‘Color Purple’ Author’s New Virulently Anti-Semitic Book Draws Criticism

June 22, 2013
(Walker writes, “It amazes me, in these churches, that there is no discussion of the fact that the other behavior we learned about in the Bible stories: the rapes, the murders, the pillaging, the enslavement of the conquered, the confiscation of land, the brutal domination and colonization of all ‘others’ is still front and center in Israel’s behavior today.)

What Did Clarence Thomas Actually Say About Whether African-Americans Were Part of “We the People” at the Time of the Founding?

September 20, 2012

Media_httpstatic5busi_geyibIn this recent post, (volokh.com) took issue with Justice Clarence Thomas’ apparent recent statement that African-Americans were not considered part of the “we the People” referred to in the Preamble of the Constitution. In conveying what Thomas said, (volokh.com) relied on a report in the Washington Post, which was echoed by many other media sources.
However, the video of Thomas’ dialogue with Yale law professor Akhil Amar and a transcript of his remarks obtained by VC reader Andrew Hyman suggests that his remarks were a lot more ambiguous. Here’s the relevant part of the transcript (which occurs roughly between 8:00 and 12:00 of the video):

AKHIL AMAR: …I guess I’d like to start our conversation — it seems fitting — with those — with the words that the Constitution starts with, “we the people,” and how that — what that phrase means to you, how that phrase maybe has changed over time thanks to amendments and other developments.
What do you mean — who are “we”? You know, who is this “we”? When did — when did folks like you and me become part of this “we”?… [Note: Akhil Amar is an Indian-American]
JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: Well, you — the — well, obviously, it didn’t — it wasn’t perfect. That’s an understatement. But you grow up in an environment, at least I was fortunate enough to, where we believed that it was perfectible….
So when I think of we the people, there is a lot, I think, of the exclusion but the possibility and then the eventuality of the inclusion of you and me. I mean, look at — no one cares that, what, 40 years ago, you and I would not be sitting here talking about the Constitution of the United States except to say we’re excluded.

The last part of Thomas’ statement – that the inclusion of nonwhites was only an eventual “possibility” could be interpreted to mean that originally they were categorically excluded. But the statement is much more equivocal than the Washington Post’s summary, which stated that “Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged the other night, that the “we the people” extolled in the Constitution 225 years ago did not include people who looked like him.” I think the Post’s interpretation of his remarks is plausible. But it’s also plausible to suggest that he meant that blacks, while not completely excluded at the Founding, were still subject to horrendous discrimination and only fully included as equal citizens many decades later.
(volokh.com) is grateful to Mr. Hyman for bringing this issue to his attention and for obtaining the transcript.
Some commenters and others have asked whether the distinction between categorical exclusion on the basis of race at the time of the Founding and “mere” extensive discrimination actually matters.
As (volokh.com) noted in his original post, the issue has great historical significance because it was one of the main points of disagreement over the Dred Scott decision. If at least some blacks were part of “We the People” at the time of the Founding, Chief Justice Taney’s notorious majority opinion is wrong, for reasons well captured in Justice Curtis’ dissent.
But the issue also has some relevance to modern debates over the legitimacy of originalism. Some critics of originalism have argued that the original Constitution was illegitimate because it excluded blacks. There is little doubt that the original Constitution tolerated severe racial injustices, most notably slavery. But there is nonetheless a difference between a Constitution that left slavery and other injustices alone (in part because abolition was politically impossible at the time), and one that categorically denies all blacks any “rights which the white man was bound to respect,” as Taney put it.
Obviously, one can reject originalism for a variety of reasons even if Taney’s claim was wrong. And it is possible to endorse originalism even if he was right. But the case against originalism does become stronger at the margin if Taney was right, and weaker if he was wrong.

Black Mobs Now Beating Jews In New York

July 2, 2012

(via Pat Dollard / Excerpted from WND) If Chaim Amalek had his way, no one would know that mobs of black people are attacking and beating and robbing Jews in the New York area. Or that they shout anti-Semitic epithets.

Or that they target Jews because “they don’t fight back.”
“Such information can only serve to heighten racial tensions between these two groups,” said Amalek, an alias for New York video blogger Luke Ford. “Let us all look beyond the issue of race (in any event a mere social construct) and instead celebrate our diversity.”
In this case, the New York Post saw a pattern that most other media outlets never see. To some, it was jarring.
“Anti-Jewish crime wave,” read the June headline about a series of recent anti-Semitic attacks. “In the most disturbing incident, a mob of six black teenagers shouting, ‘Dirty Jew!’ and ‘Dirty kike!’ repeatedly bashed Marc Heinberg, 61, as he walked home from temple in Sheepshead Bay (in June.)”
This is one of several black mob attacks on – and robberies of – Jewish people in Brooklyn over the last two years, leaving broken bones and life-threatening injuries in their wake.
The assaults are part of a larger pattern in the New York area and around the country: Black mobs assaulting, robbing, destroying property and creating mayhem – hundreds of times in more than 60 cities.
Orthodox Jews may bear a disproportionate amount of the violence in New York. But the lawlessness that black mobs inflict throughout the area is not limited to Jews. Much of it is on YouTube.
In February, four black people beat and robbed an Orthodox Jew in the New York suburb of Monsey. They were charged with hate crimes after it was determined they targeted the victim based on his religion. News accounts do not mention the race of the attackers, but the picture tells the story.
In a three-week period after Thanksgiving 2010, the same group of black people was charged in three separate episodes of targeting, beating and robbing members of the Orthodox community. One of the victims, Joel Weinberger, spent four days in the hospital with broken bones and required 10 hours of surgery on his broken jaw and eye socket.
Ford and others, such as MSNBC news anchor Melissa Harris-Perry, say the media should not report news if it makes black people look bad. But most racial crimes and violence from black mobs in the New York area are usually not reported – not by the mainstream media anyway.
Witnesses and others who know often find a way to drop a dime, or a video or Internet posting.
Just a few days before the Heinberg beating, a group of students from a predominately black school in a predominantly black neighborhood in Brooklyn were “evicted” from the 9/11 Memorial site in Manhattan “after they callously hurled trash into its fountains. The vile vandals from Junior High School 292 in East New York treated the solemn memorial – its reflecting pools honoring the nearly 3,000 people killed in the terror attacks – like a garbage dump.”
One of the students was found carrying ammunition.
The story did not identify the race of the students. The picture for the article featured a young white person looking over the fountains. But people who posted comments to the story, many of whom said they lived near the school, identified the vandals as black – if only to defend them.
“The NYPD have destroyed enough young black lives,” wrote poster Blaque Knyte. “I’d be willing to bet you didn’t suggest jail for the little white suburban thugs who harassed that elderly bus matron to tears, which IS a crime by the way.”
Many of the commenters said the story should have identified the race of the miscreants – if only to protect the community from future mayhem. That was too much for “brooklynborn,” who said, “I am embarrassed for my fellow Americans who flaunt their racism so publicly. What they did was offensive, but the conditions of where we grew up – compared to the wealth of Wall St. – is also offensive.”
While New Yorkers continue to debate whether race has anything to do with crime, or whether it should be reported, the list of racially violent and lawless episodes continues to grow.
On May 12, black women taunted two teenage girls on a subway before “hauling” the girls off the subway, beating them and stealing one of their phones.
The local NBC affiliate did not disclose the race of the mob, but it didn’t have to: The attack was videotaped and posted on YouTube.
On Staten Island in December, two police officers were hurt trying to control a mob of 50 black people attacking a single family home. Firefighters finally disbursed the crowd with fire hoses to get them away from the officers. Several pictures and videos show some of the action.
Last June, hundreds of black people rioted on Brighton Beach in an annual event called Brooklyn-Queens Day. Four people were shot and one killed. Much of it was posted on YouTube.
According to the New York Post: “The shootings didn’t surprise neighbors, who’ve gotten used to trouble on previous Brooklyn-Queens Days.”
“These kids come not to swim, they come for turf fights,” said Pat Singer, president of the Brighton Beach Neighborhood Association. “It’s a problem every year. It’s really hard on the businesses. All day long, all you see are hundreds of teenagers. Of course you’re going to have problems.”
In May of 2011, more than two dozen black people on a “rampage … terrorized” a Dunkin Donuts. The “swarm mob” attacked patrons, destroyed the fixtures and stole food, reported the Daily Mail, which published the story with pictures.
A few months before, the same scenario unfolded at a New York Wendy’s. A mob of black people were fighting and destroying property, and a teenage employee was attacked and hospitalized with a concussion.
Keep Reading…

Google tells Black Ladies to Bend Over for Islam

June 2, 2011
I was at Elder of Ziyon‘s blog and clicked next on the blogger menu and Google pushes you to a left wing Muslim blog… and this passage about how a black slave in Arabia during Mohammad’s time came to Islam:

So they accused me of stealing it and started searching me and even searched my private parts.’ The slave girl further said, ‘By Allah! While I was standing (in that state) with those people, the same kite passed by them and dropped the red scarf and it fell amongst them. I told them, “This is what you accused me of and I was innocent and now this is it.”‘ ‘Aisha added: ‘That slave girl came to Allah’s Apostle and embraced Islam.

via dunner99.blogspot.com and image via Dada Dreams , KingKong21 and fretur

So what am I supposed to assume?  A culture that had black slaves accused their woman of things she didn’t do and as a result she became submissive to Allah who tells her to be even more submissive to men.

British based lecturer claims Black women are not as attractive as other women.

May 18, 2011

Leave a Comment » | African Americans, Racism, Racist | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon

Black students diss ‘Students for Justice in Palestine’

April 10, 2011

This incident may yet be regarded as a watershed in the campaign by ‘Palestinians’ and their supporters to characterize Israel as an ‘apartheid state.’ The incident took place at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts this past week. Kadima MK and former Shin Bet director Avi Dichter was the speaker. The morons from ‘Students for Justice in Palestine’ were there.There are more details on the incident here.
In response, a group of African American student leaders from traditionally ‘black colleges’ have taken out advertisements in student newspapers all over the US in which they have published an open letter to the ‘Students for Justice in Palestine.’ Their message: You guys are clueless (Hat Tip: Herb G).

“The use of the word ‘apartheid’ by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in its characterization of Israel is patently false and deeply offensive to all who feel a connection to the state of Israel,” the letter, which ran or is slated to run in papers at Brown University, University of California-Los Angeles, the University of Maryland and Columbia University over the next few days, reads. “Your organization’s campaign against Israel is spreading misinformation about its policies, fostering bias in the media, and jeopardizing prospects for a timely resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such irresponsibility is a blemish on your efforts.”
The letter continues to state that “playing the ‘apartheid card’ is a calculated attempt to conjure up images associated with the racist South African regimes of the 20th century,” and calls the strategy “as transparent as it is base.”
“Beyond that, it is highly objectionable to those who know the truth about the Israel’s record on human rights and how it so clearly contrasts with South Africa’s,” the letter reads, noting that under apartheid, black South Africans had no rights in a country in which they were the majority of the population.
Saying that the analogy manipulates rather than informs, the letter requests SJP to “immediately stop referring to Israel as an apartheid society and to acknowledge that the Arab minority in Israel enjoys full citizenship with voting rights and representation in the government.”
“Decency, justice, and the hope of peace and reconciliation in the Middle East compel us to demand an immediate cessation to the deliberate misappropriation of words and of the flagrant mischaracterizations of Israel,” the letter concludes. “Your compliance with this request will be viewed as a responsible and appropriate first step toward raising the level of discourse.”

It’s great to see that the next generation includes kids who can think independently and who aren’t sucked in by the false rhetoric of the mainstream media. Apartheid is probably the most overused word in current discourse.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | academia, academic bias, African Americans, Apartheid, Avi Dichter, BDS, Brandeis University, college, Kadima, Shin Bet, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon

Ernesto Che Guevara

October 25, 2010

The Left have been talking for decades about the CIA operation to assassinate Che. My parents spoke of the murder of Che as being one of the great disgraces of the United States… even though my mother was apparently friends with or was dating one of Che’s assassins. Regardless my leftist parents have always felt that Che was a hero and this is reflected by Hollywood and the media. It is a lie and a myth. I am sorry to say I grew up thinking of Guevara as a freedom fighter myself.

Here are some lovely Che quotes that my Leftist mother failed to tell me about:

We’re going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing.

The Negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.

Mexicans are a band of illiterate Indians.

Given the prevailing lack of discipline, it would have been impossible to use Congolese machine-gunners to defend the base from air attack: they did not know how to handle their weapons and did not want to learn

Increasingly, one hopes, Che’s image is becoming openly mocked as the ugly reality of his life outlasts the shiny revolutionary veneer. As Alvaro Vargas Llosa reported five years ago, young Argentines have taken to sporting shirts emblazoned with the putdown, “I have a Che T-Shirt and I don’t know why.” The Australian band The Clap sings of the “Che Guevara T-Shirt Wearer” who has “no idea” of who he is. The Cuban punk band, Porno para Ricardo, which has been arrested for “social dangerousness,” openly declaims the Castro regime and its heroes such as Guevara.

Karl Marx, of all people, once remarked that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. Marx argued that history was the key to understanding the real world, and history is certainly no friend to Che Guevara. If his younger admirers study the historical Che–the one reputed to have declared “I feel my nostrils dilate savoring the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy”–they will understand that Che’s original influence was indeed tragic, not just for Cubans but for many others as well. And they just might skip the farce phase, out of deference to the many victims of the butcher of La Cabaña
via reason.com

…I want to see more evidence before I am convinced that Che worship is really declining. Che wasn’t that important in and of himself. He was a second-rate functionary in a second-rate communist regime and later a fourth-rate guerrilla leader and terrorist who failed dismally in his efforts to spread communism beyond Cuba. Had Che never lived, Cuban communism would have been only marginally less oppressive than it actually was. Ultimately, the Cult of Che is deplorable less because of what it says about attitudes towards him than because it is the most blatant manifestation of our much broader tendency to ignore or downplay communist crimes.

How did he, a monstrous mass murderer, responsible for the blood curdling murders of thousands of teenagers, women and men, become a popular cultural figure embraced by the t-shirt industry, college students and hollywood directors? It’s not like we walk around proclaiming Charles Manson a brilliant & kind revolutionary. There must be some machiavellian backdrop. Because this seems like an Alice in Wonderland upside- down world where we celebrate a cold-blooded killer.
On Tuesday Benicio del Toro, who plays Che in Soderbergh’s new movie walked out during an interview because he was “uncomfortable” with the questions. He dedicated his Cannes award to Guevara.

I first noticed this cultural phenomenan when my step-son started using “Che” as his pen name on the internet. Then Gisele Bundchen catwalked in a “Che bikini”, & suddenly everyone under 21 was wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt. Taco Bell dressed up its Chihuahua spokesdog like Che for its “Taco Revolution” ads and now Steven Soderbergh comes out with his Che Guevara movie.
Beloved revolutionary? Or serial killer?
Myth #1: He was an “intellectual”.
Fact: One of the first acts Guevara is known for when he first came to Havana is a massive book burning. Then he signed death warrants for the authors and had them hunted down. He jailed or exiled most of Cuba’s best filmmakers, poets and writers. In the mid-60’s, thousands of “effeminate” teenagers were taken by force and dumped into prison camps he helped create where the logo read: “Work will make men out of you.”

Myth #2: He was for the “people”.
Fact: Guevara said he “manufactured evidence” and went on to say “I don’t need proof to execute a man…I only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him.” When he addressed the U.N. in New York in 1964 he proclaimed, “Certainly we execute. And we will continue to execute as long as it is necessary.” And he received applause for this. According to the Black Book of Communism, the revolution’s firing squad executions, which he started, reached 14,000 by the beginning of the 1970’s. The people’s crimes? Being anti-Stalinist or being a practicing catholic, among others. He loved and promoted Stalinism, which of course was itself responsible for between 3.5 & 60 million deaths.
Myth #3: He was a Counter-Revolutionary just like U.S. 60’s Hippies.
Fact: Che Guevara was anti-rock & roll, making it illegal to own a rock record, to listen to rock music or god forbid! actually play rock music. Che’s own grandson, Canek Sanchez Guevara fled Cuba and lives in Mexico. He’s a heavy metal rock guitarist and in an interview with Mexico’s Proceso magazine said, “In Cuba freedom is nonexistent. The regime demands submission and obedience…the regime persecutes hippies, homosexuals, free-thinkers and poets. They employ constant surveillance, control and repression.” He was one of the lucky ones; he got out alive. Although he blames Fidel for the repressive regime, it was his grandfather who helped create it.

Che was such a visionary, he helped create the notorious peligrosidad predelictiva law (“dangerousness likely to leading to crime”); which predated Tom Cruises’ job in the movie “Minority Report”. Like Minority Report, where a special police department called “Precrime” apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge provided by 3 psychics before any crime is actually committed; all you have to be arrested for in Cuba is your likelihood to commit a crime. Beaten, torture, labor camps, death.
And the machiavellian backdrop? The American media and hollywood who have chosen to set Che in the light of a ‘benign revolutionary’ have relied solely on diaries that he wrote and the memories of his co-thugs. The diaries went through Fidel Castro’s propaganda machine and came out the other side with very little reality, and a whole lot of fiction.

And what of the hundreds of survivors and witnesses of this genocidal regime created by Che and Fidel, who mostly live in Florida, having fled the Marxist-Communist nation? They have been ignored in favor of this sanitized version of reality approved by Cuba’s dictator. They stand ready as witnesses to tell their story. Time magazine has never come knocking. Neither did Soderbergh.
Post-script: An estimated 80,000 Cubans have died trying to flee Cuba by boat, rafts, makeshift anythings that might get them to the shores of the United States of America. They’ve died by drowning, sharks and exposure.

Leave a Comment » | African Americans, Castro, Che Guevara, cuba, Socialist Revolution | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon