaissance Conference
February 16, 2010 By Nicholas Stix (Updated at 8:47 a.m. Last updated at 9:27 a.m.)
Using death threats against hotel employees, terrorists succeeded at getting the hotel hosting the American Renaissance 2010 Conference to cancel the contract. The conference had been scheduled for February 19-21, at a hotel near Dulles Airport, and this was the third hotel which had canceled.
At the hotel, the terrorists threatened staffers with murder, if the conference took place. Though this will surely be news to Attorney General Eric Holder, who believes that the laws forbid only acts committed by people he hates, that is a federal felony, as well as a violation of the group’s (and mine, since I had registered to attend) first amendment rights to freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.
(In 2008, leftwing terrorists had called hotel employees at home, and threatened to murder them, but the conference went on without a hitch, and was a rousing success. I know; I was there.)
The racist-communist group One People’s Project, which has long bragged of using violence against those whom it hates, put out a press release on its home page, preening over its victory.
“Antifa,” a contemporary euphemism for “communist,” is a shortened version of the old code word, “anti-fascist.” A contemporary equivalent is “anti-racist.”
OPP chopped its press release into two parts. The first, short part, on the group’s main page, the only part that most people will read, was careful to omit the real reason for their “success”: The death threats. Instead, they make it seem as though through hard work and moral suasion, they had gotten the hotel to cancel the event, and joke about causing participants an “inconvenience.”
That's right. Done. Kaput. Finished. Over. CANCELED! After three months of getting the word out and letting people know that a group of politically connected white supremacists were planning to meet this weekend, American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor threw in the towel, effectively canceling the American Renaissance Conference 2010. Of course this comes after losing yet another hotel. Taylor and the other organizers thought that they would be able to keep the location under wraps until 48 hours before the conference, to discourage protesters from organizing, a "fool-proof plan" to hear them explain it. Memo to Jared Taylor: Antifa are not fools, and to think otherwise makes you one. People from all over the country went into overdrive trying to find out where this conference was and the effort simply paid off. It didn't help matters much that in the midst of all of this we broke the story about how ACORN videographer James O'Keefe attended a white supremacist forum with Jared Taylor on the panel, because the traffic coming from that also meant people were going to learn more about Taylor and is current activities. That meant the opposition went viral! This has never happened before. This was once a conference that you could watch on C-SPAN. Now you would be lucky if it even happens! We want to thank everyone that stayed on top of this and helped make this happen. As for the other side - those who support Taylor and this conference, especially those who were going, they will continue down their psychopathic roads, regardless of how detrimental it is to them. As Taylor should know by now, there's a lot of people who are willing to be that detriment, and Unlike Taylor, we don't apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused!
In a classic case of projection, in the short version, One People’s Project called those who had planned on attending the conference, “psychopathic.”
In other words, according to OPP, people who use scientific facts and logic to discuss controversial matters are “psychopaths,” while people who threaten hotel employees, “If you hold this conference I will go in there and shoot you,” are perfectly sane.
The permalink to the front page version, however, is to the complete version. Thus, once OPP removes the short version (see below) from its main page, there will be no more evidence of the group’s chicanery.
With these guys, you get lies on top of lies, on top of lies.
OPP was founded by black racist/communist, Daryle Lamont Jenkins. OPP’s slogan is, “A resource for those on the front lines fighting fascism… especially those who don’t play nice.” In other word, they are violent racist communists, who make common cause with their like. OPP has not a cross word to say about genocidal black supremacists.
We regret to inform you that today, February 15, the hotel at which we planned to hold the conference canceled its contract with us. Hostile callers phoned the hotel and threatened employees with death. One was specifically warned, “If you hold this conference I will go in there and shoot you.” Hotel management reported these threats to the police but felt it had no choice but to cancel.
We had backup possibilities, but all have fallen through, so we will not be holding the February 19-21 conference.
We are very sorry for the great inconvenience this no doubt causes you.
If you would like to make a tax-deductible contribution to American Renaissance in the amount of your registration that would be welcome. However, we stand ready to refund all registrations and banquet fees. Please let us know by return e-mail how you would like us to proceed.
We understand that many of you have bought non-refundable air tickets. Generally, the amount spent on such tickets can, for a period of a year, be used to buy a different ticket on the same airline. However, most airlines then deduct $150 from the amount that can be spent to buy the new ticket. If you bought a non-refundable ticket, please send us proof of purchase and we will send you a check for $150. We do not want anyone to suffer financial loss because of this cancelation.
Again, please accept our apologies for this very disappointing outcome. We value your continuing support and deeply regret that we will not be seeing you on February 19.
Best regards,
Jared Taylor
Taylor also put out a press release:
American Renaissance: Death Threats End Biennial Conference of Controversial Group
Is there freedom of speech and assembly in Virginia?
OAKTON, Va., Feb. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Zealots opposed to a meeting to be held by a Virginia non-profit organization have bullied three hotels into cancelling the event, thus making it impossible for the group to hold its biennial conference. American Renaissance (AR), a monthly magazine that has published on race and immigration for 20 years, had scheduled its ninth biennial meeting for the weekend of Feb. 19 through 21.
Opponents then pressured the hotels -- leafleting the premises, flooding switchboards with phone calls, finding the home phone numbers of hotel employees and threatening them with death -- thus causing the hotels to cancel their contracts to hold the meeting. The last hotel canceled today. More than 250 people had registered for the conference, and guests and speakers were expected from as far away as Britain and South Africa.
American Renaissance has held conferences since 1994. There have been protesters and crank calls, but conferences have always taken place peacefully and successfully. AR is a race-realist publication edited by Jared Taylor that takes controversial positions:
* That diversity is a source of conflict and not a strength. * That people of all racial groups prefer the company of people like themselves. * That Asians are, on average, more intelligent than whites, who are more intelligent than blacks.
However, AR's positions are much less important than what this cancellation means for freedom of speech and assembly.
Any controversial group can be kept from holding meetings by fanatics who -- through the Internet -- decide to gang up on a hotel. If this tactic works against a 501 c (3) educational non-profit like American Renaissance, what is to stop animal rights activists from shutting down a meat-packers' meeting or environmentalists from shutting down miners or foresters?
Freedom of speech and assembly are guaranteed in the Constitution but those rights will be lost if Americans do not fight back against those who would deny them. As Judge Learned Hand put it, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
For more information, please contact Stephen Webster at 703-716-0900 or webster@amren.com.
OPP worked together with the “Self-Described Anarchist Collective,” the R.E.A.L. Organization,” and the Mormon Worker newspaper.
For Imm, terrorism equals “love.” Paging George Orwell!
The Mormon Worker claims to combine Mormonism with “radical politics.” It’s probably a scam, in order to con Mormons into becoming communists (see also “civil rights movement,” “feminism,” “environmentalism,” etc.). In any event, in addition to such well-known Mormons as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, the contributors page lists 16 people who claim to be Mormons, or to have completed a mission abroad.
Or perhaps, “hooligan.” As of 6:09 a.m. today, their Web page has not been updated since February 13, and thus has no notice of the conference’s cancellation.
The chief suspects have to be OPP and Imm, since OPP celebrates violence, and Imm, with his talk of “love,” can rationalize anything.
The Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations had all made life miserable for whites, and especially for race-conscious whites who were fighting to save their country. But only under “Obama,” did the enemies of liberty feel safe in engaging in terrorism. And that was no accident. “Obama,” a longtime devotee of genocidal Black Liberation Theology, has made it clear that it is open season on whites.
Acting on “Obama’s” behalf, Holder has aggressively acted to (literally) disenfranchise whites and strip them of their constitutional rights, by supporting the genocidal black supremacist, domestic terrorist group, the New Black Panther Party (NBP), and by supporting the unconstitutional Hate Crime Bill, which “Obama” has since signed into law.
As I wrote on May 12 in a VDARE exclusive, “Diversity is Strength! It’s Also…’Jim Snow’ Disenfranchisement of Whites,” on Election Day 2008, members of the NBP were caught on videotape at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia, dressed in military garb and with at least one (calling himself “King Samir Shabazz”) threatening white voters and poll watchers with a night stick, shouting racial epithets at them, and blocking their entrance. The Panthers made it clear to white voters and poll watchers that they were doing this, in order to help “Obama” win the election.
One of the Panthers allegedly told a white, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
The group also claimed that it planned to eventually engage in such terrorism nationwide.
(See also here, here, and here. View and download a collection of videos of the Philadelphia Panthers’ voting rights violations here, before they’re gone.)
On January 7, the Bush Justice Department sued the New Black Panther Party. On the case’s court date, April 20, the defendants (the Panthers) refused to appear in court. The presiding judge issued a default judgment against the Panthers, as is routine in civil cases in which one side fails to appear, but on May 15, the “Obama” Justice Department insisted instead on dropping the charges against the Panthers, based on their non-appearance! (The DOJ retained only an injunction against one terrorist, to refrain from threatening voters and poll watchers with deadly weapons, pretty please, with a cherry on top. Since federal law already prohibited threatening voters and poll watchers with deadly weapons, the injunction was redundant. And why was this only a civil case, to begin with?)
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has subpoenaed the Justice Department, in order to question its officials as to their handling of the case, but Justice has stonewalled, inventing non-existent “executive privileges,” and refusing to cooperate.
And then on June 25, 2009, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder explicitly stated that white heterosexual, conservative Christians would not be protected by the Hate Crimes Bill, which has since passed both chambers and been signed into law by “Obama.”
The terrorist acts that shut down the American Renaissance conference are all actionable. And in spite of the “Obama” Administration’s racism and anti-Americanism, all patriots must demand that the FBI investigate and arrest the terrorists. An example must be made of them.
Meanwhile, “Obama” and Holder have made clear that, as far as they are concerned, white Americans have no rights in their own country, and that through accelerated, mass non-white immigration, they plan on turning American into another South Africa/Zimbabwe. But if reasonable men cannot come together to speak about race and immigration employing scientific facts and logic, the stage will be left to unreasonable men, and that does not mean merely communists, black supremacists, and so forth. There is no moral argument against white nationalists shutting down lectures and conferences, using the same methods as the communists/racists, calling in bomb threats, etc. I do not propose such tactics, but I will not condemn them. As Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan, in a state of anarchy, no man is obliged to follow the state’s laws. Revised for current use, make that “anarcho-tyranny.”
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."—Muslim Brotherhood
Mohamed El-Baradei acts as though he wants “Barack Obama” to act as a dictator or supreme commander, depose Egypt’s lawful leader, and install El-Baradei as president, yet he sees this as a blueprint for “democratic” reform?
El-Baradei really needs to take his irony supplement.
The news reports I read initially either ignored the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the rioting, or said the group was keeping a low profile, and though some mentioned that it supports imposing shariah, none that I saw mentioned that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. In fact, some sites ludicrously reported that the Brotherhood has “renounced violence.” And Al Qaeda is just a Koran study group.
The Brotherhood has now agreed to support El-Baradei as the “lead spokesman” (elsewhere described as “leader”) of pro-democracy forces, but if Mubarak surrenders power, the Brotherhood will sweep El-Baradei away like so much dust.
Another voice in favor of “democracy” comes from our friends at The Daily Beast, who tell us,
Don't Fear Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
The secretive Islamic opposition group has long renounced violence and may be the most reasonable option….
The prospect of change in Egypt inevitably raises questions about the oldest and strongest opposition movement in the country, the Muslim Brotherhood , also known as Ikhwan. Can America work with an Egypt where the Ikhwan is part of a transition or even a new government?
The short answer is it is not our decision to make. Egyptians will decide the outcome, not Washington. We should not try to pick Egyptians' rulers. Every time we have done so, from Vietnam’s generals to Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, we have had buyer’s remorse. But our interests are very much involved so we have a great stake in the outcome. Understanding the Brotherhood is vital to understanding our options….
After the army seized power in 1952, [the Brotherhood] briefly flirted with supporting Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government but then moved into opposition. Nasser ruthlessly suppressed it.
Nasser and his successors, Anwar Sadat and Mubarak, have alternatively repressed and demonized the Brotherhood or tolerated it as an anti-communist and right-wing opposition….
Bruce Riedel’s claim that we have always had buyer’s remorse when we picked rulers is not true. Not in South Vietnam, and not in Iran. The former CIA officer also somehow neglected to mention that Nasser’s brutal suppression of the Brotherhood followed their assassination attempts on him, or that the group assassinated Sadat.
Note the non sequitur:
“Can America work with an Egypt where the Ikhwan is part of a transition or even a new government?
“The short answer is it is not our decision to make.”
The answer to what? Riedel’s answer is to a different question, whether America should have any say in the governing of a country that gets $1.5 billion in annual aid from us, and he admits that “our interests are very much involved so we have a great stake in the outcome.” Beyond that, as he well knows, Egypt is essential to regional stability.
Riedel never answers his question, because the answer is “no,” but he does not want to come clean with his true loyalties.
He also ignores the fact that the democratic Egyptian El-Baradei wants America to intervene, and “to pick Egyptians' rulers.”
The notion that America should be passive in the face of a possible Islamist takeover in Egypt, and in much of North Africa, is completely inimical to America’s interests. Then again, Riedel’s orientation clearly is anti-American: He supported the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, and supports an Islamist takeover of Egypt and North Africa.
Eight years ago, Zeev Chafets observed that Arab Moslems don’t march in favor of more democracy, but for less of it. They don’t march for peace, but for war. Mohamed El-Baradei may have fallen in love with his press clippings, but Bruce Riedel and Hillary Clinton know these truths better than I do.
April 16, 2003 Toogood Reports/A Different Drummer
Weeks before Saddam Hussein was toppled — in person and symbolically, in the form of statues — the New York Times started its campaign for the postwar defeat of the American military. Columnists Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman, and the Times’ editorial writers, insisted that virtually immediately after victory, America would have to turn over control to the democratic will of the Iraqi people, and get out of the country.
Our rivals and enemies (take your pick) in France, Germany, and Russia, have informed us that the U.S. enjoys neither credibility nor legitimacy, which only the U.N. has, and that Iraq must be turned over to the authority of the U.N. and so-called international law.
Arab nationalists in the region have also decried America’s presence in Iraq. Speaking from the United Arab Emirate’s capital, Abu Dhabi, on the Larry King Show last Thursday, Salah Negm, of Arab news outlet al-Arabiya, maintained that there had never been a “foreign power occupying an Arab capital in fifty years.”
The U.N. only has legitimacy or credibility in the eyes of diehard internationalists and enemies of America. As for Negm, either he suffers from amnesia, regarding the 1990 invasion of Kuwait City by Saddam Hussein’s army, or he uses “foreigners” as a code-word for “infidels.” When Larry King asked Negm whether the anti-American line of the Arab world (read: Negm’s own opinion) would change, if weapons of mass destruction were found, Negm dodged the question, and King let him get away with it.
Even George Bush, apparently yielding to such pressures, has promised the Iraqis that they would “soon” be voting for their own government. I hope Bush was either humoring our enemies, or that he will rethink his position. If “democratic” elections take place in Iraq anytime soon, 106 American soldiers and two journalists will have died in vain.
A disturbing sign has been the widespread looting that Iraqi thugs have gotten away with, right in front of passive American soldiers. Donald Rumsfeld, who has to know better, tried to rationalize such riotous criminality as the letting loose of a liberated people: “The task we’ve got ahead of us now is an awkward one ... It’s untidy. And freedom’s untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that’s what’s going to happen here.”
“And for suddenly the biggest problem in the world to be looting is really notable.”
Not really, Mr. Secretary. As one reporter asked Rumsfeld, last Friday, “If you were at the mercy of looters, how long would you feel liberated?”
Similarly, GOP talking heads, who would otherwise never rationalize lawlessness, have spoken like socialists, of the “redistribution” of wealth that Saddam had stolen from the Iraqi people. The talking heads ignored the looting and robbing of ordinary Iraqis’ homes, of hospitals and museums, and the general attitude of lawlessness encouraged by passivity from those in charge. Rumsfeld, a two-time secretary of defense and former Navy flier, should know better than anyone, that there is a centuries-old method for preventing chaos in a newly conquered, er, I mean, liberated, piece of real estate. The victors must immediately impose order, and stop looting (which is often the same thing). The traditional method is to shoot looters. When looters and those contemplating looting, see or hear of dead looters, they stop what they are doing, or never get started.
(In the absence of order from American troops, some Iraqis took justice into their own hands, seizing, beating, and apparently shooting some suspected looters. I say, “apparently,” because reporters and cameramen, who showed us the seizing and beating of the suspects, suddenly censored themselves, and spoke only of hearing gun shots from the vicinity of where the suspects had been taken.)
More modern-style leaders may have troops first fire warning shots, and really progressive leaders have soldiers fire rubber bullets, or even carry unloaded weapons. But you can bank on this: An occupying army’s success at restoring order — whether in a foreign or domestic setting — will be in inverse proportion to its gentleness.
Feels Just Like Home
We have seen similar disorder many times at home. During the 1992 black race riot in Los Angeles, for instance, national guardsmen who were never seen shooting anyone — because their weapons were unloaded — were laughingstocks. Early on in L.A., it was the thousands of besieged Korean merchants who took to the roofs of their businesses with the assault weapons demonized by the gun confiscation movement, who did more than the police or the national guard, to discourage looters.
On March 8, 2001, in Berkeley, black teenagers rioted, er, demonstrated on behalf of a return of affirmative action, by pillaging a Foot Locker sneaker store, right in front of passive police, who did not even intervene when the rioters beat a white passerby to a pulp. Millions of people saw photographs of the looters around the world on the Internet, yet police claimed that they could not identify any of the looters.
InThe New Leviathan in 1942, philosopher-historian R.G. Collingwood observed the early manifestations of such ‘progressive” law enforcement, when he spoke mockingly of “an age of rubber truncheons.”
We’re Americans, We’re Your Friends
Nothing is more indicative of a lack of order, than looters’ ability to run wild. The orders not to shoot looters in Iraq came straight from the Oval Office. I’m convinced that Pres. Bush made that decision out of fear of how it would play for people around the world — and especially the Arab world — to see news footage of white American soldiers shooting Iraqi looters. Although I think that Pres. Bush is in general a brilliant diplomatic gamesman, this was a bad decision. Bush chose the wrong moment, to be humble.
On Friday, CENTCOM spokesman (or should I say, “spokesperson”?) Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks’ spin on this policy was, “If the coalition simply imposed control on the population, that wouldn’t achieve the desired effect. We wouldn’t be everywhere and we might also alienate a population that doesn’t need to have another regime with a grip around its neck.”
Officers in the field repeated the White House talking points to reporters. They didn’t have enough men, er, persons, to keep order. That was like saying, ‘We don’t have enough persons to win.’
I think the mismanagement of order in Iraq derives from a misbegotten desire to placate the Arab and European streets, respectively, but that’s not all. Most contemporary American leaders have tired of ... leadership. Beaten over the head for thirty-odd years with propaganda about “ugly Americans” by the media they loathe, politicians have nonetheless acquiesced to the media’s line, and desire nothing so much as to be liked. Indeed, when I lived in West Germany (1980-85), when some Germans referred to Americans mockingly as “nice” (“nett”), meaning “vacuous” and “morally lightweight.” But then, I was waxing sentimental; Germans probably don’t refer to Americans as “nett” anymore.
And yet, Bush has failed to placate anyone. The media pilloried him for the chaos, which his supporters sought to softpedal as exaggerated or even beautiful. The same socialist non-governmental organizations that sought to derail both the Afghanistan (“Infinite Justice,” er, I mean “Enduring Freedom”) and Iraq campaigns, screamed that they couldn’t distribute aid amid chaos, not that they had any problems earlier with Moslem-instigated chaos. And even the Iraqi people are quickly souring on Bush, for his refusal to impose order. And so, Bush is now re-hiring some of Hussein’s strongmen, who had only days before joined the ranks of the unemployed. Surely you remember them: They’re the guys we sent our boys to Iraq to remove.
(Some observers have denied the appropriateness of comparing the use of Hussein’s thugs to rebuild Iraq, to the use, in postwar West Germany, of Nazis to rebuild the country. The observers never explained, however, why such comparisons are unfair.) When Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York (1994-2001), his legion of critics emphasized his lack of niceness. Giuliani’s Democrat predecessor, Ed Koch, even published a book with the baby-talk title, Giuliani: Nasty Man. (The real story behind the Giuliani mayoralty was that Giuliani’s “toughness” on crime was a mask. In fact, Rudy Giuliani accelerated the program of affirmative action policing that gave black crime suspects privileged treatment (see here, here, and here).
Time was, toughness not only was not perceived as a weakness or defect in an American leader, but was a trait which politicians strove to project. The first major politician in my lifetime whom I can recall striving to appear “sensitive” was George McGovern, who in the 1972 presidential election said he was ready to get down on his hands and knees, and beg the North Vietnamese to return American POWs.
TV viewers and radio listeners in Kosovo, Srebrenica, and Rwanda, all would have felt right at home, with the images and reports of UN “peacekeepers” standing down, while mobs ran wild.
UN “peacekeepers” in Rwanda (800,000 murdered in 1994) and Srebrenica (7,000 murdered in 1995) permitted thousands of people to be butchered under their noses. In newly conquered Kosovo, in 1999, the numbers were in the double digits, but all the same, locals knew that those pretty blue helmets had more to do with a fashion show, than a show of force. Well, what do you expect of an organization that pretends to world sovereignty, but refuses to take the responsibilities that go with it?
Broken Theories
And yet, while it makes sense for America’s enemies to tout the importance of U.N. “peacekeepers,” the biggest hypocrites of late, have been those GOP writers and supporters who usually cite the “broken windows” theory of crime. That theory, formulated by George Kelling, Catherine M. Coles, and James Q. Wilson, argues that a failure to crack down on minor, “quality-of-life” crimes leads to disrespect for law, the breakdown of order, violent crime, and ultimately, chaos.
(Broken windows theory could also be called the Wambaugh-LAPD theory, since its core idea was suggested in 1971 by then-LAPD detective, Joseph Wambaugh, in his seminal police novel, The New Centurions. Wambaugh expressed an institutionally-anchored view of the pre-Rodney King LAPD. However, Wambaugh embedded the need for cracking down on vice within a deeply pessimistic view of history, which anticipated the destruction of Western Civilization through what would soon be called multiculturalism.)
The impotence of those entrusted with keeping the peace, was not a foreign sight to viewers in New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and Cincinnati. Urban police in the U.S. — media campaigns fabricating hoaxes such as “racial profiling” notwithstanding — have been standing down in front of mobs since the 1991 pogrom in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights, in which a black mob yelled “Kill the Jew,” before murdering Yankel Rosenbaum. Mayor David Dinkins had the police stand down, and permit the mob to “vent” for three days, until Dinkins, who was the city’s first black mayor, spoke to blacks, and one threw a bottle at him.
The handcuffing of the police during the Los Angeles riots, in which according to Denise DiPasquale of the University of Chicago, “resulted in 52 deaths, 2,500 injuries and at least $446 million in property damage.” During a later L.A. riot, following the Lakers’ winning of the NBA championship on June 19, 2000, police stood down, while looters and vandals variously destroyed and stole millions of dollars in property. Rather than being ashamed, city officials actually bragged about their non-policing strategy. And on February 27, 2001, Kristopher Kime was murdered in Seattle during Mardi Gras, by a group of black thugs. While a large, black mob stomped and robbed lone whites, Kime went to the aid of a petite white woman, who was being brutally beaten by several black men, and was beaten to death, as nearby police stood around. Police had been ordered not to do their jobs by Chief Gil Kerlikowske.
Presaging Baghdad, TV cameramen in Seattle censored themselves and protected black thugs, by turning their cameras away from many violent crimes.
The conventional wisdom since Los Angeles, 1992, has variously rationalized the riot as an expression of outrage at the acquittal of the four policemen charged with beating black motorist Rodney King (who was drunk, led police on a high-speed chase, and then resisted arrest), to the riot as a rebellion. From my vantage point, the riot was a response to correctly perceived weakness and timidity on the part of police.
Urban police and elected officials have been guided in recent years by a managerial philosophy of permitting “persons of color” to “vent.” Hence, those responsible for order permit chaos, and (in America) the murder of expendable whites, as a way, they think, to make nice with the natives.
In the book, Exit Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Albert O. Hirschman describes a “liberal” and a “conservative” theory, respectively, of riots. In the liberal theory, riots are not normal; thus, when one occurs, it must be as a reaction to some injustice. According to the conservative theory, as presented by Hirschmann, order is an achievement, which is always in jeopardy. A riot can happen anytime. Thus, it is not disorder that requires explaining, but order.
Via the ideology of third-worldism, aka multiculturalism, today in Iraq, we see the closing of the circle, in which the same barbaric, cowardly, irrational thinking that has undermined all of America’s institutions is being universalized.
America is presuming to tell Iraqis how to get their house in order, but Americans don’t know how to take care of their own affairs. The alliance of racist minority politicians and mainstream media whose members are gripped both with fascination and fear of violent non-whites, has succeeded in beating down most American politicians. And now, American leaders increasingly are exporting their shortcomings.
Jamie Satterfield, Knox News reporter, states in the above article that,
Baumgartner’s disorientation was readily apparent as the final trial involving suspect Vanessa Coleman wrapped up last May when the judge had trouble deciphering the verdict form. But most legal observers of all four trials and the slew of motions hearings leading up to the trials have praised Baumgartner’s handling of the proceedings and his various rulings.
I was in the courtroom for three days of the Coleman trial and the sentencing hearings for Lemaricus Davidson (here and here) and Coleman. I saw Baumgartner fall asleep once during a defense cross-examination during the Coleman trial. The judge would call for a break quite often. When he did so, Judge Baumgartner would head straight for the smoking area.
My brother is an attorney and years ago sometimes appeared before Baumgartner. In those days, the judge would smoke on the bench during a trial. This was before the no-smoking rules in public places. Judge Baumgartner is around 60 years old, but looks older.
There was supposed to be an appeal hearing on Friday, January 28, for the first defendant convicted in the Knoxville Horror, Letalvis Cobbins. It did not take place. Another judge has been appointed to take Baumgartner’s case load. He will have to study the proceeding before he can preside over the hearings relating to this case.
Some observers speculate that this may affect the verdicts in the Christian-Newsom case.
(NS note: It could lead to mistrials being declared in all four state cases!)
According to American Renaissance, the hotel that contracted, six months ago, to host the organization’s conference on February 4-6, has suddenly broken its contract, and according to a report by Fred Clasen-Kelly in the January 26 Charlotte Observer, the hotel’s cancellation was the doing of Charlotte City Councilman Patrick Cannon.
White nationalists' conference stymied Host hotel cancels group's reservation as Charlotte City Council member Patrick Cannon works behind scenes. by Fred Clasen-Kelly
When a white nationalist magazine announced a conference in Charlotte, anarchists and other groups vowed to protest or disrupt the gathering.
But behind the scenes the conference apparently met an unexpected obstacle: Charlotte City Council member Patrick Cannon.
On Wednesday, American Renaissance magazine said plans for its annual conference are now in limbo because the hotel where it was scheduled to take place canceled the reservation.
An e-mail Cannon sent to a constituent early this week suggested he was lobbying local hotels to refuse to book American Renaissance.
Cannon wrote that he had contacted hotels and that "they seem to be cooperating."
"An attempt was made for accommodations at another hotel but based on what I ask to take place they were denied again," the e-mail said.
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance editor, said Cannon's e-mail violated the First Amendment.
"It's unconscionable (that) public officials would try to interfere in private contractual affairs," Taylor said. "We have never run into this before."
In a brief interview Wednesday, Cannon said he sent the e-mail to "update a constituent on where things stood."
"By no means would I be in the business of trying to violate someone's rights," Cannon said.
The news came on the same day that the Jewish Defense Organization posted a statement on its website, saying City Council member Warren Turner sent an e-mail to Charlotte hotels about the conference.
Turner denied contacting hotels to stop the conference….
Organizers scheduled a conference Feb. 4-6 at the Sheraton Charlotte Airport Hotel near Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. The group booked 100 rooms at the eight-story hotel, where rooms cost as much as $225 a night….
American Renaissance has tried to reserve rooms at other hotels but has been rebuffed, Taylor said.
Taylor said Cannon's e-mail reflected intolerance and was "profoundly hypocritical."
Richard Toenjes, associate director of UNC Charlotte's Center for Professional and Applied Ethics, said Cannon's e-mail could be construed as a violation of free speech.
"If the person used his or her name which would be recognized as the name of a council member, I'd say the member was functioning as a public official and hence out of line interfering with protected free speech," Toenjes said.
But Scott Huffmon, a professor of political science at Winthrop University, said merely warning hotels about the upcoming conference is within the rights of elected officials.
"Alerting the hotels and saying this isn't good for our image is using the bully pulpit, but not necessarily unethical," Huffmon said. "If he tried to use the position to cajole, coerce or bully that would be different."
Note Huffmon’s sophistry: How is “using the bully pulpit” not using his “position to cajole, coerce or bully”?
Meanwhile, Jared Taylor and Co. are seeking a new venue. I’ve got my ticket booked for February 4, and unless and until I hear otherwise from my friends and colleagues at American Renaissance, I’ll be flying to Charlotte next Friday.
In any event, I urge Jared to sue the pants off of the hotel and, should Clasen-Kelly’s story check out, to sue the City of Charlotte for millions. Only when such illegal conduct proves extremely costly to its agents, will it stop.
It seems that, beginning at circa 1 a.m., a 13-year-old boy stood in his family’s driveway, in Pasadena’s Vince Bayou section, and he and one or more friends fired a .38-caliber revolver 20-30 times toward a back fence over the course of two-and-a-half hours. Neighbors started calling 911 soon after the shooting began, but due to the layout of Vince Bayou, police had trouble finding the source of the gunfire. When a policeman approached and repeatedly ordered the boy to drop the gun, instead of complying with the officer’s command, the boy wheeled on him, weapon in hand, whereupon the officer shot him three times, critically wounding him.
The officers at the scene called for an ambulance for the shooter, and arrested two friends of the boy’s, a boy and a girl, who were present. The girl proceeded to kick out the squad car window.
As the following comments show, many posters lacked the wisdom of “newdirection.”
dredlockrasta 8:51 AM on June 6, 2008
If someone turns toward you, shouldn't they have been shot in the side or even in the front center mass?? How do you still manage to shoot them in the back 3 times???
PRAETORIAN wrote:
shot in the lower back, yeah that BOY was really threatening those officers alright. good thing those tough cops were on top of this, that poor fence surely didn't need another hole in it. WAFJ.
I am all about putting down scum and yeah I agree that there might be some piss poor parenting here, however that does not justify the use of deadly force. 6/6/2008 9:28 AM CDT
ClevOh189 wrote: KwikCroc wrote: If looking at the barrel of a gun, would you really care how old the shooter is?
But the article stated "the boy DIDNT turn all the way around", hence 3 bullets to the BACK...the gun was NEVER pointed directly at any officers... I'm not saying the boy didnt break the law, just saying that it didnt occur the way you think it did...
texiban 11:01 AM on June 6, 2008
I know this neighborhood as I grew up in Pasadena. It is 95% Hispanic. Probably 50% of these kids are either in gangs or just thugs in general. The parents' don't care what they do as evidenced by the time of this incident and the fact that the parents did not stop this kid from shooting at the fence. Where are the cries for the parents being held accountable for their kids actions? Why aren't they being called unfit? This is typical of the liberal sentiment that "no one is responsible for their actions, it's societys' fault"!
I am tired of Pasadena PD getting a bad rap all the time. Their officers a well trained and I have never, ever had any of them be anything but professional and courteous when I have gotten either a ticket or, in my younger days, taken to the jail for being stupid. (Drinking). There are bad officers on every force, but I will put Pasadena Police against any other department in Texas for their professionalism. I didn't hear anyone complaining when they busted the little creep yesterday for trying to put a hit on his ex-girlfriends friend.
WontStandIdlyBy wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if we could believe OUR police force's version of events. But hey, it's a police state and they knew what's best for us even if they have lie to us to effect it. No one is safe folks. The cops have always gotten a free pass on murder and with recent events, they will extend that "privilege" to ANYONE. Helpless bums and throw-away drug dealers are just their stepping stone to your children and mine. And we get the lovely honor of paying them to do it.
Ain't this police state grand!
BTW... don't bother flaming me. I know how HALF of y'all feel, you would have fit in perfectly in Hitler's Germany. But one day, when it happens to you or yours, you'll wish you hadn't been so easily duped.
GiantLeapForMankind 11:10 AM on June 6, 2008
(Response to WontStandIdlyBy:) Oh I will be looking out for the day when I'm out in my driveway at 3:00 a.m. shooting a gun repeatedly for the fun of it until the cops come and shoot me.
Oh wait, no I won't.
strangergirl 11:36 AM on June 6, 2008
This is ridiculous. According to these comments, my generation is filled with conniving little brats who do stupid things.
Okay, let me address this all seperately. The world has changed and grown to be more violent. Dur. The kids are more stupid. Dur. Still, this "I wouldn't have done that!" response that I keep reading isn't believable.
Look at this situation. Kids play with guns all the time, shooting at cans and fences and all kinds of sh^t. There was NO reason that the cop should've shot the child in the BACK. It makes no sense. I thought the child was facing him, how could he have shot him in the back? I think it was the cop's fault in this. The child might have had the gun in his hand and turned to see who was approaching him, afraid, like ANY normal person after being caught doing something illegal, and turned SLIGHTLY to look back.
They should've just maced him.
<33 kirsten.
GiantLeapForMankind 11:46 AM on June 6, 2008
textone wrote: Due to the fact that I am not a brainwashed SHEEP, I have to question this story. I want more deatils of the lighting around where the police were positioned. .... The kids were on their own private property and didn't pose a threat to anyone but themselves, so I think there should be more investigation into this.
No, you have question this story because you are a cop hater and thug lover.
May 11, 2005 A Different Drummer and 'round the Web.
Last Sunday’s New York Times ran an op-ed by Katherine Ellison, “This Is [sic] Your Brain on Motherhood,” in which Ellison argued that being a mother makes you smarter. But so, she added, does being a father.
So, why the title? Why not, “This is Your Brain on Parenthood”? Because Ellison is a feminist. Demanding that she be logical could get a fellow arrested for sexual harassment and verbal assault. Back in college, 25 years ago, my best girlfriend was a feminist. When I referred to “women’s values” – after all, my friend and her sisters called it the “women’s movement” – she reproved me, “They aren’t ‘women’s’ values, they’re ‘human’ values.” So, why is the movement called “feminism,” rather than “humanism”?
ANYONE shopping for a Mother's Day card today might reasonably linger in the Sympathy section. We can't seem to stop mourning the state of modern motherhood. ‘Madness’ is our new metaphor. ‘Desperate Housewives’ are our new cultural icons. And a mother's brain, as commonly envisioned, is impaired by a supposed full-scale assault on sanity and smarts.
So strong is this last stereotype that when a satirical Web site posted a ‘study’ saying that parents lose an average of 20 I.Q. points on the birth of their first child, MSNBC broadcast it as if it were true. The danger of this perception is clearest for working mothers, who besides bearing children spend more time with them, or doing things for them, than fathers, according to a recent Department of Labor survey….
[NS: An idiotic paragraph follows, ridiculing people who think it peculiar that a visibly pregnant woman would seek to land an executive position running a city agency.]
But what if just the opposite is true? What if parenting really isn't a zero-sum, children-take-all game? What if raising children is actually mentally enriching for mothers - and fathers?
This is, in fact, what some leading brain scientists, like Michael Merzenich at the University of California, San Francisco, now believe. Becoming a parent, they say, can power up the mind with uniquely motivated learning. Having a baby is “a revolution for the brain,” Dr. Merzenich says.
“Commonly envisioned”? By whom? I don’t know any people like that. But I used to.
Feminists have long seen children as an awful obstacle, indeed, the chief hindrance to women realizing their destiny as corporate lawyers. Children keep women down, and as one feminist wrote a few years ago, talking to her baby was the least interesting part of her day. (I can’t recall her exact words, but her interest in interacting with her child was on a par with watching paint dry.) How was it that a leading academic abortion advocate always referred to the unborn child in an expectant mother’s womb? Ah, yes. “Trespasser.”
And so, Ellison is having it both ways. She is playing feminist enlightener, arguing against pervasive stereotypes, in order to “refute” them, but the stereotypes come variously from feminism, or from her (“the torrent of negativity about motherhood”). (If the “torrent of negativity” refers to “desperate housewives,” then that is merely yet another feminist-invented stereotype, via Hollywood.)
As for the perception that having children makes mothers – or is it parents? -- dumb, that sounds like a belief limited to the feminists at places like MSNBC. I would not assume, however, that the average American is as benighted as the average TV news editor.
As for Ellison’s lament about working mothers, if parenting makes you smarter, she should be celebrating. Regarding the specifics of her “scientific” meditations on working mothers, the reasons mothers tend to spend more time with their kids than their children’s fathers do are simple:
1. In intact families, the husband on average works many more hours out of the home than the wife; 2. Half of all marriages end in divorce, 75 percent of which are initiated by the wife. In the vast majority of divorces, the wife gets sole custody of the children; and 3. The U.S. illegitimacy rate is currently 33 percent.
If women want their children’s fathers to spend more time with their kids, all they have to do is marry the former, and stay married to them. But such talk is heresy in today’s matriarchy.
Why, you may ask, in an essay glorifying the cognitive value of motherhood, is Ellison complaining about mothers spending more time with their children than fathers do? The reason is that the complaint is part of the feminist package of talking points, and Ellison has to trot it out to establish her political bona fides, even if it provides no support for her thesis.
Getting back to intelligence, Ellison maintains that neuroscientists found that mother lab rats became smarter at time management, in terms of performing tasks and getting back to their baby rats, and sees the mother rats as proving that working mothers get smarter at time management.
Huh?
What Ellison did was assume that working mothers became smarter through being mothers, and then gave the example of the lab rats as “proof” of her assumption’s correctness. It’s circular thinking with a pseudo-scientific gloss.
But since Ellison has qualified her statement by saying that what is true of women is also true of men, she should have found (or made up) a case of neuroscientists who took baby rats away from their mother, and experimented on them with their father, and then said that that was proof of how working fathers get smarter in time management. After all, she did say that cognitively, what is true of mothers is also true of fathers.
Ellison then changes tack yet again.
With our economy newly weighted with people-to-people jobs, and with many professions, including the sciences, becoming more multidisciplinary and collaborative, the people skills we've come to think of as ‘emotional intelligence’ are increasingly prized by many wise employers. An ability to tailor your message to your audience, for instance - a skill that engaged parents practice constantly - can mean the difference between failure and success, at home and at work, as Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, may now realize.
The foregoing has nothing at all to do with intelligence – or with science, for that matter. “People-to-people jobs” is a euphemism for “low-paying service industry jobs.” The sciences haven’t become “more collaborative”; they were always collaborative. And “emotional intelligence” isn’t intelligence at all, but a pseudo-scientific political invention created in order to “prove” that people who aren’t all that bright really are bright.
“Tailoring your message to your audience” is a euphemism for, at best, political opportunism, and at worst, demagoguery. Lawrence Summers got into trouble for honestly using his powerful intellect. Ellison is implying that Summers should have lied.
Thus, according to her reasoning, motherhood/parenthood makes you smarter, but then you have to employ your new-found smarts by being a lying demagogue.
Ellison just engaged in a pedantic way of saying, 'Women are not only smarter than men, but superior in matters of the emotions and compassion … and Larry Summers sucks!'
As part of current feminist talking points, every feminist must also insult Lawrence Summers at every opportunity, in order to prove her political bona fides. And the reference to “collaborative” work is feminist code for “more feminine,” since as any feminist will tell you, females are “more relational.”
Then Ellison argues that the government should provide women with more money for childcare: “to be sure, our society needs to do much more - starting with more affordable, high-quality child care and paid parental leaves - to catch up with other industrialized nations and support mothers and fathers in using their newly acquired smarts to best advantage.”
But if being a mother makes you smarter, logically, government should cut all money for childcare, so women can spend more time with their kids, and thereby get smarter and smarter. If Ellison’s thesis is correct, then getting more and better child care will leave mothers at the dumber level they were at, without the intelligence they would have gained from taking care of their children.
Since Ellison has already contended that fathers are neglecting their kids, we can safely ignore the last “and fathers” add-on.
Are you dizzy from all of Katherine Ellison’s contradictions? I know I am.
And aside from the contradictions, her habit of saying that something is specifically true of mothers, and in the next breath saying that it is also true of fathers, means that there are equivocations within her contradictions. Logically speaking, her essay says nothing.
Here’s what is really going on with Ellison.
1. Ellison wrote a book, The Mommy Brain: How Motherhood Makes Us Smarter, and the Times is helping her sell it. (“Us?” Who is “us,” Kimosabe?)
If Ellison’s teaser essay is any indication, her book is like Malcolm Gladwell’s current bestseller, Blink. According to Steve Sailer, Blink sets up an attractively simple thesis (our snap judgments are generally right), only to contradict the thesis in other parts of the book (if we are white, our snap judgments regarding race are usually wrong), without ever bringing the two positions together, and targets an audience that wouldn’t dare point out the racial implications of Gladwell’s thesis, or that he is contradicting himself.
2. Feminism’s contradictions. Back in the 1970s, feminism routinely condemned motherhood. But in recent years, yuppy feminists have discovered that children can be status symbols, just like expensive cars and summer homes (or at least, time-shares) in the Hamptons. Having or adopting a child shows the world that you can “have it all,” even if you rarely see the tyke. After all, what are illegal aliens for? Ellison is writing on the joys of motherhood for women who either have no children, or who neglect their children, but wish to get credit for their illegal nannies’ labors.
(My wife used to be just such an illegal nanny, as had been dozens upon dozens of the (formerly illegal) immigrant women we both knew. Back in 1997 or ‘98, when I pitched a story to New York’s Daily News on the abuse such illegal nannies routinely endure from their female bosses, lefty op-ed editor Bob Laird told me, “I don’t think that’s true.” Hearing that, my wife immediately started shouting, surely loud enough for Laird to hear, “He has one!”
Come to think of it, I wonder how many yuppy moms are cheating on those Department of Labor questionnaires, by counting time their kids spend with their illegal immigrant nanny as time they are with their mom.)
Even feminists who could never imagine having or adopting a child have come around to publicly supporting working motherhood for professional colleagues (even though it isn’t fair to those who worked so single-mindedly to get where they are, damnit!). That means that women who work less will get the same perks as those who devote themselves solely to their work. If the mommy track makes the workplace a feminist space, where all women can gain more perks and power at the expense of white heterosexual males, it indirectly gives the childless women more power.
But while feminists are now contradicting their earlier anti-family animus, they avoid examining the contradictions. Feminists never examine their own contradictions, they just heap them ever higher. And should anyone point out the contradictions, they’ll teach ‘em! Just ask Larry Summers!
3. With apologies to Chinatown screenwriter Robert Towne, “It’s the New York Times, Jake.” The Times has undertaken a campaign of late, showcasing faddish “intellectuals” who argue that institutions considered by many of their readers to be mentally degrading are actually sources of hidden mental stimulation. Recently, the paper showcased writer Steven Johnson, who was flogging his new pop philosophy book, Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is [sic] Actually Making Us Smarter, with a teaser essay from his book, entitled “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” In accordance with the Times’ anti-intellectualism, one must get one’s mental stimulation via inferior means. Heaven forbid, one should get smarter through, say, reading Plato or doing math problems.
Next thing you know, someone will write a book entitled, Reading the New York Times Makes You Smarter!
By Nicholas Stix Updated at 12:23 a.m., on Friday, January 28, 2011.
When I say that Thomas Lifson, the proprietor of the Web site, American Thinker, is a good Republican, I mean it in the worst possible way.
(Mind you, not everything Lifson publishes is a waste of an intelligent reader’s time. How’s that for a backhanded compliment?)
On Tuesday, Lifson posted a 142-word blog, “The ruins of Detroit,” in which he used the word “Democrats” (or “Dems”) four times and “unions” three times, in apportioning blame for the collapse of what was once America’s most beautiful and wealthiest city. He also used the word “war” once, but as half of the phrase, “political war,” as in “a political war won by Democrats and unions, with the results starkly obvious to all not blinded by ideology.”
Detroit fell victim to a race war won by blacks, with the results starkly obvious to all not blinded by ideology.
I could explain the destruction of the former Motor City with a 160,000-word book or a four-word sentence: Black rule destroyed Detroit.
Out of 42 posted comments, only two people managed to sneak in honest responses.
That doesn’t mean that 95.2 percent of Lifson’s readers, or even 95.2 percent of commenters agreed with him, since he censors like the New York Times, in order to fabricate a counterfeit consensus.
Posted by: DrZero Jan 25, 10:53 AM ______________________________ This article is dishonest. It is painful to discuss the truth, even here at American Thinker. It is not Democrats and unions that killed Detroit. Yes, Detroit has had many Democratic mayors, but not all were scoundrels and thieves. Mayor Jerry Cavanaugh was doing good things in Detroit right up until 1967, when the riots happened.
You cannot begin to understand the devistation of Detroit without understanding the Detroit riots. They were orders of magnitude more serious than any other riots in the 1960s. The offical tally was about 50 dead, but due to the huge amount of arson and a less-than-serious effort to find all the bodies we'll never know the real number. Most estimates put it at least 3 times larger. Vast areas of the city were burnt. The National Guard and State Police utterly failed to restore order. Governor Romney (father of Mitt Romney) called LBJ and got the US Army to come in and restore order. Elements of both the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions were sent to Detroit. They used military methods to end the riots. Anyone seen on a rooftop was shot. The Kern Commission Report tells the story of a man shot lighting a cigarette in his window by the Army. Tanks and APCs were brought in and lined-up on Eight Mile Road, with the guns pointing in to the city. The riot was universally understood as a race riot, that is it was blacks rioting and targeting whites. The spray painted "Soul Brother" on the store front worked in many cases. It was the white owned businesses that were destroyed.
The psychological effect on the white residents of Detroit was profound and immediate. They understood: Detroit is hostile territory. The white flight began in ernest. Both my grandparents, who owned lovely houses on leafy streets (one adjacent to a golf course) moved. Everyone's parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles moved. The ... (350 word limit)
A response soon followed that was typical, where race and Republicans are concerned.
Posted by: Robin Jan 25, 11:30 AM _________________________________
Dr. Zero, I have no idea if what you report is accurate, but I can tell you that cities in worse shape than that have come back. It's been 50 [sic] years since those events. Cities leveled in WW1 and WW2 are back to vibrant life. And we can't do the same?
[Was that Robin of Berkeley? In any event, it was another Republican Kool-Aid drinker. White Michiganders and citizens across the country have already been plundered for billions of dollars to help Detroit “come back” to “vibrant life.”]
One other honest man got through.
Posted by: Jacobite Jan 25, 01:06 PM ______________________________ DrZero is 100% correct. After all, NYC is one of the worst-governed cities on earth, but it still more-or-less works. The critical element is the population. Coleman Young did everything but put up billboards telling Detroit whites to get out. He worked hard to destroy Hamtramnk(?), from withholding police and fire response, to building an auto factory in the middle of it. I lived and worked in Warren (11 Mile Road) in the late 70s, and even then there were people who claimed they hadn't been south of Eight Mile Road in twenty years. Get past America -- there are websites (the death of johannisberg) dedicated to documenting the destruction of South Africa under black rule. You can toss in Rhodesia and Kenya as well. Americans who have been taught, and believed, that all peoples are the same deserve what they get from refusing to look around them and see the obvious reality.
It wouldn’t shock me to learn that Thomas Lifson has a higher IQ than I do, but politics isn’t rocket science.
As the United Negro College Fund says, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Update: Update: A longtime reader sent me the following link, arguing that Thomas Lifson stole the title “The Ruins of Detroit” from the eponymous white nationalist Web page.
I’m not sure what to think. Lifson is so willfully ignorant in matters of race that I cannot completely exclude the possibility that he did not steal the title. But I also cannot believe that Lifson’s title is a complete coincidence. One of his readers may have purloined it from the white site, and suggested it to Lifson.
Pres. Obama spent most of the speech talking about preventing U.S. jobs from going overseas to be done by foreign workers there, and then incongruously argued for increasing the number of foreign workers to take the scarce jobs we keep in the U.S.
Though mostly ambiguous, his statements on immigration seemed to put illegal foreign workers and foreign students first while keeping unemployed Americans in the shadows.
On trade, he said he would "only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs" and yet on immigration policy he failed American workers, declining to ask for reductions in immigration even though 24 million American and legal immigrants can't find a full-time job. And he declined to ask for mandatory E-Verify to put millions of them back to work by opening up 7 million jobs held by illegal foreign workers. Instead, he vaguely asked for work permits for illegal aliens and an increase in foreign workers.
The disappointment over his comments was tempered by the lukewarm response from Members of Congress who seemed in no mood to follow his unpopular suggestions.
Some pundits who are either brain-dead or in “Obama’s” pocket, have been claiming that he is tacking to the center, or even at heart a centrist. After the Tucson Massacre, he called for “civility,” which has for over 20 years been a leftwing code word for anyone disagreeing with totalitarian multiculturalism to have to shut up. He called again for amnesty for approximately 28 million illegal aliens taking jobs from American citizens and sucking us dry through welfare programs and school, medical, and law enforcement costs, and even “free,” no down-payment home mortgages that we then have to pay for. (I’m dropping the standard add-on “and legal immigrants,” because that suggests that immigrants—as opposed to naturalized citizens—are on a par with citizens.) He called for letting millions of foreigners—illegals who were born here, foreigners here on student visas, and those not yet even here—steal university admissions and jobs from Americans. And while claiming to freeze spending out of one side of his mouth, in the next breath, he called for “investments” in education, for “outeducating” the world, which is a racist code phrase for stealing the last pennies in the pockets of the white Americans who represent what is left of the tax base, and giving them to the racist blacks and Hispanics, and white communists running a system that has through racism and violence largely run off white families.
It was the same old, same old, from a man who believes that his most important task is to “destroy the white enemy.”
Just Shut Up and Be a Good Little Socialist By Officer Steve Pomper, East Precinct
December, 2010 The Guardian (newsletter of the Seattle Police Officers' Guild).
The city, using its Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), continues its assault on traditional and constitutional American values such as self-reliance, equal justice, and individual liberty. But more to our immediate concern, the city is inflicting its socialist policies directly on the Seattle Police Department.
I once wrote, elections have consequences. This is true, and Seattle voters will get what they deserve. However, the city has extended its leftist political agenda to the police department, which should remain as apolitical as possible. The police department is not a laboratory and its cops are not guinea pigs.
Social justice is a socialist scheme that judges people not as individuals, but by their race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Again, please research it yourself. The groups touting social justice all tend toward the political left, including socialist and communist groups.
Remember when communism and socialism used to be considered bad in America? You know, for little things like slaughtering a hundred million people during the 20th Century? Even in its least aggressive forms, socialism is responsible for wrecking economies, restricting liberty, and stifling human innovation and achievement worldwide.
I'm not conflating Seattle's quaint socialist cabal with the brutal tyrants of the last century. However, any student of history knows totalitarianism begins with small bites. In 21st Century America, political repression comes in the form of what Europeans call Fabian or Democratic Socialism, which we Americans know as progressivism.
By this method, if we aren't careful, we will literally vote ourselves into tyranny. Some think we came pretty damn close to it in 2008: Thank God for the November slap down ordinary Americans gave their overreaching government.
Socialist oppression may start with the "best" of intentions by people who feel they have the right to run other peoples' lives. And while they may not intend oppression, this is to where socialism always - always - leads, to one degree or another.
In cities it begins like this: Mayors present social justice policies to city departments. Department heads carry out the policies without much dissention, not wanting to jeopardize their jobs. Before they know it, they're complicit in implementing socialism. ...Lives, fortunes, and sacred honor... what a charming, archaic notion.
These initial policies always seem benign. The city compels its employees to participate in RSJI classes, and they conduct ostensibly, innocuous surveys advancing an unquestionably leftist political agenda. They attempt to make us feel comfortable with socialist and progressive terminology through repetition and saturation. The Race and Social Justice Initiative, SPD Race and Social Justice Change Team, and Race and Social Justice Survey. I'm waiting for the Race and Social Justice Torchlight Parade and Race and Social Justice 10K Race for Social Justice. On and on it goes until, they hope, the term no longer riles us.
Most of us refuse to believe "real" socialism will ever take hold in Seattle-in America. We know city leaders aren't going to change our minds. We'll always be patriotic, antisocialist, Americans. Really? Well, at what point do we say, "Hell no!" to the indoctrination? In its early, weaker stages, or later when, the infection has spread and the disease is harder to cure?
Perhaps there should be no participation at all in anything involving Social Justice? At what point does our commitment to American liberty and opposition to socialism compel us to disengage from something we find so abhorrent to our nature? I don't know the precise answer to this, but don't we need to at least think about it?
Anyone think that back in 1776, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, or Ben Franklin would have participated in a King's Royal Justice Initiative (KRJI?)? Complete a survey for ol' King George III? America was exceptional then, and we must remain exceptional now. And what makes America exceptional is our commitment to equal justice and individual liberty, not social justice and emulating Europe's failures.
I've given some thought to my own RSJI participation to date. The "Perspectives in Profiling" class (or as one officer put it, one of our "de-policing classes") served as a good way to learn what the enemy is up to (Yes, enemy. A liberal after my money in taxes may be my opponent, but a socialist attacking the Constitution and my liberty is my enemy).
The RSJI survey was an opportunity to let the city know exactly how I feel about its institutional racial profiling policy. It was another opportunity to give them my opinions on the city practicing arbitrary justice over equal justice. To let them know that I'm not okay with blatantly violating the 14th Amendment.
What happens the next time they order us to take the survey or to otherwise actively participate in promoting RSJI? Many of us have already let them know what we think about their socialist policies. (I would pay handsomely to be in the room when they read some officer's surveys). The next time would simply mark our participation in the RSJI effort as a whole, regardless of how we answer. Would we be surrendering to their attempts to indoctrinate SPD in social justice culture? Perhaps, if some new policy doesn't force it sooner, that'll mark the line drawn in the sand.
Speaking of the survey, our precinct command staff recently carried out an order forcing all SPD employees, sworn and civilian, to complete a six page hardcopy of the RSJI Survey. Seems we were less than enthusiastic about voluntarily completing the paperless online survey. Imagine that. Compliance didn't work, so the city resorted to compulsion, How delightfully socialist of them. There is also an ancillary issue, which is truly ironic: Regarding Seattle's supposed "green" commitment to going paperless. Since all city departments are supposed to participate in the RSJI survey, and the city employs thousands, with about 2,000 in the SPD alone, I have to wonder how much paper the city wasted to print out this worthless survey?
I'll leave you with this refresher: employing the RSJI, the City of Seattle is actually deciding on which people do or do not "merit punishment" for a crime, based upon their race, ethnic heritage, and/or socio-economic status. So far this only applies to DWLS3, but one has to ask, what's next? They're also deciding purchases and the issuing of city contracts based upon similar criteria. This is social justice, folks, and socialism has no place in Seattle, and positively no place in the Seattle Police Department.
This ABC News report claims “the Kensington Strangler [is] Unique For Crossing Racial Lines In Killings.”
ABC’s expert, Dr. James Alan Fox of Northeastern University, must never have heard of the “Southland Strangler,” aka the “Westside Rapist,” a black man believed to have raped and strangled more than 30 white women in Los Angeles County, and to have raped many more whom he did not murder.
The three women Antonio Rodriguez is charged with having raped and murdered, Elaine Goldberg, Nicole Piacentini and Casey Mahoney, were all white.
He is expected to be formally charged with three counts each of murder, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and abuse of a corpse….
The African American man was adopted by a Spanish-speaking family as a child, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. He had no arrests as a minor, but turned to drugs as he entered adulthood.
Rodriguez spent time in jail in the summer of 2010 before being convicted in October 2010 on felony drug charges. He was sentenced to one year of probation just weeks before the murder of Eileen Goldberg on Nov. 3, 2010.
A gunman walked into a Detroit police precinct this afternoon and shot a commander and three other officers before he was killed, police sources confirmed.
Cmdr. Brian Davis, in charge of the 6th precinct, was shot in the hand and side and was undergoing surgery this evening, a police source said. Officer David Anderson was shot in the head but is alert and talking and moving his limbs, the source said.
Other reports indicate two other officers were grazed by gunfire and suffered minor wounds.
Police said the man was armed with a small shotgun….
Sunday's shooting capped off a bloody weekend that saw at least 10 people shot since Friday night — four at the precinct, three outside a strip club, and three murder victims found in a house in the 14000 block of Faircrest.
The shooting occurred at the 6th Precinct, just west of the Southfield Freeway and south of Interstate 96. Like most precincts in the city, there are no metal detectors in the entrance and visitors can come in and talk face-to-face with officers.
At least reporters George Hunter and Mark Hicks spoke of “wounds” and “the wounded,” rather than the obscene current MSM rule, whereby wounds are turned into “injuries,” and the wounded into “the injured,” as if getting shot in the head were some sort of accident, like slipping on a banana peel.
As for the locale, it’s Detroit. It wasn’t because of accidents that white folks left town… automakers left town… every single supermarket left town…
“D” spells Detroit… and diversity.
Thanks to my reader-researcher, RC, who sent me the article, and also came up with the title.
January, 2004 (This is a much longer version of an article that appeared in the January, 2004 edition of Middle American News.)
It was “a modern day lynching.” “He was unarmed.” “Skipper was just a good old, fat jolly fella. He wasn't violent.” “18 black men murdered …” “The police must be arrested.”
The above statements from civilians, race organizations, and journalists alike, have resounded across the country, since the November 30 death of Nathaniel Jones in the “Queen City.” Once the junction of the best of Southern, Middle Western, and Northern culture, Cincinnati has in recent years been best known for its black supremacist subculture.
Jones, a 5’6,” 41-year-old black man described as weighing 350-400 pounds, was high on the drugs pcp, cocaine, and methanol, when he attacked two policemen outside of a White Castle restaurant at 6 a.m. Jones shouted racial epithets, swung at officers, and refused to submit, despite 16 separate orders to do so and despite being maced. Six officers had to hit Jones 40 times on the lower body with metal nightsticks (never on the head), in order to subdue him.
Immediately following the fight, Nathaniel Jones died from the combination of his poor health (high blood pressure), extreme intoxication, and the struggle, NOT from being hit by the officers, a fact that was obscured and confused by Hamilton County Coroner Carl L. Parrott Jr.’s calling the case a “homicide.” [Postscript, 2011: In common parlance, “homicide” and “murder” are used synonymously, but they are not synonyms.]
Not that the truth mattered in the least to racist black Cincinnatians or the racist, black media, who redefined Jones’ death due to the “struggle” (his attack on police) into a case of police beating to death an unarmed, “gentle giant.” BET “reporter” Ed Wiley III lied outright, when he wrote that “… Wednesday's announcement by Hamilton County Coroner Carl L. Parrott that even though Nathaniel Jones was overweight, high on drugs and beset by high blood pressure, he'd still be alive if not for the beating he took from Cincinnati Police on Sunday.”
Wiley also lied about the chain of events, reversing what happened. He misrepresents police as having first violently attacked Jones, causing him to become aggressive, instead of the real case, in which Jones first screamed racial epithets at police, as he violently assaulted them. Why didn't Wiley just go all the way, and claim that police called Jones the “n-word,” and insulted his mother?
Cincinnati Police Department Public Information officer, Lt. Kurt Byrd, told me that the officers involved in the Nathaniel Jones case are all back on the job, with their weapons. “Anytime an officer is involved in a death, the chief puts them on administrative leave for five days and then combining with that, there are two off days which would be for a seven-day period. During that time he requires them to see a psychologist, a police psychologist, to make sure that the officers are capable of coming back to work.”
Lt. Byrd added that the case is undergoing five separate investigations: By the Cincinnati Police Department’s Criminal Investigations Section; the P.D. Inspection Section (Internal Investigations); the Citizens’ Community Advisory Board (CCA); the Hamilton County Prosecutors’ Office; and the Justice Department, which was invited in by Chief Thomas Streicher. Note that such redundant local and federal investigations are now increasingly routine, when black suspects die in confrontations with police.
While the fight was caught on police videotape, the Rev. Damon Lynch III demanded to know what had transpired in the 97 seconds before the videotape was turned on, and suggested the police had somehow provoked Jones. Black leaders in the 43% black city have demanded that Democrat Mayor Charlie Luken be recalled, and police Chief Streicher resign. Black civilians have demanded that police being assaulted by black suspects run away. Ever since, Cincinnati has been on riot watch.
It’s all depressingly familiar.
Critics immediately drew parallels to the fatal, April 7, 2001 police shooting of fleeing Timothy Thomas, a 19-year-old, unarmed black man with 14 outstanding misdemeanor warrants and a history of running from police. Black thugs in Cincinnati’s black, Over-the-Rhine neighborhood responded then by rioting for several days—looting and burning down businesses, dragging white motorists out of their cars and beating them within an inch of their lives, and shooting at police officers.
The face of urban race relations on display in Cincinnati is being mass-produced across today’s brave, new, multicultural America. Your town could be next.
The 2001 riots were called out by a group of black supremacist leaders, most notably the Rev. Lynch, pastor of Over-the-Rhine’s New Prospect Baptist Church and leader of the Cincinnati Black United Front, and then-city Councilwoman Alicia Reece. Lynch and Reece are Cincinnati’s answers to Al Sharpton and Los Angeles Cong. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.), respectively.
The Cincinnati Black United Front is the local affiliate of the Chicago-based Black United Front, whose leader, Conrad Worrill, has demanded that every black in America be paid as much as $1 million in “reparations.”
In April, 2001, the Rev. Lynch exhorted, "Stand up black men, stand up for black rights! Stand up for black children!” During the riot, he demanded all manner of patronage jobs for black gangbangers, and spoke of the white businessmen who sought to help the city recover, as if they were insects, “coming out of the woodwork.” Afterwards, he thanked the rioters.
In 2002, following a series of articles I’d published on Cincinnati, the Rev. Lynch sent me the following e-mail:
Nick you have a lot of anger misconceptions and hatred. I'm sorry justice is such a foreign concept. I wish you well in your struggle.
During an April 9, 2001 City Council meeting following the Thomas shooting, but before the riot, black leaders briefly kidnapped white leaders, including the police chief, telling them they would not permit them to leave, and not permitting them to speak. That night, then-Councilwoman Reece said, in a thinly veiled racial threat, “Every member of the council, from the mayor on down, needs to be here today. Leadership needs to deal with the diversity that exists in the city.”
Rather than standing up to the demagogues, craven, white Democrat Mayor Charlie Luken prostrated himself before them. Appearing on Ted Koppel's show, Nightline, on April 12, 2001 with the Rev. Lynch, Mayor Luken did everything but say, “Yassuh, Massa,” to Lynch.
“It's unthinkable,” Mayor Luken said of Cincinnati's race relations. “It's unthinkable that 15 men could have died in five years” at the hands of the police.
Agreeing with his echo, the Rev. Lynch maintained that, “fundamental and systematic changes have to be made.... The city faces a number of events by next summer.... For the good of the community, I think it is necessary that some people resign.... The most pressing problem Cincinnati has is race relations.” [For Lynch, “race relations” is a code for “white surrender” to black supremacy.]
Mayor Echo: “I think that because of the rash of shootings, this is on the surface.... Obviously, something substantive is going to have to happen this weekend.... Many of the issues Rev. Lynch has identified, we agree with at City Hall.”
During the 2001 riot, New York Times reporter Francis X. Clines refused to report on the violence. Redefining the rioters as “demonstrators,” the violence as “vandalism,” and the white victims as “alarmed,” Clines approvingly quoted racist, black Cincinnatians who praised the black thugs who had perpetrated the city’s 2001 and 1968 race riots alike.
The national media parroted the rationalization of the rioters and their black supremacist supporters, that the riot was a response to the police “murdering” 15 unarmed black men since 1995. In fact, all but one of the dead black males (one cop-killer was only 12 years old) had attacked police officers, with everything from bricks to automobiles to guns, and had variously maimed and murdered white and black police and civilians alike. Timothy Thomas’ mother, Angela Leisure, seemed to speak for much of Cincinnati’s black community, when she waxed wistful for the dead criminals, but not for wounded or murdered police officers or civilians, and rationalized her son’s habit of running from police: “These people might have been insignificant in y’all’s life, but they were significant in our lives…. People keep asking me, why did my son run. If you are an African male, you will run.”
What kind of parents teach their children to refuse to follow a policeman’s orders, to spit on him, and even to murder him?
In the three months following the 2001 riots, demonized, handcuffed police engaged in “de-policing,” avoiding all confrontations with black men. As a result, shootings increased by 600 percent (from 11 to 77 victims) over the three months prior to the riots. The Rev. Lynch then demonized the police for not doing their job, just as he had demonized them when they did their job. And the Rev. Lynch—who had exhorted young black men to riot—responded to the riot by organizing a “boycott” against his own city, discouraging groups and performers from coming to town.
The economic boycott, which continues today, is purportedly in opposition to “economic apartheid” against black Cincinnatians.
Lynch's demands are fluid. In the spirit of communist organizer Saul Alinsky, Lynch makes impossible demands. Then, whenever city officials or businessmen surrender to him, he makes new, more grandiose demands. (The 1960s’ phrase describing such black racists was, “People who won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.”) Lynch has succeeded in dissuading, among others, comedians Bill Cosby and Whoopi Goldberg, musician Wynton Marsalis, and thug-singer Wyclef Jean from performing in Cincinnati. Music festivals and religious conventions have been cancelled.
The boycott has resulted in over $50 million in losses in tourism, and as Lynch’s critic, the Rev. Raymond Jones has noted, in members of Rev. Lynch’s own church being laid off from their jobs.
The Rev. Lynch demanded and got tens of millions of dollars in worthless (often redundant) social services and wasteful police procedures, and a 25% black quota he will control of jobs redeveloping the city’s Riverfront. He has also demanded hundreds of patronage jobs that he would control for “community resource workers”; “training resources for black youth” that he would control; an additional $200 million worth of aid for black Cincinnati slums that he would control; punishment for all of the (surviving) police who have shot and killed black criminals, the law be damned; and amnesty for all rioters who were arrested in 2001. Lynch also co-signed, with two other boycott leaders, a letter to black celebrities claiming that “police are killing, raping, planting false evidence and, along with the prosecutor and the courts, are destroying the general self-respect for black citizens.”
While it might seem insane to burn down one’s own neighborhood, black criminals know that such acts, which once got perpetrators shot, today result in a windfall of federal tax money from predominantly white taxpayers.
Like other black supremacists, Lynch embraces a sadistic, zero-sum worldview, in which black progress is measured solely by the pain caused to whites, and black economics consists of no more than the robbing, extorting, and otherwise impoverishing of whites. The jobs Lynch has demanded, and which in many cases have been surrendered to him, are all “no-show” or “show-no” jobs, in which blacks (often gangbangers) will either get paid without even the formality of showing up for work, or without having to do any work (one can spend all day complaining to other blacks about “racism”). Any work that must be done will be carried out by white or Asian workers—just like under affirmative action.
The “training resources for black youth” Lynch has demanded, echoes the 1970s’ CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) program, and as with CETA, would consist of patronage for incompetent black “instructors,” “administrators,” and “staffers,” and worthless “training” programs for blacks who consider working to be beneath their dignity. As with CETA, “trainees” would spend years bouncing from one boondoggle to another. Meanwhile, as per the 1960s/70s community action programs that are Lynch’s model, the “community resource workers”—led by privileged, middle and upper-middle-class, black racists—will be professional, subsidized agitators who will spread racial hatred, and periodically threaten or organize race riots, in order to extort ever more money and power from white political elites.
“Black economics” has no conception of wealth creation; indeed, it must spread ever more poverty, ignorance, hatred and violence, in order to justify itself. Its eventual goal is the enslavement of the white race by blacks. What actually happens—and has been happening for forty years—is that white elites sacrifice ever more poor, working-class, and middle-class whites, in order to ingratiate themselves with black supremacist elites.
After the 2001 riots, Mayor Luken named the Rev. Lynch co-chair of his new, black-oriented, race commission, Cincinnati Community Action Now (CCAN), and appointed Councilwoman Reece vice mayor. Lynch’s lie-filled letter to black celebrities led to his December, 2002 ouster from CCAN.
According to CityBeat columnist Kathy Wilson, Vice Mayor Reece exploited her new power to bolster her father’s business, and according to CityBeat editor John Fox, Reece responded to criticism in the style of an African dictator. According to Fox, in April 2002, Reece threatened Wilson with violence at the hands of Reece’s personal army of 150 city firemen. As Fox recounted, “She said, ‘If you can't control her, I will.’ She said, ‘I have 150 firefighters who are willing to do anything I ask them.’”
CityBeat writer Gregory Flannery reported that Jeff Harris, the president of the Cincinnati African-American Firefighters Association, admitted that Reece had asked him to “approach” critics on her behalf, and that he had acceded to her request.
As for the notion that naming a racist demagogue vice mayor would help keep the peace, on April 15, 2002, a race riot broke out in broad daylight. The only journalist willing to honestly report on the riot was Cincinnati Enquirer columnist, Peter Bronson:
There was no police shooting, no reverends shouting for justice this time – just 300 black people blocking Vine Street on Monday night, pelting cars with rocks, bottles and eggs and yelling 'get whitey.'
Some cities would call that a riot. Cincinnati didn't even call it a “disturbance.” The headline over a 3-inch story in the Enquirer the next day said, “Fight draws crowd; police close street.”
Witnesses and police reports showed something worse: frightening attacks on cars driven by white people, while cars driven by blacks were waved through.
Police said it started when two girls, ages 14 and 17, started throwing punches in the street. As cops arrested the girls, the 14-year-old struggled and spit in the face of one officer. The 17-year-old's brother, 12, jumped on a cop – and it took two more to restrain him.
The crowd swelled to 300, and 20 to 50 people began throwing things. The cops backed off to regroup….
Such racist hatred takes years to inculcate in young people. In a glimpse of things to come, a mid-1990s videotape played across the nation on the TV news, showed a lone, white Cincinnati policeman trying to arrest a black man. A few feet away stood hundreds of black, teenaged students, one of whom aggressively argued with the police officer, in seeking to obstruct justice and incite a riot. Finally, the officer manhandled the student-criminal.
In the wake of the heavily edited, 1992 Rodney King videotape, anchormen presented this videotape as if it were evidence of a racist, violent, police officer, rather than a depiction of a white man in danger of being lynched, simply for doing his job.
And nothing has changed since. Consider the typical, December 7 story by John Riley in New York’s Newsday.
But Cincinnati is a city with a history – at least 18 black men killed in police encounters since 1995 and race riots in 2001 after the shooting of an unarmed African-American.…
But others warn that Cincinnati may just not have enough time for slow change if black men like [Nathaniel] Jones keep dying in encounters with police.
Like almost all of the national media, Riley refused to report on the violent attacks by all but one of the “at least 18 black men killed,” or to report what only some Cincinnati media did: That the racist Jones shouted, “White boy, red neck!” as he went after the officers. ([When Riley says, “at least 18…”] is Riley insinuating that there are dead black men the Cincinnati PD has secretly murdered that we don’t know about?)
To comfortable, smug, socialist newsmen and white political elites, police officers are expendable. But without such heroic policemen, who would save black Cincinnatians … from their own parents?
