The false flag operations by progressives to make Republican candidates (and the Tea Party, of course) appear racist got old a long time ago, but at least now it is obvious, stupid and amusing.
Above are two operatives posing as KKK members at a Trump rally earlier this week. I suppose they might not be Democrats. Ted Cruz might have sent them.
False flag operations are dirty politics, dishonest, unfair, and thus unethical. Funny, though, when done this incompetently, as the highlighting in the photo above shows. I guess its possible that these are real black KKK members, but somehow I doubt it.
Of course, we’ve seen this before:
Ethics Alarms 
Ha ha ha, nice catch/segue! Chuckle o’ the day.
I may never laugh again.
As clumsily done as it is, it’s still a false argument.
Even if the KKK supports a particular piece of legislation, that doesn’t automatically ensure that particular piece of legislation is actually bad.
Let’s pretend for a moment that “the wall” is a good idea, that it garners support of bad people doesn’t undermine the reasons it is a good idea.
“I suppose they might not be Democrats.”
Given the general composition of the KKK through the years, from its founding by anti-reconstructionists, it’s a better bet to assume KKK members are democrats.
True for about a hundred years but I think most segregationists hopped on over to the Republican party sometime after the Civil Rights Act.
That’s actually an inaccurate narrative. Pretty sure I’ve read where pretty much all the racist Democrats who jumped ship pretty much all migrated back the Democrat party over time.
Really? KKK people are registered as Democrats in the Deep South?
Lester Maddox? George Wallace?
What does registration have to do with this?
The Southern Strategy and Race based Party Realignment is a myth. Voting patterns in the south were gradually changing since the mid 1920s. Though electoral results were still solidly Democrat through the South, the trends were Purple-ing everywhere in the South. See, the Democrat Party, like the Republican party was a loose coalition, the Democrats had solidly relied on racial issues and racism to lock the Southern White vote, but by the 60s when the so-called “racism based realignment” occured, race was a rapidly diminishing issue. One reason the CRA passed – it had support from both parties…because race was becoming a thing of the past.
When the “realignment” finalized…that is to say, the trends that began in the mid-20s finally tipped the South…most of the old school Democrats who could rely on drumming up some racist support, did switch parties. But not because of race. Because of other values, that the new political coalitions forming around. Those who switched parties, did so out of self-preservative pragmatism…a pragmatism that also led to the realization that racism based policy was a thing of the past…and that party switch was generally, and ultimate accompanied by a dropping of racist rhetoric, if not sentiment, as a general rule. What is often ignored in the “racist party realignment” myth, is that plenty of Democrat party members stayed Democrat and ALSO dropped the racist rhetoric.
It’s about this time you also saw the Klan as an actual well-organized machine begin its disintegration into what we see now: pockets of yokels with little influence and no coordination. Resulting in a generally apolitical attitude or an attitude that you’d find a cross-section of political beliefs. That is to say: I’d bet there’s just as many self-styled Klansmen who are loyal democrats as there are republicans…and many more that quit caring about politics altogether.
The real story of the “southern realignment” is far more nuanced that national level electoral results, and is a much more intricate story of a mix of ideologies and values leading to complex coalition building — which change over time.
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/misunderstanding_the_southern_realignment_107084.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/07/landrieu-and-the-myth-of-the-southern-realignment/
The truth is, the “race realignment myth” is perpetuated by Leftists because racism issues do not divide the parties anymore, but the Left desperately needs to push that narrative, in what ought to be a futile attempt to pose as great crusaders on behalf of the oppressed. It obviously isn’t futile, as they’ve managed to divide the nation hazardously on many lines in their objective to pit the nation against itself in order to be the “saviors”.
Oh, I agree. All the stories about white supremacy organizations endorsing Trump, and a lot of morons too, is classic guilt by association sliming, and the press should, but won’t, be ashamed of its hypocrisy. They were aghast that anyone would try to hold Obama’s close ties to Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers against him, but David Dukes, who as far as we know has never even met Trump and who is a complete irrelevancy, has had his kind words about Trump publicized far and wide.
David Duke has endorsed Trump.
But so what? What if he endorsed Bernie—so what? What does it prove? What if the Ayatollah endorses Hillary—should that mean anything? China’s upset that Trump is doing well—is that good, or bad, or fake? Al Sharpton says he’ll leave the country if Trump is elected—should we allow endorsements and negative statements affect our judgment? Dick Van Dyke endorsed Bernie, and I love Dick, but really, who cares who he supports?
Dang it; you beat me to it again!
You don’t care. I don’t care. Dummies care.
Update: Clark County Public Schools Police, which did not make any arrests, told KVVU-5 on Wednesday that both individuals were white. The police said one of the men was wearing black gloves, but did not provide the Fox affiliate with additional details.
Not that it matters either way. I think Tex is correct in his analysis, though of course if the KKK supports something I support, I would normally go back and reanalyze just to make sure I’m not missing something.
Black gloves? What? You mean they went to a costume shop and asked for some gloves that would make their hands look just like black guys’ hands and the clerk said “what size, sir?” Those are the most human looking gloves I’ve ever seen.
Time to take the gloves off!
Bizarre. Do those look like gloves to you? Why would they be wearing black gloves? How do we know they weren’t wearing gloves because they were black?
If they were wearing black gloves to imitate Cleavon Little/Sheriff Bart, my hood’s off to them.
I’m guessing the police made them take off their hoods to talk to them. Other than that, I have no clue. The area around the eyes doesn’t look as dark as the hands, so maybe its true. I don’t see what motive the police would have to lie in this particular instance.
Cameras in funky lighting conditions uploading images to computers that can also create funky coloring at times can do this, do we all recall the ridiculous blue dress/ black dress controversy that nearly erupted in civil war?
I’d suggest there is enough doubt to wonder whether or not the “KKK” protesters were white or black, for sure. But I have little doubt that it was false flag all the way.
Other alleged images I’ve found can skew both ways on color…
I also don’t see what business the police had investigating or pulling off their hoods, do you?
I think if the police were called to the scene because of the KKK, which it seems they were, they should at the very least talk to the individuals involved. So I have no problem with a very cursory “investigation.” Theca police can then ask those individuals to pull up their hoods as they were talking to them. I do not think the police should be forcibly pulling off the hoods absent any other suspicious activity, but there is no allegation of that happening here.
See, I don’t think that’s legal or ethical. The KKK isn’t outlawed, and the costume is protected speech. This is harassment and chilling of free expression. Because the Klan is unpopular, and justly so, nobody cares, but police shouldn’t do that. It’s no different than harassing citizens in Muslim garb.
If you believe that stop and frisk is ok, then this is ok, as this seems even less intrusive than stop and frisk. The police didn’t arrest anyone, and it seems as if they were called to the scene. So they go up to the source of the call, chat with them briefly to make sure they were indeed, not threatening anyone, and after that they leave them alone.
I think it would be sloppy police work indeed if they were to get a call about two masked men standing outside of the caucuses, making people feel threatened, and not at least do some cursory work to make sure the KKK were not engaging in voter intimidation or something else illegal. After that, the police left them alone. As well they should have, absent observing any other illegal actions.
Stop and Frisk law requires “reasonable suspicion” last I checked. Garb alone does not justify suspicion, any more than race or religion. it’s just a different kind of profiling. Masks are also legal.
Hmmm, so going by this logic, if a man, all garbed out in black, with body armor, a mask, and a legal semi-automatic, pacing back and forth, in an open carry state, causes a bit of a stir in the mall he is standing out in front of, and the police are called, the police have no business even talking to him, because what he is doing is perfectly legal, and they are engaging in profiling?
I think the call to the police is reason enough to at least talk with the KKK members, find out what they are doing, and if nothing, as in this case, the police should move along, as apparently they did. This does not even rise to the level of a Terry stop, just the police taking the lay of the land.
That’s so silly it doesn’t warrant a serious response.
Its illegal to wear a mask in Virginia , and if someone dressed as the KKK or the real KKK showed up at an event in Virginia they would be arrested.
Bill’s right:
18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearingany mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face ishidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be orappear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealthwithout first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to doso in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply topersons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged inprofessions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protectivemasks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer orother persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production ormasquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fidemedical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath andcarrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopathspecifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on whichthe wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a briefdescription of the device. The violation of any provisions of this sectionshall constitute a Class 6 felony.
I a) wonder when that law last was enforced, and b) if it would stand Constitutional scrutiny
In other states that have similar laws, results have differed.
” In 1990, the Georgia Supreme Court in State v. Miller, 260 Ga. 669, 674, 398 S.E.2d 547, 552 (1990) upheld the statute against a First Amendment challenge by Shade Miller, who was arrested for appearing in KKK regalia alone near the courthouse in Gwinnet County, purportedly to protest the anti-mask statute itself. In addressing Miller’s argument that the statute was overbroad, the court interpreted the statute narrowly, but not so narrowly as to exclude the KKK. Instead, the court required the mask-wearer to have intent to conceal his identity and further that the statute would “apply only to mask-wearing conduct when the mask-wearer knows or reasonably should know that the conduct provokes a reasonable apprehension of intimidation, threats or violence.”
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2015/07/anti-masking-laws-the-ku-klux-klan-and-the-first-amendment.html
I’m sure I could drag up some posts or comments on here about hoodies and how people justifiably feel scared when they can’t see other people’s faces.
Beth,
What were you really trying to say?
Come on Beth, stop beating around the bush, out with it?
Not from me, you couldn’t. though if they look like this…
…I’m running.
Really?
Don’t even start.
Not one argument was made by anyone rational that Zimmerman was scared of trayvon because of a hoodie…
No one rational, just the Congressional Black Caucus.
Wait is that a sarcastic rebuttal or just sarcasm.
Neither. The CBC isn’t rational, and had members appearing on the Floor of the House in hoodies. Don’t you remember?
“It’s not wrong. In an area where you are unknown, don’t dress in ways that evoke fear and distrust. You have a right to dress in a slouch hat, a black mask, black pants, horizontal striped jersey, and carrying a satchel, but people might think you’re burglar. Unfair? If I try to get on a plane wearing my “Jihad! Death to the infidels!” T-shirt, is it unfair that the passengers get nervous? On TV, kids in hoodies are shown robbing people. On Criminal Minds, a gang in hoodies went around randomly shooting people. You have a right to make strangers feel uncomfortable, but it’s a stupid thing to do, and they have a right to act according to what their experience tells them is threatening.”
In general, go back and read the comments to the July 15. 2013 post on the topic. And this is just an example.
Well, I just spent 20 futile minutes trying to find either the comment or its context, but never mind: I’ll stand by that comment, but I never said nor believed that simply covering one’s face gives an inherent reason for someone to be in fear of you. I did say that if you dress in ways you know might scare people, you can’t complain if they are scared. That’s still true.
“You have a right to make strangers feel uncomfortable, but it’s a stupid thing to do, and they have a right to act according to what their experience tells them is threatening.”
Correct.
I believe I was saying that it’s not wrong for someone to be uncomfortable according to what someone wears. That does not imply that they have a reason to arrest someone because they wore a hoodie. I did apparently point out why some people are made nervous by hoodies (the killers in the CM episode were white, by the way.)
If your point is that my off the cuff comments in different issues separated by three years may have some inconsistencies, I confess. Congratulations.
This wasn’t meant to be a “Beth is always right, I told you so,” comment. I just recalled some comments in question (not just by you) and looked them up. There were others.
FYI — I found the post in question by typing “hoodie martin” in your search query. There were lots of hits (I don’t know if they are on point or not), but I scrolled back to July 2013 to this particular one.
You should probably reassess most (if not all) of your left wing positions then… From gun control to massive economic interference by the government, given the countless monsters through history who have not just supported but enacted those types of laws….
Always interesting when life imitates art. Particularly Mel Brooks’s art.
Well since Trump rallies consist of a clown (Trump) spewing forth his dog whistles (the equivalent of Harpo Marx’s horn) at the throngs of willingly ignorant sheep (Trump supporters), why not put something else in the crowd that shows just how utterly ridiculous this whole Trump phenomenon is.
Trump is manufactured from Liberal magical thinking*. Trump is literally a caricature of what the Liberals think Conservative ideology and values are all about not what real Conservative ideology or values are all about; that’s exactly why Liberals believe that Trump is a Conservative. Trump is Liberal magical thinking of Republicans presented to the world by a narcissist actor. Trump is the equivalent of all those Liberal political cartoons portraying Republicans with Liberal magical thinking, this KKK crowd infiltrator is no different than all the other crap we’ve seen from the Trump phenomenon – it’s all put forth to make a complete mockery of Republicans.
Trump’s values are everything real Conservatives are not. Trumps values are equivalent to a wing-nut Liberal/Progressive not a Conservative and there is nothing ideological about Trump. Trump is not a Conservative.
*Liberal magical thinking – Just because a Liberal thinks it, then it’s true.
Which still doesn’t explain why so many supposed conservatives are buying what he’s selling.
Frustration so severe that cognitive dissonance has elevated “outsider status” and “anti-political correctness” SO high, that the negative values of Trump’s historically leftist opinions and Trump’s incivility disappear completely from their radar.
(And stupidity)
Yes, this is akin to frustrated Baltimore residents rioting, burning and looting, and equally inexcusable. I’ve been on a site crawling with Trump zombies, as well as people challenging them. Their responses to criticism are as non substantive and disconnected as their candidate:
1. He says what he thinks!
2. He isn’t afraid to be called politically incorrect!
3. He’s winning!
4. He can beat Hillary!
5. If you don’t support him, you’re a progressive!
That’s it! That’s all they have. Nothing substantive can be dragged out of these idiots, and they don’t care. It’s like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”!
Meanwhile, the media’s remedy is to write pompous, slanted finger-pointing pieces, blaming whoever the pundit doesn’t like, as if that accomplishes anything. I’m going to find time to put together an “How To Educate Ignorant Trump Supporters Handbook.”
Two of my Usenet allies support Trump because they think he will demolish the Dome of the Rock.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.culture.israel/NaRdFwc_HEs/5qClEI0oD68J
What is the counter-argument?
In part, nobody’s going to destroy the dome of the Rock. It’s a granite dome, likely volcanic in origin and would still be there after a nuclear attack. The mosque sitting atop the dome was once a Christian chapel, but was reverted to a mosque after Jerusalem fell to Suliman, as it was before Jerusalem fell to the Christian Crusaders. The other part of the counter-argument is that Trump, even as President, would have no jurisdiction in Jerusalem, since it is Israeli territory.
It’s evident that at least the dog whistle part of Liberal magical thinking might in fact be somewhat true for Republicans too; this kind of dog whistle nonsense has worked for Liberals for many, many years, why wouldn’t it work to call out the idiot “Republican” dogs too? Like I’ve said in the past, Trump is using Liberal politicking tactics based on the value system of the extreme political left and he has put them all on high doses of crack cocaine.
You say that a lot. By any chance are you running the same software as RubioBot?
valkygrrl said, “You say that a lot. By any chance are you running the same software as RubioBot?”
Well now, from my point of view, that’s a misrepresentation of the facts presented in a way to smear.
FACT: 34% of what I wrote was a conceptual repetition not a verbatim repetition of what I’ve said in the past; however, 66% of what I wrote was completely new stuff, I have never said one word about the dog whistle concept – never, EVER!
Maybe you should revise your misrepresenting smear.
Good think they weren’t dumb enough to do this at a University. They’d be put on double secret probation at the very least!!
Maybe its Clayton Bigsby.