RFFM.ORG

A Politically Incorrect, Correct Police Action: Jesse and Al, Where Are You?

RFFM.org Commentary by Dan Gura *

On Saturday, February 2nd, a lone gunman walked into a Lane Bryant clothing store in Tinley Park, Illinois and killed five women execution style.  The suspect was described as a black man with a medium complexion, between 5'8" and 5'10" tall, weighing 230 to 260 pounds, clean shaven, wearing a dark colored jacket, black jeans and a charcoal-gray knit cap.

Incredibly, in this politically correct world we now live in, police have not been criticized for concentrating their search for a subject as he was described.

Early news reports said police stopped at least one Metra bus and ordered several black men who matched the general description to exit.  They were forced, at gunpoint, to lie down in the snow until their innocence could be determined.

At a nearby Target store, police "herded" customers to the front of the store as other officers, with pistols and rifles drawn, searched the premises for black men who matched the general description.

What a novel idea…police targeting men who matched the profile of a mass murderer.  (The PC police said I was supposed to say 'alleged' mass murderer).

Surprisingly, neither of these actions seems to have drawn any criticism from legendary, and oft offended, black leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Have these long-in-the-tooth race-baiters finally seen the light and recognized it would have been a waste of time for the police to include elderly Oriental women, children under the age of ten, and blonde-haired, blue-eyed men in their dragnet?

Yes, Jesse and Al, there is a time and place for profiling.  When the suspect is a black male, the police should be looking for a black male…and they should warn the public what the perpetrator looks like, be he/she black/white/brown.

Now, I do not know what the men who were ordered off the bus at gunpoint intend to do.  I’m sure they have heard from every pettifogger in the yellow pages offering to file a wrongful something or other lawsuit.  I hope they have more class than that and realize that the police did the correct thing.

Lest ye think that I am just some white guy in the suburbs who doesn't know how it feels to be ordered out of a vehicle at gunpoint, I say think again.  Back in early 1991 my Monte Carlo SS was stolen from a parking lot at the Chicago Stadium.  It was recovered the next day minus the stereo and mag wheels.

The Chicago Police Department released the car to an auto body shop recommended by my insurance company, who put it back together.  One week later, around midnight, I was driving home from a Blackhawks game when I was forced off the road.  Two men brandishing pistols jumped out, pulled me out of my car and threw me face down on the snow covered street.  One kept his foot on my back--with his gun to my head--while the other took my wallet.  Naturally, I assumed I was going to die and made my peace with God.  To my surprise and relief, I was informed that there was a paper work snafu and my car was still reported as stolen.  Yes, I was accosted by two plainclothes police officers who actually told me it was my fault that they pulled me over.

Most of my friends said I should hire a lawyer and sue everyone involved.  Others said I should have contacted the now late Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Mike Royko, who often wrote about the plight of the little guy, to tell my story.  I chose to do neither.  Instead, I acknowledged that no matter how heavy-handed the police were, they actually were trying to recover my ride from some ne’er-do-well car thief.

In conclusion, I wonder if Jesse and Al really get it or are they just saving up their racial outrage until after the primaries, so as to not jeopardize Barack Hussein Obama’s presidential bid?  Am I on to something here regarding the silence of Jackson and Sharpton?  I'll let you provide the answer to that question.

* Dan Gura is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

60's Liberalism Doomed Black America: But Damage Can Be Undone

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director, RFFM.org

Editor's note: This is the third in a series of columns and articles about the issue of race and race relations in America.

In the mid-1970's, after obtaining my degree in social work, I was employed by an organization which attempted to heal dysfunctional families.  One thing I soon came to learn was a great deal of those children on our caseload were from single-parent households.  Most certainly, there are problems which exist within families where both parents are present.  However, by far, my co-workers and I saw a pattern that was directly related to the fact one parent was missing and, often, that parent was the father.

Children from families where a father figure was no longer present literally clung to the male caseworkers on our staff.  At times, it was painful for those of us who would go home at quitting time because we knew these children could not retreat to a similar refuge.  This does not mean all single mothers are destined to fail as parents.  I am saying all the data indicated the job of parenting became exponentially harder when a parent was absent.  In many circumstances, once problems began within a single-parent household, it was virtually impossible to effectively intervene.

What I learned from my experience as a family therapist has clarified problems which I see affecting the African-American community in the 21st century.  Today statistics indicate over 7 out of 10 black children live in families where the father is no longer present and, all too often, offer little or no support to the family on the whole.  But this social phenomenon is quickly spreading to other racial groups in America.  Nearly 35% of white children are now born out of wedlock.  This cultural epidemic has manifested itself with ever-increasing juvenile crime and teen-age pregnancies.  However, by far, the situation has had its greatest impact on African-Americans.

Sadly, black leaders rarely, if ever, utilize the bully pulpit to discuss this subject from an intellectual standpoint.  The failure of black students to prosper within public education, discrimination by employers and institutionalized racism are seen as primary causes for the poverty and other social ills which impact blacks.  The denial regarding the failure of African-American men to take responsibility for their offspring has only exacerbated the situation and left a culture literally chasing its tail in search of answers that should be obvious to many observers.

The reason for the denial may stem from a lack by some to take the proverbial bull by the horns.  It is easier to blame others for problems within a culture.  However, when the true cause for suffering is overlooked--for any reason--the crisis facing that community may never be resolved.

Ironically, in a way, blacks are not totally responsible for the high birth rate among unwed mothers.  President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society practically encouraged black men to leave their families.  It was more economically sound for the government to pay black and poor white women who had children out of wedlock.  Fathers who stayed home with their families, in many cases, could not match government stipends with low-paying jobs.  Thus the cycle of poverty continued for many years.  Welfare reform which passed in the mid-1990's has begun to wean poor families off of the government dole, but the damage done may take generations to repair.

Also, other cultural factors resulting from the societal revolution of the 1960's helped feed the growth of single-parent households.  Moral standards were relaxed and some feminists actually said male role models were not needed in the home.  Obviously, these ideas were not premised with the health of families in mind.  Many such assertions about what made up a positive environment for children were self-serving and meant to advance political agendas.

Some leaders in the African-American community have stepped up to identify the crisis related to fatherless families, but they have paid the price.  Actor and comedian Bill Cosby has been one of the most outspoken regarding this matter.  At the same time, Cosby has been pilloried by African-American intelligentsia who see his words as capitulation to white America.  Cosby has been called everything from a sell-out to an Uncle Tom by liberal blacks who speak down from their high towers in institutions of higher learning.

There are problems with inner-city public schools.  There are cases where institutionalized racism does exist.  There are other factors which need to be addressed by African-Americans who are looking to better the lives of future generations which will make America stronger on the whole and certainly the rest of us need to do our part.  But until those within the African-American community face up to the problem of absentee fathers, we will continue to spin our wheels as a society in a futile search for solutions that stand right before us.

Jena 6 Illustrates Why Hate Crime Legislation is Bad Law

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director

Laws which prosecute individuals who participate in crimes driven by hate may sound like a good idea to the general public.  However, as with any other issue, upon closer inspection things may not be as simple as they seem.  When a hate crime law is violated, motivation is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and often such laws are not applied equally.

A perfect example of how hate crime laws muddy the criminal justice system can be illustrated by the situation in Jena, Louisiana.  Six African-American males were charged with attempted murder after they assaulted a white classmate.  Justin Barker was knocked unconscious during the attack.  A sixteen year old African-American, named Michael Brown, was the first individual of the six to be charged with attempted murder.  Brown, who has an extensive rap sheet, was prosecuted as an adult and was serving time in a Louisiana prison before an appellate court overturned his conviction.  The court claimed Brown and the five other defendants should not have been tried as adults.  Brown was recently released on bail.

The case has generated national attention.  In September, thousands descended on the small Louisiana town, including civil rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  What once was a local issue left up to those in the community of Jena became a stage on which a debate over race relations in America was being waged.

One of the arguments advanced by Jackson, Sharpton and others regarded the failure by local and state officials to charge white students with violations of state hate crime laws.  Some believe the racial tension in Jena began because of a tree that was on school property.  Allegedly, only white students were allowed to congregate under the tree and when African-American students sat under the tree, therefore, challenging some sort of ridiculous tradition, trouble began.  Three nooses were hung at the site and the white students who were involved were suspended.  The community believed the incident and the turmoil which resulted from it were over.  Yet, in reality, the tumult had just begun.

Civil rights activists wanted a greater penalty for the white students who hung the nooses.  There was a call for the white students to be charged with hate crimes and the mantra was quickly picked up by the national press.  Most certainly it would have been reasonable for the white students to have been charged with intimidation, expelled from school or both.  Nooses and lynching hold a significant meaning for African-Americans in the South, especially those who remember the Jim Crowe years which were in effect in the former Confederacy between 1876 and 1965.  These laws permitted segregation through the implementation of "separate, but equal."  Also, Jim Crow laws prohibited blacks from voting and greatly restricted the civil rights of African-Americans in general.  Subsequently, the reaction of some blacks can be well understood regarding the incident in Jena.  But, from many reports, the community itself was well underway towards healing until outsiders ratcheted up racial tension in the region to the boiling point.

While there was a very boisterous appeal for the whites who hung the nooses to be charged with hate crimes, there was something missing from this argument.  The six black students who attacked their fellow classmate were not charged with crimes of hate.  In fact, there was no discussion by the community itself, civil rights activists or the dominant media of charging the so-called Jena 6 with a hate crime.  Indeed, what is more serious?  The hanging of the nooses or the actual beating of a human being--almost to the point of death?  The lack of consistency here approaches absurdity and it seems impossible that anyone would miss the point.  But it happened and it is still happening today.

Recently, the U.S. Senate passed a version of hate crime legislation, but before the U.S. House of Representatives follows suit and the President signs such a bill into law, some questions need to be answered and soul-searching must be done.

The situation in Jena alone points to the impossible scenarios that can arise concerning the prosecution of hate crimes.  How do we know what is in the mind of those charged with hate crime violations?  Who is protected by hate crime laws?  Are such laws equally applied?  Are there those not protected by hate crime legislation?  Does hate crime legislation lead to prejudice?

Recently in Urbana, Illinois a number of predominantly white churches were vandalized.  Messages of hate were painted and carved into the church signage and the churches themselves.  Swastikas, the numbers 6-6-6, and images of upside-down crosses were part of the desecration which took place.  Clearly, the vandalism was motivated by hate or, at least, one would think so.  However, the Urbana Police did not refer to these crimes as being driven by hate.

The situation in Urbana raises the question; just who determines what qualifies as hate?  If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have showed up in Urbana, would the police have approached these crimes in a different manner?  If the churches were predominantly African-American, would the national media have led a crusade citing the prevalence of racial hatred in America?

The Jena, Louisiana case is, and should be, troubling to us all.  However, until the law becomes as color-blind concerning race as we should be as individuals, hate crime laws have the potential to exacerbate racial relations in the United States--instead of heal them.

Andrew Young and Racism

Editor's note: This week RFFM.org will look at race relations in America.  Beginning with Bill Zettler's column, we will try to shed light on the reasons for an ever-growing racial chasm in America.

From the Desk of Bill Zettler *

In a recent interview while discussing small business enterprises in black neighborhoods, Andrew Young said, "I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs, very few black people own these stores."

You would think a baseball fan like Andrew Young would understand that no one would have settled for a measly triple when he could have easily had a 4 bagger – a home run - if he could have just slurred one more race. Yes, sir, he was rounding third, headed for home--when he lost his concentration. Jews on first, Koreans on second, Arabs on third and, jumping on home plate – maybe whites!

Thankfully, Young did us a politically incorrect favor by reminding us that white folks do not have a monopoly on racism. And Jesse Jackson must have been smiling knowing that Young’s gaffe will make his 1984 anti-Semitic comments about “Hymies” and “Hymietown” in a New York interview seem too pale in comparison.

I always find it curious that multi-millionaires like Mr. Young and Jesse Jackson complain a lot about lack of services in black neighborhoods, but never seem to find it profitable to invest their personal money, time and, occasionally, their life by investing in the hood. No sir, leave it to Jews, Koreans and Arabs to work 14 hour days, 7 days a week in crime-ridden neighborhoods--areas where Young and Jackson will never be found--unless there is a news camera present. If you can afford a million dollar town home in Georgetown, why risk your money in a store in south central LA? Leave that ugly job to the 4 baggers. And then complain about them.

So, Andy, how about writing a check for a storefront, then another for furniture and fixtures, then another for insurance, then another for inventory. That would be chump change for you, considering your Congressional pension, your U.N. Ambassador pension and your Atlanta mayoral pension. But, for most people, that investment would be their life savings or close to it. Then be prepared to stand behind the counter for endless hours to make sure neither you nor your people get ripped off. Oh, by the way, don’t bother wearing the typical Washington $100 silk power tie. The bulletproof vest will just cover it up.

And if you are wondering where all those young Jewish, Korean and Arab doctors and scientists come from, they come from families where parents did write checks and stand behind the counter--so their kids wouldn’t have to. And, of course, they did not have the very generous taxpayer-funded Congressional pension, U.N. Ambassador pension or the Atlanta mayoral pension. In fact, they pay the taxes that pay your pension.

So, Mr. Young, put your money where your mouth is. Get your checkbook out and show the Jews, Koreans and Arabs how to do it right. We’re waiting. My guess is we will be waiting forever.

* Bill Zettler is a contributing editor of RFFM.org.

O'Reilly Panders To Jackson + Sharpton While Facing Unfair Racism Charges

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director

Earlier this week, popular cable talk show host, Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor--FOX NEWS) came under withering attack from some members of the dominant media for comments he made on his syndicated radio talk show.  Led by Media Matters, a self-appointed far left wing media watchdog group, O'Reilly was charged with making racist comments towards African-Americans.  Although Media Matters is clearly a partisan organization, some mainstream media outlets, including CNN and MSNBC, gave credence to the allegations--although most objective journalists cleared O'Reilly of any wrongdoing after a review of the FOX host's words were taken in their full context.

Briefly, on his radio program (The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly) O'Reilly was attempting to point out how the media inaccurately portrays the African-American community as people who smoke marijuana while listening to gangster rappers like Snoop Dogg and 50 Cent.

Sadly, O'Reilly's words were intentionally misinterpreted by Media Matters and others in the left wing press who will take any opportunity to discredit conservatives.  In reality, O'Reilly was saying the negative perception created by Hollywood of African-Americans is false.  O'Reilly is a particular target for groups like MoveOn.org because of his extreme popularity and the fact FOX NEWS beats out other competition in his 7 P.M. (Central) time slot by a margin of six to one.  FOX is also the most popular cable news network by far--surpassing CNN, MSNBC and all other cable news competition combined.

However, on Wednesday and Thursday (September 26th and 27th) O'Reilly fell into a trap that has led to some of the poor journalism we see in America today.  The FOX NEWS host ran to members of the far left, in order to seek protection from the charges of racism he was receiving.  In doing so, O'Reilly belittled himself and may have become a captive of the politically correct world which he so vigorously criticizes.

On Wednesday, O'Reilly invited the Rev. Al Sharpton to appear on his TV program.  O'Reilly's motives were clear.  Essentially, he was saying;  look, African-American leaders, like Al Sharpton, regularly appear on The O'Reilly Factor, they know I'm a good guy and I am not a racist.  However, in something that can only be called pitiful, the Rev. Jesse Jackson was a guest on Thursday's show.  Frankly, the program was hard to watch.  Jackson, like Sharpton in his appearance before him, used the popular format to advance a highly controversial racial agenda.

While Jackson droned on about the situation in Jena, the usually cantankerous O'Reilly acted like a whipped puppy dog--as he was dominated by the civil rights activist.  To make matters worse, O'Reilly, who is usually well-versed regarding the subjects which come up for discussion on the show thanks to an excellent production staff, time after time pleaded ignorance regarding the racial tension in Jena, and the circumstances which led to it.

"Well, I don't know what went on there, you do," said O'Reilly, again and again, in response to some of Jackson's comments which can only be called ridiculous by reasonable adults with the slightest familiarity concerning the case in Jena.  Jackson once said a white boy who was knocked unconscious after being attacked by six black students was a victim of an accidental kick to the head.  O'Reilly again responded by pleading ignorance to the facts surrounding the prosecution of the six African-American defendants, while in past shows, O'Reilly spoke at great lengths about the details of that particular case.

For perhaps the first time in the history of The O'Reilly Factor, the guest interrupted the host in a dismissive manner.  O'Reilly was far more assertive in his interviews with President George W. Bush than he was with the African-American leader.  It was a shameful performance meant to appease his liberal attackers--while Sharpton and Jackson were given the opportunity to spout untruths and, at the very least, their biased perception of race relations in America.

You would think it couldn't get any worse, but it did later in Thursday's program.  While interviewing former CBS journalist and best-selling author Bernard Goldberg ("Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right"), O'Reilly asked Goldberg what he thought of his talk with Jackson.  It was obviously an uncomfortable moment.  Goldberg hesitatingly said "I have mixed feelings about the interview" as his voice trailed off.  Then, Goldberg, the former CBS journalist-turned-media-critic, went into a withering attack of Jackson, citing the reason for many of the problems facing the African-American community.  Goldberg attacked Jackson for not taking a strong position about the fact that 70% of children in the black community today are born to single mothers.

It was apparent Goldberg was tactfully suggesting O'Reilly should have pressed Jackson further on the subject--instead of letting him ramble on about other less important issues.  O'Reilly responded by saying he did question Jackson on this matter, but any viewer would say O'Reilly's efforts to pin Jackson down regarding the problem of unwed mothers and missing fathers in the black community were, at best, lame.  Perhaps the reason Jackson does not pursue this issue is related to the fact it was just a few years ago he himself fathered a child out of wedlock with a former Operation PUSH employee.  But O'Reilly did not want to rock the boat and ignored the subject for the remainder of the segment.

To throw salt on what was fast becoming a festering journalistic wound, O'Reilly told Goldberg that Jackson admitted the criticism he was receiving was unfair--though Jackson's acknowledgement to O'Reilly was said after the on-air segment.

Jackson probably did tell O'Reilly that Media Matters and others were wrong for taking O'Reilly's words out of context.  But why didn't Jackson say these words on the air?  However, in a self-serving attempt to defend himself against charges of racism, he, once again, gave Jackson a pass.  Jackson's failure to support O'Reilly while the cameras were on was, at best, duplicitous and, at the very least, disingenuous.

Of course O'Reilly has the right to defend himself against spurious charges.  But one does not turn to the enemy of truth to seek righteousness.  A house divided against itself cannot stand and O'Reilly sacrificed his principles, in order to save face with members of our society who would hate him no matter what the evidence indicated.

I think Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor add balance to the field of journalism and commentary in America.  For example, O'Reilly's work to protect sexually abused children is outstanding.  His promotion of Jessica's Law, which would help to keep track of child predators, has led to the legislation being passed in over 30 states across the nation and, hopefully, more will follow suit.

However, O'Reilly's performance during the past week, while attempting to fend off unfair criticism, leaves much to be desired.  Hopefully, the FOX talk show host will learn the truth can stand alone and only bad things will result from turning to those who deny the truth for support.  Jackson and Sharpton both misrepresented the facts concerning the situation in Jena and, in this case, the truth became a victim in O'Reilly's attempt to clear himself of charges from those who are using race to divide our nation.