That Which We Call A "Hate Crime" Would By Any Other Name Be Just As Foul
Now let me get this straight. You Liberals consider burning the American flag, a flag that millions have spilled their blood to protect and defend, an acceptable if not laudable form of "freedom of speech." Well okay, since the courts have so ruled, I will allow that, even if I find it reprehensible and would consider it reason enough to imprison those who do so for incitement to riot if nothing else.
The main point is, burning an American flag in protest is freedom of speech. Okay, so that must mean that someone hanging a noose on the limb of a tree is also freedom of speech, right? No, according to Liberals, that comes under the heading of a hate crime. Why, because it is associated with hatred of black people and the horrible acts of some few in the past. Therefore it's a hate crime, right?
Well what if someone associated burning the American flag a act of hatred-as it usually is-wouldn't that make flag burning a hate crime as well? Oh yeah the answer to that is no, we've already said that flag burning is "free speech." Then I guess that makes noose hanging a form of free speech as well right? No, we've already determined that it falls under the heading of "hate crime."
That is what passes for logic in the mind of a Liberal. If they approve of it, no matter how offensive it is, like, for instance, calling a highly decorated and virtually universally lauded General Petraeus, "General Betray Us," in a cute little Liberal sort of twist of words, that's free speech. If a Black Panther member throws his clinched fist in the air in a symbol of "Black Power," that's "free speech."
If on the otherhand it offends the sensibilities of the Left, like placing a noose on a tree which was generally considered a gathering place for white students after some black student sat under it, or some guy driving a pick-up truck with a Confederate Flag on the back, or even a noose dangling from the bumper; that's hate speech.
So yesterday...and today we have the small Louisiana town of Jena overun by protestors black and white decrying the "injustice" shown to six poor little old black students simply because they chose to gang up on and beat to unconsciousness a whole bunch of one white boy by arresting them and charging them with attempted murder.
Sorry Liberals, but down here we have a saying "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." It is a little difficult for me to comprehend the Liberal thought process, or for that matter the black communities thought process in which had the numbers been reversed and it had been six white kids beating up a black kid, Liberals would be calling for life imprisonment and describing what occurred as a hate crime.
What is most revealed here is the complete irrationality of the concept of "hate crimes" and the complete inconsistency of Liberal thinking. Burning flag-the symbol of our nation and that for which it stands-"free speech." Noose hanging from a tree-limb-"hate crime."
There is as much if not more racism within the Black Community against whites as there is within the White Community against blacks. That is the ugly secret that no Liberal is willing to admit.
Racism, prejudice, and bigotry, are all evidence of what any objective naturalist or behavioral scientist has observed in the wild for an eternity. Reduced to its most basic description; "Birds of a feather flock together." Any and all who attempt to deny this basic law of nature are not willing to see the truth before them. Even in the most tightly racially integrated environments, black people subconsciously seek out other black people with whom to associate, white people subconsciously seek out other white people with whom to associate, hispanics will do the same, as will Asians and any other racially or socially described group.
This is not some arcane bizarre statement; it is an observation anyone can and has if they are objective in any social environment. One can see it in school lunch rooms, on playgrounds, in restaurants, in night clubs in virtually any social gathering.
Short of some external influence, say a boss at work, a teacher at school, or any forced situation which overrides those natural tendencies such as the need for mutual survival, human beings, just like every other species on the planet are by their very biology, inclined to associate in groups with whom they hold the most in common. Anyone straying outside of those boundaries does so at their own risk.
When the need to overcome those tendencies arises, as in the response to the attacks of 9/11 or in the response to a natural disaster such as Katrina, those natural impulses are immediately and unconsciously laid aside, but as soon as those external influences are removed. Human beings return to those natural tendencies.
We have seen the result of those tendencies only recently in the Duke Non-rape Case, in which blacks, completely unfamiliar with the circumstances, the individuals, or the societal setting, immediately and unapologetically set out to have the innocent victims of this hate crime...the unjust and unethical arrest, indictment and jailing of three white students, found guilty without the need of a trial.
To this day black activist and New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz has refused to apologize for his reprehensible actions and statements against those young white men, even when all evidence against them was proven to be false and the now disgraced white district attorney hid exculpatory evidence from the defense for political reasons, pandering to the anti-white feelings of those in the black community of Durham.
The March on Jena was just another example, as was the general celebration within the Black Community upon the "Not Guilty" verdict of O.J. Simpson, a decade ago of the perceived and actual disconnect which exists between whites and blacks in America.
There are, of course a great many exceptions to this trend, but taken as a whole, it is an accurate portrayal of race relations in America and why enforced integration, as noble as the motives were and are, has been and remains a failure.
These six youths committed a gross act of violence and in most communities any 16 year old who commits such a crime is tried not as a child but as an adult. The same should apply in the Jena crime.
Lady Justice is alway protrayed as being blind folded for a reason. Justice should be meted out equally regardless of external and unrelated events. If these six blacks committed this beating, they need to be sent to prison. If the situation was reversed, there would be no question that such would be the result of any trial.
Equal Justice for all means exactly that.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!
The main point is, burning an American flag in protest is freedom of speech. Okay, so that must mean that someone hanging a noose on the limb of a tree is also freedom of speech, right? No, according to Liberals, that comes under the heading of a hate crime. Why, because it is associated with hatred of black people and the horrible acts of some few in the past. Therefore it's a hate crime, right?
Well what if someone associated burning the American flag a act of hatred-as it usually is-wouldn't that make flag burning a hate crime as well? Oh yeah the answer to that is no, we've already said that flag burning is "free speech." Then I guess that makes noose hanging a form of free speech as well right? No, we've already determined that it falls under the heading of "hate crime."
That is what passes for logic in the mind of a Liberal. If they approve of it, no matter how offensive it is, like, for instance, calling a highly decorated and virtually universally lauded General Petraeus, "General Betray Us," in a cute little Liberal sort of twist of words, that's free speech. If a Black Panther member throws his clinched fist in the air in a symbol of "Black Power," that's "free speech."
If on the otherhand it offends the sensibilities of the Left, like placing a noose on a tree which was generally considered a gathering place for white students after some black student sat under it, or some guy driving a pick-up truck with a Confederate Flag on the back, or even a noose dangling from the bumper; that's hate speech.
So yesterday...and today we have the small Louisiana town of Jena overun by protestors black and white decrying the "injustice" shown to six poor little old black students simply because they chose to gang up on and beat to unconsciousness a whole bunch of one white boy by arresting them and charging them with attempted murder.
Judge Denies Request to Free Jena TeenHow dare the system indict those unfortunate and misunderstood youths who were just out having a little revenge beating on a smart-alecky white boy. The fact is he probably deserved to get his butt kicked, but six on one is hardly a fair fight, it is by its very nature a "hate crime."
Associated Press
9/21/2007 6:30 PM
JENA, La. (AP) — A judge on Friday denied a request to release a teenager whose arrest in the beating of a white classmate sparked this week's civil rights protest in Louisiana. Mychal Bell's request to be freed while an appeal is being reviewed was rejected at a juvenile court hearing, effectively denying him any chance at immediate bail, a person familiar with the case told The Associated Press. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because juvenile court proceedings are closed.
Earlier, Bell's mother emerged from the hearing in tears, refusing to comment.
Bell, 17, was convicted of aggravated second-degree battery, which could have led to 15 years in prison. But his conviction was thrown out by a state appeals court that said he could not be tried on the charge as an adult because he was 16 at the time of the beating.
"This is why we did not cancel the march," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, an organizer of Thursday's rally along with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the NAACP. "When they overturned Mychal's conviction, everyone said we won."
Jackson said in an interview Friday that federal intervention is needed to protect Bell's rights. Sharpton said he has scheduled meetings in Washington with congressional leaders to discuss the Jena Six case.
Sorry Liberals, but down here we have a saying "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." It is a little difficult for me to comprehend the Liberal thought process, or for that matter the black communities thought process in which had the numbers been reversed and it had been six white kids beating up a black kid, Liberals would be calling for life imprisonment and describing what occurred as a hate crime.
What is most revealed here is the complete irrationality of the concept of "hate crimes" and the complete inconsistency of Liberal thinking. Burning flag-the symbol of our nation and that for which it stands-"free speech." Noose hanging from a tree-limb-"hate crime."
There is as much if not more racism within the Black Community against whites as there is within the White Community against blacks. That is the ugly secret that no Liberal is willing to admit.
Racism, prejudice, and bigotry, are all evidence of what any objective naturalist or behavioral scientist has observed in the wild for an eternity. Reduced to its most basic description; "Birds of a feather flock together." Any and all who attempt to deny this basic law of nature are not willing to see the truth before them. Even in the most tightly racially integrated environments, black people subconsciously seek out other black people with whom to associate, white people subconsciously seek out other white people with whom to associate, hispanics will do the same, as will Asians and any other racially or socially described group.
This is not some arcane bizarre statement; it is an observation anyone can and has if they are objective in any social environment. One can see it in school lunch rooms, on playgrounds, in restaurants, in night clubs in virtually any social gathering.
Short of some external influence, say a boss at work, a teacher at school, or any forced situation which overrides those natural tendencies such as the need for mutual survival, human beings, just like every other species on the planet are by their very biology, inclined to associate in groups with whom they hold the most in common. Anyone straying outside of those boundaries does so at their own risk.
When the need to overcome those tendencies arises, as in the response to the attacks of 9/11 or in the response to a natural disaster such as Katrina, those natural impulses are immediately and unconsciously laid aside, but as soon as those external influences are removed. Human beings return to those natural tendencies.
We have seen the result of those tendencies only recently in the Duke Non-rape Case, in which blacks, completely unfamiliar with the circumstances, the individuals, or the societal setting, immediately and unapologetically set out to have the innocent victims of this hate crime...the unjust and unethical arrest, indictment and jailing of three white students, found guilty without the need of a trial.
To this day black activist and New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz has refused to apologize for his reprehensible actions and statements against those young white men, even when all evidence against them was proven to be false and the now disgraced white district attorney hid exculpatory evidence from the defense for political reasons, pandering to the anti-white feelings of those in the black community of Durham.
The March on Jena was just another example, as was the general celebration within the Black Community upon the "Not Guilty" verdict of O.J. Simpson, a decade ago of the perceived and actual disconnect which exists between whites and blacks in America.
There are, of course a great many exceptions to this trend, but taken as a whole, it is an accurate portrayal of race relations in America and why enforced integration, as noble as the motives were and are, has been and remains a failure.
These six youths committed a gross act of violence and in most communities any 16 year old who commits such a crime is tried not as a child but as an adult. The same should apply in the Jena crime.
Lady Justice is alway protrayed as being blind folded for a reason. Justice should be meted out equally regardless of external and unrelated events. If these six blacks committed this beating, they need to be sent to prison. If the situation was reversed, there would be no question that such would be the result of any trial.
Equal Justice for all means exactly that.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!
What do you think?
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
posted by Will Malven at 4:48 PM
4 Comments:
I love your page.
Your post here concludes that racial integration in America has failed. What are the alternatives?
1. Should white Americans be separated from black Americans? Logistically, how could this be done? Would the government handle the issues of property owned by these citizens, if a relocation program is put into effect?
2. Would all ethnicities be given the same treatment? Would we have a "separate but equal" policy for those of Asian, Latin or Arabic descent as well?
3. How would the government classify Americans for a legal racial system? If I classify myself as Caucasian, and the government classifies me as, say, Asian or Latin, do I have legal recourse?
5. In Japan, for example, it's common to see signs outside of restaurants and bars: "Japanese Only Please." So this does occur elsewhere in the world as a part of daily life. Do you think Americans could adjust to their categories in a single generation or less?
thanks
Do you deny that racial integration is a complete failure?
How many friends, not merely work associates with whom you break bread, but friends to whom's homes you regularly go and who you invite and entertain at your own, do you have?
My personal experience informs me that outside of a working relationship, which can be quite good and close (but still it is a working relationship) very few American have friends outside of their own socio-economic and racial peers.
All you have to do is allow people to associate with whomever they choose. Keep government out of private lives.
Since busing has failed, how about allowing students to select which schools they wish to attend. It's called "school choice" and we had it here until the "I know better than you" folks stepped in and forced integration; rezoning schools and forcing cross town busing to require schools to have proportional representation.
If Liberals really cared about the quality of education rather than social engineering and indoctrination, they would have enforced stricter requirements for teacher certification and never have allowed the concept of social promotion.
The fact that it became the norm to promote rather than remediate proves the lack of sincerity of their actions. They were more interested in social engineering than in education.
Integration is government enforced social reconstruction. It is the same thing, on a smaller scale that we saw in the Soviet Union and in Maoist China, the mass migration of people from their homelands to collectives "for the good of the state."
As for you inane and I doubt serious question, white Americans would associate with whomever they choose, as would blacks, browns, Asians, and Martians.
The whole point of the article is that when the state begins to inject itself into social systems enforcing paradigms which suit their own ideals rather than allowing people to behave naturally, we end up with the kind of problems we are now witnessing with increasing frequency.
The Constitution guarantees freedom and equal opportunity, not equality of result.
Hint: Jim Crow laws - BAD
Brown v. Board of Education - GOOD
Jim Crow laws were in violation of the 14th amendment. They were the opposite of government enforced integration, They resulted in government enforced segregation. As that involved taxpayer funded organizations, it was unconstitutional.
Thus Brown v B.O.E. was a good ruling it increased freedom rather than restricting it. Once again the institutions involved were taxpayer funded thus the segregation was unconstitutional.
On the other hand, those laws which force private establishments to serve anyone who wishes to patronize them are a restriction of freedom.
No matter how inconvenient private descrimination maybe to those who are being targeted, those laws restrict the rights of the property owner. Rights which were considered by our founding fathers to be the most sacrosanct of all rights and the foundation from which all other rights sprang.
In spite of what the Supreme Court may have said in Boynton v. Virginia (again the ruling was correct in that it involved public transportation) and the results of the Greensboro Woolworth lunch-counter sit-in, government should not be able to tell a private merchant of any sort who they must serve.
By the way, most foreign nations are much less tolerant of foreigners than are we. My Nigerian acquaintances have told me that on numerous occasions. So your Japan story doesn't surprise me.
Your references are good ones.
1. If integration is a failure, then segregation is preferable? If so, then how would a system of segregation classify Americans? And I understand now that you are not referring to anything other than a school system.
2. That having been said, I am a parent. I feel much more strongly about the happiness of my children than my own.
3. Classifying Americans in any way, the way they were before integration, is one thing. Applying those laws to my children is something else. You value keeping the government from private life. Putting my children into a racial category is unwelcome; my tax dollars used to oppress my own family.
4. And one could argue that there would be no oppression, only separation. That failed before, and I see no evidence that it would not fail again.
I speak to you with respect. I want to hear your point of view. if you find my questions inane, then don't answer them. Better still to turn off comments altogether. I get the strong impression you vent on your blog, then resent being asked for clarification.
That is fair. Coulter does not clarify, for example, and she does well with her column. She is not serious, however, and has said so many times. You seem serious. Again, if not, I will let you be.
I write as a polemic so I express my views strongly.
I respond to questions in the manner I perceive them to be asked. The sort of questions you ask are those I would expect from the usual Liberal attempting to discredit my beliefs by using the most extreme examples.
I will take you at face value and assume then that you are serious and are asking earnest questions, in which case, no I am not talking exclusively about schools, I am speaking of human nature.
Most Liberals see humans as "perfectable" and therefore the systems they devise for their ideal society are utopian and unsustainable.
Without God man is a base animal capable of behaving in ways even other animals would never behave, but that is beside the point.
Social engineering of any sort by the government under any circumstances is a violation of personal liberty. Societies should be allowed to develope without the interference of governmental entities such as courts.
Thomas Jefferson was right when he stated, "That government governs best which governs least."
The social interaction between races or any other social groups is a dynamic that should be worked out withing the society exclusive of governmental interference.
If I chose, for example to live in a neighborhood in which no other races but mine were allowed, as long as we are speaking of private property, then I should (and according to the Constitution do) have that right.
answers:
1. It is not an either/or situation, it is a matter of freedom. Individuals should be making those decisions, not the government
2. Damn right, and well you should. It is your obligation to think first of the welfare of your children, then of yourself.
3. In America we have freedom, including the freedom to move from one place to another if you are unhappy with the way the society in which you find yourself chooses to form.
I am neither advocating nor suggesting integration or segregation, only that people, not governments should make those decisions with their feet.
Descrimination, however distasteful, is a price we should be willing to pay for freedom. In a truly free society people would naturally coalesce into groups of like minded individuals. Those who are completely comfortable with complete social integration would find themselves in communities with like minded individuals. Those who retain the old xenophobias would find themselves in communities which were restricted.
The whole point of the article was that the reaction to events in Jena were racially motivated and as I stated had the situation been reversed, and it was six white guys beating one black guy unconcious, the press and those same black protestors demanding leniency for the "Jena Six" would be demanding the heads of the white kids.
Either you do or do not believe in "hate crimes" if you do then the laws should be applied equally regardless of who is involved or the color of their skin. That is not what African Americans and Liberals in general are after. They seek special protected status for certain groups (primarily all non-white males).
Again read our nations founding documents. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution and all its amendments guarantee equality, only equal treatment under the law.
The only guarantee our government should be capable of making is equality of opportunity, not of results.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home