IF TRAYVON WERE WHITE, AND ZIMMERMAN BLACK!

Say Hello to Roderick Scott–The Anti-George Zimmerman?

Prison Planet, July 24, 2013

Did you notice during the George Zimmerman trial how the media kept repeating the salacious question “What if Trayvon Martin had been white?” They acted as if this question was the perfect response to Zimmerman defenders. They pretended that this was a question without a “safe” answer, but in reality, the question had already been answered.

In April of 2009 Mr. Roderick Scott awoke at 3am to the sounds of three young men breaking into cars on his street. He called the police and went down to the street to make sure the young men did not flee before the police arrived. He shouted at the three to “freeze” and told them that the police were coming soon. The three boys stood before the big man obviously considering what they should do.

That’s when Christopher Cervini (17) rushed at Mr. Scott uttering “I’ll get you” or “I’ll get him.” Roderick Scott fired twice, killing the teenager. The trial that followed was again a case of prosecutorial overreach, as they tried to charge Mr. Scott with manslaughter. Fortunately for Mr. Scott, a jury of his peers agreed with him that he did only what was needed to protect himself.

Afterwards the prosecutor opined, “I just hope it’s not a message to this community… that you have the right to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old kid for breaking into a car.” The problem is that Mr. Scott did not shoot young Christopher Cervini for breaking into his car, but for attacking him. {snip}

Oh, and Roderick Scott was a 42 year old black man about the size of an NFL linebacker. Christopher Cervini was a skinny, 17 year old white kid with a little bit of marijuana in his system. Scott was justified in the killing of the younger man not because of the crime that Cervini had committed, but because Scott rightfully feared for his own safety.

I copied this article from AmRen site.  This occurred in upstate Greece, New York in 2009.-----------------------Hugh Murray

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PROPAGANDA POSING AS HISTORY

HARRY TRUMAN AND THE STRUGGLE FOR RACIAL JUSTICE

By Robert Shogan (Lawrence: U. Press of Kansas, 2013)

Rev. by Hugh Murray

            In April 1965 former Pres. Harry Truman received the annual award from Freedom House at a dinner attended by 1,200 in the Grand Ball Room of the Waldorf Astoria.  Pres. Johnson sent a telegram calling Truman “the man to whom the cause of freedom owes the greatest debt.”(NYT, 14 April 1965)  Earlier in the day Truman called Rev. Martin Luther King a “’rabble-rouser’ who has hurt the Negroes’ cause ‘because he hasn’t got any sense.’”(ibid.)  The day before, he referred to King as a “troublemaker.…When reminded that the civil rights leader had won a Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Truman replied: ‘I didn’t give it to him.’”(NYT, 13 April 65)  In the 1960s Truman was no longer running for office and no longer needed Black votes.  The “civil rights President” was showing different colors.  In March 1960, a month after the first modern sit-ins, Truman declared: “If anybody came to my store and tried to stop business, I’d throw him out.”(NYT, 25 March 60)  In April 1960, Truman was the first guest invited for Cornell University’s “distinguished visitors’ program” where he asserted that “Communists were engineering the student sit-downs at lunch counters in the South…You can never tell,…where you’ll find their fine Italian hand, and it’s not Italian – it’s Russian”(19 April 60)

            It was not only sit-ins that riled the former President.  “Truman…criticized Northerners who have gone South as Freedom Riders as meddlesome intruders.  ‘They stir up trouble…they ought to stay here and attend to their own business and work through the people who are interested in the Negro’s welfare…(NYT 6 June 61)  Two years later, in a talk at a dinner for a Democratic Senator from Ohio, Truman elaborated on his view, “the argument on civil rights has been stirred up by Boston and New England demagogues just as the War Between the States was brought about by Harriet Beecher Stowe and William Lloyd Garrison.  If the Northern busybodies would stay at home and clean up their own back yard, the rest of the country will obey the laws.”(NYT 15 Sept. 63)  Nevertheless, Truman insisted in 1965 that he had “done more for Negroes than any other President,”(13 April 65) and Shogan and other prominent historians appear to agree with him. Indeed, a back-cover blurb by History Channel’s Steven Gillon states: “[Shogan]…tells the story of how Harry Truman overcame the prejudice of his youth to become a powerful force in the struggle for civil rights.”  Shogan, a journalist, is like many academics whose narrative is an endorsement for the Democratic Party.

            Shogan writes well and makes his points.  The problem is what he omits from his history.  True, in the 195 pages of text, he concedes in one paragraph that Truman opposed the sit-ins.  Shogan even cites NYT stories, but few readers will bother to check how important Truman was in the early 60s in labeling sit-ins and other protest actions as Communist directed.

            Shogan rightly notes how little FDR did for Black civil rights in the 1930s.  The creation of the Fair Employment Practices Committee was forced upon Roosevelt by the threat to stage a March on Washington by A. Philip Randolph (whose organization was not the NAACP).  Truman became president upon the death of Roosevelt in spring 1945.  He had won Black votes in Missouri by being fair, honest, efficient, and by supporting creation of a home for wayward Black girls and other local improvements.  He opposed lynching, beating of Black service men home from the war, and general discrimination, but even as Senator, Truman may have favored segregation.  Certainly, he was not in favor of social mixing.  Over time, that may or may not have changed.

            As president, Truman surely hoped to get the Black vote.  And he did think that some features of American society should be reformed.  He favored FEPC, but knew Congress would not make it permanent.  He did appoint a commission to report on the race problem, and it produced a liberal report, To Secure These Rights.  Truman was the first President to address the NAACP, and even in the 1960s was praising the NAACP, while in effect smearing all the other civil rights groups, like King’s SCLC, and CORE, SNCC, etc.  Truman did use his power as Commander in Chief to push for integration of the armed services.  Moreover, Shogan demonstrates how Truman used his Department of Justice to become involved in cases pressing for the end of segregation through “friend-of-the-court” briefs, trying to influence the judges by indicating that the government had taken a side in these cases.

            Yes, Truman was the first president to address the NAACP.  But when one of the founders of the organization refused to support Truman in the campaign of 1948, and instead endorsed Henry Wallace and the Progressives, the NAACP fired W. E. B. Du Bois.  In effect, that was the beginning of the NAACP as a Democratic-Party front group.  And two years later, Truman’s Department of Justice arrested Du Bois as a foreign agent.  Though Shogan discusses Du Bois in the era of Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, especially when Wilson segregated the civil service, Shogan omits how Du Bois was treated by Truman.

            Truman praised the NAACP in the 60s.  But Shogan never mentions what Truman’s Administration did to other civil rights organizations.  The NAACP was certainly not the only major civil rights group.  For example, in the 1930s it was the International Labor Defense that led the struggle to free the Scottsboro boys in Alabama.  Later in the 1930s a plethora of new groups formed like the first snick, the Southern Negro Youth Congress, the Southern Conference on Human Welfare, the National Negro Congress, the Civil Rights Congress, the Council on African Affairs, etc.  All these groups were placed on Truman’s Attorney General’s list of subversive organizations.  By the mid-1950s, all of these had been destroyed.  If the NAACP had not fired Du Bois, and become a Democratic-Party front group, might it not have been placed on the Attorney General’s list for destruction, too?

            In many ways, the Southern civil rights movement did NOT begin with sit-ins in 1960.  I would argue it began in with the campaign throughout the South to elect Henry Wallace and the Progressives in 1948.  When Sen. Glen Taylor of Idaho (the Prog. VP candidate) went to Birmingham to address the SNYC, Sheriff Bull Connor arrested him for entering through the Negro entrance.  Henry Wallace spoke at mixed rallies in the South, often receiving rotten eggs and tomatoes hurled by segregationists.  The PP efforts in Georgia were akin to the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party efforts in the 1960s. 

            Some of the PP figures would re-emerge in the 1950s;  the Black woman who pushed the NAACP to integrate Central High in Little Rock; and the white women who, in the midst of the threatening white mobs, sought to shield a Black teen seeking to integrate Central High.  Is it a coincidence that SNCC in 1960 became the new “snick”?  There were people in the 1930s and 40s who were dissatisfied with the NAACP’s law-suit approach.  They were not sending atomic secrets to Moscow.  They were sick of the Democratic Party that ruled the South.  They were subversive to the system of segregation.  They formed some of the links between the PP and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

            There are other flaws in Shogan’s volume.  He discusses Truman and Israel and how Sec. of State Marshall was strongly opposed to recognizing the Zionist state.  Yet, Shogan never mentions that in two bi-elections in NYC the American Labor Party (by 1948 the NY branch of Wallace’s Progressive Party) won election to Congress by demanding recognition of Israel.  Did Truman “believe” recognition was good policy?  Or did he realize he needed the Jewish vote?  How much did Truman believe in civil rights?  Or did he realize he needed the Black vote?

            When Shogan discusses the importance of Justice Dept. attorney Philip Elman, Shogan incredibly omits the revelations that Justice Frankfurter was colluding with Elman concerning the school segregation cases bundled in Brown v. Board of Ed.  If another Supreme Court Justice had been discussing with the attorney for the segregationists, former Democratic candidate for President, John W. Davis, on what would be the best arguments to convince all the court of the legality and fairness of segregation, you can imagine the outcry of cheating, foul, corruption, etc.!  They would have demanded the impeachment of the Judge.  Yet, Frankfurter informed Elman that some of Thurgood Marshall’s arguments were unconvincing, and how other integrationist presentations might better sway the court – thus tainting of the court process.  This goes unmentioned in Shogan’s book.

            Truman was an excellent politician.  Yet he did much to retard and destroy the civil rights movement developing in the South in the 1940s and 50s; and he denounced it once in was underway in the 1960s.  Moreover, one can argue that the man most involved in the friend-of-court suits, praised by Shogan, was literally corrupting the Supreme Court.  Meanwhile the Attorney General was heading the campaign against the integration movement (destroying all except the Dem. Party approved NAACP).

            Shogan even criticizes Republican Eisenhower!  In Little Rock, Ike was the first president since Grant to send troops to the South to defend Blacks.  What Democrat would do that?  Shogan is impressed by speeches.  Henry Wallace acted.  President Eisenhower acted.

            Shogan has written a pro-Democratic Party account of civil rights history.  The academedia complex will be satisfied.  Because of the major omissions, this book is an utterly distorted narrative. 

OBAMOPPRESSION! - TRAYVON MARTIN AGAIN

     President Obama got into the Zimmerman case again now claiming 35 years ago, he could have been Trayvon.  He has been followed in stores, etc., presumably by owners or security thinking he might be stealing something.  What Obama, Sharpton, and the other radical Black Nationalists want is the right of every Black to steal from those of other races.  Implicit in their world view is that Blacks are the victims of theft.  They did not elect to come to this country, they were kidnapped, enslaved, and forced to work for the wealth of whitey.  Now is pay back.
    The slaves imported were most often bought in Africa from Black African slave traders.  They were already slaves.  And in North America, the slaves were probably treated better than slaves who had remained in Africa.  And in the US, slavery ended.  It came at a price.  More Americans died in the Civil War, the war that would end slavery, than in most of all the American wars added together.  White blood paid for the freedom of the Blacks in the US.  (Yes, Blacks fought too, but without the whites, there would have been no freedom for the Blacks.)  Despite oppression and discrimination, American Blacks rose to be the wealthiest group of Blacks in the world.  By contrast, in parts of Africa today, there is slavery, starvation, and savagery.  The Blacks who were taken to North America experience wealth far higher than for most Africans who remained on their home continent.  AND many Blacks have chosen to come to the US!  They elected to do so because they are aware of how much better it is for them here than in their homelands.
     But Obama and the Left thinks that Blacks in the US are poor.  The wealthy are all white, especially white men.  If a Black teen wants to rob the white, the white should not resist.  Give up the money.  It was probably stolen by your ancestors anyway.  You did nothing to earn it.  Whites stole.  Give it up to the Black teen!  Do not resist.  Do not stand your ground.  Give to the hoodie, and hope he does not beat the shit our of you or kill you.  You deserve this because of your ancestors.  Pay back.  Tell the police, and they might get around to doing something about it.  But police do have higher priorities - investigating the latest hate crime hoax, etc.  If your home is burglarized by a Black teen, do nothing.  Call the police later.  File a report.
    The police already picked up the angelic Trayvon Martin, found him with jewelry stolen from a home not far, and he was carrying burglary tools.  But the police did not arrest Trayvon.  NO.  Trayvon is Black.  The police did not want to raise their stats of arrested young Black men.  That might cause trouble with the hate-whitey Dept. of Justice led by Eric Holder under Pres. Obama.  So they merely had Trayvon suspended from public school.  Police must pretend that Blacks are not involved in crime more than their percentage of the population.  If the Blacks as a group are more engaged in crime, and arrested, that means that the police are racist, according to the Left, and Holder, and Obama.  Black crime is not real; it is merely taking back.  Arresting Blacks for that is simply racist.  Standing you ground is racist.  Zimmerman is racist.  If a white - or even an Hispanic dares to say no to a Black thug, like Trayvon, he is a racist, and deserves to have his nose broken and head bashed.
    In Obama's world, Black criminals are not criminals.  They are just innocents taking back what was stolen from them hundreds of years ago.  In Obama's world, whites and Hispanics who try to protect their lives, their property, or their sacred honor, are the real criminals, the real villains, the real enemies.  They do not want to give up their property to the oppressed minority.  If they defend themselves, they must be prosecuted on flimsy evidence.  If found not guilty, they must be persecuted by the media and Eric Holder's Justice Department.  Those who try to protect themselves from young Black crooks must be destroyed.  That is the new order.
    Of course, there are honest Blacks who do not seek to rob their neighbors.  But the ideology of the Left, of Obama, has been to encourage Black racism, Black rage, Black criminality.
   It is the era of Obamoppression!  We must ignore the Black racist President.  We must stand our ground.  We must demand that police stop the Black racist mobs that roam in the summer streets of major cities.  We must restore the death penalty; real prison sentences for violent crime; we must demand real stats on crime (no more calling Hispanics white when they are perps, and classifying them as Hispanics when they are victims.)  Whites are the main victims of the crime wave that has swept America since the 1960s.  It has only grown worse under Obamoppression.
   Obama is a Black racist.  There was a reason he marched beside the leaders of the New Black Panther Party in Selma around 2007.  There was a reason his Administration dropped charges against the NBPP when it openly intimidated voters in Philadelphia in Nov. 2008.  There is a reason when Obama identifies himself with the thug Trayvon Martin and, in effect, encourages more racist mobs in the street.
          hUGH mURRAY  See my earlier piece on the Zimmerman Show Trial, for more on this case.
         HUGH MURRAY

FROM WEALTH TO WELFARE TO RUIN: Now Detroit

     At the conclusion of the French & Indian War (the Seven Years' War), the French lost to the British, and the winners pondered what to take from the defeated.  The British toyed with the idea of taking from France its richest colony in the New World - Haiti.  Ben Franklin, from the American colonies, advised the British not to do that.  Instead take Canada from the French.  He believed that would be far more valuable, and it would remove an enemy from neighboring the British colonies of North America.  In the end, the British took Canada, Haiti remained rich and French, for a time.  Then there was the American revolution, which led to an independent, and wealthy U. S. A.  Soon after, the Haitians revolted against the French.  They too won their independence.  Their new leaders were to eventually convert Haiti from one of the richest places in the New World to one of the poorest.
   Today, the City of Detroit declared bankruptcy.  In 1960 Detroit had the highest average income of any city in the US.  It had a population of 1.8 million people.  Then the liberal Democrats took over and initiated the policies we associate with liberal Democrats - high taxes, high welfare, soft on crime, etc.  Today, there are only about 700,000 residents of Detroit.  It is bankrupt.  Already, Birmingham, Alabama, another center of liberal Democratic control, went bankrupt.  California teeters on the brink.
   From wealth to poverty; from riches to basket case.  Almost every American city, almost all run by liberal Democrats, is on the same track, the road to ruin.  If the cities of America collapse, what will happen to the nation as a whole?  Perhaps, demography IS destiny!----------Hugh Murray

THE ZIMMERMAN SHOW TRIAL - ITS REAL MEANING

                                by HUGH MURRAY

            Had George Zimmerman been named Jorje Zapata, no one outside the Orlando, Florida, area would have ever heard of him or Trayvon Martin.  The reason this became national news was because the media seized the case as a way to illustrate their racial ideology: racist white men oppress (and even kill) innocent Blacks.  The photos of Trayvon initially shown on television portrayed  him as a 14-year-old boy; the phone tapes made by Zimmerman to a dispatcher were edited by NBC and other Left-wing media to make it appear Zimmerman was a total racist.  And the same Left media identified Zimmerman as a white man.  There it was – a white racist profiling, shooting, and killing an innocent Black boy.  All the more reason to expand hate crime laws, gun control laws, affirmative action, and other remedies to curtail murderous, white racism.

            A child with a hood is not a hoodlum.  A Congressman wore a hood in a speech before the House.  Pres. Obama said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon.  Al Sharpton and various Black “civil rights” leaders demanded that Zimmerman be tried.  Members of the New Black Panther Party placed a prize on Zimmerman’s head.  Though initially, authorities found insufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman with a crime, Left-wing media outrage and pressure from the higher political Establishment forced the State of Florida to press murder charges against Zimmerman.  The Left won its fight to have a show trial to educate the American public on the prevalence of white racism and its murderous consequences.

            There were some facts that did not fit the approved Left-wing story, but the politically correct media either ignored or dismissed these.  First, was Zimmerman white?  He is half white.  Why identify him as a white except as a means to denounce “murderous” white racism?  Obama too is half white.  Does the media call the President white?  Zimmerman spoke Spanish.  He tutored young Blacks.  He resided in a neighborhood that had an increasing crime rate, and he wanted to do something to stop it.  He joined a neighborhood crime watch program.  Not just a passive player, Zimmerman was an active good citizen.

            And what about the innocent Trayvon?  The picture shown on NBC and the Left media was years old.  Trayvon was now considerably taller than Zimmerman.  Trayvon had been suspended from school several times.  Indeed, he was staying in the gated neighborhood because he was then in suspension.  It is not easy to be suspended several times from public schools.  (The educrats want the money for teaching each body present, so they pretend to educate as many bodies as possible.  Mere attendance masks as learning.)  When authorities checked Trayvon’s backpack and school locker, they found marijuana and jewelry that may have been stolen (Trayvon failed to account for it).  Was the young Trayvon a burglar?  The authorities had also discovered what they believed to be burglary tools among his things.  On social nets there was a photo of Trayvon with gold teeth making a gang sign.  He spoke of getting a gun.  It is also possible, according to one account, the police had an earlier encounter with Trayvon, but did not charge him BECAUSE he was a young Black male, and the authorities did not want to raise the percentage of Black men charged.  Another example of police work by quota, or Black skin privilege!  In reqlity, the young Trayvon with a hood was a hoodlum.  He was on the prowl, probably casing a neighborhood for a robbery.

            Zimmerman saw Trayvon and concluded he looked suspicious.  He followed him.  Apparently, Zimmerman lost sight of the young man.  But Trayvon spotted Zimmerman; jumped on him, atop him, began to beat his head and punched his nose.  Zimmerman retaliated.  He shot and killed the aggressor.  The attack was over.

            But not really.  The attack on the ground was over, but the attack by the Left media was about to begin.  The media pressed the campaign to convict Zimmerman.  The Left media revealed his address, so those threatening to murder him might find the prey.  More recently CNN even revealed Zimmerman’s social security number.  Why?

            In the 1920s Jews had been remarkably successful in Germany and much of Europe.  When Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, the Nazis used Jewish success as proof that they had oppressed the non-Jewish, German majority.  Jews were less than 1% of the population.  They were now denounced as parasites, sucking the blood and money from the German 99% who were hard-working, or worse, unemployed.  While the average German earned 1 Reichsmark, the average German Jew was earning 3.2 Rms.  To the Nazis, it was clear that the wealth that the Jews had accrued was ill-gotten, undeserved, gained through fraud, cheating, corruption, to benefit the elite 1% rather than all Germans.  The Nazis were determined to change that and take away the wealth that the Jews had robbed from the German 99%.  When the Nazis eventually confiscated the wealth of the Jews of Germany and Europe, they did not view it as robbery; only as justice.  The Nazis were simply returning to all real Germans what the 1%, the Jews, had stolen during their long stay in Germany.

            Unfortunately, the Left in the US has a similar view of the American white man.  He has more money than others.  He is racist.  He is murderous.  And the wealth he has accumulated has been stolen from the sweat of Black slaves, from the lands of the Native Americans, and from the territories ripped from Mexico (Texas, California, etc.).  Whatever wealth the white man has, he does not deserve.  It should be taken from him – in the name of justice.

            So, when the Internal Revenue Service and government tax agents take more and more from American whites, it is NOT robbery – it is justice.  But more, Some Blacks cannot wait for the slow-machinery of government to redistribute the ill-gotten gains of the whites to the Black community.  Government is too slow in creating equity.  So some young Blacks do become hoodlums, thieves, burglars, etc.  But if they take money or jewelry from whites, that is not stealing.  That is simply removing from the white man what he has already stolen.  It is justice at its finest.  It is no longer Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest, but Crow Hood of Urban America.

            Unfortunately, many whites, and some Hispanics, do not share this view of justice.  They dare to want thieves punished!  No way, not in the new, Left wing America.  Thieves must be excused, understood, and placed back in the schools or in the workplace as soon as possible.  And this is why the death penalty is so unfair.  Because the percentage of Black murderers is much higher than for other races, executing murderers is racist.  After all, some of the murderers were simply exuberant and determined to get back their wealth from whitey.  Surely, these young Blacks must be excused too.  Youthful exuberance.  But still, on the road to justice.  (The percentage of white murderers is probably lower than official stats.  For some time now, the feds categorize Hispanics as victims only; if they are perpetrators, they are usually classified as white.  So if the NFL Patriot Hernandez is convicted of several murders, he will probably be listed as a white serial killer!)

            In the Left wing ideology, whites who fight back are the real criminals.  This is the point of gun control legislation.  It is meant to disarm law-abiding whites and make them more vulnerable to Black criminals.  And those Blacks who have spent time in correction facilities often have time and access to gyms so they may grow into very strong individuals, far stronger than the white who has to work all day.  The days of bread and water jails are long gone.  Now, the released criminal is not a skinny weakling, but a powerful man.  One who can easily take the average honest guy, especially if the thug surprises him.  The equalizer between the thug and the honest man is the gun.  Liberals do not want whites to have guns, because they might use them against criminals, many of whom will be Black.  Of course, liberals have crusaded against store owners of any color who fire on those who steal from small stores.  In the end, the liberals favor the thieves, the criminals, the murderers, pretending that they are the real victims!  And in the Left ideology, who are the real criminals?  The law abiding.  Especially if the law-abiding are white.  (Of course, liberals do favor guns for their body guards to protect politicians, Hollywood stars, etc.)

            Zimmerman was attempting to protect his neighborhood from rising crime, and in doing so he dared to confront a Black hoodlum.  Once he killed Trayvon, the Left changes its tune on the death penalty.  Off with his head!  Get Zimmerman!  A price on Zimmerman, dead or alive.   If Zimmerman had done nothing, nothing would have happened to prevent any crime in his area.  The Left wants no defense of a neighborhood.  So what if a neighbor is burgled?  So what if another is mugged?  So what even if Trayvon had stolen or mugged?  So what?  Indeed, if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman, would we have ever heard about the case?

A burglar is simply taking back what the whites have stolen.  Even if Trayvon were about to commit a crime, he should not have been shot.  Outrageous!  Execute Zimmerman.  Kill the Jew Zimmerman.  Kill the Jews.  Kill the whites.

            Obama, Holder, liberal Democrats, and liberal Republicans want the criminals to take.  They want law-abiding people to surrender their jewelry, their money, their lives and sacred honor to the many Trayvons.

            For if robbed, what happens?  Call 911.  The police come and fill out a report.  Basically, goodbye jewelry.  Goodbye money.  Goodbye whatever.  The Left does not want the thief to be caught.  If caught, Mirandize to shut him up.  Get him a defense attorney.  Stall.  Make a deal.  And the perp will soon be out on the streets again.  The victim has no real rights in the court rooms.  The victim will pay with a lifetime of horror thoughts, and real loss.

            The Left advice to Americans; the police advice to Americans - is unfortunately the same.  Turn your weapons in to authorities.  Let the Black thief take what he wants.  Do not stand your ground.  Yield.  Surrender.  Then move to a “better” area – which in a few years will be just like the one you fled.

            That is the history of America for the past 50 years under liberals of both parties.  The trend has accelerated under Obama, but it is the same trend.  It is a trend that is destroying America.    

TODAY BIRMINGHAM, TOMORROW AMERICA?

“The Tragic City”—Birmingham AL After 50 Years. Coming To An America Near You?

By Peter Bradley on July 1, 2013 at 12:32am

“What is the city but the people?” asked Shakespeare in Coriolanus. In The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013 , author Paul Kerseyexamines the city of Birmingham, Alabama.

One of the major battlegrounds of the Civil Rights movement, Birmingham now has a special place in the hearts of those who fought for and support what the author calls Black Run America (BRA).  Every American schoolchild now learns that peaceful, put-upon blacks in that city faced down insurmountable odds in overcoming segregation, white racism, bombings and Bull Connor’sfire hoses and police dogs.

But Kersey looks beyond that popular myth at the reality of post-civil rights era Birmingham.

In this age of rapid demographic displacement of whites, it is remarkable to note that Birmingham’s racial balance was stable from 1890 to 1960. Throughout those 70 years, the demographics remained steady at 60% white, 40% black. Not only was the racial balance stable, Birmingham was prosperous as well. It vied withAtlanta for the title of business capital of the South. The city was home to six Fortune 500 companies even into the 1990s. (It now has only one).

Birmingham worked because it was a segregated city whoseinstitutions were all run by whites. The brutal, unmentionable fact is that both working class and wealthy whites could live in safe, orderly neighborhoods with good schools because blacks werelegally barred from living there. (If The Tragic City has a flaw it is that the author does not spend more time documenting life in thepre-Civil Rights era).

But with the success of the Civil Rights revolution in the 1960s, many whites saw the writing on the wall and fled. By 1980, blacks were 55% of the population.

This demographic shift was key to giving Birmingham its first black mayor in 1979. In what was essentially a racial headcount, black Democrat Richard Arrington beat white Republican Frank Parsons by 2,000 votes. Arrington received 98% of the black vote and Parsons garnered 88% of the white vote.

This marked the beginning of black political control of Birmingham—and thedecline of a once great city into a blighted, crime-plagued disgrace.

Birmingham is now 74% black and lives up to the name of Kersey’s book. Blacks have complete control of city leadership including the Mayor’s office, Police Chief, School Superintendent and seven of nine seats on the City Council.

The results are predictable. Though Birmingham’s nickname is “The Magic City” it is now in actuality “The Tragic City:

• Birmingham has the eighth highest crime rate in the nation.U.S. News & World Report ranked Birmingham as the third most dangerous city in the nation for 2011.
• From June 2012 to May 2013, 100% of those arrested for homicide in the city were black.
• Population has declined from a high of 340,887 in the supposedly benighted days of 1960 to 212,237 in 2010.
• The Brookings Institution found that 29% of Birmingham residents live in poverty—the eighth highest among America’s 100 largest cities.
• The Alabama Department of Education had to take over the city’s failing schools (98% black) and now run the day-to-day operations. The school system faced a $30 million dollar budget shortfall in 2011.
• Jefferson County—home to Birmingham—is $5 billion in debtand filed the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history in 2011.
• In 2008 alone, the city spent $750,000 tearing down abandoned, blighted homes.
• The city has the highest sales tax in the nation at 10 cents on the dollar.

Despite these massive failings, Birmingham’s black leadership focuses on things like spending taxpayer money to advertise in a book called “Who’s Who in Black Alabama” and banning the growthof new payday loan and check-cashing stores. In 2012, the City Council made Trayvon Martin an honorary citizen after he attacked George Zimmerman and was shot for his efforts.

Votes on the council are regularly 7-2, with the two lone white representatives the only dissenters from black race advocacydisguised as politics. Why do these two whites even bother?

Black political control of Birmingham also meant a massive increase in Affirmative Action. One of Mayor Arrington’s major goals was to increase the number of black city workers. He did this byimplementing strict quotas. Kersey documents several cases of whites successfully suing the city for anti-white discrimination.

A case study of how bad Affirmative Action is in Birmingham: the Fire Department. Arrington implemented a one-to-one hiring and promotion rule in 1981 to bring more blacks into the department—one black had to be hired or promoted for every white that was hired or promoted. Since promotions are based on test scores, this has resulted in numerous white firefighters being passed over for promotion despite being better qualified. In 1983, the city promoted five lieutenants, with two being white and three black. This resulted in 76 whites being passed over as the highest scoring black came in at 79^th . (The top two white test takers did get promoted).

Kersey quotes a black firefighter defending this discrimination against whites:

“So whites are saying … ‘it wasn’t our fault. I wasn’t here.’ Well, okay, if it wasn’t your fault, and if you weren’t the recipient of what your forefathers did, or whatever, then, why when we [blacks] take a test, do you [whites] always come out number one?” Second Class Citizens, by Stuart Taylor, Jr, American Lawyer, September 1, 1989

The result: white and black firefighters routinely file lawsuits for discrimination, never socialize with each other and even have separate unions to represent them.

So much for integration.

So where did the whites go to escape black rule? Prosperous suburbs like Vestavia Hills, Mountain Brook, Woodlawn and Hoover were the prime destinations for white flight. Unlike Birmingham, these towns have good schools, responsible government, low taxes, friendly neighbors and crime free streets.

But for how long? As Birmingham declines under black rule, some blacks are starting to relocate there. For example, Hoover was only 3 percent black in 1990. It is now over 15 percent black.Unsurprisingly, crime is starting to rise.

Paul Kersey continues to document the decline of once-great cities such as Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago and now Birmingham.

But whatever the city, the formula is depressingly similar. Whites create and sustain a prosperous, clean and well-run city. An influx of blacks leads to high crime and poor schools, which starts white flight. Blacks eventually become the majority and assume political control. This intensifies white flight, the city becomes blacker and there is even more crime, blight, corruption, poverty and destruction.

At some point, whites are going to have to make a stand against this trend—unless they want to keep moving on every decade or two until they run out of America.

Perhaps this was why Bull Connor, George Wallace and the white people of Birmingham fought so hard against “Civil Rights.”

If enacted, the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Act willbring even more dramatic demographic change to the U.S. If Birmingham is “The Tragic City,” American will be “The Tragic Country.”

Peter Bradley (email him)  writes from Washington D.C.

I placed this on my blogspot because this summarizes what has been happening to America's cities since the 1960s.  Under liberalism, civil rights was twisted to mean the right to mug, the right to murder, the right to have a TV, and perhaps a car, without working, the right to insult whitey, the right to demand Black skin privilege.----Hugh Murray