Your decline of Western civilization update

If you read nothing else today...


J. Christian Adams ties together the mob violence in England with what has been happening here in America over the summer.

We also now know the Mob has visited America in recent days and years.

Consider the Wisconsin State Fair last week. The 911 tapes reveal a nightmare. “We’re outside the Wisconsin State Fair and there’s a white guy being beaten up by about 100 black people,” the panicked caller cries. “They’re jumping on our cars. . . . My mom just got attacked by a black mob.” Multiple eyewitnesses describe white fairgoers being pulled from cars and beaten by the Mob, all black. The evidence establishes a strong presumption that race was a motivating factor in the attacks. This is America?

Like in England, the law is also failing the victims in Wisconsin. “My wife comes home with a fricking black eye, and you guys ain’t doin’ (expletive) about it?” another 911 caller complains. “You need to get the (expletive) riot squad over there and haul them off to jail.”

We know that something similar happened in the town of California, Pennsylvania this year. We know that Darnell Harding, a linebacker for the local college football team, and Toni Whiteleather, a defensive back, were charged with attacking Michael Chambers. Chambers was an innocent bystander who had the misfortune of running into the two athletes just before Harding, the linebacker, said he was going to “hit the first white person he saw.”

As in London, the law has failed Chambers. Prosecutors dropped the state hate crimes charges in June after they failed to subpoena the victim to give evidence for a preliminary hearing. The Obama administration has also failed Chambers, as we shall see.

The law has failed Marty Marshall and his Akron, Ohio, family. On the Fourth of July in 2009, he was watching fireworks in his front yard with his wife and children. A mob of 30 to 50 black teenagers went onto his property and beat up Marshall, his wife, his children and two adult male friends. “This is our world. This is a black world,” they taunted the injured victims. Marshall spent five nights hospitalized in critical care.

Of course there are federal hate crimes laws designed for these violent racially motivated attacks, right? But a law is only as good as the people enforcing it. The Justice Department under Eric Holder has little interest in bringing hate crimes charges to protect white victims. The corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, which I brought, made that plain.

The criminal section of the civil rights division has the responsibility to prosecute racially motivated violence. But Mark Kappelhoff, the chief of the criminal section of the civil rights division, is unlikely to act if the victims are white. He was angry that the DOJ enforced the law on behalf of white victims in the voting rights case of United States v. Ike Brown. According to the sworn testimony of former voting section chief Christopher Coates, Kappelhoff complained equal enforcement of the law to protect whites was causing problems with “its relations with civil rights groups.” He placed greater importance on political relations with civil rights groups than ending discrimination against white voters.

Selective application of hate crime laws are just one of the many, many things we hate about hate crime laws.

The longer they are on the books, the more the evidence mounts that whatever good intentions they started with, it's all too apparent they now are being used, not for justice, but rather to curry favor with favored political classes.



Adams finishes with this:

Whatever has fractured, whatever has failed, we need to discover and right it. Law, informed by a reverence for human dignity, has lifted our nation, our civilization, out of the darkness of history. The mayhem and violence we are witnessing provides a glimpse of an uncivilized age beyond our memory, before law ruled.

Perhaps the civilized will outnumber the uncivilized. Or, perhaps the burning and looting provides instead a preview of our future.

Sir Winston Churchill understood this. “Civilization will not last,” he said at the University of Bristol in 1938, “freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them and show themselves possessed of a constabulary power before which barbaric and atavistic forces will stand in awe.”

That we have a President that contemptuously expelled this great man’s bust from the Oval Office only increases our task.

Some just a little more equal than others Pt. III

The case began when the two women approached anti-abortion advocate Johnny Wallace, 69. Wallace had been standing in front of City Hall with a billboard sign espousing his views on abortion.

Witnesses told police that the two women approached Wallace and began to try to take and destroy the sign he was holding. Wallace had to physically restrain the women. Minor injuries were reported.

The two women decided to accept 6 months of unsupervised probation but we’re wondering why this isn’t being treated as a hate crime.

House (hearts) military pay raises and hate crime laws (UPDATED)

This one kind of snuck underneath the radar what with all the excitement of the President sharing honors bestowed upon the likes of Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat.

A long-debated bill to broaden the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays was approved Thursday by the Democratic-controlled House in what would be the first major expansion of the law in more than 40 years.

The measure, which is expected to go before the Senate within days, had faced a veto threat from President George W. Bush, but it has President Obama's support.

And speaking of flying under the radar, Congress must’ve caught the 6 Sigma bug as these hate-crime provisions were attached to a $680-billion defense policy bill which included a pay raise for the military and authorization for the development of a new engine for the next-generation jet fighter among other things. It's all about streamlining the process, don't you know?

The measure passed by a vote of 281 to 146, with Republicans complaining that they had been put in the politically awkward position of voting against a defense bill.

"We should not be doing social engineering on this bill," Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said.

"Shame on you," he told Democrats.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said that Democrats had needlessly introduced a "partisan matter in an otherwise bipartisan defense bill for our troops."

"No member should be forced to vote for a partisan social agenda in order to provide for our troops," he said.

While all this is true, perhaps the Republicans should’ve been thinking about the consequences of elections sometime prior to 2006.

You all know how we feel about hate crime laws. We hate them. Again, it would seem that the term “equality” is being confused with “gaining federal protections above what other groups receive.”

The two killers of Matthew Shepard (the gay man who was tortured and killed 11 yrs. ago in Wyoming and who has been the rallying point for gays wanting to be treated just a little more equally than others) are sitting in prison at this moment serving life terms. Just how would hate crime legislation change the outcome of their trial and/or “enhance” their punishment?

We would not have any problems if these two savages were given the death penalty and we don’t see why you would need specific (gay) hate crime law for that.

How about a simple the "Tie a person to a wooden stake to beat, torture and kill him and... get the electric chair” law?


(UPDATE #1): Greetings, racists! Slipped into the Senate version of this "defense policy bill" is wording that broadens the scope of the hate crime provisions in the House bill. The Senate bill would leave it up to the Attorney General to determine if a group is “associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government”. Some language from the bill:

(3) EVIDENCE OF ASSOCIATION OR AFFILATION WITH HATE GROUP.—The following shall constitute evidence that a person is associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence:

(A) Individuals possessing tattoos or other body markings indicating association or affiliation with a hate group.
(B) Individuals known to have attended meetings, rallies, conferences, or other activities sponsored by a hate group.
(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group’s extremist or violent views and goals.
(D) Individuals who are known to have in their possession photographs, written testimonials (including diaries or journals), propaganda, or other materials indicating involvement or affiliation with a hate group. Such materials can include photographs, written materials relating to or referring to extreme hatred that are clearly not of an academic nature, possession of objects that venerate or glorify hateinspired violence, and related materials, as determined by the Attorney General.

(italics, ours)

(H/T: Foxfier)

We're clean on the tatoo front but considering some of the rhetoric thrown around by this country's taste-makers and politicians we may be guilty on all the other fronts.

Exit question: In what sort of jeopardy does this place Che t-shirt-wearing barristas around the country and their inherent advocacy of violence and homo-phobia?

Some, just a little more equal than others Pt. II (UPDATED...again!)

(please scroll down for updates)

Article here makes the case for hate crime laws. It’s not a bad article but it presents a couple of points that re-enforces our case against hate crime laws. The author brings up perhaps the most visible and celebrated hate crime and that is the torture and murder of Matthew Shepard back in 1999. The author argues that the horrific nature of the crime against Matthew Shepard is cause for the enhanced penalties of hate crime legislation. We counter: precisely what is it about being tied to a stake, beaten and eventually murdered that does not warrant being prosecuted to the full extent of the law and then being served the harshest sentencing possible? That Matthew Sheppard was gay matters not one iota – and isn’t that the whole idea of justice?

Secondly, is a point the author fails to mention. Author gives several examples of what he would consider hate crimes including the Holocaust museum shooter and the Fort Dix terror cell. But guess which still-recent but apparently not-so-high-profile assassination he fails to mention? Yep, it’s the terrorist attack on our own soil just one month ago that dare not speak its own name. It’s this unfathomable air-brushing of a murder of a U.S. service member by an Islamic jihadist that bolsters our contention that despite their good-intentions, hate crime laws will be used as political footballs.

But do you know why else you should reject hate crime laws and in particular, the hate crime legislation that is being considered in the Senate right now? Because the Attorney General says it’s un-constitutional, that’s why.

In Testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee Attorney General Eric Holder was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) if the federal hate bill S. 909 will equally protect all Americans from violent crimes? Holder explicitly says the hate bill will not provide equal protection to most Americans. Holders says that the bill is to protect specific groups that have a history of being targeted by violence because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation.

(italics, ours)

Now, that does not seem to possess the empathy that we were hoping for. What more reason do you need to reject this excrable piece of garbage than for the top law enforcement official of the land to verify that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. We appreciate Mr. Holder's forthrightness in this matter.

We’ve been shouting this from the mountaintop for years now and here it is in black and white: Hate crime laws are driven by agenda politics, nothing more, nothing less.

Embrace the hatred of hate crime laws.

(UPDATE #1):Here’s something you might want to consider when you are pondering the true nature of hate crimes

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

Read more, here.

The amount and degree of subjectivity, alone, in deciding who does and who does not get prosecuted under hate crime laws should be enough to drop them like a bad habit.

(UPDATE #2):So, how do you get a little hate-crime legislation passed? You include it as an amendment to a $680 million defense appropriations bill and schedule a vote on it for 1 in the morning, that’s how.

Here’s Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina speaking on the appropriateness of this amendment and its logic.

Europe continues to kiss free speech good-bye

It seems that Great Britain has a little “context” dust-up of their own. British TV Channel 4, as part of a year-long investigation, featured in a program some remarks made by the preachers of the Religion of Peace inside their mosques.

The police, after initially investigating some of the individuals featured in the program, turned their sights on Channel 4. The police claimed that Channel 4 was taking the comments out of context and thus may have been possibly guilty of stirring up racial hatred.

Channel 4 stuck to their guns and eventually got a public retraction and apology from the police and prosecutors. Story here.

And this all points to the stupidity and ultimately the danger of these so-called “hate speech laws”. The very ambiguity of the letter and intent of these types of laws allows for their twisting and abuse. Similar to slimy operatives in Canada that post hate comments on websites of which they disagree in order to get those same sites investigated by various Canadian human rights commissions, the very hatred and intolerance that Channel 4 was exposing was turned right back around on them by the (thought) police as inciting hatred, themselves.

And actress, Brigitte Bardot has been fined once again by the French government for “inciting racial hatred”. Bardot, an animal rights activist wrote a letter to then-French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, arguing that Muslims should stun animals before slaughtering them during the Aid al-Kabir holiday.

“I’ve had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, and destroying our country by imposing their ways.”

She wrote to prosecutors: “I’m sickened by how anti-racist groups are harassing me.” We would like to challenge her description of these groups.

She was fined 12,000 pounds but considering about whom she was running this smack, we believe she got off easy.

Embrace the hatred of hate crime laws.

Canada is experiencing some "separation of mosque and state" problems.

We were alerted to this via Hot Air. Attached video is from a hearing conducted by something called the Alberta Human Rights Commission in Canada. The subject of this inquisition is a gentleman named Ezra Levant. What human rights violations did Levant possibly commit, you ask? Levant, as the editor of the now-defunct Western Standard reproduced in that publication those infamous Danish cartoons that made a lot of Muslims very, very angry and which we proudly link to here, via Levant’s website.

We don’t know Levant from Adam but after watching his performance at his “hearing”, he’s got some new fans. We loved his rant because every last bit of it was 100% spot-on. And if you’re wondering what the bureaucratic thug sitting opposite him could’ve possibly been scribbling down on her legal tab while Levant was taking her to the woodshed, we think it might have been, “I wish there was a rock in this room that I could crawl under”. Too bad, sugar. You gotta suffer a little to make the world a kinder, gentler, bend-over(backward)-for-Mohammed sort of place.

Damn, makes us want to throw a link to Weasel Zippers just for the hell of it.

Embrace the hatred of hate crime laws.