The Justice Department’s hate crime investigation of Saturday’s incident in Charlottesville, Va. is not limited just to James Alex Fields Jr., the 20-year-old man charged with second-degree murder after allegedly running over a woman demonstrating against white supremacists.
A Department of Justice official familiar with the hate crime investigation says that the agency is looking into whether others individuals were involved in the attack, which occurred around mid-day Saturday after local police broke up a white supremacist rally being held near a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
Video recordings showed a 2010 Dodge Challenger registered to Fields plowing into a crowd of anti-fascist counter-protesters in downtown Charlottesville.
Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal, was killed in what police say was a deliberate attack. As many as 19 other people were injured.
There has been no indication yet that Fields coordinated the attack with someone else. (Read more from “DOJ’s Charlottesville Hate Crime Probe Extends Beyond Driver” HERE)
California’s Bay Area Rapid Transit officials are refusing to release surveillance video of assaults aboard its trains, saying to do so would “create a racial bias” and accusing the media of exploiting the images for ratings.
BART announced last week it would also no longer issue press releases about crimes on the transit system, instead submitting incidents to the website CrimeMapping.com.
“Disproportionate elevation of crimes on transit interfaces with local media in such a way to unfairly affect and characterize riders of color, leading to sweeping generalizations in media reports and a high level of racially insensitive commentary directed toward the District through our social-media channels, email and call centers,” assistant general manager Kerry Hamill said.
Recent incidents of onboard violence have attracted media attention, with reports of passengers’ phones and other property being taken and some passengers being beaten. Most incidents have been linked to the Coliseum station in Oakland.
A woman had her phone snatched June 30 in a swarming attack by “about a dozen teenagers,” who got off the train at the Coliseum stop. Two days before, four teens took a cellphone from a passenger they attacked at the Dublin station. On April 22, 40-60 teens boarded the train at the Coliseum station and robbed seven passengers and beat up two. (Read more from “Surveillance Video of Criminals Now ‘Racist'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/640px-MTA_Metro_North_6710_on_New_Jersey_Transit_train_1728.jpg480640Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-07-12 21:55:302017-07-12 21:55:30Surveillance Video of Criminals Now ‘Racist’
That’s because you’ve been duped by the left – and especially by Barack Obama, who used the “lie” of racial grievances for his own personal gain and ultimately divided America.
“Black Americans got worse under Barack Obama than any other time in the history of America,” said WND exclusive columnist Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, author of “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame and Victimhood,” during a July 3 appearance on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
“If it was a race issue, why didn’t it get better? We had a black president,” Peterson said. “The races were more divided as a result of Barack Obama because he used them for his own personal gain and didn’t care about them” . . .
“We have a president who is going to keep his word. He’s keeping his word by putting America first. He doesn’t care what color you are, whether you’re male or female. He loves us, he loves the country,” Peterson told Carlson Monday evening. (Read more from “America, ‘Racist’? How Obama Duped U.S. With 1 Dangerous ‘Lie'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/No_to_racism-1.png761791Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-07-04 23:43:462017-07-04 23:43:46America, ‘Racist’? How Obama Duped U.S. With 1 Dangerous ‘Lie’
It’s been seven months. Still many of us are trying to understand how Trump won the election last fall. I sure didn’t see it coming. All the surveys predicted a Clinton victory. Trump did plenty to make him unattractive to large groups of voters. Racism was a special concern, due to his comments about Hispanic “rapists,” his flirting with white nationalism and his talk of Muslim bans.
Political Correctness: The Underlying Cause?
I have been, and I still am, concerned with the way Trump handles racial issues. So I was not surprised to see The Nation reporting research by Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel suggesting racism as a major reason explaining support for Trump. But a further look at this claim is not convincing, since I knew there were large numbers of previous Obama supporters who voted for Trump in 2016.
So I thought a better answer could probably be found elsewhere. Looking around, I found this Clearer Thinking analysis of 138 factors that might have influenced voters to choose one candidate over the other. I have questions about the methods, but we’ll bypass those.
The key is that other than belonging to the Republican Party, the best predictor of whether a person voted for Trump was whether he or she hated political correctness (PC). More than half (54 percent) of Trump’s vote came from those who totally agreed that there is too much PC in America. This is in contrast to racial issues, such as immigration, for example. Only 21 percent of Trump’s vote came from those who totally agreed that immigrants threaten American customs and values.
This makes sense to me. The way Trump offended certain groups supported the idea that he would fight PC. I remember talking to Trump supporters who wanted to “burn it down.” I was confused by this at the time, but now I think what they wanted was to burn down PC rules. These were not racists, they were people who hated PC.
Can This Explain the Perceived “Racial Resentment”?
Of course there were still some Trump voters who were attracted to the white nationalist message they believed he was presenting. So I want to be clear: I am not saying racism played no effect in any of Trump’s support. But I fear that some researchers and reports overstate its importance in his election.
Concerns over PC also help to explain research supporting McElwee and McDaniel’s racial resentment argument. They created what they call a “racial resentment” measure, which they describe (rather abrasively) as, “Racial resentment measures dog-whistle or color-blind forms of racism, such as the belief that black people need to simply ‘try harder’ to be successful in America.”
I have my own criticism of colorblindness. I do not think we will advance our race relations by ignoring the effects of racism in our history, or the ways it still impacts people of color today. But when I debate the merits of colorblindness with others, I don’t usually see them as having racial resentment.
Questions about colorblindness may tap into hostility against PC rules, though, since many people think society is fair as it is, and that PC makes it unfair. For people who truly think that we have defeated racism, efforts to keep on addressing it can seem like “PC”. People who voted for Obama five years ago, and Trump last year, did not suddenly turn and start resenting blacks. But they may have grown tired of PC rules over that period of time.
Did Racism Put Trump in the White House?
Now, in the past I have attacked Trump for race-baiting. I’ve argued that Christians were wrong to support him in view of his connection with the alt-right. One may wonder, then, why I criticize the argument about racism. Am I backing down from my own arguments? Not really. I still think Christians are going to pay a price for supporting Trump. It will become more difficult to reach socially conservative people of color. We’ve also badly damaged our witness by tying ourselves to the white nationalism that buttresses Trump. So I have not changed: I have been a critic of Trump in the past and will be one in the future.
But the truth and honesty remain vitally important. The research shows that anti-PC attitudes explain whites’ support for Trump better than racism or anti-black resentment.
I know that many liberals want to tie Trump’s election to racism. I would have no problem doing so if I thought the evidence warranted it. But it does not. (For more from the author of “Political Correctness Won Trump the Presidency” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/20522321974_ff107b5de1_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-06-04 23:28:312017-06-04 23:28:31Political Correctness Won Trump the Presidency
Why is it that when whites engage in violent acts against blacks, many on the left assume that those criminal acts must be hate-based, but when the tables are turned and the violence is black on white, many on the left no longer see color, looking for any explanation other than racial hate? Why the double standard?
According to CNN’s Don Lemon, the horrific kidnapping and torture of a mentally disabled white man by a group of four black teenagers — who had the audacity and stupidity to air it on Facebook live — wasn’t really evil.
Responding to Matt Lewis, who had commented on the extreme “evil” nature of the crime, Lemon replied, “I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil. I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.”
Not evil? Seriously? Just young people with bad home training?
Lemon’s comment drew immediate scorn, including tweets like this: “Hey @donlemon was Dylan Roof evil? Or just the victim of bad home training?” (Dylan Roof was the young white man who slaughtered 9 black parishioners during a church service in South Carolina.)
Does anyone for a moment think that Lemon, who himself is black, would have reacted the same way had this been a horrific, white on black crime?
To be clear, I’m glad that white on black violence has been exposed in recent years thanks to cell phone cameras, and to the extent that whites specifically targeted blacks — as in the case of Dylan Roof — our outrage should be even more acute.
But why shouldn’t we be just as concerned with targeted black on white violence, as in the many examples of the infamous “knockout games”?
I understand that, in the eyes of many blacks, to reply immediately to the phrase “black lives matter” with the phrase “all lives matter” is to minimize the point they were making. But at what point can we say, “White lives matter too”? Why is that forbidden?
A recent anti-white, MTV video even mocked the idea that “blue lives matter,” since people aren’t blue. Tell that to the widows and orphans of the cops who were killed in cold blood while serving our country this year.
Being on talk radio, I’ve heard from many God-fearing, church-going, authority-honoring black callers who shared with me their stories of being racially profiled, of experiencing discrimination, of even fearing for their lives at times simply because they were black, and I don’t doubt their stories for a moment.
While flying home recently, I was upgraded to first class and sat next to a black gentleman who could have passed for a former (or even current) football player. As we talked, he told me he was the president of a university, holding a J.D. and a Ph.D. When we discussed the issue of discrimination, he shared with me the obstacles he had to overcome and how, to this day, when he sits in first class, people look at him like he’s sitting in the wrong place or else assume he must be an athlete. After all, why else would a large black man be flying in first class?
So, to repeat, my intent here is not to minimize anti-black sentiment in America; my intent is to expose the hypocritical double standards, and this recent, ugly incident, has brought all this to the surface.
Remember that the torturers were yelling “f**k white people” and “f**k Trump” as they abused this young man, yet Democratic strategist Symone Sanders (also black), appearing on the same discussion panel with Don Lemon, wasn’t sure it was a hate crime. She said,
If we start going around and anytime someone says or does something egregious or bad and sickening in sense. In connection with the president-elect Donald Trump or even President Obama for that matter because of their political leanings, that’s slippery territory. That is not a hate crime.
I actually believe she has a point here, albeit a minor one, but again, it’s the double-standard and the hypocrisy that concern me, since this is the very thing we’ve been subjected to for the last 8 years, namely, assuming that white criticism of President Obama must be race-based. Yet when it’s black on white hatred in conjunction with black-on-Trump hatred, we have to tread carefully lest we head into “slippery territory.”
To ask the obvious question, what would Sanders have said if, two weeks before Obama’s first inauguration, four young white people kidnapped and tortured a mentally disabled black person, shouting, “f**k black people” and “f**k Obama”?
Wouldn’t hatred of Obama equal hatred of blacks in the eyes of Sanders, and wouldn’t she quickly brand this a glaring example of a dangerous hate crime that could be a portent of worse things to come? (For the record, within 24 hours of her statement quoted here, when pressed by Anderson Cooper, Sanders did acknowledge the kidnapping and torture as a hate crime, following the lead of the prosecutors.)
For a glaring example of hypocrisy, right from the White House, what about the statement of Press Secretary Josh Earnest, when pressed by the media about whether this was a hate crime?
He would not answer directly, since he claimed he had not yet discussed it with the president and was waiting for official word from law enforcement, stressing how important it was for them to do come to their conclusions first. But this is the very thing that the Obama administration has not done when controversial, white on black cases came to national attention.
To give one case in point, think back to the 2009 arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, a black man, by police Sgt. James Crowley, a white man.
When asked about the incident at a news conference that week, President Obama said, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played.”
“But,” he added, “I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 … that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
Indeed, he stated, that the arrest shows “how race remains a factor in this society” — and to repeat, he said this without knowing the facts.
The charges against Gates were, in fact, dropped (he was trying to “break in” to his own house when a neighbor called to report the suspicious activity), but Sgt. Crowley had not acted stupidly, nor did the arrest have anything to do with race, which is one reason why President Obama subsequently invited Gates and Crowley to have a beer with him and Vice President Biden at the White House.
Yet when it comes to a heinous, black on white hate crime today, the White House doesn’t want to speak prematurely, wanting to let local law enforcement do its work.
After Earnest’s statement, President Obama did refer to the kidnapping and torture as a “despicable” hate crime, and other black voices, like Montel Williams, denounced the crime in the strongest terms. But the reaction of others, like Lemon and Sanders and Earnest, points to a larger issue, and it is one we can’t ignore.
As for Lemon’s contention that the kids were raised poorly, that may be true — although the grandmother who raised one of the accused kidnappers would strongly differ with that assessment — but plenty of people who commit evil acts were not raised well, and we don’t minimize their deeds because of their unfortunate upbringing. And, again, I doubt that Lemon would have made such an excuse had the racial tables been turned.
Of course, the whole category of “hate crimes” carries its own set of controversies, but that’s not the focus here. The focus is to expose left-wing, anti-white hypocrisy, and if we really care about justice, that means justice for all.
As for the black young people who committed this crime, while they deserve justice, I pray for their redemption as well, along with the physical and emotional recovery of the white young person who was abused.
(For more from the author of “When It’s Black on White Crime the Left Goes Color Blind” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/black-lives-matter-1011597_960_720.jpg720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-01-08 21:15:342017-01-08 21:15:34When It’s Black on White Crime the Left Goes Color Blind
No sooner was it clear that Donald Trump would be our next president then the “racist” and “sexist” charges started to fly.
According to CNN’s Van Jones, the vote for Trump was, in part, a “whitelash” against President Obama’s blackness.
According to MSNBC’s Al Sharpton, populist, white support for Trump today is not “Bernie Sanders populism” but rather “George Wallace populism.”
According to ABC’s Cokie Roberts, lots of men voted for Trump because there is “probably” a “strong sentiment about not having a woman president.”
In reality, millions of Americans were fed up with the direction of this country, not with the color of President Obama’s skin. And, these same frustrated Americans would have gladly voted for a strong conservative female against a weak liberal male. (Just imagine how they would have rallied around a Republican Margaret Thatcher had she been running against Democrat Bernie Sanders.)
That being said, I do not deny for a moment that racism and sexism exist in America, nor do I deny that Donald Trump helped deepen the divides among us. We are a country of 340 million people, and we have more than enough racists and sexists among us.
But, percentage-wise, I suspect that there are just as many black racists as white racists (or Hispanic racists, etc.) and there are just as many men-hating feminists as there are women-degrading male chauvinists. And let’s not forget Hillary’s divisiveness either.
Applying a Little Logic
But rather than look at this statistically with regard to the Trump-Hillary vote (as David French has done when it comes to race and as exit poll analyses have broken down in greater detail), let’s apply a little logic and see if there might be some double standards.
Thinking back to the Hillary-Obama primary battle in 2008, which at times was quite intense, were Obama’s voters sexist for rejecting Hillary? Conversely, were Hillary’s voters racist for rejecting Obama? Of course, questions like this would never be asked, since the voters in question were liberals and Democrats who, by default, cannot be guilty of racism or sexism. Obviously!
Interestingly, it was during the 2008 campaign that John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, yet the same “angry white males” who rejected Hillary in 2016 because of her gender embraced Sarah Palin despite hers. Or could it be that the issue was not gender but rather policies?
In my varied roles as a conservative leader, radio host, author, professor, minister, and public speaker, I have interacted with thousands of voters who could not vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. And not one of them ever brought up the color of his skin, while perhaps two or three brought up the fact that Hillary was a woman (and they believed that men should govern and lead).
On the flip side, a large percentage of these people (including me) really wanted to have the privilege of voting for the first black president, but we could not do so in good conscience. At the same time, I can tell you that I know countless women and men who would never vote for Hillary because of her policies and character, not her gender.
Unfortunately, because we are all conservatives who tend to vote Republican, we are, by default, sexists and racists. Of course!
Please Help Me Understand
But perhaps I’m missing the point and one of my progressive friends can enlighten me. Please help me understand.
When it comes to a black candidate vs. a white candidate, when blacks vote for the black candidate in overwhelming percentages, that’s not racist, but when whites vote for the white candidate in fairly large percentages, that is racist. Can anyone explain how that works?
In the same way, when it comes to a female candidate vs. a male candidate, when women vote for the female candidate in overwhelming percentages, that’s not sexist, but when men vote for the male candidate in fairly large percentages, that is sexist.
Could it be that the problem is not with the racism and sexism of the right but rather with the racist and sexist projections of the left? Could it be that it is the racist and sexist lens through which some of them see the rest of the world?
Again, this is not to deny the existence of racism and sexism on the right. It is to dispute the pervasiveness of those ugly attitudes on the right and to ask if there is not as least as much of it on the left.
Ironically, in a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black, it was Al Sharpton who stated that Trump “knew exactly what he was doing, he was playing to the worst elements.” How extraordinary!
I personally believe that both Hillary and Trump ran very divisive campaigns and, as one who voted for Trump and urged others not to vote for Hillary, I will gladly hold him accountable for his divisiveness. And certainly, I hope to see a good amount of diversity in those he appoints to serve.
But since Trump has now pledged to be the president of all Americans, and since Hillary and Obama have urged their supporters to give Trump a chance, the best we can do is drop the race-baiting, gender-baiting rhetoric and treat each other with grace and respect in the midst of our serious differences. (For more from the author of “Here Come the Charges of Racism and Sexism” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8084824444_b6d6df9569_b.jpg6781024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-11-10 22:03:172016-11-10 22:03:17Here Come the Charges of Racism and Sexism
Professors at Smith College in Northampton, Mass. are being denounced as white supremacists after private messages were leaked in which they claim affirmative action sets up students for academic failure at the school.
The controversy in question concerns two letters sent by faculty in Smith’s School for Social Work to school administrators. Although the letters were initially private, they were leaked to students at the school by an unknown person, who said they wished to reveal the “violent, racist rhetoric directed toward students of color on the Smith campus.”
The first letter, sent by professor Dennis Miehls, warns that the school was failing in its “gatekeeper” function by admitting too many academically unprepared applicants.
“Why do you, as administrators, continue to offer differential outcomes to students of color, in spite of overwhelming data that demonstrates that many of our students, including white-identified students, cannot offer clients a social work intervention that is based upon competence, skills and ethics,” Miehls said in his letter. Miehls went so far as to call the admissions process “tainted” because of how willing it was to admit unprepared non-white students.
A separate letter, signed only “Concerned Adjuncts,” isn’t as explicit about race, but voices similar concerns that lowered standards for certain groups were setting them up for failure. (Read more from “College Professors Admit Affirmative Action Is Failing Students, Get Called Racist” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/640px-Smith_college_campus_center_20040912.jpg480640Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-18 21:37:292016-08-18 21:37:29College Professors Admit Affirmative Action Is Failing Students, Get Called Racist
I will give you all the money in my pockets right now if this isn’t one of the most racist things you’ve ever read, also the most disgusting, vile, and evil things. A football player violently raped a woman (heinous enough as it is) and justified it thusly: “that’s for 400 years of slavery.”
If your eyes just popped out of your head and rolled across the floor, go pick them up. Dust them off. Put them back in your head. Because no, you didn’t read that wrong. This football player actually used that “justification” for his terrible act.
“Mr. Batey continued to abuse and degrade me, urinating on my face while uttering horrific racial hate speech that suggested I deserved what he was doing to me because of the color of my skin. He didn’t even know who I was” . . .
On Friday, multiple sources confirmed to The Tennessean the statement Batey made. “That’s for 400 years of slavery you b—-,” Batey said, according to the sources.
Thankfully, Corey Batey was sentenced to 15 years of prison in what the judge called “one of the saddest cases that I have ever encountered.” Unfortunately, it’s not under the prison where he belongs. We could spend days describing the place where this monster belongs. Days. I’ll give you a hint as to what I’m thinking: this place involves fire. Lots of fire. (Read more from “College Football Star Says He Raped Woman as Payback for ‘400 Years of Slavery'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Peabodyvu.jpg19202560Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-07-20 23:22:212016-07-23 19:15:05College Football Star Says He Raped Woman as Payback for ‘400 Years of Slavery’
It is a strange election cycle when Republicans go to war with each other with a ferocity rarely manifest when they are confronting Democrats and their progressive agendas.
It is especially puzzling because a general consensus has formed on the right that the Democratic Party is moving so far left that its agendas threaten the very foundations of America’s social contract. These include a frontal assault on the system of individual rights that the Founders set in place. The left envisions a fundamentally transformed America where individual rights are secondary to the collective rights of races, ethnicities, genders and classes. That is why the particular circumstances of individual acts, such as the ones that led to the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, for example, don’t matter to progressive mobs. It’s the races of the actors that do.
This progressive assault is being waged in the name of an “identity politics” that places whites at the bottom of the racial totem pole while holding them responsible for all the sins attributed to Americans but none of their achievements, specifically their success in creating the most tolerant and inclusive society on earth. Identity politics has a long and ugly history under its proper name – fascism – which is another term for the socialism of the Volk or nation (as opposed, for example, to the socialism of classes). Today p.c. fascism is an integral feature of the ethos and tactics of the progressive left, which has become the dominant force in the Democratic Party.
Republicans may feel they have the luxury of being nasty towards each other because they fail to grasp that in the hands of their opponents politics has become a form of warfare conducted by other means. It is no longer about getting elected and enjoying the perks of office. It is about defaming opponents with the intention of driving them from the public square, so that only the party of “decency” and “compassion” remains standing. Its effect is to traduce the culture of civility that respects dissent, and its logical conclusion is a one-party culture and state. (Read more from “Anti-White Racism: The Hate That Dares Not Speak Its Name” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/20806433789_8fc8d460aa_b.jpg467700Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-04-27 02:27:072016-04-27 02:27:07Anti-White Racism: The Hate That Dares Not Speak Its Name
Leave it to famed Hollywood tough guy Clint Eastwood to give some common sense to those in Hollywood who accuse the Oscars of being “too white.”
The cameras from the Hollywood gossip site TMZ discovered the famed actor and director exiting an establishment in Tinsel Town and threw out the question about the Oscar controversy.
The five-time Oscar winner and eleven-time nominee had a bit of advice for the folks all upset over the nominations this year. He was certainly soft spoken and even tempered about it all, but his answer did have a bit of a bite to it.
“All I know is,” the Dirty Harry star said, “there are thousands of people in the Academy and a lot of them–the majority of them–haven’t won Oscars.”
He admitted he wasn’t paying too much attention to those upset over the annual movie awards adding, “a lot of people are crying, I guess” . . .
A boycott of the Oscars was called for by African American stars like actor Will Smith, his wife Jada Pinkett Smith, Director Spike Lee, and others. (Read more from “Clint Eastwood Destroys ‘All-White’ Oscars Protesters With 1 Perfect Sentence” HERE)