Today on Blogcritics
Home » I Was A Bastard for 22 Years

I Was A Bastard for 22 Years

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From my birth in 1945 until the Loving decision of 1967, as a mixed-blood Chinese-American, I was, legally speaking, a bastard in a number of American states. My father's father emigrated to the United States from China in 1868, so both his marriage in 1889 and my parents marriage in 1927 were not recognized by those states which still had legal injunctions against intermarriage (miscegenation).

It was only in 1967 that the United States Supreme Court finally struck down laws prohibiting marriage between "whites" and those of "other races." The Loving v. Virginia decision of 1967 declared Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 unconstitutional, thus voiding the miscegenation laws of all sixteen states which still prohibited intermarriage.

Does my story even begin to compare to the prejudice Blacks, women, and other oppressed minorities have been subjected to throughout America's history? No way. I wasn't even called "squinty eyes" in grammar school. Nonetheless, my background has fueled a fire within me to crusade for the legal rights and social acceptance of all Americans — Blacks, women, gays, and those who are currently most under attack, Arab-Americans, and Muslim-Americans.

While the fight against prejudice is a constant struggle, great progress has been made on behalf of Blacks and women. Even gay rights appears to be gaining a stronger foothold in middle America, although, in a throwback to the days of miscegenation laws, we are embroiled in yet another battle of the bedroom: the right of every American to choose who they marry.

Currently, the groups most under attack by prejudice are America's 3.5 million Arab-Americans, and one million Americans who are Muslim. Prejudice against these groups, which largely but not completely overlap, has recently taken a step backward to the crisis levels we experienced immediately after 9-11. These groups are victims of a renewed attack which is associated with the right wing backlash against the Barack Obama Presidency.

As far more than a casual bystander to this foolishness, I feel frustrated and unsure how to make a meaningful difference. Probably nothing will soften the hearts of those who have become so hardened to acceptance of their fellow humans. I can't even, in good conscience, advocate restricting the publication of hostile intolerance, as long as there is no incitement to physical harm.

Fortunately, history is on the side of progress. We no longer burn witches, as we did 300 years ago. Women and Blacks at least have the vote. You can marry whomever you want (as long as they are of the right gender and age, and you only marry one person at a time). We have come a long way — and we have a long way to go. I will attempt to balance patience and action.

Powered by

About Jonathan Lockwood Huie

  • Doug Hunter

    Was there a point to this piece? Or were you just throwing out your lib victim cred. In that case, you poor, poor bastard.

  • roger nowosielski

    The point is, Doug – you are supposed to love your fellow men.

  • Doug Hunter

    Perhaps you would generate more love from your fellow men if you dropped the antagonistic accusations of racism and bigotry at every turn. Again, I just don’t understand the point other than to relay the author’s victim status and remind us that in his view the world isn’t perfect.

    This does have a politcal bent to it, hence the placement in the politics section. And muslim Americans are not the ones facing the most open prejudice these days. It’s non mulsim, non Jew, non gay, non female, non hispanic, non asian, non native, non black, non pacific islander’s. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide who that special group is. It actually dovetails in with paternalistic racism really well though, I suppose the reason this one group is still open to blanket criticism and accusations is that they’re strong and mature enough to handle it whereas others are not.

  • roger nowosielski

    I’ve figured it out, Doug: it’s the white male. They’re the cause of it all. And nobody stands up for them.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I suppose the reason this one group is still open to blanket criticism and accusations is that they’re strong and mature enough to handle it whereas others are not.

    Why would someone drop “antagonistic accusations of racism and bigotry” when you say something like that?

  • Joanne Huspek

    Are there any 100% white males left? It could be me, but everyone I know is a mixed bag.

  • roger nowosielski

    Well, Joanne. At least we’re cutting to the chase.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Doug, I’m an activist, not a victim, and you’re certainly right that I’m proud to be a Liberal.

    Discrimination is a matter of numbers – population and dollars. If conservative white males were a minority, their huffy attitudes might get them discriminated against, but they aren’t. Majorities have tremendous power, and the responsibility to use that power wisely and kindly.

    “Majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights, because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” – Larry Flynt

  • roger nowosielski

    Well, Jordan – he’s got a point, somewhat. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction. Some are even ashamed of their white maleness and can’t seem to find a hole large enough where they can crawl into.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Doug, I don’t mean to suggest that white men are never viewed unfairly, just that it’s not a dominant issue of our society. As an acknowledgment that I recognize unfair treatment on all sides, I quote from a Fox News article, ‘1-in-4 accusations of rape are false.’ Unfair is unfair whenever it occurs, but minorities do bear the brunt of the suffering.

  • Doug Hunter

    “minorities do bear the brunt of the suffering.”

    From what? The problems of minorities are largely the problems of the poor and have nothing to do with race. Beyond that the government has zero discrimination in favor of the majority. The only time it takes race into account is to penalize white males in contracting, etc.

    The only reason these things are even couched in racial terms is because it scares minority voting blocks into their column. Problems are magnified and propagandized to recruit new ‘activists’ like yourself who can keep the process going.

    I do feel lucky that, except in the face of race propaganda, I don’t need to look at the world through a racial lense. My hope is that all people can live like that, we can focus on the issues and actions of individuals instead of first seeing if we can drive a wedge in it by race, sex, etc.

  • Doug Hunter

    Oh, and in regard to Joanne, that is the best thing that can happen (racial mixing). If I could throw a switch and make us all a nice olive complexion I’d do it in a heartbeart, unfortunately, the powers that be would simply find another way to divide and conquer us.

  • roger nowosielski

    In my experience, Doug, the race card is played in order to divide and conquer. So I do agree with you that by and large, it’s a propaganda. The rich are not particularly distressed by the racial divide. They know what they’re after – protecting their position in the world. It’s the poor who fall for the trap and use race in order to somehow think themselves “better.” So you’re right in that the real division concerns wealth.

    Any kind of discrimination or idea thereof is just a weapon.

  • Joanne Huspek

    People suffer only if they allow themselves to suffer. Speaking as a Heinz 57 of sorts, I’ve never suffered, much as some would have wanted me to.

  • roger nowosielski


    Suffering is good for the soul.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Doug, Do a Google search for Attacks On Arab-Americans. You’ll get over two MILLION hits. Start reading, and keep reading until you get it.

  • Ruvy

    Jonathan, this Google search game can get interesting, and more than one can play. Try Googling up “attacks on jews by arabs” and see how you get 2.48 MILLION hits. Keep reading until you get it, Jonathan….

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Ruvy, By this point, you certainly know that I don’t condone violence by anyone on anyone. Whatever atrocities occur in the Middle East don’t justify violence by Americans against Americans.

  • roger nowosielski

    What a lovely world we live in.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Joanne, My life, my blog, my books are dedicated to the proposition that each of us can choose happiness or suffering regardless of external circumstances. I’m unclear how you are relating that to people’s choice to stereotype others or be compassionate and understanding toward them.

    Roger, I’m sorry if you are suffering. As Joanne pointed out and I affirm, happiness IS a choice, and there are techniques to strengthen your ability to make the choice for happiness.

  • roger nowosielski


    It was just a figure of speech – true nonetheless.

  • Doug Hunter

    I also get 338,000 listings for bigfoot attacks…. so what.

  • roger nowosielski

    It’s just a statistic, Doug. I wouldn’t worry about it.

  • Dr. Demento PhD.

    I also get 338,000 listings for bigfoot attacks…. so what.


  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Doug, you’re hopeless. I don’t expect to change hard core views. If each of my articles can cause just one person to open their heart and mind even a little, my effort is worthwhile.

  • roger nowosielski

    I wouldn’t be surprised if it was in Fresno. A great Mongoloid contingent right on the outskirts of town.

  • roger nowosielski

    I don’t think Doug is hopeless, Jonathan. It’s just that you’ve failed to reach him this time. His heart is hardened by the brutality that’s being inflicted of late on all white able-bodied males. He’s a victim of excessive emasculation of our once virulent society and the consequent triumph of the sissy.

  • Dr Dreadful

    If what was in Fresno? We have the largest Hmong community outside Asia, but so what? We have the largest Dreadful community outside South London too. :-)

  • roger nowosielski

    The sightings. Never mind.

  • Clavos

    We have the largest Dreadful community outside South London too.

    Will Fresno ever recover?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Recover from what?

    This is Fresno. It would be like recovering from a birth defect!

  • Clavos

    The ignominy! The ignominy!

  • roger nowosielski

    No wonder the Mongoloid population is taking over.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Indeed, Clav, the Ignominy are another significant ethnic group in Fresno. Curiously, no-one seems to know exactly where it was they originally came from. When asked, they invariably mumble, have sudden coughing fits, and change the subject.

  • roger nowosielski

    If you can understand their verbal ejaculations in the first place.

    I have run into a few of those specimen on my travails, so I’m speaking from first-hand experience. Doc’s absolutely correct.

  • Ruvy


    Whatever atrocities occur in the Middle East don’t justify violence by Americans against Americans.

    What makes you assume that these attacks on Jews by Arabs take place in the Middle East alone? The vast majority of them take place in Europe, Canada, and the United States….

    Such naïveté!

    The Arabs you would seek us to have sympathy for because you are of mixed racial heritage are not anywhere near as angelic as you would suppose. Because I live with Arabs, I see then as people, rather than an ethnic minority to be pitied.

    You prefer to be seen as a person, rather than a member of mixed heritage to be pitied and felt sorry for (“oh, how everyone must discriminate against those poor people! It’s terrible, don’t you think, Martha?”), don’t you?

    “Guilty liberalism” has a nasty stink of condescension and baseless superiority to it, Jonathan. If “some of his best friends are Jewish”, I’d prefer not be one of them.

  • Doug Hunter

    “Doug, you’re hopeless. I don’t expect to change hard core views.”

    My hard core views? Maybe you should open your eyes to reality. Your all ramped up about spouting your precious race propaganda. Do you have any idea how many hate crime murders there were, of all types the government reported in it’s latest report? 9. (most of those were against homosexuals, not race or religion motivated) None against muslims or arabs.

    There are more murders in one city with less than a million people (detroit) in 10 days than there are against all your stupid ass ‘victim’ groups in an entire year.

    You’ve been duped into the propaganda army on false premises, you have no sense of reality, and you have the audacity to claim that I’m hopeless? It’s pathetic really.

    Here’s a little dose of reality for you

    ‘Hate’ Murder (2007): 9
    Murder (2005): 16,692
    Drunk Driving(2007): 12,998
    Lightning (avg.) : 90

    I know truth and facts are not the currency of your persuasion, emotion is, but really could your activist tendencies be put to better use? Perhaps you could be an advocate for MADD or even do ten times as much good extolling the virtues of lightning awareness.

  • roger nowosielski


    I don’t think he’s talking about hate crimes, just ordinary day-to-day prejudice or bias.

  • Ruvy


    All this guy Huie does is shuffle shit for the Arabs, Moslems and hustle the agenda of the “Blessed of Hussein”, implying that anyone who disagrees is somehow “unacceptable”. All of his articles I have seen on this site do this in one way or another. Maybe he’s just doing it out of love for the bastard (pun intended) and fear of the Arabs/Moslems. I cannot know his real motivations. But he is a two-note charlie, and once you see one of his theme notes in his articles, they lose all interest for me.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    I’m talking about both day-to-day-prejudice and worse. There was widespread panic and an non-selective backlash in 2001. While the worst has subsided to a large extend, the prejudice and backlash now appear to be returning. The following is from in 2001.

    “Arab American communities across the country came under violent assault amid a rising tide of anti-Arab anger. The majority of the violent backlash occurred in the days immediately following the terrorist attacks – Amnesty International reported more than 540 attacks on Arab-Americans in the week following September 11th.

    A report by The Council on American Islamic Relations showed the most common attacks came in the form of hate mail, physical attacks and assault on personal property. Mosques, Hindu temples and community centers were vandalized and torched. The report also showed that the civil rights of almost 60,000 Arab Americans were negatively impacted by government policies instituted following the terrorist attacks, as hundreds of Arab Americans were detained on immigration charges. “

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Ruvy, if you have lost interest in my articles, please take your comments somewhere else. You have become a one-note charlie, and it’s feeling very personal.

  • roger nowosielski

    But Jonathan. I look at it this way. Variety is a spice of like, and these tit-for-tats you’re having with Ruvy do provide some entertainment and a change of pace. We can’t be serious all day long.

  • Ruvy

    Jonathan, as boring as your articles are, I cannot afford NOT to pay attention. You persistently push the agenda of those who would murder me off, clothing their vicious murderousness in all sorts of pretty dresses and perfuming the stink of their bloodthirstiness in the sweet smell of what you think is “patriotism”.

    So its damned personal, and no, I will not back off.

    The Council on American Islamic Relations has a leader, Ibrahim Hooper, who has been quoted as saying that the goal of his organization is the imposition of Sharia in your country. The way the Wahhabi (and that son of a bitch is Wahhabi) look at Sharia law, anyone who does not comply, dies. I haven’t even gone into all of its terrorist ties, Jonathan.

    Hope you got that prayer rug ready for Nawaz, dude. If these shitheads come to power in America, you will need to know how to use it.

  • Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, after yesterday’s embarrassment I really hoped you might have learned something. The only reason you posted that sucker email you fell for was because it echoed some of your own feelings, which are mostly a product of your “fixed knowledge”. (I just came up with that phrase – do you like it?)

    Even if Mr Lockwood Huie’s motivation was as you suggest, it isn’t relevant. What counts, both in the larger reality and here, is that the content is debated, not the author.

    After yesterday, it is clear you need to polish up your critical thinking skills a bit, which generally requires starting from a position of “let’s find out”, not “I already know”, to prevent exactly that kind of mistake.

    Finally, if he’s a two-note charlie, what would that make you? By and large, you have just the one riff and like to repeat it a lot, which would make you what, a desert punk rocker?

  • roger nowosielski

    “A desert punk rocker” is even better than “fixed knowledge.” This BC site surely hones ones language skills. It is like a writer’s retreat.

  • roger nowosielski

    “A voice in the wilderness” might make more of an impact because it’s biblical, but I like the modern version.

  • me

    Saying “conservative white males” are “huffy” just discounted any credibility you had about civil rights. You just literally took part in the kind of generalization you are supposed to be speaking out against.


    You are no activist for civil rights with that attitude, you are an active carrier of the flame of racism. Blaming racism on “right wing politics” is politicising a problem in a way that makes no sense. There is currently a heavy, government backed move towards oppressing christians and people who might believe in free market politics and civil liberties. If you are going to be a champion of civil liberties, stop making exceptions about whose liberties you’re going to stand up for based on your belief that “huffiness” is involved.

    Most young men getting denied college educations or jobs because of racial quotas have never committed a racist act in their life.

    Collectivism is the new home for racists who want to “coddle” “perceived minorities” because, hell, they couldn’t do it themselves without your help, right?

    Wrong. Collectivism is as ugly as racism. Welfarism is institutionalized racism. The war on drugs is racism. Homeland security is racism, and the very “right wingers” you blame are their new target.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Roger, I really do appreciate your attempt to lighten things up here. Everyone is entitled to their point of view on everything, including holding an opinion of me personally. However, I draw the line at slander. Ruvy’s often repeated accusation that I am receiving financial compensation to write posts supporting President Obama is slander, as well as obviously being false.

  • roger nowosielski

    All generalizations carry the seed of stereotyping.

  • and

    Marriage is not a rightful front line of the civil liberties movement. Marriage shouldn’t even be regulated by the state its a religious institution.

    Seperation of church and state.

    The rightful front line of civil liberties is the bill of rights, which are violated left and right.

    Right now most of the encroachment on the bill of rights is happening under Obama’s administration who is working hard against the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments as we speak.

    Yes, arabs have a rough shake after 911, but also religion is under attack generally, and young white males who have been racially responsible and color blind all their 20 or 30 years on earth are direct victims of discrimination in pursuit of jobs and college educations. Current statistics show they will soon be a minority too. Where is the line? When are we gonna drop the “white guilt” racist argument and decide that government having race-based legislation of any kind is racist, even when it is designed to help a perceived “minority group”

    Especially when u look at what vague terms are used to describe “white” in america, a grossly broad group of different ethnic groups which make up cultural origins as broad as the northern middle east all the way to the north pole.

    Some of these groups are american victim groups as well… irish, italian americans, jews, all had hazing periods when they mass immigrated into the country. Many were even slaves.

    I’m not advocating that they need race specific advocation, I’m just arguing we need to drop the victim culture and quit worrying about it. During a perceived international conflict it is natural that the group being propagandized against in preperation for war will become a persona non grata in the country you are in… is it more important to accuse the people who feel for the propaganda after the fact?~ or is it more useful to weaken government power so that it can’t push for these unconstitutional wars in the first place.

    Are you concerned about janet napolitanos new DHS report targetting christians, pro life activists, libertarians and veterans as domestic terrorists? This was handed out to law enforcement as policy, so u can expect police to start acting on it shortly.

    If an official government executive command to profile a group doesn’t count as “significant” to you, then you should reevaluate where these trends are headed.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    “me”- I’m not against ANY group. Reread Doug’s comments, and see if you don’t think they’re “huffy.”

    What would ever lead you to think that I supported “racial quotas?” I’m completely against them. Equal opportunity applies to everyone, in all issues.

    Would you like to identify what you refer to as, “government backed move towards oppressing christians?” I would be happy to discuss your issue if you would identify it.

  • Clavos

    Jonathan @#41,

    Contrary to what you may think, you don’t “own” this thread, which means that anyone can post anything on it, as long as their comments stay within the limits set by the Comments Policy.

  • roger nowosielski


    My take on your articles is that you’re writing “inspirational” pieces. Ruvy mustn’t see them as such; but then again, he’s on the receiving end of much hatred from the very people whose rights and liberties you defend (so I cannot judge him). Finding some humor in these exchanges might be one way of diffusing this feud.

  • the attack on christianity

    Is explained in the DHS report by janet napolitano. Its also an attack on free market politics and people who defend true bill of rights style civil liberties(libertarians)

    I have provided my example, now respond to it.

    Considering we have now an executive edict, handed down TODAY to all law enforcement, calling a broad group which would include pretty much every monotheistic religious american political activist, or free market political activist a domestic terrorist, which there is precedent for suspension of habeas corpus, torture, and other special emergency power abuse.

    I would agree muslims had a rough time under bush, but bush is gone and the executive crosshairs are now on people of religion in general, and political activists who oppose the Saul Alinsky, trotskyite policies of the current administration. Don’t be a fairweather freedom fighter, upgrade your servers to the liberty battle of 2009; the battle to defend the liberties of americans who love the real constitution, not the living, breathing one.

  • hate crimes legislation also

    Are direct acts of discrimination against religious expression of the first amendment.

    If you call something a “hate crime” because of idealogical motivation to commit a crime, u are making some thoughts illegal. Thoughts should not be illegal.

    First amendment protects unpopular speech. We draw the line at theft or violent crime and those crimes know no idealogy; it shouldn’t be more or less wrong to commit a crime of equal consideration based on thoughts you might have thought.

    And christians who want to speak out against abortion or whatever issue matters to them should not be a target of “hate crime legislation”, same if they are speaking out against homosexuality.

    You have a right to ignore them and keep walking. You DON’T have a right to shut them up by force.

    The solution to racism, religionism, and creedism, is ignoring the moron spewing it.

    But, even speaking out against racists or generalizing or legislating against racism is in itself creedism.

    The problem we have in america isn’t racism, racism is pretty much fringe stuff… the problem is our executive branch is so powerful that if a small group gets ahold of the administration with racist or creedist values, watch out. Under bush muslims got a raw deal, but under the secular humanist obama administration, the pendulum will swing against any “traditional” american groups. You will see creedism against religious activists, anti abortion activists, pro family activists. If you can’t see it happening, u simply don’t understand civil liberties and that minorities aren’t necessarily race based.

  • roger nowosielski

    “But, even speaking out against racists or generalizing or legislating against racism is in itself creedism.

    Not necessarily. One can do that on moral grounds. It’s not the same.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    “and”- Wow! You sure cover a lot of ground. Your comment contains enough great topics for a number of posts.

    I SO agree with your statement, “Marriage shouldn’t even be regulated by the state. It’s a religious institution.” The government has no business in anyone’s bedroom. The issue is complicated by the government’s valid interest in the well being of all children, but that is the only possible rationale I can imagine for the government to have an interest in the “institution” of marriage. Live with who you want, and get your union (or whatever you want to call it) blessed by whoever you want, or don’t – that’s my opinion.

    Please be specific about your statement that Obama is “working hard against the Bill of Rights?”

    As I stated in an earlier comment, don’t tag ME about quotas. Quota’s are discriminatory.

    And don’t tag me or tag President Obama about “unconstitutional wars.” Bush’s invasion of Iraq was an insanity and an embarrassment upon the American people.

    I’m concerned about ANY discrimination or group profiling.

    For others who are following these comments, let me quote the Washington Post article about the DHS report you mention:

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano responded yesterday to widespread criticism of a leaked domestic intelligence report warning local law enforcement agencies to be on guard for right-wing extremist groups seeking new recruits amid the nation’s economic troubles.

    “Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States,” Napolitano said in a written statement issued by her department. “We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.”

    As I view it, the DHS’s job is to balance protecting our citizens against violence from all criminals on the one hand, and ensuring that no groups are subject to generalized profiling, on the other hand. It’s a difficult challenge, and they are always going to be criticized both for being too aggressive and for being too lax. If your point is that all people and all groups should be treated equally, then I strongly agree. However, if you are proposing that all Muslims are a security threat, and that no other individuals could possibly pose a threat, then I disagree.

    Thanks again for your range of topics.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Clavos @#52 I don’t in any way believe that I “own” the thread, and I apologize to you if it appeared that I was attempting to. I understand that you are the final arbiter of what constitutes a personal attack or slander.

  • Cindy

    When are we gonna drop the “white guilt”…

    I think that’s a good idea. But, it’s hard to imagince ‘color-blindness’ (pretending everyone is equal and is therefore treated equally, whether they are or not) will work very well. But I think ‘guilt’ sort of puts one above those who are the ‘victims’–they are the injured and it’s up to us to fix things for them. Sort of makes a division between people I think.

    Maybe if instead we join with the oppressed, their oppression might come to be our oppression.

    I like this wonderful quote about this idea:

    If you have come to help me, please go home. But if you have come because your liberation is somehow bound with mine, then we may work together.*

    *from Bryan McKay’s great article Thoughts on Global Feminism and Sexual Inequality)

  • roger nowosielski

    Clavos is not a comment editor. But he is arbiter elegantiarum.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Roger #53 Thank you for your observation that my commitment is to providing inspiration – that is exactly the motivation for my writings.

  • Clavos

    I understand that you are the final arbiter of what constitutes a personal attack or slander.

    Actually, I’m not, Jonathan. That unenviable and onerous task falls on Christopher Rose and Dr. Dreadful.

    No need for an apology; my intent was simply to point out to you that anything pretty much goes on these threads (within the above-mentioned Comments Policy guidelines). Your #41 to Ruvy gave that impression (a mistake into which other writers have fallen), but I understand your point. Consider the question moot.

  • obama deserves the criticism about unconstitutional war

    How does he not? Troop surge in pakistan, not pulling out of iraq, unmanned drones bombing pakistan under his direction? Obama has a war policy which is as bad if not worse than that of Bush. Obama deserves credit where credit is due as a warmonger.

    DHS has NO rightful responsibility at all. It is a Nazi-like scheme to criminalize political dissent. There is no reason to have a federal authority who monitors or polices anti-government resistance no matter what form it takes. An act of terrorism always requires committing a crime such as violence against persons or property which has already been codified into law in the past. For the criminal act to have a political motivation holds no additional jurisdiction or legal claim.

    Obama has taken stances in favor of “fairness doctrine” which violates the first, assault weapons bans which violate the second, he has decided to continue the NSA wiretapping and spying programs which violate the fourth. These are legitimate encroachments on civil liberties.

    While he chose to close gitmo,the bagram facility carries out the same tactics and does not allow for habeas corpus or a jury trial in front of peers.

    Obama has used warlike language against iran, supports military intervention in Darfur at least rhetorically. Policeman of the world or peacekeeping missions are not a constitutionally authorized use of military force.

    Under obama US military have been used as law enforcement on US soil, they have participated in checkpoints, occupation training exercises and other disgusting empirial activities.

    We are currently violating the will of the afghan, pakistani, and iraqi people to self determine.

    We give foreign aid to military dictators around the world. Obama has nationalized private companies, fired CEOs, printed trillions of dollars and handed them directly to bankers who defrauded investors.

    He has appointed a record number of “czars” which have no accountability to congress citing executive privelege. He has supported sovereign immunity.

    He voted to fund bush’ iraq war and continued it under his presidency he has decided to revive the old vietnam era tactic of calling troops deployed there “advisors” and supports leaving 50k troops there in an “advisory role” indefinately and having a base there bigger than the vatican.

  • regarding janet napolitanos statement

    Here you are apologizing for a violation of civil liberties. You are toeing the same line that Bush toed against arabs. She is distributing this report to DHS who now through fusion centers will be issuing this report to state and local law enforcement. This type of report will be used for profiling

    You and I both know that edicts such as this are used for profiling purposes, what other use would it have? If a law enforcement agent is told to “watch out” for people of certain views who have not yet committed a crime, what lawful authority do they have to “watch out” for these people. Without probable cause of a crime in progress or having been committed the law enforcement of this nation has no constitutionally legal right to watch anything. Crimes have historically been committed by every race, class, religion, and creed. There is no evidence to suggest an epidemic of violence by the groups suggested in the report, or a lack of violence by groups not suggested in the report.

    For a profiling report to detail that certain political groups to tend towards violence to be seen as anything other than politically profiling opposition flies in the face of any logic. Do you think authoritarian regimes typically do what they do blatantly or under the color of law.

    Do you think that administrations in the past outright siezed people with no authority or did they slowly gain the power to oppress through little memos and edicts apologized for by, in this case, people like you.

    How could a report full of political profiling be anything but political profiling. Please explain how a report profiling certain political interest groups and their theoretic(and unfounded) possibility for an unusual tendency to violence is not political profiling and is a just and careful defense of civil liberties

  • roger nowosielski

    Why don’t you write an article? These comments are just too lengthy to respond to because you’re offering nothing less than a thesis. Too many points all at once.

    Contact the editor on top.

  • and for the record

    The backlash you are receiving for ur piece comes from your specific defense of certain ethnic, sexual, and creed groups and the ommission of others. There are currently a massive amount of civil liberties violations which directly persecute caucasian americans, males, christians, and other groups as well. If you are fighting for freedoms, fight for them in the bill of rights, not due to collectivism group-association.

    The backlash and criticism you are receiving is the natural backlash the American people are growing to have against collectivism. Its annoying and no longer current or relevant. Collectivist civil rights defense works as a pendulum, not a stable foundation.. It swung hard one way for a time, now its swinging back.

    Arabs are in the crosshairs but decreasingly so. We are sitting here in a day in america where a head of “deparment of homeland security” issued a report to watch out for “extremist” political idealogies by our own citizens, in a vast array of views that might encompass on some level a huge broad spectrum of citizens.

    If you’ve really been studying DHS and arabs you would know that its very easy to get on watch lists and no fly lists unfairly, and very difficult to get off of them. That is what makes these reports terribly dangerous. If you’re gonna stand up for collective liberty, then man up and stand for individual liberty first, the only truly moral liberty.

    Classical liberalism is not about pandering to special groups, its about rights that precede the government, and limitations on the government carried out by a defense of rights by the people

  • roger nowosielski

    I’m telling you you’re going to be ignored by covering this much ground. Personally, I don’t fancy to be reading page after page of rebuttals to a one page article. And I’m certain others don’t either. Unless you’re doing that to hear yourself speak, you’re wasting your breath. I don’t have the patience to listen to any tirade, however well meant or articulated. Write an article, and try to focus, or your comments will fall on deaf ears.

  • Jet

    Roger, after all what else can just one man do?

  • roger nowosielski

    I’m not certain how you mean it, Jet? The reference?

  • Jet

    Oh just a stab in the dark at an old arch nemisis who is due to make an appearance soon, if he hasn’t already.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    #55: You make some great points. Labeling a violent act a “hate crime” is a little like quotas. It’s a backlash. Murder, or assault or whatever, is and should be a crime punishable by years in prison. But, whether you kill someone because of their race, because they yelled insults at you, or because you wanted their money, it’s still murder – just old fashioned ugly brutal illegal murder.

    Certainly free speech on all subjects should be protected. Certainly no physical violence should be protected. The gray area is “inciting to violence.” I don’t consider it protected speech to say either, “The infidel should be killed,” or “Doctors who practice abortion should be killed.” Both those statements are “inciting to violence,” and should not be considered protected speech.

    I love your statement, “The solution to racism, religionism, and creedism, is ignoring the moron spewing it,” up to a point. As before, the point is reached when there is physical violence or threats of physical violence.

    I find much truth in Robert A. Heinlein’s quote, “Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power.” That observation, appropriately, cuts in all directions.

  • roger nowosielski

    No, he hasn’t, so he’s certainly due. But I don’t care to be responding to these anonymous commenters, especially when they throw the whole dissertation at you.

    So I’m just killing time, being half-serious and half-jocular, while polishing up my next piece.

    Don’t you get in the mood, sometimes, when what people say is only barely relevant – and your own responses, therefore, barely rise to the level of just going through the motions?

    Well, that’s my mood at the moment.

  • Jet

    Mr. Huie, constantly referring to obscure and lengthy book passages and quotes doesn’t make you appear educated and learned… it just makes you boring to the point of ignorance.

    … and you can quote me on that.

  • roger nowosielski

    You’re being rather harsh, Jet, I think (especially if you’re referring to #71. I don’t think it’s going overboard.

    I don’t know about other instances.

  • Jet

    Oh, well, if you didn’t want me to watch your back anymore, you should’ve said so… ta ta

  • roger nowosielski

    I’m quite OK here. The crisis I was referring to earlier is over.

    And as I said, most of the things I say today is in half-jest. I din’t mean to hurt your feelings, though. You do know that.

  • Jet

    Careful, next they’ll be telling us to get a room

  • roger nowosielski

    I’ve been through that before, with Cindy. I think it kind of shook her up when off-the-cuff remarks kept on coming.

    I was rather amused, but I did entertain the possibility.

  • Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    #63: This is so ironic. You are tagging President Obama for not moving faster and more assertively to reverse eight years of Bush. Look at how much he has changed, and how quickly. He reversed the Bush torture directives in two days. The rest takes longer.

    Another point is the trade off between bipartisanship and pushing his agenda to the limit. Consider his choosing not to prosecute those who performed the torture. A very difficult decision. While you may wish Obama went further faster, just remember how much better off we are today than under Bush.

    Same with regard to banks and big business. My guess is that Obama would love to nationalize the banks and take the unearned executive bonuses away as much as I would, but that wouldn’t help the economy in the short term. and would meet with huge resistance. Expediency has to be his priority for now.

    Same with the Iraq war. Remember that Obama didn’t attack Iraq, Bush did. Would I LOVE to pull every US soldier out of the whole Middle East tomorrow – you bet I would. But fortunately, Obama has a cooler head than I do, and he understands the havoc that an instantaneous pullout would have.

  • Baronius

    Comparatively speaking, the lack of street violence and racial/cultural attacks following 9/11 was unprecedented. People always respond with irrational violence under such conditions, but from the top down Americans rallied around each other and followed the better angels of our nature. Of all the distortions caused by fuzzy memory, the idea that we have something to be ashamed of in our response to 9/11 is the most unjust.

  • Clavos

    …just remember how much better off we are today than under Bush.


    The jury’s still out on that one; in fact, given the state of the economy, we’re far worse off today.

  • roger nowosielski

    Was the reference to economic conditions or the moral tone of the nation?

  • Cindy

    Baronius, did you ever see the reply I left? Also, I put my blog site in the URL for my e-mail, but you’d have to register to get it. So, I put a different one in this URL. (In case you would be good enough to tell me how it goes. Or if you have any more questions but don’t want to go off topic.)

  • Baronius

    Cindy – Yup. Thanks.

  • STM

    I’ve been a bastard all me life

  • STM

    A complete bastard, too.

  • Ruvy


    Ruvy’s often repeated accusation that I am receiving financial compensation to write posts supporting President Obama is slander, as well as obviously being false.



    Have a good week, Jonathan.

  • STM

    Ruve: “legally you cannot be referred to as a bastard in the United States”.

    Shit mate, that’d never work here. Everyone’s regularly referred to as a bastard down this neck of the woods.

    Even the widely used term Pommy bastard is a term of endearment.

    If you get called an old bastard, for instance, in Australia, as in the greeting: “How’re going you old bastard”, that actually means someone likes you.

    I don’t expect Americans to understand, although our Pom brethren will.

    Consider yourselves educated, now, though.

    Next time I call someone a bastard on here, remember: don’t take offence!

  • roger nowosielski


    by saying that, you’re foreclosing the possibility of any future discourse.

  • Ruvy


    Shit mate, that’d never work here. Everyone’s regularly referred to as a bastard down this neck of the woods.

    I realize that a third of the hits on this site come from Australia, and we must keep ‘Strine in mind – but this is not about Oz. Bastardy used to be a serious impediment legally in the States, though that has changed also.

    Barely anyone ever uses the term bastard to describe children born out of wedlock in the States anymore. Statistically, America is much like Seychelles these days, in that respect.

  • zingzing

    roger, you haven’t been here long enough. ruvy and i will do whatever the hell we please, whether it be here, where he’s a raving, psychopathic, murderous, religious lunatic with a hard-on for a made-up nation in a desert and i’m a lefty-loon with a penchant for being an ass and knocking him for no other reason than i disagree with his politics,


    we’ll talk about minnesota and brooklyn and be all chummy.

    still, he’s a prick, and i think he knows it. it’s self-reflexive as well.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, if you’re going to get all offended whenever someone “attacks” your country, you should try being an american. or hell, you should look at yourself as you “attack” america.

    just because you’re on the receiving end doesn’t mean you’re suddenly a victim. hrm. that’s not the term i wanted to use.

    get over it.

    that’s what i mean.

    little puss-puss.

  • roger nowosielski

    Good to know, zing. As long as lines of communications are not foreclosed. That was my only concern. Because however I much disagree with some of what he says, I still respect him.

  • zingzing

    we’ll bicker and fight until the second coming, no worries.

  • roger nowosielski

    OK then. I just haven’t reached that level with Ruvy yet. But I’m certain he’s man enough to handle it. Thus far, I’ve been threading cautiously.

  • Dr Dreadful

    To the author of comments # 47, 50, 54, 55, 63, 64 and 66:

    Should you return to this discussion, please note that the little box marked ‘Name:’ is NOT marked ‘Subject:’. We prefer it at this site if you stick to one screen name. (It doesn’t have to be your real one.) Constantly changing it is distracting for the rest of us and really isn’t good manners.

    Dr Dreadful
    Assistant Comments Editor

  • roger nowosielski

    Thank you. This reprimand is overdue.

    There was a similar occurrence, BTW, on another thread, also one of Mr. Huie’s articles. The writer kept on getting into dissertations rather than challenging one point at a time.