Fighting racism = fighting critical race theory

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill on May 7 banning the teaching of critical race theory in the state’s public and charter schools. Critical race theory is a quasi-Marxist ideology that holds that racism is ingrained in the United States. Among other concepts, it labels people with white skin, including children, as oppressors who hold an inherent advantage over other races and should feel guilt due to their “privilege.” “Now more than ever we need policies that bring us together, not rip us apart,” Stitt, a Republican, said in a video posted on Twitter. “I firmly believe that not one cent of taxpayer money should be used to define and divide young Oklahomans about their race or sex.” The bill does not mention critical race theory by name and instead bans the teaching of some of the racist and sexist concepts promoted by the ideology, including that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex” or that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” The bill also prohibits teaching that “an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex” or that “members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.” “Nothing in this bill prevents or discourages those conversations,” he added. “We can and should teach this history without labeling a young child as an oppressor, or requiring he or she feel guilt or shame based on their race or sex,” Stitt said. Even though the new law directly prohibits the teaching of racist concepts, opponents of the measure called it “racist.” “This past week, the Oklahoma State Legislature passed HB 1775, an outright racist and oppressive piece of legislation. As a mom, community member, and the Chair of the OKCPS Board of Education, I am appalled at the flagrant, attempt to erase factual, incomprehensible history that has occurred in the United States,” Paula Lewis, the chair of the Oklahoma City Public Schools Board, wrote on Twitter. “Our history as a country and as a state, if told accurately, is uncomfortable and should be heartbreaking for Americans that look like me, white,” Lewis added, reciting some of the more prominent critical race theory concepts. “The only way forward as a country and as a state, is for all of us to have hard, uncomfortable conversations—to acknowledge the truth, apologize for actions that stemmed from not knowing, and do all that we can, both individually and collectively to atone for our actions that have contributed to the oppression of our African-American, Hispanic, Indigenous and other people of color, brothers and sisters!”

Why do they not get Covid-19 vaccine? An exploration by The Atlantic

So many reasons - here's one:

Others were worried that the vaccines might have long-term side effects. “As a Black American descendant of slavery, I am bottom caste, in terms of finances,” Georgette Russell, a 40-year-old resident of New Jersey, told me. “The fact that there is no way to sue the government or the pharmaceutical company if I have any adverse reactions is highly problematic to me.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/the-people-who-wont-get-the-vaccine/618765/

Victims lives matter: Mother asked for diapers - got a bullet into her jaw

 

Weihert’s ex-boyfriend and the father of her son, Steven Price Jr., 24, and his girlfriend Siara Q. Williams, 19, are being charged with first-degree intentional homicide after shooting Weihert in the jaw

MADISON, Wis. — Chandler Weihert, a 22-year-old single mother to an 11-month-old boy, said she is lucky to be alive after being shot in the face by her son’s father and his girlfriend two weeks ago.

According to a criminal complaint, Weihert’s ex-boyfriend and the father of her son, Steven Price Jr., 24, and his girlfriend Siara Q. Williams, 19, are being charged with first-degree intentional homicide after shooting Weihert in the jaw on the 1200 block of Gilbert Road. Price has several other domestic violence related charges on his criminal record.

“I was really scared,” Weihert said. “It’s [the bullet] not currently removed right now because they told me by trying to remove it where it’s at that it could paralyze me from the waist down. The bullet is still in my neck right now.”

Weihert said an argument about Price not helping pay child support escalated into one of the scariest moments of her life.

“It started from me asking for a box of diapers,” Weihert said. “I was already not working because back in February he broke my finger and split both of my working tendons so I had to get surgery.”

Weihert said her son was dropped off 20 minutes before the shooting happened. She said she and Price were together for two years.

“I honestly should have seen the signs of escalation. It was really about our son and just trying to get help and have both of his parents in his life.”

Price’s bail is set at $300,000. Williams’ bail is $100,000. Weihert is left with a bullet lodged in the back of her throat an inch away from her spine. She said her facial nerves are dead, she can’t eat without chopping her food up into small pieces, and cannot make normal facial gestures like she used to. Despite the pain and frustration she feels, Weihert said, “I just got really lucky.”

Weihert was formerly working full time as a caregiver at a local assisted living facility. She now has no car, no steady income and is asking for the community’s help. If you would like to donate to Weihert’s GoFundMe, you can do so by clicking here.

 

Victims lives matter - Saint Louis Killer Tired of parental duties

 

Robert Patrick

ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis jury on Saturday convicted Eric Lawson of the first-degree murder of his own 10-month-old son as well as his ex-girlfriend and her mother in 2012.

Jurors took less than three hours, and will return Monday for the penalty phase of the trial, which will determine if Lawson will be sentenced to die for killing Breiana Ray, 22, Gwendolyn Ray, 50, and Aiden Lawson. It is the first potential death penalty case in St. Louis in a decade.

Several of the Ray relatives, watching from a different courtroom due to coronavirus precautions, pumped their fists when the verdicts were read. One man bent over at the waist with his head down.

“Yessss!!!!!!” wrote Revitra Greco, Breiana Ray’s aunt, when texted the news of the verdict. “To God be the glory,” she said.

In closing arguments Saturday afternoon, prosecutors painted Eric Lawson as a heartless monster who was fed up with being a single parent. Lawson’s lawyers responded with a dual argument: They said prosecutors hadn’t presented enough evidence to prove Lawson killed the three; then said if jurors disagreed, Lawson wasn’t guilty of the three first-degree murder charges but of lesser offenses.

The crime occurred in an apartment at 2145 South Jefferson Avenue on May 5, 2012.

Assistant Attorney General Natalie Warner said Lawson was frustrated with the obligations of being a single parent, and the resulting squabbles with Breiana Ray. He’d texted friends saying he wished he was childless and that he hated his life, she said.

When Breiana Ray texted him telling him he needed to get baby formula, he took a Smith & Wesson 9 mm handgun that he’d bought in January out of a case in his closet, loaded it, and then put on jeans instead of his ubiquitous basketball shorts so he could put it in his waistband, Warner said.

“He knowingly and willingly made the decision to kill each and every one of them,” Warner told jurors.

He stopped at Schnucks for the formula, and arrived around 8:50 p.m. He then paced around the apartment, acting strangely and walking in circles, until Breiana Ray’s back was turned so she wouldn’t fight back. Lawson shot her in the head as she washed baby bottles at the sink, Warner said.

Lawson shot Gwendolyn Ray twice in the head after she came downstairs to check on her daughter, and then set a fire in two places in the apartment and locked the door behind him, so he wouldn’t have to see his son die.

“No one sets a fire next to a 10-month-old baby without the intent of killing that baby,” Warner said.

Aiden died scared, she said.

Lawson went home, unloaded and put away the gun, and then looked up on his phone how to remove gunpowder residue, she said.

Defense lawyer Julie Regenbogen-Clark said that based on a fire investigator’s testimony and cellphone records, Lawson couldn’t have been in the apartment when the fire started.

She asked: “How could Eric Lawson be responsible for setting a fire at 10 p.m. when he was home by 9:55?”

She suggested that police may have fed details of the crime to Lawson in the two hours between when he was questioned and arrested, and said a firearms examiner only “eyeballed” a bullet recovered from the crime scene to determine that it matched Lawson’s gun.

Pivoting to her attempt to convince jurors that the crime was not first-degree murder, Regenbogen-Clark said prosecutors made the “worst possible inferences about details” to say that Lawson was guilty of premeditated murder, saying he carried a gun for protection after almost being robbed. She also said frustrated text messages between people in a strained relationship are not unusual.

She said Lawson’s statement to police that his “temper just took over” showed that any crime was not pre-planned.

In her response, Christine Krug, who is also with the attorney general’s office, said Regenbogen-Clark was misinterpreting evidence to favor her client.

“This defendant killed three people and every piece of evidence says it,” she told the jury.

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office is trying the case because a prosecutor with St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner’s office previously counseled Lawson when the prosecutor was a public defender.

Officials tried to hold a trial in 2019 but couldn’t get enough jurors due to their scheduling conflicts and their opinions on the death penalty.

The jurors have been sequestered since the start of the trial.

Profiting politically and economically by dividing our nation according to race

 VIEWPOINTS

To Defeat White Supremacism, Fight Critical Race Theory

Bruce Abramson

 

April 30, 2021 Updated: April 30, 2021

biggersmaller 

Print

Commentary

President Joe Biden, in his address to Congress, repeated his absurd claim that white supremacism is “the greatest” threat facing the country. He then proceeded to promote the defamatory mythology solely responsible for the recent disturbing rise in white supremacism.

This truly dangerous incoherence requires a bit of unpacking, beginning with some simple definitions. What is white supremacism?

The answer is hardly subtle. It’s an ideology that combines two fundamental ideas: “whiteness” and “supremacism.” Both are rooted in the notion that humanity divides into distinct groups based upon inherent characteristics.

Supremacists believe that one group is superior to all others and thus uniquely qualified to rule. It’s an idea as old as history. Nazism, apartheid, the Ottoman millet system, and Jim Crow were 20th century supremacist systems. Today, Islamists preach Islamic supremacism, Louis Farrakhan prefers an Afro-centric supremacism, and the Chinese Communist Party is heir to a long line of Han supremacist rulers.

Whiteness stems from the belief that the proper categorization of humanity follows racial lines, and that one such category is “white.” White supremacism arises when some of those designated “white people” embrace the racial categorization, take pride in their own category, and announce that they deserve to rule.

With those definitions in place, we can look at today’s America. We’re a country without a single sizable or influential white supremacist organization. The ideology boasts no celebrity advocates, no national spokespeople, no lobbyists, and few avowed adherents. White supremacist gatherings draw more protestors and reporters than actual supremacists.

The “greatest threat” to our country? Not even close. One problem among many? Absolutely—and one worth watching. White supremacism has played a particularly dark role in American history. After having been put to rest for several decades, it’s on the upswing. It’s spreading through the fever swamps of the internet to become the ideology of choice of violent loners—including those responsible for the massacres in a Charleston church in 2015 and a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018.

White supremacism is indeed a real and growing problem. The key questions are thus what has been fueling its recent rise, and what can we do to reverse it?

The answers should be obvious. Heightened race consciousness is the sole and entire cause for the re-emergence of a long-dormant “white” identity. Because white supremacism is possible only among those who embrace both racial categories and their own whiteness, the only effective counter to white supremacism is colorblindness.

Tragically, the racist agitators promoting obscenely anti-American ideas such as systemic racism, structural racism, critical race theory, racial spoils systems, reparations, intersectionality, and white fragility have turned racial categorization into a lucrative and influential business.

Al Sharpton is a feted celebrity. Ben Crump holds entire cities hostage. Patrice Cullors collects mansions. Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ibrahim X. Kendi, and Robin DiAngelo have created a robust demand for their work.

Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Maxine Waters, “The Squad,” Joe Biden, and others have blessed this overt racism with government approval and support.

Their lucrative grievance industry desperately needs white supremacists. They simply can’t cast themselves as heroic in the absence of villains. Nothing could be worse for business than the colorblind America we were on the verge of achieving until quite recently. White supremacists are absolutely critical as the designated villains in their morality play. They need them, they want them, they created them, and they revel in the aura of heroism their monstrous creation has allowed them to fabricate.

It’s the sort of plot that superhero fiction has taught us to associate with a Lex Luthor—except that it’s all too real. If you want to identify the greatest internal threat facing America, look past the white supremacists to the critical race theorists who created them.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) got it exactly right. Whatever the United States may have been in the past, it entered the 21st century as the most colorblind, least racially categorized society in world history. Our unified response to 9/11 made it clear. We came together as a single nation to confront a foreign enemy. That response may have sharpened the distinctions between Americans and foreigners, but it obliterated the distinctions among Americans.

When that colorblind American identity led us to inaugurate our first black president, the panicked race grifters fought back. They reimposed racial categorization, triggered racial tensions, revived a moribund white supremacism, and reignited their grievance business.

The only way to fight white supremacism is to fight critical race theory. These racists need each other. Otherwise, they’d have to ask themselves a classic leftist question: What if they declared a race war and no one showed up?

In America today, no ideology is as widely reviled as white supremacism. That apparent unity, however, masks an important distinction. Conservatives hate white supremacists because they’re supremacist. Progressives hate white supremacists because they’re white.

I stand with Sen. Scott calling for a colorblind America. President Biden stands against us, calling for increased race consciousness and racial categorization.

Who do you think is to blame for white supremacy?

Bruce Abramson, Ph.D. J.D., is a principal at B2 Strategic, senior fellow and director at ACEK Fund and the author of “American Restoration: Winning America’s Second Civil War.”