The Strange Case of Rachel Dolezal Gets Even Stranger...

The TWO Faces of Rachel Dolezal

Funny story....OK, yet another "Not so Funny Story".....You've no doubt heard about Rachel Dolezal (the white woman who has headed the Spokane Chapter of the NAACP, while claiming to be black), well it turns out that Ms. Dolezal has been hyper-litigious her entire life.

Back in 2002 she sued Howard University for discriminating against because she was white! (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/…/rachel-dolezal-discriminatio…).

Her suit, filed in 2002 (the same year she graduated from that school with a Masters in Fine Arts degree) alleged that Howard University engaged in discrimination against her. Ms. Dolezal, then known as Rachel Moore, named Howard University and Professor Alfred Smith as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C.’s Superior Court.

When that civil lawsuit was filed, Professor Alfred Smith was chairman of Howard’s Department of Art.

According to a Court of Appeals opinion, Dolezal's lawsuit “claimed discrimination based on race, pregnancy, family responsibilities and gender.” She alleged that Smith and other school officials improperly blocked her appointment to a teaching assistant post, rejected her application for a post-graduate instructorship, and denied her scholarship aid while she was a student due to her race.

No wonder Ms Dolezal resigned from her post earlier today. Ideally, you want to head off as much embarassing information as possible.

In Ms Dolezal's case, TOO LATE!

All this brings in Al Sharpton (who else?) who has blamed the entire media firestorm on Ms. Dolezal's family for maliciously outing her as being white.

FACT is, her family DIDN'T seek to "out," nor embarass Rachel Dolezal, NOR is that family at all "Conservative." They merely honestly answered questions put to them by a local reporter.

Rachel's parents had adopted four African-American children and held largely "liberal" or "progressive" views on most issues.

Oh yeah, and the upshot of Ms. Dolezal's lawsuit was that it was dismissed. A subsequent Court of Appeals decision ordered her to reimburse Howard University for a “Bill of Costs” totaling $2,728.50. She was also ordered to pay the university nearly $1000 in connection with an “obstructive and vexatious” court filing that sought to improperly delay her examination by an independent doctor.

Yes, yet another "Not so Funny" story.

About Fredrika Whitfield's "Verbal Gaff"

Fredricka Whitfield

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xFmNMTVFIE)


Yes, it's got to be hard to speak (on TV or radio) for a living. People are prone to all kinds of errors and miscues. Hell, some folks (like Al Sharpton, for instance) can't even read from a teleprompter ("Sta-lewis....Ah, I mean Saint Louis"), but some verbal gaffs are more telling than others.

This past Friday, CNN host Fredricka Whitfield called James Boulware (the deranged gunman who was killed during an attack on the Dallas Police Department) "courageous and brave," while talking with CNN legal analyst Philip Holloway.

Apparently caught up in a giddy excitement over the incident, Ms Whitfield said, "“It was very courageous and brave, if not crazy as well, to open fire on the police headquarters, and now you have this scene, this standoff...”

Mr Holloway immediately distanced himself from those sentiments saying, "fortunately only the attacker was killed during this attack."

Over the weekend, Ms. Whitfield gave what amounted to a non-apology, which amounted to a rationalization, delivered with visible disgust and a contempt for her audience. All of it amounted to her blaming her audience, for "misunderstanding her." Her indignation is visible during this 15 second non-apology. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhT_KYu6O_4).

What's most troubling about this alleged "gaff," is that it doesn't seem to be a matter of "mis-speaking" at all, especially since it ties so neatly into Ms. Whitfield's and CNN's decidedly anti-police bias.

CNN loves plane crashes (especially missing planes) and race stories (white-on-black ONLY, and since they're especially rare, they've often turned to making "victimes" out of black perpetrators who've attacked police and gottten injured or killed in the process). Apparently Ms Whitfield's pique was over CNN "not having her back," given their general support for this anti-police narrative.

So, WHY didn't CNN back Ms Whitfield?

Well, apparently lionizing a maniac who shoots up a police station from an armored van, is a bit over-the-line even for the editors at CNN, or at least it BECAME "over-the-line" once the public outrage began flowing in.

Today (Monday, June 15th, 2015) Fredrika Whitfield went on-air with Brooke Baldwin to make yet another apology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEQMR10LU8U). In this latest statement, Ms Whitfield says, "...and I understand NOW how offensive it was..."

Now, that seems honest enough...and yet, frightening too, for in that one line she admits that initially she didn't really see any basis for either outrage, nor offense to her calling a deranged man intent on killing as many police officers as he could, "courageous and brave...if not crazy, as well..."

So Ms. Whitfield didn't see anything wrong, nor reasonably offensive in lauding, even appearing to root for a man who attempted to kill Police Officers!

That shouldn't be all that surprisng, as those sentiments are shared by any number of public officials (both elected and non-elected) and many in the media, almost certainly many of Ms. Whitfield's bosses over at CNN.

Can Sharia Law and U.S. Law Coexist?

What most Americans associate with Sharia law are things like the stoning to death of adulterers (mostly female), gays and apostates and the practice of mandating Christian-owned businesses to have a cross outside their businesses and Jewish-owned businesses to have a Star of David outside theirs, so that Muslims will know not to conduct business there.

Those are ALL abuses, rooted in the medieval codes familiar to most major religion’s pasts. Since Islam has never had a Reformation, those medieval codes still persist in the religion today.

BUT there are other aspects of Sharia law that would probably appeal to many Westerners.

In the 1940s, Sayid Qutb, man who is believed to have started al Qaeda, laid out the 3 main principles of Sharia law;

1) Absolute freedom of conscience.

2) The complete equality of man (before the law, it does NOT presuppose that people are all of equal abilities, etc. NO viable system presupposes that).

3) The firm mutual responsibility of society.

While many Westerners would question the Muslim world’s living up to the first two, most would accept those principles to be very good ones for all of us to aspire to.

However, it should be noted that in many senses, Sharia law does more to protect “the people,” than Western law ever has. As an example, under Sharia law, BOTH parties must demonstrate a full understanding of the pact or contract before it can be entered into. Neither the seller, nor the buyer can omit, or obfuscate any pertinent facts about the pending sale.

In Western law, what the buyer doesn’t understand is his/her problem and sellers are allowed to omit, or downplay any disadvantages to the sale. NONE of that would be accepted under Sharia law.

But it is the 3rd principle that Qutb chronicled that most Westerners neither fully understand, nor accept.

Exactly what does “the firm mutual responsibility of society” mean?

Well, it means that any person who commits a crime (especially a violent crime) must take full responsibility by yielding up an exact equivalent of the damage they did. Qutb quoted the Koran on the punishments for killing or wounding; “A life for a life, an eye for an eye, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth and wound for wound.”

What Sharia Law DOES that Western law DOES NOT is to make the victim the centerpiece of the law. Western Law DOES NOT recognize a crime victim’s right to retribution, the “crime” Western law acknowledges is ONLY “a crime against the state.”

While it can be argued that that is NOT what America’s Founders (especially Thomas Jefferson) intended, for in his own writings Jefferson was clear that while “the accused” had full rights and a presumption of innocence,” an individual had no rights and did not exist within the purview of the law, during the commission of a crime.

Unfortunately, that view was NOT accepted in the final draft of America's Constitution, perhaps due to the difficulties of that day in often determining who was the victim and who the aggressor in many conflicts. With today's DNA evidence and ubiquitous surveillance cameras, that is far less of a concern.

Sharia law’s making the victim, NOT the state the primary party in the criminal process appears to deliver more fairness and return real justice to that system.

The idea that “the death penalty doesn’t deter future crimes” is complete and utter nonsense on virtually every levels.

For ONE thing it deters the executed felon from ever committing such a crime again, and when done publically and brutally, as in the Muslim world, it DOES appear to deter others, as well. Among those nations with the very lowest murder rates around the world today are those Muslim nations where such public and draconian punishments are meted out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

STILL, there are many aspects of Sharia law that are simply antithetical to Western standards of tolerance. Like many ancient religions, Islam views “fornication” (sex outside of marriage) as a serious crime. According to Qutb, “It involves an attack on honor and a contempt for sanctity and an encouragement of profligacy within society.” THAT is where the above mentioned penalties for adulterers and gays come from.

That is completely incompatible with Western traditions.

At this point, absent a serious Reformation, Islam and Sharia law are and will remain completely incompatible with Western law and Western traditions.

The idea that “many Muslims in the West don’t adhere to, nor desire Sharia law be imposed here,” is simply ignorant and misguided. The truth about that appears to be very different. Recently Ami Horowitz went to Minnesota to interview “moderate Muslims in that area, asking “Do you feel more comfortable living under American law or Shariah law?”

They ALL answered Sharia law.
(http://conservativetribune.com/american-muslims-shariah/?utm_source=MailChimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featured-stories&utm_campaign=DailyEmail05.31.15)

And that’s Sharia law, as it is, NOT the reformed version (that would eliminate the draconian punishments for “fornication”) that I’ve mentioned above.

Without such serious reforms Sharia law and the Western tradition will remain incompatible.

While there are reform movements throughout the Islamic world, it’s too early to tell whether they have a very real chance at some relatively immediate impact.

But IF there’s ever going to be a bridge between Islam and the West, then the West will also have to make some changes, in order to meet that culture half way, for there is really no other way for us to truly coexist.

Racial Supremacists Are as Much a Threat to Non-Supremacist Members of Their Own Race, as They Proclaim to be to Those of Other Races

Aryan Brotherhood member

Often news events, especially those centered on crime and police reactions and overreactions are delivered couched in race.

It seems that these stories are actually intended to polarize and alienate people of different racial/ethnic groups from one another.

Sometimes it’s tempting for productive whites and blacks to take a cold comfort in the actions of militant black or white supremacists, as “giving the other side something to worry about.”

BUT it’s vital to know that ALL non-supremacist whites and blacks, virtually all productive members of those groups have as much to be concerned about from the supremacists of their own race as they do from the other.

In other words, the other race is NOT “the enemy,” it’s the supremacists of BOTH races that are ALL our “enemies.”

They wish the “race traitors,” and the “integrationists” of their own races as much harm as they do anyone of another race.

Individually people are, for the most part, the same –decent, hard-working and caring. There have been abuses against blacks (ALL of them historically well documented) and against whites (the ongoing disparate violent crime rates and the segregated standards and preferences of what “affirmative action” has morphed into), BUT those abuses were ALL implemented by government...from chattel slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to today’s various preferential policies. They ALL came from government.

The unfortunate thing is that we are often tempted to misdirect our frustrations and anger over bad policies at individuals, when that should be directed at bad government polices enacted by “bad,” or incompetent public servants (judges and legislators).

The Toxic Dependency of Our Existing Welfare Culture

The IRONY....ABOVE Detroit and Hiroshima circa 1945 and BELOW: Detroit and Hiroshima circa 2012

In the wake of the recent rioting in Baltimore, Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the NY Times found someone it identified as “Robert Wilson, a college student who went to high school in Baltimore, and her” article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/baltimore-riots.html?_r=0) concludes with Mr. Wilson’s explanation of why Baltimore’s urban residents rioted.

He said nothing about Freddie Gray or police brutality, instead, he simply said: “We’re just angry at the surroundings – like this is all that is given to us? – and we’re tired of this, like nobody wants to wake up and see broken-down buildings. They take away the community centers, they take away our fathers, and now we have traffic lights that don’t work, we have houses that are crumbling, falling down.”

That one quote almost perfectly defines the essence of the pernicious and debilitating welfare-state mentality that leads to such rioting. The dependent poor (overwhelmingly black, in urban areas) live in neighborhoods that they, themselves, have destroyed, and then fume, “This is all that is given to us?”

Generations of hard-working Americans built all those “broken-down” buildings that Mr. Wilson complains about. Many of those buildings originally had opulent entrances, parquet floors, 10’ ceilings, French doors and ornate moldings rarely found today and they were ruined by subsequent generations of welfare dependents to whom food and clothing allowances, housing etc. were all simply “given to them,” without anything expected of them in return.

Is it realistic to expect such people to even understand the idea that we each earn what we get?

And why should they? Those who set up and managed those programs don’t seem to understand it.

After the extensive rioting in Baltimore during the late 1960s, productive people (black, white and other) fled that city and sold their property at rock-bottom prices. Today, all of that housing has been transformed into one massive and horrific slum, with many of the buildings abandoned and others seriously in need of rebuilding, all because the subsequent generations (most of them tethered to various dependency programs) didn’t maintain that housing stock.

This pattern of working-class flight and devastated housing stock, abandoned buildings, etc. has also been seen throughout America, in places like Atlanta, Birmingham, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Newark, New York, Philadelphia, Providence, St. Louis, and many other major American cities. Some of the best city housing stock in the country was transferred to the generational, urban poor, who then promptly destroyed it.

Robert Wilson complains that “we have houses that are crumbling, falling down.” The remedy for crumbling houses is for the people who live in them to fix them, but instead, all Mr. Wilson can seem to do is to whine, “Is this all that is given to us?”

Like so many Americans today, Robert Wilson doesn’t seem to realize how disgustingly perverse it is even to think in terms of fine houses and beautifully maintained neighborhoods being “given” to anyone.

But in today’s world of welfare, food stamps, government housing, etc., Mr. Wilson just doesn’t know any better than to ask for more “free stuff.”

How could he be expected to see it any other way? After all, his own community’s “leaders,” like Jesse Jackson, are equally self-absorbed. At the funeral for Freddie Gray, Mr. Jackson wanted to know, “Why can’t the [poor] West Side get the same things downtown gets?” In other words, Jesse Jackson is asks the very same question that Robert Wilson asked, “Is this all that is given to us?”

If this toxic attitude can’t be turned around then America cannot be saved.

It starts with expecting something from those on welfare – mandated job training and birth control, so that they are forced to focus on bettering their own condition before recklessly and irresponsibly bringing another life into this world. Without such a basic quid pro quo, there can be no growth...no way OUT of the dependency trap that public assistance/welfare becomes.

Standards and Fitness are a HEALTH & SAFETY Issue for The Emergency Services

Captain Frank Lima LAFD

There’ve been reports of various members being disciplined over alleged “leaks” to the press over firefighters failing major parts of the physical fitness standards at the Training Academy and one member allegedly refusing to get off a rig at fires.

IF you should find yourself in such a situation...think JACKPOT!

In Los Angeles, LAFD Captain Frank Lima refused to obey both LAFD Officials and L.A. Elected Officials and WOULD NOT push substandard female recruits through that Academy.

Captain Frank Lima (1) Disobeyed direct orders given by superiors and (2) refused to comply with directives from elected City Officials.

He was summarily dismissed from his duties at the LAFD Fire Academy and passed over for promotion.

Frank Lima sued the City of Los Angeles for discrimination and retaliation and won a judgment of $4.8 MILLION from the City of Los Angeles. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/la-city-council-agrees-to-pay-81-million-to-two-former-firefighters-who-sued.html) and (http://www.adversity.net/lafd/).

Captain Lima claimed, in court papers, that he was discriminated and retaliated against because he was a male and applied the same standards in training a female recruit that he would have done had she been a man.

Fitness and standards are a HEALTH & SAFETY issue and as such, they ARE protected under federal whistle-blower statutes.

Moreover, the FDNY’s Fire Marshall’s subpoena powers have traditionally been restricted to dealing with criminal investigations. The investigation into whether a member breached various FDNY regulations (especially ones that may run afoul of federal whistle-blower protections) is NOT a “criminal investigation.

That too, should be legally challenged.

No one should ever look for a fight, but if you find yourself caught up in any of this, seek out legal counsel and remind the attorneys of how Frank Lima fared.

Our BADLY Broken System...

Deranged Eric Shepherd stomping on the flag of the country that gave him everytghing he has...apparently WITHOUT earning ANY of it 





We've put waaaaay too many idiots (not to mention EDPs) in College....and it never works out.

You can't fix stupid.

But more than that we've put a specific KIND of people into Colleges they don't belong in, like the underachieving scions of alumnis and big donors and of course those who come from various "disadvantaged groups." You generally DON'T see the very "disadvantaged" from places like Appalachia in our major Universities, but you do see THIS guy - black supremacist, Eric Shepherd. (http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/georgia-student-who-stomped-on-the-flag-wants-to-kill-all-white-people/)

On every measure it's been an abject failure, just as has the idea that moving poor and dysfunctional people into areas among more productive, successful people will improve the lot of the poor.

WHY doesn't any of that work?

In a word, Schoenphauer's law; http://ifanythingcangowrongitwill.tumblr.com/post/22267360124/schopenhauers-law-of-entropy-if-you-put-a

"If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel of sewage, you get sewage.

If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel of wine, you get sewage."

You can log this under Exhibit 9,874,937 of why race/gender preferences just DON'T work.