Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

This does not fit the narrative, so we heard very little from the national media about anti-Black racism among Mexican gangs until this federal indictment was unveiled (h/t @GabrielMalor):

A Latino gang conspired to rid a Southern California city of its black residents through intimidation, threats and violence dating back to the early 1990s to exert its influence and show its loyalty to the Mexican Mafia prison gang, according to a federal racketeering indictment unsealed Tuesday.

More than 50 people were charged as authorities made early morning raids targeting the Varrio Azusa 13 gang. Federal prosecutors said the gang, which has about 400 members or associates, engaged in a host of crimes ranging from drug trafficking to hate crimes that have hobbled Azusa, a city of about 45,000 residents near Los Angeles....

The crackdown is the latest effort by law enforcement to cripple Latino gangs that have targeted blacks in the Los Angeles area.

We should not be quick to generalize the problem, but clearly there is a problem fed at least in part by Mexican gangs who are involved in illegal human and drug trafficking.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

This week we bring together two distinct concepts.  Chris Matthews and Naomi Campbell.

Chris Matthews has been featured here before for his prowess in playing the race card.

This week Matthews also designated the word "European" as a potentially racist term based on nativist hostility, at least when it is used in reference to Barack Obama's policies. (via The PJ Tatler)



Notice how Matthews says "let’s keep race out of it for five seconds ..." and uses the term "nativist" as a cue for Ed Rendell to term the phrase "a slur."

Shift over to Naomi Campbell, known for throwing things at the help and generally being a spoiled celebrity.

Picking up on that image, Cadbury chocolate in Britain (owned by Kraft) ran an ad for an upscale chocolate bar with the phrase (but no image of Campbell) saying ""Move over, Naomi, there’s a new diva in town... I’m the world's most pampered bar."

Campbell may have a claim for the use of her name for commercial purposes without permission, but that is not enough, she's screaming racism because the ad was for a chocolate bar:

"I am shocked. It's upsetting to be described as chocolate, not just for me, but for all black women and black people. I do not find any humour in this. It is insulting and hurtful."

The model's mother, Valerie Morris, backed her daughter, saying: "I'm deeply upset by this racist advert. Do these people think they can insult black people and we just take it? This is the 21st century, not the 1950s. Shame on Cadbury."

Disgust at the ad prompted members of the public to complain to the campaign group Operation Black Vote (OBV), which has called for Cadbury to apologise. OBV's Simon Woolley said that without an apology, the "only recourse black people have is not to buy its chocolate". He has written to the American civil rights activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to ask them to mobilise the country's Afro-American population. "I want them to know what their parent company is doing in Europe. I've asked them to support us."

Mr Woolley said that, for black people, being likened to chocolate was as bad as being called a golliwog. "Racism in the playground starts with black children being called 'chocolate bar'. At best, this is insensitive, and at worst it demonstrates Cadbury's utter disregard for causing offence. Its lack of apology just adds insult to injury. The Eurocentric joke is not funny to black people.

Campbell is considering suing, and Cabury has apologized and pulled the ad:

"Cadbury understands that our latest advertising campaign for 'Cadbury Dairy Milk Bliss' caused upset to Naomi Campbell and her family. Cadbury takes its responsibility to consumers very seriously indeed and we would never deliberately produce any marketing material we felt might cause offence to any section of society.
"It was not our intention that this campaign should offend Naomi, her family or anybody else and we are sincerely sorry that it has done so.

"We can confirm that the advertisement is no longer in circulation and we will not be using it in future marketing....We have been in discussions with Naomi's solicitors and can confirm that they have accepted our apology on her behalf as a conclusion to this issue."

Let's talk about all this.

First, since when did calling something or someone "European" constitute a racial slur?  Politically in this country, where we love economic freedom, calling an economic policy "European" may be a slur because it implies government policies meant to control individual economic freedom, but it is not a racial or racist slur.

Second, there may be uses of "chocolate" which have a racial reference, such as when Ray Nagin referred to New Orleans as a chocolate city.  But Cadbury clearly was not using Campbell's name in a chocolate ad because of or in reference to her skin color.  Campbell was mentioned because of her high profile spoiled-brat image.

So the non-racist racist term of the week is:  European Chocolate.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

I previously posted about the lawsuit by Widener Law School Professor Lawrence Connell.  Widener is seeking to terminate Connell after Connell used a hypothetical example in his criminal law class of the Widener Dean being attacked, and a small number of students alleged that Connell made racist and/or sexist statements in class.  A Widener faculty committee has recommended that the charges be dropped, but Widener is pursuing termination proceedings.

Conell has filed suit, but there also is an administrative hearing at Widener on June 6.  Connell will not be attending the hearing because of a death in the immediate family, but has submitted affidavits by a variety of people, including two students.  Numerous students also previously sent e-mails of support.

In the affidavits of Danielle Oppenheim and Samuel Elbardissi, the students take issue and put in context the supposedly racist and/or sexist statements made by Connell.  You can read the affidavits, but the short version is that the complaining students have taken comments out of context, failing to distinguish Connell's explanation of case background (in which racism was a factor) from Connell's personal opinion. 

So when Connell discussed in class how Bernie Goetz's subjective perception of blacks being responsible for crime contributed to Goetz's defense, the students took this as an affirmative statement by Connell that blacks were responsible for crime.  (Oppenheim Aff't at pars. 23-25, Elbardissi Aff't at par. 10)

Equally troubling is that two complaining students repeatedly created confrontations with Connell in class over such misperceptions of racism.  As explained by Elbardissi:

33. Two incidents occurred in the class that required the other students to take notice.

34. The first student, who sat middle of the class in the second row, raised her hand as we had just finished a case. The issue was, as I recall, referencing another note in the casebook that dealt with racial profiling and the latitude that officers have in making their determinations whether to stop or not.

35. Professor Connell had gone over the note and discussed the statistics that pointed to blacks being heavily targeted by police. The student raised her hand. When called upon, the student started her response, in an aggressive tone, with the words "I don't know what you agenda is ... " Her comments lasted about 45 second to a minute, to which Professor Connell replied, "If you can tell me what I have said that makes you think I have an agenda, I will gladly respond to your question." The student continued with her tone and Professor Connell said that we were going to move on.

36. I have been with this student in other classes and her approach, at times, is to take personal the topics at hand. When such a situation arises, her tone and aggressiveness to attack the situation that is very personal to her is similar to what occurred on that day.

37. On a separate day, Professor Connell had opened the floor for a question he had posed. A student, sitting two to three rows behind me, was called on to answer the question. The student asked a question and Professor Connell asked her to answer his.  Her response to this request was "You never answer mine. Why should I answer yours?"' The situation was awkward for the class who had seen tension from these two students build over the semester. Professor Connell did not continue the tirade, but simply stated "That when you answer my question first, I will answer yours." and then moved on to another student on the opposite side of the room.

38 . I am currently in class with this student. Unfortunately, her comments in response to the professor's question or the general topic at hand, tends to start with "1 believe" or " I think." and never addresses the question posed or the topic at hand . I have no issue with this person, but the consistency that a [sic] the train of subtantive learning gets derailed when she participates is too consistent to not notice.

The charges against Connell have a similar feel to a Media Matters or Think Progress story, in which sentences or clauses from sentences are presented without any context or out of context and spun into a tale of supposed racism by people with an agenda.

Widener Law School should not be proud that it has brought the worst aspects of the blogosphere into its classrooms.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Think Progress  is reeling from being punked by the Navy Seal Anchor Baby hoax.  But Think Progress needs to earn its keep, so it soldiers on.

Think Progress continues its the never-ending quest to find someone (preferably a Fox News employee, a Republican politician , a Tea Party supporter, or as a last resort, someone who knows one of the foregoing) making a racist statement.  And once again, Think Progress steps in it.

Eric Bolling, someone I had never heard of before, apparently is under consideration to replace Glenn Beck on Fox News.  So that makes Bolling a public enemy to Think Progress.

Bear with me here, you have to make several logical suppositions and factual assumptions.  So I'll take it in sequence. 

Obama was in Ireland.  Obama chugged some brew.  Bolling commented about it on Facebook, and Twitter, saying "Obama chugging 40's in IRE while tornadoes ravage MO."


According to Think Progress, this tweet was "racially-tinged":

“40′s” is a slang name for 40oz malt liquor bottles. But Obama drank from a pint glass (not a bottle) of beer that doesn’t come in 40oz bottles. Why did Bolling say Obama was “chugging 40′s”? As even some of Bolling’s Facebook commenter note, it’s an eyebrow-raising choice of words, given the beverage’s long-time association with African American stereotypes.

I'm not so sure Think Progress is correct about this. 

One of the retweets of Bolling's tweet was by @40ozMaltLiquor which runs the website 40ozMaltLiquor.com devoted to 40 oz. malt liquor (is the internet great, or what?).  The website features images of 839 different bottles of 40 oz. malt liquor.  Whatever stereotypes were in the minds of the Think Progress editors and writers, I'm not sure you can say the 40 oz. malt liquor phenomenon was limited to one racial or ethnic group.

And to prove the point, I'd like to relate some personal high school history.  Since I was not of legal drinking age until the end my senior year in high school, this information is based solely on what a friend told me.

This friend told me that he and his friends would use a fake i.d. to buy big bottles of Colt 45 Malt Liquor.  Although my friend did not specify, I'm pretty sure they were 40 oz. bottles.  My friend and his friends had heard that Colt 45 had a higher alcohol content than regular beer.  I don't know if that was true, but my friend and his friends believed it, which really was all that mattered to them.  My friend and his friends then would go to the beach or a house where the parents were away, and chug 40s of Colt 45.  With the strobe light on.

The point of this story is that the people doing the chugging of 40s, according to my friend, were all white.

So when I heard that Eric Bolling used the term "chugging 40s," I didn't see it as racially-tinged.  Just funny.

But what do I know, I've never chugged 40s.  Although I've heard about it.  From a friend.



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

I previously wrote about accusations by Princeton Professor Cornel West that Obama was racist. Against blacks.

Now West lays into Obama again.  It speaks for itself, and is causing all sorts of liberal angst:





Joan Walsh, who has played and had the race card played on her, sums it up:

But there's a way in which this whole controversy looks like progressives devouring their own tail.

Indeed. This is what happens when you coddle and encourage false accusations of racism for political and website traffic purposes. When what went around comes back around, you really have no defense. If George Bush hated black people because (insert standard nonsense reason here), why not Obama? It's absurd, of course, but the natural result of the race card industry.

But I'm not going to get in the middle of it, defend it, criticize it, or otherwise. I'm just going to sit back and watch the show.

Pass the popcorn.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Cythia Tucker once accused Michael Steele, then Chair of the Republican National Committee, of being an "affirmative action hire gone bad," and almost no one from civil rights organizations, liberal social justice groups, or the "left" objected.  Because Cynthia Tucker was a prominent liberal columnist who is black, and she was attacking a Republican who is black, the column passed without much controversy.

The key thing was that Tucker used the term "affirmative action" as a derogatory epithet, not a positive.  That's what it's come to even from liberal black columists.

Victor Davis Hanson writes today (h/t Instapundit) that affirmative action is an idea whose time has passed:

First, what exactly is race today in America in which intermarriage and immigration have increasingly made it — and its ugly twin racial purity — often irrelevant? We are no longer a country largely 85-90% “white” and 10-12% “black,” but something almost hard to categorize in racial terms. Do university admission officers adopt the 1/16, one-drop racial rule of the old Confederacy? Does being one fourth African-American qualify one for consideration; three-fourths Japanese; half Mexican-American? Does a simple surname add — and often by intent — authenticity and credulity? The son of Linda Hernandez and Jason Smith — a Bobby Smith — is not considered, without genealogical investigation, Hispanic, but the son of Linda Smith and Jason Hernandez — a Roberto Hernandez of equal 50/50 ancestry — is almost instantly? If so, is race a state of mind and personal choice more than circumstances of birth? What exactly is white and what a minority — a dark-skinned Armenian-American is the former, a light-skinned Colombian American is the latter? A dark Sicilian-American is white, Barack Obama is black?

We are reaching the point in a multiracial and intermarried America where admissions officers and employers simply would have to hire British genealogists to trace our bloodlines — and instead, in millions of cases, therefore resort ad hoc to what Americans profess or think they are.

Although not addressing affirmative action, Ta-Nehisi Coates comes to the following conclusion, after studying the history of black confederates:

I've spent much of my adult life studying various theories of race and racism, and the last few years in a rather intensive mode of study. In all of that time one inescapable conclusion has dogged me: Race is such bullshit.

In my prior post, Why Don't We Just Stop Counting?, I noted the difficulty that governmental entities had in classifying people by race given intermarriage, and I suggested

Our system of racial and ethnic categorization is outdated and now serves a negative purpose. Get rid of it.

Some ideas outlive their utility as blunt social instruments. Affirmative action as a generic tool to address the history of racial discrimination is one of those blunt instruments.

------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

You owe me.

No really, you do.  I had not realized how much you owed me until I saw this call for solidarity among minorities.



What's my claim to minority status? No, not religion.

You know.

I will not be denied my due.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Think Progress, via its Wonk Room blog, thought it had the story of the year. 

Not just the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy SEALS.

No, it was so much better, the killing of bin Laden by a Navy SEAL team which included "Rubén Mejía," the American-born child of illegal Mexican immigrants.

The original report was from a newspaper in Mexico, and was dutifully reported by Think Progress, which used the story to argue in support of the DREAM Act, Navy SEALs Squadron That Killed Bin Laden Included Rubén Mejía, The Son Of Mexican Immigrants (emphasis mine):

For a long time, Latinos were underrepresented in the armed forces. Yet, this started to change dramatically as the Army launched “a vast recruiting campaign targeting Latino youth, placing ads in Spanish-language media, including magazines, radio, and television.” In fact, several military experts have come out in support of the DREAM Act which would legalize undocumented youth who go to college or serve in the military precisely because it would significantly increase the pool of qualified recruits in the Latino population — which comprises the majority of undocumented immigrants and is more likely to enlist and serve in the military than any other group....

Meanwhile, many also claim that Latinos are being left out of the military’s highest ranks. “In the last 75 years, there have been only three (Latino) officers on active duty with three stars and just one with four. What’s the problem? We’re as capable, competent and educated as any other segment of society,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez stated last year. If the hundreds of Latinos who have died serving our country abroad aren’t enough to change that, hopefully Rubén Mejía’s brave and historic actions are.

Think Progress was responsible for sending the story viral with this tweet:


Hundreds of tweets linking to Think Progress, including by Markos Moulistas of DailyKos and Perez Hilton, sent the story soaring.

Paul Reyes of USA Today, writing in HuffPo, beamed with pride:

As an American, I'm relieved that the hunt for Bin Laden is over. As a New Yorker, I finally feel some sense of closure, nearly ten years after September 11. And as a Latino, I am proud that Ruben Mejia has set a heroic example of the innumerable contribution of immigrants to the United States.

It was the perfect story with which to beat supporters of immigration enforcement over the head. The most heroic of actions by a so-called "anchor baby."

But the story turned out to be false, which Think Progress noted after several updates. 

There was much embarrassment around the internet from people who ran with the story because Think Progress ran with it.

But what if the story were true?  Would it have proven what Think Progress wants, which is passage of the DREAM Act? 

Considering that the DREAM Act is directed at persons not born in the U.S., it's apples and oranges.  The fictitious Navy SEAL Ruben Mejia would not be affected.

And even as to children who were brought here illegally, service in the military as a pathway to citizenship is non-controversial; the controversy over the DREAM Act was that it was so broad in its application that it amounted to a wide-ranging amnesty.

So in many ways, the story even if true was a non-story.  But it provided Think Progress with an irresistible play of the race card.  Too irresistible to fact check before running with it.

I think I'm going to start charging for popcorn.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

I have dealt numerous times with the malicious accusations across the mainstream media, entertainment industry, left-blogosphere, and even in the right-blogosphere that questions regarding Obama's birth certificate and/or birthplace were motivated by racism.

Among other things, I documented numerous white presidential candidates who have had their citizenship and/or birthplace questioned in attempts to challenge eligibility for the presidency. 

The accusations of racism left no possibility that people who doubted Obama's birthplace or citizenship were motivated by an honest desire to see the best evidence, and an honest bewilderment as to why a presidential candidate or president would not release a document which we all have had to release at one time or another in our lives.

After all, if racism were the motivation and Obama were being singled out because of his skin color, then the evidence would not matter.

Now The Washington Post reports that after the release of Obama's original birth certificate, the number of people who believe Obama definitely was born abroad has plummeted to 1% of the population.  That's right, almost every one of the 20% of people who thought he was born abroad and the additional 28% of people who were unsure now believe Obama was born in Hawaii.

In interviews following the public release the president’s “long-form” birth certificate last week, fully 70 percent of Americans say Obama was born in Hawaii, a big bump-up from the 48 percent who said so a year ago. Even more say he was U.S.-born, or call that their best guess, for a total of 86 percent.

Overall, 10 percent of Americans say Obama was likely born abroad, down from 20 percent in an April 2010 Post-ABC poll. Almost all those who now say Obama was born in a foreign country say that it’s only their “suspicion;” just 1 percent claim “solid evidence” that the president was born elsewhere (9 percent said so last year).

The remaining skeptics are not that far apart by party affiliation (Democratic 7%, Independents 12, Republicans 14%), although WaPo does not break down how many of those are in the definite category as opposed to merely suspicious.

Doubts linger even among Democrats, perhaps because of the way in which Obama handled the delay, and two years of doubts may take more than a few days to dissipate. 

But what is clear is that the evidence mattered, much more so than skin color.

Updates:  Aaron Worthing at Patterico, About the Impossibility of Convincing Conspiracy Theorists…

And Daniel Foster at NRO:

I can’t tell you how often I heard the argument from liberal colleagues that the relatively high number of self-identified conservative Birthers found in some polls implicated the entire conservative coalition as hopelessly racist, and that since Birtherism is rooted in President Obama’s perceived “otherness,” no amount of evidence could ever change our Bible-thumping backward redneck minds.

Boy oh boy, if that’s true, then Obama’s decision to release his long-form birth certificate accomplished a feat on par with — nay, greater than — killing Osama bin Laden: it made America dramatically less racist overnight!

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

And on the 75th episode of the Saturday Night Card Game, we again ponder how we have reached the point where words or expressions which have no connection to race have become a tool by which the race card players stalk Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party supporters. 

For those of you who are new to these parts, here are some prior words or terms which have caused problems:

• Baa Baa Black Sheep
• Black Friday
• Black Hole
• Providence Plantations
• Rejigger
• Gobbledygook, and 
• "No Asians," 

The latest example is the nontroversy over Mitt Romney's play of the common phrase to "hang an albatross around his neck."  That metaphor was used frequently during the 2008 campaign as commenters throughout the left-blogosphere wanted Democrats to hang George W. Bush around John McCain's neck.

Romney used this metaphor yesterday in New Hampshire when referring to our economic misery index, which he substituted for the word albatross, and then applied it to Barack Obama:



You can guess the rest, media buzz and cries of racism because in the games of the race card players, hanging the misery index around Obama's neck or hanging Obama with it, just like it was hung around Carter's neck, is exactly the same thing as saying "let's lynch the black guy."


Really. Here is some media/blogosphere reaction to what is being portrayed as a major "gaffe":

• HuffPo: "Mitt Romney's camp is attempting to do damage control after the presidential aspirant made controversial remarks in criticizing President Barack Obama during a stop in New Hampshire on Friday night.
• Boston Globe: Romney clarifies as he proposes to 'hang' Obama with misery index.
• Raw Story: "In a speech at the pro-GOP Americans for Prosperity dinner, former Massachusetts governor and contender for the GOP presidential nomination Mitt Romney said he would "hang" Obama, then immediately realized his gaffe and tried to smooth over his mistake."
• Politico: "Any reference to hanging — however unintentional — would be especially loaded in a campaign against the country's first black president, as Romney apparently recognized."
• Daily News: "Mitt Romney scrambled to do some damage control after he suggested it was time to "hang" President Obama in a speech in New Hampshire Friday night.

What lunacy.  It's become a mind control game.  These people are not addressing actual racism, they're just playing word games and gotcha.

The Obama campaign doesn't need to do a thing, it just needs to sit back and let the media do its job for it.  Fairy tales do come true when you are up against the media's love affair with Obama.  (By using the term "affair" I do not intend any subtext or tinge.)

Romney should not be apologizing.  He said nothing wrong.  He was not suggesting a literal hanging of Obama and he did not use racial terminology.  But recognizing the way in which race-neutral words would be twisted against him, Romney clarified the remarks on the spot.  There is no story here.

Oh, by the way, the phrase I used in the title to this post is taken from the quote attributed to Lenin (although it's not clear if he actually said it) that:

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them."

No offense intended to capitalists, or to Obama.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

This is a follow up to two prior posts on the attempt by the mainstream media and left-blogosphere to frame the issue of Obama's constitutional qualification to be President as rooted in racism.  Obama is being challenged, the argument goes, only because he is not white.

As I pointed out, however, the race card as to Obama's constitutional qualification does not hold up because there is a long history of white presidential candidates and presidents being challenged, including allegations of a concealed birth in a foreign country:

• They Will Not Let The "Birther" Issue Drop Against That White Republican President
• Your race card narrative does not fit, so you must acquit 

Nonetheless, the meme goes on day after day in the mainstream media, without so much as a peek at history.

Tonight it's Fareed Zakaria's turn to declare (emphasis mine):

Then there is the ‘birther’ issue. I regard this as coded racism, frankly. I don’t think there’s any other word for it.

For goodness' sake, George Stephanopoulos displayed Obama's Certificate of Live Birth on network TV and this rumor still doesn't die. Put it this way: If the President was a white man named John Smith with the other background issues being the same - foreign student father, mother in Hawaii, etc. - would there be any of these dark insinuations? Trump should be ashamed of himself. But then, I suppose, he wouldn't be Donald Trump.

To a very, very limited extent Zakaria is right.  We have no evidence that a white man named John Smith would have his citizenship or birthplace challenged.

But we do have evidence that white men with the following names would not be so lucky: 

Chester A. Arthur
Barry Goldwater
John McCain
George Romney
Lowell Weicker, Jr.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr.

-------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
If Gov. Neil Abercrombie Really Wanted The Records ...
They Just Can't Let Go Of The Birthplace And Religion Issues
The Bizarre "Birther" Intellectual Dance

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

On February 15, 2011, I dissected the lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod against Andrew Breitbart and Lawrence O'Connor, for defamation and other claims arising out of the release of Sherrod's speech to the NAACP about her experiences with a white farmer.

In my analysis, I noted the weakness of the claims, finding:

Hence, each of the key elements of the alleged falsity -- the fact of the discrimination being in the past, that Sherrod did help the farmer, and that Sherrod's tale was one of not being racist after the incident -- all were disclosed in the edited video which forms the basis for the lawsuit.

I also noted that:

The problems go even deeper.  Regardless of the caption and the interpretation of the word "discriminates," the facts were revealed to the viewer, rendering the characterization of "discriminates" or "racism" being matters of opinion, and hence not actionable in a defamation case.

Subsequent to my post, the case was "removed" by Breitbart from the D.C. Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in D.C.  The "removal" process is a federal procedure whereby, if certain conditions are met, a defendant can take a case out of a state (or in this case, D.C.) court and place it in the federal court in that jurisdiction.  Sherrod recently sought to "remand" the case back to the Superior Court, a motion which has not yet been rule upon by the federal court.

A few days ago, Breitbart filed a motion to transfer the case (change "venue") from D.C. to the Central District of California, or alternatively, to dismiss the case.  A copy of the Memorandum in Support of the motion is here.

On the change of venue portion, Breitbart argues that no one is in D.C. (Sherrod is from Georgia), and that the events at issue took place in California.  The arguments appear at pages 4 - 15 of the Memorandum.

Far more interesting to me are the arguments in favor of dismissing the case, in the event the case is not transferred.  Breitbart echoes the arguments I made.

First, Breitbart notes that the video and his commentary were not false:

"Each of the statements reflecting Breitbart’s belief that Sherrod’s conduct was “racist” or revealed signs of “racial discrimination” must be dismissed as a non-actionable expression of opinion based on truthful disclosed facts. The video excerpt of the NAACP speech published on BigGovernment.com is representative of the whole. It recounts that Sherrod initially declined to offer professional assistance to a white farmer on account of his race but then experienced a change of heart and obtained a new lawyer for him when she realized that poor people deserve help regardless of the color of their skin.  In her Complaint, Sherrod states that her full speech stressed that “poverty, not race, must be the critical factor for helping those in need.”  (Complaint ¶ 43.) That is exactly what the excerpt and the Blog Post show her to profess. Thus, judged by Sherrod’s own articulation of the message she intended to convey, the clip captured the gist of the speech."  (p. 28 of Memo, p. 37 of pdf.)

The fact is, as I pointed out with video screenshots, Sherrod did recite a tale of her prior discrimination against a farmer on the basis of race.  She may regret having those feelings, and she may regret telling people what she had done, but such regret does not amount to a legal claim against people who give light to her own words. 

The so-called "edited" video (which was not really edited, it simply was an excerpt of a very long speech) did in fact disclose that Sherrod was talking about something that had happened in the past, and that she had come to realize the error of her ways.

Next, Breitbart argues that his characterizations and opinions of Sherrod's conduct cannot give rise to a defamation claim because opinions based on dislcosed facts are constitutionally protected:

"But from the truthful facts laid out in the excerpt, Breitbart drew a contrary conclusion about the meaning of what was said, as Americans with different beliefs and formative experiences often do when the topic is the endlessly arguable subject of race relations. In Sherrod’s admissions and the audience reactions, he saw evidence that she had evaluated and initially declined to help an individual because of his race, even if she eventually had a change of heart. Breitbart thus took her – and the NAACP – to task for, in his view, casually condoning a double-standard when the civil rights organization had been repeatedly attacking the Tea Party as “racist.” But just as the NAACP’s rhetoric about Tea Party racism was not objective and verifiable assertions of fact capable of being proven true or false, so is Breitbart’s rebuke of the NAACP and Sherrod. The Blog Post contains subjective, non-verifiable opinion protected by the Constitution. The claims based on these statements must be dismissed. (p. 28-29 of Memo, p. 37-38 of pdf.)

Among other things, Breitbart cites court decisions (some of which I had cited in my blog post) holding that where the facts upon which the opinion were disclosed, even calling someone "racist" is a non-actionable opinion.  (Memo. at 33-34, pdf. at 42-43)

I can't predict what will happen to the motion to dismiss, but I can say what should happen.  Sherrod's lawsuit should be dismissed for failure to state a legal claim. 

Shirley Sherrod was hoisted with her own petard.  That does not give Sherrod a legal claim against those, like Breitbart, who called attention to the hoisting.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

I warn you, this is hard to follow.  I'm not even sure I have the sequence down.  But as with many fights in which accusations of racism are thrown around loosely, I'm not sure the precise sequence matters.  And toss Twitter into the mix, and it becomes near impossible to unravel.

What does matter is that there is a massive fissure in the Democratic Base (more on that later) in which Joan Walsh, one of the Grande Dames of the Professional Left stands accused of racism and white privilege after a comment over who is Obama's "base."

The history is laid out in almost incomprehensible posts at The Angry Black Lady, The Extreme Liberal, and Salon.com. 

For simplicity sake, some background is summarized at The Atlantic, Joan Walsh Sparks Twitter Brawl Over Obama And Race:

The Players: Joan Walsh, Salon.com editor-at-large; numerous outraged Twitterers

Opening Serve: Joan Walsh commented on the state of American progressivism in a Salon article this week, in which she wrote, "I deeply resent people who insist that white progressives who criticize Obama are deluding themselves that they're his 'base,' when his 'base' is actually not white progressives, but people of color."

Return Volley: A tweeter by the name of Truthrose1 took offense to Walsh's comment and wrote, "@joanwalsh read your article, I resent white progressives who pretend they are the base of the Dem party and ignore AA's, we are even," sparking a back and forth between Walsh, Truthrose1, and several others that continues to drag on. Walsh attempted to defend herself by noting, "Not saying white progressives are THE base; opposite. But I resent African Americans who say THEY are THE BASE. Wrong," but Truthrose1 shot back instantly with the comment, among others, of "PBO is not your lap dog, thank god Gibbs called out the liars in the progressive media, u have done nothing but act like baggers."

I'll admit, it's hard to follow all this, as is the case with most Twitter wars, but I repeat myself.

What is clear is that there is a growing fissure in the Democratic "base" over criticism by the (mostly White) Professional Left, as reflected in this Twitter exchange:


And this one:

And this one:

And this one:

And this one:


And this one:



Even Jane Hamsher's name was dragged into this, showing there is a deep resentment not only towards Walsh, but also another Grande Dame of the Professional Left:


Who won, who lost? I have no idea, but a fairly extensive list of the tweets involved is at Chirpstory. 

Bring plenty of popcorn, and tell me the ending, I don't mind a spoiler.

Update:  Until the Twitter war above, I had never heard the term "Firebagger."
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Donald Trump has pushed the issue of Barack Obama's birthplace and citizenship back onto the front pages.

I'm not going to revisit the merits of the issue, but I will note the continuing tendency to treat any questions as to the issue of Obama's eligibility as inherently a reflection of racism.

This time from Leonard Pitts, Jr., writing in the Detroit Free Press (emphasis mine):

"So it is time to call this birther nonsense what it is -- not just claptrap, but profoundly racist claptrap....

It is telling that the white candidate who was, in fact, not born in the U.S.A. (Sen. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone) did not face these questions, while the black one who was born in Hawaii has been unable to escape them....

Frankly, I wish Trump and his fellow birthers would just go ahead and call Obama an N-word. Yes, it would be reprehensible and offensive.

But it would be a damn sight more honest, too."

Actually, John McCain was challenged on the issue of whether he was a natural born citizen.  It's even on the internet, so it should not have been very difficult for Mr. Pitts to find. 

And such questions didn't start in 2008, McCain was challenged on the issue in the run-up to the 2000 primaries, as reported in the early days of the internet by a columinst for The Washington Post:

John McCain has more pressing worries than eligibility on the road to the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. After his lead role in pushing campaign-finance and tobacco legislation, both anathema to the Senate GOP leadership, the Arizona senator may have to spend a lot of time trying to prove his party credentials before he ever gets to Iowa or New Hampshire.

But is he constitutionally qualified to become president?

And the issue came up again in 2008, as reported at MSNBC.com:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions — raised in the liberal blogosphere — about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president. But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it's a serious question with no clear answer....

And at The NY Times.com:

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming....

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

There also this thing called the United States Senate.  And it has a website too.  And if Mr. Pitts had searched really hard, Mr. Pitts could have found a document.  And that document was a Resolution.  And the Resolution, co-sponsored by Barack Obama, declared that John McCain was a natural born citizen.  You see, questions about whether John McCain was eligible to serve as President were so prominent that the United States Senate took up the issue (although I'm not sure it's determination is binding).


Wait a second.  This does not fit the narrative.  All these white people had their eligibility challenged or at least questioned based on birthplace or speculation as to birthplace.  And it's even on the internet.

But didn't Mr. Pitts just tell us that this only is happening to Barack Obama because Obama is not-white?  Is it even remotely possible, in Mr. Pitt's wildest imagination, that some people actually take constitutional eligibility requirements seriously?

And while we're on it, who exactly would play politics with such things?  Only conservative racists? 

Note that the MSNBC article quoted above pointed out that questions about John McCain's eligibility were being raised in the liberal blogosphere.  Like at Crooks and Liars, which posted a clip from CNN on the issue, and then wondered: "It's a question for legal minds now, but how funny would it be if after all this, John McCain would be forced to bow out of the race on grounds of ineligibility?"

Your race card narrative does not fit, Mr. Pitts, so you must acquit those you have charged with racism.

Update 4-3-2011 - Reverand Al is singing the same tune -



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

The District of Columbia has a special status that does not provide it with full voting representation in Congress, due to its unique history. 

Until recently, D.C. did have a vote on something called the Committee of the Whole, a not particularly important device in Congress. 

In early January 2011, the new Republican House made a rule change which took away D.C. representative Eleanor Holmes Norton's vote on the Committee of the Whole, and there were screams of racism from David Dayen at Firedoglake, who wrote

"it wouldn’t be a Republican majority if they weren’t taking an African-American’s voting rights away." 

Teddy Partridge, also at FDL, wrote:

But by so doing, House leaders signal to their non-racist teabagger base that they will do anything they can to ensure that DC residents, majority African-American, are less well represented in Congress than they were yesterday. And that they will do it first of all!

In fact, much of the argument for statehood for D.C., or at least full congressional voting, has centered around the alleged racist implications of the non-represented status of a majority black city.  An article in Ebony Magazine in 1990 argued that D.C. was being treated differently due to race:

But why all the fuss over making the district a state? The fuss, insiders say, isn't really over statehood. It's over power. Major league national power. Full political equality for a state, with a 70 percent Black majority.

This is the bottom line, then: If the district becomes a state, it would be entitled to elect two senators - senators who would almost certainly be Black and Democratic. And when you talk about giving Black people that kind of power at that level, simple solutions become very complex, very fast.

"It is obvious that racism and political bigotry are what really block the way to statehood for the District of Columbia," nationally syndicated columnist Carl Rowan says. "When Hawaii was up for statehood, the opponents mostly whispered that there ought not be a state run mostly by Asians. Now the bigots are saying openly that statehood for the District of Columbia would produce the `disaster' of two Black members of the U.S. Senate... and Jesse Jackson probably would be one of them. Why should America have a Senate in which there is not a single Black voice...? It is time we got national leaders...who will show the guts to stand against racism and... do for D.C. what others did for Hawaii and Alaska."

As the comments by Dayen and Partridge reflect, portraying D.C.'s lack of representation in racial terms still is the party line, including by D.C.'s "shadow" Senator Paul Strauss:

Strauss hints that past attempts to make the district a state were blindsided by racism, since its populace was and is predominantly black.

He admits the last two years – with a liberal black president and an overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress – were the best shot at achieving statehood.

“It sure should have been,” Strauss grumbled. “We lost an opportunity to accomplish what was essentially our moment. Somehow we thought if we asked for less democracy we would get more. We ended up creating more diversion than solutions.”

I don't believe that for a second. 

Not only does D.C. have a unique history, the opposition to statehood or full representation in Congress stems from the fact that the residents of D.C., regardless of race or ethnicity, would vote Democratic Party.  It is a purely political issue, with Democrats seeking an advantage and Republicans content with the status quo.  The use of the race card really is just a tawdry attempt to sway the debate to the advantage of Democrats.

But a funny thing happened on the way to playing the race card when it comes to D.C. representation.

The just-released 2010 census numbers reflect that the percentage of non-Hispanic blacks has dropped to 50% and is falling, and non-Hispanic blacks are heading to minority status in D.C.:

Non-Hispanic blacks are on the verge of losing their majority in the District of Columbia as their population is being pushed out to the south and east of the city while the central city becomes increasingly diverse and whites concentrate in the western half of the District, new census data show.

Non-Hispanic black residents have dropped by more than 39,000 people and now account for just 50 percent of D.C.'s population. By comparison, non-Hispanic blacks comprised 70 percent of the District's population at the peak of expansion in 1980, according to Benjamin Orr, a Brookings Institution research analyst. Meanwhile white, Asian and Hispanic populations are all on the rise.

The shift follows a trend seen in other cities, especially in the north, of blacks leaving urban environments while other races' populations grow.

So if D.C.'s racial makeup has changed and it no longer is majority black, the race card alone is not going to work.
 
Partridge, in the link above, hinted at what may be the new strategy.  Denying D.C. statehood or at least full congressional representation is both racist and homophobic:

55% of these residents are African-American. More than eight percent of adults in DC are LGBT....It’s important to track the backwards steps this GOP House takes to satisfy its non-racist, non-sexist teabagger base. This disenfranchisement of African-American and LGBT DC residents is the first of many of these steps.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Aaron Worthing of Patterico's Pontifications and Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress had a bit of a spitting match this week over this Yglesias' post titled Stuff White People Like: Republicans (emphasis mine):

"A good series of charts by Lee Drutman shows that one of the best predictors of declining Democratic partisan ID between 2008 and 2010 is the number of white people .... I used to hold to the view that the growing non-white share of the electorate would, over time, tip elections to Democrats. I now think the system will remain near equilibrium and what we’ll instead see is white voters growing more Republican as Democrats are more and more seen as the party of non-whites. Mississippi and Arizona, after all, have very large minority votes but they’re hardly hotbeds of liberalism. Instead they’re hotbeds of very conservative white people. This does mean, however, that politics will become even more abstracted away from “the issues” and questions of identity will become even more central."

Worthing wrote that Yglesias was race-baiting:

"And just in time [for this post], Yglesias and Think Progress publish this tripe. Here’s a hint, you cheap race-baiter. Just because the majority of people wanting something might be white, doesn’t make it automatically racist. Indeed, the belief that a view is necessarily racist unless there is a rainbow of colors supporting it is itself racist."

To which Yglesias responded:

"I defy you to read my post and find any instance of me calling anyone a racist. The hyperactive response here does, however, remind me of one of the signal qualities of modern American politics, namely conservatives’ absolute conviction that overzealous anti-racism is a major social ill. Personally, I don’t see it and I’m genuinely staring across a void of incomprehension when I see this sentiment from the right. But it’s clearly the major driver of conservative movement thinking on race in America."

Worthing's further response is here.

The important thing for tonight's Card Game is not to get in the middle of someone else's blog war (I've had my own issues before), but to wonder how Yglesias stares "across a void of incomprehension" when he sees conservatives react to what he calls "overzealous anti-racism."

Yglesias' formulation begs the question. Why is it "overzealous anti-racism" or even "anti-racism" to reduce everything to race?

Focusing on race as the explanation for politics is something Yglesias does with great frequency, as reflected in these posts:

• Stuff White People Really Like
• Stuff White People Like - Disapproving of Barack Obama
• Progressive Urbanism - Stuff White People Like
• The (White) Kids Are All Right
• White Men Are Not Very Progressive

Yglesias is not alone, nor is he the worst.  The liberal media obsesses about how Tea Party events are "overwhelmingly white" and with the number of non-white faces at Sarah Palin book signings.  Here are some prior posts on the subject:

• Obama Bitterly Clings to Bitter Clinger Stereotypes
• An Allergic Reaction To The Race Card
• White Privilege Syndrome By Proxy
• I'm Not Racist, I Know People Who Voted For Obama
• Diversity for Thee But Not For We

Is this focus on the whiteness of conservatives, Tea Parties, and opposition to Obama in general merely reporting facts or even part of a greater anti-racism effort?

Yglesias is being too cute at least by half.  By focusing on the whiteness of crowds or groups, Ygelsias and other liberal media make an implicit charge of racism without actually using the word "racist," thereby leaving themselves an out when challenged.  And that is how Yglesias reacted to Worthing, insisting he never called anyone a "racist."

The focus on race is a means of putting conservatives and Tea Parties on the defensive, by suggesting that the skin colors in a crowd reflect racial preferences of the participants.

The best proof that there is no neutral motive to the focus on race is that it is a one way street.  Race is an obsession of the left only to the extent the crowd is "overwhelmingly white," not when the crowd is "overwhelmingly not white."

Yglesias just can't seem to understand that we do not view the world through a racial prism, and we resent it when others impute such a view onto us.  We care about what is in the mind and heart, not skin color.  I realize that is incomprehensible to those who are schooled in the ways of racial politics, but that is their problem, not ours.

Here is a video I have posted before, which sums it up better than  I ever could.  The reporter also stares across a void of incomprehension:



Update 3-20-2011 - More from John Rosenberg, Anti-Racism, Anti-Anti Racism, And Liberal White Guilt.


--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

.... in order to achieve a racial and ethnic mix of players which looks more like America.

Sorry, I meant, the City of Dayton, Ohio, to lower police test score thresholds, a move which even the local NAACP chapter opposes:

The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.

It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.

Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees. The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test.

Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That's the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

“It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane. “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation."

“The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,” agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward....

“If you lower the score for any group of people, you're not getting the best qualified people for the job,” Foward said.

Update:  As pointed out by commenter/blogger A. Worthing, it is hard to see how this holds up in light of the New Haven fire fighters case.  But this administration does not seem swayed by precedent.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!