Former Florida Rep. Allen West had some harsh words for nationally known civil rights activists like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who have remained silent on a video showing black teens beating a white boy on a school bus.
“Three 15-year-old black teens beat up a 13-year-old white kid because he told school officials they tried to sell him drugs,” Mr. West said, earlier this week, Sunshine State News reported. “Do you hear anything from Sharpton, Jackson, NAACP. Stevie Wonder, Jay-Z, liberal media or Hollywood? Cat got your tongues, or is it that pathetic hypocrisy revealing itself once again? Ya’ll just make me sick.”
4 comments:
I notice you still don't understand civil rights. Civil rights are political and social freedom and equality in the eyes of the government.
The government arrested the boys beat the white kid. The government is therefore set to give the victim justice, which is the exact opposite of a civil rights violation. It's not a hate crime because the victim was beaten for reasons other than the color of his skin.
Now, if the three boys get a hot-shot lawyer who claims the white boy menacingly attacked them with a gun that was hidden off camera, and that the boys were somehow acting in self-defense, creating reasonable doubt in the jury, and gets the boys a "not guilty" verdict, then we can start talking about a potential civil rights violation.
Until then, however, there is simply no civil rights violation to talk about. It is a terrible act of violence, and the boys will hopefully be locked up for it.
Oh please God is One, stop being so anti-white and racist!
Stop pretending Stan can possibly misunderstand something!
”God is One said...
I notice you still don't understand civil rights. Civil rights are political and social freedom and equality in the eyes of the government.”
Would that your naïve notion were the case; it is not the case. The Zimmerman case is especially exemplary of that. Zimmerman was not even arrested by the black sheriff who “found no evidence” to support an arrest. The prosecutor did not want to prosecute. But the Leftist-racist elements were not satisfied with normal justice and they demanded their pound of flesh. So the legal officials CAVED to their extra-legal demands and threats of Sharpton-type demonstrations (aka riots and killing). So Zimmerman went to trial; he was acquitted and the Leftist, racist elements went berserk since they didn’t get what they wanted, when they wanted it: justice not under the judiciary, but lynch mob justice on their own terms. They then threatened the cities with “marches”, which under MLK would have been peaceful, but under the “new black leaders”, such demonstrations have actually resulted in deaths. Al Sharpton is directly responsible for the Crown Heights riots and killing. He is unrepentant for his outrageous violent anti-Semitic rants that spurred the rioters on.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/al-sharpton-true-role-crown-heights-yankel-rosenbaum-brother-speaks-article-1.945812
“Civil Rights” now seems to mean favoritism to blacks, which they require due to their inferiority, which in turn is caused by white racism: that is part of the AtheoLeftist Narrative. The term no longer means even-handed justice via laws administered judicially. Once again: it means racial favoritism for blacks, as they demand it, outside the legal system. Hence, the Attorney General of the USA heeds the demand for unequal prosecution, and wants to commit double jeopardy on Zimmerman (contra the US Constitution, Amendment 5). Even the American Civil Liberty Union has denounced that action. But the USAG has not relented his racial persecution.
So your concept is falsified by recent history.
”The government arrested the boys beat the white kid. The government is therefore set to give the victim justice, which is the exact opposite of a civil rights violation. It's not a hate crime because the victim was beaten for reasons other than the color of his skin.”
The black boys are being given different treatment than Zimmerman was given; that is discrimination. In no way can it be considered non-discriminatory for similar crimes to receive different treatments. The Leftist-racist concept that they know what was in Zimmerman’s mind, and it was hate, is a logical, physical and empirical impossibility. There is no evidence, and can be no evidence to support the charge of “hate”. So the charge itself is racist. Thus the response, which drove an illegal trial (based on needing an arrest for political mollification) and a subsequent attempt to “get” Zimmerman anyway despite the acquittal, was racist, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. And that describes the current concept of “civil rights”.
”Now, if the three boys get a hot-shot lawyer who claims the white boy menacingly attacked them with a gun that was hidden off camera, and that the boys were somehow acting in self-defense, creating reasonable doubt in the jury, and gets the boys a "not guilty" verdict, then we can start talking about a potential civil rights violation.”
If I understand your new scenario, the only civil rights violation that can exist is if a white (armed of course) is deemed culpable although being beaten to a pulp, and somehow deserved the violent reaction? I think I must not understand your point here, because I doubt that how I read it reflects what you mean.
”Until then, however, there is simply no civil rights violation to talk about. It is a terrible act of violence, and the boys will hopefully be locked up for it.”
There was no civil rights violation in Zimmerman’s case either; but the notion of civil rights no longer applies in the original sense. Under Sharpton et. al., civil rights means deference to the demands of blacks who have demonstrated the potential for actual violence, including mass rioting and associated death. The officials who should have defended their legal system, their sheriff, and George Zimmerman were literally scared into sacrificing Zimmerman in order to quell the threat of black mobs under Al Sharpton.
Post a Comment