Tammy Bruce: Race Relations Archives

Race Relations Archives

Obama Compares Wright to Martin Luther King

I kid you not. There is no other way to interpret Obama's choice of analogy here, effectively comparing the exposure of Wright as an America-hating racist and the appropriate excoriation of the man, to the assassination of Dr. King. The following Swamp headline does get it wrong--the comparison is not of OIbama to RFK, it's Wright to MLK, make no mistake.

Obama invokes RFK in distancing self from pastor

PLAINFIELD, Ind. – Sen. Barack Obama invoked Robert F. Kennedy on Saturday as he continued to try to distance himself from controversial statements made by his former pastor that are now widely circulating on the Internet.

"Bobby Kennedy gave one of his most famous speeches on a dark night in Indianapolis, right after Dr. King was shot," Obama said. "He stood on top of a car."

In reality, Kennedy, speaking in nearby Indianapolis on the night of April 4, 1968, spoke from the bed of a flatbed truck.

"He delivered the news that Dr. King had been shot and killed," Obama continued. "At the moment of anguish, he said we've got a choice. We've got a choice in taking the rage and bitterness and disappointment and letting it fester and dividing us further so that we no longer see each other as Americans, but we see each other as separate and apart and at odds with each other...

Saying "the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again," Obama began to point to his own former pastor from Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side.

"I have a dream"="God damn America." Great job Barack Hussein Obama. Great job and simply stunning. Let's hope this is the beginning of the real Obama being exposed, and his undoing.

UPDATE:

Well, it seems Americans are indeed recognizing this for what it is, and rejecting Obama. His national lead among Democrats was 8 points yesterday. It has now plunged by an unprecedented 7 points overnight. Keep in mind, this drop is among his own supporters after a couple of days of Wright's venom being exposed, and Obama's credibility gap on what he knew and when he knew it. This highlights that despite our differences here in America, those differences are slight. Despite all our desire for change, Obama supporters also reject racist Hate America First rhetoric spewing from Barack Obama's 'spiritual adviser' and mentor. Good for them.

Political Expediency

Why are these candidates smiling?

A post by Maynard

Every political organization has people and factions you don't like. Compromised alliances are sometimes needed to get things done. America joined forces with Stalin's Russia during WWII, even though Stalin was one of the meanest monsters ever to have walked the Earth.

When is distasteful compromise necessary and appropriate? When has a group gone "too far" and compromised "too much"?

I would argue that the wooing of Al Sharpton is a symptom of what's gone horribly wrong in the Democrat Party. Sharpton is more than controversial. He is an evil man whose words have arguably sown seeds of mayhem and murder:

[Sharpton] came to national attention in 1987, accusing a Dutchess County assistant district attorney of being one of a gang of whites who purportedly raped black fifteen-year-old Tawana Brawley and left her smeared with excrement and swastikas. Her claims were found to be a hoax, and after the victim of his defamation won a lawsuit, a court ordered Sharpton and two co-defendants to pay $345,000. [...which he never paid; years later (in 2001), Sharpton's $65,000 portion of the judgment was paid by a group of fans including O.J. Simpson's lawyer, Johnny Cochran.]

In 1991, Sharpton spoke at the funeral of a black child in Brooklyn. The Hasidic Jews involved in the traffic accident that took the child's life, Sharpton preached, were "diamond merchants." Sharpton then led 400 angry demonstrators through the Jewish neighborhood of Crown Heights, a marcher at his side carrying a sign reading: "The White Man is the Devil." A Kristallnacht of four nights of rock and bottle throwing at Jewish homes [the "Crown Heights Riots"] followed. A young Talmudic scholar, Yankel Rosenbaum, was surrounded by thugs yelling "Kill the Jew." He was stabbed to death, but before dying, identified the man who stabbed him. This young black, apprehended with the bloody knife in his pocket, was found not guilty by a racially mixed jury during the administration of Giuliani's predecessor, New York's first black mayor, David Dinkins. Dinkins' Police Commissioner, Lee Brown, declared that "Sharpton came close to the line of inciting [to riot] but did not actually cross it."

In 1995 in Harlem, when, during a tenant–landlord dispute, Freddy's Fashion Mart attempted to evict a black-owned record store, Sharpton organized protests against what he called a "conspiracy" by a "white interloper." It was, as one of Sharpton's lieutenants told protestors, a "Jewish department store." After one demonstration, a protestor ran into the store, gunned down several employees, and set it ablaze. Seven, including Hispanics and a black security guard, died.

Posted by Maynard · February 24, 2008 08:46 AM · Permalink · Comments (18)
Just Wrong | Leftists | Maynard Post | Politics | Race Relations

The Clinton Coup de Grace Against Obama

As long as he decides to deal with Bill Clinton directly he allows pictures and stories like this to dominate the campaign, which is exactly what the Clintons want. When people see a pic like this, and then they see the Clinton name on the ballot, they think they might as well be voting for Bill, handing Hillary another victory. Just like the race argument, which he fell into, which isolates Obama as a single-issue race candidate, Barack Obama has dived right into this new Clinton trap. And if he is going to address Bill directly, he needs to be extremely aggressive. You wouldn't approach a rapid bull with gentility, now would you?

Posted by Tammy · January 21, 2008 05:33 PM · Permalink · Comments (11)
Politics | Race Relations

How the NAACP Keeps Minorities Down

A post by Maynard

It boggles the mind. The NAACP slanders and vilifies a man who's trying to save minority kids from attending dysfunctional schools and falling into dysfunctional lives.

When public schools fail, people with money take their kids out of the system. People without money are stuck, and their kids miss out on much of their potential. That's a crime in my book. Many experts argue, and I agree strongly, that vouchers are part of the solution. Vouchers help motivate the complacent monopoly, and give poor kids an opportunity that would otherwise be denied to them. Vouchers are a big step in the direction of leveling the playing field. Vouchers deliver results that true liberals should applaud. This is supported by research (for example, see the Friedman Foundation website).

Vouchers are strongly opposed by entrenched special interests, such as the NEA and the NAACP. These organizations are cynically protecting their own political and economic turf, at the cost of the causes they presume to support. Interestingly, my understanding is that most of the poor people the NAACP supposedly speaks for would dearly love to have access to vouchers. Just another case of the leadership being out of touch with the rank-and-file. (Do I need to mention that these organizations carry a huge amount of political weight, especially with the Democrats?)

In this particular news item, Overstock.com founder Patrick Byrne argued that the public school monopoly was setting poor kids on the path to ruin. He was trying to save these children, but the NAACP takes a few of his words out of context and accuses him of plotting genocide.

Jeanetta Williams, a voucher opponent and president of the NAACP's Salt Lake branch, said the comments shocked her and she believes Byrne meant that minorities who don't graduate should be burned or thrown away.

So we see the saviors vilified while self-serving corruption is lauded. And then we wonder why our problems seem intractable.

Posted by Maynard · October 27, 2007 02:45 AM · Permalink · Comments (11)
Education | Just Wrong | Maynard Post | Politics | Race Relations

Contemplating Racial IQ

A post by Maynard

**UPDATE: A Note from Tammy at the end of the post**

Wow, it seems that James Watson, the Nobel-Prize winning discoverer of DNA, really put his foot in it when he theorized that human intellectual capacity varies with race. His lectures were halted and there was even a suggestion that he be prosecuted:

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

Watson is now in full apology mode.

I'm going to mostly skip over the controversial topic itself and touch on our reactions. This flap says a lot about the state of the Western world and the political correctness that drives us.

From a Darwinist standpoint, Watson's comments are perfectly logical:

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically," he writes. "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

The concept of all men being created equal is fundamentally religious. It's not a notion we apply to the animal kingdom. We are not shunned for observing that tortoise-shell cats are willful, or suggesting a boy cat will make a better pet than a girl cat. If humans are just another animal, then why should we be any different?

It's obvious that the instantaneous crusade against Watson is dogmatic rather than reasoned. And it's ironic that the dogma of political correctness is often promoted by the same ideologues that mock the dogma of religion.

As far as intelligence itself goes...well, I'm not quite sure exactly what it is. Am I (Maynard) smart? I know I can be pretty smart in some ways and unbelievably stupid in others (trust me on this). There are many flavors of intelligence, and they only become meaningful in a greater context. A lot of my personal efforts go to putting myself in a place where my strengths are valuable and my weaknesses are irrelevant. I think we've all got a niche where we can be useful...if only we're willing to seek it.

The point is that intellect is not valuable in itself. "Smart" people can be ineffective or even evil. Adolf Hitler was a genius, and we know how he applied his intellect.

So raw intellect is just another tool, one of many, to be applied or mis-applied or discarded. To the extent that it's inherited (and that's the old "nature versus nurture" argument)...well, maybe inherited intellect is something like inherited wealth. Is it good to be born to wealth? You would think so, but we find no shortage of counterexamples. The pathetic antics of the rich and famous make it clear enough that wealth isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The backlash against Watson merely illuminates our modern cultural obsession with race. Am I supposed to be pleased with Watson's ideas because I'm a person of paleness, and thus presumed to be intellectually advantaged? Why can't I just think of myself as an individual? And I know there are individuals of all races who are a lot smarter than I am. I'm grateful to live in a world where smart people have figured out a lot of stuff, and their discoveries have been passed along, and now I benefit from them. I'm lucky! We're all lucky! Does the skin pigmentation of the people who have given me so much really matter? Do I get points based on the number of explorers and inventors who are "my people"?

Back in the bad old days, Galileo offended the dogma of the Church when he advanced his theory of heliocentrism. He was forced to recant this heresy, and spent his latter years under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition. We tell ourselves we've passed beyond the era of dogma into an enlightened age. But this isn't entirely so.

To be fair, it's important to remember that the idea Watson expressed could be picked up by old-style racists. This is a very legitimate concern. But are we doomed to be caught between the today's racial obsessions and yesterday's racial obsessions? Does this crazy ideological battle justify silencing valid inquiry?

An analogous question was addressed a few years ago in the movie Gattaca. This postulated a future society in which the "clean gene" people were at the top of the heap. It tells the tale of an ordinary man who aspired to join the ranks of the genetically pure. It promotes the notion that the spirit can rise above the flesh. Maybe it's Hollywood silliness, but I applaud the concept. If we're going to get dogmatic, then this is the dogma I prefer.

A Note from Tammy:

Maynard is right about one thing this controversy has indeed brought to our attention: how political correctness keeps us from addressing, and therefore vanquishing, questions centered around complexion and intellect. It very well could be argued that it is the racism of the Western World (and the need for certain Victimologists of Color) who are invested in the 'question' never being excised. We can only do that by seriously contemplating, as an example, Watson's assertion.

We then have these issues to address: Are people with a pale complexion actually 'better and smarter' than those with darker ones, or did the empire building of ancient Greece and Rome, and their subsequent consuming of the Middle East and Africa, begin a pattern of events that kept certain people from reaching their full potential? Are Jews smarter than everyone else (as their contributions to society seem to indicate) or is it their millennia-old commitment to eduction the reason such a small minority of people have accomplished so much?

Does Africa indeed still struggle, not only because of ancient ravages, but the world's colonizing and oppression of its people for the past several hundred years? Educating the "natives" certainly was not part of the English or Spanish or Dutch Master Plan. And while under the boot of 'conquerers' indigenous people are going to be a bit more focused on survival than on an education in the arts and science, whatever its cultural foundation.

The same could be argued for the Middle East, where its own commitment to broader, more expansive education was overwhelmed by religious fervor, which allowed Muslim nations to compete militarily with the Western, Christian, world. A population (especially women) seriously educated always poses a threat to the existing power structure, undermining tyranny and despotism. Today's existing tyrants in the Middle East and Africa, while their complexions mostly match those oppressed, are also deeply invested in the maintaining the ignorant status quo which served European colonizers so well.

We are, though, not allowed to have this discussion because it is too politically incorrect. Why? because we must start with the premise that there are undeniable differences in the world.

And one last point--I find it fascinating the world seems just fine with embracing Holocaust-denying Jew-hater Ahmadinejad, with even American institutions of the mind that his 'ideas', which contradict known fact, are worth debating. Yet, when a world-renowned scientist simply brings up the obvious disparity on accomplishments via continents and the issue of race, it causes a worldwide uproar of shock and unqualified rejection. One more bit of evidence of how ignorance and the investment in the status quo by the the world's Elite (Jew-hating and maintaining the 'question' of African/black potential) still menacingly prevails.

« Close It

Posted by Maynard · October 19, 2007 12:25 AM · Permalink · Comments (15)
Cultural Commentary | Maynard Post | New Thought Police | Political Correctness | Race Relations

Post-Mortem: The Duke Rape Case

A post by Maynard

We heard about the infamous Duke University rape case in bits and pieces over time, and most of this "news" was driven by political agendas. Now that the story has wound down, it's worthwhile to step back and contemplate the lessons to be learned. Here's a succinct summary from The Economist's Lexington column: "Presumed Guilty".

The most essential information is that the case was absolutely untenable from the beginning, and that the entire incident illustrates how political correctness has metastasized into unabashed and systematic racism. The sad, but unsurprising, conclusion is:

The only people who, it seems, have learned nothing from all this are Mr Nifong's enablers in the Duke faculty. Even after it was clear that the athletes were innocent, 87 faculty members published a letter categorically rejecting calls to recant their condemnation. And one professor, proving that some academics are as far beyond parody as they are beneath contempt, offered a course called "Hooking up at Duke" that purported to illustrate what the lacrosse scandals tell us about "power, difference and raced, classed, gendered and sexed normativity in the US."

I guess it's unreasonable to expect the elite educators to learn anything.

The article was prompted by the release of this book, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. A Time Magazine columnist acknowledges the depth of the problem:

The analysis of the notorious Duke rape case in this book is hard to accept. According to Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, this episode was not just a terrible injustice to three young men. It exposed a fever of political correctness that is more virulent than ever on American campuses and throughout society. . . . Unfortunately for doubts, the authors lay out the facts with scrupulous care. This is a thorough and absorbing history of a shameful episode.

On O'Reilly Factor Tonight About Juneteenth Violence

Probably about :30 past the hour or so. The segment is about the lack of coverage of violence at three Juneteenth celebrations. There has been a few newspaper stories, but nothing really extensive. My point was the media, like everyone else, has been made afraid to discuss issues that involve race. Yet, ignoring violence like this. committed primarily by young people, further isolates communities. The real racism here is not discussing violence involving Americans who happen to be black, but in ignoring serious social issues and the continuing despair in the inner city.

I brought up the fact that at gay pride festivals, where you have the same dynamic of thousands of people drinking, partying, live entertainment, etc, people don't kill each other, and bystanders aren't attacked. The man they had opposite me, some talk show host from Oregon, started out with some classic homophobia, about homosexuals and pedophilia, and then went on to argue that talking about this was some sort of conspiracy to make black people look bad, or something of that sort.

I'll tell you, the ignorance out there is astounding. For those of you not familiar with the Juneteenth violence in Austin, Milwaukee and Syracuse (and many of you won't be because the EM isn't covering it), here are some links.

Man killed by crowd outside Juneteenth festivities

Violence at Milwaukee Juneteenth Day

Juneteenth board discusses violence at festival

Posted by Tammy · June 21, 2007 04:28 PM · Permalink · Comments (7)
Crime | Mainstream Media | Race Relations | Tammy Notes | Television

Modern Education: Separate but Equal

A post by Maynard

Who remembers the bad old days when educational facilities were segregated? That was the era when mindless conservatives defended the status quo, and thoughtful liberals argued that separating us by race was primitive and immoral.

And now we've come full circle, and it's the liberals that divide us by race, while conservatives call for common ground and shared values.

This article, "Let the Segregation Commence", describes the ethnic- and gender-identity graduation ceremonies that have usurped the place of the traditional UCLA graduation. Students learn that, at the end of the day, tribalism trumps character or individualism.

This isn't the policy of some obscure private cow college. This is the way we run our elite public academies in America's biggest, richest state.

This isn't the message we should be sending or the future we should be building.

Posted by Maynard · June 19, 2007 01:12 AM · Permalink · Comments (2)
Maynard Post | Race Relations

Human Trafficking, Slavery and "Guest Worker" Programs

More ammunition for your calls and faxes to your senators this week. How ridiculous can a situation be as our own government furiously attempts to set up its own "Guest Worker Program" and "Temporary Permanent Workers" while simultaneously condemns another nation for its Guest-Worker program having turned into an Enslavement Program.

For the businesses of Australia, their "guest workers" are Chinese, Indian and South Korean. For us, the Mexicans. Our own State Departmentis now criticizing Australia for its 'Guest Worker" program as one that has devolved into nothing more than servitude. The road is the same, and so is the moral depravity that is furthered by the idea that only people of a certain complexion will do certain jobs. Our keeping the Amnesty Bill dead is a deeply moral responsibility and a great opportunity for our generation to not codify and legitimize so-called 'worker' programs and the human trafficking and slavery it inevitably installs.

Australia criticised over guest 'slaves'

Australia has retained its status among the top-ranked countries in dealing with people trafficking, but a US State Department report said it has concerns about the treatment of temporary guest workers being brought to Australia from India, China and South Korea.

The report's investigators said they had had reports about some of these workers "whose labour conditions amounted to slavery, debt bondage and involuntary servitude". [Surprise--ed.]

The Howard government recently toughened the penalties for employers who exploit foreign workers and last year, former Immigration minister Amanda Vanstone temporarily halted the grant of 457 visas to the meat industry amid concerns of abuse.

This included employers demanding repayment of large placement fees, contracts that forbid contact with unions, and sub-standard living conditions...

The US report looks at all types of human trafficking from people who are coerced into bonded labour, bought and sold in prostitution, exploited in domestic servitude, enslaved in agricultural work and in factories, and captured to serve unlawfully as child soldiers.

Driven by its own heritage of slavery, the US has made people trafficking one of its focus areas [Ha! Yeah, like how to make it easier with our own Guest Worker program--ed.] and has a special ambassador responsible for monitoring the trade in human beings as well as taking other nations to task.

Releasing the report, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she had noticed a greater commitment from nations to confront and tackle the issue.

"Many countries are now seeing it for what it is - a modern-day form of slavery," she said.

My God, our hypocrisy on this issue is mind-boggling. It is inevitable, when you codify the notion that some people are workers and workers only, you devalue them as worthy only of serving you, therefore beneath you, and ultimately, sub-human. All slavery has been implemented in the name of altruism and business, or saving people from themselves. The same mentality that thinks those poor brown people south of the border need the benevolent White Man to give him a limited, but decent life, is the same mentality that decides they can bypass the usual committee hearings, votes, and public discussion that surrounds the matter.

Let's stop this depravity here and now. Securing the border is how to best respect the people of Mexico and the people of the United States, while working hard to end the patronizing and racist use of 'immigrant' labor. Our efforts should be in supporting those who want actual democracy in Mexico, which would bring radical change. If we're serious about wanting free people everywhere to choose their leaders, who are we to say, 'Except for South America'?

Posted by Tammy · June 12, 2007 06:52 PM · Permalink · Comments (5)
Corruption | Fed Incompetence | Immigration | Race Relations

The Small Brown Man Who Can Sing and Talk!

Today on the Tammy Show I played (a few times I must admit) Harry Reid, on the floor of the United States Senate, lamenting the future of some illegal alien he met in Reno, Nevada. Reid actually noted the "small stature" of this Hispanic man, and then proudly declared, "boy, and he could sing, and talk, too!" while lamenting he had no idea what would happen to him now because he couldn't attend college (as a result of the Amnesty Bill going into a deep coma).

My god, It sounded like our senate leader was speaking about a talented monkey he came across. The admiration in his voice that a man, who happens to be Hispanic, could sing and talk, too! Like sitting on the porch of the plantation, marveling at how those Darkies could dance. Absolutely astounding. Reid's racism is based in the same pit as Bush's--this idea that some people just won't make it without the benevolent White Man's help. It's patronizing, condescending, and yes, racist. Yet not a peep from La Raza, MALDEF or anyone in the Senate itself.

Oh, and that concern that the illegal alien couldn't attend college? At what point did Reid think illegals were following the rules and not attending college with forged federal documents? Of course the Small Brown Man Who Can Sing and Talk! can attend college. With or without the Kennedy/Bush Amnesty Bill,.

What he can't do, however, is vote. And that's what the clowns in Washington and the tool in the white House are most upset about.

And on another note, I'm so glad Maynard posted about Feinstein's unacceptable comments. I'll be discussing her response, and these comments especially, on Tammy Radio tomorrow. This statement of hers was particularly condemning and she deserves to be strongly rebuked for it. I've noted repeatedly, there is racism attached to this issue--the racism of amnesty proponents. I've condemned the "Guest Worker" program ever since the president announced the idea as the creation of a perpetual slave class.

Reid's comment illustrate the foundational attitude running this scam, it's one of contempt, arrogance and self-obsession. This amnesty monster isn't dead--just in a coma, and what we do with next year's election will determine not just which party gets the White House, but whether or not our sovereignty and the Rule of Law survives.

Imus and the Left's Pyrrhic Victory

A comment by Maynard

If the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" isn't part of your vernacular, consider this your lesson of the day.

As far as Imus goes...I've never paid him any attention, so I'm not in a position to defend or attack him. If I've momentarily tuned him in now and again, he didn't hold my interest.

However, whatever his merits and demerits, Imus is just another media curmudgeon. He's not particularly responsible for keeping black people down, and taking him out will not do anything to improve the state of the world. Everybody knows this. The firing is just a war trophy for the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton.

I'll mention the degeneration of the civil rights establishment, but my words hardly matter. That is to say, when we speak of racial issues, emotions trump reason. The facts condemn Al Sharpton as a reprehensible man with blood on his hands, but his star will nevertheless ascend until people get sick of him. His silly little victory over Imus, which most people regard with scorn, may be the beginning of the end.

Sharpton's best-known transgression was his role in the Tawana Brawley case in 1987. Brawley was a black woman who fabricated a claim of having been abducted and raped by white men. Sharpton jumped in and named Steven Pagones, a New York prosecutor, as the perpetrator. The whole thing was nonsense, and the liars were eventually exposed and ordered to pay damages. Sharpton never apologized for his slander.

More serious, although less widely known, was Sharpton's role in fomenting the Crown Heights anti-Jewish riots of 1991, and his incendiary speeches prior to the 1995 attack on a New York store that left seven people dead. A summary from this article:

In 1991, Sharpton spoke at the funeral of a black child in Brooklyn. The Hasidic Jews involved in the traffic accident that took the child's life, Sharpton preached, were "diamond merchants." Sharpton then led 400 angry demonstrators through the Jewish neighborhood of Crown Heights, a marcher at his side carrying a sign reading: "The White Man is the Devil." A Kristallnacht of four nights of rock and bottle throwing at Jewish homes followed. A young Talmudic scholar, Yankel Rosenbaum, was surrounded by thugs yelling "Kill the Jew." He was stabbed to death, but before dying, identified the man who stabbed him. This young black, apprehended with the bloody knife in his pocket, was found not guilty by a racially mixed jury during the administration of Giuliani's predecessor, New York's first black mayor, David Dinkins. Dinkins' Police Commissioner, Lee Brown, declared that "Sharpton came close to the line of inciting [to riot] but did not actually cross it."

In 1995 in Harlem, when, during a tenant–landlord dispute, Freddy's Fashion Mart attempted to evict a black-owned record store, Sharpton organized protests against what he called a "conspiracy" by a "white interloper." It was, as one of Sharpton's lieutenants told protestors, a "Jewish department store." After one demonstration, a protestor ran into the store, gunned down several employees, and set it ablaze. Seven, including Hispanics and a black security guard, died. As Boston Herald columnist Don Feder wrote of this carnage, "Don't fault Sharpton for not being inclusive."

Flashback: Jesse Jackson 1 Year Ago

A historic reminder from Maynard

Here's a FOXNews report from April 15, 2006 about the Duke rape accuser.

It's always interesting to look back and see who got things right from the start and who had it backwards.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Saturday his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition would pay the college tuition of a black woman who alleges white members of the Duke University lacrosse team raped her.

No one has been charged in the case, but the allegations have rocked the community. Jackson has yet to speak with the woman, but said his group pledged to pay for her tuition even if her story proves false.

The woman should be able to support her two children and pay her tuition without having "to sacrifice her body to make money."

The prosecutor has said he believes a crime was committed at the party, citing a medical exam that found the woman's injuries and behavior were consistent with being raped.

Attorneys for the players have said DNA tests failed to connect any players to the attack, and they have urged the prosecutor to drop his investigation. But several defense attorneys say they expect the district attorney to ask a grand jury Monday to indict one or more of the players.

But in a phone interview with The Associated Press, Jackson said he believed there was enough circumstantial evidence indicating something happened to the woman.

"There's more evidence that violence occurred to her than she's the lead of a hoax," Jackson said.

Somebody ought to ask the Rev. Jackson whether his organizations have made good on that pledge to pay the accuser's tuition, or whether they intend to do so in the future. I suppose it would be pointless to ask him to apologize or express regret at the part he played in promoting the slander.

Posted by Maynard · April 12, 2007 02:01 PM · Permalink · Comments (12)
Just Wrong | Justice/Judiciary | Maynard Post | Race Relations

Almost All the Leaders of Iran's Women's Movement Arrested

And we are supposed to expect the population to be able to wage an internal 'velvet revolution?' It's going to be rather difficult when anyone who protests is thrown in jail.

But then again, Bill Clinton thinks talking to these tyrants to find our 'common ground' is a much better plan than attacking them. (Keep in mind how it is Bill Clinton saying these things about foreign policy, allowing his wife to maintain her non-committal cover on the issue. Now that's leadership!). Clinton's "Can we kill' em tomorrow?" strategy prevailed throughout his eight years as president. And to this day we are dealing with what happens when you don't take decisive military action against murderous Islamist tyrants. To this day, we deal with the fallout of what happens when you think you can leave what must be done today to "tomorrow." For 3,000 people in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania, there was no "tomorrow." And for many of the women just arrested in Iran, there may be no tomorrow for them, either.

Iran women arrested over protest

Iran's authorities have arrested more than 32 women activists protesting outside a courthouse in Tehran.

The protesters were showing solidarity with five women on trial for organising a protest last June against laws they say discriminate against women...The BBC's Frances Harrison, reporting from the demonstration, says almost all the leaders of Iran's women's movement were arrested.

The women held up banners outside the revolutionary court, saying: "We have the right to hold peaceful protests". ..Our correspondent says police and plain-clothes security men chased away journalists and onlookers and then loaded the women onto a curtained minibus and drove them away.

Isn't it fascinating that the world came together to punish and isolate the South African government for its apartheid policies. There was no talk then about "dialog" and finding "common ground." There were certainly no arguments that sanctions should be avoided or watered-down. For its racial separation policy South Africa was boycotted in every possible way, including travel, tourism, and its sport teams were banned from international sporting events. No stone was left unturned in the worldwide commitment to force South Africa to change.

South Africa appropriately became a pariah nation because of institutional racism. Yet now, the world refuses to apply the same moral outrage to a nation that is dangerous not only to its own people but to the world as a whole. With Iran we're dealing with misogyny instead of racism. Jew-hatred instead of black-hatred. Islamist Supremacy instead of White Supremacy.

South Africa, however, never threatened to wipe another country off the face of the earth. They were not funding death squads throughout their region. There never funded international terrorism in an effort to spread its homegrown genocidal oppressive theory to the rest of the world.

Iran does all these things and Bill Clinton (and his wife) think we should all just get along and talk. Europe is made squeamish by the idea of sanctions. Russia and the EU continue to help fund Iran's despots. World Cup soccer welcomed Iran's teams to into the competition.

And the United States will sit at a table with these mass murderers in an effort to help "secure" peace in the Middle East.

My, how the world's priorities change when women and Jews are the targets of maniacs.

Oh, and what is the American feminist establishment saying about the continuing murderous oppression of Iranian women?

US and Iranian Women Tell Their Governments: "Stop The War Before It Starts!"

Feminist Majority Foundation president Eleanor Smeal came together with Nobel Peace Laureates Jody Williams (1997) and Shirin Ebadi (2003) yesterday to call for a peaceful resolution to tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Williams, an American, and Ebadi, an Iranian, declared in a joint statement, “We demand that our governments not resort to armed violence and instead negotiate a solution to the increasing crisis.”

“We are determined to keep this from escalating into yet another war,” said Smeal...

Their first move will be to mobilize women against a U.S.-Iran war. Williams and Smeal called for an end to U.S. citizens’ passivity.

“The majority of the people in this country want a non-violent solution … when did we become Stepford citizens?” asked Williams. Smeal echoed the sentiment: “Most Americans don’t know what to do… we’re watching. It’s like watching a train wreck. We can’t just watch any more.”

So, Smeal demands a "negotiated" solution to mass murder, misogyny and general oppression. And what exactly should be negotiated? How long women have to stay in their house? That perhaps women's court testimony would count for 55 percent of a man's, not just 50 percent? Maybe women who fight off their rapists won't be executed, just imprisoned for life? Really, Ellie, what part of women's lives should be negotiated with violent and controlling Islamist misogynists?

Who is this woman to say Iranian women's lives should be "negotiated" away instead of forcibly made better? Did we "negotiate" a solution to the crime of apartheid? A week before he was murdered, Swedish prime Minister Olof Palme made his position quite clear about apartheid, and it had nothing to do with negotiations: "Apartheid cannot be reformed; it has to be eliminated."

Islamism is the modern and even more deadly strain of the disease of Apartheid, with its concomitant misogyny, racism, Jew-hatred and added special element of goal for world conquest. This monster not only cannot be reformed, nor can we negotiate with it. It, too, must be eliminated.

The American feminist and political establishment, however, seem to think differently. Oh, how easy it is for women like Smeal, sitting in her air-conditioned suites in Arlington, Virginia, and Beverly Hills, California, to make declarations about what should not be done about Iran. Easy for her because she is not the one sitting in an Iranian jail, or awaiting execution for daring to defend herself against a rapist, or waiting for her husband to give her permission to leave the house. Or risk a public beating because she exposed too much ankle when walking.

How easy it is for the American Feminist Establishment to condemn Iranian women in order to make their own political gains here at home. It would be nice, Ladies, if you put aside your blind hatred of Republicans and conservatives for one moment in an effort to actually be honest about what needs to be done for oppressed women around the world.

For 25 million liberated Afghan and Iraqi women, it wasn't the Feminist Majority's selling a swatch of burqa as a fundraiser that freed women from the murderous grip of the Taliban; no, it was the thing called "The United States Marines" who did the job. Have the dignity, for once to admit what has happened and to give credit where credit is due. No amount of 'agitation' or petition drives or marches and demonstrations in America made a difference for the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, nor is wearing a pink t-shirt going to save the women of Darfur from being raped and hacked to death.

While the men who perpetrate these tragedies, Islamist Death Squads to be specific, aren't swayed by American feminist whining, they do care about where the Marines are headed.

In the meantime, as the American left, including the so-called feminist 'agitate' for nothing to be done about Iran, scores more women were disappeared today. And trust me, launching a new "petition drive"or figuring out a new clever t-shirt slogan isn't going to scare the mullahs into treating women like human beings.

« Close It

Black History Month

A reflection by Maynard

I didn't want to let Black History Month (February) slip away without comment.

I wonder what we really get out of such events. Is it more than listening to a few factoids about the accomplishments of African-Americans? These details are all well and good, but it feels more like another sop to a special interest, rather than an effort to truly enlighten.

Don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against cultural celebrations, and I'm a fan of history. My concern is that the neo-pagan spirit of this misguided era emphasizes our physical differences (race, gender, ethnicity, financial status) while denying the common ideals and structures upon which our civilization is based.

Since America was founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals, why isn't there, for example, something akin to a "Judeo-Christian History Month"? Any such proposal would of course incite an instant litany of objections along the lines that an official celebration would be unnecessary, inappropriate, and illegal. Okay, I understand the argument, but you can't have it both ways. Do we really want to build a society that endlessly celebrates variations in skin pigmentation and other mechanical details, but then huffs and puffs about how terribly wrong it is to encourage and share common transcendental values? What priorities are we implicitly expressing by encouraging the one and banning the other? Aren't we validating mankind's base tribal instincts while suppressing our most sublime aspirations?

Ethnic history celebrations are a platform for the various representatives to pump us up with tales of triumph. This makes me think about what message a hypothetical Judeo-Christian History Month might attempt to convey. At the core of it, my guess would be we'd hear less about the great things Jews and Christians have done, and more about our shortcomings and the perils of sin. Consider how the major characters of the Old Testament fall far short of glory. These people often went seriously astray, and the Bible leaves us to ponder their mistakes as well as their roles in God's plan.

Consider the Patriarchs. Abraham tried to force the hand of God by procreating inappropriately with his wife's handmaiden. Isaac was deceived into blessing Jacob instead of Esau, causing the wrong son to carry on the Jewish line. Jacob loved the children of his favorite wife more than those of his other wife, which was why Joseph ended up being sold into slavery by resentful siblings. The Biblical tales go on and on in this vein. It's a fair summary to observe that our spiritual history, as God would have us know it, was hugely shaped by imperfect and dysfunctional people whose failings brought troubling consequences to themselves and others. (In fact, I've heard it suggested that the imperfect nature of the Biblical personages is strong testimony to the Divine nature of the text: In that if a people were writing their own history (as opposed to having the Word given them by God), they would certainly portray their vital ancestors in a better light.) The essential lesson of the Bible is not that our ancestors were perfect, but that all actions have consequences and there is no escaping justice.

I think that tells us what would come out of a Judeo-Christian History Month: Not "How great I am (and I'd be even greater if not for you holding me down)", but "How I can do better (and you can too)".

I don't know whether we need a Judeo-Christian History Month. I can only tell you, for what it's worth, that I graduated from public schools not knowing anything about Judaism or Christianity (except as a basis for historical conflict). I was dutifully instructed, however, that a gentleman of African descent invented the peanut.

« Close It

Posted by Maynard · March 1, 2007 01:25 AM · Permalink · Comments (5)
Maynard Post | Race Relations | Religion

Obama: Anyone Who Disagrees With My Politics Is A Racist

A post by Maynard

Well, I've learned all I need to know about Barack Obama, the Democrat's shiny new mascot who will heal the old wounds and pull the country together.

In response to a reporter's question of, "Is America ready for a black president?", Obama had this to say:

Are there some voters who would not vote for an African America candidate because of race? I’m sure there are. Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics.

A paraphrased mis-quote appeared in this USA Today article:

Obama said some people would never vote for a black candidate, but they probably wouldn't vote for him anyway because of his politics.

Notice how the mainstream media has softened his remark? Obama himself said that the people who disagree with his politics are racists. But the report reverses the sense of that statement to make it more palatable, as if he only said that the racists would also happen to disagree with him politically. On the surface it may sound like the same thing, but the difference is critical. The comment as reported is almost (but not quite) reasonable (I would argue that the real racists are the race-obsessed Democrats), but the comment as quoted is disgusting.

Posted by Maynard · February 12, 2007 03:22 PM · Permalink · Comments (9)
Maynard Post | Politics | Race Relations

Is Oprah Racist?

Debbie Schlussel thinks so. When I first saw the story about Oprah Winfrey spending 40 million to open a girl's school in South Africa, I simply thought about the importance if people being able to keep the fruits of their labor. I saw it as an example of what private people are willing to do charitably with their money. I Just had Debbie on Tammy Radio, and she has an entirely different take on the situation. When Debbie contacted Harpo Studios to find out the racial makeup of the kids Oprah was handpicking for this school, she got stonewalled. It seems as though all but one of the girls Oprah picked for the school are indeed black, while the white girl is being paraded around as though she were, well, some sort of token.

HOprah Watch: Does Oprah Practice Apartheid? It Appears She Does

And based on photos, it appears not a single one of the girls she picked is White. When I first heard about Oprah doing the admissions, herself, last spring, I contacted her Harpo Studios to find out whether Oprah chose any Whites for the school. An Oprah press person called me back and told me they'd get back to me with the racial make-up of the entering classes of Oprah's Academy. Now, months later, they never did.

And it appears there are no White students. Were none of the 3,500 applicants White? Were Whites told they need not apply? Are there no South African White female "teens and preteens from poor and troubled backgrounds"? Since Oprah calls the girls her "dreamgirls," would love to know the answers. But, alas, I didn't get any.

Read the whole thing, obviously. Debbie is also the proprietor of Oprahsucks.com.

Posted by Tammy · January 3, 2007 09:54 AM · Permalink · Comments (4)
Celebrity | Children | Internationalism | Race Relations

Ward Connerly: Activist, Hero

A post by Maynard

One of the bright spots in an otherwise dismal election day was that the voters of Democrat-leaning Michigan passed Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, by a landslide margin of 58% to 42%. This ballot initiative prohibits the state from granting preferential treatment based on skin color or gender in public contracting, public employment, and public education.

This is similar to California's Proposition 209, which was passed into law on the 1996 ballot. The essential text of the initiative reads simply, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

Both projects were spearheaded by Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Institute.

We all know how a modern form of 'enlightened' discrimination has become entrenched and institutionalized in so many environments. For example, some state colleges have given substantial admissions points based upon skin pigmentation; also public hiring and contracting is often set aside for the benefit of those who meet certain racial/ethnic qualifications. Such programs are biased and counterproductive, but they've got so much political traction that they seem unstoppable. It's hard to find a politician on either side of the aisle, or a business or community or religious leader, who will go on the record condemning the monstrosity that "affirmative action" has metastasized into. Anyone who dares question the morality or practical impact of these programs risks being run out of town on a rail.

Ward Connerly knows this. He's been threatened and assaulted and called every name in the book. (For example, California Congresswoman Diane Watson criticized Connerly thusly: "He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black.") That's the reward one gets for circumnavigating the dysfunctional political structures and bringing the battle to the people. But the vast majority of the electorate did the right thing when they finally got the chance. Thank you, Ward Connerly, for giving us this escape route when every one of our major institutions was dragging us deeper into the pit.

As man of multiracial heritage, Connerly is not indifferent to fate of minorities. He's led the University of California Board of Regents, and he understands entirely that there is more to evaluating students than looking at select grades and test scores. He is open to innovative ideas to uplift those who have been kept down or left behind. But he draws the line at handing out jobs and positions based upon racial and ethnic profiles.

Connerly's book: Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences. Again, his website is ACRI.

(Afterthought: The idea of affirmative action made a certain amount of sense when applied to blacks, who had been forcefully kept at the very bottom of the pile for so long. A special boost for these people seemed only fair. But over time, the programs drifted away from targeted redress, and "diversity" became the primary goal; hence modern affirmative action embraces a rainbow of races and ethnicities that did not share the unique historical horror of involuntary transport and slavery. In other words, the original noble goal has been diluted away; meanwhile the methodology has become itself discriminatory. Thus the civil rights establishment has transformed itself into the very monster that it once battled. How sad.)

« Close It

The Toad Less Traveled

Lady contemplates her addiction

The private life of a cocker spaniel is, well, more sordid than we could ever have imagined. This is indeed a cautionary tale for all who will listen.

The Dog Who Loved to Suck on Toads

"We noticed Lady spending an awful lot of time down by the pond in our backyard," Laura Mirsch recalls. Lady would wander the area, disoriented and withdrawn, soporific and glassy-eyed..."Then, late one night after I'd put the dogs out, Lady wouldn't come in," Laura Mirsch says. "She finally staggered over to me from the cattails. She looked up at me, leaned her head over and opened her mouth like she was going to throw up, and out plopped this disgusting toad."

It turned out the toads were toxic -- and, if licked, the fluids on their skin provided a hallucinogenic effect.

"We couldn't keep our dog's addiction a secret any longer," Laura Mirsch says. "The neighbors all knew that Lady was a drug addict, and soon the other dogs weren't allowed to play with her."

In the end, Lady seems to have found a way to manage her problem.

"She seems to have outgrown the wild toad-obsessed years of her youth," Mirsch says, "and now only sucks on weekends."

Wow. Do you think it was her horrible childhood? Low self-esteem? Being teased all the time for being a "dog"? Or perhaps, do I dare suggest it? She just liked the feeling and there was no good reason whatsoever to be a drug addict except for the fact that she was bored, had nothing else to do, it was fun, and knew someone else would take care of her? Lady could have just said no, but she didn't. Say no that is. She did--say no to no. She said no to the wrong thing is what I'm trying to say. She said "yes" to toads, "no" to, uh, no.

By Category

By Month

Race Relations Archives

Obama Compares Wright to Martin Luther King

Political Expediency

The Clinton Coup de Grace Against Obama

How the NAACP Keeps Minorities Down

Contemplating Racial IQ

Post-Mortem: The Duke Rape Case

On O'Reilly Factor Tonight About Juneteenth Violence

Modern Education: Separate but Equal

Human Trafficking, Slavery and "Guest Worker" Programs

The Small Brown Man Who Can Sing and Talk!

Imus and the Left's Pyrrhic Victory

Flashback: Jesse Jackson 1 Year Ago

Almost All the Leaders of Iran's Women's Movement Arrested

Black History Month

Obama: Anyone Who Disagrees With My Politics Is A Racist

Is Oprah Racist?

Ward Connerly: Activist, Hero

The Toad Less Traveled