Friday, July 24, 2009

Bigotry In Basic Black

The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident currently dominating the media is a superb example of how cynical and self-serving the entire race pimping industry in America has become. As usual, there's a back story here the media aren't telling you about.

If you read the police report of the Gates’ arrest, it's pretty obvious exactly what happened. A woman saw two men with backpacks breaking into a house and called 911. A police officer, Sergeant James Crowley, responded to the radio call, and saw someone inside the house. When the person( who turned out to be Gates) said he was the owner, Crowley did exactly what he was supposed to do - he identified himself as a police officer asked Gates to confirm his identity, and wanted to know about any other persons in the house.

Gates refused to cooperate or provide his ID and began screaming at Crowley that he was racist, that this was only happening 'because I'm a black man in America' and that who was in his house was none of Crowley's business. He then told Crowley that he 'had no idea who he was messin' with' and that he hadn't heard the last of this.

After Crowley finally manged to get a Harvard ID out of Gates, he radioed and asked for the Harvard University police to be present, and began to leave once they arrived. Gates continued screaming at him yelling 'This is what happens to Black men in America' and creating a public disturbance. After warning him twice, Crowley arrested him for disorderly conduct.

Now, we both know that had he wanted to, Professor Gates could have resolved this in a matter of minutes, simply by confirming whom he was and providing his ID. Why didn't he?

Just by coincidence, Gates has a new TV series planned with PBS as well as yet another documentary about the plight of the black man in America in the works. Yesterday, he made the rounds of the dinosaur media yakking it up about how he, as a proud black man, got in the face of a rogue cop and stood up for his ' rights.'

Anyone else besides me think that this little scuffle and the media frenzy surrounding it might just result in higher ratings for Gates, some well paying speaking engagements and more lucrative book deals? You bet it will. And I guarantee Gates figured that out as well as soon as he noticed that the policeman involved was working solo and white.

Henry Louis Gates Jr. is almost universally identified as a 'prominent black scholar' by the media, but in reality he's simply a professional Black Man, a race hustler with an exaggerated sense of his own importance. During the height of the affirmative action and diversity fetish in the 1970's, he received massive financial support from the top foundations in America and ended up with a BA in history from Yale, tried law school and ended up dropping out.

After that, he fell on his feet and became a fixture in academia, finding out that there was real gold in African American studies. Like Cornell West, James Cone, and others of that ilk who make a living off of 'racial studies' , Gates was just black enough to be authentic to the guilty white leftists that employed him and just polished enough and non threatening to be viable.

He specializes in condemning what he calls 'the Eurocentric bias' in history and literary studies, making him a staunch deconstructionist ( an academic term that translates as meaning that you can bend facts and accepted standards to fit your political agenda anytime you feel like it). Needless to say, with that viewpoint he's a minor god and in high demand in academic circles.

The controversy received an extra boost when President Obama decided to weigh in at the very end of his ObamaCare infomercial the other night, first admitting he didn't know all the facts and then referring to the Cambridge police force (and by extension, Sergeant Crowley) as acting 'stupidly'. He then went on to describe this as an example of racial profiling....AKA ' there's is still much work to be done on racism in America, this is a teachable moment' ad nauseum.

The idea of a president of the United States going off half cocked and demonizing a police officer without even really knowing what he was talking about struck even some of his supporters as odd. I can't imagine why.

Like Gates, Obama has never shied away from playing the race card when he saw it to his advantage. And Barack Obama has always been about excusing black racism when it suited him. Anyone who paid any close attention to his speech on the matter in Philadelphia should have figured that out by now. And in case they haven't, the man Obama appointed as his Attorney General, what he had to say on white racism in America, and the deliberate failure of the Obama justice department to prosecute people like the Black Panthers for voter intimidation ought to clue them in to Obama's underlying attitude on race.

This is, after all, the man who sat in Reverend Wright's church for two decades and was schooled in Black Liberation Theology, who attended the anti-Semitic Million Man March led by Louis Farrakhan, who boasts long standing connections with the Nation of Islam and whose hero and role model by his own admission, was the arch anti-Semite Malcolm X.

Obama sold his white followers on the idea of a post-racial America, with the implicit promise that if America just voted him in the country could atone for its racist guilt and put that era behind it. Obama became the ultimate affirmative action candidate, a man who's past was an unknown and who's experience and qualifications for the job of president were problematical,but whose persona could be marketed to manipulate the section of the electorate willing to buy into the novelty of the first black president - and the implicit cover for many of them who simply weren't all that comfortable with black people on a personal level.

Obviously, Obama's promise of a post-racial America was one that he never even remotely intended to keep.

Nor can we eliminate the class aspect of all this. Both Gates and Obama come from the same social strata, that of the Ivy league elite. Doors were opened for them that few people of any color ever experience. Is it any wonder that Gates would savage a white, blue collar cop for daring to have the temerity to question someone of his exalted status? Or that Obama would reflexively jump on that bandwagon? The president seriously miscalculated, largely because of the history of this particular policeman. Otherwise, Sergeant Crowley would likely have gotten the Joe the Plumber treatment.

The White House is currently in major damage control mode, but to any critical observer, this is definitely a teachable moment, and a revealing one. Although perhaps not how Obama intended it to be.

Black author Larry Elder in his best selling book 'The Ten Things You Can't Say In America' devoted a whole chapter to the idea that in present day America, blacks are, generally speaking, more racist than whites.

He may have something there.


Francesca said...

You need to brush up on the usage of whose vs who's. Who's = who is.

Freedom Fighter said...

Correction duly noted in that para. Thanks!

Orwell's Grave said...

Question, Josh: If Obama is practicing "reverse-discrimination", what the hell do you call the 220 year-old lock on the "whites need only apply" arrangement for oval office employment? Secondly, where are all your self-righteous postings dripping with holier-than-now indignation on the blood libel being smeared about the ratings-whoring MSM regarding the false controversy over the provenance of Obama's birthright? Is it mere coincidence that you habitually point up only Obama's self-professed biases, pecadillos and miscues without so much as touching, say, Mrs. Palin's innumerable transgressions? Where are all you high-minded rants denouncing the racist monopoly whites have had in presidential politics? Lastly, if the Cambridge DA & cops dropped the charges against Prof. Gates, why shouldn't Obama defend his admitted friend who had already provided Sgt. Crowley with proof of his identity BEFORE his arrest, which effectively ended the burglary investigation and should have prompted the good officer to quickly move on to the next call? Look up the definition of an unlawful/false arrest and you'll plainly see that Gates' purported outrage and haughty behavior toward Sgt. Crowley are NOT dispositive factors vis-a-vis the lawfulness of his arrest. Oh, forget it. You're probably already foaming around the jowls over some other perceived slight inside the windowless cocoon of white victimhood. Adieu!

B.Poster said...

Prediction: Please understand based upon what I know so far I hope this prediction is wrong. Sgt. Crowley will be fired from his job. I hope he is not near retirement, as he will lose his police pension. It seems this man has a very stellar reputation. If not for his reputation, he probably already would have been fired.

I've had a simillar experience. A friend and I were forced to break into his residence. Obviously it would have looked to a bystander like a robbery. The police were called. They asked to see IDs to verify who we were and that we belonged there. We were cooperative and showed IDs and allowed the officer to search the premises. We never would have thought to act any other way!! In the end, the whole thing was resolved without incident and I never even thought about this again until now!!

If this is resolved the way I think it likely will be, this will have a chilling effect on law enforcement. Essentially it is going to make it nearly impossible for them to carry out their duties. As such, we can expect criminal elements as well as foreign and domestic enemies of the nation to capitalize on this.

Again based on what is known so far, I hope and pray Sgt. Crowley does not lose his job and that law enforcement officals can continue to do their jobs without meddling from race hustlers.

Anonymous said...

Good post....As the parent of a bi racial child and 4 multi racial grandsons I am sickened by BOs fake blackness. He is NOT our first black president, he is our first bi racial president. The race card is not his to play.

Freedom Fighter said...

Ah yes, Orwell's all means, trot out the race card without knowing anything about me.You only make yourself even more ridiculous.

As for the supposed whites only policy in the Oval Office going back 220 years, I hate to break up the pity party, but blacks in the Oval Office in policy positions goes back to FDR..although it took Republican George HW Bush to actually put a black man in a major policy position.

As far Obama goes, though I didn't support his candidacy, I was at least open-minded about giving him a fair chance once he won.

The opposition to him is based on the fact he's turned out to be incompetent, puerile and feckless, (as I predicted) not his race. Although I'm sure people like you love to console yourselves with the idea that it's all about his color..which kind of proves my point.

You're also dead wrong about the arrest.I suggest you actually read the arrest report, which was corroborated by all the other officers who were witnesses at the scene..including one cop who's black, not that it matters.

Gates' arrest for disorderly conduct was richly deserved, and if the charges were dropped, it's pretty obvious that pressure was brought to bear. if Gates were white and Officer Crowley were black, I assure you the charges wouldn't have been dropped - and I guarantee you Obama wouldn't be on the tube talking about stupid police officers.

Oh, and BTW, for the record, Obama went public on this BEFORE the charges were dropped. The day before, in fact. Which, considering the laws on officers of the court like attorneys commenting publicly on cases still pending, something Obama should know about, tells us a lot about our POTUS.

I have no clue how Sarah Palin comes into this discussion (and neither do you, BTW. You simply tossed it out there, which is fairly cowardly. As for her supposed 'transgressions', aside from being a charismatic, accomplished politician that scares the crap out of the Left, I can't imagine what they would be.

And finally, by all means, let's get to the issue of Obama's citizenship.

For starters, use of the term 'blood libel' to refer to this issue is incredibly racist and offensive, and you ought to be deeply ashamed of yourself.Thousands of Jews were murdered through the ages because of it and it still enjoys wide currency in the Muslim world.

I personally think the people who are working this angle are wasting time and energy, since the Supreme court will absolutely not touch this with a ten foot pole - for fear of civil unrest, if nothing else.

But since you brought it up, please answer the following:

1) If Obama is totally on the up and up, why won't he simply produce his long form birth certificate and make fools out of those that are questioning his citizenship? And why has he spent countless man hours and thousands of dollars to seal all of his personal records and thwart any investigation into this?

2)Has he ever formally renounced his Indonesian citizenship? Rahm Emanuel ( whom I'm hardly a fan of) had dual citizenship and renounced his at the age of 18. There's no evidence Obama ever has.

3)Why were there two separate Hawaiian hospitals that originally claimed to be Obama's birthplace?

4) A US army colonel recently refused to be deployed to Afghanistan and follow Obama's orders unless he saw proof Obama was a natural born citizen of the US, thus Constitutionally legal POTUS and thus legally commander in chief.

Instead of slapping him into the stockade for insubordination, the Army hurriedly changed his orders and dropped the matter. Why?

I can't wait to hear your answers.

Yokel said...

Do we have any independent view of the veracity of the 911 caller?

People have been known to call the emergency services in order to have an effect that suits them. For example the police in Northern Ireland were lured into many an ambush by a 999 call from a person allegedly witnessing a crime.

Freedom Fighter said...

Helo, Yokel,
If you read the link to the actual arrest report, you'll see that the woman who called to report a break in was standing outside the house with her cellphone when Sergeant Crowley drove up.

She's also a witness to the altercation.

My personal opinion is that Gates made a decision to accelerate this once he saw that the cop was white.


B.Poster said...

The soldier refusing to be deployed will likely have BIG effects in the coming months and years. You see in order to be effective a military MUST have discipline. You DO NOT disobeay a superior officer. This establishes very dangerous precdent. From now on any soldier can refuse to be deployed to hazardous duty should he or she wish to do so. This will only serve to further weaken an already taxed military.

In addition to this, affirmitave action candidates must be admitted to the military academies now. This will mean that in the future officers will not necessarily be the ones who are most qualified but the ones whose skin is the right color.

This will likely serve to be a devastating one-two punch for a military that is already struggling to remain competitive with the major world powers.

Best case scenario from this unless the policies are changed and quickly is the United States will be finished as a major world power. The worst case scenario is the country may not be able to survive this.

I can't imagine trying to go up against the Chinese, the Russians, the Venezuelaens, or the Indians with a military who has a slate of inferior officers and lacks the discipline necessary to remain a competitive fighting force. All I can say is God help us all!!

Btw, I'm not aware of any blood libel with regards to Obama's proof of birth location or media whoring on this issue. The main stream media, far from reporting this, are doing their dead level best to supress this issue. Freedom Fighter raises some interesting and very legitimate questions. I to look forward to Orwell's Grave's answer to this.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Poster...
I'd be very surprised if Orwell's Grave returns. people of his persuasion don't do debate based on facts very well.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Sandra,
And welcome to Joshua's Army.

It amazes me that so many black people have bought into Obama's scam.

As we both know, they will be disproportionally hurt by Cap and tax, the health care nonsense.


Christian Atheist said...

I notice that you're evidently very concerned about our military's ability to deal those of other nations. While I can appreciate a certain amount of apprehension vis-a-vis Russia or China I have trouble seeing India being overtly hostile. Do you see something I'm missing?
Finally, Venezuela? We've had exchanges on this before. Seriously, I'd much appreciate hearing you elaborate on this somewhat because I honestly don't see it.Perhaps in concert with Russia but that brings us back to the Putinistas, no?
Rob, feel free to jump in any time, or maybe (hint,hint) an overview of this situation?
Thanks for letting me ramble. We now return you to your regularly scheduled comment thread.

Anonymous said...

Well, well,

Seems like I've stirred up quite a hornet's nest among the peanut gallery. Where to start? Hm? How about with the "blood libel" turn-of-phrase in my last post.

To all the pro-Zionists who regularly rally here and whom so obviously, (and often without exception or question) take great offense to any critique of Israel or the use of the "blood libel" slur -- in the context of the provenance of Obama's birth certificate dustup -- I apologize. Truly.

Further, and in the name of candor, I hope that you will see that it’s more than a little ironic that so many of you (“Joshua Pundit” included) seem to have no qualms in blindly associating a provably Christian president (with no personal history of violence) with the most extreme and bloodthirsty elements of the Muslim world. (Blood libels have been spread against other groups going back to antiquity, but I won’t drone on about that here).

Those whom have historically and cynically generated the false blood libel charge against Jews did so to stoke anti-Semitic hatreds among poorly educated Arabs & Muslims. In this vein, there’s ample evidence to show that those who originated the “birther” charge against Obama were racists who did so to stoke backlash among low-information, poorly educated Americans towards a black/bi-racial man running for president.

In such a forum as this, naturally I assumed that turnaround was fair play and that “blood libel” would be understood within the ironic sense in which it was being deployed.

As to the rest of your ‘Spleen-T-plaints’: Who here is seriously trying to justify the arrest of Prof. Gates – not whether he’s a quality or decent individual, is properly credentialed, or even notions about his character -- on the grounds that this middle-aged man, whose name and address were known to police before they entered his property (as every metropolitan police cruiser in America has access to the owners of every residence via their on-board computers), who walks with a cane, was expressing himself loudly and even rudely within his own home and on his own property or after showing the arresting officer his Harvard ID? We know, from the police report this part is so, because Sgt. Crowley admits he then called another police agency to verify Gates’ id.

If that is the case, riddle me this: Where in the statutes of Massachusetts does it say that being obnoxious or rude to a cop is any offense or violation of any law. (Please provide statutory citation).

Lastly, regarding President Obama's birth right.

If Hawaiian health officials and the Republican governor of that state stand by the veracity of Obama's birth certificate, which the short form, as is the custom in Hawaii, has been provided to numerous news outlets, isn't the burden of proof in this ongoing canard on the “birthers” to prove that the officials are lying and this is all a huge cover-up?

At what point does the burden of proof in this non-judicial exercise shift and at what point is it fair to ask: What role does race and class play in both of these controversies?

Even if Obama was, for argument’s sake, born aboard to a parent (his mother) with U.S. citizenship, where in the Constitution does it say that in of itself violates the “natural born” clause? Are all of you saying that children born as subjects of another country are disqualified from being president of the United States? If that’s your argument, then I hope every one of you will, in the name of intellectual honesty, demand that the presidency of George Washington and other Founding Fathers be declared illegitimate as they were born as British subjects.

Wow? Where else could we go with this line of thinking? Let me see...?

Anyways nice rapping with you, keep up the good fight, hang loose,

PFC Picayune

Freedom Fighter said...

Gee Orwell's Grave...hiding behind 'anonymous' and not even willing to use blogger ID!A bit paranoid, are we?

Let's've already been proven wrong about that 220 year whites only policy in the White House, about your assertion that Obama only flapped his gums after the charges were dropped, and about the appropriateness of the use of the term 'blood libel' regarding Obama's citizenship. What else can we find in your latest missive?

For starters, the blood libel atrocity has nothing to do with Israel, since it predates it. But it is a major reason ( along with the viewpoints of people like you) why there's a need for Israel to exist and why it needs a strong military and defensible borders.

And the 'pro-Zionist ' slur is duly noted. Fascinating how people like you trumpet freedom and self-determination for everybody but Jews...but then, there's a word for that. I've yet to find an 'anti-Zionist' who wasn't a Jew hater, and usually one doesn't have to dig too deep. I think you just outed yourself.

Another bit of fact challenged 'information' you presented...since this was a rental property owned by Harvard, Gates was not listed as the owner. And even if he was, Sergeant Crowley had every right to demand an ID and to verify who was inthe house. Virtually every law code in the US gives police that power and makes a demand that citizens comply, even in Berkeley East, AKA Cambridge.Read up.

It's also intelligent police procedure...what if the man who refused to give his ID or answer questions wasn't Professor Gates and the men in the house had him tied up in a back room somewhere? I guarantee that had Crowley just left and Gates had been injured or killed, you'd be screaming about the racist cop who refused to follow procedure to ensure a black man's safety.

For the record, I would also challenge your assertion that Obama is a Christian. No one who was would have sat in Trinity United and listened to Rev Wright spew hate for two decades...let alone brought his children there.

Trinity and Rev Wright, along with the handful of black churches that subscribe to 'liberation theology'can best be described as the Nation of Islam without Allah.That's fitting consideriung how close both Obama and Rev wright are to Farrakhan and the Nation.Having spent time in a number of black churches, what Trinity and Rev Wright are peddling ain't exactly the Gospels and the Good News, and we both know it.

Oh, one more thing. While I've already said I agree with you that the issue is a waste of time because the Supreme Court will never touch it, I notice that you refused or were unable to answer any of the points I raised regarding Obama's citizenship. In normal debate form, those points thus stand.

But you raise a new one, regarding Obama's mother's ability top transfer citizenship..which once agian shows you unfortunately haven't the slightest clue about what you're talking about.

Obama's mother was not of legal age to transfer citizenship to her child if he was born outside the US according to the laws in existence at that time.

His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 when he was born. In order to transfer US citizenship to a child born outside the US, she would have had to have lived in the US 10 years consecutively, five of which were after reaching th eage of 18. Do the math.

Second, there's the issue of Obama's daddy ( if he actually was Obama's daddy instead of Obama's old commie mentor, Frank Marshall Davis) being a British subject. Again, according to the laws at that time, the father's nationality took precedence.

I also note that you're unwilling to address the issue of possible Indonesian dual citizenship, or why Obama has spent so much time and effort trying to conceal this stuff and sealing his records when it would be incredibly simple to just release everything and prove once and for all that he's a citizen, so I suppose that stands as a given too.

You're not stirring up a hornet's nest, bro.

You're just providing us all with amusement.


Freedom Fighter said...


The above phrase "she would have had to have lived in the US 10 years consecutively, five of which were after reaching the age of 18."

should have read "she would have had to have lived in the US 10 years consecutively, five of which were after reaching the age of 14."

The error, of course, doesn't invalidate the point in the slightest.Obama mother was legally too young to have transferred citizenship too him if he was born outside of the US.

Anonymous said...

Well, maybe this will encourage you not to put so much blind faith in "police reports" as the 911 tape, released today, clearly conflicts with many of Sgt. Crowley's assertions in his error-prone report.

What role do you think Ms. Whalen's lawyer(s) played in the release of these 911 tapes? Or are you only focusing on what Prof. Gates is heard to be saying? Did he say anything criminal, according to Mass. law?

What kind of case would Prof. Gates have for a wrongful/false arrest? Please provide your best legal analysis?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Pardon me -- those terribly maligned souls subscribing to the cult of white victimhood don't believe blacks are ever falsely arrested.

Never mind. You probably won't even post this, just like the last one.


PFC Picayune

Freedom Fighter said...

Are you on crack?

I heard the 911 tapes and they correspond entirely with Crowley's report.

And remember, there were also a number of witnesses that corroborated Crowley's report.

Trust me, if a race pimp like Gates had any grounds to sue, he'd be off to the races ( no pun intended).he may still do it anyway, but watch how it gets tossed out of court.

By the way, congrats for once again failing to debate honestly by mentioning the points I brought up earlier.

As you know, I haven't censored any of your stuff because it was fun for awhile, if not very challenging.

But if this is the best you can do, and if you're going to continue to not debate honestly by responding to the points raised , I will definitely take you up on your offer and censor you from now on unless you start posting responsibly.

You're entitled to your own opinions...just not your own facts.


B.Poster said...

Christian Atheist,

When I referred to India, I was thinking more along the lines of the future. As I'm typing this, America is a major world power and India is an up and coming world power. While there does not seem to be any overt hostility right now, as India gains in power there does exist a very real possibility that conflicts between the two nations could arise. It would be my hope and prayer that such conflicts would be resolved amicably in a manner that is beneficial to both countries, however, the United States should ensure that it has viable military option to deal with any potential threats.

As for Venezeula, as it stands right now, it would probably act in concert with Russia, China, or both. Assisted by Russia, Venezuela is growing stronger and will soon likely be able to challenge America for dominance in this part of the world. It may be able to do so already.

Should a military conflict between Venezuela and America. America would probably be able to win but it would be VERY difficult.

If America wants to remain a major world power it needs to ensure that it has a viable military option to handle any conflicts should they arise with anyone. I see the possibilty of conflicts with Venezuela, India or a host of other nations arising in the near futre. It does not mean that these military conflicts will necessarily arise or that it is inevitable that they will. It simply means we should be prepared in case.

With the recent refusal of the soldier to deploy and the soldier not being thrown in military prison will likely have a devestaing effect on discipline in the coming months and years.

In additon, the recent decisions requiring the military academies to admit affirmitive action candidates rather than the best candidates for the job means that unless these policies are changed America will likely be fighting its next war with inferior officers.

On top of this, the United States government has just canceled fundingto purchase more F-22 fighter planes!! With the growing threats from Russia, China, Venezeula, Iran, Syria, and North Korea and the potential threats from India and much of the Middle East this is an exceedingly stupid decison on the part of the United States government. The fact that many Americans are applauding this is very disturbing. All I can say is God help us all!!

Ymarsakar said...

Finally, Venezuela? We've had exchanges on this before. Seriously, I'd much appreciate hearing you elaborate on this somewhat because I honestly don't see it.Perhaps in concert with Russia but that brings us back to the Putinistas, no?

He thinks Iraq broke the US military. As in, blooding a unit breaks the unit, actual experience breaks a unit.

It's better to be safe and secure, writing reports, than to fight. That's what improves the military's ability to win wars, you see.

Thus, it makes logical sense that all these nations whose militaries haven't been used (broken) and have been sitting in more or less peace time conditions (I call it rotting) will be able to challenge America's over-stretched and overburdened military.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Ymarsakar, Poster.

Poster, I'm afraid I can't see any conflicts between the US and India even in the remote future. India's much more worried on th eforeign policy front about Pakistan and their own internal Muslim problem..and exactly why would they want to screw their economy over by hostilities with America??

I agree with you about the F-22, but that's of more immediate cincern to Israel and Japan, who ponied up millions in order to share in the technology and be in th efront of theline to buy it. They got screwed.

Ymarsakar, I agree with you that America's military is far from broken. One of the good things that came out of Iraq was the fighting edge it put on our troops and the experience it gave them fighting jihadis.

In the beginning, that was lacking. And as a matter of fact, it was the IDF that helped train our Marines and soldiers how to fight in places like Falujah, based on the Israeli's experience in places like Jenin.