Wednesday, January 11, 2017

This is Not a Hate Crime: This is a Hate Crime

This is Not a Hate Crime: This is a Hate Crime
By: jamesbaxley
The year 2017 is starting off with a bang. The two biggest stories of the year so far are: Donald Trump's inauguration and an imprisoned mentally disabled white teen in Chicago who was beaten by four Black Lives Matter supporters. We have four years to talk about Trump, so let’s talk about the disabled white teen.

Disabled Teen Victim in Chicago Torture & Beating Streamed Live on Facebook Live
In Chicago, two young black men and two black women, all BLM supporters kidnapped a white disabled teen. They held him for three days in which they tortured him, made him drink water from the toilet, and scalped him. All the while they shouted “fuck white people, and “fuck Donald Trump.”

Jordan Hill,18, of Carpentersville; Tesfaye Cooper, 18, of Chicago; Brittany Covington, 18, of Chicago; and Tanishia Covington, 24, of Chicago; face felony criminal charges of aggravated kidnapping, “hate crime”; aggravated unlawful restraint; aggravated battery deadly weapon; robbery; PSMV and residential burglary.

Four Chicago teens are in custody and are likely to be charged today (Jan. 5), after a disturbing video posted to Facebook Live surfaced showing the group beating and torturing a tied-up, mentally disabled teenager,

The BLM mob brilliantly posted their attack of the disabled white teen on Facebook Live for all the world to see, which included law enforcement agencies. The video became viral.

The important part of this act was that these BLM supporters turned a kidnapping into an act of racism. If you were to pay attention to the Main Stream Media you would have never known this.

The MSM did everything it could to avoid the racism part of the kidnapping. Race was, without doubt the contributing factor to the attack. The attackers shouted several times “fuck white people” as they kicked the victim over and over.

Charging these four black adults with a “hate crime”, also known as a bias-motivated crime was the furthest thing from the MSM's agenda.  CNN’s Don Lemon panel discussion proved this point as Lemon said,

 "I don't think it's evil. I don't think it's evil. I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.”
 Lemon turned to CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Symone Sanders who stated that it “can’t say it’s a hate crime because police are still investigating.” Sanders continued her anti-white rant with “But I’m going to say something that’s probably not very popular — we cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.” Really? Within minutes of Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Sandra Bland, and any black person shot by a white officer the officers were charged with a “hate crime” by the African American community.

CNN News Anchor Don Lemon
 Sanders is the same woman, who in another panel discussion on CNN interrupted a fellow panel member named Carl. Carl couldn't finish his question before Sanders would jump in to berate white people, “What do you say to the people who dragged a poor white guy out of a car and beat him—” when she abruptly interrupted, “Oh my goodness! Poor white people! Stop! Stop it, Carl!” 

Nobody wants to admit that this is a “hate crime.” Even in the city which Barack Obama calls home, Chicago. The Chicago police department wouldn’t comment on the Facebook Live attacker’s possibility of committing a “hate crime.” They are doing their part in protecting Obama’s buddy Democratic Mayor Rahm Israel Emanuel, who has turned Chicago into a “sanctuary city.” 

The Chicago Police Department didn’t want to call this a “hate crime.” Cmdr. Kevin Duffin said, "Although they are adults [the Facebook Live attackers], they're 18. Kids make stupid decisions -- I shouldn't call them kids; they're legally adults, but they're young adults, and they make stupid decisions.”

Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson even avoided saying “hate crime” and said that the racially charged statements, “fuck white people” were "ranting about something they think might make a headline." In other words the Facebook Live attackers wanted their video to go viral.

Chicago draws intense scrutiny for a grim milestone: 762 homicides in 2016.


In my view, I do not like the term “hate crime.” Labeling an act as a “hate crime” prioritizes the [same] crime against one person as being more important than the [same] crime against another person. To say only certain groups are allowed to be hated and only certain designated as a hate group is an act of racism in itself. A “hate crime” isn’t de facto about hate, but about bias or prejudice against a group. 

Did you realize that in the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the wording doesn’t specify which race(s) it protects? Everybody assumed that it applies only to blacks. Because of the presupposed idea that the Civil Rights Act [of 1968] was only to protect blacks, people were dismissive when I brought up the Supreme Court's case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell in 1993. Their verdict upheld “hate crime legislation against a white victim in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476. 

The FBI, along with other minority attacks do track “hate crime against whites. The admission of whites being victims of “hate crimes has infuriated some people such as Jill Tregor, executive director of Intergroup Clearinghouse. She claims that whites being victims of “hate crimes is "an abuse of what the 'hate crime' laws were intended to cover.”

 The 2015 FBI “hate crime statistics show there were 613 anti-white-related crimes out of 5,850 total cases, around 10.5 percent of all reported “hate crimes” for that year alone. The sake of this argument is not to discredit “hate crimes” against blacks, but to show that there are “hate crimes,” whether one wants to admit it or not against whites.

Why would the media not want to talk about if the assault of a disabled white teen would be considered a “hate crime?” It isn’t because this crime doesn’t meet the definition of a “hate crime.”

Passed in 1871 after the American Civil War, the first “hate crime” law was the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The original Civil Rights Act was unsuccessful. The authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 had to come up with a new twist to make it work. The politicians and Civil Rights leaders came up with “hate crime.” 

 The modern era of “hate-crime” legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245. Federal statute 18, U.S. 245 made it a crime to interfere with anyone who is engaging in acts such as "attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting." By interfering, the authors meant "by force, threat of force, by injury, or intimidation." This statute is only valid if "race, color, religion, or national origin" is the determining factor.

Yet, in order for this to be a "hate crime," and a federal offense, the prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.

To understand why a successful prosecution of these four individuals as a "hate crime" isn’t desirable, we have to understand how they [Jackson and the removed] would overwrought.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the definition of race as a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits. So, race is a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary goes on to describe racism as a belief that certain races of people are by birth and nature superior to others; discrimination or hatred based on race.

The SJW’s and lay people in the fight for racial equality, no matter how noble they believe themselves to be, take their definition of racism not from the dictionary, which is the true and accepted definition of racism, but from the academics. 

The academic version of racism isn’t that different from the original, a belief that certain races of people are by birth and nature superior to others; discrimination or hatred based on race.  It is the addition of "power" and "oppression" which differentiates the true definition from the false definition.

Power—the capacity to exert force on or over something or someone.

Oppression—the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

The addition of "power" and "oppression" not only retains the individual [read white] as a racist, but the individual now has the power at the institutional level (banks, education, etc.) which helps the individual maintain their dominance.

So why wouldn’t prosecuting these four individuals under federal statute, 18 U.S. 245 be desirable?
If the Facebook Live attackers are successfully prosecuted federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, then the definition of racism that the SJW’s and the Left uses would fall apart.

A successful prosecution would show that racism isn’t systematic and institutionalized. It would show that racism is an individual act which isn’t carried out by just whites; in a nut shell, anybody can be a racist.
David Pilgrim, curator of the Jim Crow Museum wrote: 

 “There are few things in this world that I am surer of than this: blacks can hate whites. The years that I spent at Prichard Junior High are illustrative.  We hated whites and that hatred often manifested itself in racial ways. It was us versus Them, and the Them were whites, or at least the whites who lived near, attended, or worked at the school... Although we lacked political, social, and economic power, we did have the power to be intolerant and to hate. You can call it defensive hatred if you like, but it was a thick, real hatred.                 
...Conceptualizing racism as prejudice plus discriminatory acts that are “central to the core operations of the U.S. society” is knotty for me. The fact that relatively few blacks can hurt whites does not mean that no blacks can hurt whites. I see racism as operating on all levels from the individual with irrational bigotry throwing a brick to the unintentional (and intentional) race-based privilege that pervades a culture.”
 What we need a new, national conversation about race, not a one-sided argument. Not a discussion where if one side disagrees with what you have to say, you are labeled a racist and shouted down. It is tactics like these which stifles any positive conversations.