Glenn Beck Calls for Shirley Sherrod’s Reinstatement
Can you believe it? FOX commentator Glenn Beck is calling for Shirley Sherrod, former USD administrator, dismissed for comments taken out of context by a conservative blogger.
It seems that FOX News and Commentators speak with forked tongues. Only yesterday, it seems, that FOX commentator Bill O’Reilly was calling for her crucifixion.
All content taken from The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel. Each weeknight by 6 PM EST a preview of that evening's show will be posted and then updated with additional information the following weekday by noon EST.
Another Obama official forced out
"As we told you last night, Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod admitted that years ago she held back some government assistance to a white farmer because of the color of his skin. After hearing that I said 'Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately,' and that's exactly what happened. But if you were watching the network news last night you would know nothing about the story. Once again, an embarrassing moment for the Obama administration was not covered. In the big picture this is a small story; every administration has had employees do dumb things. But why the news blackout when things become unpleasant for the Obama administration? The answer has to be bias - the establishment press tilts left and is reluctant to do damage to a very liberal president. There's no other reason to spike stories that bring millions of viewers to Fox News. You would think the other TV news operations, all of whom are not doing well, would want to attract that large audience. Apparently they don't."
Source: http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=2649
Didn’t this same FOX News Report issue this story as BREAKING NEWS?
Sure! Breaking News: An innocent black woman is lynched by crafty racist deception: FOX News.
Beck calls for Shirley Sherrod to be reinstated.
Too late, Shirley is a martyr like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose character was assassinated long before he died.
If I were Shirley, I would not go back until America hangs her head in shame, for this mass rush to judgment. In the meantime, she should sue the Agriculture Department for wrongful termination.
There is someone out there retrieving old black video tapes, doctoring them, and create hysteric fears and racial animosities, INTENTIONALLY (Willfully), for purposes other than what is publically known, subversive, spread throughout the television network airways of FOX.
[Isn’t this an FCC issue?]
So much for truth in journalism: THE SPIN STOPS HERE
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Tea Party Invitation to NAACP for Summit
As an ambassador of good will and advocate of human rights, I always welcome the opportunity for peace and understanding between people, races, and nations. Therefore, I welcome the olive branch extended by David Webb, co-founder of TeaParty365, who appeared on CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday. He proposes a Tea Summit on Race Relation, in response to the NAACP resolution against racism within the Tea Party movement.
NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, according to the Wall Street Journal report, was “open to the idea”. He wishes, however, that such a forum should address issues other than race.
Even so, I would welcome the idea of holding a joint town hall meeting, as proposed by Webb, on any terms, for the sake of putting animosities behind us.
NOTE: David Webb is African-American, the same as Benjamin Jealous. And, it appears that only the African-American members of the Tea Party are willing to step forward to deal with racism within the organization. The rests seems more inclined to find a fault with the NAACP and spin cases or instances of “black racism”, to counter the damage done to the party's image.
Nevertheless, there has been progress since the release of the resolution. The North Iowa Tea Party billboard in Mason City, depicting President Barack Obama as Hitler, has been taken down and replaced with a public service announcement. Tea Party Express activist Mark Williams has been expelled from the Tea Party Federation for a demeaning racial satire posted on his website.
These corrections in organizational behavior clears the way for people of good will to move forward toward racial reconciliation, and yet with freedom to air our legitimate political differences.
“There is no debate about racism,” says Jealous. I agree.
Some people would go tit-for-tat on instances of racial bigotry, both white bigotry and black bigotry. And, some African-Americans would fend that they have been more assailed with white racism since the founding of this nation, and point out slavery and lynching and violent oppression and white terrorism, as proof.
These arguments rub raw the wrong way. To get caught up in tit-for-tat acrimony would be fruitless. However, beware that it is the only term with which some can discuss the issue.
Therefore, my advice to the NAACP would be to accept the Tea Party’s invitation to a summit with grace and dignity. Take the high road and not condescend to tit-for-tat on bigotry. Remember: Racial bigotry is only the outward expression of a subjective idea. In this case, when we speak of racism, we speak of the ideology of white supremacy and the discriminatory and prejudicial practices that grow out of it, and how the state apparatus becomes an institution of oppression by it. Everything else is a diversion.
Give all due respect to your adversary, remembering that the bigot is not the enemy, but a victim of a misguided idea. The enemy is the foundation of ideas that lead to hateful and prejudicial behavior. Study from whence these ideas of white supremacy come and how they innocuously and subtly interject into today’s political arena.
FOR EXAMPLE: Tea Party Express activist Mark Williams, in his satire, insinuated that black people were lazy, shiftless, and irresponsible. Needless to say, this is a popular idea within the movement, and forms the basis of why some people think that the government is taking their hard earned wealth and giving to an unworthy group of people.
It is also a popular idea that providing poor and unemployed people with welfare (or "extended unemployment") creates a disincentive to work, and such assistance, such as free food stamps encourages "welfare mothers" to reproduces.
These are very old ideas, dating back to the debate on English Poor Laws in 1536. In 1834, when another round of Poor Laws was introduced, Thomas Malthus, the father of birth control and family planning, opposed the new laws for the very same reasons listed above: that it would encourage the poor to become lazy, irresponsible, reproduce like rabbits, and eventually become a burden on the state.
Today, we have code words like “welfare state”, “entitlement programs”, “socialized medicine”, all with the same underlying meaning that hard working Americans are being robbed by the government to support lazy and irresponsible welfare recipients. Unfortunately, the modern day stereotype is not the British poor, but poor minorities, the faces of which are mostly black.
Thomas Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principal of Population” (1798-1826) was a series on political economy based upon population growth of the “unworthy” people, who would overpopulate the world and consume more food than the earth could produce. The solution was to cut off support for the lazy poor, keep wages at subsistence level, and put malaria in the water of African natives. In short, let the “unworthy” population die off, by natural attrition and haste.
The current debate over government spending is primarily aimed at the programs that helped the poor, unemployed, and aged. The arguments are the same now, as in 1834. Technically, this is not racism, until combined with the goals and aspirations of white supremacy.
In rebuking the NAACP for its resolution, a FOX commentator questioned if the black community did not have enough problems for its organization, such as poverty, unemployment, teen pregnancy, crime, etc.
Somehow, we assumed that these were common problems to America as a whole, not just an isolated group or race of people. To say that these are black problems, instead of America’s problems, puts the onerous African-Americans to build bricks without straw (as in, no government help or assistance). The above arguments stymatizes helping the poor and undeserving. Instead of a theme of Saving America, we see slogans like Save White America in the Tea Party movement.
This is what divides us: that we are not One Nation, but a nation of competing interests along the color line. There must be reconciliation beyond the color of a person’s skin, and one community's problem must be looked upon as a problem for the nation, as a whole.
NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, according to the Wall Street Journal report, was “open to the idea”. He wishes, however, that such a forum should address issues other than race.
Even so, I would welcome the idea of holding a joint town hall meeting, as proposed by Webb, on any terms, for the sake of putting animosities behind us.
NOTE: David Webb is African-American, the same as Benjamin Jealous. And, it appears that only the African-American members of the Tea Party are willing to step forward to deal with racism within the organization. The rests seems more inclined to find a fault with the NAACP and spin cases or instances of “black racism”, to counter the damage done to the party's image.
Nevertheless, there has been progress since the release of the resolution. The North Iowa Tea Party billboard in Mason City, depicting President Barack Obama as Hitler, has been taken down and replaced with a public service announcement. Tea Party Express activist Mark Williams has been expelled from the Tea Party Federation for a demeaning racial satire posted on his website.
These corrections in organizational behavior clears the way for people of good will to move forward toward racial reconciliation, and yet with freedom to air our legitimate political differences.
“There is no debate about racism,” says Jealous. I agree.
Some people would go tit-for-tat on instances of racial bigotry, both white bigotry and black bigotry. And, some African-Americans would fend that they have been more assailed with white racism since the founding of this nation, and point out slavery and lynching and violent oppression and white terrorism, as proof.
These arguments rub raw the wrong way. To get caught up in tit-for-tat acrimony would be fruitless. However, beware that it is the only term with which some can discuss the issue.
Therefore, my advice to the NAACP would be to accept the Tea Party’s invitation to a summit with grace and dignity. Take the high road and not condescend to tit-for-tat on bigotry. Remember: Racial bigotry is only the outward expression of a subjective idea. In this case, when we speak of racism, we speak of the ideology of white supremacy and the discriminatory and prejudicial practices that grow out of it, and how the state apparatus becomes an institution of oppression by it. Everything else is a diversion.
Give all due respect to your adversary, remembering that the bigot is not the enemy, but a victim of a misguided idea. The enemy is the foundation of ideas that lead to hateful and prejudicial behavior. Study from whence these ideas of white supremacy come and how they innocuously and subtly interject into today’s political arena.
FOR EXAMPLE: Tea Party Express activist Mark Williams, in his satire, insinuated that black people were lazy, shiftless, and irresponsible. Needless to say, this is a popular idea within the movement, and forms the basis of why some people think that the government is taking their hard earned wealth and giving to an unworthy group of people.
It is also a popular idea that providing poor and unemployed people with welfare (or "extended unemployment") creates a disincentive to work, and such assistance, such as free food stamps encourages "welfare mothers" to reproduces.
These are very old ideas, dating back to the debate on English Poor Laws in 1536. In 1834, when another round of Poor Laws was introduced, Thomas Malthus, the father of birth control and family planning, opposed the new laws for the very same reasons listed above: that it would encourage the poor to become lazy, irresponsible, reproduce like rabbits, and eventually become a burden on the state.
Today, we have code words like “welfare state”, “entitlement programs”, “socialized medicine”, all with the same underlying meaning that hard working Americans are being robbed by the government to support lazy and irresponsible welfare recipients. Unfortunately, the modern day stereotype is not the British poor, but poor minorities, the faces of which are mostly black.
Thomas Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principal of Population” (1798-1826) was a series on political economy based upon population growth of the “unworthy” people, who would overpopulate the world and consume more food than the earth could produce. The solution was to cut off support for the lazy poor, keep wages at subsistence level, and put malaria in the water of African natives. In short, let the “unworthy” population die off, by natural attrition and haste.
The current debate over government spending is primarily aimed at the programs that helped the poor, unemployed, and aged. The arguments are the same now, as in 1834. Technically, this is not racism, until combined with the goals and aspirations of white supremacy.
In rebuking the NAACP for its resolution, a FOX commentator questioned if the black community did not have enough problems for its organization, such as poverty, unemployment, teen pregnancy, crime, etc.
Somehow, we assumed that these were common problems to America as a whole, not just an isolated group or race of people. To say that these are black problems, instead of America’s problems, puts the onerous African-Americans to build bricks without straw (as in, no government help or assistance). The above arguments stymatizes helping the poor and undeserving. Instead of a theme of Saving America, we see slogans like Save White America in the Tea Party movement.
This is what divides us: that we are not One Nation, but a nation of competing interests along the color line. There must be reconciliation beyond the color of a person’s skin, and one community's problem must be looked upon as a problem for the nation, as a whole.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Mason City Billboard Controversy:
Last Word
By Eddie Griffin
Monday, July 19, 2010
I must desist in this insane deliberation over character assassination of the president as whether by slander or racism.
What I want to know is why so many people believe that black people are lazy, living off government welfare and handouts, and why so many middle class African-Americans believe the same.
After all, the call for reduction in federal spending is, in fact, aimed at federal social welfare programs, which some believe is the preferred domain of poor black people. They forget federal assistance programs like food stamps actually subsidize rural farmers and agribusiness, stabilize food prices, and give U.S. farmers a guaranteed market. This is why farm goods outside of the country cannot compete. [NOTE: Unfortunately, the government did not buy black farm products; hence, black farmers starved, while their counterparts thrived on the Agriculture Department purchases].
All things being fair and equal
Recently, I heard people in Louisiana, in the aftermath of the BP disaster, talking about not wanting a government “handout”, and a lady boohooing her eyes out because this was her first time receiving food stamps.
Why does such humiliation and shame come from receiving handouts and food stamps?
Federal assistance programs are a stigma of poverty, laziness, depravity, low life style, and no motivation to do better. The stigma applies to both the “poor white trash” and “laziness Negro”. In order for a person to receive handout, food stamps, and welfare, they could only be one or the other. When it happens to middle-America, they differentiate themselves from the former.
That is why some Louisiana shrimpers refuse to take a “handout”. They take pride in being hard workers, and it is not right for people willing to work to receive government handouts like the undeserving who are not willing to work.
Here is the clincher: Somebody is selling the notion that President Barack Obama is taking their hard earned wealth and giving over to these undeserving lazy Negroes, simply because he favors black over white.
They call this a transfer of wealth by socialism.
Stupid is what stupid believes.
There is only one economy, neither black, nor white. It was the Department of Agriculture that first gave white U.S. farmers subsidies to grow and subsidies to forebear, in order to support the rural agrarian economy, and stabilize farm prices. But the Food Stamp Act of 1964, under President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, appeared to benefit the lazily class of people.
This microcosmic chain: From rural farmland, to the government, to welfare recipients, is skewed to make it appear that blacks are the chief reliant upon this system.
They are Unemployed by Choice.
The government disperses it money through contracts, for example in the defense industries. Most of the jobs in these industries are skilled and primarily white labor, from machine to floor supervisor on up, the chain of hierarchy is like nepotism along racial lines. High unemployment among minorities does not signify lack of motivation but bias preference in hiring. In Texas, for example, in the defense industry, African-Americans are only hired to fulfill a federally required quota; otherwise, there would be no blacks working at all, as it had in the past, except sweep floors and taking out the trash. [Who gets the hot dirty jobs of scooping up the tar balls on the gulf beaches?]
There is an argument employers should have the right to hire whomsoever they will. But they forgot from whence come their federal contracts, and all federal monies come from a mixture of all segments and races in the country. When government spending is concentrated on a favored population, the rest is disfavored is the wealth distribution chain.
For centuries, they took black tax dollars and applied these dollars to the white economy, in the form of jobs and neighborhood development, such as streets and sidewalks. Negro neighborhoods did not receive equity for their tax dollars until they gained the vote and exercised political power en masse.
Nevertheless, once having taking all the choicest jobs, monopolized the training, skills, certifications, and licenses, at the exclusion of the Negro, it guaranteed another generation of ignorance and poverty.
Reducing Taxation does not mean a reduction in spending in those vital industries like the defense industry. Nor, does it mean reduction of federal spending in research, at predominately white colleges and universities. Nor, does it mean reduction federal spending in engineering and construction.
Reduction in taxes means to “take back” what is being given to the “undeserving” like welfare cheats and ACORN. It does not mean taking back subsidies to the railroad industries. [Notice the contrast in the color of the workforce on each end, and which labor force is productive and which a siphon].
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act is a federal law that does not necessarily change the sentiments of men’s hearts and their preferences in certain geographic regions. In the Deep South, a contractor or employer can say that they can find no “qualified applicant” in order to be exempt from the law.
This too is racist.
By Eddie Griffin
Monday, July 19, 2010
I must desist in this insane deliberation over character assassination of the president as whether by slander or racism.
What I want to know is why so many people believe that black people are lazy, living off government welfare and handouts, and why so many middle class African-Americans believe the same.
After all, the call for reduction in federal spending is, in fact, aimed at federal social welfare programs, which some believe is the preferred domain of poor black people. They forget federal assistance programs like food stamps actually subsidize rural farmers and agribusiness, stabilize food prices, and give U.S. farmers a guaranteed market. This is why farm goods outside of the country cannot compete. [NOTE: Unfortunately, the government did not buy black farm products; hence, black farmers starved, while their counterparts thrived on the Agriculture Department purchases].
All things being fair and equal
Recently, I heard people in Louisiana, in the aftermath of the BP disaster, talking about not wanting a government “handout”, and a lady boohooing her eyes out because this was her first time receiving food stamps.
Why does such humiliation and shame come from receiving handouts and food stamps?
Federal assistance programs are a stigma of poverty, laziness, depravity, low life style, and no motivation to do better. The stigma applies to both the “poor white trash” and “laziness Negro”. In order for a person to receive handout, food stamps, and welfare, they could only be one or the other. When it happens to middle-America, they differentiate themselves from the former.
That is why some Louisiana shrimpers refuse to take a “handout”. They take pride in being hard workers, and it is not right for people willing to work to receive government handouts like the undeserving who are not willing to work.
Here is the clincher: Somebody is selling the notion that President Barack Obama is taking their hard earned wealth and giving over to these undeserving lazy Negroes, simply because he favors black over white.
They call this a transfer of wealth by socialism.
Stupid is what stupid believes.
There is only one economy, neither black, nor white. It was the Department of Agriculture that first gave white U.S. farmers subsidies to grow and subsidies to forebear, in order to support the rural agrarian economy, and stabilize farm prices. But the Food Stamp Act of 1964, under President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, appeared to benefit the lazily class of people.
This microcosmic chain: From rural farmland, to the government, to welfare recipients, is skewed to make it appear that blacks are the chief reliant upon this system.
They are Unemployed by Choice.
The government disperses it money through contracts, for example in the defense industries. Most of the jobs in these industries are skilled and primarily white labor, from machine to floor supervisor on up, the chain of hierarchy is like nepotism along racial lines. High unemployment among minorities does not signify lack of motivation but bias preference in hiring. In Texas, for example, in the defense industry, African-Americans are only hired to fulfill a federally required quota; otherwise, there would be no blacks working at all, as it had in the past, except sweep floors and taking out the trash. [Who gets the hot dirty jobs of scooping up the tar balls on the gulf beaches?]
There is an argument employers should have the right to hire whomsoever they will. But they forgot from whence come their federal contracts, and all federal monies come from a mixture of all segments and races in the country. When government spending is concentrated on a favored population, the rest is disfavored is the wealth distribution chain.
For centuries, they took black tax dollars and applied these dollars to the white economy, in the form of jobs and neighborhood development, such as streets and sidewalks. Negro neighborhoods did not receive equity for their tax dollars until they gained the vote and exercised political power en masse.
Nevertheless, once having taking all the choicest jobs, monopolized the training, skills, certifications, and licenses, at the exclusion of the Negro, it guaranteed another generation of ignorance and poverty.
Reducing Taxation does not mean a reduction in spending in those vital industries like the defense industry. Nor, does it mean reduction of federal spending in research, at predominately white colleges and universities. Nor, does it mean reduction federal spending in engineering and construction.
Reduction in taxes means to “take back” what is being given to the “undeserving” like welfare cheats and ACORN. It does not mean taking back subsidies to the railroad industries. [Notice the contrast in the color of the workforce on each end, and which labor force is productive and which a siphon].
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act is a federal law that does not necessarily change the sentiments of men’s hearts and their preferences in certain geographic regions. In the Deep South, a contractor or employer can say that they can find no “qualified applicant” in order to be exempt from the law.
This too is racist.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Where is the Racism in the Tea Party?
By Eddie Griffin
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Some people are questioning the resolution of the NAACP about racism in the Tea Party- a resolution, mind you, that still has to be finalized. But when NAACP President Benjamin Jealous spoke about the resolution, there were clearly despicable pictures in the background as proof of what he meant.
NO, not everybody in the Tea Party is racist, and I doubt if many really understand what racism truly means outside of bigotry. This is why I stopped using the term “racism” to describe “white supremacy”- the ideology of “white rule”, either by natural divine right or intellectual superiority. Most bigots fall on the low end of the IQ pool, easily aroused, dumped, and hoodwinked, by their more intelligent counterparts.
In an article in the Fort Worth Weekly, I forewarned that “unhealthy rhetoric” coming from the ranks of the Tea Party was comparable to the racist rhetoric hurled at African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. (See “Unhealthy Rhetoric” by Eddie Griffin, Fort Worth Weekly, March 31, 2010). Instead of toning down the hostilities, some readers unleashed their anger upon me as the writer and demanded proof.
I presented a montage of pictures to the editor Gayle Reeves, which was later included in an editorial, “Tea Parties, Racism and Eddie Griffin”. As I asserted in the original article: “Plausible denial is a racist’s chief defense. That nobody saw him, nobody heard him, and nobody can prove what is in his heart is all the cover he needs.”
The YouTube link to Gayle’s editorial has been disconnected (for obvious or unobvious reasons), but the montage is picture proof is here, and here is why these depictions are racially offensive:
(1:34-1:43) A poster read: Save White America
What is “White America”? How is it different from “Other America”? Why the implied dichotomy between White and Black America? Why must I accept the unscientific codification of Race based on skin color? And, why does “White America” feel imperiled and the rest of us do not? There are no white people, per se, only people who are spoofed into believing genetic and pigmentation means something.
Politics is colorless, but not odorless.
(1:17-1:34) A poster read: Slave Owner Taxpayer - Niggar
By civil convention, I thought the N-word was antiquated due its vile nature and hateful conjuring. But here is a man, in patriotic red, white, and blue, with this sign.
(2:06-2:14) A poster read: Obama is the Antichrist – Oust Obama
(4:00-4:09) A poster read: The Antichrist is living in the White House
When people use religion to vilify the president in a demonic way, he or she intentionally corrupts the scriptures, as if there is no respect for the true and living God in heaven, or the leader elected by the majority of the people.
What does this say of those of us who voted for Obama? That we are satanic?
(2:39-2:47) A poster with an image of Barack Obama half-dressed in savage garb with a bone in his nose.
The image is reminiscent of pictures I remember as a child during 1940s and 1950s when we realized our African roots. We were brainwashed into shame about our heritage by these very same pictures. But there were Negro actors willing to portray such roles on stage and in movies.
We were taught that Africans were always uncivilized and dressed like this, not the fact that Africa was colonized, raped and pillaged, carved up like a pork chop, and the people thrown back into the stone ages by European encroachment. In time we discover Timbuktu and the cradle of civilization, and that Africa gave the Greeks their education, and Moors gave the world the Arabic number system.
It took a life time to overcome this shame, and now it returns in this form.
(2:47-2:55) A poster with a cartoon monkey with the inscription: Obama Nomics – Monkey see, monkey spend.
Telling Negroes that they evolved from monkeys and look like monkeys goes back as far as I can remember. It was part of the ongoing daily humiliation we had to endure. Not that this vile expression has ever gone away, it is an old rehash out of the same closet as great-great-great-grandpa’s Confederate uniform.
EDDIE GRIFFIN ADVICE TO THE NAACP-The pictures identified above are indeed proof of racism. The organization should neither be shamed nor intimidation in revealing an undeniable social reality. Pass the Resolution and move on to the next work, and never look behind. It is now incumbent upon the Tea Party Movement to keep these vile images out of its ranks and away from its rallies. The rest we can devote to an open and honest political debate, if we can keep honest alive.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Some people are questioning the resolution of the NAACP about racism in the Tea Party- a resolution, mind you, that still has to be finalized. But when NAACP President Benjamin Jealous spoke about the resolution, there were clearly despicable pictures in the background as proof of what he meant.
NO, not everybody in the Tea Party is racist, and I doubt if many really understand what racism truly means outside of bigotry. This is why I stopped using the term “racism” to describe “white supremacy”- the ideology of “white rule”, either by natural divine right or intellectual superiority. Most bigots fall on the low end of the IQ pool, easily aroused, dumped, and hoodwinked, by their more intelligent counterparts.
In an article in the Fort Worth Weekly, I forewarned that “unhealthy rhetoric” coming from the ranks of the Tea Party was comparable to the racist rhetoric hurled at African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. (See “Unhealthy Rhetoric” by Eddie Griffin, Fort Worth Weekly, March 31, 2010). Instead of toning down the hostilities, some readers unleashed their anger upon me as the writer and demanded proof.
I presented a montage of pictures to the editor Gayle Reeves, which was later included in an editorial, “Tea Parties, Racism and Eddie Griffin”. As I asserted in the original article: “Plausible denial is a racist’s chief defense. That nobody saw him, nobody heard him, and nobody can prove what is in his heart is all the cover he needs.”
The YouTube link to Gayle’s editorial has been disconnected (for obvious or unobvious reasons), but the montage is picture proof is here, and here is why these depictions are racially offensive:
(1:34-1:43) A poster read: Save White America
What is “White America”? How is it different from “Other America”? Why the implied dichotomy between White and Black America? Why must I accept the unscientific codification of Race based on skin color? And, why does “White America” feel imperiled and the rest of us do not? There are no white people, per se, only people who are spoofed into believing genetic and pigmentation means something.
Politics is colorless, but not odorless.
(1:17-1:34) A poster read: Slave Owner Taxpayer - Niggar
By civil convention, I thought the N-word was antiquated due its vile nature and hateful conjuring. But here is a man, in patriotic red, white, and blue, with this sign.
(2:06-2:14) A poster read: Obama is the Antichrist – Oust Obama
(4:00-4:09) A poster read: The Antichrist is living in the White House
When people use religion to vilify the president in a demonic way, he or she intentionally corrupts the scriptures, as if there is no respect for the true and living God in heaven, or the leader elected by the majority of the people.
What does this say of those of us who voted for Obama? That we are satanic?
(2:39-2:47) A poster with an image of Barack Obama half-dressed in savage garb with a bone in his nose.
The image is reminiscent of pictures I remember as a child during 1940s and 1950s when we realized our African roots. We were brainwashed into shame about our heritage by these very same pictures. But there were Negro actors willing to portray such roles on stage and in movies.
We were taught that Africans were always uncivilized and dressed like this, not the fact that Africa was colonized, raped and pillaged, carved up like a pork chop, and the people thrown back into the stone ages by European encroachment. In time we discover Timbuktu and the cradle of civilization, and that Africa gave the Greeks their education, and Moors gave the world the Arabic number system.
It took a life time to overcome this shame, and now it returns in this form.
(2:47-2:55) A poster with a cartoon monkey with the inscription: Obama Nomics – Monkey see, monkey spend.
Telling Negroes that they evolved from monkeys and look like monkeys goes back as far as I can remember. It was part of the ongoing daily humiliation we had to endure. Not that this vile expression has ever gone away, it is an old rehash out of the same closet as great-great-great-grandpa’s Confederate uniform.
EDDIE GRIFFIN ADVICE TO THE NAACP-The pictures identified above are indeed proof of racism. The organization should neither be shamed nor intimidation in revealing an undeniable social reality. Pass the Resolution and move on to the next work, and never look behind. It is now incumbent upon the Tea Party Movement to keep these vile images out of its ranks and away from its rallies. The rest we can devote to an open and honest political debate, if we can keep honest alive.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Ineffective Prosecution in Oscar Grant Murder Case
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
To mar the day of Barack Obama’s historic inauguration as the first African-American President of the United States, Oscar Grant was shot in the back by BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle in Oakland, California.
Officers had been called in to quell a disturbance on the train, in which several youth were engaged in a fight, after a night of New Year’s revelry. Tensions escalated after the officers arrived and tried to take control of the situation. When Grant attempted to act as peacemaker, Officer Tony Pirone shouted racial slurs and ordered the young man arrested. Grant was wrest to the ground, face down, and restrained, when Officer Mehserle rose, drew his gun, and nonchalantly fired, pointblank, into the back of Grant. The young man died a couple of hours later at a local hospital, January 1, 2009.
The entire incident was video recorded by several bystanders, from several different angles. It is obvious to us that the unarmed Oscar Grant was murdered in cold blood. After public outrage, Johannes Mehserle resigned, fled to Nevada, and was later arrested, charged, and tried.
However, if the wheel of Justice grinds every so slowly, then in the case of Oscar Grant, it ground to a halt, because on Thursday, July 8, 2010, a Los Angeles jury found Mehserles guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and not guilty of second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.
Sentencing is scheduled for August 6 and could range from probation to 5-14 years in prison. In the meantime, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is looking into the case.
WHAT HAPPENED?
Bringing Mehserles to justice took almost an act of congress, because there appeared no desire to pursue an internal investigation the incident, though 5 or 6 officers were present on the scene at the time. It was not until video of the shooting began to circulate to the outside world that the blue wall of silence and cover-up was breached. Another innocent black man was dead, one of several, in the post election of Barack Obama.
On January 8, 2010, after failing to get BART to investigate the incident, Eddie Griffin (BASG) sent the following letter to the Board of Directors.
BART Board of Directors
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland , CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6095
BoardofDirectors@bart.gov
c/o Kenneth A. Duron
District Secretary
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
300 Lakeside Drive, 23rd Floor, Oakland, California 94612
510.464.6080, fax: 510.464.6011
“Kduron” Kduron@bart.gov
To Directors: Carole Ward Allen, Bob Franklin, Joel Keller, Gail Murray, John McPartland, Thomas Blalock, Lynette Sweet, James Fang, Tom Radulovich
[Excerpted] We contacted your office on yesterday about the unprovoked shooting of 22-year old Oscar Grant in Fruitvale, Lake Merritt & 12th Street Station in Oakland... There is prima facie evidence, by these videos, that shows Officer Johannes Mehserle shot a defenseless man in the back while he was constrained… There is a compelling probable cause that the officer murdered the victim. As you know this video was offered to the police department investigators. Instead of immediately arresting the officer, BART put him in hiding… We are not seeking lynch mob justice before due process run its course… If you can watch this video also and come away feeling that your department acted appropriately, do realize there is a strong possibility the unrest will continue, and more arrests is not the solution. The city has brought this curse upon itself… Sincerely, Eddie Griffin
Acknowledgement & Response from BART
From: Kduron@bart.gov
Subject: Re: Unprovoked Shooting of Oscar Grant
To: eddiegriffin_basg@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 4:28 PM
Mr. Griffin,
Thank you for your email. Your message will be shared with the Board of Directors as requested.
The following is a link to the District's webpage with news releases/video regarding the officer involved shooting on January 1, 2009.
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2009.aspx
Thank you for taking the time to advise us of your concerns.
Kenneth A. Duron
District Secretary
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
300 Lakeside Drive, 23rd Floor, Oakland, California 94612
510.464.6080, fax: 510.464.6011, email: kduron@bart.gov
A Petition for Redress of Grievance
There were riots in the Bay area in the aftermath of Grant’s murder. There were riots following the Mehserle jury verdict, despite the many calls for peace and calm. As we said before, we were not looking for “lynch mob justice”, but due process and justice mete for the crime.
Our reliance upon the courts is very disappointing, because it is justice by contrast: White officer versus Black suspect. The benefit of doubt goes to the officer instead of the victim. Had African-Americans been included on the jury, the verdict might have been different. But it reverts back to the fact that the district attorney had no heart for the case to begin with.
A recent article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram alludes to an old practice in Texas courtrooms called “stacking the jury”. The jury selection process (voir dire) is not always fair and honest, and verdicts are not always what justice requires.
Precedence
Although everybody in Mississippi and the rest of the world knew Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam tortured and murdered an innocent 14-year old named Emmitt Till in Money, Mississippi, on August 8, 1955, though the all-white jury was presented with firsthand eyewitness testimony, they still found the two Not Guilty.
If there were any benefit of doubt, then surely it was removed when the two gave an interview to Look Magazine in January 1956, providing the harrowing details of the torture and murder. By the law of Double Jeopardy, they could not be tried again at the time, which led to the Justice Department to include Murder as a violation of Civil Rights, especially when murder is carried out Under the Color of Law, by a law enforcement official.
[Oscar Grant was only one of several black men shot and killed immediately following the election of Barack Obama, reminiscent of the night that Jack Johnson won the heavyweight championship of the world.]
To mar the day of Barack Obama’s historic inauguration as the first African-American President of the United States, Oscar Grant was shot in the back by BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle in Oakland, California.
Officers had been called in to quell a disturbance on the train, in which several youth were engaged in a fight, after a night of New Year’s revelry. Tensions escalated after the officers arrived and tried to take control of the situation. When Grant attempted to act as peacemaker, Officer Tony Pirone shouted racial slurs and ordered the young man arrested. Grant was wrest to the ground, face down, and restrained, when Officer Mehserle rose, drew his gun, and nonchalantly fired, pointblank, into the back of Grant. The young man died a couple of hours later at a local hospital, January 1, 2009.
The entire incident was video recorded by several bystanders, from several different angles. It is obvious to us that the unarmed Oscar Grant was murdered in cold blood. After public outrage, Johannes Mehserle resigned, fled to Nevada, and was later arrested, charged, and tried.
However, if the wheel of Justice grinds every so slowly, then in the case of Oscar Grant, it ground to a halt, because on Thursday, July 8, 2010, a Los Angeles jury found Mehserles guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and not guilty of second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.
Sentencing is scheduled for August 6 and could range from probation to 5-14 years in prison. In the meantime, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is looking into the case.
WHAT HAPPENED?
Bringing Mehserles to justice took almost an act of congress, because there appeared no desire to pursue an internal investigation the incident, though 5 or 6 officers were present on the scene at the time. It was not until video of the shooting began to circulate to the outside world that the blue wall of silence and cover-up was breached. Another innocent black man was dead, one of several, in the post election of Barack Obama.
On January 8, 2010, after failing to get BART to investigate the incident, Eddie Griffin (BASG) sent the following letter to the Board of Directors.
BART Board of Directors
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland , CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6095
BoardofDirectors@bart.gov
c/o Kenneth A. Duron
District Secretary
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
300 Lakeside Drive, 23rd Floor, Oakland, California 94612
510.464.6080, fax: 510.464.6011
“Kduron” Kduron@bart.gov
To Directors: Carole Ward Allen, Bob Franklin, Joel Keller, Gail Murray, John McPartland, Thomas Blalock, Lynette Sweet, James Fang, Tom Radulovich
[Excerpted] We contacted your office on yesterday about the unprovoked shooting of 22-year old Oscar Grant in Fruitvale, Lake Merritt & 12th Street Station in Oakland... There is prima facie evidence, by these videos, that shows Officer Johannes Mehserle shot a defenseless man in the back while he was constrained… There is a compelling probable cause that the officer murdered the victim. As you know this video was offered to the police department investigators. Instead of immediately arresting the officer, BART put him in hiding… We are not seeking lynch mob justice before due process run its course… If you can watch this video also and come away feeling that your department acted appropriately, do realize there is a strong possibility the unrest will continue, and more arrests is not the solution. The city has brought this curse upon itself… Sincerely, Eddie Griffin
Acknowledgement & Response from BART
From: Kduron@bart.gov
Subject: Re: Unprovoked Shooting of Oscar Grant
To: eddiegriffin_basg@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 4:28 PM
Mr. Griffin,
Thank you for your email. Your message will be shared with the Board of Directors as requested.
The following is a link to the District's webpage with news releases/video regarding the officer involved shooting on January 1, 2009.
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2009.aspx
Thank you for taking the time to advise us of your concerns.
Kenneth A. Duron
District Secretary
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
300 Lakeside Drive, 23rd Floor, Oakland, California 94612
510.464.6080, fax: 510.464.6011, email: kduron@bart.gov
A Petition for Redress of Grievance
There were riots in the Bay area in the aftermath of Grant’s murder. There were riots following the Mehserle jury verdict, despite the many calls for peace and calm. As we said before, we were not looking for “lynch mob justice”, but due process and justice mete for the crime.
Our reliance upon the courts is very disappointing, because it is justice by contrast: White officer versus Black suspect. The benefit of doubt goes to the officer instead of the victim. Had African-Americans been included on the jury, the verdict might have been different. But it reverts back to the fact that the district attorney had no heart for the case to begin with.
A recent article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram alludes to an old practice in Texas courtrooms called “stacking the jury”. The jury selection process (voir dire) is not always fair and honest, and verdicts are not always what justice requires.
Precedence
Although everybody in Mississippi and the rest of the world knew Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam tortured and murdered an innocent 14-year old named Emmitt Till in Money, Mississippi, on August 8, 1955, though the all-white jury was presented with firsthand eyewitness testimony, they still found the two Not Guilty.
If there were any benefit of doubt, then surely it was removed when the two gave an interview to Look Magazine in January 1956, providing the harrowing details of the torture and murder. By the law of Double Jeopardy, they could not be tried again at the time, which led to the Justice Department to include Murder as a violation of Civil Rights, especially when murder is carried out Under the Color of Law, by a law enforcement official.
[Oscar Grant was only one of several black men shot and killed immediately following the election of Barack Obama, reminiscent of the night that Jack Johnson won the heavyweight championship of the world.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
