Posts Tagged ‘Racism’

Detroit City Council Session Turns Crazy: Complete with Racism and Hymn Singing

March 9, 2009

Well, if people already didn’t think that Detroit City officials were wacky, this is sure to change their mind.  I heard about this driving home for spring break this weekend, and decided that I HAD to write something about this.

On Febraury 24th, the Detroit City Council voted against transferring Cobo Hall to the Detroit Regional Convention Authority.  Cobo hall is in need of expansion and repair (the roof leaked on some VERY expensive cars this past weekend at Autorama).  On March 4th, Mayor Ken Cockrel, Jr. vetoed the council’s vote.  On Thursday, the council called an emergency session (president Monica Conyers called the session) to override the veto.  Well, that wasn’t legal, so nothing really got done there.  An injunction against that veto will most likely be submitted, probably today, and the Council is meeting again tonight.

Now, on to the fun part.  The first video I have for you is from WDIV (Channel 4-NBC).  This is Councilwoman Barbara Rose-Collins going off on how Detroit cannot give up Cobo Hall to the Regional Convention Authority (a group of 5 people – 1 from each of the counties of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb, 1 person appointed by the mayor of Detroit, and 1 appointed by the Governor):

http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/18865456/index.html

Next we have the video of Councilwoman Barbara Rose-Collins singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers” (and she’s joined by Councilwoman Martha Reeves), courtesy of FOX 2 Detroit:

Here Collins defends what she said in the meeting and accuses Oakland County L. Brooks Patterson of being a racist, courtesy of FOX 2 Detroit:

Finally, here’s L. Brooks Patterson defending himself and sharing his views on the situation, courtesy of FOX 2 Detroit:

Now, this just goes to show how sad of a state the Detroit leadership is in.  Barbara Rose-Collins is pretty much the very definition of a racist idiot.  She claims that Brooks Patterson called her a monkey.  He never did that.  He said that “instead of making decisions about the zoo, they ought to be in the zoo.”  Collins and other racists on the Council took that to mean that he was calling them monkeys, and Collins refuses to work with Patterson today because he won’t apologize.  Well, he has nothing to apologize for in my opinion, because he did NOT call anybody a monkey.

If he had compared the councilmembers to monkeys, even I would demand an apology from him.  Do you know how heartless and mean of a thing to say that is?  If I were a monkey, I would have been devastated!  All joking aside, Brooks Patterson did nothing wrong – he simply stood up to the council and showed how ignorant they were.  But he’s white, and most of them are black, so that makes him a racist in their eyes.

I have one other factual error to correct.  Collins talks about his involvement as a lawyer defending bus bombers in Pontiac.  She claims that he defended NAG, who bombed school buses.  Well, that’s also untrue.  For more about that, see the Detroit News piece on that: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=161.  I’ll go into quick detail – NAG was the National Action Group, and they opposed busing in Pontiac.  Well, the Ku Klux Klan bombed some school buses.  Patterson represented the head of NAG, Irene McCabe, but neither NAG nor McCabe were ever involved with the KKK bus bombings.  Collins here again twisted the facts to make Patterson look like a racist, but it is COLLINS who is the racist.

It’s not secret that I have great respect for L. Brooks.  Oakland County is one of the most successful counties in the nation, and it’s a county in one of the economically worst states.  Sure, his humor gets him into trouble, but it makes me laugh – I liked his jokes about Collins.

Anyway, I hope that Cockrel’s wish comes true, and Cobo is handed over to the Regional Convention Authority.  We’ve seen before that Detroit leadership ruins more things than it fixes, and I think Cockrel sees that here.  Hopefully his veto stands, and we can move on to fix and expand Cobo Hall.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: Add to diigo :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Lucie Kim Frivolously Sues Miley Cyrus Over “Racist” Picture

February 16, 2009

Alright, so I heard about this story yesterday, and it really got my blood boiling.  Not because I’m terribly offended by Miley Cyrus, but because lawsuits in America have reached such an asinine stage.

Here’s what happened: Miley Cyrus offended some Asian Pacific Islanders by making “squinty eyes,” imitating someone who is Asian:

0202_miley_cyrus

The tabloids got that picture and kaboom! it’s all over the place.

Well, some idiot figured that they could make some money off of this.  And that idiot is Lucie J. Kim.  She filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles superior court stating that every Asian Pacific Islander in L.A. County deserves $4,000 for civil rights violations because of that photo.  That totals $4 million.  Kim says in the suit that Cyrus “knew or should have known that her image would be publicly disseminated via the media, which Cyrus knew would focus on her private life, specifically TMZ [they're the ones who leaked it first].”  She also claims that Cyrus knew the face was “racist.”

Cyrus originally said she was “simply making a goofy face,” but later apologized.

Comedian Margaret Cho wrote a blog post about it (that’s available here: http://www.margaretcho.com/blog/2009/02/11/oh-miley.html), and the Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA) released the following statement:

The photograph of Miley Cyrus and other individuals slanting their eyes currently circulating the Internet is offensive to the Asian Pacific American community and sets a terrible example for her many young fans. This image falls within a long and unfortunate history of people mocking and denigrating individuals of Asian descent.

“Not only has Miley Cyrus and the other individuals in the photograph encouraged and legitimized the taunting and mocking of people of Asian descent, she has also insulted her many Asian Pacific American fans,” said George Wu, executive director of OCA. “The inclusion of an Asian Pacific American individual in the photo does not make it acceptable.”

“OCA hopes that Miley Cyrus will apologize to her fans and the APA community for this lapse in judgment and takes the opportunity to better understand why the gesture is offensive.”

OCA is a national organization dedicated to advancing the social, political and economic well-being of Asian Pacific Americans in the United States.

OK, so first off, anybody who needs $4,000 to make themselves feel better because of this picture really needs to spend that $4,000 on counselling to get some therapy and self esteem.  So, my message to Lucie Kim: GET SOME MENTAL HELP!  YOU NEED IT!  Uh oh, I’m gonna get sued now for being offensive to people with low self esteem.

Second, why is nobody yelling at the Asian kid in the picture?  He was going along with it.  He wasn’t mad that the people around him were “mocking” his heritage.  So, is he racist against Asian Pacific Islanders too, or is this another double standard similar to how African Americans can use the N-word?

I can deal with what the OCA said.  Sure, it was offensive, but honestly, I doubt that that many Asians really care.

What I can’t deal with is the greed and utter stupidity of Lucie Kim.  Kim is an idiot who’s trying to make a quick buck.  Go out and find a real way to make money, instead of trying to sue the crap out of a teenage girl for offending you.  And you know what, if you’re so desperate for money, I invite you to come here and talk to me.  If you can actually convince me that you deserve $4,000, I will personally give you $250.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Reflecting on Martin Luther King Jr.

January 19, 2009

As many of you know, today is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.  As I’ve said before, I oppose MLK Day being a federal holiday for 2 reasons:

  1. It leaves out other players in the civil rights movement (and focuses the movement to one race): César Chávez, Rosa Parks, etc….
  2. I think that Reverend King would have opposed a holiday dedicated to him.  Dr. King realized that in order to ever achieve equality for blacks, that he would have to have the help of thousands, if not millions of people.  I don’t think that King would have found pleasure in the fact that he has become the name behind the civil rights movement – I think that King would’ve wanted that movement to have been represented by Americans as a whole, not  one person.

Alright, now that I got that side note out of the way, I wanted to talk a little bit about Dr. King and all he did.  We often hear his “I have a dream” speech, and I think that many Americans have pushed King into this category of “a great American orator.”  King was arrested.  His house was bombed.  He was shot and killed.  Folks, that’s more than just a great American orator.  That’s somebody who, and pardon my bluntness here, pissed a heck of a lot of people off.  He helped end racial segregation on public buses.  To reduce Rev. King just to the level of “a great orator” is an absolute shame.  In fact, it’s more than that – it’s pure ignorance of American history.

And to those of you who object to MLK Day because of race: grow up.  I love the South – it’s filled with conservatives and Republicans, but one of the things that bugs me the most is racism.  If you don’t like African Americans, that’s fine – that’s your right.  But that doesn’t mean you have to go out and spread your hatred around to other people.  Quite frankly, I never understood how people could view another race as less than human just because their skin is darker than other people’s.  If somebody out there has this view and wants to explain it to me, go ahead – I’m pretty sure I’m always going  to disagree with you, but hey, I’m always up for a good debate (I’ve just opened myself up for an invasion by Stormfront).  Sorry – that got off topic, but racism really gets me going.

I think Dr. King would be proud of this country for how far it’s gone since the 1960s, but we’re not there yet.  Too often, Americans are judging people by “the color of their skin,” not the “content of their character.”  Dr. King was a great man, and he accomplished a lot – a lot more than a lot of people will accomplish in their lives.  But this doesn’t mean that each and every one of us can’t stand up for what Dr. King believed in.  Stand up for your fellow man – no matter what his race, gender, age, appearance.  Fight for the rights of everybody.  When you see racism, confront it.  Standing by and doing nothing is an endorsement of racism.  It doesn’t take a march in Washington, D.C. to change this country.  All it takes is a change of attitude.  Stand up for each other.  Defend each other.  Help each other.  These are the things that Dr. King would’ve liked to see.  Dr. King didn’t WANT to march in Washington, D.C. or from Selma to Montgomery, AL, but he realized that he first had to get the attention of the people before attitudes could be changed.  Dr. King probably didn’t want to do a lot of the things that he did, but he realized that his actions, along with the actions of those with him, were necessary in order to bring about change.  But now we’re in a different era.  I don’t think it takes drastic actions to change America’s racist views.  I think we’ve come far enough that if people examine the issue of racism close enough, a lot of people will see that it’s wrong.  We just have to convince people to do that.  And the best way to do this is to lead by example.

While I disagree with the official status of the holiday, I most definitely will celebrate the legacy and accomplishments of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and I hope that you will too.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Effigy of Sarah Palin Hanging by a Noose is Despicable, but Legal

October 28, 2008

I’ve seen some pretty weird Halloween decorations before, but this one probably tops them all.  In West Hollywood, California, Chad Michael Morisette has put up an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose with John McCain up on the chimeny with flames coming out of it (as well as skeletons and spider webs on other areas of the house).

Well, this made some people very unhappy and even sparked an investigation the FBI as well as the Los Angles Police Department.

The LAPD has determined that this doesn’t rise to the level of hate crime (I don’t remember if the FBI has finished its investigation).

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore told reporters, “I’m not defending this; I’m not criticizing it.  It doesn’t rise to the level of hate crime.  Now, if there was a crime against bad taste–.”  When asked about an effigy of Barack Obama, he replied, “That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country [but I am not sure that it would be a hate crime].  It would be ill-advised of anybody to speculate on that.”

Morisette claims that it’s  all in fun, saying, “It should be seen as art, and as within the month of October.  It’s Halloween, it’s time to be scary, it’s time to be spooky.”

The Mayor of West Hollywood, Jeffrey Prang, told reporters, “While these residents have the legal right to display Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin in effigy, I strongly oppose political speech that references violence–real or perceived.  I urge these residents to take down their display and find more constructive ways to express their opinion.”

I agree with the Mayor here.  The point of a hate crime is that it has to threaten violence, or be violence toward a person because of discrimination (and hate crime isn’t a real legal term, but it’s easier to just say “hate crime”.  For the law that defines hate crimes, see U.S. Federal Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 245).  There is no threat of violence here.  Now, if this were done of Obama, I would say the same thing.  If it’s in a Halloween decoration, it’s generally not intended as a violent threat (as the sheriff’s department found in its investigation).  As long as it’s not being done to encourage violence for racist reasons, it’s not a hate crime.

So, I think this was over the line, but it’s still protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Evidence that Some Blacks Are Not Voting for Obama Based on Issues

October 19, 2008

So, a friend sent me a link to a clip from the Howard Stern show from last Sunday, and I put it into a video (as well as typed up a transcript which is below the video).  It’s one of Stern’s radio people, Sal, who goes into Harlem and interviews 3 black people and attributes McCain’s stances to Obama.  They say that they agree with those stances (thinking that they are Obama’s).

It’s pretty funny, but also pretty scary to think that these people are voting:

And here’s the transcript I typed up:

Please be advised that the following clip is not the property of BPM DJs.  It’s a bit from the Howard Stern show that I sent to a few friends in my office, and since, it’s gotten attention from around the world.  Now that you know a little bit of what you’ve been missing, I suggest getting a Sirius Satellite radio, and you’ll laugh every day.  Without any further delay, here’s Sal in Harlem.

Howard Stern: Uh, what else.  I don’t know.  So much more-I did promise to play you, this-I played it earlier in the morning; I’ll give it one more shot.  Sal did a rather brilliant thing.  He went up to Harlem to ask people who they were gonna vote for, and uh-most people said, “Barack Obama.”  So what he said is, “Do you still-do you support Obama’s views?” but he attributed all of McCain’s views to Obama.

Robin Quivers: Yes, yes.

Stern: And it didn’t-

Quivers: And it didn’t cause even-

Stern: It didn’t sway anyone.

Quivers: But it didn’t cause people to even flinch.  They moved right along.

Stern: This is crazy.  So listen to this:

Sal Governale: Some people speculate that blacks are voting for Obama strictly because he’s black and not because of his policies, so we took McCain’s policies and pretended they were Obama’s.  This is what they had to say:

Sal: For the election, Obama or McCain?

Man #1: I like Obama.

Sal: Now, what don’t you like about McCain?

Man #1: McCain seems to not really know what he’s doing right now.

Sal: Are you more for Obama’s policy because he’s pro-life or because he thinks our troops should stay in Iraq and finish this war?

Man #1: I think because our troops should stay in Iraq and finish this war.  I’m really firm with that-definitely.

Sal: Now how about as far as-um-him being pro-life?  Do you support Obama in that case?

Man #1: Yeah, I do.  I do.  I support him in that case.

Sal: And if he wins, would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being Vice President?

Man #1: No I wouldn’t.  Not at all.

Sal: So you-y-y-you think he made the right choice in that?

Man #1: I definitely do.

Sal: Thank you very much sir, and have a great day.

Man #1: Have a great day.

Stern: So they guy agreed with everything McCain is for, except he said it was for Obama.  Here’s another example:

Sal: Are you for Obama or McCain?

Man #2: Obama.

Sal: Ok, and why not McCain?

Man #2: Well, I just don’t agree with some of his-you know-policies-you know.

Sal: Now, Obama says that he’s anti-stem cell research.  How do you feel about that?

One quick note here.  McCain is not anti-stem cell research.  He is opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research.  There’s a big difference here, and often times, people just put both into the same pile.

Man #2: I-I believe that’s-I wouldn’t do that either.  I-I’m anti-stem cell stem cell-yeah.

Sal: Anti-stem cell research.  Now if Obama wins, do you mind Sarah Palin being Vice President?

Man #2: No.  No, I don’t.

Stern: Alright, there you go.  Now our third example which-uh-we found this woman:

Sal: This election, Obama or McCain?

Woman: Obama.

Sal: Now, why not McCain?  What don’t you like about him?

Woman: Um.  He sorta doesn’t sound like he has enough-like-he does-he’s not-he’s uneducated.  Because when he had the-um-they had the-both of the Presidents speaking, um-he didn’t sound like he knew what he was talking about too much, whereas Obama had facts and information when he was speaking.

The woman who talks about “when they had both of the Presidents speaking” is calling McCain uneducated?  I found her to be the funniest of the 3.

Sal: Good point.  Let me ask you this: Do you support Obama more because he’s pro-life or because he says our troops should stay in Iraq and finish the war?

Woman: Um-I guess both.

Sal: Now, if Obama wins, do you have any problem with Sarah Palin being his Vice President?

Woman: Um-nope.  Not at all.

Sal: Do you think she’ll do a good job?

Woman: I think she’ll do a good job.

Sal: Are you glad he elected her to be the VP if he wins?

Woman: Yep.

Sal: Thank you very much.

Woman: You’re welcome.

Stern: Alright, there it is.  Sal in Harlem-and-uh-doing his work [unintelligible] brilliantly.  There you go.  Dice clay, Andrew Dice Clay, as you know is uh- 

That should scare you.  That’s evidence right there that some people aren’t voting for Obama based on the issues.  And a lot of people attribute this to black people voting for Obama simply because he’s black.  Now, I’m not saying that this IS the reason, but there have been African Americans who have said that that is why they support Obama.

So, I just thought I’d share this with you – on the surface, it’s funny, but when you think about the fact that some of these people are picking our next President based on who knows what, it’s really scary.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Obama Is a Hypocrite When It Comes to Race

August 4, 2008

So, there have been stories in the news recently talking about how much race will be an issue in the 2008 election.

We had Barack Obama’s comments in response to McCain’s “Celeb” ad, comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton: “Since they don’t have any new ideas the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me.  They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and,’ and they’re going to send out nasty emails.  And, you know, the latest one they’ve got me in an ad with Paris Hilton.  You know, never met the woman.  But, but, you know, what they’re gonna try to argue is that somehow I’m too risky.”

And back in June, Obama also said, “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me: ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. … Oh, and did I mention he’s black?’”

But, if we go back and look at his speech in Berlin, what do we find?  We find this: “I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.”

So, Mr. Obama, who is it that’s consistently playing the race card?  We’ve heard from you now accusations that Republicans and the McCain campaign are racist and will play the race card, but by saying that over and over again (without any examples to back up those claims), you are the one who plays the race card and is a racist.

You can’t try to wave your race as a banner to get you elected, and turn around and call the other side racist for running a TV ad that has nothing to do with race.

Mr. Obama, you are the racist.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Thoughts on the N-Word, The View, and Jesse Jackson

July 31, 2008
Alright, first I’ll let you watch a YouTube video of The View from July 17th (sorry this is a bit late – this was one of those vacation news stories that I REALLY wanted to do when I got back):

Alright, so first thing’s first: my opinion of the n-word: It should never be used by anybody who’s name is not Noah Webster or George or Charles Merriam (Merriam-Webster dictionary for those of you who didn’t catch the really lame joke).  But seriously, it’s a word that I don’t think should be used in public or private, by a white person or a black person, nor by a comic or a rapper.

Now, on to Jesse Jackson.  Well, I did a post about (most of) what he said (at the time, it hadn’t been revealed that he used the n-word).  My opinion, he had the RIGHT to use it (as does anybody), but shouldn’t have used it, and in my opinion, was pretty stupid to use it in a television studio.  Never assume the microphones are off – it’ll only get you in trouble.

Now, on to The View, Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd argued that black people CAN use the n-word, while Elisabeth Hasselbeck (I LOVE HER!!!  Anybody who stood up against Rosie O’Donnelland her comments against the troops is awesome) argued that nobody should use it.  Barbara Walters desperately tried to keep order, but pretty much failed until the end, and Joy Behar was virtually silent.  One quick point, Hasselbeck didn’t exactly break down as much as I expected her to – the way the news stories portrayed it, it sounded like she was in tears (she got a little shaky in her voice, and teared up, but didn’t really cry).

And for those of you who aren’t sure exactly who’s who:

Whoopi Goldberg

Whoopi Goldberg

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Joy Behar

Joy Behar

Barbara Walters

Barbara Walters

Sherri Shepherd

Sherri Shepherd

Here’s my reaction: It’s not ok for blacks to use, at least not for the reason Whoopi and Shepherd gave.  They argued that white people used it as a derogatory term, which is correct, so then blacks turned it into a term that lost its derogatory meaning to them.  The problem in excluding all whites and including all blacks in using the word is that NOT all whites used the word.  There are many whites who never used the word and never had an ounce of racist thinking in their head.  If these white people are close friends to a black person, should they be able to use it as a term of endearment, like blacks can use it?  In my opinion, by Whoopi and Shepherd’s arguments, yes.

And what about blacks who treated blacks unfairly?  The way that most blacks got put into slavery was by other BLACK tribes in Africa.  So, should somebody descended from an enslaving African tribe not be allowed to use the word.  They were part of the black oppression, so by Whoopi and Shepherd’s argument, I would say no.

Whoopi stated that her mother wasn’t allowed to vote.  Well, that was YEARS ago.  How are we supposed to get past this sense of a divide if we continue to stress the divide.

And what about the word “cracker”?  You don’t hear it called the c-word.  And black people use that against whites like its no problem (although many whites use the n-word like its no problem too).

In my opinion, both of these words need to stop being used.  The blame needs to stop being placed on white people as a whole.  Not all white people are racist, and many black people are descended from people who are responsible for other blacks being put into slavery.

The double standards and racism needs to be stopped on BOTH sides.  We’re not there yet, but one day we will live in a place that’s close to harmony.  We’ll never fully achieve it, but we can try.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Noose Student at Central Michigan University Will Not Be Charged With Ethnic Intimidation

July 30, 2008

This is breaking news - I just heard about it from the CM-Life.

Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick has said that he will not be pressing charges against the 28-year-old male engineering student who hung a noose in the Industrial Educational Technology Building back in November.  (My previous posts on this subject can be found here, here, here, here, and here).

Burdick released a press release, saying, “I am confident of the work performed by the CMU police, in conjunction with the FBI.  The facts determined due to the joint investigation does not support a charge of ethnic intimidation, and the intent needed for that crime cannot be proven.”  And that’s basically what I said in my retraction to my original statementssaying that he should be charged.  The fact is, even IF he did it in an intimidating way, without a verification for that, Burdick can’t win the case, and if he tried, he’d be a bad prosecutor, in my opinion.

Burdick goes on to say, “The student’s e-mail to the campus newspaper was, in my opinion, both insensitive and demonstrative of a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about the historical significance of the hanging of nooses.  His explanation, however, as to the reason he constructed and hung four nooses last November was corroborated by two of his classmates, which I found to be very credible and forthright concerning the incident.”

Again – that shows that although the student made a very poor/stupid decision, it wasn’t intended to be a threat of force (and even if the student is lying, 2 witnesses would be hard for Burdick to argue against).

Burdick continues, “Because intent lies at the heart of the charge that was under consideration, both we and the FBI felt it important to fully and carefully examine the individual’s personal computer to see if there was anything to suggest his actions were racially motivated. … What happened on campus should not just serve as a badly needed educational experience for one college student, but enlighten all of us as to the detrimental effect of this symbol.”

Again – this was a good call by Burdick.

But now that Burdick has said all of this, this means that CMU cannot release the student’s name (under FERPA, only a person who commits a violent or sexual crime can have his/her name released).  As I said before, if Burdick doesn’t prosecute, as he now has decided not to, I’d wonder what rule CMU used to suspend the student.  The fact that no crime was committed gives the student a possible case against the university to overturn his suspension.  I really can’t give my opinion on this, since I don’t know what the university charged him with.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite the student to do an interview with me.  I have a few questions, some about the incident, but mostly about the aftermath and what will happen here.  So, to the student who hung the noose, if you’re out there reading this, and wouldn’t mind answering a few questions, e-mail me at n.d.inks@gmail.com.

I’ll keep you all updated as this story keeps on developing.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick Shoves a Cop Off a Porch, Faces Assault Charges

July 29, 2008

Well, the Kwame Kilpatrick scandal continues.  Early last week, sheriff’s deputy Brian White was serving a subpoena to Bobby Ferguson, a friend of Kilpatrick’s.  Kilpatrick threw White into his partner, Joann Kinney, and made a comment shaming her (a black woman) for working with a white man.

Personally, I am appalled that he wasn’t arrested.  If he weren’t a corrupt mayor with a corrupt mother as a Congresswoman, he’d be in JAIL right now.  Although, Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Robert Moran did not request that Kilpatrick be taken into custody for the assault.

Instead, 36th District Court Judge Ronald Giles changed Kilpatrick’s $75,000 bond from a personal bond in the perjury case (which he was not required to pay – I don’t know why) to requiring him to post $7,500 cash to stay out of jail.  He also revoked Kilpatrick’s privileges to travel without a court hearing, except for already-scheduled travels.  He also ordered periodic and random drug test on Kilpatrick.

Judge Giles said, it doesn’t “matter whether investigator White was pushed or thrown … the fact that defendant Kilpatrick decided to inject himself into this situation where the officers were attempting to lawfully serve a subpoena … defendant Kilpatrick had no right … to come into contact with investigator White or say anything to investigator White. … I  see the behavior as totally irrational.  I don’t know what was going on in defendant Kilpatrick’s life that he exploded, for want of a better term.  This is ridiculous. … I have locked up defendants for approaching or saying things to witnesses for a lot less, let alone touching them. I’m at a loss to defendant Kilpatrick’s behavior here. It’s irrational.”

He made a statement directly to Kilpatrick in the court, saying, “You’re a licensed attorney.  You’re a public official.  Everything you do, every step you take, every word you say is somewhere recorded for everyone to hear.  You need to keep that in mind.”

Robert Moran told reporters, “This underscores a problem that perhaps he’s not taking this as seriously as he should … you can’t bully police officers.”

Here’s what White testified to the court:

He was on his way to serve a subpoena to city employee Brenda Braceful when he saw a Ferguson Enterprises truck in the neighborhood and stopped because he had a subpoena for Ferguson.  He checked the address, and the house was Ayanna Kilpatrick’s, the mayor’s sister.

He approached the mayor’s bodyguard standing outside.  “I identified myself immediately as a police officer, I raised my ID and said I needed to speak to Bobby Ferguson.  He made a sweeping motion with his right arm to the house … he accompanied us to the front door.”

After meeting someone who called himself Derrick Ferguson, White heard shouting from inside.

“‘Don’t tell those f******* anything … Get the f*** out of here.’  At that point Kilpatrickcomes storming out through the door, grabbed me with both of my hands behind me and throws me into investigator Kinney.”

White testified that Kilpatrick then said: “Get the f*** out of here.  Leave my f****** family alone.  Get off my f****** porch.”

White testified Kilpatrick continued accusing him of harassing his family.

Kinney later testified: “It happened so fast … I was like, I couldn’t believe this was happening.”

Kinney said the Mayor told her: “You, a black woman being with a man with the last name White, you should be ashamed of yourself.  Why are you a part of this?”

Now, the issue is a State Police issue, since the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office handed it over to the state to investigate, so that there would be no appearance of a conflict of interest.  Attorney General Mike Cox was happy to take the case, and he has previously expressed his opinion that Kilpatrick should resign.

I trust that Cox will do a good job, and hopefully we can get Kilpatrick out of office and into a prison cell!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Jesse Jackson Apologizes for Wanting to Cut Obama’s Nuts Off

July 10, 2008

On Sunday, Jesse Jackson made the following comments in the presence of a FOX News microphone, thinking that it was turned off: “See, Barack’s been talking down to black people … I want to cut his nuts out (or off – a FOX transcript had it as “out”).”  Well, the mic did pick it up, and today, Bill O’Reilly threatened to air the video of that comment, and he did.  Well, Jesse Jackson apologized before “The O’Reilly Factor”, so that he wouldn’t look AS big of a jerk.  Here’s a transcript from his CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And happening now: Breaking news we’re watching, a new apology from the Reverend Jesse Jackson for a very crude and hurtful remark he made about Senator Barack Obama.
You heard him say he’s sorry first here in THE SITUATION ROOM. Only moments from now, he’s about to speak out about the comments that were caught on an open microphone.

Plus, Senator Obama accused of flip-flopping on spying — the vote that put him in strange company with President Bush and against Hillary Clinton.

And Edward Kennedy’s dramatic return to the U.S. Senate today, even as he battles brain cancer. The reason he couldn’t stay away — all that coming up, plus the best political team on television.

I’m Wolf Blitzer. You’re in THE SITUATION ROOM.

We’re awaiting a news conference where Jesse Jackson will once again try to explain why he said something so obscene regarding Barack Obama. We can’t even repeat it or report precisely his words here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world.

We’re following the breaking news after Reverend Jackson was caught saying something about Barack Obama that Jackson himself now regretfully calls — and I’m quoting now — “crude and hurtful.”

CNN’s Don Lemon is at the CNN Center in Atlanta. He spoke first with Reverend Jackson about this incident.

It’s causing a lot of angst out there. Update our viewers who might just be tuning in as to what we know, Don.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Causing a lot of angst, Wolf.

And I have to tell you — and you have been speaking to the Reverend Jesse Jackson as well. This is something that he never wanted, probably his worst nightmare. And when you save something obscene — it was during an interview this weekend. After he was finishing up an interview, a television interview, he didn’t realize his mike was open, having a conversation about Barack Obama’s — what he’s been saying about black people and the black church, his conversations about that. And, again, when you say obscene, apparently, on the microphone, he said something about Barack Obama, the best way to put it is, has been cutting his manhood with black people. And I think most people realize exactly what I’m saying, something that only a man would have, but cutting his manhood with black people because he is not speaking in broader context, a much more broader context about issues that are important to African-Americans.

Now, during THE SITUATION ROOM, we interviewed the reverend exclusively, the first interview after this controversy broke. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REVEREND JESSE JACKSON, FOUNDER, RAINBOW/PUSH COALITION: This is a sound bite within a broader conversation about urban policy and racial disparities.

And I feel very distressed because I’m so supportive of this campaign and what the senator has done and is doing. I was in a conversation with a fellow guest at FOX on Sunday. And he asked about Barack’s speeches lately at the black churches.

I said he can come off as speaking down to black people. The moral message must be a much broader message. What we need really is racial justice and urban policy and jobs and health care. That’s a range of issues on the menu.

And, frankly, I think that is his basic urban policy position. No one else put one together except him in this situation. And then I said something I thought regretfully crude. It was very private and very much a sound bite in a live mike.

And so, I feel — I find no comfort in it. I find no joy in it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: And as we wait for that press conference for Reverend Jackson’s comments there at Rainbow/PUSH on the South Side of Chicago, I want to tell you that I spoke to him no more than five or 10 minutes ago, just before this show.

And, Wolf, even you picked up on this when you spoke to him. I have never heard the Reverend Jackson sound so contrite and really so concerned about any comment he has made in the media or otherwise.

But I think what Reverend Jackson realizes here is that this can take on legs and wings beyond anyone’s control. And, again, the Obama campaign, of course, tonight is saying that they don’t have a comment about this.

But I have to tell you, Wolf, a lot of black leaders, a lot of folks are calling me saying, you know what, it is regretful. And they want to have their say in exactly what’s going on. But, again, the reverend says he thinks that there should be a much broader conversation that Barack Obama needs to have with African-Americans — Wolf.

BLITZER: Because, Don, as you know, there’s a — and we can’t precisely say what he was reporting, because — what he was saying before that open mike because it’s so crude.

But there is — when you look at what he was suggesting in that crude remark, a whole racial history in our country precisely involving that.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Yes, absolutely.

And here’s the thing that people probably would not know, and just because of you knowing the reverend as well, and I came here from Chicago, is that this family, these two families, are particularly close families. And they live in the same neighborhood. Their children are friends. So, it’s almost a family issue for them I would say coming to light here in a very, very bad, in a very public way.

And, of course, the Reverend Jesse Jackson is saying he hopes this does not blow up to the level of course of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But again we heard it there in his voice as we broke it on the air and as I talked to him exclusively in the CNN NEWSROOM and then here in THE SITUATION ROOM that he sounds more contrite than you or I have ever heard.

BLITZER: Absolutely right.

All right, Don, we will stand by to hear from Reverend Jackson. Once he gets to that microphone, we will go there.

BLITZER: All right, we will continue to watch this story together with you, Kate, very much.

Let’s go back to Chicago right now, the Reverend Jesse Jackson apologizing profusely for very crude remarks, ugly remarks he made before an open microphone involving Senator Barack Obama.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

JACKSON: Let me express my thanks to you for your presence today.

Let me say at the outset I have supported Barack’s campaign with passion from the very beginning. I thought the idea made sense. I thought it was part of a great historical continuity no one could project or predict would be as successful as it has been. We have been there all the way, because I think this campaign is a redemptive moment for America and a great opportunity for us to redefine the course of our country and is, in fact, the healing moment.

It’s the end of a 54-year journey. I have traveled much of that journey. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled apartheid to be illegal. And for 10 years of test cases, the Montgomery bus boycott, the Little Rock Nine, the sit-ins, we finally got July 2, ’64, a new law, a public accommodation bill.

In ’64, we had the sit-ins in the Democratic Convention by Fannie Lou Hamer challenging the makeup of the racial composition of the party in Mississippi. We won that battle.

In ’65, the right to vote. And this unfolded from the right to vote, such a big deal for us now. And it was so bloody and so full of terror when we first got it. In Selma, Alabama, white women couldn’t serve on juries. Farmers who didn’t pay (INAUDIBLE) taxes couldn’t vote. Blacks couldn’t vote.

In ’75, we — teenagers got the right to vote — 18-year-olds could vote. In ’74, right of residential students on campus could vote where they went to school. So, University of Iowa, for example, you didn’t have to vote absentee. You can vote where you go to school. That was a big deal in this year’s caucuses.

In the ’84, ’88 campaign, we fought to reduce the threshold and to have proportionality and not just winner take all. And, so, 54 years of marches and martyrdom and murder and trial and error, and here we are today with the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama.

I’m glad to be part of the journey and support his campaign unequivocally.

Let me hasten to say, as we move toward August the 28th, it was August 28, 1955 when Emmett Till was lynched for the low moment. August 28, ’63, Dr. King dreaming from Washington rising higher.

In August 28, he will be the nominee in Denver, Colorado. So, we ride the crest. We cherish this history. And I want to say, I have great passion for this campaign and travel across the country the length and breadth of our nation on radio and TV in churches and schools arguing the case for the campaign. And I want to part of the supportive element of it. And if in this thing I have said in a hot mike statement that’s interpreted as distractions, I offer an apology for that, because I don’t want harm or hurt to come to this campaign. It represents too much of a dreams of so many who have paid such great prices. And I’m very sensitive to what that means.

And, so, I want to make that very clear. I sent a message to Barack’s campaign a while ago of our continued support for the campaign.

I do have a passion for urban and rural policy. Are we rising politically? And we see where Hillary and Barack were the conduits for a new and better America politically. The economy is going the opposite direction of our politics. In urban America, where there is such — such disparities and such gross unemployment, such structural inequalities, such high unemployment, in urban America, my passion is, as he speaks to black churches and challenges people there to use their best and to have a better commitment to their families, I’m all with that, because it’s the right message, a message I repeat over and over again.

Black America and urban America often needs a structure and needs beyond a faith-based policy, which is important, a government-based policy, and an economic private sector-based policy. If the churches are able to do day care for the children…

BLITZER: All right, so the Reverend Jesse Jackson, you heard him once again apologizing to Senator Barack Obama for rather crude remarks he made before an open mike over the weekend, remarks only now being disseminated.

And I want to go back to Don Lemon, who has been working this story for us.

As precise as we can be, tell our viewers what exactly he said. We can’t be exact here in THE SITUATION ROOM. But the remarks he made, disparaging Senator Obama were, as he himself acknowledges now, rather crude.

LEMON: Well, it’s to the effect that Barack Obama was cutting off his manhood with black people, or genitals, or something.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Male private parts. The suggestion really was castration, if you will.

LEMON: Right, and that he’s doing it with African-Americans because he is not speaking as concisely and as pointedly as he should about issues that affect African-Americans.

And if you sort of listen to the undertone here, I think he’s saying that maybe Barack Obama is playing to a larger audience, as we call it, or a larger voting bloc, by not identifying with those issues that as the reverend feels that he should be. But I can tell you this. When he talked about — I think he said our economy is going in the opposite way of our politics and he brought up the struggles that he made during the civil rights movement, he has told me this. And when we did the 40th anniversary of Dr. King’s death at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, he said this to me personally.

He says, listen, Don, you guys have been talking about these issues. You have been saying, it’s bloggers, that it’s the Internet, that it’s some sort of wave or phenomenon. He goes, this is 40 years of civil rights struggles and battles that African-Americans, black people in this country, have fought for. And you’re not talking about this. You’re talking about new activists, new leaders, people who have just come up through the ranks.

And he says, this whole thing is a culmination of the fight and the struggle that black people fought for 40 years in this country since the death — or longer — since the death of Martin Luther King Jr.

BLITZER: What a story this is going to be. We are going to continue to watch it, Don. Thanks very much.

Jackson’s son, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), the Co-Chair of Obama’s campaign, told reporters, “I’m deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson’s reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama.  His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee, and I believe the next president of the United States, contradict his inspiring and courageous career.  Reverend Jackson is my dad, and I’ll always love him.  I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric.  He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

Apparently, the statement that prompted Jackson’s words was a speech where Obama said, “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.”

Today, Obama spokesman Bill Burton told reporters, “As someone who grew up without a father in the home, Senator Obama has spoken and written for many years about the issue of parental responsibility, including the importance of fathers participating in their children’s lives.”

Jackson (Sr.) also came out with a press release, saying, “My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.”

Personally, I don’t think that Obama talks down to black people – I think Jesse Jackson talks too highly of black people.  The way he talks, he acts like they’re better than white people.  And that’s just as wrong as somebody talking down to a black person!  Everybody’s the same, and Jackson focuses on race and racism so much, that he makes it impossible for us to get OVER the color of someone’s skin.  You don’t have to be color blind, but Jesse, it doesn’t have to be the focus of EVERY issue!

And the thing is – Jesse Jackson isn’t sorry for what he said.  He’s sorry that he got caught.  If FOX wouldn’t have picked up this conversation, he wouldn’t have called Obama up and said, “Hey, Barack, I said some crap behind your back, and it was pretty mean and crude, and I’m sorry.”  The only reason he apologized was to make himself look better (and he can really only go up from here).

Jesse Jackson is a very hateful, and racist man.  It’s ironic, but true.  I’ll keep you updated as the story continues to develop.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 287 other followers

%d bloggers like this: