Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Racism category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category

At a time when SJWs run most suburban schools, I had difficulty reading this post. The opening paragraph states “Last fall, the state Department of Human Rights delivered letters to 43 Minnesota school districts and charters, notifying them that — based on significant disparities in their student discipline data — they were under investigation for violating the state Human Rights Act.”

My initial reaction was that these investigations weren’t complaint-driven. If they were complaint-driven, why would the MDHR send notifications to entire school districts? Doesn’t that sound like a scattergun approach? It certainly isn’t a focused investigation.

That theory is verified by the MDHR’s Hostile Environment in Education webpage. According to the website, a “hostile educational environment (hostile environment) is created when a child is subjected to conduct that interferes with or denies the child from participating in or enjoying the benefits, services or opportunities in the school’s programs and the conduct is intimidating or abusive on the basis of actual or perceived protected class status. The Act identifies the following protected classes: race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation or disability.”

A later paragraph says “In assessing whether the conduct created a hostile environment, school officials should assess whether the conduct was subjectively and objectively offensive.” I’m betting that the vast majority of instances are subjective. This paragraph is frightening in the age of snowflakes:

If the school determines that a hostile environment was created, school officials should address the needs of the student who was the target of the hostile conduct and take action to stop the conduct from occurring again, which may include taking adverse action against the individuals who engaged in the harassing conduct.

Again, there’s no talk about addressing specific complaints. If you want something to be effective, it has to address specific offenses, not nebulous conditions that are as much perceived as real. This webinar video ‘explains’ how people with good intentions can still do “bad things”:

Specifically, that webinar talks about “implicit bias.” It’s a way for progressives to explain how ‘good’ people can still be racists and how we need government to protect people from good people who are subconsciously racists.

According to this website, everyone has implicit biases:

A Few Key Characteristics of Implicit Biases

  1. Implicit biases are pervasive. Everyone possesses them, even people with avowed commitments to impartiality such as judges.
  2. Implicit and explicit biases are related but distinct mental constructs. They are not mutually exclusive and may even reinforce each other.
  3. The implicit associations we hold do not necessarily align with our declared beliefs or even reflect stances we would explicitly endorse.
  4. We generally tend to hold implicit biases that favor our own ingroup, though research has shown that we can still hold implicit biases against our ingroup.
  5. Implicit biases are malleable. Our brains are incredibly complex, and the implicit associations that we have formed can be gradually unlearned through a variety of debiasing techniques.

Apparently, Commissioner Lindsey’s ‘investigators’ think that these school districts are filled with racists that don’t know that they’re racists. The first question I’d ask these people is whether they’ve visited the schools in these districts or if they’re just relying on reports from these districts. If these investigators haven’t done much in the way of investigating, then this office should be shut down or, at minimum, be dramatically transformed. As it exists right now, it’s place where SJWs bully people.

William McGurn’s column, titled “Wanted: An Honest FBI”, perfectly puts on display the difference between how Republicans see law enforcement and how Democrats talk about law enforcement.

McGurn’s column starts by talking about James Kallstrom. Kallstrom is described as coming “up through the FBI ranks, eventually becoming an assistant director and heading the bureau’s largest field office in New York. Over his career Mr. Kallstrom is credited with revolutionizing the bureau’s electronic surveillance, as well as leading big cases ranging from the probe into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 to mob investigations such as the one that helped send the “Teflon Don”—Gambino crime boss John Gotti —to prison.”

In McGurn’s article, Kallstrom said that he doesn’t recognize the FBI he worked in for 28 years. Kallstrom said that “99% of FBI agents are dedicated professionals. But the leadership in Washington has harmed the bureau’s reputation.” That’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have expressed clearly that they’re upset with the political leadership within the FBI and the DOJ. By comparison, Democrats have branded officers on the streets as racists:

Picture that. Gov. Dayton said that the police officer that shot Philando Castile wouldn’t have shot him if he was white. First, that’s insulting to that officer’s professionalism, training and willingness to put himself in harm’s way. Second, notice that Gov. Dayton didn’t question the police chief. He criticized an officer on the street. How disgusting.

The problem started, [Kallstrom] suggests, when Mr. Comey allowed then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ensure the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails would go nowhere. He rattles off a list of irregularities disturbing to any investigator: the reluctance to go to a grand jury for subpoenas, the immunity deals granted Clinton associates, the farce of an FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton that had a dozen people in the room, including Cheryl Mills, who was permitted to attend as counsel when she was a potential co-conspirator, etc.

While the Justice Department, not the FBI, makes these decisions, Mr. Kallstrom says Mr. Comey did have an option: “That was the moment he should have held a press conference, to announce his resignation—and then explain to the American people why he would not stay and preside over a sham investigation.”

Let’s be perfectly clear. There’s nothing right about not impanelling a grand jury and not insisting that materials be turned over.

Kallstrom is right. The Lynch-Comey investigation was a sham from start to finish. The political leadership of the FBI is compromised by its partisanship. Republicans have taken great pains to not question the rank-and-file investigators. They’ve focused on the top brass.

By comparison, Democrats have frequently questioned whether rank-and-file police officers are racists. If Democrats can’t stop thinking of rank-and-file police officers as racist, then we’re at a tipping point.

Yesterday, I wrote this post, which I titled “Why Ed Gillespie will win”, I wrote “Don’t be surprised if this causes an anti-Democrat backlash that swamps Northam. In fact, I’d argue that the backlash has already started.” This NRO article examines the Latino Victory Fund’s offensive ad.

Ben Shapiro wrote “Monday, just days ahead of Virginia’s hotly contested gubernatorial election, the Latino Victory Fund released an ad opposing Republican Ed Gillespie. The ad is uniquely horrifying. It features four minority children, Latino, Asian, Muslim, African-American, running for their lives from a white man driving a pick-up truck. The truck is festooned with a giant Confederate Flag, a ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ license plate, and a prominent ‘Gillespie for Governor’ bumper sticker. It runs the children into a dead end, its lights washing out their terrified faces. The children wake up in their beds. We then flash to video of the Charlottesville white-supremacist march, as a voice asks, ‘Is this what Donald Trump and Ed Gillespie mean by the American dream?’ This sort of thing is insane, and it divides the country beyond any reconciliation. Alexander Hamilton recognized the danger of impugning the motives of political opponents in Federalist No. 1: ‘In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. . . . And yet . . . a torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.'”

Shapiro calls LVF’s anti-Gillespie ad “the worst in political history.” He’s right. What the LVF did was stupid. This close to election day, GOTV operations are super-important. This ad will create a turnout higher than any GOTV operation Ed Gillespie could’ve put together:

That’s why Ed Gillespie will win.

A month+ ago, Ed Gillespie didn’t seem to have much of a chance of becoming Virginia’s next governor. This morning, I’m predicting that he’ll win next Tuesday’s election. This article explains why he’s likely to win. The article opens by saying “A television ad depicting supporters of Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Ed Gillespie as Confederates who attack children of color has been pulled in the wake of the terror attack in New York City. The Democratic group Latino Victory Fund removed the controversial ad, which showed a pickup truck driver chasing down children of color on Tuesday, Oct. 31.”

This close to an election, polling isn’t reliable because things are fluid. At this point in the campaign, it’s all about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) operations, capitalizing on backlashes and momentum swings. I’d bet the proverbial ranch that the pulled ad is creating an anti-Northam backlash. Cristobal J. Alex, the “president of the LVF,” posted a tweet saying “We knew our ad would ruffle feathers. We held a mirror up to the Republican Party, and they don’t like what they see. We have decided to pull our ad at this time. Given recent events, we will be placing other powerful ads into rotation that highlight the reasons we need to elect progressive leaders in Virginia.”

Alex apparently didn’t learn the first rule of holes, which is that “if you’re in one, stop digging.” This Washington Post editorial states “Ralph Northam would not have run this ad and believes Virginians deserve civility, not escalation,” a spokesman for Mr. Northam emailed us.” Northam didn’t criticize this ad immediately:

Northam’s silence says everything that voters need to know about Northam’s lack of character. Ben Shapiro’s article details the ad, saying “Monday, just days ahead of Virginia’s hotly contested gubernatorial election, the Latino Victory Fund released an ad opposing Republican Ed Gillespie. The ad is uniquely horrifying. It features four minority children, Latino, Asian, Muslim, African-American, running for their lives from a white man driving a pick-up truck. The truck is festooned with a giant Confederate Flag, a ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ license plate, and a prominent “Gillespie for Governor” bumper sticker. It runs the children into a dead end, its lights washing out their terrified faces. The children wake up in their beds. We then flash to video of the Charlottesville white-supremacist march, as a voice asks, ‘Is this what Donald Trump and Ed Gillespie mean by the American dream'”

Don’t be surprised if this causes an anti-Democrat backlash that swamps Northam. In fact, I’d argue that the backlash has already started.

According to this article, the Missouri state senator who advocated for President Trump’s assassination “has been stripped of her committee assignments” even after apologizing.

Sen. Chappelle-Nadal’s apology said “President Trump, I apologize to you and your family. I also apologize to all the people in Missouri. And I also apologize to my colleagues in the Missouri legislature for the mistake that I made.” Sen. Chappelle-Nadal made her apology while in “at the Wellspring Church in Ferguson, Missouri.”

Democrats have insisted since President Trump was inaugurated that he’s a racist. Democrats have also insisted that they’re the protectors of the First Amendment. Neither statement is true. Further, Sen. Chappelle-Nadal has shown herself to represent the worst in politics.

For years, Democrats have portrayed Republicans as racists. The more we highlight Democrats like Sen. Chappelle-Nadal, the more it’s painfully obvious that there’s lots of racists in the Democratic Party.

The tide might be turning, albeit grudgingly. After last weekend’s Antifa’s Berkeley riot, Nancy Pelosi criticized Antifa last night, saying “Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa [sic] in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

After the Charlottesville riot two weeks ago, Democrats, not to mention the MSM, were apoplectic because President Trump didn’t respond forcefully and quickly enough for their liking. It was a 5-day story. Ms. Pelosi sat silent on the Berkeley riots for several days. We didn’t see articles from pundits like Charles Blow or Eugene Robinson criticizing Ms. Pelosi’s silence.


Pelosi’s words ring hollow when viewed historically:

The House’s top Democrat had repeatedly slammed the National Park Service as “misguided” for allowing the rally, saying she had “grave concerns” about the “public safety hazard” NPS would create by “permitting a white supremacist rally” in the middle of Crissy Field in San Francisco.

Simply put, Ms. Pelosi criticized Antifa after the political pressure got high. I’d argue that her ‘apology’ is as phony as a $3 bill.

The evidence is mounting that the Democratic Party is returning to its racist roots. It’s important to remind people that the Democratic Party was the party that wrote the Jim Crow laws and filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

For whatever it’s worth, St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis said that St. Cloud would have a zero tolerance policy against hate. Nobody seems to know what Mayor Kleis means by that but Eunice Adjei of the St. Cloud Area Regional Human Rights Commission is applauding him for that, saying “We stand with our mayor in his zero tolerance policy against hate groups.”

I did a little digging into the SCARHRC. What I found in their minutes is rather interesting. What I found in their minutes is essentially the DFL social issues agenda. I wish I could say that I’m surprised but I’m not.

For instance, one thing I found in the SCARHRC’s minutes is where it identifies “Students for Social Justice” and the DFL as “multicultural organizations,” with the implication being that the DFL is a tolerant organization. That implication is BS, as I highlighted in this post. There’s a significant portion of the DFL and DNC that are fascists who claim that they’re fighting fascism with fascist tactics.

What I’d like to know is whether the SCARHRC uses the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate map:

If the SCARHRC is the DFL front organization that I think it is, then it’s virtually certain that they take their ‘hate guidance’ from the SPLC. This paragraph especially caught my attention:

White nationalist/supremacist, anti-Semitic and other hate groups exist throughout the country, including Minnesota. Additionally, some hate groups have posted flyers at colleges and universities in our state and region.

It isn’t surprising that leftists haven’t included Antifa and BLM in their list of hate groups.

Ben Ament’s monthly column is one of the worst monthly columns they’ve ever published. Some of the assumptions made are ridiculous or far-fetched.

For instance, Ament wrote that “The erectors of the Confederate monuments were white-controlled governments in mostly southern cities. These men knew full well that the monuments would intimidate the people of color who walked by them every day.” I’d challenge that, if for no other reason than the fact that minorities would’ve been too busy worrying about racists like the KKK and the bigots, mostly Democrats, who wrote the Jim Crow laws to worry about statues of dead people. It’s also quite likely that they were worried about raising their families or grateful for being able to attend inspirational churches to worry about dead generals.

Later, Ament wrote “White privilege is also the privilege of being blind to the existence of white privilege. It gives whites the right to claim they earned every cent in their 401k and they fully deserve to be paid more than others for performing the same tasks. This is not do deny that whites as a whole work hard. But so do minorities — often twice as hard.”

Talk about the mother of all assumptions. When’s the last time your co-worker told you that whites “deserve to be paid more than others for performing the same tasks”? As bad as that assumption is, this assumption is worse:

But some of these acquaintances want me to remove my blinders and see the response from the left of the political spectrum as somehow the same as or worse than that from the right. They ignore the swastikas and Confederate flags, torches and clubs carried by the so-called alt-right meant to provoke anger.

Mr. Ament’s paranoia notwithstanding, what is he talking about? Then there’s this:

Standing behind the cross of Christianity while doing so is doubly troubling. It seems, for some, the only reason for being kind and loving to another human is to get into heaven. If this is so, then the point of Christianity has been lost. I guess it is white privilege to define your beliefs as you see fit.

Mr. Ament is a totally ill-informed. Christians know that they can’t earn their way into heaven. Being nice to people is the right thing to do but that won’t get them into Heaven.

Those who led a rebellion against the United States for the express purpose of continuing to enslave human beings for monetary gain should not be honored. None of the statues in question were erected before or during the Civil War.

These statues are inanimate objects. Why can’t we use these inanimate objects to teach about that part of our history the treachery that these men visited on minorities? We don’t need to accept scenes like this:

This article certainly will help raise Keith Ellison’s profile in DC. That’s the good news for Ellison. The bad news is that it’s shining a spotlight on the idiotic things that Ellison’s saying these days.

When Ellison sat down with the Fix, he said “I think you have to put it in context. You know, it happens within the context of a president that is knocking down every check and balance on the presidency. He’s attacking the press, which is one of the elements of our democracy that shines a light on government to hold him accountable. He’s pushing through members of the judiciary based on them promising to support certain things, and by escaping the normal rules Supreme Court justices have to follow.”

I didn’t hear Ellison criticize President Obama spied on the AP and FNC’s James Rosen. If Ellison is the civil rights warrior he claims to be, then a president investigating journalists should be something to speak out about. It isn’t surprising, though, that he didn’t speak out.

As for Ellison saying that President Trump is “pushing through members of the judiciary based on them promising to support certain things”, what proof does Rep. Ellison have of that? Is it possible that Rep. Ellison doesn’t have proof but is trying to gin up hatred against President Trump for purely partisan political reasons?

Here’s a perfect example of the media’s bias:

FIX: White supremacists used to hide behind hoods — now they’re showing their faces and giving interviews. Why do you think they feel so emboldened?

In baseball terms, that’s what’s known as a belt-high hanging slider. Here’s Rep. Ellison’s reply:

I think the white supremacists are feeling emboldened because they received the signal from the president of the United States that it’s all right for them to be active, to be aggressive, to be threatening. They feel greenlighted.

Rep. Ellison thinks that President Trump “greenlighted” racists. I don’t have to guess about this Ellison statement:

At the event, Ellison told the Pioneer Press he believed the prosecution of Olson was political. In his speech, Ellison noted he didn’t know much about the SLA and he thought Olson was being prosecuted in the court of public opinion because of some of her political beliefs.

“I’m a supporter of anybody who’s subject to political prosecution based on their being in a vilified group,” he told the Pioneer Press. “Your chances of getting a fair trial are low. I’ve been waiting for the evidence against her. I don’t think they would not cheat to prosecute this woman.”

I don’t have to guess what Rep. Ellison meant about this statement, either:

Ellison also spoke favorably of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur and expressed his opposition to any attempt to extradite her to the United States from Cuba, where she had fled after escaping prison.

“I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” Ellison said at the event, which also included a silent auction and speech by former Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn. “I hope the Cuban people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”

It’s fair to say that, in those speeches, Rep. Ellison greenlighted the killing of police officers. Ellison’s statements weren’t veiled threats against police. Ellison’s statements were quite explicit. How dare he call our president a racist after exhorting crowds to kill police officers.

Here’s Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, in her own words:

That’s who Rep. Ellison has fought for.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

John Kass’s latest article is part of today’s must reading. The main topic discussed in the article is the subject of offensive statues. Specifically, Kass wrote about toppling offensive statues and monuments.

In part, Kass wrote “As an African-American, Sharpton believes that using federal tax dollars to subsidize the Jefferson Memorial is wrong. And even though the flames of Cultural Revolution are burning hot, you can understand this. History is important, but history can also be quite offensive. But there’s one thing wrong with Sharpton. It’s not that he goes too far. It’s that he doesn’t go far enough. Because if he and others of the Cultural Revolution were being intellectually honest, they’d demand that along with racist statues, something else would be toppled. The Democratic Party.”

Kass then makes that case, saying “The Democratic Party historically is the party of slavery. The Democratic Party is the party of Jim Crow laws. The Democratic Party fought civil rights for a century.” Then he sticks the knife in, then gives it a sharp twist:

The Democratic Party’s military arm in the South was the KKK. The Democratic Party opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, making the former slaves citizens of the United States and giving them the vote.

Kass then adds “You can’t say the Democratic Party wasn’t the slavery party. It’s historical fact.” The truth is that Robert Byrd, the long-time Senate Majority Leader and former leader of the KKK, and Albert Gore, Sr., the father of Vice President Gore, both filibustered the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They weren’t alone.

Kass isn’t most upset with the toppling of statues. He’s most worried about this:

My guess is that most Americans are afraid of social punishment. So, the offensive statues will go, and then perhaps offensive iconography, offensive images, offensive books.
One book comes to mind. Let me quote a passage from it.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell. “1984.”

This nation’s founding fathers didn’t envision the U.S. as a thin-skinned nation. They envisioned the U.S. as a nation of overcomers. The Party of the Perpetually Offended, aka the Democratic Party, aren’t overcomers. They’re a bunch of whiners who’d rather play the victim card than become part of the nation of overcomers.

This is what the Democratic Party has devolved into:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve literally been saying for years that reporters assigned to DC Echochamber news outlets have mischaracterized people’s actions. I’ve even left open the possibility that these mischaracterizations might’ve been intentional. This Greg Gutfeld monologue cuts to the heart of the matter. In his monologue, Gutfeld notes that “this last weekend we saw countless reporters in Hamburg and elsewhere refer to thuggish clans in black disguises as protesters. These were people destroying property and harming those trying to protect and serve the community. We watched cars burn, businesses looted, and police injured by disguised fascists. And we listened to them being referred to as ‘protesters.'”

When I picture protesters, I picture Martin Luther King staging a peaceful protest. What comes to mind when I see cars burning, I think of the race riots of the late 60s and early 70s. The mask-wearing thugs in Hamburg remind me more of the latter than the former.

It’s time we stopped calling the people in Ferguson, Baltimore and Minneapolis protesters. In Minneapolis, Black Lives Matter activists threw concrete blocks at police officers from a bridge spanning I-94. That isn’t what protesters do. It’s what rioters do. Also in Minneapolis, rioters chanted “pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon.” Again, that’s what rioters do. That isn’t what protesters do.

Then there’s the riot in NYC where the rioters chanted “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now.”

That’s before talking about the “hands up, don’t shoot” myth from Ferguson, MO and the riots in Baltimore that were fueled by race hustlers like Al Sharpton. It’s time we stopped thinking of these thugs as civil rights demonstrators. They’re nothing of the sort. They’re low-life street thugs, nothing more.

Gutfeld continued with this:

One CNN headline:
“G20 protesters set street fires, loot stores.”
“Protesters.” No, they’re criminal gangs.
“Street fires.” Otherwise known as “Arson.”

Then he really nailed the violent lefties:

When historians look back at this era, and the decline of the West, the media’s fingerprints will be all over the crime scene. They happily place every act within the identity politic paradigm – paving the road for the lawlessness seen in Hamburg (and elsewhere).

The left still deserves tons of criticism but no more than the media who stoke the tension by ignoring the truth. Then there’s this:

Leftism follows the same script. If your ideas cannot survive debate, what do you do? You advocate for force. Progressivism requires chaotic, violent rage to ensure their toxic ideas persist.

The chance that the MSM will stop following this script is virtually nonexistent. The only option thoughtful people have is to gather their information through non-traditional sources. Right now, that’s people’s best option.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,