Tag Archives: The FBI

David Horowitz: Anatomy of a Lynching/The political uses of race. 0 (0)

by David Horowitz

Editor/Writer’s note: Anti-white racism and generalized ignorance so permeate our media elites and elected officials today that some common sense reminders are in order. Lynching – named after a Judge Lynch – was a form of Alice-in-Wonderland Frontier Justice: first comes the verdict and the punishment, then the trial.

Although a repugnant racial dimension eventually entered into its practice it was carried out against criminals — white as well as black — whose victims lynch mobs feared would not get justice in the courts. One third of all lynch victims were white. Impatience with due process is endemic to the progressive Left, the #MeToo mobs, the Destroy-Brett-Kavanaugh-Feminists and the Remove-President-Trump-Democrats. Why hold Star Chamber impeachment “inquiries” where the president has no rights if their purpose is really to inquire rather than what it obviously is — to convict and punish?
Below we are reprinting a Frontpage article by David Horowitz about how he learned the truth about the most famous lynching of all, and discovered what its real political agendas were. We are also linking a talk he gave on “progressive racism” which is in effect the lynching mentality of our time.

According to President Obama racism is “part of the DNA” of America, transmitted through the generations from its origins right to the present.  This statement is perhaps the most malicious libel ever uttered by an American president against his own country. It is true that racism became one of the rationales for slavery, an institution America inherited from the British Empire before abolishing it. But slavery existed in Africa for a thousand years before a white person ever set foot there, and for 3,000 years in all societies. It is what peoples of all races and ethnicities imposed on their enemies when they conquered them. Moreover, for 3,000 years no one declared slavery to be immoral – not Aristotle, not Moses, not Jesus, not the African slavers – until white Protestant Christians in England did so towards the end of the 18th Century. At that time, in Britain’s North American colonies a white slave owner named Thomas Jefferson wrote into the birth certificate of a new nation the proposition that liberty is a God-given right, which government cannot take away – and equality too. Within little more than a generation, and at the cost of 350,000 Union lives, slavery was abolished in America, and then rapidly throughout the Western hemisphere.

In other words, every black person alive in this country today owes his or her freedom to America – to the Americans who conceived this nation in liberty and gave their lives to make it so. That is the true DNA of America: liberty, not racism. An unappreciated effect of Obama’s libel is to persuade large numbers of black Americans that it is true, and thus to alienate them from their own country and make them feel like outsiders in a land whose heritage they are a part of. Black people are as American as any race or ethnicity who came or were brought to these shores. They arrived in 1619, before the Mayflower and have been an essential part of America’s culture and history ever since.

Sometimes it takes years to ingest so crucial a fact. Sometimes, even a lifetime is insufficient as President Obama has shown. Even then, the knowledge can be lost through the ignorance or prejudice of the next generations. In the 1960s radicals rallied around the slogan, “You can’t trust anyone over 30,” which was an expression of youthful arrogance and poor judgment. Because youth lack real world experience, the slogan “Be cautious about the conclusions of anyone under 30” would have been a more reasonable counsel.

When I was eleven years old, a book came into our progressive household titled We Charge Genocide. It was published by an organization calling itself the Civil Rights Congress and was a book-length petition calling on the United Nations to condemn the United States for conducting genocide against American Negroes (as they were then referred to). The frontispiece to the book featured a photograph of a lynching that took place in Indiana in August 1930. It was, in fact, the most famous photograph of a lynching, one that was the direct inspiration for Strange Fruit, Billie Holliday’s elegy for the victims. The photograph shows two black men hanging from the limbs of a tree surrounded by a crowd of whites. One man facing the camera points at the hanging bodies with a ghoulish grin.  Everybody who has seen any picture of a lynching has probably seen this photograph.

The image is horrifying but it took me more than 10 years before I had read enough to understand that lynching was actually not devised for black people. To be sure, as practiced, there was a racial dimension to lynching, and an evil one.  But in its origins lynching had no racial dimension. It was just frontier justice – “Let’s not waste time with trials and get on with the punishment.” In the course of my reading I also learned that a third of all known lynching victims – more than a thousand – were white. This tells us two important things: First, that lynching wasn’t just a practice against black people, and second that the victims were punished because they had allegedly committed crimes worthy of hanging. In other words, most lynchings were not about mobs of white racists grabbing black people and stringing them up because of their skin color. They were extra-judicial hangings to punish people for serious crimes of which they had been accused. This is not to say that racial prejudice was not an important factor, as evident in the fact that two-thirds of the lynching victims were black. There were probably prejudicial aspects to the cases where whites were targeted as well, though less obvious and fewer. That is why we provide due process to all as a constitutional right. In any case, the photograph of one lynching or many is not evidence of genocide.

The two men hanged in the famous photograph in We Charge Genocide were named Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith. A third man with them, James Cameron, who was sixteen and also black was not lynched. The three had been arrested, after being accused of murdering a young white factory worker and raping his girlfriend. A mob 2,000 strong had broken into the jail where they were being held, and taken the three men out, and then hanged Shipp and Smith from the tree.
I learned these facts by accident nearly fifty years after I first saw the photograph. I had tuned into a National Public Radio program on which James Cameron, who was then an old man, was being interviewed about what had taken place. According to Cameron, Shipp and Smith had actually committed the murder they were accused of. As for the rape, the white woman who was the alleged victim said afterwards that she had not been raped. So the rape charge was spurious. But the murder charge was not. This does not make the lynching right, but it does call into question whether there was a racial dimension to this incident after all.

Why didn’t the lynch mob hang James Cameron, who was also black and who was accused of the same crime? The answer is that Cameron claimed he didn’t want to participate in the robbery and murder, and stayed in the car. It is possible that he would have been hanged by the lynch mob anyway but the reason he wasn’t was this:  A member of the lynch mob, a white man, stood up for him and affirmed his innocence. Afterwards, Cameron was tried in court and convicted of being an accessory to the crime before the fact. He served four years in prison, and then spent the rest of his life fighting for civil rights, founding three chapters of the NAACP in Indiana. In 1991, the State of Indiana pardoned him. One can find all this out on Wikipedia, if one just looks up “Marion Indiana lynching.”

We Charge Genocide featured the photograph of this lynching as a symbol of America’s racism – of its genocidal white racism. But once the facts are known, this claim is shown to be an unscrupulous misrepresentation of a troubled but more complicated reality. Other facts complicate it more. The genocide petition was presented to the U.N. in December 1951. But at this time a great civil rights revolution in America had already begun, in large part because Americans had just defeated an enemy dedicated to the idea of a “master race.” The conscience of a nation had been awakened, and racial barriers had begun to fall. In 1947 the military was integrated along with the civil service, and Jackie Robinson became the first black athlete allowed to participate in America’s national sport. It was only a couple of years before Brown v. Board of Education integrated the nation’s school systems, and only a few more before segregation and racial discrimination were banned by the Civil Rights Acts.

So why the charge of genocide – a campaign to exterminate an entire people – since it is obviously a malicious libel? It took me 40 years to put together all the facts to arrive at the answer: The Civil Rights Congress, the organization responsible for the petition, was a Communist Party front, and thus the genocide campaign was designed by people who wanted to create a “Soviet America” and help Russia – America’s mortal enemy – to win the Cold War. The extent of Moscow’s control of the American Communist Party was something that the world only learned as a result of the opening of the Soviet archives after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

At the same time the We Charge Genocide petition was being put together, Moscow was conducting a series of arrests in its East European satellites, followed by purge trials and executions many of whose targets were Jews. In Czechoslovakia these purges climaxed in a show trial of the top leaders of the Czech Communist Party who were accused of being part of a “Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy.” Of the thirteen Czech leaders hanged, eleven were Jews, which prompted an international outcry in which the Kremlin was accused of anti-Semitism, a charge it was desperate to counteract. In other words, the “We Charge Genocide” campaign was not about black Americans at all. It was about using blacks as a battering ram against the United States as part of a Kremlin effort to neutralize the bad publicity Moscow was getting for its purges of Jews in Eastern Europe, which then spread to the Soviet Union itself.

The use of blacks as a battering ram against opponents of the left is a progressive tradition that lives on today in the Democratic Party, and the latest version of the Civil Rights Congress is the heavily funded organization called Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter is officially endorsed by the Democratic Party and Democratic funders like George Soros have raised tens of millions of dollars to create a professional army to support its divisive mission. A month before the 2016 elections 100 of Black Lives Matter activists gathered at the University of California Irvine to attack the Los Angeles police department with this chant: “LAPD what you say? How many people have you killed today? LAPD you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”

The protest was one of hundreds in the last couple of years conducted across the nation to attack police departments for an alleged “genocidal” war against blacks. There is no factual basis for this charge. According to the Washington Post, for example, police shootings make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths, which is three times the proportion of black deaths resulting from police shootings. According to FBI data, over the last 10 years 40% of cop killers have been black, while police officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher  than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.

Equally preposterous is Black Lives Matter’s claim – echoed by many Democrats – that America is a “white supremacist” nation. This is a racist claim, implicating all whites, and particularly absurd since America – now completing the two terms of a black presidency – is perhaps the most tolerant nation on earth. Since the 1990s, America has had two black Secretaries of State, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, three black heads of the National Security Council, and thousands of black elected officials at state and municipal levels. Major American cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia and Baltimore are run by blacks, and many more are governed by black mayors, black police chiefs, black judges, non-white majority city councils and black superintendents of schools. How ironic that more than half a century after the end of segregation and the passage of the Civil Rights Acts, after the integration of America’s military and schools and popular culture, this racist incitement should be the emblem of a movement for “social justice.”

FPM: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/anatomy-lynching-david-horowitz/


David Horowitz is an American conservative writer. He is a founder and president of the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC); editor of the Center’s publication, FrontPage Magazine; and director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left.

Ron Hosko: Ignorance Posing as Art: Fanning Flames of Police-Citizen Divide 0 (0)

Ignorance Posing as Art: Fanning Flames of Police-Citizen Divide

by Ron Hosko

In January of this year a painting by David Pulphus hangs in a hallway displaying paintings by high school students selected by their member of congress on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Zach Gibson)
Last week, we learned of separate imbroglios in our Nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., both involving what was depicted as “works of art.”
In one case, American University played host to a 9-foot wooden carving by a person using the moniker Rigo 23 which purported to mimic a self-portrait of American Indian “activist” Leonard Peltier. While few would disagree that the history of the American Indian has been replete with sadness and tragedy, the subject matter, Leonard Peltier, was a disgraceful, appalling representative of that struggle.
Simply stated, Peltier is a convicted killer of two FBI Agents, Ron Williams and Jack Coler on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota on June 26, 1975. The killings of agents Williams and Coler were anything but accidental – their car had over 125 bullet holes and their bodies showed evidence of having been killed at close range by a .223 type bullets. The carnage of that day still stands as one of the FBI’s bloodiest.
Rigo 23’s celebrated subject matter has appealed his conviction on multiple grounds, on multiple occasions, each time, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, failing. So he sits, rightfully convicted, in federal prison, currently desperate for an Obama clemency order that will never come.
While starving-artist Rigo 23 and others who blindly believe in the stream of falsities propounded by Peltier and his allies now complain that their freedom of expression is being muted, American University’s eyes have, albeit belatedly, been opened and the wooden disgrace has been removed from its prominent location.  Law enforcement, particularly the FBI, are deaf to the complaints, knowing that mere removal of a patently offensive idol is far gentler treatment than Peltier gave two FBI agents, which was point-blank execution.
Meanwhile, U.S. Congressman Lacy Clay from Missouri, tried to one-up Rigo 23 in a battle for the Most Ignorant award of 2017, when he hung in the Congressional Annex a painting depicting police as pigs. Reportedly painted by a Cardinal Ritter College Prep graduate, the painting was offered heavy praise in the annual Congressional Art competition.
This is the state of affairs in the “conversation” on American criminal justice today – a prominent university displaying a statue of the cold blooded killer of two FBI agents and a U.S. Congressman anointing as a painting competition winner the depiction of police as farm animals and displaying the winning “art” in the halls of Congress. These are the institutions we presumably look to for knowledge, for righteousness, for wisdom.

Kudos to American University for listening to the rest of the story, as provided by the FBI Agents Association, and kudos to Congressman Duncan Hunter for personally removing the Clay painting, over which law enforcement was outraged. These pieces aren’t art, they are ignorance. They ignore the truth. They ignore the true heart of law enforcement. They ignore the challenging state of law enforcement and citizen relations today that need more ways to come together than divide.

Read Rob Hosko’s Biography

Government Gone Rogue 0 (0)

 Government Gone Rogue –“…Obama knew exactly what had occurred in Libya. “

by Bill Lockwood

As our Founders were well aware, people lose their God-given rights primarily due to the governments under which they live. For this reason, the American experiment in freedom structured government small at the top and larger at a local level. The only safe government is one that is controlled by the people and that can only be done effectively at a local level.

Conversely, the larger governments become the less liberty people enjoy. It is as simple as general mathematics. This is in part due to the fact that it is much more difficult to redress wrongs committed against citizens the further one moves the locus of power away from the people at the bottom. Losing control of the governing powers always leads to tyranny.

This is exactly where America is on the brink of this election. After two hundred plus years of constant unconstitutional growth from the top down, whereby power has gravitated toward Washington D.C., the United States government under the leadership of Barack Obama has gone completely rogue. Tyranny is in the offing.

That which was to serve as a watchdog against unconstitutional drifts, the Media, has shown a total and complete disdain for the biblically-based principles of freedom upon which our Republic was founded. In an absolute shameful collusion with the socialists of the Democratic Party, they have long-ago neutered themselves.

Hillary Clinton

First, the Department of Justice. With approval from a Republican Congress Loretta Lynch is operating a fabulous cover-up for Hillary Clinton’s violation of federal law. As new State Department records reveal—which were forced public by Judicial Watch—the Obama Administration was giving Hillary significant fore-warning and cover for her email scandal.

Loretta Lynch, who owes her entire political career to Bill Clinton (She was his first appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York), secretly met with Bill Clinton during the Hillary investigation.  But more than that. Lynch’s DOJ has dropped all charges against Marc Turi, a weapons broker who armed the anti-Qadhafi rebels.

Lynch has ensured that Turi would not be investigated because it was Hillary Clinton, the then-Secretary of State, who directed Turi in this gun-running scandal. As reported by Life and Liberty PAC, Turi refused to back down against DOJ charges and threatened to defend himself with Hillary’s PRIVATE ACCOUNT EMAILS to expose Clinton’s gun-running to rebels in Libya. Lynch dropped the charges.

These are the same firearms that would be used to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens and other patriotic Americans in the deadly attack in Benghazi. Which brings us to other lies of the Clinton’s. Blaming the attack on some particular anti-Muslim video was a pre-fabricated LIE that Team Obama foisted upon the public. The facts are clearly known that Obama knew exactly what had occurred in Libya. It had nothing to do with a video. But once more, the media loves to lie for the President and much of the public loves to be on the receiving end of those lies.

Second, the FBI. Whatever reputation James Comey had enjoyed, it has evaporated in the wake of this power-grasping administration. The FBI allowed destruction of evidence for Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, Clinton insiders on the email scandal.

Then, last Friday another 189 pages of released Clinton documents demonstrate that while Clinton was corresponding electronically with Huma Abedin (another Clinton insider) that an additional person was on the email thread—Barack Obama.

The corruption is deep. These facts barely touch the tip of the iceberg. This is why this election is about whether we will have any “republic” left at all—or will we sink into the abyss of a socialistic state in which freedom will be a faint remembrance of the past.

Back to Homepage

Open Orlando Investigation? 0 (0)

Open Orlando Investigation?

by Bill Lockwood

Last week’s Orlando night-club slaughter which claimed 49 lives at the hands of Muslim jihadist Omar Mateen continues to be “under investigation”, according to FBI official Ron Hopper. We must leave no stone unturned. Sounds very professional. “Ongoing investigations” defy drawing too many conclusions before the facts are all in.

However, there is one major zone that is absolutely off-limits to any “investigator”—professional or otherwise. The conclusions are already drawn and no further investigation is necessary. As a matter of fact, the entire Obama Administration has decreed this territory to be off-limits: Islam itself. Obama’s FBI has made it emphatically clear that examination of the teachings of Muhammad himself in the Koran or Sunna will be strictly avoided. No discussion or questioning that “Islam is a religion of peace” will be tolerated in our “tolerant society.”

How confident can an American citizen remain in this atmosphere of “accepted state doctrine” crafted by Dictator Obama? In explaining the obvious disconnect between the bloody reality in Orlando and our pro-Islamic state doctrine most pundits prefer that Barack Obama has been hugely embarrassed by his failures to keep America safe from Islamic jihadists and therefore has issued directives to discourage investigation into Islam. This is what I call the “Benefit-of-the-Doubt” option. Obama is trying, but not succeeding, therefore his administration alters the narrative.

Nonsense. This interpretation of Barack Obama’s handling of current events purposefully overlooks stubborn facts. Barack Obama has actually gone to great lengths to stigmatize any resistance to Islamic jihadist murder from the beginning. For example, in February 2012 the Obama Administration deliberately purged over 1,000 pages of documents from counter-terrorism training manuals for the FBI and other government agencies.

All references to “Islam” or “jihad” or related concepts were purposefully removed at orders from Barack Obama. He was not seeking to cover-up any particular jihadi crime that had recently been committed, but was giving voice to his world view. Islam good—Christianity bad. The FBI has been strong-armed by the Saul Alinsky radical in the White House to prostitute its common sense and investigative techniques to fit into Obama’s World. It has been in full retreat ever since Obama took the reins of power.

Barack Obama made clear early on that one of his main objectives is to crack down on “Islamophobic hate speech.” In Cairo in 2009 he told the Muslim world, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Jihadist mass murder by Omar Mateen certainly creates a negative stereotype.

These same pro-Islamic objectives Obama announced in September 2012 while speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” To “slander” means “to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike” (Al-Azhar University in Cairo, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, 1999; see Robert Spencer, Arab Winter Comes to America, p. 257). As Spencer points out, this does not necessarily mean something that is “untrue,” but just something that a person would prefer not to be known. In other words, Obama confesses that he prefers some things about Islam to remain un-investigated. Orlando or no Orlando.

If the President of the United States is our chief ambassador to foreign nations and the United Nations; and if he truly articulates our doctrine; then we can expect nothing less than wild-eyed lawless Democrats who follow him to continue radical student-like sit-in’s on the Congressional floor. The blood may continue to flow from one Muslim jihadist attack to another across this once-great nation—but one thing that will not occur: an examination into Islam.

Back to Homepage