If you are not redirected automatically, follow at http://ingemusings.blogs.vcstar.com/

Results tagged “racism” from IngeMusings

Movie review: Django Unchained

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar
Considering Quentin Tarantino is my favorite director and the ultimate Spaghetti Western--The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is my favorite movie, chances were good I was going to like Django Unchained, Tarantino's take on the Spaghetti Western. It did not disappoint. However, there was an element in it that was disturbing in a way that goes beyond the violence usually associated with Tarantino's films, which normally I don't find offensive. He uses it to portray gritty reality, as in Pulp Fiction, or as cartoonish nods to 1970s Kung Fu movies or similarly grueling Japanese anime. The violence in Django Unchained, however, seemed more like an attempt to be inspirational rather that imitative of reality or a movie Tarantino wanted to recreate.

I'm not one that finds it easy to criticize Tarantino's movies. I own most of them and have seen them enough to recite most of the lines. I didn't need to read Django's credits to spot stunt actress Zoe Belle from Death Proof as a silent, masked, Boba Fett-like slave tracker in the thirty seconds she was on the screen. I recognized Michael Parks as the pimp in Kill Bill 2 and as the same sheriff character in Kill Bill 1 and From Dusk Till Dawn; I'm not a stranger in the Tarantinoverse. Furthermore, as a fan of Spaghetti Westerns, I'm delighted to see scenes in Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds that could have been taken right out of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Like many others, I became a fan of Tarantino's after watching Pulp Fiction in 1994, and I circled back to watch Reservoir Dogs, then saw Jackie Brown when it opened on Christmas Day in 1997. The Kill Bill movies were a departure from the realistic, Neo-Noir, original storyline style he helped mainstream--indeed they were the complete opposite of his earlier films, being more comic book than crime drama, while preserving his films' dialogue-driven style. He remade movies that he saw growing up in his own unique style--Jackie Brown was his Blaxploitation movie, Kill Bill was his Kung Fu movie, Deathproof was his slasher movie, Inglourious Basterds was his Dirty Dozen-inspired war movie, and Django is his Western.

Tarantino isn't just a copycat robbing other movies. The originality he inserts into them makes them good enough to stand on their own. He writes amazing dialogue, so that characters sitting around a table chatting about seemingly nothing--whether it be the crime crew in Reservoir Dogs, Jules and Vincent in Pulp Fiction, The Bride and Hattori Hanzo in Kill Bill, or Hans Landa and a French dairy farmer in Inglorious Basterds)--not only keep you interested but have you quoting them long after the movie.

Django Unchained seems to be a Frankenstein of all of his influences--it's part Spaghetti Western, part Blaxploitation, part Kung Fu, and part slasher; all rolled into one.

It definitely has the weakest of Tarantino movie openings--there is no witty dialogue around a breakfast table as in Reservoir Dogs, no "what the heck just happened" (again at a breakfast table) in Pulp Fiction, not even Jackie Brown standing on a people mover for five minutes. It's just slaves walking in the desert to the theme from Django, a 1960s Spaghetti Western that is lesser known than Sergio Leone's Man With No Name trilogy.

Like Leone's movies, Django was a low-budget, Italian/Spanish Western centered around a strong silent type that never missed with his revolver. Except it didn't have Clint Eastwood and it wasn't scored by Ennio Moriccone, so it failed to be the overseas successes that For a Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly were.

In addition to Leone's visual style and Moriccone's weird-but-effective music, the plots are rather intricate for corny overdubbed movies. They involve uneasy alliances, where clever characters with competing interests have to team together for a short while.

In The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, which Django Unchained undoubtedly draws some influence, a bounty hunter (Eastwood) forms a partnership with the notorious criminal Tuco, wherein the pair will travel to various towns, Eastwood will hand Tuco over to the authorities for reward money, then spring him from jail. They split the reward and repeat the trick wherever Tuco has a bounty on his head (which keeps rising as he becomes even more notorious).

The unlikely duo betray each other but come across a dying man who knows the location of a buried treasure. He tells Tuco the cemetery and Eastwood the name on the grave. Each armed with only a piece of the puzzle, the shaky alliance reforms as they set out to recover the treasure before a third rival gets there first, all set against the backdrop of the Civil War. The three arrive at the same time and the matter is settled with the three-way Mexican Standoff, which has become of a fixture of Tarantino's movies.

In the first ten minutes of Django Unchained, we also meet a pair of bounty hunters who form an alliance, the German immigrant Dr. King Shultz--played by Christoph Walz, who basically reprises his role as the charming-but-evil Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds (except now he's a good guy who hunts criminals instead of Jews)--and Django, a runaway slave.

But rather than the alliance being fragile, uneasy, and tense, which is at the core of each of Leone's great Westerns, there is no such drama in Django and Shultz's partnership. They become friends and Shultz takes Django under his wing and promises to help him find his wife who was sold into slavery. There is no betrayal, no paranoia of who-is-on-whose side that we feel in Reservoir Dogs. Tarantino passes up a chance to tempt Shultz into betraying Django over the reward money his head is sure to command after their string of killings. Without the tension, Django lowers itself to be just a revenge movie with Kill Bill style violence and Tarantino's snappy dialogue.

Not that there's anything wrong with revenge movies. We cheer when Mel Gibson wipes out a company of English soldiers in Braveheart, and when he does again in The Patriot. We love it when Denzel Washington in Man on Fire takes out anyone in a cartel who was associated with a little girl's kidnapping. Every father roots for Liam Neeson when he dismantles a crime organization to save his daughter in Taken. We get all vigilante with Charles Bronson in Death Wish. We just plain love it when someone gives the bad guys what they deserve--see Eastwood in Dirty Harry, Unforgiven, and Gran Torino (which is a more mature version of Unforgiven).
In those movies we hate the oppressive British overlords, the Redcoats, evil cartels, kidnappers, rapists, murderers, and gang members.

Tarantino's Django Unchained continues that tradition, and makes slaveowners the target in the way Nazis were in Inglourious Basterds, which culminated in a Jewish soldier emptying a MP42 in Hitler's face. It was violent and vengeful to be sure, and it was directed toward a specific, evil group of people.

Basterds didn't make us hate all Germans. Braveheart and The Patriot didn't make us hate all Englishmen, Gran Torino didn't make us hate the Hmong, and Taken didn't make us hate Rumanians.

Can the same be said for Django Unchained? We are repulsed by the slaveowners just as we are of the Nazis in Basterds. Does it stop with that odious group or does it bleed into something else?

We start to see clues as to Tarantino's intentions when Django catches up with the white slave overseers that whipped his wife. He turns the tables on them and in front of the other slaves, whips and kills them. Iconically and in slow motion, the other slaves lift their heads to see their tormentors' blood splatter the cotton fields. 

I don't have any sympathy for the slaveowners--they are enemies of freedom. However, is the violence against white slaveowners portrayed in the film specific enough so that the audience doesn't think the film is meant to be a violent fantasy directed at white people in general?

With today's racial tensions and increasingly different worldviews separating blacks and whites, it's dangerous and irresponsible to make a "let's have all the black people kill all the white people" movie.

Unfortunately, on deciding to become a bounty hunter, Django has the attitude of "Getting paid to kill white people--what's not to like?" He then goes on a rampage and kills just about every white person in the movie.

Then to promote the movie on Saturday Night Live, Jamie Foxx joked that he thinks it's "great" he kills all of the white people in the movie. Not just the despicable slaveowners--all the white people.

It seems Tarantino allowed this to become about black people versus white people, instead of slaves versus slaveowners. Yes, slaves were black and slaveowners were white, but not all white people were slaveowners. Tarantino dangerously lumps them all together. Not only do the slaveowners die, but their families as well.

But perhaps more disturbing, white people aren't Django's biggest enemy. A black person is--the house slave played by Samuel L. Jackson. The "Uncle Tom." Truly, he's a despicable character, worthy of the audience's hate. Nobody cries over his fate.

To the extent that people extrapolate Django Unchained into contemporary social commentary, then guess who they will identify with Jackson's character? That's right, the group liberals hate the most--black conservatives.

After all, that's what the Larry Elders, Allen Wests, Condoleezza Rices, and Thomas Sowell's of the world get called every day of their lives.  

Ironically, those brave souls are the true Djangos. They are the figures that should be the real sources of inspiration for black people. They rebelled against the velvet, hidden slavery of free handouts to strike it out on their own and escape the dependency of the government overseers, where blacks are taught from birth that they can't compete without help from paternalistic liberals. Like Jackson's character who can't stand to see a black man ride a horse, today's black "leaders" are the first to attack Elder, West, Rice, and Sowell who preach independence and dignity.

Tarantino made yet another solid movie with Django Unchained, a good entry into the "revenge movie" genre. But if he, or anyone in his audience, attempts to make it into a social message that extends beyond the characters in the film, they irresponsibly exacerbate existing racial tensions.

Should the Star have published the race of Simi manhunt suspects?

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar

Portions of Simi Valley, including two schools, were locked down Tuesday afternoon due to a massive manhunt to catch three men who robbed a jewelry story on Sequoia Ave.

The Star reported that the men ditched a car then fled on foot into a neighborhood. Police cordoned off a wide area and brought in dogs and a helicopter to find the men, whom they considered armed and dangerous.

While ABC News reported "three African-American male suspects allegedly robbed" the store, the Star didn't feel compelled to include a complete visual description of the fugitives--one of whom is still at large--because that would bring up the sensitive issue of race. But do the residents affected by the manhunt deserve to have a full picture of what the suspects look like, for their own personal safety?

It depends, according to Star policy.

Joe Howry, the former editor of the Star, articulated why most newspapers don't repeat the race of suspects--even if most police departments do--in a 2009 editorial.

The Star's policy is to include ethnicity/race in suspect descriptions, provided there is enough detailed information that ethnicity/race is relevant and likely would be helpful in leading to an arrest.

If a large manhunt involving three armed suspects doesn't warrant such details, then you're not going to read many Star stories where race is mentioned (unless it's this or this). Howry tells us why the policy is in effect:

The Star believes that to include ethnicity/race in a general description perpetuates stereotypes and is not precise, accurate or fair. In other words, providing a very broad and general description of a crime suspect that includes race/ethnicity increases the chance that innocent people will be implicated and possibly harmed.

Howry acknowledged that reporting on race "tests the competence and ethics of journalists" particularly when it comes to the "most fundamental of reporting tasks: the description of crime suspects." But he ultimately dismissed critics' claims that excluding racial information from dangerous suspects is a form of political correctness.

"What may appear to be political correctness is, in truth, acting professionally and ethically to do what's right," Howry wrote.

Had the policy been borne of political correctness, it might be more understandable--race is a third rail that nobody wants to touch due to the special-interest firestorm that awaits anyone who does. Instead, the Star's policy is to not "perpetuate stereotypes" that "increases the chance that innocent people will be implicated and possibly harmed." In other words, it's their duty.

On the subject of protecting innocent people, don't the residents of Simi Valley deserve to know what the armed manhunt suspects in their neighborhood look like so they steer clear of them?

Adam Foxman, who reported on Tuesday's robbery, is no stranger to this criticism. In a 2009 Crime Blog entry, he wrote, "We often receive criticisms from commenters and law enforcement officials about our policy in regards to printing the description of a suspect's race..."

Foxman went on to explain--and I'm pararphrasing--that the Star did report that a suspect in a 2009 robbery was black because other descriptions given about the suspect were specific enough not to implicate all black men. Foxman wrote:

One reason we are cautious about printing racial descriptions is that there are potentially negative ramifications of using race as a descriptor. Unlike, say, height, race is not a hard and fast descriptor, and using it without other specific details could lead to profiling that negatively effects people and doesn't really help police, we believe.

Like Foxman, I've also heard criticism from law enforcement officials. Two Ventura County police chiefs complained to me about the Star's policy as well. I'm sure they're comforted to know that journalists are best equipped to decide what information helps the police catch suspects.

In effect, critics of such policies--the Star is by no means alone on this in the industry--contend that willfully withholding important facts regarding the physical description of suspects because of doubts as to whether its readers will form the correct conclusions is a form of advocacy.

That's a slippery path for journalists to tread. If a media outlet sees its role as selecting certain facts to make its readers reach a predetermined conclusion instead of reporting all the facts so they can reach their own conclusions, then we don't have journalists--we have activists, to the extent of which they engage in such practices.

Democratic Party Official Calls Opponents at Redistricting Forum Lily-White "Racists" in "White Hoods"

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar

Anyone in Ventura County who questions the Redistricting Commission's proposed plan is a racist and a Ku Klux Klan member, according to a top Ventura County Democratic Party official.

Responding to citizen testimony at the commission's public forum Wednesday night in Oxnard, Democratic Party Vice Chairman David Atkins let loose a racially tinged tirade on his Twitter account, alienating approximately half the population of the county:

It's so clear that most of these old white people from East Ventura are terribly afraid of brown people in Oxnard/LA. #CAredistricting

Amazing. You'd think that people, especially party officials, would have more discretion on Twitter in the post- Weinergate era. Not Atkins, who then used an arguable racial epithet against Caucasians:

Elton #Gallegly really has his people in force tonight to save his lily-white district. Sorry Folks! #CAredistricting

But it's Republicans who are racist, Atkins said, adding:

So tired of #GOP using racial codewords "culture" "lifestyle" "political interest". Just put your white hoods on already. #CAredistricting

Does "lily-white" county as a racial codeword?  

Atkins continued to let the vitriol fly, posting that he was with the hearing with "a bunch of white-flight racists from Simi."

Citizens respectfully voicing their opinions to the Redistricting Commission are not racists, Mr. Atkins--people who use racial epithets in hate-filled rants, on the other hand, are.

The irony gets better; writing about the forum on Calitics, Atkins stated, "the pros and cons of the  process were painfully evident--as was the (lack of) character of what passes for the Republican party in much of Southern California."

In psychology they call that projection--the only lack of character that was exhibited at the forum came from a fuming leader of the Democratic Party.

By comparing Republicans to a hate group that lynches minorities, by using racist language, and by smearing half the county with vitriol, Atkins' actions crossed the line of civility in a major way. Why he is allowed to serve as a Democratic official is a mystery, and a stain on his party.

Who knows, maybe the rest of the county party leadership agrees with him. I'd be interested to hear their reaction to his tirade.

Education Study Tells a Tale of Two Ethnicities

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar

It's impossible to talk about specific challenges facing ethnic groups without a small group of angry people shouting "Racist," like modern-day inquisitors who shrieked "Heretic!" to drown out the arguments of unfortunate people accused of blasphemy in 15th century Spain. Ironically, by desperately trying to prevent the sensitive subject from being publicly discussed, the inquisitors also prohibit any improvements in the lives of the people who are affected by the problem. As a courtesy, here is your opportunity to get the shouts out of your system.

 OK, ready to begin solving the problem?

First, let's state the issue.

Tuesday's Los Angeles Times reported on a College Board Advocacy & Policy Center study regarding education, crime, and employment statistics, broken down by ethnic group.

It found, in part:

·         70% of Asian men had an associate's degree or higher, compared to 28% of black men

·         Young black men were 3 times more likely to be incarcerated than young Asian men

The question, that hopefully will lead us to a solution, is why is there a disparity between two minority groups in these areas? If we compared white people versus black people, the obvious response would be that white people are predominantly in the ruling power structure. But that answer frays when we introduce Asians to the equation, who are no better represented in institutionalized systems than blacks.

In this comparison, we immediately have to address the history of slavery in America. Asians were not enslaved, subject to Jim Crow laws, or lynched, like blacks were.

Their experience was more similar to blacks than most people know. The first Chinese immigrants were singled out for special taxes and sometimes physically attacked and murdered. They were prohibited from testifying against whites in court. Their wages were suppressed--they only made 60% of what European immigrants made, even though they performed some of the hardest work, such as building the transcontinental railroad. They were subjected to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited them from becoming citizens.

And yes, they too were lynched.

Let's not forget that Asians were rounded up by the FDR administration and thrown into internment camps in World War II.

The institutional racism experienced by blacks and Asians is also similar in that it's largely evaporated in the last four decades. It's taboo to even mention race--an off-color joke or an insensitive remark is all it takes to remove a powerful public official from office, if he offends the wrong group. The path is clear for anyone from any background to achieve success in this country regardless of their racial background, a change in attitude that is personified by President Barack Obama (while we still wait for the first Asian president).

We must now return to the problem, because the explanation that "blacks had it tough" doesn't hold muster now that we've demonstrated that Asians also had it tough.

So what's the correct answer?

It has nothing to do with genetics, or color, or oppression. In fact, quite the opposite of oppression--it has to do with whichever group the government is trying to "help" most. We could pick any ethnic group and have the government try to help it, and within one generation the group will be hugely and negatively impacted.

It seems paradoxical, but consider this.

Take a person who is perfectly capable of walking and running. Now, stick him in a wheelchair and tell him he really needs it, the world is unfair, he can't compete out there on his own. Wheel him around wherever he goes. Do everything for him. Don't let him walk or run anymore. Offer to wheel him wherever he wants to go.

After some years, his perfectly good muscles will atrophy and he'll be taught to be reliant on the wheelchair.

Now, congratulate yourself--you've just done what the government did to its preferred minority groups over the last several decades, thanks to the "soft bigotry of low expectations," that George W. Bush identified.

To prove my point, the minority groups that the government did not interfere with are spectacular examples of success. The ones that the government decided to "help" are suffering with 70% out-of-wedlock birth rates--after all, who needs a head of household when Uncle Sam will mail you a check. That means single parents and that means low income households, both of which are correlated to higher crime rates.

I believe that people of any race are created equal. The left seems to think that some groups are unable to compete because of their race, and when the government destroys incentives to form a healthy family structure, the left creates the problematic conditions they say they are trying to solve. 

The healthy man, unnecessarily confined to a wheelchair for years, ultimately becomes dependent on it. If the left would just let all groups stand on their own two feet, we'd see an explosion in income, education, and societal equality among all groups.

Discrimination in the 21st Century

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar

CSU Channel Islands will receive more than $6 million in federal grants to help Latino students get into college, graduate and go to graduate school.

The Camarillo university qualified for the two grants, both from the U.S. Department of Education, because it was designated an Hispanic-Serving Institution this year. That means its enrollment is at least 25 percent Latino, and it can apply for federal and other grants.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -MLK

King's niece stands with Beck on anniversary of "I Have a Dream" speech

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar

If Glenn Beck is such a racist, why would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece attend a rally he organized on the anniversary of her uncle's most important speech?

Quite simply, because Alveda King has taken the time to speak to Beck to find out who he really is.

"I am attending this rally to help reclaim America," she told "Good Morning America's" Ron Claiborne today from Capitol Hill. "I'm joining Glenn to talk about faith, hope, charity, honor. Those are things that America needs to reclaim. Our children need to remember to love each other how to honor each other, their parents, God and their neighbors. I agree with Glenn on all of those principles. So that's why I'm here. For me it's principles over politics."

Were he a racist--as many on the Left contend--I doubt very much that King would join him in front of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, and she certainly wouldn't have said that her uncle would have attended were he alive.

In fact, Beck was one of the few male, white speakers at the rally. Of the eleven other presenters, only two were white men--St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa and Special Operations Warrior Foundation President Col. John Carney, Jr.

All three of the achievement medals Beck minted were given to minorities (albeit the third medal was accepted on behalf of philanthropist John Huntsman, who is white), in front of a banner of Frederick Douglass.

The crowd didn't boo. They did just the opposite--they gave standing ovations to the King legacy. They sang Amazing Grace after hearing Beck tell the story of the slaveship captain-turned-abolitionist who wrote it.

Beck is following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, much to the irritation of the "real" heirs to the King legacy--Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the latter of whom held a counter-rally commemorating the anniversary of King's speech.

But Jackson and Sharpton aren't exactly the messengers of peace and dignity. Jackson is a professional shakedown artist that exploits race to extract reparations from corporations. The reverend admitted to having a love child in 2001, and called Jews "hymies." Sharpton, for his part, referred to Jews as "diamond merchants" at a funeral with signs that read, "Hitler didn't do the job." Shortly after, 20 black men murdered a 29-year-old Jewish man.

Does that sound like men carrying on King's tradition? Beck isn't a perfect messenger himself, as he freely admits. A self-proclaimed formerly suicidal alcoholic, Beck said he reformed himself after he found God.

While Jackson and Sharpton demonize Beck, Alveda King is standing by the conservative commentator and taking lumps of her own.

She's now vilified for her pro-life and anti-gay-marriage positions, even though her opinions on those issues coincide with the majority of the black community.

The source of the anger is the Left's failure to get their heads around the fact that Beck is doing a better job of striving toward King's dream than the so-called leaders of the Civil Rights movement. They've bought into their own narrative that any white person who discusses race must automatically be a racist. White people are scared to death of being so branded, so the race-card players are shocked when someone like Beck, who speaks frankly about race, memorializes King's legacy and leads his fans to follow in his footsteps.

This is a bad thing? I suggest the Left opens their eyes as Alveda King has.

Fun with biased media: "call them racists" edition

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar
I didn't intend to write so many "biased media" posts so close together, but there's just so much of it.

Today, the Daily Caller reported that it obtained documents showing certain left-wing members of the media running interference for then-Senator Obama's presidential campaign during the Jeremiah Wright scandal.

The documents offer evidence to conservative critics who have long held that the mainstream media were in the tank for Obama, and bolsters the argument that reporters with major news outlets are biased in their coverage.

Journalists working for Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic expressed outrage over the tough questioning Obama received from ABC anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at a debate and some of them plotted to protect Obama from the swirling controversy, according to the Daily Caller.

It's not just conservative critics who think that, by the way; Hillary Clinton's people made similar accusations.

By and large, the groups exposed in this "revelation" isn't surprising. It would be a bigger story if New York Times or CNN reporters were implicated. I mean, Huffington Post? Who expects them to be completely objective?

It's a bit much for them to be actively engaged in helping the Obama team at all costs. That's where it becomes propaganda--and that crosses a line even for Salon and HuffPo.

Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent is shaping up to be the ringleader of Obama's unofficial propaganda arm. Here is where it gets interesting for me. When Ackerman felt that the Wright scandal was hurting Obama too much, he sprung into action:

What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

That's supposedly a journalist writing that to a group of similar-minded journalists. Raise the cost on the right of going after the left. That doesn't sound too good, does it. How can the left do that?

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

There it is.What conservatives have been saying all along--the left uses the word "racist" to shut down debate and stop the flow of information to the public--is shown to be true. Ackerman's correct; this is a proven tactic that works. I'm just glad he called it for all to see.

The next time you hear someone being shouted down as a racist, think back to this story where it's revealed as a calculated political move to stymie discussion.

Fun with biased media: Black Panther edition

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar
Media bias is so irrefutable at this point that I almost lack the willpower to write another post on it, but this story is so "black and white" that it illustrated the point perfectly. But we first need to inverse the colors.

Let us pretend that a member of the KKK stood outside of a polling place in Philadelphia in 2008--with a white sheet, hood, and a metal pipe--and intimidated black people from voting for Barack Obama for president. The whole incident is caught on tape.

Let us pretend that John McCain won that election, and he hired a cracker white Republican Attorney General who dropped all charges against the Klansman, prompting a prosecutor on the case to quit his job in protest over, what he calls, preferential treatment of white people.

Then, pretend that a video surfaced of the freed Klansman shouting this at a public rally:

"I hate black people! All of them! Every last iota of a n****r; I hate him! You want freedom? You're going to have to kill some n****rs! You're going to have to kill some n****r babies!"

Then, imagine--if you can--that the leader of the KKK gave a speech that praised the Attorney General for dropping charges against the accused Klansman, and soon after another speech of his surfaced where he praised the racial policies of Adolph Hitler.

How do you think CNN, MSNBC, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC would react? Do you think they'd lead with that racial injustice every day?

Of course they would. McCain and his AG would have both been politically destroyed.

But with the colors inverted, the media ignores completely. They ignored that a Black Panther member said this:

"I hate white people! All of them! Every last iota of a cracker; I hate him! You want freedom? You're going to have to kill some crackers! You're going to have to kill some cracker babies!"

They ignored that the Black Panther member said that after he stood outside of a polling place to intimidate white people from voting.

They ignored that Obama's AG dropped the case against him, and they ignored that a prosecutor on the case quit over reverse racism inside the department.

They didn't make a peep when the leader of the New Black Panther Party praised the Obama Administration for dropping the case for racial reasons. 

And they've completely ignored that the same leader praised Osama Bin Laden in 2002.

It's impossible to deny media bias when you reverse the races. It would be bad enough if they just downplayed the controversy--but they've completely ignored it, and have all but admitted they've abdicated the position entrusted to them by the American people.

Tea Partiers head to Arizona for buycott

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar

A couple dozen Tea Partiers, including Carla Bonney, will head to Arizona for Memorial Day to participate in a "buycott" and show their solidarity with sane immigration policy and states' rights.

As honest people know, when you have the facts, your opponents have no choice but to resort to ad hominem attacks, distractions, and attempts to silence them.

So Tea Partiers are called racist when they support a law that does little more than reaffirm existing federal laws--laws that are being willfully ignored--by people who haven't even read it.

However, race has nothing to do with it--it's a matter of the rule of law. The Democratic Party, which expects millions of illegal immigrants and their families to be future Democratic voters, and the Republican Party, which historically has been scared to death to do anything about the porous border because they don't want to be called racists, have let the problem fester and it's already permanently transformed the country for the worse.

This week, the U.S. Government released a warning that terrorists may be attempting to sneak across the southern border. Anyone with common sense knew that this was a possibility years ago, Factor in the drugs and some hardened criminals crossing the border, and you have a public policy problem of epic proportions.

It manifests itself in right here in Ventura County, where gangs have taken over neighborhoods and shootings or stabbings are daily headlines.

We have out-of-control political correctness and people that are too willing to play the race card to attempt to shut down any attempt to solve the problem to partially blame for the violence, drugs, and social upheaval we're experiencing.
This blog attempts to add perspective and context to local and national politics, through a variety of disciplines, such as history, economics, and philosophy--all tempered with common sense. About the author

Eric Ingemunson's commentary has been featured on Hannity, CNN, NBC, Inside Edition, and KFI's The John and Ken Show. Eric was born and raised in Ventura County and currently resides in Moorpark. He earned a master's degree in Public Policy and Administration from California Lutheran University. As a conservative, Eric supports smaller government, less taxation, more individual freedom, the rule of law, and a strict adherence to the Constitution.
  • C. E. Voigtsberger: Our southern border problems started with the abolition of the read more