Writing a political Blog is a bit like surfing the Web. You start out with one subject in mind and, before you know it, you’re off on a tangent.
Thus it was in the last post when I mentioned that the Federal Department of Justice had filed suit against the State of Arizona over its pending immigration legislation. But I left it at that knowing full well that there was too much there to ignore it for long.
Arizona’s law, the now famous or notorious depending on your point of view, SB1070 came into being via the normal legislative process. It was debated and passed by both state bodies and signed into law by the governor. And it has drawn ire the likes of which I’ve never seen and now a lawsuit from the Feds.
How can it be therefore, that the State of Rhode Island has had a very similar law in place for a considerable period which came into being via an Executive Order of their governor. But it has drawn no boycott attempts and no federal lawsuits and no speeches by Obama or foreign leaders like Senor Calderon of Mexico.
Could it be that it’s all about politics? Arizona’s political structure is largely conservative and Republican while that of Rhode Island is almost entirely liberal and Democrat. For a start, all four congressional representatives are Democrats including Patrick Kennedy of dubious reputation.
And, while we’re on the subject of Arizona’s lawsuit, I would be remiss were I not to add that the suit makes no mention of civil rights, racial profiling or any other indignity that Obama and Calderon and countless others railed against. Instead it focuses on federal preemption and so one is again bound to ask why there is no action against Rhode Island.
Could it be that the Department of Justice is playing politics and while we’re on that subject could some of its decisions be based on race?
Consider two cases in Philadelphia. In one, a polling station had members of the Black Panthers outside the door in paramilitary outfits wielding Billy clubs while chanting clearly racial slurs about “white supremacy”. This is surely voter intimidation and that was the view of the Feds. But when the offenders failed to show up for a hearing in court the DOJ decided to drop the charges.
Then there is the case of King Samir Shabazz of the “New Black Panthers” who is on tape, again ironically in the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia with the following message.
“I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker I hate him, because we're still in this condition."
"There's too much serious business going on in the Black community to be out here… with white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive]s on our arm."
"We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we're not free. Your enemy cannot make you free, fool. You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers. You're gonna have to kill some of they babies. Let us get our act together. It's time to wake up, clean up, and stand up."
"I can't wait for the day that they're all dead. I won't be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead."
"When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain't their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker."
"We're going to keep putting our foot up the white man's ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]' equality. Period. If you ain't gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we're gonna take it, in the name of freedom."
And again the decision of the Federal Department of Justice is to take no action.
Could race be playing a part in that decision as well? I’d hate to think so but one is bound to wonder.
How about you?
Or put it another way; do you think the reaction from government would be different if the speaker were Caucasian and the objects of the diatribe were African-Americans and their babies?
Thus it was in the last post when I mentioned that the Federal Department of Justice had filed suit against the State of Arizona over its pending immigration legislation. But I left it at that knowing full well that there was too much there to ignore it for long.
Arizona’s law, the now famous or notorious depending on your point of view, SB1070 came into being via the normal legislative process. It was debated and passed by both state bodies and signed into law by the governor. And it has drawn ire the likes of which I’ve never seen and now a lawsuit from the Feds.
How can it be therefore, that the State of Rhode Island has had a very similar law in place for a considerable period which came into being via an Executive Order of their governor. But it has drawn no boycott attempts and no federal lawsuits and no speeches by Obama or foreign leaders like Senor Calderon of Mexico.
Could it be that it’s all about politics? Arizona’s political structure is largely conservative and Republican while that of Rhode Island is almost entirely liberal and Democrat. For a start, all four congressional representatives are Democrats including Patrick Kennedy of dubious reputation.
And, while we’re on the subject of Arizona’s lawsuit, I would be remiss were I not to add that the suit makes no mention of civil rights, racial profiling or any other indignity that Obama and Calderon and countless others railed against. Instead it focuses on federal preemption and so one is again bound to ask why there is no action against Rhode Island.
Could it be that the Department of Justice is playing politics and while we’re on that subject could some of its decisions be based on race?
Consider two cases in Philadelphia. In one, a polling station had members of the Black Panthers outside the door in paramilitary outfits wielding Billy clubs while chanting clearly racial slurs about “white supremacy”. This is surely voter intimidation and that was the view of the Feds. But when the offenders failed to show up for a hearing in court the DOJ decided to drop the charges.
Then there is the case of King Samir Shabazz of the “New Black Panthers” who is on tape, again ironically in the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia with the following message.
“I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker I hate him, because we're still in this condition."
"There's too much serious business going on in the Black community to be out here… with white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive]s on our arm."
"We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we're not free. Your enemy cannot make you free, fool. You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers. You're gonna have to kill some of they babies. Let us get our act together. It's time to wake up, clean up, and stand up."
"I can't wait for the day that they're all dead. I won't be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead."
"When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain't their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker."
"We're going to keep putting our foot up the white man's ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]' equality. Period. If you ain't gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we're gonna take it, in the name of freedom."
And again the decision of the Federal Department of Justice is to take no action.
Could race be playing a part in that decision as well? I’d hate to think so but one is bound to wonder.
How about you?
Or put it another way; do you think the reaction from government would be different if the speaker were Caucasian and the objects of the diatribe were African-Americans and their babies?
No comments:
Post a Comment