New York Times Finds Civil Rights Commission`s Condemnation Of Hate Bill (And AG Holder`s Jim Snow Policies) Unfit To Print
If you wanted to find out the
latest on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR),
would you turn to the
New York Times
or Jared
Taylor`s embattled little newsletter/ website
American Renaissance?
If you said the
NYT, you`d be
wrong. (Full disclosure: I have had three articles published in American Renaissance.)
Consider the following
developments.
In
American
Renaissance`s June 22 news round-up,
its editors excerpted and linked to a webzine column
by black writer
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, criticizing the USCCR`s
opposition to the federal
“hate crimes”
bill. Hutchinson enthusiastically supports the bill,
which will be voted on by the Senate imminently. He
wrote:
“Federal prosecutors don`t really
want to bring criminal civil rights cases before the
court. They see them as no-win cases with little
political gain and lots of risk of making enemies of
local police, DAs and state officials.
[NS: Tell that to
Jeremiah Munsen!] The rare time that the
feds cracked down on civil rights violence was during
the
1960s civil rights battles.
“Though federal prosecutors in recent
times have had more than sufficient legal ground to
bring cases in the old race murders from the 1960s,
those have been brought almost exclusively in state
courts. The only exceptions to the hard nosed rule that
prosecutors stay out of state cases occurs when a hate
crime triggers a major riot, generates mass protests or
attracts major press attention.
“The
Tiller murder, the
Holocaust Museum
shoot-up, and the increasingly shrill rants of hate
groups spurred Holder to demand a tougher hate crime
law. Given the tangle of
legal wrangling and politics on hate crimes,
Holder`s got his work cut out for him to get it.” [AG
Holder`s Battle for a Hate Crimes Law by Earl
Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media, June 21, 2009.
Links added by
VDARE.COM]
Of course, Hutchinson has his
history backwards: Obama
Attorney General Holder began pushing for the Hate
Crimes bill before
the Tiller and Holocaust Museum killings. He has
merely
seized on them to try and get the bill passed.
As for
“the increasingly
shrill rants of hate groups”, Hutchinson is merely
parroting
$PLC fundraising letters that have repeated
that same talking point every few months for years.
(Elsewhere in his column, he cites
SPLC propaganda regarding numbers of
“hate groups,”
which is the
SPLC`s
trademark phrase.)
In contrast, the Commission argued
that the
law would violate the spirit of the Constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy, and the letter
of state protections of each defendant`s right to a fair
trial, including the prohibition against admitting
hearsay evidence.
Additionally, the Commission said:
“We regard the broad
federalization of crime
as a menace to civil liberties….
“While the title of
[the Hate Crime bill]
suggests that it will apply only to `hate crimes,` the
actual criminal prohibitions contained in it do not
require that the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill
will in order to convict. It is sufficient if he acts
`because of` someone`s actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity or disability. Consider:
-
Rapists are seldom
indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are
virtually always chosen `because of` their gender. -
A robber might well steal only
from women or the disabled because, in general, they
are less able to defend themselves. Literally, they
are chosen `because of` their gender or disability.
“While Senator Edward Kennedy has
written that it was not his intention to cover all rape
with [the bill],
some DOJ officials
have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover, both the objective meaning of the language and considerable
legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage.
If all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to
the level of a `hate crime` in the minds of ordinary
Americans are covered by [the hate crimes law], the prosecutors will have `two bites at the apple` for a very large
number of crimes….” [United States Commission on
Civil Rights, April 29, 2009 (PDF)]
The USCCR opposes the federal Hate
Crimes bill? As any real newsman—or civilian with a room
temperature IQ, for that matter—will tell you: that`s a
bombshell!
But to the
New York Times,
it was not newsworthy.
In contrast, back when black
leftist
Mary Frances Berry was USCCR`s head tyrant, anything
that emanated from its propaganda machine was front page
news at the Times. Whether Berry was promoting
1999`s racial profiling hoax against New York City
Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in order to help Hillary Clinton
win the 2000 New York Senate race, or
The Great Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax one year
later, in order to spread the Big Lie that George W.
Bush had stolen the 2000 election, it was from
Berry`s lips to the
NYT`s ears.
No more.
As a result of Bush II`s
replacement of leftwing Democrats like Berry with
Republicans, the Commission has of late been making
“incorrect”
statements. The
Times has responded by suppressing the news.
On April 29, the USCCR sent a
letter signed by four of its five members to House
leaders, opposing the Hate Crimes bill, and later
officially opposed it. I only found out because of
Hutchinson`s criticism, and
American
Renaissance`s excerpting of Hutchinson. (Admittedly,
I`m a New Yorker).
I thought that, perhaps, in spite
of the research I`d done for
my June 4 VDARE article on the Hate Crimes bill, I
had somehow missed this story.
But googling under
“U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights” +
“hate crimes Law”
+ letter turned up no
New York Times
articles. And a search of the
NYT archives
for the last 12 months, under
“U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights,”
also turned up no
NYT articles about the Commission`s recent protests.
The bottom of
the last page of
Times hits brought the title,
“MORE SCANDAL:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Demands Answers on Voter
Intimidation Case Dismissal. Political Punch. June 18,
2009…,” but no link. (The title has since been
dropped.)
It turned out that the link was to
a
Commentary
magazine blog about the Bush Justice Department case
against the black supremacist group, the New Black
Panthers, whose goons had sought to physically stop
whites from voting
at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day.
The
Obama DOJ
basically disappeared the case, even though the
defendants had simply ignored the charges against them.
Amazingly, according to the DOJ`s rationalization of its
misconduct, if black defendants in criminal cases refuse
to show up for their court hearings, criminal charges
against them must also be dismissed. (See the USCCR
protest here wrote in a June 16 letter to DOJ,
DOJ`s Dismissal of
Voter-Intimidation Charges
by United States Commission on Civil Rights, June
18, 2009.
In February, even
Establishment Conservatives condemned AG Holder`s
Black History Month speech, in which he called
(white) America
“a nation of
cowards.”
But Holder was just getting
started. He is engaged in what I have
argued is a systematic attack on the principle of
equal justice where whites are concerned—call
it “Jim Snow” as opposed to
“Jim Crow”.
Hence his aggressive supports the
Federal Hate Crimes bill, although he has been forced to
admit that is not intended to
protect (non-Moslem, heterosexual) whites or
(non-Moslem, heterosexual) white servicemen.
During his Senate testimony, Holder repeatedly spoke
of an “historic basis” for making blacks, among others, a specially
protected group. But the history of the past
approximately 46 years is a history of savage,
pervasive, racially-motivated,
black-on-white violence.
Given the
New York Times`
generations-long history of
suppressing news of black-on-white atrocities (which
it recently interrupted, in order to
gloat about the Anne Pressly rape-torture-murder)
can it be any surprise that it would refuse to report on
the USCCR`s criticisms?
Indeed, the
NYT`s
censorship of news on black-on-white atrocities is of a
piece with
its reporting on race in general. For instance,
readers seeking the truth about the race-motivated
conspiracy to deprive white, New Haven firemen of their
constitutional rights, must turn not to the
Times, but to
intrepid investigative journalist Samuel A. Alito Jr..
Its dishonesty has not served the
NYT well. Despite a January loan by
Mexican plutocrat Carlos Slim, for the past year or
so, the Times has teetered on the brink of insolvency. Despite an
immigration-driven population explosion, its readership
is plunging.
While its daily print readership dipped 3.55% over
the six months ending in March over the previous year,
to 1,039,031, its readership on the Web
plunged 21% during May over the previous year, to
16.8 million unique visitors during the month.
And yet the
New York Times
still dominates the national news cycle. Every day,
broadcast, cable, and print news editors across the
country decide their coverage for the following day from
the NYT.
Ultimately, it determines what most Americans learn
about their country each day.
Had the
New York Times
reported the USCCR`s protests, it would have not merely
contradicted the leftwing narrative, but possibly
imperiled the
passage of the Hate Crime bill.
And the
NYT
desperately wants to see that passed–as does Holder`s
boss, whom Times publisher
Arthur “Pinch”
Sulzberger Jr. no doubt hopes will provide him with
a taxpayer-funded
bailout.
All the news that fits…the
agenda.
Nicholas Stix [email
him] lives in New York City, which he
views from the perspective of its public
transport system, experienced in his
career as an educator. His weekly column
appears at
Men`s News Daily
and many other Web sites. He has also
written for Middle American News, the
New York
Daily News,
New York Post, Newsday,
Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty
and the Weekly Standard. He
maintains two blogs:
A
Different Drummer and
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.
