Posts Tagged ‘Two-Tiered Legal System’

June Cleaver Doesn’t Live Here Anymore.

March 24, 2010

I’m currently in the process of reading Taken into Custody:  The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville.  It really is an amazing indictment of the two-tiered legal system that men face when confronted with divorce and the loss of custody of their children.  As the whole book is full of horrific examples of what men face, I’ll just quote this one segment, referenced by Baskerville (p.79), of an article that appeared in the Observer:

“One applicant had cancer which …’could be upsetting’ for his child.  A man might be said to ‘lack sensitivity’ or be ‘over-enthusiastic’ or even ‘father-centered’ – for which tendency one man was denied all contact with his child.  In one case, it was noted disapprovingly that a father had told his son he preferred Scrabble to Monopoly and thought hyacinths smelled sweeter than roses.  This was seen as ‘taking the lead in contact’ – a form of emotional abuse, according to the reporting officer.  One father wore a black shirt, which ‘could be intimidating.’  Another stood accused of ‘losing his temper with customs officials in a French airport’ … and was therefore said to have an ‘unfortunate disposition.’  One report could find no reason why a child should not see more of his father but went on to conclude:  ‘Nonetheless, the mother must be concerned about something.’  The father’s contact was limited to two hours every six weeks.”

I just chose this segment to quote because it offers several examples within a few sentences…and I’m very lazy.  Denying visitation rights for the reasons listed above is not the worst of it.  There are some absolute horror stories, and I’m not even a third of the way through the book.  I’m just too lazy to go back through the pages I’ve read and pick them out.  The trampling of constitutional rights, judicial abuse, discrimination in favor of the wife/mother, arbitrary imprisonment, and Kafkaesque administrative procedures are the norm.  You really should read this book.  It’s like electro-shock therapy for those of you men out there still laboring under the delusion that you’ll get a fair shake in the American legal system.  If you can’t afford the book, or just don’t have time to read it, here are two good articles by the author, on the same topic:

Fathers Into Felons

The Fathers’ War

 

What’s amazing is the completely and totally hateful way in which these women, who are overwhelmingly the ones filing for no-fault divorce, treat their husbands, who in most cases have done nothing wrong.  They falsely accuse them of the worst things imaginable, and completely deny them the right to visit their children either out of spite or “just because they can.”  Welfare is widely acknowledged as one of the key factors causing the destruction of the black family beginning in the 1960’s.  America’s “child-support enforcement” regime is probably THE key factor in the post-60’s destruction of the white family.  Prior to welfare, a father was necessary for the mother and her child to have around at the very least due to the financial resources he provided.  Once welfare filled that role, he was superfluous, and single-motherhood among blacks soared.  It increased for whites as well, but at a much lesser rate.  The main reason for that is simply that welfare use is socially stigmatized among whites.  “Child support payments” collected from “deadbeat dads” (the widespread existence of which Baskerville proves is a myth) is not.  Women turned on their men in a heartbeat.  In most cases, yes…you really are nothing more than a wallet to her.  Yet another difficult truth white males will need to…yet will probably refuse to accept.  June Cleaver doesn’t live here anymore.

This appears a little later on (p.81):

“A 1997 ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court prohibiting a father from taking his children to Christian services received some media attention but no opposition from either churches or civil libertarians.  In Arlington, Virginia, a judge’s 1997 injunction prohibiting a father from taking his son to Bar Mitzvah was reversed only after a protest in front of the county courthouse.”

So…a Christian father is denied the right to take his child to religious services, he complains, but to no avail…a Jewish father is denied the right to take his child to religious services, and all of a sudden it’s an injustice to be remedied .  At least a dozen words could describe what popped into my mind when I first read that.  “Shocked” definitely isn’t one of them.  This is why Jews can continue to support social and political movements designed to weaken family structures.  Because when it comes time to actually implement these “universal” laws to specific individuals and their cases, Jewish fathers can count on Amy Totenberg, or any of the large number of Jews that dominate American institutions, to uphold at least some of their parental rights, while simultaneously denying those rights to white gentile fathers.  Our Hebrew Overlords will always be taken care of in the end.

Hate Crimes in Virginia: Don’t Look Too Closely.

March 20, 2010

So, I’ve been looking into “hate crimes” laws in various states.  Here’s one from Virginia.    § 52-8.5. Reporting hate crimes.:

Ҥ 52-8.5. Reporting hate crimes.

A. The Superintendent shall establish and maintain within the Department of State Police a central repository for the collection and analysis of information regarding hate crimes and groups and individuals carrying out such acts.

B. State, county and municipal law-enforcement agencies shall report to the Department all hate crimes occurring in their jurisdictions in a form, time and manner prescribed by the Superintendent. Such reports shall not be open to public inspection except insofar as the Superintendent shall permit.

C. For purposes of this section, “hate crime” means (i) a criminal act committed against a person or his property with the specific intent of instilling fear or intimidation in the individual against whom the act is perpetrated because of race, religion or ethnic origin or that is committed for the purpose of restraining that person from exercising his rights under the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or of the United States, (ii) any illegal act directed against any persons or their property because of those persons’ race, religion or national origin, and (iii) all other incidents, as determined by law-enforcement authorities, intended to intimidate or harass any individual or group because of race, religion or national origin.

(1988, c. 838; 2002, cc. 588, 623.)”

So basically, local and state agencies are required to report all “hate crimes,” and the State Police is required to keep a database of these incidents.  I noticed this passage, in Section B:  “Such reports shall not be open to public inspection except insofar as the Superintendent shall permit.”  Why not?  At least minor details of most criminal offenses are available under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.  So, why not make this centralized database available, obviously excluding such things as identifiable information about the victims?  If I had to guess, it’s probably because the racial makeup of all offenders of all reported “hate crimes” incidents (probably not overwhelmingly white) probably doesn’t mirror the racial makeup of those actually charged with hate crimes (probably overwhelmingly white).  “except insofar as the Superintendent shall permit”…Yeah…I’m sure the Superintendent will allow an open, honest, and easily conducted detailed comparison of “hate crimes” committed, and “hate crimes” actually charged.  That’ll probably happen around the same time that David Frum, whose existence is the best evidence I’ve seen yet to refute Kevin MacDonald’s theory that Judaism encourages eugenic practices for its followers, embraces the two-state solution for Palestine.

“Conservatives” will be okay with “zero tolerance” this time around.

March 15, 2010

A favorite pastime of the Fox News/beltway conservative crowd is bashing the “zero tolerance” policies regarding “violence” at schools.  Examples of boyscouts being suspended for bringing dangerous safety-pins to school are held up for ridicule…and rightly so.  But a new “zero-tolerance” wind is blowing in from the east (Washington D.C. or Africa…take your pick), and this one will apply only to white students.

From the Wall Street Journal, by way of The Council of Conservative Citizens:

“The Obama administration plans to crack down on civil-rights infractions in school districts and university systems, including alleged disparities in the disciplining of white and black students.

The campaign will essentially put an enforcement stick behind the carrot of the administration’s $4.35 billion Race to the Top program, which holds out the promise of extra federal funding if states revamp their education policies. While Race to the Top will reward school reforms, the civil-rights push will emphasize the potential to punish offending schools.

States found to be violating laws designed to assure equal treatment in education could, in extreme cases, face litigation or a withholding of federal school funding, U.S. education officials said. They portrayed the move as an effort to make up for years of lax enforcement under the previous administration.”

Noting that “currently blacks students on average are three times more likely to be suspended,” the CofCC sums it up nicely:

School administrators are already in fear of punishing black students, and it is getting worse every day. Yet Obama wants to make it worse. Obama’s program calls for punishments and litigation against schools who don’t improve the imbalance in suspension rates between the races. This means that schools will have to suspend whites for doing something a third less severe than what a black student is currently suspended for, or black students will have to be suspended only when they do something three times more severe than what they are currently being suspended for!”

They are absolutely right.  Blacks are suspended from school at a higher rate than whites because they misbehave at a higher rate than whites.  This…what’s the juvenile delinquent equivalent of the dreaded “achievement gap?”…”punishment gap” can only be closed in one of two ways:

1.  Punishing white students for trivial/minor offenses for which minorities get a pass.

2.  Allowing black students to get away with serious/major offenses for which white students would be punished.

In reality, a combination of both will happen.  Either way, it’s a two-tiered disciplinary system for white students.  Black students will do bad things, like steal from other students’ lockers.  Then, when they aren’t punished for it, because the black suspension quota for the semester has already been filled, they will be encouraged, and will steal even more.  When the school administrators finally have enough, and suspend the multiple offender, they’ll need to suspend a couple of white kids also…lest the ratio get too imbalanced.  As all white offenders have already been suspended…any two will have to do!  So that means that the next kid who shows up to class 5 minutes late, or talks in class, is going to have the hammer dropped on him

My question is this…when the day comes that a white kid gets expelled for chewing gum…will Hannity et al. highlight his plight, and point out how ridiculous and unjust the punishment was? Of course not…because it was done in the name of fighting racial injustice, and if Hannity and friends cannot bring themselves to admit that there are racial differences in behavior, then the only explanation for racial differences in punishment would be…white racism.  Hannity will probably end up calling the kid a terrorist…and recommend that we “rendition” this little bastard to Guantanamo Bay for some water-boarding.  Just tell the Wall Street Journal that he was an anti-semite…that should placate their sense of justice.

How does the Disparate Planet plan for dealing with a hostile elite fit in here?:

“Divorce yourself as much as possible from American institutions, which actively seek to displace you, so that you no longer have an interest in whether or not they collapse.”

Simple…If you can afford to, homeschool your kids!

Wonder if they’ll be charged with “hate crimes?”

March 13, 2010

Two more incidents of blacks attacking whites, and boldly proclaiming the racial motivation behind the attacks:

First, from Cincinnati, via Nation of Cowards:

“Black, dubbed the Lytle Park rapist because one of his victims was raped at 9 a.m. in the Downtown public park, became a poster child for those calling for a new jail. Before the May 4 incident was reported, Black had been arrested five times in the previous six months but released each time because there was no room in the jail for him.”

“Black had been arrested five times in the previous six months but released each time because there was no room in the jail for him.”…Detroit, Cincinnati, Zimbabwe…Black Rule leads to the same result no matter where it occurs…failure.

“She was a student at a West End school when she went Feb. 18, 2009, to Over-the-Rhine to buy marijuana. She met Black, 21, who asked to borrow her cell phone so he could make the deal. He took her inside an Over-the-Rhine, building and to the third-floor landing. When they stopped climbing stairs, the girl was trapped and knew she was in trouble.

Nobody cares about a white b—- in Over-the-Rhine,” Black told her, court documents note.”

Will he be charged with a hate crime?  I couldn’t find an answer one way or another (let me know if you find out)…but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

The second story comes from Dallas, via American Renaissance:

AmRen has an interesting notation:

[The above story is a copy cached by Yahoo! The current version of the story differs in many respects from this cached version; in particular, the passage in boldface has been excised. The current version of the story can be read here.]”

I couldn’t get the link to work.  Another great example of media objectivity if you ask me!  The passage referred to is this:

When Pfeifle, the prosecutor, asked if Lacey showed any remorse, LaShaunda Johnson replied: “He said if it made me feel better, I could just think she was prejudiced.” She testified that according to her boyfriend, Reiter probably didn’t like black people, “and her family probably owned slaves.””

This is the murderer discussing his killing of the victim.  The motivation sounds pretty clear to me.  Again, I was unable to find out whether or not he was charged with a “hate crime,” but I highly doubt it.

These are just two of many examples of the two-tiered legal system that whites face in the form of “hate crimes” laws.  If a white person commits an offense against a minority, “hate” is automatically presumed to be the motivation.  If a minority commits an offense against a white, and explicitly states the racial motivation behind the crime, then…well…all of a suddent “hate crimes” laws aren’t such a vital law enforcement tool.  I would be interested to know if any whites in these two jurisdictions have been charged with “hate crimes.”  If they have, especially with less evidence as to motivation, it would appear to be selective enforcement of these laws.  I’ve already documented two examples where whites were charged with “hate crimes,” and later on, in the same exact jurisdiction, minorities committed crimes against whites, with explicit racial motivation, without resulting “hate crimes” charges.  If there are any attorneys out there who might know the legal requirements for appealing a case based on “selective enforcement”, please contact me and let me know.  Also, if you have any other examples where, in the same jurisdiction, whites who committed crimes against minorities were charged with “hate crimes,” and minorities who committed crimes against whites, with explicit racial motivation, were not, please let me know.

So far, the Disparate Planet First Law of Interracial Crime has yet to be disproven:

“Any crime committed by whites against a minority will result in additional charges/prison time.  Any crime committed against whites by minorities will be met with the bare minimum of charges/prison time…if that.”

Another tradition that whites will have to get over very soon is their deification of law enforcement.  The criminal justice system has ceased to function in support of the interests of white communities, and is now essentially the enforcement arm of our hostile elite, or white Peter Brimelow referred to as our “minority occupation government.”  Whites for some reason still think that the criminal justice system really wants to protect them from dangerous minorities.  Just remember…when their superiors tell them to stop focusing on trivial offenses such as assault and murder, and instead focus on real crimes, such as a harmless sign in some white guy’s front yard…they’ll say “yes sir” and drag him off to jail without a second thought.

You really should click  the link about the yard sign.  It includes this priceless gem:

““I’m telling you this is what I was, was ready to go to jail today and take that noose down,” said community activist Queen Sister, with It Takes a Village.”

If we were playing “Guess My Occupation,” and you gave me the name “Queen Sister,” my first two choices would be either “community activist” or “unemployed”…looks like I was right!

Missouri Penal Code – Section 27g: Bias-Motivated-Felony-Crime-Reporting

March 11, 2010

Okay, I’m just kidding.  I don’t think that that’s an actual codified crime in the state of Missouri…yet.

James Edwards at The Political Cesspool covers a Council of Conservative Citizens report:

“In the Waldo neighborhood of Kansas City, a serial rapist is on the loose. He’s black, and the police have released a sketch of the suspect based on interviews with the victims. The other day a white man saw a black man in the area who matched the description, so he called the cops. Now “civil rights leaders” are demanding that the police charge the white man with “ethnic intimidation, i.e. a hate crime, for being a good citizen.”

So far, I haven’t heard whether or not this good samaritan has actually been charged with anything…but it wouldn’t surprise me if he has or will be.  I’m constantly told by the supporters of “hate crimes” laws that the thought behind the crime isn’t being punished, just the amount of “cold-bloodedness” that went into its commission.  The example always given is that pre-meditated murder is usually punished more harshly than murder committed in the heat of passion.  But the unjustifiable homicide itself is still a crime, the motivation behind it just influences how harsh the sentence is.  That isn’t the case here.  A citizen calling in a police tip, in good faith, which turns out to be incorrect, is not a crime.  Unless of course it’s a white citizen reporting a black citizen.  So this isn’t a case of motivation influencing the harshness of a sentence, it’s a case of race determining whether or not a crime even occurred.  This is yet another example of the two-tiered legal system that whites face.  The governments that rule you, at all levels from local to federal, would love nothing more than to throw you in jail for life if you even so much as offend the delicate sensibilities of a minority!

U…S…A…U…S…A…U…S…A…What’s that?…You’re not chanting along?…What are you?…Some kind of liberal/commie/terrorist?…Nothing a Sean Hannity “Freedom Concert” (at least I think that’s what they’re called) won’t fix!

So the next time you hear that moron Hannity or some other GOP hack complaining about Democrats being “soft on crime” because they want to spend money on welfare for minorities instead of on funding for law enforcement, just remember this…that money probably would have just gone to fund the department’s new “Hate Crimes Unit” anyway.

Drop out of American Institutions…Build Your Own…Prosper.

“Disparate Protection” Strikes Again?

March 9, 2010

It appears that we may have another case of “disparate protection,” where a law enforcement agency either cracks down on an offender harder, or puts forth less effort trying to protect a victim due to that offender/victim being White.  Just like in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, where a Hispanic woman attacked whites with clear racial motivation and was not charged with a “hate crime,” yet where White men who attacked a Hispanic man were charged with “hate crimes,” comes this incident from Howard Beach in Queens, New York:

Via AmRen, from the Queens Chronicle:

“{snip}

On Feb. 8, Phyllis, a 45-year-old white Howard Beach resident who has requested her last name be omitted for this article, left her place of employment on Crossbay Boulevard at around 3:15 p.m. to cross the street and purchase a pack of Marlboro’s and a can of soda from C-Town grocery store, located at the corner of Sutter Avenue and Crossbay.

{snip}

{snip} Having completed her purchases, she prepared to cut across Crossbay and return to work, not expecting to encounter trouble from a group of about 12 teens—which included the boy and girl with whom she had exchanged words in front of C-Town—that had congregated on the corner across the boulevard from Cookie’s.

“As I was walking by, the boy told the girl ‘oh look, here comes that b**** again, she’s gonna f*** with you,’” Phyllis said. “The girl then approached me and said, ‘I know you didn’t cross the street to f*** with me, you white b****.’”

Phyllis said she repeated to the girl that she should be more respectful and the girl, in turn, slapped Phyllis’ hand. Almost immediately, four of the teens jumped on the woman, kicking and beating her. They stole her cell phone and left her on the ground, fleeing when the police showed up.”

If Howard Beach sounds familiar to you…it should.  It was the scene of two past infamous “hate crimes,” both of these involving White offenders and black victims.  The most recent, in 2005, resulted in “hate crimes” charges being filed against at least one white offender, according to the New York Times:

“The police said they had taken Nicholas Minucci, a 19-year-old unemployed man from Howard Beach, into custody, and a senior law enforcement official said he would be charged with assault in the first degree as a hate crime

I haven’t been able to find out whether or not the White offenders in the older incident were charged with “hate crimes,” but I know that the incident has been widely documented.

So…when Whites attack blacks, with supposed racial motivation, there are “hate crimes” charges, in addition to charges for the actual assault.  When blacks attack a White victim, in the same town, clearly explaining their racial motivation, there are…well…as far as I can tell…no “hate crimes” charges yet.  I guess that could change…but I’m not exactly holding my breath.  I guess law enforcement just has more pressing concerns at the moment.  Anybody got one of those “thin blue line” stickers I can have?  Gotta show my support for mandatory diversity’s iron-fisted enforcers.  Just seems to reinforce the Disparate Planet First Law of Interracial Crime:

“Any crime committed by whites against a minority will result in additional charges/prison time.  Any crime committed against whites by minorities will be met with the bare minimum of charges/prison time…if that.”

I really need to start writing these down…

If the whites who read about this incident were smart, they would begin dropping out of American Institutions, forming their own, and learning how to protect themselves.  However, for those few that still manage to even get upset about this injustice, I’m sure most will get just mad enough to TiVo Hannity and maybe, if their blood’s really up, read themselves to sleep with a copy of Going Rogue.   Never fear…the deliverance of McCain/Romney/Palin/Gingrich/GOP hack of your choice ’12 is just around the corner!

The College Pogroms Continue!

March 5, 2010

I’m constantly told that Eastern European pogroms in the old days started something like this:  Drunken Slavic peasant takes a break from beating his wife long enough to hear a story about Jews ritually murdering children or some outlandish tale (the infamous “blood libel”), then gets all fired up and goes out and commits mass murder.

Nooses, pillow cases on statues, swastika graffiti, and now cotton balls are the new blood libel against whites.  Hoaxes committed by minorities to justify their repression against us.  I’m almost not joking.  If you haven’t been following the events at UC – San Diego, Ellison Lodge’s Vdare.com article is a great place to start.

So, after the infamous “Compton Cookout” mocking blacks, which turns out to have been the brainchild of a black comedian…and then the magic noose…which turns out to have been planted by a minority…we now have a…wait for it…a sheet left on the head of a statue of Dr. Suess.  Apparently even the FBI is investigating this “crime of the century!”  Ellison Lodge and James Fulford think that this is another hoax.  Ellison Lodge and James Fulford are probably right.  It appears that even the draconian measures that the college has taken to crack down on whites are not enough.  According to James Edwards, one Hebrew columnist even wants the National Guard called in to crack down on uppity whites.  He’ll probably get his way at this rate.  It’s amazing how a piece of cloth can absolutely shut down the functioning of what could be called black “society” on campus.  Why was anybody surprised at the effect something as big as a hurricane had on Haiti?

Now another “incident.”  A picture of a noose was scribbled on a bathroom door at UC – Santa Cruz!  That’s right…not even an actual noose…just a drawing of one.  The usual “zero tolerance” crackdown has begun.  I’m pretty sure that in the next couple of days UC – Santa Cruz will announce that all whites on campus are now under house arrest.

But it doesn’t stop there.  In the first incident mentioned actually proven not to be a hoax, two white students were arrested for the horrific crime of…dropping cotton balls on the ground in front of the black student center!  It’s being called a “hate crime,” and these two young men are being charged with a felony!  James Fulford calls it “felony littering.”  I’m sure a felony could bring them jail time.  I’m always told by supporters of hate crimes laws that they’re not actually criminalizing the thought behind the crime…they’re just taking it into account as motivation when they sentence the offender…kind of like premeditated murder is punished more harshly than murder committed in the heat of passion.  But the likely sentence for littering has got to be what…a fine…community service?  When the punishment for the “motivation” is more than the punishment for the actual crime itself, then yeah…you ARE criminalizing the thought behind the action.

Again, this is the two-tiered legal system that whites face.  Four whites get beaten, two of them to death, by blacks at Kent State within the last few months.  Law enforcement could care less.   Cotton balls get dropped on the ground and all of a sudden the road blocks and barricades go up, and SWAT team snipers are positioned on the rooftops.  Remember that the next time you put one of those stupid blue-ribbon/”thin blue line” stickers on the back of your car.  I’m sure the police officer arresting you, for looking cross-eyed at a black guy who cut you off in traffic, will take it easy on you as a result.  It doesn’t matter how many times these minor incidents of vandalism are proven to be hoaxes, the crack down on whites will just keep getting worse.  They are a pretext, not a reason.  The next time an empty water bottle is left on a campus park bench, I expect the college administration to strip search all white students, and randomly expel any of them who has a Social Security number ending in “6”…gotta set an example you know…hey, blacks were brought over here on slave ships…across the Atlantic Ocean…which is full of water!!!  That empty bottle was obviously a thinly-veiled threat.  Hate crimes hoaxes are a blood libel against whites, and a pretext for college administrators to launch anti-white pogroms.  The police won’t save you from getting beat to death because they’re too busy running down leads at a local CVS (somebody had to purchase those cotton balls).  You might want to learn how to fend for yourself.

Two-Tiered Legal System: UC – San Diego Noose

March 1, 2010

A few days ago, a noose was found hanging somewhere on the campus of UC – San Diego.  Police had identified a “suspect”(?) in this “crime”(?), but had refused to release the person’s race.  For the uninitiated, this is almost always a telltale sign that the person responsible for the incident is a minority.  James Edwards, among others, guessed that this noose was put up by a minority…James Edwards, among others, was right.

Via The Political Cesspool:

“[The person who hung the noose] wrote a letter to the school newspaper, which didn’t print her name of course. In it she says she and a friend were just playing around with a piece of rope they found, and the friend made a noose out of it. She thought that was really cool, and all the racial turmoil on campus never crossed her mind. She hung the noose up, and forgot to take it down when she left the library.”

“And if it had turned out to be a white man who confessed, do you think anyone would buy this story? “Wow, what a cool rope trick! Fascinating! I think I’ll just hang it up here because it’s just so neat! And then when I left the library it just somehow slipped my mind! Honest! Gosh, I’m really sorry!”

No, they wouldn’t. He would be in jail, and looking at a year in prison. And everyone knows it.”

He’s right of course.  We’re constantly being told that “hate crimes” laws, such as prohibiting speech or displays like…oh, I don’t know…nooses, are necessary because they “intimidate” minorities, and this “intimidation” is an offense that must be punished.  Making someone uncomfortable…not directly threatening them…is a crime in many jurisdictions of modern America.  But what about when a minority hangs a noose.  Oh, that’s okay…they were just trying to “raise awareness” of racism.  How were they trying to “raise awareness”?…By provoking a feeling of “intimidation” in minority students with the display of a noose.  But their hearts were in the right place, so it’s just fine!  If you go out and kill a child predator in cold blood, to stop him from hurting anyone else, I’m sure the police will let you walk because hey…you meant well.  Displaying a noose to get a reaction from blacks is only a crime if you’re white.  That’s the two-tiered legal system that whites face.  Remember that the next time you’re at some piece of crap Sean Hannity “Freedom Concert” calling the idiot in a Sarah Palin T-shirt next to you a “great American.”  Pretty much all levels of government in the United States hate you, and the sooner you realize that, the easier it will be to attempt to adapt and overcome.  Edwards doesn’t think it was a mistake.  He believes that this was an intentional hoax.  Is he right?  I don’t know, but the good money’s on Yes.  Maybe we should start keeping a record of all confirmed “hate crimes” hoaxes, so we can see what percentage of incidents are fake.  Anybody got a warehouse the size of South Dakota that I can borrow?

“Disparate Protection” is not a myth…for I have seen it!

February 27, 2010

Yesterday I contrasted the responses of law enforcement to two different threats of death and violence.  One was a vague threat against black students scribbled on a bathroom wall at Hocking College in Ohio.  The other incident involved telephoned death threats made against employees of several different hotels who were scheduled to host American Renaissance’s annual conference.  Predictably, the AmRen threats were largely, if not entirely, ignored, while the simple grafitti at  Hocking was responded to with a virtual blitzkreig of three-lettered federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.  I wrote:

“Anyway, back to the two different threats.  Granted, they occurred in different jurisdictions, but it sure sounds like a case of the police offering “disparate” protection to citizens, on racial grounds, to me.  The 14th Amendment guarantees “the equal protection of the laws” by the states.  If white students at Hocking College ever get threatened in the future, and Hocking College doesn’t call out its version of the SWAT team, then I think they should sue.  I don’t know if they would have a case.  Any lawyers out there, please feel free to contact me and let me know.”

These two incidents happened in different jurisdictions, with different local law enforcment agencies, so you couldn’t entirely measure them against each other.  Maybe the Hocking College Police Department(?) is just really on the ball.  Maybe D.C. and Northern Virginia local law enforcement is just really lazy, and would have responded as haphazardly if the threats had been made against blacks instead.  Well, we no longer have to speculate.  “Disparate Protection” is real!

From James Edwards at The Political Cesspool:

“All the whites will die tonight…that’s what a Hispanic woman, Miriam Leticia Malave, yelled as she and three Hispanic men began attacking white patrons in the M&T Bar in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania last week. Malave attacked a female bartender Melissa Elrod, with a baseball bat.”

He continues:

“Plus, in 2006, Malave and “three Hispanic men” tried to attack white people with baseball bats. When the would be victims escaped, they instead began smashing their cars with the bats.”

Followed by:

“The prosecutor hasn’t filed hate crime charges this time either! In fact, none of the three Hispanic men who beat the whites in the bar have even been arrested!”

And then a rhetorical question:

“Do you think if four whites had chased a bunch of Mexicans with baseball bats and then smashed their cars up they would have gotten off with disorderly conduct charges, and without a hate crimes charge?”

Actually James, I can field that one with complete certainty.  The answer is NO! 

I knew Shenandoah, Pennsylvania sounded familiar, so I looked it up, and now I remember why.  Back in 2008, a couple of white teens beat a Hispanic man to death in…where else…Shenandoah, Pennsylvania!  I vaguely remembered it because CNN ran something along the lines of a million stories on it, and I think it was the lead story on their website for about a year.  I’m sure when they get tired of their 24/7 coverage of stupid white couples adopting Haitian orphans, they’ll probably go back to this old standby.  Anyways…guess what…the white teens were charged with hate crimes!

This is the two-tiered legal system that whites face.  Any crime committed by whites against a minority will result in additional charges/prison time.  Any crime committed against whites by minorities will be met with the bare minimum of charges/prison time…if that.  Almost makes you want to turn on Fox News, salute the flag, and read the latest piece of crap Sean Hannity book.  Since they can’t count on the protection of the local government, maybe the M&T Bar should hire some private security.

Half a Cheer for Bob McDonnell

February 25, 2010

Via HBD Books:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) recently signed an executive order dealing with “discrimination” in state employment.

Here’s another article:

“McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination “on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities,” as well as veterans.

It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a “fair and inclusive” administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy – and sexual orientation.”

By continuing to ban discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, and disabilities, McDonnell isn’t really giving anything away, as these practices are already banned by federal law.  McDonnell does take a positive step though in removing “sexual orientation” from the list of protected classes.  Don’t get too excited though…he’s backing McCain (or McQuota as I prefer to call him) for re-election.  I always say this is the last time I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils.  I always end up doing it at least one more time.  Oh well, at least I can honestly say that I’ve never sold out enough to actually vote for McCain.