Black Cop Shoots Unarmed White Teenager in Utah: Mormons Riot!

Nah, just kidding. About the last part. The first part however is real.

These are the facts as we know them presently:

Last week, an African-American policeman in Salt Lake City, shot an unarmed white youth named Dillon Taylor. The details are sketchy, but it seems that Taylor was walking out of a 7-11 with his brother and his cousin when a police cruiser came speeding onto the parking lot. The policemen ordered the three youths to immediately lay on the ground, face down. For some reason, Dillon started hiking up his pants before doing so and one of the policemen –an African-American–fatally shot him.

The policeman’s name is being withheld, unlike Darren Wilson’s –whose address was exposed by outside agitators.

Needless to say, there were no national news crews sent to Salt Lake. Rachel Madcow did not froth at the mouth about what a horrible, racist country America is. Chris Matthews avoided his usual spittle-spewing public meltdown. The Revs Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were nowhere to be found.

Then again, David Duke was unavailable for comment. The Aryan Nations did not show up. The leader of the American Nazi Party did not lead a chant saying “What’s his name?” “Officer X.” “How do we want him?” “Dead!” There was no looting in Salt Lake by aggrieved whites.

Sarcasm aside, it clear that we are not talking about media bias here. That would be too charitable. Instead we are talking about media agitation. As many on the Right are now starting to state in an open manner: the media are active, unrepentant auxiliaries of the cultural Marxists who will do whatever they can to help these miscreants in their effort to change America. They will not rest until they turn this country into Detroit.

This is nothing less than pure, unadulterated evil. Fortunately, fewer and fewer people are buying their propaganda. Unlike the old, pre-Internet days when they could manufacture –or at least suppress those facts not conducive to their worldview–more and more ordinary people are “going gonzo” and recording facts with their smart phones. Think of it: we never saw the drug-addled Rodney King charge the policemen who had pulled him and his companions over and so we couldn’t understand why they were using such excessive force. All we saw was the tail end of that entire fracas.

Fast-forward two decades: when NBC committed journalistic malpractice during the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman affair, they were called on it. Back in 2004, when CBS put out an obviously false memo about a young George W Bush, the gonzo journalists at Powerline Blog exposed them in no time at all. Likewise today with Michael Brown’s untimely death. First we were told that he was just walking innocently down the street on his way to teaching young children how to do origami, when an Evil, Racist CopTM up and shot him in the back for no reason at all.

Oh the horror! Oh the humanity! See! Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn were right about AmeriKKKa!

Then, thanks to some more credible eyewitnesses, and an independent autopsy report requested by the victim’s mother, and a photograph of a horribly wounded Darrin Wilson, the tide started to turn. (For me, the tide had already turned when Al Sharpton showed up. He’s such a fabulist that if he said the sun rose in the East, I’d bet my bottom dollar that it’s going to rise in the West.)

Then we found out that Eric Holder, our esteemed Attorney General, got angry that the Ferguson Police Department put out that photo of Darrin Wilson in all his wounded glory. If this isn’t collusion then nothing is. Not content to simply place his finger on the scales of justice with his usual inflammatory words, we are now left to believe that he had every intention of engaging in Soviet-style fabrication of the facts in order to get a conviction. Lavrenti Beria couldn’t have said it better when he told his overlord Joe Stalin: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

This is America? This is equal justice under the law? Only if you’re capable of double-think.

Thanks to demagogues like Sharpton and his ilk, the gains of the Civil Rights movement are being swept away as daffodils in a strong March wind. It’s so ironic, isn’t it? Not only did we elect an African-American as president (not once, but twice mind you) but we are now more racially divided than anytime in recent history.

The rot runs so deep that the idiot governor of Missouri (a former Attorney General who should know better) likewise added fuel to the fire. Jay Nixon said things so deeply foolish and inflammatory that any appellate court would overturn any conviction of the police officer in a heartbeat. Why did he say something so stupid? Because he governs a state that is increasingly Red and he has higher political ambitions. As such, he’s beholden to the African-American populations of Kansas City and St Louis for his political survival because if he can’t win reelection in the Show Me State then Madame Mao Hillary will look elsewhere for a running mate. In my humble opinion that’s all dust in the wind now thanks to his gross mishandling of this situation. Especially when we consider that the great Ferguson Fracas is only going to escalate.

So where are we? Not in a good place certainly. By all means, pray for the soul of Michael Brown and the comfort of his grieving parents. But also take the time to pray for Dillon Taylor and his parents. And pray that justice –real justice–can be served.

About GShep

Comments

  1. Gail Sheppard says

    The true brilliance of evil is that it can blur the lines. This is the one true indicator that we are at the end of days: there are no lines. No right. No wrong. Just differing opinions. May God help us all.

  2. I had no idea of the risks involved in the pulling up of one’s trousers. Henceforth I shall be more understanding of those who wear them below the buttocks.

    • George Michalopulos says

      If this is sarcasm, I get your point. In the meantime, wouldn’t it make more sense to just hitch them up in the first place?

  3. James Denney says

    A 6’4″ 300 pound man with drugs in his system enters a store with an accomplice, and brazenly steals a box of cigars, grabs and pushes a tiny clerk out of the way on his way to escape, then turns back into the store and walks in a threatening and intimidating manner back at the tiny clerk. He then leaves the store and walks down the middle of the street carrying his loot with his accomplice, until told by a decorated police officer on routine patrol to move to the sidewalk.
    Instead of moving to the sidewalk, he moves against the driver’s door of the police car, shuts the door against the officer who was trying to get out, then beats the officer in the face through the open driver’s window, breaking the bones around the officer’s eye, and tries to grab the officer’s gun. When the gun discharges, he walks away from the police officer’s car.
    When the police officer exits his car with gun drawn and tells him to stop, he turns around, taunts the officer and then bum rushes him. Gosh, I wonder why he’s dead?
    If charges are issued against this brave officer, it is a travesty of justice, brought on by the media and race-baiter inspired lynch mob. Note that Eric Holder, the racialist top law enforcement official in the nation, didn’t even attempt to contact Officer Wilson or his family, because after all, he was there to advance the cause of the lynch mob, not justice.
    There should be no grand jury. In addition to praying for Michael Brown’s soul and for his family, we should pray for Officer Darren Wilson and his family, and thank God he is out there protecting us.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Obviously, logic has no place in this narrative. What the Sharptons, Holders and Jacksons of the world want is a permanent white guilt, permanently open wallets and innocent people unable and better yet, unwilling to defend themselves against their goon squads. Hey, it’s better than working for a living.

    • Nate Trost says

      Let’s see here:

      A 6’4″ 300 pound man

      So far so good!

      with drugs in his system

      Last I checked, there were no official toxicology results, merely anonymous ‘leaks’ that he might have had traces of marijuana in his system, which of course lingers for a long time (he might have smoked up the previous weekend for example). And, of course, we all know how marijuana turns humans into the Incredible Hulk.

      But, again, you are stating as fact what is mere conjecture. Maybe you are writing your post on drugs.

      brazenly steals a box of cigars

      The full clip available video footage does not establish this. In fact it appears to show that Brown brought money to the register and the clerk was holding it in his hand when he later confronted him, leaving some to speculate that the nature of the fracas was over Brown perhaps not having/wanting to show ID. The problem, of course, is that the store/clerk never actually made a complaint. So, again, you are presenting as conjecture what is not actually an established fact.

      grabs and pushes a tiny clerk out of the way on his way to escape

      Again, the video makes this a little bit less sensationalistic, although there was definitely what could be described as an altercation.

      until told by a decorated police officer on routine patrol to move to the sidewalk.
      Instead of moving to the sidewalk, he moves against the driver’s door of the police car, shuts the door against the officer who was trying to get out, then beats the officer in the face through the open driver’s window,

      Needless to say, there are conflicting accounts. If you were not an eyewitness, stating this as a definitive accounting demonstrates little more than your own prejudice.

      breaking the bones around the officer’s eye

      This did not happen. That you believe it to be fact speaks poorly of your devotion to get accurate accounting of the story and of your choice in information outlets.

      When the police officer exits his car with gun drawn and tells him to stop, he turns around, taunts the officer and then bum rushes him. Gosh, I wonder why he’s dead?

      Once again, in reality this has not been clearly established. Unlike in your own mind.

      There should be no grand jury.

      Something tells me even if video evidence surfaced tomorrow directly contradicting the officer’s version of events and corroborating some of the eyewitness accounts, you’d still feel that way.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Mr Trost, your ability to exonerate criminals never fails to astonish. The video of Brown pushing the diminutive store clerk speaks volumes. Of course, like most liberals I suspect that you believe that productive citizens should simply cower in the face of evildoers. Maybe someday you’ll be forced to confront the encroaching darkness that seems to be sweeping the nation and we’ll see how you behave.

        I believe it was Norman Podhoretz who said that a Neocon was a liberal who was mugged by reality whereas a Neoliberal was a liberal who was also mugged by reality but refused to press charges.

      • “…in reality this has not been clearly established.”

        Nate,

        I couldn’t agree with you more on this statement. Those who have taken up sides in this are far too willing to buy into narratives that may well prove to be false. Everyone needs to slow down and wait patiently for the evidence to speak. What is most disturbing of all is the general willingness to pre-judge without waiting for the evidence and insist that an outcome based upon that pre-judgment is the only acceptable one.

        While nothing justifies violence and looting, white people need to understand that the general sense among blacks (especially in poor neighborhoods) that their lives are somehow perceived to be worth less than whites has a degree of merit. Witness the level of violent crime tolerated in their neighborhoods that would never be tolerated elsewhere. Likewise, while nothing justifies racism, black people need to understand that civil justice, if it is to be had, requires evidence and patience. It also requires cooperation with law enforcement. Apart from these, communities descend to the madness of the lynch mobs that decent people everywhere so rightly decry.

        • TheKnowerseeker says

          A person’s life-worth is proportional to their degree of selflessness towards others; this is true for whites, blacks, or otherwise. Likewise, the more *selfish* a person is, the *less* their life is worth. There is a TON of selfishness in black, ghetto communities. You do the figuring.

          • You sound like one who is fed up with the utter stupidity and madness that seems to reign unchecked everywhere one looks. I join you in this. But there is “a ton” of selfishness everywhere. Let us strive not to succomb to it ourselves.

            As to a person’s life-worth, your assessment may be true in terms of our utilitarian value to others, but let us not forget…

            “That God became man in order to unite man to God is the only sure Divine underwriting of human worth. We have value because of the image we bear.”

            – Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas

            This is true even of the most depraved among us, of whom I am chief.

      • Carl Kraeff says

        Nate–Regarding the marijuana in his system, Dr Baden, a nationally famous medical examiner who was hired by the Brown family to perform a second autopsy, said this in this exchange with Greta Van Susteren:

        ““Does the fact that they found marijuana, does that exclude the fact that there might be other drugs in his system or even that the marijuana was laced with anything?” Van Susteren asked the doctor. “Is that the final analysis or could there be more information to come in terms of the toxicology?”

        After admitting that he had not seen the toxicology report in question yet, Baden went on to speculate about what the presence of marijuana in Brown’s system could mean.

        “Very important with marijuana is the levels of the different drugs that are present in marijuana to have an opinion as to whether or not he might have been affected by the marijuana,” he said, “so that he may have been acting in a crazy way and may have done things to the police officer that normally he would not have done.”
        http://www.mediaite.com/tv/autopsy-doctor-speculates-marijuana-could-have-made-michael-brown-act-crazy/

    • I believe there are a couple of factual errors in your comment. First, the officer had driven on, then hard reversed, which probably worried Brown about his impending arrest. Second, witnesses saw Michael Brown backup with his hands in the air before the two final and fatal shots. No witness saw Brown hit the officer. Third, the police never gave any official account of diddly-they leaked the story two weeks later through someone named Josie. Fourth, there is a horrible racial imbalance of townsfolk and police. Fifth-pretty sure the cops injuries were not broken bones. Personally, I think the cop probably screwed up at the end, but noone will ever indict him. And if a huge guy punches a cop seated in his car-he should expect nothing less than a bullet. But to be fair to the social dynamics-the folks reacted poorly and the police could have released a statement of their side of the story instead of waiting for toxicology.

      • TheKnowerseeker says

        Black Americans will lie for black Americans. I am a white American married to another white American. Two years ago, My wife and I were traveling in our minivan with our children while passing through an intersection, when suddenly a car traveling perpendicular to us decided to run the red light and crashed into our vehicle. While waiting for the police officer to arrive, we could hear the young black lady driver of the car cursing and using racial slurs against whites while discussing the incident with her passenger. When the police officer did arrive, he turned out to be a black man. Well, I was a little concerned but didn’t think much of it… until he began to grin and shush the black young woman to try to get her to stop using racial slurs, I’m guessing so that it could not be used as evidence of adversity against her. Well, eventually while the police officer was taking his time writing up his report, a black male rides up to the scene out of nowhere on his bicycle and claims that he saw the whole thing and that my wife and I were at fault. (Thankfully, much earlier, a city employee — who happened to be white — first arrived and told us that he had seen the black driver run the red light and was willing to go on record about it.) Nobody was written a ticket (including us, fortunately), but in the ensuing insurance investigation, the two “witness” statements canceled each other out, and my wife and I had to pay for our own vehicle damage even though the other driver was at fault.

        • I have had an almost identical experience to yours. Then I was given a gift.

          Months later, I found myself the only eye-witness to an automobile accident involving a black man and a white man. The white driver was clearly at fault. There was no doubt whatsoever. I testified accordingly in court. The poor black guy (and he was a very poor guy who doubtless had lost his most valuable earthly possession) rightly won his case against against a liar trying to avoid responsibility.

          This madness of the party spirit surrounding race will only end when everyone, one-by-one, chooses to do what is true and just.

          • Johann Sebastian says

            Brian says:
            August 28, 2014 at 9:01 pm

            “This madness of the party spirit surrounding race will only end when everyone, one-by-one, chooses to do what is true and just.”

            Surely you meant “if” and not “when.”

    • As for the nonsense about broken eyes pls see the post by Frost. And how do you define selfishness? Could it be wanting only whites in your schools, in your communities, in your places of business. Perhaps relegating minorities to redlined neighborhoods across the tracks could be considered selfish or how about never having a Black CIA , NSA or FBI director. How about white owned banks only opening check cashing stores in poor neighborhoods along with rip off car loan joints and rental furniture. Would that be selfish? How about the lack of Black CEO’s in Fortune 500 companies, and please don’t say there are no qualified candidates, or the dearth of Black senior officers in the military. Is that being selfish? Lastly, how about the fact that people like you find minorities to be inherently less than yourself, is that not the height of selfishness? Do the math.

  4. Nate Trost says

    When I read this section:

    and a photograph of a horribly wounded Darrin Wilson, the tide started to turn. (For me, the tide had already turned when Al Sharpton showed up. He’s such a fabulist that if he said the sun rose in the East, I’d bet my bottom dollar that it’s going to rise in the West.)
    Then we found out that Eric Holder, our esteemed Attorney General, got angry that the Ferguson Police Department put out that photo of Darrin Wilson in all his wounded glory.

    I can’t help but think, what photograph? In all seriousness, I’ve been trying to follow the situation pretty closely and as far as I can ascertain, no such photo has been released. Given the other actions and inactions of the department in question, it certainly would have seemed like they would have released those photographs at the news conference when they identified him as the officer involved in the shooting.

    But, by all means, take a shot at Al Sharpton always being wrong whilst once again not bothering to fact-check your statements. I would love to see such a photo, I can’t find it anywhere.

    Not content to simply place his finger on the scales of justice with his usual inflammatory words, we are now left to believe that he had every intention of engaging in Soviet-style fabrication of the facts in order to get a conviction.

    Strange, you want to charge Holder with this based on…pure speculation about a photograph which I can’t find any proof actually exists, instead of applying it to say the Ferguson Police Department in the Henry Davis incident.

    You want to snidely make this quip:

    Black Cop Shoots Unarmed White Teenager in Utah: Mormons Riot!

    Without, for example examining what the SLC police chief had to say about such a comparison:

    Salt Lake City’s Police Chief says that shooting just doesn’t compare to the rising tensions in Ferguson, Missouri where 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by police.

    Chief Burbank spoke with the media for about an hour in what wasn’t a presser but a question and answer session. He says dialogue is what’s missing between police departments and communities across the nation.

    These scenes from Ferguson, Missouri would be the opposite of what Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank would call good community policing.

    “If we show up wearing riot gear it says throw rocks and boulders at us,” said Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank.

    Chief Burbank says Salt Lake City is not Ferguson. And he’s handling the officer-involved shooting that lead to 20-year-old Dillon Taylor’s death much differently than Ferguson Police.

    “I didn’t send officers out wearing riot gear to talk to the protesters who were out in front of the building yesterday,” said Chief Burbank.

    I find it entirely unsurprising that you want to rant about Al Sharpton, Cultural Marxism, AG Holder, the media, and completely leave out any discussion or introspection of the actions or conduct of the local law enforcement bodies involved and how they play into how events transpired.

    This is nothing less than pure, unadulterated evil. Fortunately, fewer and fewer people are buying their propaganda. Unlike the old, pre-Internet days when they could manufacture –or at least suppress those facts not conducive to their worldview–more and more ordinary people are “going gonzo” and recording facts with their smart phones.

    Funnily enough, what I see as the results of ‘going gonzo’ out of Ferguson isn’t imploding some kind of ‘cultural Marxist worldview’, but rather a whole bunch of police getting suspended for statements and conduct that are utterly unbecoming a sworn law enforcement officer.

  5. Pere LaChaise says

    That rips it, George. You write as befits a troll. I won’t read this junk anymore. Bye.

  6. Monk James says

    Actually, there WERE demonstrations in Utah:

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58304981-78/police-taylor-lake-salt.html.csp

    But this is different from rioting, looting and burning.

    That sort of savagery is still in search of an explanation.

  7. There is no history in this country of white people being victimized by law enforcement officers for being white. Neither is there a centuries-long history of discrimination against white people for being white. A black cop shooting a white guy isn’t an echo of anything; a white cop shooting a black guy echoes a long history of institutional discrimination.

    Conservatives – and I count myself as a conservative – often write as though the two are the same, as though the civil rights acts in the 1960s erased all historical memory and we started again from Year Zero, French Revolution style.

    • George Michalopulos says

      No police force has ever “victimized” somebody simply for the color of their skin in this country. Police –like you, me, and Jesse Jackson–react to something called “stereotype threat.” I.e., young black males are 25 times more likely to commit a violent crime on a non-black than whites are to blacks. That statistic comes from the FBI’s own statistics. BTW, the FBI lummps in Hispanics in the “white” category for several reasons which I won’t get into here.

      Police (even black policemen) have a hair-trigger when it comes to young black males simply because it would be prudent to do so. Is this fair to all black men? No, not at all, but policemen often don’t have that luxury.

      As for the militarization of the police I view it negatively. But it would be better for an individual state to set its own rules regarding law enforcement. I’m much more alarmed at the Feds and the increasing militarization of its various agencies: MLB, Agriculture, Homeland Security, etc. A local police force has to deal with the people on a more direct level and is far more accountable than anything in the Federal government.

      • Nate Trost says

        Haha, wow:

        George Michalopulos wrote:

        No police force has ever “victimized” somebody simply for the color of their skin in this country.

        More than anything else, I wish I could collect a sampling of the kindest, gentlest most God-fearing churchgoing black Christians from all over the country just so I could videotape their facial reactions to you making that statement to them in person.

        young black males are 25 times more likely to commit a violent crime on a non-black than whites are to blacks.

        You do Mark Twain proud with your use of statistics. For people who like math.

      • “No police force has ever “victimized” somebody simply for the color of their skin in this country. ”

        Was there ever something called segregation in this country? Was it enforced by the state? Were the police part of that enforcement?

        Stereotype threat does indeed exist. Anyone who’s honest will admit that. But a police officer ought to know how to keep that in check when dealing with people – that’s simply a requirement of being professional, or ought to be. And the majority of Columbine- and Aurora-style mass shootings are committed by white males, but none of us look twice at white males entering schools or movie theaters.

        As for militarization, the dichotomy between local and federal is not as clear as you make it – the local forces are getting these weapons from the Department of Defense. The same weapons and equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan are donated to local cops who use it against Americans.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Segregation was simply the legal prevention of race mixing, that’s all. The vast majority of whites and blacks considered it par for the course and happily abided by it. If you don’t believe me, I could introduce you to several black boys ca 1971 who were forced to board buses and travel 3-5 miles to attend Horace Mann Jr High School in Tulsa, a school which I and my friends had the pleasure to walk to. They deeply resented not being able to attend the historically black George Washington Carver Jr High which was within walking distance of most of their homes. Nor did they view it as a “blessing” to be put in proximity to white boys. They understood how patronizing this sentiment is. And that was one of the underlying reasons behind Brown vs Board of Education. Black folks be gettin’ better when dey get to playin’ wi’ Massa’s chillun.

          It’s still practiced every Sunday in 98% of American churches and on Saturdays in 100% of American synagogues in case you didn’t know.

          I stand by the word “victimized.” Police, even in the Deep South simply didn’t go around beating up blacks for no reason at all. Only those who had been accused (sometimes falsely) but still accused of some crime were beaten up.

          Your point about white spree-killers is a good one. Still, if you look at the overall crime statistics, black-on-white crime is more propenerant by several factors than white-on-black. Policemen as well you and I are fully cognizant of these facts. That’s why you chose not to buy a house in the middle of Detroit or Bed-Stuy, or Cabrini-Green. That’s why Jesse Jackson said he was relieved while walking alone at night he would feel relief if the two sets of footsteps behind him belonged to white men than black men. Is Jesse Jackson a racist? Didn’t he just profile?

          • Nate Trost says

            George Michalopulos wrote

            Segregation was simply the legal prevention of race mixing, that’s all. The vast majority of whites and blacks considered it par for the course and happily abided by it.

            The difference being, of course, if a white sat in the inferior colored section or was in a hurry and used the colored restroom, they didn’t risk getting beaten up by the police.

            I think perhaps we need to take a roap trip and ask a bunch of elderly African Americans if they happily abided by segregation. It could be a reality show “George Michalopulos Whitesplains Across America”

            Police, even in the Deep South simply didn’t go around beating up blacks for no reason at all.

            Considering in 2014, police departments get sued for their officers assaulting a 12 year old checking his mail at his own house, perhaps you should revisit your presumptions. Of course, we don’t know the race of the boy in question, but it probably isn’t going to be a surprise, is it?

            Some men enjoy violence. And the racist structures of the Deep South in the segregation era gave some of those men the opportunity to wear a badge and do violence with impunity. The problem is, this didn’t really end with segregation.

            It wasn’t no reason at all, it was for a reason: they liked the power, they liked the control and they liked doing violence. And they had a disempowered victim pool to prey on. Same reasons some men rape.

            • George Michalopulos says

              No one says that there weren’t injustices in the segregationist system. Any more than there are now come to think of it. Poor Darren Wilson has already had the scales of Lady Justice tipped against him by our “Justice Dept.”

              What I said –and I stand by–is that the majority of people in the US pre-1964 were quite content with segregation, whether legal or otherwise. If they weren’t then why do black people still practice segregation today? Ever been in a black church? Precious few white faces like yours. Is it because Bull Connor is standing outside the doors of said black churches with his fire hoses at the ready?

              No, I don’t think so.

              And anyway, where do you get the idea that just because something is black in origin it’s necessarily inferior? Ever heard of the Cotton Club? Upper-class whites went there in droves in the 20s. Jazz came out of the black culture as did most musical styles.

              While I’m at it, Brown vs Board of Education was ruled because some of the evidence was tainted. The justices were told that black children needed white children because they thought being black was inferior. How did the social scientists prove this? By having black children play with dolls. The white dolls were the normal, run-of-the-mill dolls that one could buy at Sears or Montgomery Ward. The black dolls on the other hand were of inferior quality and looked bedraggled. Nobody in their right mind, much less a child, would choose an inferior product to play with.

              • Nate Trost says

                George Michalopulos wrote

                No one says that there weren’t injustices in the segregationist system.

                The entire segregationalist system was fundamentally unjust at its core. “Seperate but Equal” was never anything but a giant crock.

                What I said –and I stand by–is that the majority of people in the US pre-1964 were quite content with segregation, whether legal or otherwise.

                Well, duh, an overwhelming white majority was content with a system that gave them asymmetrical power and control over racial minorities. It’s not hard to be content when you’re the one on top and the systemic bias is in your favor!

                If they weren’t then why do black people still practice segregation today? Ever been in a black church? Precious few white faces like yours. Is it because Bull Connor is standing outside the doors of said black churches with his fire hoses at the ready?

                It’s amusing that you attempt to frame this as: black churches bar white people (segregation) versus white people don’t want to go to black churches (prejudice). Amusing but tired and unsurprising.

                And anyway, where do you get the idea that just because something is black in origin it’s necessarily inferior? Ever heard of the Cotton Club? Upper-class whites went there in droves in the 20s.

                Appreciating something despite being black in its origin is entirely different than segregated due to racially perceived inferiority. What you fail to acknowledge is that many of those ‘upper class whites’ taking in the exotic entertainment of the Cotton Club would find it totally unacceptable for the performers or staff to say, use the same hospital as them. Because of their race.

                Kind of a important detail there.

                While I’m at it, Brown vs Board of Education was ruled because some of the evidence was tainted.

                This is where ordinarily I’d suggest you only believe that because you have brown eyes, but more likely than not a Jane Elliott reference will go over your head.

                How did the social scientists prove this? By having black children play with dolls. The white dolls were the normal, run-of-the-mill dolls that one could buy at Sears or Montgomery Ward. The black dolls on the other hand were of inferior quality and looked bedraggled.

                Incorrect. The dolls were identical except for skin and hair color. Seriously Mr. Michalopulos, it was a famous experiment and it’s not hard to see what the dolls looked like.

                Who told you such a hilarious falsehood and do they have white robes in their closet?

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Jim Crow may have been “unjust at its core” but no less a person than Abraham Lincoln advocated for it. It’s all a matter of historical context. He also intended to repatriate blacks to African and/or the Caribbean. Was he a racist?

                  As for the infamous “doll test” I’m not at all convinced about your sources. For that matter my sources may have been incorrect as well. However, do you not see the incongruity here? Assuming that your source is correct, then why would black children see white dolls as being superior? You are treading (unknowingly?) along the path to white supremacy.

                  At any rate, the logic doesn’t hold. If we assume that black children view white dolls as superior (and by extension themselves as inferior) then how would forcibly putting them in school situations with white kids –under the most dire circumstances–make them superior? Would it not have been better to spend billions of dollars to improve black educational institutions? This is what Booker T Washington preached.

                  • Nate Trost says

                    Jim Crow may have been “unjust at its core” but no less a person than Abraham Lincoln advocated for it.

                    And he was wrong. Frankly it sounds like you are using Abraham Lincoln as a shield to justify your own opinion on the matter.

                    As for the infamous “doll test” I’m not at all convinced about your sources.

                    And this comes across as: George Michalopulos is too lazy to look into the details of one of the most infamous social science experiments of the 20th century, which has been repeated multiple times over the decades, including in a recent short documentary.

                    But by all means, present us with your sources! I am intensely curious if you can provide a source for the ‘bedraggled black doll’ claim that isn’t from one of the white supremacist sites you occasionally repost essays from!

                    Monomahkos: One Whose Prejudice Trumps Cold Hard Fact

                    Assuming that your source is correct, then why would black children see white dolls as being superior? You are treading (unknowingly?) along the path to white supremacy.

                    It wasn’t, of course, that they were better it was that they were culturally and socially conditioned to view them as better. Which was pretty much the whole point and design of Jim Crow: to make sure they knew their inferior place. Which was based on race.

                    And the end of segregation didn’t end that cultural conditioning and systemic bias, just some of the more overt legal and official codification of it.

                    then how would forcibly putting them in school situations with white kids –under the most dire circumstances–make them superior?

                    The goal isn’t superiority, it’s equality.

                    Would it not have been better to spend billions of dollars to improve black educational institutions? This is what Booker T Washington preached.

                    Yes, a white majority that holds the majority of economic power is going to equally fund segregated intuitions for a racial minority they view as inherently inferior. Of course that will happen!

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I’ve pretty much answered all your questions in an above post to Tim R Mortiss. I will address your infamous doll-strategies at a later time. Now I will address your last point: Booker T Washington preached a system called “set down your pail where you are.” Essentially, blacks must improve their own lot by whatever legal, ethical and moral means necessary. If this included help from white Republicans then so be it. The point was that they should congregate among themselves, set up their own institutions, help each other out (in the manner of white and Jewish minorities) and then after a few generations, be a viable self-contained community which would by then be able to interact with the white majority.

                      Instead, the WEB DuBois insistence of becoming immediately equal to the white majority without any cultural sustenance was pursued. In such a scenario, the insistence of black leaders demanding redistributed wealth would backfire. This is basically political tribalism and poor whites inevitably reacted negatively. They said “well, if you’re going to demand loot from the public fisc, we are too.” This was in fact the Dixiecrat strategy of the old Solid South. Not even a liberal like FDR could overturn it. The Southern whites were so united in their demand of public monies that they pretty much ran Congress and Northern liberals had to bite their tongue and go along with whatever they wanted.

                      Of course now we have had the opposite since LBJ. Trillions of dollars of public monies spent on Section 8 housing, AFDC, Head Start, etc, with very little to show for it –unless you consider destroyed, hollowed-out cities to be a solution.

                      In reality all I advocate is what MLK wanted: to judge his children by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

                      Which brings me full circle back to your last point (which you carefully elided): why do you subscribe to the idea that white dolls are superior to black dolls?

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Please note in the following, that NAACP Counsel Thurgood Marshall argued that the doll test showed that minority schools violated the principle of “separate but equal” (of Plessy vs Ferguson):

                      http://varenne.tc.columbia.edu/class/common/dolls_in_brown_vs_board.html

                      In other words, the NAACP accepted the principle of “separate but equal”.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Here’s info on the Doll Test. Please note (in paragraph 6) that until 1980 (34 years after Brown vs Board was decided), Mattel made no black dolls whatsoever.

                      http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode66.htm

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Please go to page three and read in it’s entirety. If anything, Kenneth Clark’s Doll Test undermined the validity of the argument that integration helped black children’s self-image. If anything, it did the opposite.

                      http://www.amren.com/ar/pdfs/2004/200407ar.pdf

                    • Nate Trost says

                      George Michalopulos wrote:

                      Here’s info on the Doll Test.

                      Aww yes, now we’re cooking with gas, let’s get ready to rummmmmmble!

                      Right off the bat on your proof page we have this claim:

                      “Tom Clough” wrote:
                      Kenneth Clark’s doll tests were crual evidence in Brown v. Board of Education. Clark was careful to keep the dolls he had used well hidden.

                      So well hidden that a photo taken by Gordon Parks in 1947 of Brown with a child and the dolls titled “Dr. Kenneth B. Clark conducting the “Doll test” with a young male child” with the dolls clearly in view has it’s own Library of Congress entry. And can be viewed in a large enough format in this Library of Congress online exhibit to clearly demonstrate that the dolls do in fact look pretty much identical except for skin and hair color.

                      In case you were wondering, the photos were originally published in Ebony Magazine, v. 2, no. 9, 1947 July, p.21.

                      So, Mr. Michalopulos, who claimed he wasn’t satisfied with my sources, rather than, you know, checking the Library of Congress, went and found this guy as his go-to source (the link again):

                      http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode66.htm

                      In the voice of the Old Spice guy: “Look at the photo on that page of the author’s impression of the ‘black doll’, then look at the Library of Congress, then at guy’s page, now back to me. The screed is now racist!”

                      But, by all means, despite the historical photographic evidence, let us look at this guy’s argument further!

                      “Tom Clough” wrote:
                      Of course the dolls presented to the children were never identical; one doll was black (brown) and the other was white (pink). What Professor J.P. Jackson probably meant was that the dolls were identical in every respect except their skin tone. But were they?

                      No manufacturer on this planet was producing physically-identical but skin-tone-optional dolls back in the 1930s. The Mattel Corporation did not introduce a black companion for ever-so-blond Barbie until 1980, which was still decades away. So how did Kenneth Clark get his hands on two physically identical dolls of very different colors? Here’s how: he went to a store and he purchased two identical dolls with Caucasian racial characteristics and then he personally hand-painted one of the dolls using a paintbrush and a pot of brown paint. To say that the bookish psychologist was less than artistic would be a gross understatement. The struggling academic had no hope of creating a doll as lovely and as lovable as the ones created by a team of talented commercial artists, model craftsmen and mold makers. His coarse-bristled brush could never replicate the smooth creamy finishes of a skilled airbrush artist. And how would the inexperienced young theorist transform that luxuriant head of silky Caucasian hair into something convincingly Negroid?

                      He couldn’t do it; the skill level required was beyond his capacity. The black doll he created was grotesque; it was a little brown Frankensteinian racial hybrid; it was no longer pink, but it was a galaxy away from being a black beauty.

                      Now, let us focus on one core element here: “Tom Clough” claims to know this how exactly? He just established at the start that Clark kept the dolls so secret they would never, say, have photographic records preserved in the Library of Congress (d’oh!). So what is the basis of Clough’s argument, that he found sources who claimed to have seen the dolls? He found photos or actually found one of the dolls? He found historical writings detailing the dolls?

                      No, none of those. Because he is writing a screed. The “proof” is that because Mr. Clough is apparently some kind of doll expert (well, I guess we are supposed to presume that, it’s not like he gives any qualifications), that Mattel didn’t have a black Barbie (nevermind that there wasn’t a Barbie anything until 1959), he immediately reasons that the only possible explanation is that Clark bought a doll and crudely painted it himself.

                      Among other things, it is apparently beyond the mental grasp of Mr. Clough to consider such outlandish possibilities as, you know, maybe Clark had the dolls commissioned. Of course, when Mr. Clough reads such things with no citation or backing whatsoever into Mr. Clark like: “The struggling academic” “He couldn’t do it; the skill level required was beyond his capacity. The black doll he created was grotesque” it’s hard not to wonder if Mr. Clough has such a low opinion of the black race that such advanced concepts as “hiring someone to make dolls” would be, in his estimation beyond poor Mr. Clark.

                      That’s the fun thing about screeds, you don’t have to bother offering proof of your assertions! See, if i’m playing my Mr. Clough’s playbook, then I can “here’s how:” Mr. Clough could write his screed in 2005 without even bothering to consult the historical record for photographs readily available on the internet: by consuming large amounts of methamphetamine and writing in a sleep deprived psychotic state from a mobile home. See, in a screed it’s the only logical explanation!

                      I supposed if we’re going to be honest then the answer is probably either that he’s an idiot, hopelessly lazy at research, or a disingenuous liar. I’m not sure any of those are substantially more flattering that being a meth addict.

                      George Michalopulos said:

                      Please go to page three and read in it’s entirety. If anything, Kenneth Clark’s Doll Test undermined the validity of the argument that integration helped black children’s self-image. If anything, it did the opposite.

                      The problem here is that rather than pointing to a scholarly critique of the study in question, or even something like court details with actual results, you present a passing claim in American Renaissance written by Jared Taylor. I think the meat of what you were insinuating was from this part:

                      Jared Taylor wrote:
                      He failed to mention that he had shown his dolls to hundreds of blacks attending integrated schools in Massachusetts, and that even more of these children preferred the white doll. If his research showed anything, it was that integration lowers the self-image of blacks, but he deliberately slanted his findings.

                      Strange, if I look at the archived copy of Clark’s 1947 study it clearly mentions the Massachusetts and that it was a racially mixed environment and it breaks down the results in Table 4. There were 134 in the segregated southern group and 119 in the northern group.

                      One can go look at Table 4 and see given that sample size whether or not it appears remotely worthy of the charges Jared Taylor is making, and if you read the commentary of Table 4 and others like Table 8, it is pretty clear that Clark isn’t hiding anything in his research.

                      Of course, did Jared Taylor consult the original study? It sure doesn’t seem like it. Mr. Michalopulos seems even less likely to have compared the claims to the study. Although Mr. Michalopulos sure seems to take Jared Taylor’s word as gospel. But has Jared Taylor written anything that might suggest this is ill-advised?

                      Jared Taylor wrote:
                      To be sure, the story of Hurricane Katrina does have a moral for anyone not deliberately blind. The races are different. Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.

                      Oh my. And do read the comments in that article.

                      You want to make your bed with lily-white sheets Mr. Michalopulos, you better be prepared to lie in them.

                      And now, for levity, the TL;DR summary of my response: http://i.imgur.com/UAPebVX.gif

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Yes, Jared Taylor wrote this article. So what? He quotes associates of SCOTUS who were scurrying about madly to undo the damage that Thurgood Marshall was doing to his cause. That is from primary sources. In the actual study by Kenneth Clark, we find that integration had no bearing whatsoever on improving black children’s self-image; those in Northern, integrated schools were more likely to have a negative self-image than those in the South. In fact, further on Clark states that those Negro children who were darker complected had a more positive self-image.

                      You can read it for yourself (as I did, choosing not to take Taylor’s word for it), here: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/13/doll.study.1947.pdf

                      Moreover, Marshall was arguing on the basis of Plessy v Ferguson and the then universal consideration that it was a good decision. I for one never knew that. All I knew from PoliSci 101 and endless political punditry was that Plessy ranked right up their with Dred Scott in judicial odiousness. My how times change.

                      Of course, I’m more interested in the meta-analysis of this all. Is it a fact that white is universally accepted to be “better” than black? Liberal seems to think so. Three pillars of this gospel are the flawed Doll Study and the necessity that blacks can only acquire self-worth if they are surrounded by whites and that a near-totalitarian government must be maintained at all possible costs in order to make sure that each new generation of blacks be always surrounded and “uplifted” by whites. Now, who’s the bigot?

              • Tim R. Mortiss says

                George, say it ain’t so…. this is so around the bend.

                Here’s the thing, George: if you are a citizen of the United States you can go to any public facility and any place of public accommodation you want to. Period. This is because of the Constitution of the United States of America.

                If you don’t want to, fine. But the cops don’t get to beat you and jail you if you choose otherwise.

                Really can’t believe what you are saying here, and squaring it with what this place is about….

                • George Michalopulos says

                  I don’t know where you got the idea that I advocated for a return to Jim Crow segregation. When I was single I dated a black girl. I still commiserate with black friends.

                  All I was saying that de facto segregation still exists on so many levels. I’m not against it because it’s voluntary. Since we’re talking about the Constitution it also comports with the First and the Fourth Amendments.

                  • Tim R. Mortiss says

                    I didn’t say you advocated its return, nor am I talking about voluntary segregation. The fact is, you downplay the Jim Crow system, then deny you do.

                    For a small example, what does Lincoln’s opinion about legal segregation have to do with, say 1935, 1945, 1960?

                    You regularly (well, at least when the subject rears its head) set up straw-man arguments about Lincoln, positing a sort of modern-day progressive on racial matters, who never existed and whom no one believes existed. Then you point out that he wasn’t, as if this was some sort of revelation previously unknown to the benighted Yanks….

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Good points. For the record I’m not defending Jim Crow or legal segregation. All I have pointed out is three things:

                      1. Lincoln was a racist (by all measures),
                      2. He would have set up a Jim Crow system.
                      a. The Radical Republicans derailed his wishes after his assassination.
                      b. Once the Feds left the South a Jim Crow system organically sprung up.
                      3. People, when left to their own devices choose to congregate/associate with people of their own ethnicity and/or race.

                      There’s nothing evil about point #3. If you showed me a picture of Brigitte Bardot and Laine Kazan when I was single, I would gravitate towards Lainie Kazan even though she’s Jewish and I’m Greek. (Not that I would kick la Bardot out of bed for eating crackers but I digress.)

                      All kidding aside, given Republican misrule of the South in the aftermath of the War Between the States and traditional Celtic understanding of black freedmen, a Jim Crow system became inevitable. Don’t fool yourself, you see this in other areas of the world like Israel –which is an apartheid state. You see it increasingly in Europe regarding its Islamic and Gypsy minorities. The biases against these populations is based on some observable reality.

                      I’m not saying it’s right. Far from it. But like genocide and ethnic cleansing it’s part of the human condition. To the extent that a government can ameliorate these things, it should. But it’s not up to government alone.

                  • LOL – the “I have black friends” card gets played! – do you tell them what you write here?

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I imagine they do. I also cross-post on my Facebook.

                    • Michael Bauman says

                      I have two good friends who are black. The fact is they deal with a social reality that is far different from mine even though they are educated and people of good character. I learned this quite early in life: my mother had a small local dance company in 1950’s here in Wichita. One of her dancers for a while was a black airman stationed at McConnell AFB. Often he was a guest in our home when rehearsal went late because he would be stopped and hassled by the WPD on his way back to the air base on the other side of town.

                      The ‘crime’ of driving while black or brown is a reality.

                      My son had that experience of “driving while white” when he lived for a couple of years in Ada, Oklahoma. The Chickasaw Nation owns a large part of the town and they have their own police force which patrols beyond the Nation’s property. They were well known for stopping young white males and hassling them when they could. My son got stopped a couple of times when he was out late with some friends even though he was doing nothing wrong. He maintained his composure but they were still anxiety creating events.

                      Ada BTW has often been ranked high on lists of “The most racists towns in America”

                      To quote Tom Lehrer: “The white folks hate the black folks, and the black folks hate the with folks, to hate all but the right folks is an old established rule.”

                      The only way out of this is through Christ. Laws will never do it, although they can help. The only reason I have the black friends that I do is because of our common love of God.

                      There is no “equal protection under the law” and never has been.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      DWB is a common phenomena. Sad really. My point is that black men are stereotyped. My question was “why?” It’s not only them. Jews are accused of having double loyalties. Greek Orthodox are accused of being inhospitable to inquirers. Arab-Americans and Irish-Americans were accused of being terrorist enablers. And so on. They question again is: “why?” The short answer is that a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

                      BTW, I used to work in Ada regularly. The Chickasaws are definitely proud of their heritage. My own experience in Oklahoma is that those who have a tribal identity as a rule are far more prejudiced against blacks than they are against whites. Mexicans have now replaced blacks as the object of their ire btw. The exception has been the Muscogee (Creeks) who tended to treat their black slaves better and had no trouble emancipating them and/or intermarrying with them. Always an exception.

                    • Lola J. Lee Beno says

                      Yep – Black Indians really got the raw end of the deal. In the recent past, there has been a lot of effort to keep them off the Indian registry, especially by the Cherokee Nation.

              • The scales are heavily tipped in wilson’s favor actually . Not because he is purple or green skinned, but because he is a cop. The likelihood of an indictment is low… The only question is whether he was justified in the last two rounds that killed Brown. There is little question force was needed-Wilson didn’t back up his car and grab a 6’4″ man by the throat in a Darth Vader death grip like Sharpton would like to believe.

                And Brown’s death is not a social awakening. A foolish overgrown boy punched a cop in the face in or near his patrol car. This is a story about stupidity…from blackatude disrespecting a cop twice to punching a cop to adrenaline driving the fatal bullets to a whole lot of black folks thinking there is injustice to Obama speaking to it. All stupidity.

                No points for any intelligence. Including CNN and anyone suggesting any of it is more than dumb.

                That cops first thought was how dumb is this gonna look-what was that kid on….

                • George Michalopulos says

                  If anything, the exact opposite. Everybody from the President to the Gov of MO has all but said that Officer Wilson needs to be arrested. Sharpton has said that if the grand jury doesn’t return with an indictment then more race riots will take place.

            • George Michalopulos says
      • Patrick Henry Reardon says

        George says, “No police force has ever ‘victimized’ somebody simply for the color of their skin in this country.”

        Never, George?

        I’m from the South, George. What you say here ain’t true.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Fr, I stand corrected. I should have never used the word “never.” That’s clearly wrong on my part. What I was trying to impart is that police (even in the South) tended to leave people well enough alone (and still do for the most part) unless there is reason to suspect criminal intent and/or behavior.

          Of course it is sad that young black males have been the brunt of such suspicion but my larger point was that police (and people in general) tend to react to stereotypes and stereotypes are usually based on a measure of truth. Nigerian cabbies in NYC (who are 100% black) regularly refuse to pick up black males who hail them. They are not chary about stating why they refuse to do so –even if it means losing a potential fare.

          • Carl Kraeff says

            I will also point out that conservatives and libertarians are increasingly concerned about the spread of unprofessional behavior in law enforcement. Here is an excellent source:

            http://www.theamericanconservative.com/seven-reasons-police-brutality-is-systematic-not-anecdotal/

            I am going to list the seven reasons below and you can read the article yourself for the details. That said, I want you to know that I am a big supporter of law enforcement; I just want reforms.

            1. Many departments don’t provide adequate training in nonviolent solutions.
            2. Standards for what constitutes brutality vary widely.
            3. Consequences for misconduct are minimal.
            4. Settlements are shifted to taxpayers.
            5. Minorities are unfairly targeted.
            6. Police are increasingly militarized.
            7. Police themselves say misconduct is remarkably widespread.

      • M. Stankovich says

        I just finished reading Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America and I believe it’s about all you’ll need to answer this question of race and victimization:

        In 1949, Florida’s orange industry was booming, and citrus barons got rich on the backs of cheap Jim Crow labor. To maintain order and profits, they turned to Willis V. McCall, a violent sheriff who ruled Lake County with murderous resolve. When a white seventeen-year-old Groveland girl cried rape, McCall was fast on the trail of four young blacks who dared to envision a future for themselves beyond the citrus groves. By day’s end, the Ku Klux Klan had rolled into town, burning the homes of blacks to the ground and chasing hundreds into the swamps, hell-bent on lynching the young men who came to be known as “the Groveland Boys.”

        And so began the chain of events that would bring Thurgood Marshall, the man known as “Mr. Civil Rights,” and the most important American lawyer of the twentieth century, into the deadly fray. Associates thought it was suicidal for him to wade into the “Florida Terror” at a time when he was irreplaceable to the burgeoning civil rights movement, but the lawyer would not shrink from the fight–not after the Klan had murdered one of Marshall’s NAACP associates involved with the case and Marshall had endured continual threats that he would be next.

        Drawing on a wealth of never-before-published material, including the FBI’s unredacted Groveland case files, as well as unprecedented access to the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund files, King shines new light on this remarkable civil rights crusader, setting his rich and driving narrative against the heroic backdrop of a case that U.S. Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson decried as “one of the best examples of one of the worst menaces to American justice.

        Does the word “lynching” ring a bell?

        • Re: Thurgood Marshall as “the most important American lawyer of the twentieth century”:

          Horse Hockey. Marshall was a racist pig as an attorney and then as a jurist. His “analysis” of and rulings on putative “civil rights” cases while on the Supreme Court were an outright joke. The only question he needed answered was whether the plaintiff was — in the constantly changing parlance of his day — a “negro,” a “colored,” a “black,” or a minority of one politically correct micro-division of Americans or another. (I’m not sure the “African American” made it to conventional usage while Marshall was alive and on the bench.) In the end, he was blatantly unapologetic with the shallowness of his racist thought.

          Effectuating “social change” through the judicial process, rather than through the legislature, is the greatest distortion of the fabric of our constitutional republic. And Mr., then Justice, Marshall was right in the middle of it. The spineless elected whores titled “Representative” and “Senator” have abandoned their duty to properly address social grievances — to the extent they ever had constitutional authority to do so in the first place –and have enabled and facilitated this rank bastardization.

          It now takes only eight “People in Black Robes” appointed by the President, with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, to do what the US Congress — or better yet — majorities in 49 bicameral and one unicameral state legislatures, should be doing after informed, rigorous, and yes ugly and cantankerous debate. One US District Judge, two US Court of Appeals Judges, and 5 SCOTUS judges. Not what the Framers initended. Not what the Constitution provides. Not what a healthy representative democracy working in this Republic is supposed to do.

          Is it any wonder why the nomination and confirmaton of Article III judges has become so insanely and inappropriately politicized?

          • M. Stankovich says

            First, Justice Thurgood Marshall cast 1,814 total votes as a Supreme Court justice. Exactly ten votes pertained to civil rights, which included the issue of age discrimination and employment/retirement, rights of the disabled, voter registration, and discrimination against women. He cast 162 votes in regard to judicial power, 6 of which pertained directly to the authority of the SCOTUS; a considerable number pertained to the jurisdiction & authority of the lower courts in settling claims, and there were a significant number of votes dismissing claims brought to the SCOTUS as “without merit.” The overwhelming significance of his voting and opinions pertained to criminal procedure and due process, including his unwavering opposition to the death penalty; and while he was generally over-ruled by the majority as to the constitutionality of the death penalty, he is nearly single-handedly responsible for limiting the death penalty to cases involving murder.

            As to your point regarding “Effectuating ‘social change’ through the judicial process,” I would direct you to Juan Willims’ autobiography of Marshall, Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary. I, more than most, have been extremely vocal as to my opinion of “this rank bastardization,” of utilizing the courts to determine social and moral issues in our society – and I ascribe some of your pejoratives to the hierarchy of the bishops – you seem to conveniently ignore the context of the times: the racist state legislatures of the time were hardly “spineless whores.” They were racist and voted accordingly. Marshall & the NAACP were forced to rely on the legal system – as described in Devil in the Grove – where their goal in most cases was to forgo any notion of “justice” in the lower courts, but to carefully establish a record for subsequent appeals. And it is astonishing to acknowledge that Marshall alone successfully argued seventeen cases before the SCOTUS, and many of his staff argued successfully as well. Your ascribing this dependence on the courts to Thurgood Marshall is particularly shortsighted. As Juan Williams quotes one observer, “We celebrate a yearly memorial to the memory of Martin Luther King, but we are positively affected by the judicial victories of Thurgood Marshall everyday

            • Can’t say that I have read Juan Williams’ “autobiography” of Justice Marshall, but can say that I have no interest in doing so. And I can’t say that I have done a study of Marshall’s apparent 1814 votes in the manner that your comment suggests that you have done, though it appears to be a self-serving means of obfuscating Marshall’s clear history of result-oriented judicial opinions in favor of defined “oppressed classes.”

              After two con-law semesters and another two research seminars in law school on Supreme Court case law, I’m disinclined to re-read the result-driven emisis he spewed masquerading as “analysis” to conclusively demonstrate that Marshall viewed nearly everything he ever did professionally, from what you describe as “civil rights,” to “criminal procedure and due process, including his unwavering opposition to the death penalty,” in terms of race.

              I readily concede the exception to my general observation may be Marshall’s unwavering support for the murder of unborn children through his intellectually dishonest subscription to the mythical “penumbra of rights.” That, I believe many studies show, disproportionately affects what is now known as the “African American” community. I can only surmise that he believed conferring a non-existent “right” to a “woman of color” to murder her child is more important than the fundamental right of that child to be born.

              In short, Marshall’s career as a lawyer, his record as a Justice, speak for themselves. We clearly disagree on the praiseworthiness of his approach and accomplishments.

              (I’m completely bewildered by your comment that “and I ascribe some of your pejoratives to the hierarchy of the bishops” because nothing I’ve said or suggested here relates in any manner to the episcopacy, Orthodox or otherwise.)

              Effectuating social change through an unelected judiciary, as opposed to pressing it through the legislative process, runs counter to the design and framework of the Republic. It is now the unfortunate, destructive norm. It is the definitive blueprint for abortionists, sodomites, and snail darters alike to circumvent the will of state legislatures and the Congress to achieve ends that they otherwise cannot. The legislatures — the “spineless whores” of today and the last half of the 20th century — purposefully pass ambiguous legislation on important matters, unabashedly using ambiguity to facilitate passage to leave to the “People in Black Robes” to shape the ambiguity to an outcome that could not have been legislatively acheived.

              This you seem to clearly laud and salute; this I criticize.

              I do not ignore the times and their context. That still does not justify a purposeful distortion of the constitutionally defined separation of powers. And none of this changes the validity of the proposition that Marshall was a racist.

              • M. Stankovich says

                You must be new here, friend, if you imagine I “seem to clearly laud and salute” the notion of the courts resolving “ambiguity to an outcome that could not have been legislatively acheived (sic).” Check my posts and you will see how silly a presumption you are making. And you likewise seemed to have missed the point that, in regard to “effectuating social change through an unelected judiciary,” I was agreeing with you, and wholeheartedly at that! However, while you seem to ascribe this to social forces and “a purposeful distortion of the constitutionally defined separation of powers,” I have ascribed this to the fundamental lack of a voice of moral authority on the part of the Church.

                We are the guardians and “remnant,” the holders and defenders of the Truth – passed to us, as the Fathers proclaimed, “joining with those Fathers before us” – yet remain silent and ineffectual. And adding insult is the rise of an element within the Church that advocates aligning with the heterodox, the Christian Right and and their “conservative” tactic of loading the judiciary with “their own” in hopes of affecting moral change in our society. The legislatures are, indeed infested with “spineless whores” – both sides of the aisle equally – leaving the heterodox to focus on filling the courts with lifetime appointees, whom they hope will “rule” morality back into a bankrupt society. And here we differ in that you would focus on Thurgood Marshall, who struggled pragmatically against insurmountable racism and injustice, yet ignore the history and environment that bred “Rovian politics” – including the jingoisms, “abortionists, sodomites, and snail darters alike” – whose tactics are driven by cowardice of martyrdom. How will we Orthodox answer for our silence, let alone advocating for joining them?

                The distortion of “the constitutionally defined separation of powers” for Marshall and the NAACP was legislatures and the lower courts who purposefully withheld justice, and they were brilliant enough to overwhelm the system at its own game. It was inevitable. What is occurring in the Christian Right bears absolutely no resemblance.

                • Thank you for the clarification in paragraph 1.

                  I do not believe that there is a meaningful debate on whether “social forces,” as you describe them, have purposefully distorted the constitutional process. While I concur that there indeed is a “fundamental lack of a voice of moral authority on the part of the Church,” my comment was addressed to Marshall’s worldview and his active participation in that distortion as a lawyer and then justice. The extent to which the hierarchs and pastors of the Orthodox Church in the US have failed to speak wtih clear moral authority on the issues of our day is a sorry and sad history.

                  As to your paragraphs 2 and 3, too much going on there to fully reply. I will say this. In my simpleton’s view, the Framers devised a brilliant system of governance that assumed an engaged, informed, and invested electorate. You are correct that Marhsall and his cohorts “overwhelmed the system at its own game,” an “ends justifies the means” tactic embraced by Leninists and the American Left, including decidedly non-jingoistic abortionists, sodomites, snail darter lovers. That, you describe as “brilliant” and justifiable. That I consider disingenuous if not outrightly subversive.

                  The contemporary “Christian Right” is not only un-Orthodox, but is intellectually and theologically vacuous — in short a joke, and perhaps an ultimately destructive joke at that. The question is whether the Republic — and ultimately “silent” Orthodox Christians — are better off with people of their ilk or the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Malcom X, and Saul Alinski.

                  • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                    Define “better off,” please. Does this mean we have failed to cull or weed out wrong people?

                    • Your Grace,

                      No, I do not intend to suggest that “we have failed to cull or weed out wrong people.” Insofar as public discourse is concerned, either our stewardship of Christ’s message will prevail or it will not. We will have to answer for our failure or half hearted effort.

                      Orthodox conceptualization and definition of humanity awkwardly juxtaposes with what Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest assumed when creating the American Republic. But, in my view, at worst, the envisioned constitutional structure allows for a peaceful co-existence.

                      Certainly, during the last half of the twentieth century and through to the present day, the work of the American Left, led and inspired by people like Marshall, Alinski, and others, have as either an intended consequence or unintended by product, the degradation and marginalization of “Christianity”of whatever “tradition” from public policy and political discourse. Some, like our President’s hero Alinski, were and remain pernicious in their effort to transform the US into a atheistic society. At best, the American Left’s vision for a transformed American Republic is to momentarily allow private “freedom of worship.”

                      So my rather simple question is whether those of us who consider themselves Orthodox Christians are better suited with the political goals proferred by the “Christian Right” or the atheist Left?

                    • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                      Well, then, Define “better off,” please.– as in YOUR words “The question is whether the Republic — and ultimately “silent” Orthodox Christians — are better off with people of their ilk or the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Malcom X, and Saul Alinski.” Still waiting.

                    • The question was intended to be rhetorical and the answer self-evident, at least to me.

                      There is no dispute that the American Left is openly and unapologetically hostile to Christianity and would just as soon not have it around. “Better off” has different meanings depending on context. At its most basic and simple level, “better off” means less hostility and hassle. Sure, we are all called to martyrdom, but I’d frankly rather live in a place where that need not be put to the test.

                      It means the political environment is less hostile to Christianity. It means that when the Constitution says that:

                      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                      it means what it says, and not some bastardized, circumscribed “personal freedom of private worship” as advocated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbara Boxer and others.

                      In short, we would be “better off” not having to confront the hassle and hostility of governments and societies that would be run by the likes of Saul Alinski, Malcom X, Louis Farakhan, Lois Lerner, Jamie Rubin, Sandra Fluke, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Samantha Power, Cass Sustein, the faculties of, among others, Harvard, Yale, Berkeley and New York law schools, Hollywood movie moguls, Elana Kagan, Ruth B. Ginsburg, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi, just to name a few. We’d be “better off” not having to be pummeled with the incessant, perverted, and nauseating messages that “Tommy has two daddies and that’s good and you need to accept it or be fired from your job” or that “Kiss Cams” at NBA basketball games are homophobic because they fail to show two men or two women playing tonsil hockey during time outs.

                      We’d be “better off” not having IRS hassling Churches and zoning and building commissioners ruling that cupolas distort the viewing vistas of neighborhoods, but not minarets.

                      As compared to the “Christian Right,” guys like Mike Huckabee are, from my perspective, a lesser of two evils.

                      Sorry to make you wait. Hope that this helps.

          • The SCOTUS has lots of power.

    • RE: “Either is there a centuries-long history of discrimination against white people for being white.”

      Discrimination is discrimination. There is certainly a century-long history of discrimination against women: unable to vote until 1919, rapes, murders, domestic violence, fewer jobs, lower wages, etc. and we’re talking about half the population! Talk about fear. We take self defense classes and have to be escorted to our cars at night. We never feel safe from “the man,” black or white!

      Then there are the kids. I remember in the 60s, kids were unable to walk the streets after 11:00. The police would stop them just to see if they knew of something that might be going on somewhere else. They’d shine their lights in the cars of kids half undressed, enjoying the show. There were and continue to be murders, because authorities don’t follow up on all allegations of child abuse. Happened to an 11 year-old boy I went to school with. Parents can beat the crap out of you and call it “parenting.” A few short years ago, the police in our City got a young girl killed. She was in some relatively minor trouble and in exchange for dropping the charges, they convinced her to infiltrate a gang widely known for distributing drugs. She was something like 16.

      On a call in talk show not too long ago, an officer from the LAPD called in. Seems he had a lot of known anger problems. He admitted, in tears, that he had routinely beat the crap out of people just because it felt good and he could. He also said there were a “lot” of other officers like him. I think being in authority attracts people like that. Not all, certainly, but enough to be troubling.

      There was a homeless kid (kid to me), with emotional problems, named Kelly Thomas who lived in Fullerton. “The Fullerton Police Department responded to a call from the management of the Slidebar (local hangout) that someone was vandalizing cars near the Fullerton Transportation Center. While investigating, they encountered the shirtless and disheveled Thomas and attempted to search him. According to statements given by the officers, Thomas was uncooperative and resisted when they attempted to search him, so backup was called. “Now you see my fists?” Fullerton police officer Manny Ramos asked Thomas while slipping on a pair of latex gloves. “Yeah, what about them?” Thomas responded. “They are getting ready to fuck you up,” said Ramos. A video of the event surfaced, and Thomas can be heard repeatedly screaming in pain while officers are heard repeatedly asking him to place his arms behind his back. He audibly responds “Okay, I’m sorry!” and “I’m trying!” while the officers stretch his arm back.” – Take a look at this kids face after the police were done with him. He died, of course. No one could survive that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas

      Then there are the infamous Signal Hill (near Long Beach) choke holds.

      Finally, there was my son, Robert. He was driving his sisters car. She had just had a minor front end collision. The body work was done, but no mechanic inspected the car. When Robert was driving, the a-arm bent and the car suddenly pulled to the left clipping another car with a dad and five 18 year-olds who had been partying. (They were never tested for alcohol.) They spiraled out of control, traversed 4 lanes, and hit another car that overturned. Robert was in a convertible that also flipped. Because of the bent a-arm, he had to steer the car straight by turning the wheel all the way to the left, which he managed to do and then went back to help the others. I got there. The Highway Patrol told me someone had died and the life of someone else was hanging in the balance. They told my son this, too. He was taken to the hospital, cuffed to a bed that the Highway Patrol had lowered to the ground so his arms would be held up in the air. The ER doc wanted to admit him, but the Highway Patrol wouldn’t allow it. They took him out of the hospital, against medical advice, knowing there were two small hematomas on the base of his brain. In the police report, they said his demeanor suggested he was on a CNS depressant OR a stimulant??? Seems to me that his behavior might be entirely different depending on which one; anyway, the HOSPITAL stated his demeanor appeared to be perfectly normal, except for the marked anxiety one might experience upon hearing that you killed someone. He was complaining of severe head pain, but the Highway Patrol carted him off to jail anyway, or so they told me and my sobbing daughter. When you hear your child or your brother KILLED at least one person and possibly another, it is devastating. We were hysterical which only added to Robert’s ordeal. Turns out that the jail wouldn’t take him because of his injuries so they took him to the station and let him sit in an uncomfortably cold room, while he shivered for hours without his clothes. Try as they might, the Highway Patrol couldn’t get the 3 witnesses to validate that Robert did anything wrong so they finally called me at 2:00 AM to pick him up. His white blood count skyrocketed and he had a complete psychotic break. He was in the hospital for over two weeks to address his medical injuries. The drug analysis done by the Highway Patrol showed he was “below” therapeutic levels of his prescription medication at the time of the accident. No other drugs or alcohol were found in his system. The Highway Patrol maintained they confiscated a bottle of illegal drugs in the trunk of the car, but the bottle was mysteriously “lost” before it made it into evidence. They later arrested him and threw him in jail. After being off his bi-polar medication for a few weeks, his court appointed attorney got him to plead guilty because of the potential of a “great bodily injury” charge. I had power of attorney and told them he could not make reasonable decisions while off his medication but they ignored me. The attorney? A friend of one of the purported victims who later sued ME for a $300,000 bracelet that she said was carted off in the wreckage. Apparently the accident was my fault, because the car was registered in my name (my daughter, at age 18, was too young to own a car CA) and I should have known Robert could get a set of spare keys. The case was dropped several months later. Turns out the woman didn’t know about the case. Her son, again friends with my son’s court appointed attorney, filed it on her behalf. – BTW, no one died or was even close to dying. All were released from the ER within 30 minutes. Only my son was badly injured. But he was not treated as a victim of a regrettable accident. He was treated like a criminal. Why? His licensed had expired on his birthday and he hadn’t gotten it renewed. Plus, he just “looked the type.”

      My point is, being victimized is not just a “black” thing. These stories are SO common, yet they don’t make the news. The media is a tabloid of lies and misrepresentation to get people all worked up about whatever the “hot topic” is for the day. It sells. What happened to this poor kid and officer, if even true, is just a day in a life, sadly.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Discrimination is a good thing. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase “that man has discriminating’ tastes? That means he can tell the difference between a Happy Meal and Oysters Rockefeller.

        • Michael Bauman says

          George, you are seriously deluded on this one. Sorry, but you need to stop digging.

          • Big difference between *voluntary* segregation and unequal segregation *enforced by law*. Do we really have to explain that to you?

        • Carl Kraeff says

          Wrong thing to say to a mother whose son was grossly maltreated by law enforcement. This things happen all too often. Friends in law enforcement tell me that one reason for this unprofessionalism is the enormous time that cops spend in their cars, making the “us vs. them” phenomenon more acute.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          The law isn’t supposed to be “discriminating.” It is supposed to be a “one size fits all.” – The days of “The Andy Griffith Show” are long gone.

          • George Michalopulos says

            But Gail, we don’t have equal protection under the law anymore. That’s part of my larger point. Especially when you have the DOJ getting involved in local crimes/incidents involving interracial happenings. Say what you will, but Holder pressured the State of Florida to issue a 2nd degree murder complaint against Zimmerman when it was clearly involuntary manslaughter.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              When I was a kid, I was REALLY good at pinball. You shoot the ball at a certain angle and after 3 or 4 tries, it’s a pretty good bet it will hit a certain spot. If it hit’s THAT spot, it’s an even better bet it will hit another strategic spot and another and another until you win. – I’m not a white man who goes walking around my neighborhood night after night looking for black kids, but if I did, it’s a pretty good bet I would find one. If I found one and tried to restrain him, it’s a pretty good bet he would fight me. If he fought me and I had a gun, it’s a pretty good bet I would shoot him. If I shot him at close range, it’s a pretty good bet I would kill him. If I killed him, it’s a pretty good bet there would be backlash from his community. If there was backlash from his community, it’s a pretty good bet it would attract the media. If it attracted the media, it’s a pretty good bet politicians would cave. . . . and so it goes. All very regrettable, but predictable. – “Don’t go looking for trouble . . .”

              • Michael Bauman says

                Gail, the questions are: “Who was looking for trouble and was the response to the trouble that came appropriate or not?”

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  Michael,

                  One or both of them. . . someone was looking for trouble. There was some sort of trajectory here. Would you agree?

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    Gail, yes. One or both. Then all pretense at rationality went out the window. Now even if it returns for a brief time the hatred, fear and mistrust that is prevalent there has only been deepened.

                    It seems as if both the police and the residents approach it as a prison but maybe M Stankovich could comment on that.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Yes, Michael, “all pretense at rationality went out the window.” Everything is upside down.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              George,
              As far as I’m concerned, everything is upside down. Doesn’t mean it isn’t predictable.

    • James Denney says

      This incident was not the end result of past discrimination of whites against blacks, or of a white police officer picking on a black man because he is black. It is the end result of the bad behavior of Michael Brown. His bad behavior can in fact be attributed to the anti-police,anti-whitey attitude that is rampant in the hip hop/ rap/ gangsta culture, that has in turn been spawned by the generations of welfare state dependency created by the progressive-Democrats beginning with FDR, which has destroyed the family in many communities. Throwing money at the problem only makes it worse. Bill O’Reilly: http://www.cnsnews.com/video/national/oreilly-americas-race-problem

      • Crediting food stamps for the whole thing? Kid had a father and a mother. If you want to credit hip hop, then reference Beyonce’s wealth. Fathers vanishing is bad. If government requires women to be unmarried for a benefit, then why impose such a rule? Welfare has much less to do with inner city culture than redzoning.

        Michael Brown needed to be arrested that day and sent to prison. If he hit a cop in his patrol car; he deserved to be shot. We had not one black leader cut against the fray and suggest Brown hitting a cop was a horrible wrong. Rather than sarcasm-the story is sad…because of the response of blacks. I heard not one say stop walking down the middle of the road…not one.

  8. It should also be noted that the vast majority of protesters in Ferguson have been peaceful, and a small minority became violent.

    The militarized response of the cops in Ferguson ought to worry all Americans interested in liberty. In what world is putting snipers on roofs, bringing in APCs, shooting tear gas at protesters, and arresting reporters for the “crime” of being in McDonald’s the proper response to this?

    I will note here that George condemned the armed response to the Cliven Bundy affair in Nevada, and lionized the people there who carried arms in defiance of the law. Apparently it’s not ok for African-Americans to do the same thing though.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Maybe you’re right, only a “small minority” were actually looters. What percent? 5, 10, 20%? The damage was awful and longlasting. Think QT is going to go back there? What about that little Arab or whatever he was that got shoved around by Michael Brown 15 minutes before the latter was shot to death?

      Comparing Cliven Bundy to Ferguson is comparing apples to oranges. The Natl Guard only came into Ferguson after rioting and looting had already taken place.

      • Nate Trost says

        George Michalopulos wrote

        What percent? 5, 10, 20%?

        0.0005%, 0.00010% or 0.00020% are more like the numbers you’re probably looking for.

        Comparing Cliven Bundy to Ferguson is comparing apples to oranges

        Indeed, if they hadn’t treated the Bundy crowd with kid gloves, Alyn Beck and Igor Soldo would probably still be alive. But we didn’t hear about that shooting on Monomahkos! What percent of Bundy supporters do you think are willing to murder police officers? 5, 10, 20%?

      • Apples and oranges can be compared. They are both fruits.

        “that little Arab or whatever he was” – volumes of respect in that phrase!

        • George Michalopulos says

          The early word was that that little man (in comparison to “gentle giant” Brown) was an Arab. I’ve also heard he was Pakistani. Your point is what exactly?

          • “that little Greek, or whatever you are” – is that a respectful way to address you, George?

            • George Michalopulos says

              Well, if I were below average in height, you could describe me as “a little Greek” I suppose. However, I’m 5’11” and 220 lbs so I guess another descriptive would have be used. How about “Middle aged”? I’m 55, or “balding”? That would be an accurate descriptive.

              All sarcasm aside, the reason I used that term “little” is because as anybody with with clear vision can see, the poor fellow who was menaced and assaulted was indeed “little”? I’d say no more than 5’6″. When compared to “the gentle giant” Michael Brown, he was definitely little by any stretch of the imagination.

  9. Ok, I’m so glad I found this idiotic, racist blog about a white kid killed by a black cop.

    Obviously, you left out many details to make an educated assertion about what took place, but I doubt this blog attracts many educated ppl.

    With that said lets anal- yze what you said: So a cop just out of nowhere speeds up to a store and jumps out and tells 3 white teens to get on the ground, really? Where the hell cops just do that at? Idiot, the cop must have been called to the store because of something but you seemed to left that out…huh?

    Next, ya lil white boy obviously thinks he’s black, walking around like the ignorant negro’s that do this, which is a sign of being GAY in the prison system. Next, what black kid wouldn’t have been shot for making a move to their pants, shit white cops kill black kids for less.

    Next you talk about Rev Al, but fail to mention that Rev. Al is called to every incident that occurs by the family of the victim you idiot. Did this white family call Rev Al? Hell no, so shut the hell up about what he does that you have no understanding.

    Look at the diff between what took place at the Bundy Ranch and what took place in Ferguson, stop writing this racist shit for the rest of these racist idiots to follow suit, with a idiot that is ignorant and totally stupid.

    • Johann Sebastian says

      Liberia is waiting for you…

    • Daniel E Fall says

      There is a huge vacuum of leadership in the Michael Brown story. It started with government failing to tell the story instead of the sensationalist media and thugs. Reverend Al could have decided to not eulogize Brown…King would have never eulogized Michael Brown. King was a great American and a great leader.

      We don’t need to use lethal force as much-that is fair.

      • George Michalopulos says

        I completely agree with you. MLK and the SCLC went out of their way to overlook thugs, prostitutes and other reprobates, even if they did have case or were injured by Jim Crow in some way. Everybody they represented (to my knowledge) were squeaky-clean.

        I know that shouldn’t make a difference but the hurdle was high and they regularly met it. So did the African-American community for that matter back then.

  10. George Michalopulos says
  11. Michael Bauman says

    Above Alexander poses the question: “So my rather simple question is whether those of us who consider themselves Orthodox Christians are better suited with the political goals proferred by the “Christian Right” or the atheist Left?”

    Neither. They are both lies.

    We are better off by being Orthodox Christians in contra-distinction to any political or cultural ideology of the world. We are better off doing those things that lead to salvation. None of those things reside in any political ideology. In fact the way of salvation shatters all ideologies no matter how noble they may seem to be. The more political ideology promises, the less it has to deliver. All are based on false eschatology and false anthropology.

    • Thanks for not taking that bait and for such a wise answer Michael.

    • Michael,

      As you state, Orthodox stand in contradistinction to any political or cultural ideology of the world. I stated at the top that the “Christian Right” is vacuous and acknowledge that it is a lie. I stated that the American Founders conceptualization of humanity “awkwardly juxtaposes” with Orthodoxy. I never suggested that Orthodox are supposed to adhere to a political ideology as a means to achieve or even facilitate salvation. Or that I am some campaign manager soliciting support for the “Christian Right.” There is nothing noble about the “Christian Right.” But there sure is an awful lot of downright evil spewing from the American Left.

      My point is that we live in this world, as fallen as broken as it is. And I — and perhaps you — live in the US, as fallen and as broken as it is. I can’t avoid that. But, I cannot avoid the facts: Orthodoxy is not the accepted and practiced faith of this country or the world and I am not a hermit or a monk separating myself from the rest of the world.

      The proposition is simple and practical. Do you want to physically live in a place where the accepted political worldview is designed and intended to marginalize, ostracize, persecute, and eradicate your very existence ? Or would you rather live in circumstances where you are permitted to freely live according to your Orthodoxy?

      Dan suggests that this was a trick question. Its not, especially for those of us who have children.

      • Michael Bauman says

        Alexander, your present a false dichotomy based on human sentiment. We are called to the same life no matter the circumstance. The “freedom” you cite has its own challenges to that life that can be just as deadly in a spiritual sense.

        I realize you are not defending the Christian right. But a true Christian Right government would not be particularly friendly to us.

        Mr. Fall, I find your praise a bit perplexing as your posts often seem in sympathy with the secular left ideology–at least to me.

        BTW I no longer vote. The election process has become a shell game removed from reality. Politicians no longer interested in governing each with their own messianic delusions. They are leading us into secular-nihilist hell.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          Mr. Bauman, do you vote in local elections?

          I’ve run for local office (unsuccessfully, but a good experience), and my wife has been a local elected official for 25 years (and not a salaried one, I’ll add).

          Not voting is hard for me to understand, I’ll admit. I’ll also say that I do not see “our heterodox past” as one of emptiness and darkness, either, to refer to another post of yours. Perhaps because it is my past and that of my family, from time out of mind….

          • Michael Bauman says

            If you saw the slate of choices or lack thereof with which we are presented you’d not vote either: a collective IQ less than 1 and not an independent thought amongst them. Even those who really want to lead, get corrupted. Who am I to assist in putting such temptation before them?

            As to your second point:

            While there is much goodness amongst the Christians of this land ultimately the theology and the eschatology in particular leads nowhere. I have been enriched and challenged by Protestants I have known over the years but ultimately the well is empty.

            I have the great good fortune to lead the adult Sunday School class in my parish largely populated by Protestant converts. I marvel at their faith, devotion and knowledge of the words of Scripture yet they tell me of the emptiness of their former confessions. I, by God’s grace, help them into a greater fullness.

            They help me in humility and faithfulness. Please forgive any offense.

            (I too am a convert put I came from a syncretistic pseudo-mystery group that somehow or other Jesus Christ penetrated to get a few).

          • It is interesting you ask this Mr. Mortiss as the next election cycle will probably be my first where I don’t vote since I came of age and could 28+ years ago. I won’t of course speak for Mr. Bauman but here our my reasons:

            1) After having had the chance to work in local government and observe it for a # of years, it is plain that it is run by a relatively small group of “insiders” (usually local business men of whatever the dominant industry is + real estate developers). Sure, the local media plays the fool by giving “voice” to other outspoken groups, but the insiders take this all under consideration and plot a course that benefits them and pacifies everyone else. In our culture, that means that local government is more and more reflecting vocal minorities + central planning initiatives. The insiders can afford these onerous regulations and indeed almost always benefit from them, and the average “citizens” of course keep getting less and less for his money (unless you are of the ideological left and are a true believer or an insider).

            2) As far as I can tell, State government is pretty much a larger version of the above

            3) Nationally it is not as tidy, but here I simply don’t have anyone to vote for. As a constitutional conservative, for years I threw my vote to the whoever on the Republican side most resembled a true limited government fan (let’s not even pretend the euro-socialist democrats are an option – they are truly the ‘party of death’ based on abortion alone). But let’s be honest, we have two parties in this country: the moderate liberal and the euro-socialist.

            My wife and I own a medical practice (and she is a physician). We are what you would call “Obama rich”, but I am not going to even waste the gas money (let alone my time) driving to the polling place when it does not make a difference in the least. I am truly without representation (and soon decent health care but that is another thread :)…

            In the end, the american experiment of limited government is a failure. We are only a few years behind Europe. I wonder if we are simply too large a population for anything like the ideals of which our system is supposedly based to be workable. Whatever the reason, I no longer am under any delusion that “my vote counts”…;)

            • Michael Bauman says

              Actually Christopher you speak quite well for me. In fact the US is too large, too heterogeneous, too focused on both simplistic morality and the acquisition of things for the principal of limited government to succeed. It actually died with the Civil War, it just took a while for the corpse to be dismembered.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Timor: It took me a long time to realize the futility of voting and the temptation to jump back into the fray is still there. Nevertheless I just read an article by Anthony Esolen that explains more eloquently that I why I will continue to resist the temptation. The entire article is here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/09/13462/

            But he ends with this statement:

            The nakedly secular state is not a neutral thing. It is something utterly different from, and irreconcilable with, every human polity that has existed until a few anthropological minutes ago. It is itself a set of choices which, like all such, forecloses others; a way of living that makes other ways of living unlikely, practically impossible, or inconceivable.

            To some degree one acquiesces to the demands of that secular state when one votes whether that is in local, state or national elections.

            • Tim R. Mortiss says

              There is always a matter of temperament and a sense of perspective involved.

              I was raised by parents (and had many mentors) who consistently gave me encouragement about the future; education, work, family, etc. My wife and I were married at 19, had 3 children by 22 and 5 by 28; our family encouragement, and that of many others, gave us the ability and fortitude to perservere and succeed in many areas of life.

              I, in turn, have always regarded it as an obligation to give similar encouragement to the young. Our children are now in their 40s (or very near in the case of the youngest), and we have grandchildren in college, high school, and younger. Encouragement has helped our own children on their journeys in this life. I try to give similar encouragement to any young folks I encounter if there is an opportunity

              No doubt doomsayers and birds of ill omen have their place in the world, but I am temperamentally unable to be one, whatever goes on. We are in for trying times. I for one don’t resist the temptation to remain involved in the public affairs of this world. It’s always a struggle to be in but not of this world. But that’s where we are.

              “He who hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune….” If one has chosen this path, then one had better not fall down on the job; and there is no withdrawing from the fray.

              We can say whatever we want in essays, such as Mr. Esolen’s. This has little to do with how we live our lives, and how we help others to live theirs.

              • Michael Bauman says

                We can say whatever we want in essays, such as Mr. Esolen’s. This has little to do with how we live our lives, and how we help others to live theirs.

                Neither does government, although my father, memory eternal, is probably rolling in his grave that I would express such a thought. However, he fought valiantly and quite hard to create and tremendous local health department to serve the health needs of the entire community but particularly the poor. He fought that fight for over 20 years at great cost to himself.

                Within a year after he was forcibly retired most of his programs which were the envy of practically every other local health officer in the country were beginning to be dismantled by politically ambitious hack who followed him at a considerable increase in salary. He got his promotion after about 18 months to San Francisco just in time to get slapped with the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. Frankly, it served him right.