On Sunday, July 13, in Jonesboro, Georgia, an immigrant Muslim father strangled his daughter to death in a so-called “honor killing” because she protested being forced by her family to marry a man she did not know. No feminist uttered a word about the murder of twenty-five-year-old Sandeela Kanwal. On the following Wednesday officials in the city government of Atlanta, Georgia bowed to the pressure from one feminist nut to stop posting “men at work” signs in the city because they are “sexist.”

The contrast is stark as well as revealing, if not entirely disgusting. It reveals an American feminism that is a hypocritical, unserious, sham that deserves nothing but derision. A movement that indulges in oblivious, frivolity while real pain surrounds them.

The western world is in the midst of a clash of cultures that is killing thousands of people every week. The west is seeing a religio-political system calling itself Islam perpetrating some of the most oppressive actions against women in modern history. Women are daily and by the millions beaten, raped, mutilated, and oppressed in uncountable ways by adherents of a so-called religion. This is not only happening in far away lands, either. Imigrants are importing these barbarous, uncivilized ways into the west and right into our midst.

Girls of Muslim heritage throughout the west are being forced into marriages against their will, sold into sexual slavery, their genitals are being mangled in a faux religious ceremony and they are being treated as second class citizens by their parents and relatives, immigrants of Muslim background.

And as these very real crimes against women occur what do the feminists of Atlanta, Georgia get all exercised about? The elimination of signs that say “men at work.”

Feminists in America and other western nations have a possible crusade just aching for their care and development, yet these same feminists who pretend that women’s rights are their priority consistently ignore real oppression. These oppressed Muslim women suffer unimaginable horrors at the hands of their uncivilized religion and imported, backwards culture all the while western feminists sit on their hands and concerns themselves with pointless issues like city signage.

As Sandeela Kanwal was agonizing over her forced marriage in Jonesboro and later as her murdered body lay on the floor of her Father’s home, the last bit of precious life fading, a childish, foolhardy “feminist” named Cynthia Good was congratulating herself on somehow striking a blow against oppression by making Atlanta get rid of a few paper signs.

While millions of young girls cower and allow themselves into forced marriages all across the west, magazine editor Cynthia Good trumpeted her success and called for the rest of the country to join her earthshattering, important efforts. “We’re calling on the rest of the nation to follow suit and make a statement that we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination,” chortled the facile Good to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

This is the result of liberal moral equivalence. The western liberal’s self-destructive insistence that each culture is just as good as the next, yet at the same time the assumption that our own is somehow worse for its “oppression” and “discrimination,” courses throughout the veins of pernicious feminism. The delusional insistence that we, the west, are the bane of civilization as poor young girls like Sandeela Kanwal lead pitiful existences often meeting a violent end right under the noses of these same “feminists” who claim moral superiority is an outrage. The belief that a paper sign alerting passersby that people are working in the area is worse than the murder of Sandeela Kanwal and others like her is a travesty.

Feminists are execrable yet are given the benefit of government money in our universities and places of high esteem. Today, feminists are as bad a holocaust deniers, as bad as Soviet apologists, for their willful ignorance of the oppression of women that goes on around them every day.

The Soviets used to call westerners who gave them cover for their crimes against humanity “useful idiots.” Muslims call westerners who turn a blind eye to their oppressions “dhimmis,” folks who have a lesser stance in Islam but follow along dutifully ignoring the crimes around them. Cynthia Good is a dhim idiot. She make fools of every person everywhere truly concerned with eliminating oppression.

 Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. 

The very high profile case of Fort Lauderdale police Chief Frank Adderley whose wife Eleanor Leisa Adderly shot at him, missed him by inches while he lay in bed, and then continued to fire at him while he fled the house provides South Florida and the nation with a unique opportunity to face squarely three realities regarding Domestic Violence

First, we must overcome our gender based stereotypes that men always are the perpetrators and women the eternal victims.  While many similar individual cases could be cited — including the woman who shot her husband in the back with a shotgun while he slept in bed to the wife who ran over her husband multiple times in her Mercedes –what is important for social policy are not individual cases but rather the findings of social science research.  The empirical research reality is that decades of sound studies reveal that men and women initiate Domestic Violence at about equal rates with the most recent studies suggesting an increase in the initiation rates for Domestic Violence by girls and women.  Further, about 40% of the physically harmed victims of Domestic Violence are men.  Summaries of and the sources for this research can be found at:  www.mediaradar.org. 

Second, once we have overcome our stereotypes we must face a second reality that existing Domestic Violence programs, from the local to the federal levels, virtually never serve boys over the age of twelve and men (such as Chief Adderley) who unambiguously are victims of Domestic Violence.

Finally, two items about this particular case are noteworthy because they mirror national trends.  First women tend to get diagnosed and released.  Critically, can you imagine a man who engaged in exactly the same behavior as Eleanor Adderley being diagnosed and released?  Second, whether perpetrator or victim and whether in Domestic Violence or in Divorce, women virtually always get the house.

Sadly, when it comes to gender, the lofty words “Equal Justice Under Law” engraved above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court only rarely reach ground in real life.

Domestic Violence always is tragic not only for the parties involved but also for society as a whole.  Even more tragic in the face of the nation’s economic downturn is the fact that our government has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on failed Domestic Violence programs which are based on false feminist ideology and stand in direct opposition to empirical research reality.  Not only do taxpayer supported programs such as The Violence Against Women Act fail to provide services for all victims who need them – including boys and men – but because the existing Domestic Violence programs are ideologically based, rather than social science based, they fail to provide the much needed social and psychological services that genuinely would help all victims of Domestic Violence – both female and male.

The national implications of Chief Adderley’s case are that we must forgo our gender based stereotypes, face squarely the empirical research reality of Domestic Violence, and completely revise Domestic Violence policy and law.

 Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.

A possible ethical problem in America’s modern-day Christian Church has developed over the wealthy lifestyle that many television and or mega-church ministers are living. These ministers receive large sums of money from their followers on a regular basis to support their ministries.  But, most of the people who send money to these televangelists assume they are mainly using it for the ministry of the Gospel.  They also assume that their money is being used frugally.  But, do they really expect their contributions to be used frugally?  However, based on recent news stories describing the lifestyles being lived by many of these ministers, their money is apparently making these ministers richer and richer and making them poorer and poorer.

Presently, many newspaper articles have criticized the lavish lifestyles that these Christian ministers are living.  Also, some members of the United States Congress have questioned the lifestyles being lived by these ministers on tax-exempt money.  However, should the United States government get involved with this religious issue? Also, is there the distinct possibility that the outcome of government intervention in the religious arena could finally give the government the legal rationale to eliminate the tax-exempt status of all churches in the United States?  If this were to happen, many Christian churches in America would have to close their doors.  They would not have the money to pay the extra taxes.  As a result, the failures or poor judgments of some leaders of America’s Christian Church could negatively effect Christianity as a whole.

In reality, have these ministers violated the trust of their followers?  The answer is contained in the mindset of the ones who sent money to these mega televangelists and the mindset of the televangelist themselves.  If the followers of these ministers sent money for the sole purpose of gaining prosperity, just like their favorite televangelist preaches, they would expect them to live an opulent lifestyle.  It is similar to the purpose of purchasing lottery tickets on a regular basis.  The person who purchases the tickets expects to hit the jackpot at some point in time.  But, God did not promise a life of prosperity for all Christians. I n fact, when a person gives to the work of God, he or she should not expect anything in return.  Of course, if a televangelist preaches a prosperity gospel, right or wrong, it makes logical sense that he or she would have to live a life of prosperity.  In his or her eyes, it would look bad for his or her image as a prosperity preacher if he or she drove a car that cost less than $100,000 dollars.  However, what really constitutes prosperity?

But, the people who give generously to these television ministers give without being able to control how their money is used, but they still give.  Therefore, even though the type lifestyles these ordained ministers live with other peoples’ money may be unethical, they are probably not guilty of fraud.  However, they might just be guilty of the sin of greed and the failure to follow Christ’s teachings on proper stewardship.  As Christ stated in the Bible, His followers, including ministers, should concentrate on meeting the needs of His people, not building up treasures for themselves here on the earth.  However, God has promised to meet the needs of His followers according to His riches in glory.

A government investigation is not the proper way to solve this religious problem at hand. A return to the altar would be the main solution. When these ministers return to God’s plan for their lives, He will take care of them.  But, possibly God’s plan for taking care of them would not include a multimillion-dollar home and a Rolls Royce.  Another solution would involve the followers of these ministers.  If the followers of these ministers do not agree with the lifestyle that they are living, they should begin immediately to cut back on their donations or do not give any donations period.  If all these ministers’ followers would decrease their donations, these ministers might have to live on a budget, just like the people who sent them their hard earned money.  But, if it does not bother them that their favorite television preachers are living lifestyles that far surpass theirs, so be it.

However, if the U.S. government continues to investigate these members of the clergy, it could very well violate the separation of church and state in America, if there is one. Also, it could open the door for even more government intervention in future religious issues.  But, needless to say, the Christian community does not need the scrutiny of the U.S. government.  In fact, since members of Congress are paid with taxpayers’ money, how would members of Congress feel if a select committee of ministers scrutinized their activities and their lifestyle?  Would they be willing to turn over all their tax records to this watchdog committee of ministers? Most likely, they would not be agreeable to the committees’ demands.  Therefore, they should understand why these targeted ministers do not want to meet the demands of a congressional committee.

Ultimately, the Christian community needs to solve their own problems under the direction of God and the people that He has ordained to lead and guide His children.  If ministers of the Gospel are living in a manner that goes beyond God’s standards, then selected members of the religious community, not politicians of the United States government, should devise a plan to correct and monitor them.  Politicians have enough trouble now attempting to solve their own problems and the problems of the United States government.  Also, solutions to spiritual problems cannot be legislated by the United States Congress.  Therefore, it is the responsibility of those who are led by the Spirit of God, not the spirit of man, to solve spiritual problems and or religious issues in America.

Dr. Parnell is a retired public school educator and presently teaches social science courses at a private, Christian high school in Georgia. He is the author of From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: Exposing America’s New Terror From Within (Wheatmark Publishing, ISBN: 1-58736-613-4). He is also a guest columnist on several online websites.

For the first time in American history two sitting U.S. Senators will battle for the presidency on November 4, 2008. Barack Obama, Jr. Senator from Illinois and John McCain the GOP’s Senior Senator from Arizona are the top contenders in a race unlike any other in history. 

The Christian Church has barely weighed in and between IRS restrictions on 501-C organizations and the reticence of leaders like James Dobson to make a firm choice the Church is vacillating like the proverbial reed in the wind. Adding to this is the gross lack of interest, and want of general political savvy the church displays about the candidates this may come down as the election that flat got away for the body ecclesia. 

For the Church the worst would be the biggest setback to the dismantling of Roe V. Wade since its inception in 1973 and a near mortal wound to the sanctity of marriage as derived from biblical tenants. When all the flag waving and promises are finished it won’t be taxes, healthcare, oil or war that will leave the church reeling but the reversal of all the hard won advances and skirmishes won so far in the fight against abortion and in the defense of traditional marriage. 

If it is hard for the church to understand the political issues it can be said that it is nearly impossible for the secularists to understand why abortion and the attack on marriage is so critical for the church. Conservative Biblical theology is the single reason that the church can’t take its eye off the ball. For the church it is like cause and effect with a promise. It is a law not a theory or a possibility. The biblically grounded believer knows that to continue with the abortions and the attack against marriage will produce a long range negative effect that will in time destroy the nation and bring judgment against us. That’s the promise. 

Liberalism brings with it an attitude and a general cry for isolationism. It is the call for no intervention, no war, and no involvement with higher codes, principles or morality. It is the fuel for “separation of church and state” advocates and it smacks of cowardice at its worst and unbridled self indulgence at its best. When the devils that inhabited a man in the New Testament were threatened by banishment they replied to Christ “let us alone.” (Mark 1:24) That cry is echoed in every liberal cause in our land today and is the precursor to both moral decline and national judgment. 

It is said that knowing a little bit of the bible is more deadly than knowing nothing at all. Today the question is; does the Bible really say that homosexuality is a deadly sin that God hates? The simplest answer to that is, yes! It goes without saying that no homosexual person or group is going to accept that answer. But that is only a partial answer and the weightier part of it comes as a replete and recurring theme of the bible.  The destruction of Sodom is not an isolated story from Genesis 19 but it is referred to time and again by the prophets, Christ and his apostles over a 3500 year long period. The theme is the same, the promise is the same, and the result is always the same. It always results in the demise and in some cases the destruction of any nation that defies the laws of God and nature as in the city of Sodom. Of course all the nations that were and are no more all had essentially the same cry, epitaph, epithet or last words, “Let us alone.” 

Live and let live may work fine for recovering alcoholics but when used in liberal politics it fosters an attitude that always produces a typical question. It seems like a legitimate question but if investigated further it would be seen that no one pauses long enough or is serious enough to wait for the answer. Such a question was asked by Kirsten Powers in the New York Post July 8, 2008 in an article entitled “The GOP Gay-Marriage Con” The question posed said “Gays and lesbians make up an estimated 5 percent to 10 percent of the US population. How much damage can they do by committing themselves to one another? They certainly can’t do worse with marriage than heterosexuals have.” 

How much damage can they do? How about irreparable, irreversible damage that can and has brought down the mightiest nations in history. 

If unbridled licentiousness can bring down a nation then where does the slaughter of uncounted millions of unborn human beings come into the picture? There is no way of being gentle here; it is the number one reason for the decline of civilization itself much less the decline of a single nation. It is a looming major factor in the final coming judgments of all mankind. It is a prime factor and pre-cursor to Armageddon. That’s theology with a promise. “Thus saith the Lord; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place…But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation.” (Jeremiah 22: 3, 5) 

It is this kind of promise that should be guiding the church in its decision about who to vote for in the 2008 election and not whether James Dobson endorses a candidate or whether John McCain distances himself from certain pastors. When Christ told the church to be as wise as a serpent but as harmless as a dove (Mt 10: 16) it is understood that he was not leaving political savvy out of the picture. Unfortunately in its current penchant toward apostasy the church is leaning toward the dove side of the equation. 

In a recent homily I heard a local minister describe his observations of a group of doves who decided to nest around his property. He said they must be the dumbest bird in the ornithological roster. They build nests in dangerous places, lose their young to predators and are prey to every vicious and marauding bird in the area. I thought of the church and of why Christ demanded that we don’t just function as doves. The “be ye wise as serpents” aspect of his admonition is the essential that the church gives up first as it starts a slide into apostasy. 

For biblically grounded Christians there can be only one way to decide on a candidate in the 2008 elections. If a candidate thinks marriage is an open ended deal for any and all combinations of sexes and persuasions they are not the best choice. Above all if they do not regard the innocent and helpless who are struggling for life inside a mother’s womb then they strictly don’t deserve to be considered as a leader.  

Christ often said “he that hath ears to hear let him hear.” I would suggest that the church or any good American should set themselves aside and quietly listen for the possibility that their may be a voice that echoes back from the hundreds of abortion clinics in America and the 50 million previously aborted human beings that says; “I want to live…does your candidate want me to live?” 

Rev Bresciani is an author and columnist for several online and print publications. For articles, movie reviews, commentary and much more visit www.americanprophet.org

Let us be extremely wary when we ask for “change.” The Democrat Party is guilty of injecting race into the presidential campaign. America is no longer a racist country, and Americans are deeply offended when it is portrayed as such. These accusations and the apprehension tied to them have been insidiously worked into our collective subconscious. Keep that in mind when you’re feeling guilty for something in which you most likely took no part. The days of slavery and segregation are gone.

It is not anyone’s imagination that voices of dissent have been heard throughout our land ever since Obama became a lightning rod for Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s bigoted inflammatory words: “God Damn America.”

Something very evil has been purposefully created. Many Americans know and feel this. Some can’t quite put their finger on it, but they can sense trouble. If we are not wise and prudent, our country will move into a very dangerous area. This is not the time for problems caused by manipulative racial divisiveness.

It has been noted that, in his world, it is perfectly acceptable for Barack Obama to play the race card. He will undoubtedly continue to do so if and when he sits in the Oval Office. Obama is not a uniter; he only sounds like one. What legislator will dare question President Obama with the spectre of being branded a racist looming before them?

It was no coincidence that the woman who sang at the Denver State of The City Address was inspired to change the words of our National Anthem. She did so because Obama is the presumptive presidential candidate for the Democrat Party. The lyrics to “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing” were intermingled with the melody of The Star Spangled Banner. The Black National Anthem was used to create hostility and division where none should exist. When interviewed, Rena Marie said she would do it over again. She recanted her apologies later on and appeared to be not only disrespectful, but antagonistic.

As the campaign clock ticks on, more unpleasant tactics will be employed. When it becomes excruciatingly obvious, it will be too late to retreat from a very disingenuous dialogue about race.

Black activism and activist churches are dividing America. The sanctuaries of these churches contain political pulpits. There is far too much harsh rhetoric spoken openly during a time that God intended for worship and reflection upon His word. It is taking its toll upon our society, because what is spoken inside of a church has repercussions on the outside.

Spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not of the uppermost importance to the pastors therein. Let it be understood that what is being taught in these militant denominations is called the “Social Gospel.” Scripture is set aside and replaced with man-made theology.

So far, religion has been a big part of this election. In March, Obama gave a speech about race to cover up for his former pastor. Dr.James Dobson accused Obama of distorting the Bible. Obama has never made a clear statement about his present attitude towards Rev. Wright, Rev.Otis Moss III or Father Michael Pfleger. If he is elected, it is more than likely that they will be allowed back into his good graces once again.

Hold on America. Seems like there may be more ranting and scolding in store for us…

It is not by chance that Obama is proposing a government-funded faith based program. Church-affiliated programs where the Bible is not taught in a traditional manner will benefit from Sen. Obama’s plan. While there will probably be some that reject the plan to maintain their religious liberty, organizations such as Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition will have its coffers filled to overflowing. The devil is in the details.

The United Church of Christ as well as those which belong to the Council of Churches are made up of far Left constituents. Their biblical teachings are progressive. They have no problem updating God’s immutable word to meet the needs of the immorality that they embrace. A big government-funded faith-based program will not bother them in the least.

The plain truth needs to be understood. A black Republican presidential candidate would not have brought with him the racial rumblings being heard today. The party of Abraham Lincoln is not invested in the color of a person’s skin; only the Democrat Party takes an unhealthy interest in color. Anyone can be a success story in America; the opportunities are there for the taking.

Obama is a questionable man. He obviously cares little for the issue of the company he has kept, then thrown under the bus on his way to the White House. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the New Black Panther Party are cheering for an Obama presidency. Various radical groups and people gravitate toward him. That alone should trouble all Americans.

This upcoming election is being viewed by some as a test. America has shown a willingness to vote a black president into office and lead our nation, but what we need at this crucial hour is an experienced leader. This fact is race-neutral. Hope and change that is worth having should not bring with it an Obama candidacy racial test. America simply cannot afford such disunity.
Related Readings:

Wake Up the White Folk: Rev. Lainie Dowell

Dr.James Dobson accuses Obama of distorting the Bible

Focus on The Family talks about Barack Obama:Listen 

---

Marie is a political/religious-based writer and founder of www.DrawingClose.org — a sister website to RenewAmerica.

by Jim Kouri, CPP

With the recent testing of missiles by the Iranian military, the world has been put on notice that the Islamofascist nation will continue to be the fly in the ointment for world peace.

The United States National Security Strategy recently acknowledged that this nation faces challenges from Iran, including Iran’s proliferation efforts and involvement in international terrorism.

To address these concerns, the United States employs a range of tools, including diplomatic pressure, a military presence in the Gulf, and economic sanctions. A U.S. sanction is a unilateral restriction or condition on economic activity imposed by the United States for reasons of foreign policy or national security.

The US Congress requested that analysts from the Government Accountability Office review sanctions targeting Iran and their implementation,  sanction impacts, and  factors limiting sanctions. To conduct the review, the GAO analysts assessed trade and sanction data, information on Iran’s economy and energy sector, and US and international reports on Iran. These GAO investigators also discussed sanctions with US officials and Iran experts.

Since 1987, US agencies have implemented numerous sanctions against Iran. First, Treasury oversees a ban on trade and investment with Iran and filed over 94 civil penalty cases between 2003 and 2007 against companies violating the prohibition. This ban may be circumvented by shipping US goods to Iran through other countries.

Second, the State Department administers laws that sanction foreign parties engaging in proliferation or terrorism-related activities with Iran. Under one law, State has imposed sanctions in 111 instances against Chinese, North Korean, Syrian, and Russian entities.

Third, the Treasury and State Departments can use financial sanctions to freeze the assets of targeted parties and reduce their access to the US financial system. US government officials report that so far the sanctions have slowed foreign investment in Iran’s petroleum sector, denied parties involved in Iran’s proliferation and terrorism activities access to the US financial system, and provided a clear statement of US concerns to the rest of the world.

However, other evidence raises questions about the extent of impact on Iran. Since 2003, the Iranian government has signed contracts reported at about $20 billion with foreign firms to develop its energy resources. Further, sanctioned Iranian banks may fund their activities in currencies other than the dollar.

While Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, according to the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, it continues to enrich uranium, acquire advanced weapons technology, and support terrorism.

According to the GAO report, US agencies do not systematically collect or analyze data demonstrating the overall impact and results of their sanctioning and enforcement actions. Iran’s global trade ties and leading role in energy production make it difficult for the United States to isolate Iran and pressure it to reduce proliferation and support for terrorism.

For example, Iran’s overall trade with the world has grown since the US imposed sanctions, although this trade has fluctuated. Imports rose sharply following the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 and then declined until 1995; most export growth followed the rise in oil prices beginning in 2002. This trade included imports of weapons and nuclear technology, especially from Russia and China.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
   

Did you know that violent white men are never arrested for their actions? The Chicago Sun-Times’ Mary Mitchell is sure of it, if you aren’t. In another of her typically race baiting articles, Mitchell this time says that any time a white man is engaged in violent behavior, he is let off “to go on his merry way,” never to be “held accountable” for his actions. Race monger Mitchell is sure of this, see, because she saw a traffic scuffle between two “old white guys” where no arrests were made by Chicago police.

Two “old white guys” let go without arrest after a traffic altercation? Wow, case closed, racism exists, eh?

Mitchell claims she saw a traffic altercation where one white guy jumped from his car and verbally abused another white man in the car behind him. The Chicago police were called and, in the end, both drivers were told to “go on their merry way,” as Mitchell put it. No arrests were made. Then again, no real violence occurred, either.

Mitchell claims she and other witnesses were stunned.

Then, things fall apart. Honda is back in the car and drives away. What? We witnesses don’t understand. Shouldn’t this guy remain on the scene, or be escorted to the police station? Don’t the cops need to write up some kind of report or dispense some tickets for traffic violations? (Obstructing traffic, for starters.)… Then the cuffs are taken off of Explorer and he, too, is allowed to go on his merry way. No ticket. No arrest.

The police explain to Mitchell that the man accosted did not want to press charges, so the incident was over.

But, this didn’t stop Mitchell from imagining she saw racism in this incident… of course, Mitchell sees racism in everything under the sun. After explaining what she saw, Mitchell goes off on a tired-of-the-man-keeping-me-down rant that is just as silly as it is unsupported by any real facts.

Not equal justice:

This is American justice for white men. The other side of what is typically picked up by the media. Images of black and Latino men, young and old, who get yanked from their vehicles, strong-armed, handcuffed, frisked, and physically held, sometimes by the bottom of an officer’s shoe, on the street until they are loaded into a wagon and carted off to the nearest holding pen.

This is how white men are (not) held accountable for their actions. I can imagine how this whole scene would have been dealt with by authorities had the brawlers been men of color.

Not one of the cops I saw held their hand instinctively, protectively over their weapons, a hair trigger away. I suppose everyone knows that old white guys, even when they’re perps, are just not that scary.

“Justice for white men?”

Mitchell is the Sun-Times’ resident race monger, a large portion of her columns seem to have been dredged up from 1956, but this one is poor even by her low standards. I mean, is she serious that this anecdotal evidence is enough to state a thing as fact? All black men would be jailed in an exactly similar incident? Apparently so.

Did Mitchell offer any statistics to buttress her wild claim? Did she show any studies or police reports? Not a one. She just made the wild leap of logic to comply with her prejudices.

Her capper is a piece of work, too.

Still, I wouldn’t take any chances. Beware of an angry white man driving a Ford Explorer, who thinks, and now knows from experience, that he is entitled to do whatever he wants whenever he wants to whomever he wants with little fear that there’ll be consequences or repercussions.

In light of this line of “reasoning,” how many black athletes can we point to where this line applies? Has there not been many a black athlete who has repeatedly broken the law on many levels but felt that he was “entitled to do whatever he wants whenever he wants to whomever he wants with little fear that there’ll be consequences or repercussions”?

Should I look at the example of black athletes and make that an excuse to say that all black men can get away with anything they want, that they are never held accountable for their actions? If not, why not?

I wonder what race-monger Mitchell would say to that?