Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
In Baltimore, as the National Guard steps in, curfews are imposed, and business owners pick up the pieces from their burned-out, looted stores, let's not forget why one more American city has been torn apart by racial violence. Blue America has failed at social justice. It has failed at equality. It has failed at accountability. Its competing constituencies are engaged in street battles, and any exploration of "root causes" must necessarily include decades of failed policies - all imposed by steadfastly Democratic mayors and city leaders.
Are the riots caused by the Baltimore Police Department's "documented history" of abuse? Which party has run Baltimore and allowed its police officers to allegedly run amok? Going deeper, which American political movement lionizes public-employee unions, fiercely protecting them from even the most basic reform? Public-employee unions render employee discipline difficult and often impossible. Jobs are functionally guaranteed for life, and rogue officers can count on the best representation money can buy - courtesy of Blue America.
Are the riots caused by inequality? Orioles' owner Peter Angelos's son, John, made waves on the left with his "tweetstorm" stating that his "greater source of personal concern, outrage, and sympathy" was not with "one night's property damage" but with a litany of economic outrages that he claims have "plunged tens of millions of hard-working Americans into economic devastation." Mother Jones summed up his message by declaring, "At the end of the day, it comes down to social and economic inequality."
The Clinton Foundation joins Al Sharpton's troubled National Action Network on Charity Navigator's list. It seems appropriate that two great con artists, Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton, should be thus be joined.
Sharpton's outfit reportedly made the list because it didn't pay payroll taxes for several years. The Clinton Foundation's problems run deeper. According to the Post, it took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
It's important to note that the Clinton Foundation's status as a problematic charity is distinct from the "Clinton cash" issue that Peter Schweizer and others have highlighted. "Clinton cash" focuses on the fundraising methods used by the Clintons. Specifically, there are substantial allegations that they raise money in part because nations and wealthy individuals hope to influence U.S. policy through their donations, and very possibly have succeeded in doing so.
The problem flagged by Charity Navigator and other watchdogs focuses on what the Clinton Foundation does with the money it raises (whether ethically or not). The Foundation's profligacy and failure to spend a significant percentage of its funds on its alleged mission would be of concern even if there were no ethical problems associated with the Clintons' fundraising.
The two sets of problems are related, however. Both stem from the same greed, sense of entitlement, and arrogance. In this respect, both are related to a host of Clinton scandals dating back to Whitewater.
Defenestration is the act of throwing someone or something out of a window. The term was coined around the time of an incident in Prague Castle in the year 1618. The word comes from the Latin de- (out of or away from) and fenestra (window or opening). Likewise, it can also refer to the condition of being thrown out of a window, as in The Defenestration of Ermintrude Inch.
While the act of defenestration connotes the forcible or peremptory removal of an adversary, and the term is sometimes used in just that sense, it also suggests breaking the windows in the process (de- also means removal). Although defenestrations can be fatal due to the height of the window through which a person is thrown or throws oneself or due to lacerations from broken glass, the act of defenestration need not carry the intent or result of death...
Here's an excellent cinematic example (of the fatal kind) that most people will remember:
@AZEALIABANKS I'm a white person who agrees with everything you're saying about history, and about racial reality today. What exactly (cont)
— James DeWolf Perry (@JDeWPerry) December 26, 2014
As Executive Director of the Tracing Center, James DeWolf Perry has devoted a major portion of his life to educating Americans about the horrors of slavery. He was "nominated for an Emmy Award for his role as the principal historical consultant for our PBS documentary, Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North." He is, in other words, the perfect white liberal. You might think this would win him some points with hard-core leftist Azealia Banks, a singer/songwriter. Not exactly. Read her harangues below, then see how Mr. White Liberal responded.
Family's slave-trading roots raise emotional, disturbing questions - The Denver Post http://t.co/rMzb8ITwMp
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
I wonder where the descendants of the "DeWolf" family are today. they should all have their houses burned and their finances seized.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry excuse me sir, but all the money you are making from documenting UR family's history of slave trading... Are you giving it back?
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
This generation of young back kids needs to make a CONCERTED effort to seek out living descendants of major slave trading families.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
They Owe us Money.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
Jews and Native Americans all got reparations because they organized. Please don't let my "beef" with hip-hop distract from what we need...
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
To be focusing on. We are owed MAJOR FUCKING BUCKS kids, MAJOR BUCKS.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
Aetna, New York Life Insurance Company, and JP Morgan and Chase all have deep connections to the Slave trade, and are .....
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
Still holding on to that capital. They used the money they made from our flesh and blood to fund the Industrial revolution.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
Please please please do not get distracted with reality tv and rap music and fashion and all that other dumb shit.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
We are the children of the people who perished in the name of modern capitalism and we deserve a piece of that fucking pie.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@AZEALIABANKS Thanks for asking. No, I'm not making any money from documenting the DeWolf family's slave trading past.
— James DeWolf Perry (@JDeWPerry) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry can you provide me with some proof of that? It would be greatly appreciated.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry I would also like to know what your family did with all the money they made from the slave trade.. You guys had 47ships, correct?
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry but this is an A & B conversation, I am perfectly aware of what I'm talking about. please answer the question.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry what did you family do with all the money you made from slavery???? I need to know. Now.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry and please provide me with proof of you NOT making money off of documenting your family's slave trading history.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry WHAT DID YOUR FAMILY DO WITH THE MONEY YOU MADE FROM SLAVERY
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry so if you are volunteering, that must mean that you have some sort of money to live on. Where did this money come from?
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@TracingCenter no, it would actually be more appropriate for you to avoid the topic all together. We don't want your help.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry I want to know what you do for money. If you are volunteering ur time to "help" black folk... How do you put food on your table?
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry do you realize that you actually aren't doing the right thing? Do you realize that you are minimizing the African (ctnd)
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry why volunteering to chat about slavery?? You are simply reinforcing your whiteness by not REALLY addressing the problem at hand.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry well if you are trying to educate white people, why not prompt them to trace their own roots and see if there is a history of ...
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry slavery... And if so, urge them to share that money and wealth with the black youth.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry yes, but more importantly... You all have to PAY US MONEY.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry trust me, NO ONE BELIEVES THAT. THE ENTRIE COUNTRY KNOWS THE BASIS OF MODERN CAPITALISM IS SLAVERY.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry WHITE PEOPLE DONT NEED HELP. BLACK PEOPLE NEED HELP.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry generational poverty is a REAL thing.the black youth are still suffering greatly because of this.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry generational poverty is the NUMBER ONE reason African Americans are at such great a disadvantage today.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry why Do u keep referring to white people? I am not talking about white people. I'mtalking about the people your family fucked over
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@AZEALIABANKS You're talking about my work, and whether ppl need educating. I agree that white people aren't the ones suffering here
— James DeWolf Perry (@JDeWPerry) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry yes you should. you should absolutely uninvolve yourself until you're are ready to trace the slaves your family owned...
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry and pay them back the money your family made off the flesh and blood of their ancestors. You should absolutely go away.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry I think white men all need to be locked away in a psych ward... Considering the atrocities committed by white men ON THE WORLD.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry you sound like a hypocrite. This is all about white folk to you. This is just another way for you guys to pretend to be sry.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry we don't need educating. We need our money so we can go an educate OURSELVES, I'm tired of white mans version of history...
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry someone should kick your ass, and punch you right in your stupid smiling cracker face,
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@JDeWPerry The "Tracing Center" is nothing more than some bullshit cultural fetishism.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@FAMOUSrockstarr I never said we aren't getting anywhere, I said there are disproportionate amounts of poor blacks to whites,
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@4SarahJama no we need money so we can get the fuck out of here before ISIS blows this shit up.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@TracingCenter you guys are nothing but cultural fetishists. Disgusting and gross.
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
Germany to Pay 772 Million Euros in Reparations to Holocaust Survivors - SPIEGEL ONLINE http://t.co/789ugYylZ1
— AZEALIA BANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) December 26, 2014
@AZEALIABANKS Yeah, I hate that smiling picture of me, too. I imagine it seems obnoxious.
— James DeWolf Perry (@JDeWPerry) December 26, 2014
@AZEALIABANKS I'm a white person who agrees with everything you're saying about history, and about racial reality today. What exactly (cont)
— James DeWolf Perry (@JDeWPerry) December 26, 2014
@AZEALIABANKS ... do you think I've done? Aside from educating white people about the ideas you're tweeting about right now?
— James DeWolf Perry (@JDeWPerry) December 26, 2014
@ImaFlyMalcolmX If you want the $$, I truly believe more Americans have to un-learn their history of race, to see it how @AZEALIABANKS does
— James DeWolf Perry (@JDeWPerry) December 26, 2014
Pathetic.
Indeed. But also illustrative. By the way, did anybody every figure out if the video below is a parody or not? Who can tell with these moonbats?
This past week the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) issued a new report that identifies Ayo Kimathi, an employee of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of Homeland Security, as "the Irritated Genie," the proprietor of a site that calls for the mass murder of whites and homosexuals. The site, War on the Horizon, is dedicated to intellectually, spiritually, psychologically and physically preparing blacks for "a global clash that will mean the end of white rule on this planet or the end of the Black Race as we know it."
By day, Ayo Kimathi works for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a small business specialist in a unit that buys such items as handcuffs, ammunition and guns.
Off-duty, he calls himself "the Irritated Genie." He's a gay-bashing, revenge-seeking black nationalist who advocates on his website – War on the Horizon – the mass murder of whites and the "ethnic cleansing" of "black-skinned Uncle Tom race traitors."
"Warfare is eminent," the website declares, "and in order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites – more than our Christian hearts can possibly count."
A former supervisor of Kimathi's at the DHS told Hatewatch, "Everybody in the office is afraid of him."
"This guy is filled with hate," the supervisor continued. "People are afraid he will come in with a gun someday and go postal. I am astounded, he's employed by the federal government, let alone Homeland Security."
Ah yes, Homeland "Security." What a bureaucratic nightmare it has turned out to be. It was Big Sis Janet Napolitano's DHS that four years ago produced a thoroughly execrable report on the dangers of extreme "right-wing terrorism." How much trust can the people have in an agency that either couldn't or wouldn't deal with this maniac until an outside group, in this case the SPLC, brought it to their attention?
Because the left-wing SPLC issued a report the left-wing media had no choice but to hold their noses and cover the story. But notice how they managed to work in references to Westboro and Stormfront. While it's true that they're all haters, it's as if Raw Story is implying that Kimathi is merely the black franchise of a Westboro-Stormfront homophobic-racist complex rather than an organic product of the black community.
Among the videos available on his site are ones in which he warns that "the Homophiles are coming," and that "black resistance to the white-sex [gay] assault" begins with "the Brothers and Sisters on the Afrikan continent…taking true leadership in the fight against the expansion of white-sex among Black people." He criticizes President Obama for being "a treasonous mulatto scum dweller…who will fight against reparations for Black people in amerikkka, but in favor of [gay] rights for freaks in amerikkka and Afrika."
In this respect, Kimathi's rhetoric mirrors that of many anti-LGBT and white supremacist groups, whether it be the stream of anti-LGBT statements from Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church or the white nationalist National Vanguard, which writes of "the certainty that multiracialism is a death sentence for any society that attempts it [so] it is inevitable that at some point the distribution of power and authority in America - and the rest of the White world - will change dramatically."
Abby Ohlheiser at The Atlantic Wire was even more specific in making the comparison.
The content of Kimathi's advocacy demands some clarification. In some (white, conservative) circles, the term "black supremacist" is applied with a very wide brush. Black supremacy was the implication of Maine Governor Paul LePage's reported comments that President Obama "hates white people," for instance. Kimathi's site is not in this vein of this imagined threat - on the contrary, War on the Horizon calls Obama a "a treasonous mulatto scum dweller," and lists him among the movement's enemies (also on the list? Oprah Winfrey, Whoopi Goldberg, and Condoleezza Rice, among others).
And, of course, the real threat is not a maniac like Kimathi and those who take him seriously and approve of his views but rather white Conservatives who raise awareness about it.
Conservatives don't tend to be fans of the Southern Poverty Law Center: this is the same group that labeled The American Family Association and pretty much the entire anti-Islam movement as hate groups. But their report seems primed to stoke the fires of a set of American conservatives who already believe the DHS is hoarding ammunition (contrary to the evidence), either to build a secret army, or to prevent gun owners from accessing it.
As a federal employee, Kimathi was required to get permission to operate his website. Apparently this wasn't all that difficult.
Kimathi obtained official permission but only by misrepresenting the true nature of his endeavor. He told management that it was an entertainment website selling videos of concerts and lectures. He called it simply WOH, never saying that WOH stood for War on the Horizon.
"If he had adequately and truthfully described his group," the supervisor said, "I can't imagine for a minute he would have been granted permission."
That's your Department of Homeland Security, folks. Nothing gets past them. For the record, ICE did respond to The Atlantic Wire with this statement:
ICE does not condone any type of hateful rhetoric or advocacy of violence of any kind against anyone. Every ICE employee is held to the highest standard of professional and ethical conduct. Accusations of misconduct are investigated thoroughly and if substantiated, appropriate action is taken.
Yesterday Fox News reported that on Friday the DHS announced that Kimathi had been placed on "paid leave." Paid leave is bureaucratic double-talk for "vacation." His website is still up but YouTube shut down his account. Nevertheless, here's a short clip of a typical Kimathi rant.
The clumsy argument she makes in her article would be comical if it wasn't so damn dangerous. She is either inexcusably naive or unforgivably disingenuous. You be the judge.
Now that the trial is over, we ought to know their names.
I'm not advocating that these women become targets of anger over their not guilty verdict - I think they made a sound decision based on the law.
And I'm not suggesting that the jurors be pressured to talk if they choose not to.
I am saying that judges have no business keeping juries anonymous once a trial is over.
Secrecy has no place in a court system founded on openness.
Probably no surprise coming from a newspaper columnist.
(Full disclosure: My employer, the Orlando Sentinel, is arguing in court for the jurors' names to be made public. The judge hasn't ruled.)
It's so generous of her to not advocate that the jurors become targets. Wow. But surely she knows that while a citizen does have a right to refuse to speak to reporters it doesn't do them much good when the reporters are camped outside the house, just waiting for the juror (or members of the juror's family) to come out and run the gauntlet. Is she really that naive?
Does she really think that a media feeding frenzy can be neutralized merely by refusing to cooperate with it? If anything, the opposite is true. The fact of the matter is that they will be pressured - relentlessly pressured - whether they encourage it or not. She and her employer, the liberal Orlando Sentinel, have a self-serving interest in outing these jurors and it's legitimate to suspect that their interest is not merely for the sake of transparency. She can claim that she agrees with the verdict but that's actually a bit weaselly.
Most experts, including the ones who hate the verdict, understand that the prosecution's case simply did not meet it's burden of proof. Agreeing with that assessment is one thing. But there are obviously plenty of people who are furious about it. Dangerously furious.
There's no reason to assume that Kassab and her newspaper are interested in doing fluff pieces about the jurors. They want to give the jurors the journalistic version of a TSA-style cavity search in order to satisfy the outrageously outrageous outrage of their liberal readers. She continues:
But there are reasons why everyone should care about making sure juries aren't kept in the shadows.
Plain and simple: Secret juries undermine public confidence in the system.
The right to a jury trial is as fundamental as the other civil liberties also enshrined in the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers intentionally set up the jury system — panels of everyday people to judge guilt. What a stark contrast to the secretive Star Chamber courts that colonists left behind.
When juries aren't open to scrutiny, the American legal system is asking for trouble.
Whoaa! Say hello to Mr. Strawman! First of all, it's not really a "secret" jury. The court knows who they are. Everybody who was allowed in the courtroom during proceedings saw them sitting there, day after day.
Secondly, the jurors were "scrutinized" - by the court and by both the prosecutors and defense lawyers. It's called voir dire:
From French "to see to speak," the questioning of prospective jurors by a judge and attorneys in court. Voir dire is used to determine if any juror is biased and/or cannot deal with the issues fairly, or if there is cause not to allow a juror to serve (knowledge of the facts; acquaintanceship with parties, witnesses or attorneys; occupation which might lead to bias; prejudice against the death penalty; or previous experiences such as having been sued in a similar case).
And the jurors were not running the show, so nothing happened in that courtroom on their initiative except when they asked a question. In other words, sequestering them did not grant them any special authority or influence over the proceedings. It was their inconvenience, not ours. Also, nobody is advocating that all trial juries be kept secret as a general rule. The vast majority of them are not like this. Clearly this case required special precautions. Her argument would have some validity if there actually were people demanding that all juries be sequestered. But they're not. Then she tries to provide an example...big mistake!
Consider the case of John Gotti.
The Mafia leader was acquitted of racketeering by an anonymous jury in 1987.
Five years went by before it was discovered that one juror had Mafia connections and took a bribe to push for an acquittal.
Perhaps if the jury had not been anonymous, the truth about the rogue juror would have been discovered sooner - or the bribe wouldn't have happened at all because the risk of scrutiny would have been too great.
Actually, the point of keeping the jurors secret was not only to protect them from possible retaliation but also to shield them from attempts at bribery and/or intimidation prior to the trial. As she points out, the precautions ultimately failed to keep one of the jurors from tanking the verdict. He was a friend of a friend of a "friend of ours." Go figure! Is she really saying that had the media known who the jurors were that they could have prevented the fix? Naive or disingenuous?
She goes on to explain that the need to protect the identities of jurors grew during the 1980s and early '90s due to serious threat of organized crime and ultra-violent drug cartels. Her argument now, apparently, is that if that kind of threat doesn't exist then there's no legitimate reason to keep jurors anonymous. She claims that the "media and the public" are being unfairly categorized as the new "bad guys."
Legal experts I talked with couldn't recall a single instance of a juror being hurt or threatened after a trial.
They might have to deal with knocks on the door by reporters, but they aren't compelled to talk - though some of them almost always do.
Just look at B37, who is making book deals and TV appearances while also enjoying her anonymity.
The ink was barely dry on Zimmerman's acquittal form when an agent announced B37 had a book deal (short-lived, it turns out). Then B37 appeared on CNN on Monday and Tuesday night, though only in a darkened silhouette that didn't show her face.
Naive or disingenuous? She doesn't have any evidence regarding a juror being hurt or threatened after a trial. Really? Is that the new standard? It seems to me that prior to February 2012 George Zimmerman had never killed anybody before. And yet it happened. It's funny how first-time things happen, even when they never happened before. Liberal "logic" at work. But, again, how magnanimous she is to concede that they might have to deal with people knocking on their door. How 20th Century. Is she really not aware of the internet and social media? Is she not aware that thanks to Google Maps any asshole can find a juror's house, including a street visual, and go there to do pretty much whatever they want?
Given the emotional outcry, the threats of violence as well as actual violence and property damage we've seen since the verdict, does she really think that the public poses no threat? She finally confirms her snarky liberal bias when she mentions the juror who appeared on CNN and briefly had a book deal. What she doesn't mention is how and why the book deal was ultimately scrubbed.
It was a Twitter mob. They were angry that the jury acquitted Zimmerman; angry about her appearing on CNN; angry about what she had to say and angry that she was going to "profit from the acquittal." I'm pretty sure that such a book deal would have been offered whatever the final verdict. So the book deal had nothing to do with the acquittal. Not that it mattered to the mob.
They didn't know the identity of the juror but they did know the identity of the literary agent who had made the offer. So they applied pressure to her instead. One can only imagine what kind of pressure they would have brought to bear on the juror herself if they could have. As it was, the agent quickly surrendered and dumped the juror. The juror herself also responded by saying that she would not pursue a book deal in the future.
But, of course, there's no chance that outing the jurors would subject them to mob action, either in person or via the media...right?
