WHO IS KILLING WHOM? Who is most likely to act on his hatred? The mainstream hate group, the Southern Poverty Center, has plenty to say about the murder of Richard Barrett, 67, by a black supremacist:
“‘Richard Barrett was a guy who ran around the country essentially pulling off publicity stunts,’ said Mark Potok, who monitors hate groups for the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center. ‘He really never amounted to any kind of leader in the white supremacist movement. .. Barrett traveled the country to promote anti-black and anti-immigrant views and founded a supremacist group called the Nationalist Movement. He had a knack for publicity but little real influence, one expert said.'”
“A white supremacist lawyer was stabbed and beaten to death by a black neighbour who had done yard work for him at his home in Pearl, Mississippi.
A preliminary post mortem showed Barrett was stabbed multiple times in the neck and bashed in the head, Sheriff Ronnie Pennington said.
He had burns over 35 per cent of his body, though investigators believe he was killed on Wednesday night and his house set on fire Thursday to cover up his death.
Pennington did not disclose a motive but said neighbour Vincent McGee, 22, was charged with murder on Thursday and deputies charged three other people in the case on Friday.
Albert Lewis, McGee’s stepfather, was charged with being an accessory after the fact, while Vicky and Michael Dent, who live nearby, are charged with being accessories after the fact and arson.
Pennington did not describe their involvement but said all three were being held at the county jail. He did not know if they had attorneys.”
[SNIP]
Perhaps the SPLC ought to be held responsible for inciting to commit murder by fingering so many people as racist and getting them hurt or bumped-off.
The media would like you “to believe that dangling a noose—an impolite and impolitic form of expression—is a hate crime; a black man beating a white man to a pulp—not so much. Being maimed or murdered, evidently, doesn’t compare to being maligned.”
Update (April 27): SPONTANEOUS BLACK SUPREMACY SYNDROME. In reply to “Holytape” hereunder: A figure of speech was used here, which is why I alluded to “black supremacy” and not a “black supremacist.” This murder is an act of black supremacy, if not the work of an organized black supremacist. Call it spontaneous black supremacy.
If democracy means anything, it is the right of localities to a measure of autonomy over how and with whom they live their lives. How wrong were the residents of Arizona to imagine that they would be granted that luxury. Polls show Arizonians do not want the crime and lawlessness associated with hordes of illegal immigrants streaming into their state. Her constituents support “Gov. Jan Brewer signing of a bill that requires police to question people about their immigration status – including asking for identification – if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.”
The murder last month of Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz—he had raised cattle in the area of Cochise County for decades—by one peaceable, illegal invader shook that community.
Another overreacting, overreaching law-enforcement activist, Russell Pearce’s motives are suspect, hints the NYT, because “his son, a Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy, was shot and wounded in 2004 by an illegal immigrant and Mr. Pearce, a former sheriff’s deputy, was shot and wounded while arresting gang members 20 years ago.”
Only the Times would construe the sobering effects of experience as a bias. What will we do when the Pearce kind of patriot; tough old-timers, die out?
What won’t die out any time soon are the powerhouse advocates for illegals immigrants converging on the Grand Canyon State. They won’t be dying out as long as they can use the political machine to bilk the politically powerless (you and me) for the benefit of their clientele. sadly, Arizona will be tied up in the courts by the proxies for the powerful (open-border advocates).
The Arizona law, SB1070, resembles the law the federal branch of government has chosen to flout. SB1070 is a species of negative law that takes back from the federales the right to accept or repel invaders. By default, the Bush/Obama-run federal government had decreed that the states ought not be permitted to repel invaders and must assume the costs in blood and treasure of the invasion. The central government did so by way of ignoring laws only it was permitted to enforce.
Arizona has repossessed its sovereign right to determine if it wants unfettered immigration with Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
State sovereignty? Naturally, our illiberal president would take the most severe tone with such notions, supplemented by stern actions to curtail this show of independence from his outlying territories.
Earlier Friday, President Obama called the Arizona bill “misguided” and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it’s legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to “irresponsibility by others.”
“That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe,” Obama said.
Update I (April 25): David Smith (see Comments Section) points out another instance in which Glenn Beck has gone wrong in exhorting a sitting-duck pacifism. Via WikiAnswer:
“… taken from a letter Jefferson wrote to William Smith in 1787 in reference to an uprising in Massachusetts after the American Revolution. A more full quote:
“Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s [sic] motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s [sic] rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Jefferson is referring, specifically, to the Shays’ Rebellion. If you look at the context of the quote, it appears that Jefferson actually believed the men who took arms were essentially wrong about the facts, but he still considered them patriotic for making their voices heard. Jefferson felt it was important that the government be kept in check, even if those keeping them in check were not necessarily in the right. It wasn’t being in the “right” that kept the people free, but rather the fact that they had a voice and used it.
Update II (April 26): “You run into civil-rights issues whenever you try to enforce any law,” says Tucker Carlson. “That’s just the nature of enforcing laws.” Too true. And, “This Bill asks law enforcement officials to enforce the law. If by so doing you undermine basic notions of fairness, as the president alleged, let’s just give up on enforcing any law. It’s an absurd thing to say.”
Update III: The god-awful Chris Matthews, who makes no pretense at objectivity any longer, pummeleda mild-mannered John Huppenthal, a senator from Arizona. The Republican state senator explained that since the get-tough-on-illegals policies were implemented the murder rate in Arizona went from 250 in 2006 to 125 (the following year?). Half.
But what’s a hundred or so lives among liberals?
Matthews then went from bombastic to farcical. After being told that his guest has documented an association between illegality and crime, he demanded to know how did stopping a person because you think he is here illegally reduce crime. Patiently, Huppenthal explained that given the causal connection just mentioned, deporting a person caught in the act tends to do the trick.
Poor Huppenthal, clearly a good fellow working to make his community more tolerable, was then insulted andcalled. … a racist.
Is there anything more repulsive than a liberal man?
“…Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.
Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.
Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government – Bush and Obama both – issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.
What are we doing to our own people?
Whose country is this, anyway?
America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.
Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.
This is not an option. It is an obligation.
Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?”
Update V (April 27): BROTHER BUSH. Jeb “Bush … opposes the Arizona immigration bill, too.” WaPo: “Right after his not-so-secretly preferred U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio comes out against Arizona’s new immigration reform law [and for amnesty, or as it’s called in political locution: comprehensive immigration reform], Jeb Bush lends his name to an under-the-radar conservative campaign for federal immigration reform this year.”
One of our readers prefers that I remain mum about the Republican treason lobby. Sorry. Truth will out. With my help.
Update VI: AZ State Senator Frank Antenori fighting for his community. “What about my constituents,” he asks. He was responding to the CNN Woman’s idiotic question: “There are a lot of people who are very angry, very upset [a life threatening condition, clearly] that if they drive into Arizona [read, enter it illegally], they will be pulled over. How do you convince them not to be worried?” Apparently, laws in defense of life and private property must be tailored to suit the trespassers.
Antenori: “What about my constituents whose homes are ransacked? What about the ranchers who’re shot at while patrolling their fence lines; whose cattle are being slaughtered; there’s millions of dollars of economic damages… what about them? What about their civil right?
I have one correction to Sen. Antenori (a veteran): the rights he is trying to protect are not civil rights; they are the right to life, liberty and property. In defense of Suzanne Malveaux, she let it rest there, rather than give more time to the opponents, or try and humiliate the man, as is the habit of the hacks at MSNBC. [Look at how this dogmatic dodo insists on getting her opinion in.]
The calm, detachment of the voice of a member of the forensic team negates the scene being surveyed: a slaughtered, white South African family, one among many like it. For the edification of racism spotters in the West, in Mandela’s South Africa, the assailants are as ethnically distinct as their victims. (I am waiting on a translation from our Afrikaans readers.)
Regular readers and visitors: Send others to Barely a Blog and to www.IlanaMercer.com (archived under “South Africa”). The blog and the main site are repositories for facts and analysis about what’s underway in the once glorious South Africa.
For our South African readers, this weekend I will post on activism and resistance.
Ms. Mercer,
Are those committing and condoning these atrocities, as well as those wholly apathetic to the mass serial murders, a purely racial entity crossing all, most, or many tribes? Or is this mainly the result of just the ANC’s strict devotion to the Communist modus operandi?
I’m looking forward to your book on S.A.
What you see unfold in SA is more the former than the latter. Since Westerners, for the most, are without racial hatred and are all racial liberals, they cannot fathom—or defend against—such white, hot hatred. Afrikaners tried, but were sold down the Orange River for their crude attempts.
What stares back at you from these mutilated remains? Racial hatred, of course. The South African Institute for Race Relations, in all its sanctimony, is awaiting “scientific evidence; research” to prove the point. I’m a pretty level-headed rational writer, but sometimes the truth is there in the handiwork of the devils who do the deeds, not in double-blind studies or “well-controlled” surveys.”
(I’ve been drawing on some of their factual work for my own book, but overall, they have been deniers of the racial aspect of Boer murders. That is criminal negligence. Unjust. And worse.)
Update II (April 25): To Myron’s comment on SA gaining acceptance with the Left. The Left and what goes for conservatism in the USA have always backed the barbarism that the New SA entails.
THE GOOD OLD DAYS.Anonymous’ comments have been illuminating (although, please see posting instructions; email must be provided; it stays anon) as he understands Afrikaans. The narration, anon has pointed out, is from July 1986. I should have known that the thorough police work we heard narrated over the visual was suspect as it is no longer likely in the New improved SA.
What we are hearing over the tape is the kind of forensic work you see on TV (CSI), a feature of the Old SA. These old timer policemen have been given the pink slip. The fact that the bodies evince no mutilation—and this is reasonable conjecture, I believed—goes to the fact that punishment was very likely under the old SA, or the regime, as Americans would call it. The murderer/s would have been caught and HUNG (unless an American or Swedish human rights organization intervened on their behalf). That’s a deterrent. The death penalty has been abolished in the New Barbaric South Africa.
Update III (April 26): Thanks to Phil for his translation. He writes:
Here is the translation of the voice on the Video clip. First of all this is an official Police Video. It appears from the background voice that two policemen are present. I do not know who first raised the alarm but suspect that these two arrived after the police who were initially called, handed it over to them. It is an emotionless description of the crime scene, so there are no guesses or opinions offered by them. My Afrikaans is not great, but here goes:
It is a murder scene. In front of you is the body of a white man with a tire on his chest and a bed cover thrown over him. He has multiple stab wounds to the chest. It looks as if this is the spot where he was murdered. According to a doctor it occurred about four hours ago Here we see the face. The stab wounds in his chest can be clearly seen. (Now takes hand) You see the left hand of the man with stab wounds from the attack. The thumb is almost cut off. The right hand shows similar injuries. (camera closes in on torso) There is also a stab wound on the right side of his chest.
(Now moves to following morning!) It is July 03 1986 at 10:20 am This door (a backroom in on the property) was broken open (presumably by the police) at 09:20am where we discover the body of a woman and two schoolchildren. The child is hanging from a rafter. The woman is also hanging from a rafter. Her clothes are disorderly as a result of the attack. You can see that the belt used with her trousers is broken and she is bruised on her side and also badly on her face. (Camera points to thin rope with loop on the floor) This rope was used to strangle them before hanging them up.
The schoolboy has rope between his chin and front bottom teeth, but on closer examination you can see the main part of the rope embedded in his neck.
(Camera turns to schoolbag lying on the floor next to murdered young girl) The school bag suggests that she had just returned from school when this occurred. (Camera now turns on to schoolgirl) The mark that we can see on her neck was caused by the thinner rope. The neck shows the rope bruises.
(The camera now goes to the room occupied by the live in domestic servant. They notice the tie may have belonged to murderer) and the general untidiness of the bed. The woman may have been initially tied up here. (the camera pans the premises and shows the back door close to where the man was murdered and says so)
The camera now goes back to the woman who is being taken out on a mortuary gurney.) The detective shows the short thinner piece of rope used to strangle her, still on her neck, saying the same. (The camera now pans the back area of the house) Here we see the back area of the house. There is a bar and a snooker room there.
And that is it!
It may seem brutal but this is really quite tame compared to what is now going on here now. At this moment, a one year old toddler is lying in the Sunninghill Clinic in a critical state with a fractured skull. She was at home with her minder (also attacked) when they were home during a “House Robbery” Yeah, that’s what it is called and it! It happens all the time. To get an up to date perspective on the current situation visit www.AfricanCrisis.com . The story of the toddler features there. To see the names of the murdered farmers go to the Dutch site www.censorbugbears.com.
It looks like this place is in serious trouble. The problem with a genocide is that people only seem to notice it once it has happened!
Regards,
Phil
“Not a week goes by when Fox-New phenom Glenn Beck doesn’t make libertarian pedants and purists bristle. Examples? The mushy slogan ‘Faith, Hope, Charity’ on which, Beck insists, the old republic was founded. I’m with Beck’s favored founder Ben Franklin who said that “he who lives upon hope will die fasting.”
Then there is charity: Americans hardly need a nudge in that direction as they are already abundantly charitable. Our countrymen are also constant in their faith ? to a fault perhaps, as too much faith in mystical forces beyond one’s control may compound feelings of helplessness.
Conversely, Beck could be more reverential in his approach to the free market to which the Talker often refers in rather pedestrian, almost statist terms. ‘It is the system that we have; it’s a system that works’ are refrains Beck is fond of repeating.
If instead of waxing fat about “Faith, Hope, and Charity” Beck built on life, liberty, and property,” his viewers would come to understand that the voluntary free market is a sacred extension of life itself. …
In the context of the man’s incalculable contribution to liberty, these are, all-in-all, minor quibbles—all the more so given that Glenn Beck has now taken his most significant step in defense of freedom and constitutional order. Beck has seen the writing on the tottering walls of Empire, and has dedicated himself to that humble foreign policy espoused by the founders. …”
