As I’ve said many times before, if “hate crimes” are so widespread in this country, why do liberals CONSTANTLY have to fabricate them in order to “prove” what a “racist/sexist/homophobic” nation the US supposedly is?? Maddening.
Why did she have to ask? It turned out that the latest “hate crimes” scandal was a hoax perpetrated by our friends on the left. From Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion:
A massive racism hoax took place at Oberlin College in February 2013 in which two students made seemingly racist, anti-Semitic and other such posters, graffiti and emails for the purpose of getting a reaction on campus, not because they believed the hostile messages. At least one of the two was an Obama supporter with strong progressive, anti-racist politics.
School officials and local police knew the identity of the culprits, who were responsible for most if not all of such incidents on campus, yet remained silent as the campus reacted as if the incidents were real. National media attention focused on campus racism at Oberlin for weeks without knowing it was a hoax.
The hoax was confirmed when Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller recently obtained police records. Now it’s out in the open. Here is the history of how the hoax developed, played out in the media, and was covered up by the Oberlin administration.
The “hate” incidents cause campus and the media to erupt in protest
During February 2013 into early March, there were racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic postings on an Oberlin message board and in graffiti and signs around campus.
The issues burst onto the national media scene when a student claimed to see someone walking in a Klan robe late at night.
More at the link. JD from Patterico’s Pontifications snidely noted:
Lena Durham has chosen to not yet comment.
From what I understand, the lovely Miss Dunham only comments when she can be pictured doing so with her pants around her ankles whilst sitting on the toilet, taking a dump. Perhaps the spirit hasn’t moved her . . . so to speak.
For the leftist meme on race to continue, for leftist policies on race to be justified, real, substantial racism on the part of whites toward blacks must exist. That’s why the George Zimmerman/ Trayvon Martin case just had to be pushed so hard by the left, one dead black teenager while the fact that literally thousands of young black men are being slaughtered in our major cities is being ignored, because the vast majority of those victims are being killed by other young black men. Without the racial angle, there’s no story.
The same outrage struck our friends on the left during the Duke lacrosse team rape case: a black woman claimed to have been raped by three white males at a team party in which she had been working as a stripper. Just as in the Zimmerman/Martin shooting, the preferred outcomes for the left were quickly falling apart once the actual facts of the cases became known. In the Zimmerman/martin case, the local law enforcement officials decided that there was simply not enough evidence to justify charges, but the left screamed and hollered and carried on, because they just knew, knew! that the wicked white man had to be guilty. The result? The jury’s verdict confirmed the local law enforcement officials’ judgement. In the Duke lacrosse team case, the accuser’s claims quickly fell apart, but an overzealous prosecutor continued, ignoring clearly exculpatory evidence. It was so egregious that the prosecutor, Mike Nifong, was removed from his post and disbarred. As far back as 1987, race hustler Al Sharpton made a fool of himself — not an unusual occurrence for the Reverend Sharpton — over the Tawana Brawley faked rape allegations.
The answer to Sis’ question is two fold:
- The incidents have to be fabricated because the truth is that the civil rights movement, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the famed March on Washington this weekend and later this week, won! The governmental actions which were generated to end de jure segregation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were passed and worked.1Moreover, employment opportunities are as open to black candidates as they are to white ones. The problems for black job seekers, in the aggregate, exist because blacks have dropped out of the educational system at greater rates than whites, something which permanently cripples a job seeker’s prospects.The incidents get fabricated, quite simply, because the real ones have so dramatically diminished. Most white people have of have had black co-workers, most white people have had black schoolmates, and most white people simply don’t have any reason or desire to do things as stupid as the fabricated incidents. There are a few real incidents, the murder of James Byrd being an obvious example, but the men who killed him were caught, tried, convicted and punished, without the need for any special political agitation.
- The second part of the answer is simpler, and shorter: the race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Mr Sharpton need those things to stay in the public eye, to have jobs for themselves. Without enough real incidents to keep them in the money, they have to embrace the fake ones as well, even when it becomes obvious that the faked ones really are fake. Racism does still exist, and will always exist as long as we have more than one race, but it has been dramatically reduced and is mostly manifested in small, private ways these days.
From Donald Douglas, on convicted criminal Bradley Manning:
Seems like it would go without saying, but not in our morally depraved leftist culture.
We have created a rhetoric of “gender identity” that is disconnected from biological sexual fact, and we have done so largely in the service of enabling the sexual mutilation of physically healthy men and women (significantly more men) by medical authorities who should be barred by professional convention if not by conscience from the removal of healthy organs (and limbs, more on that later), an act that by any reasonable standard ought to be considered mutilation rather than therapy. This is not to discount the feelings of people who suffer from gender-identity disorders — to the contrary, those feelings must be taken into account in determining courses of treatment for people who have severe personality disorders. But those subjective experiences do not render inconsequential the biological facts: A man who believes he is a woman trapped in a man’s body, no matter the intensity of his feeling, is no such thing. The duty of the medical profession is not to encourage and enable delusions, but to help those who suffer from them to cope with them. It is worth noting here that as a matter of law and a matter of social expectation, the fiction of sex change is treated as the paramount good: We are not expected to treat those who have undergone the procedure as men who have taken surgical and hormonal steps to impersonate women (or vice versa) but as people who have literally changed sex, which they have not — no more than Dennis Avner, the famous “Stalking Cat” who attempted to physically transform himself into a tiger, changed species.
And then compare to Amanda Marcotte, “Bradley Manning Is Now Chelsea Manning. The Press Should Start Using Female Pronouns Immediately,” and Kate McDonough, “Media willfully misgender Chelsea Manning.”
BONUS: From AoSHQ, “Salon, the Web Magazine for Dumb People: Why Is the Media Referring to Bradley Manning, Who is a Man Named Bradley Manning, as a Man Whose Name Is Bradley Manning?,” and “The New Republic Headline in 20 Point Font: ‘He Is Not Bradley Manning. She Is Chelsea Manning. Deal With It’.”
One wonders why he didn’t pick Chelsea Womanning as a name.
That’s actually Dr Douglas’ entire article, which I copied whole because it is primarily a quotation and link in itself. I’d add the “New Guidelines” from National Public Radio:
by EYDER PERALTA |
When Pfc. Bradley Manning announced that she wanted to be called Chelsea Manning and seek hormone therapy as part of her gender transition, there was much talk in the media as to just how to refer to Manning.
As USA Today reports, different media organizations came to different conclusions:
“The Huffington Post, the London Daily Mail, MSNBC and Slate have all started using the feminine pronoun.
“NBC’s Today, USA TODAY, The Boston Globe, Politico, CNN, Fox, the New York Daily News, theNew York Post, the Daily Beast, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times are using the masculine pronoun.”
Thursday, NPR decided to use male pronouns and explained its decision to The New York Times. On Friday, NPR’s Managing Editor for Standards and Practice Stu Seidel issued new guidance, saying that NPR’s “thinking has evolved” and that the network will honor Manning’s preferences.
From here on out, on first reference, the network will refer to the private as Chelsea Manning, while in the “near term” noting that she came to prominence known as Bradley Manning. The network also will use female pronouns.
I am somewhat amused that NPR labored so mightily in this endeavor to get things done properly, when they were unable to get the style right in the first place. NPR named him “Pfc. Bradley Manning,” when proper Army style would have been PFC Bradley Manning.
When Mr Seidel announced that NPR’s “thinking has evolved,” what he really meant was that someone at NPR had taken some stupid pills. A physical examination of Mr Manning would reveal that he has (probably very small) male genitalia. If you do a DNA test on Mr Manning, you would find XY rather than XX chromosomes. Even if Mr Manning’s idiotic supporters raise enough cash for him to undergo hormone and surgical sex reassignment surgery, he will still not be female; he will be a castrated male with an imitation vagina and fake tits. The First Street Journal official stylebook states that Mr Manning will be referred to as Bradley Manning in the first instance, and either Mr Manning2 or simply Manning subsequently, and the male pronouns will be used.
William Teach asks: Hey, doesn’t everyone take a vacation 19 days after they get a new job while Bad Things are happening? It seems that While Syria Burns, Samantha Power Was On Holiday In Ireland.
(Fox News) Mystery solved. America’s ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power was in Ireland on a personal trip when she missed an emergency meeting on the alleged chemical gas attack in Syria, U.N. sources tell Fox News.
A day earlier, State Department officials were mum when asked for information on Power’s whereabouts. She had come under fire for missing Wednesday’s urgent U.N. Security Council meeting, where delegations weighed how to respond to charges that the Assad regime had just committed the deadliest chemical weapons attack in the country’s two-year civil war.
The meeting, and her absence, came just 19 days after Power assumed the U.N. leadership post.
Power also did not attend a meeting Friday afternoon on Sudan — another trouble spot that Power has focused on in the past — though it is likely that such a meeting would have been attended by a deputy anyway.
Of course, your Editor thinks that it is probably a good thing that Ambassador Power was on vacation; the best thing that the West can do concerning the Syrian civil war is as little as possible, to see to it that the rebels get just enough arms to keep them fighting, but not enough to help them to actually win.
Also from Mr Teach:
By William Teach August 24, 2013 – 8:01 am
Have you ever dressed as a Founding Father? Well, you’re an extremist, as are the Founding Fathers, per Department of Defense training material
() U.S. Department of Defense education materials obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, warn of “extremists” that will “talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” Judicial Watch and other conservative media outlets claim the disclosure indicates the department is teaching that conservative views are “extremist” in nature.
The guide is reportedly authored by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, a Defense Department-funded diversity training center. Further, the documents cite the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when identifying “hate groups.”
If the SPLC is involved, you know that all right leaning people are considered haters. Muslim extremists? Never. Some highlights from Judicial Watch
- The document defines extremists as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.” (so, any State in the South that passes voter ID laws is now extremist, and if you’re against illegal immigrants? Extremist)
- A statement that “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
- “[W]hile not all extremist groups are hate groups, all hate groups are extremist groups.”
- Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.” (Founding Fathers considered extremists)
- In this same section, the document lists the 9/11 attack under a category of “Historical events.”
- Other than a mention of 9/11 and the Sudan, there is no discussion of Islamic extremism. (who’s surprised?)
While the document could certainly extrapolate certain Muslim and left leaning groups as “extremists”, the object, and focus, was to brand virtually all people on the right as extremists. The better to build a case for federal spying on the groups and individuals, and perhaps banning them.
More at the link.
Now, I particularly like the second bullet point: “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” If you believe in individual liberty — as opposed to what? Forced socialism or government control? — you are simply a next generation Klansman. Mr Teach noted that the fourth bullet point would consider the Founding Fathers extremists, but the second does as well; it was the Founding Fathers, after all, who wrote into our Constitution such extremist statements as:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; and
- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed; and
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
President Barack Hussein Obama took the same oath of office as the 42 men who preceded him, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Every Soldier, sailor, airman and Marine, upon enlistment or commissioning, swears that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” And yet, her we have, in the Department of Defense, over which President Obama controls as Commander-in-Chief, and under which every man and woman in our Armed Forces serves, we have a “training document” which posits that the Framers who wrote the Constitution which they are sworn to defend were extremists, and that some of the contents of that Constitution are evidence of extremism. Perhaps Robert
Stacey Stacy McCain put it best in his article title, New Concept of ‘Rights’ in America: If You’re Not Gay, You Don’t Have Any.
January 20, 2017 cannot come too soon.
- In the 2012 presidential; election, black voters turned out at a slightly higher rate than did white voters. ↩
- In those instances in which the reference is to his actions and conduct while he was still in the Army, his rank of Private First Class or PFC shall be used. ↩