PDA

View Full Version : DHS employee runs website advocating race war



Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 02:17 PM
WTH? I sure am glad I was told black people CAN'T be racists...


A Department of Homeland Security manager in charge of buying weapons and ammunition for the government is, on the side, running an inflammatory website that throws around gay slurs and advocates the mass murder of "whites" and the "ethnic cleansing" of "Uncle Tom race traitors," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/22/dhs-employee-spends-spare-time-promoting-race-war-against-whites/?test=latestnews

Greg
08-23-2013, 02:23 PM
"The SPLC says Kimathi obtained official permission but did it by misrepresenting the true nature of his site.

'He told management that it was an entertainment website selling videos of concerts and lectures,' the report said. 'He called it simply WOH, never saying that WOH stood for War on the Horizon.'"


Glad to know USG runs very thorough background checks.

Rusty Jones
08-23-2013, 02:30 PM
What? Holy shit; we there are two and a half million federal government employees, and one of them is racist? Stop the fucking press!

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 02:43 PM
What? Holy shit; we there are two and a half million federal government employees, and one of them is racist? Stop the fucking press!

What a shocker...you aren't the least bit outraged about a black person running a website advocating mass murder based entirely on race... If it was a white person doing the exact same thing, you would be leading the charge....

Rusty Jones
08-23-2013, 03:09 PM
What a shocker...you aren't the least bit outraged about a black person running a website advocating mass murder based entirely on race...

The way this article was presented, it almost sounded as if it was a cabinet member appointed by the president - like he was the Secretary of Homeland Security himself. I could see that causing an uproar, but... he's just another federal employee. Out of the 2.5 million federal employees, do you think he's the only one posting stuff like this on the internet?


If it was a white person doing the exact same thing, you would be leading the charge....

Bullshit. You think there are no white federal employees posting on Stormfront, chimpout.com, or any other similar site you can think of? You think there are none making websites speaking of race wars and all that?

If he was an elected office holder, or someone appointed by the president or something like that; that's one thing. But some federal employee? Sure, he should lose his job - no one in their right mind would argue that.

But, they're trying to make this guy out to be more important than he actually is... probably so as to facilitate the readers connecting him to Obama, and ultimately making people think that Obama shares or condones these views.

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 04:36 PM
Bullshit. You think there are no white federal employees posting on Stormfront, chimpout.com, or any other similar site you can think of? You think there are none making websites speaking of race wars and all that?

But, they're trying to make this guy out to be more important than he actually is... probably so as to facilitate the readers connecting him to Obama, and ultimately making people think that Obama shares or condones these views.

I don't know what those websites are so...I can't say one way or another. I could care less if they are making a website "speaking of race wars and all that". What I WOULD have a problem is if they were creating websites ADVOCATING a race war. How exactly does the article MAKE people think Obama shares or condones these views? It states that the dude lied on his off-duty employment application.

Using your "logic" it should be just as acceptable for military members to start their own hate groups...

BTW, he also wants to massacre blacks as well so...

I am a bit surprised that DHS still has his email address on their website though....

sandsjames
08-23-2013, 04:44 PM
What? Holy shit; we there are two and a half million federal government employees, and one of them is racist? Stop the fucking press!

You do remember the whole Chick-fil-a debacle, right?

CYBERFX1024
08-23-2013, 05:20 PM
So, you think it's just fine for restaurants to not serve black people? Landlords to not rent to Jewish people?

I am not racist by any means at all. I am a landlord and the last time I was trying to find a renter, I had prospective renters come up to wanting to know more about my house, but the first thing that come out of their mouth was "Do you take Section 8?". I promptly told them no I don't take section 8 and they left in there new Dodge Pickup. I am not being discriminatory but I have had fellow landlords who are friends of mine who have told me horror stories of renters that are on section 8.

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 05:36 PM
Good thing people who think like you will never be in positions of power or, at least, be able to implement those ideas. Your ideas always be just that - ideas. Ideas that will never become reality.

DAMN YOU RUSTY JONES!!!!.... Making a reasonable statement that I completely agree with....:lalala

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 05:43 PM
Agree or not... bottom line is you can't force people to provide services and products to a customer they don't want to.

You sure as hell can. The other option is to stop providing said services and products to any customers at all or do it illegally.

TSgt"M"
08-23-2013, 06:11 PM
I'm a landlord also. My rental is right next door to me. One of the biggest reasons I bought it was to control who my neighbor is. In my corner of backwoods MI we have a considerable meth problem, mostly hillbilly white trash. I won't be having any of that shit living next to me.

AJBIGJ
08-23-2013, 06:19 PM
Kind of a moot point all of this hubbub about is it "legal" to racially discriminate after the 60's, but it does make for an interesting conversation topic. Going to the whole little Oprah Winfrey ordeal does it make sense that a Tiffany's establishment can racially profile someone? I'm on the fence on the issue. To me, obviously morally it doesn't add up for private establishments to be racially discriminatory towards their consumers (and in most cases in general bad for business). However, I am a decided non-advocate towards the government imposing moral restrictions on activities that are not of a specifically-defined as criminal in nature also. Racial profiling especially is a touchy issue. If a landlord turned away a potential customer who happened to be black because they dressed like a street thug, with a questionable personal background that maybe involved questionable financial management or minor misdemeanor charges, is it within their rights to do so? Morally? Legally? I love this type of discussion, it really digs into the issue and allows a person to really think about what actual racism entails and to specifically define (for themselves) those gray areas.

AJBIGJ
08-23-2013, 06:45 PM
It's not the government's job to fix every perceived injustice. That's how it comes to the point that millions of Christians are being persecuted for "discriminating" on a tiny minority of deviants for "sexual orientation".

That's going a tad overboard. You really should make the distinction between "society" and "government" when making such claims. All the government has done so far is repeal 50% of the DOMA, in fact what is arguably the unconstitutional part. If the government was the major actor here we'd be seeing something along the scale of the activities which you would see Rome doing in the Book of Acts. Society, I'll agree, to a very large extent, seems to be of the perception that being "uncomfortable with the definition of marriage as being anything other than that between a man and a woman" as also making them bigoted. That to me is a stretch. Using government as the imposing arm to strong-arm that philosophy down our throats to me that is problematic also. People really should learn to separate the collective paradigms of societal group-think from the actual laws being passed by our Federal, State, and Local governments. To group the two as synonymous as your typical news media personality might is a very narrow-minded viewpoint to have.

CYBERFX1024
08-23-2013, 06:48 PM
Section 8 is not a race, so choosing not to accept Section 8 does not make you a racist.

Well in this day and age someone can take it as a insult and call me racist. Yes, the people were black.

CYBERFX1024
08-23-2013, 06:51 PM
Kind of a moot point all of this hubbub about is it "legal" to racially discriminate after the 60's, but it does make for an interesting conversation topic. Going to the whole little Oprah Winfrey ordeal does it make sense that a Tiffany's establishment can racially profile someone? I'm on the fence on the issue. To me, obviously morally it doesn't add up for private establishments to be racially discriminatory towards their consumers (and in most cases in general bad for business). However, I am a decided non-advocate towards the government imposing moral restrictions on activities that are not of a specifically-defined as criminal in nature also. Racial profiling especially is a touchy issue. If a landlord turned away a potential customer who happened to be black because they dressed like a street thug, with a questionable personal background that maybe involved questionable financial management or minor misdemeanor charges, is it within their rights to do so? Morally? Legally? I love this type of discussion, it really digs into the issue and allows a person to really think about what actual racism entails and to specifically define (for themselves) those gray areas.

Good job. I really liked what you wrote because it helps further the discussion.
But from a landlord perspective you are looking for people that will be good tenants and not tear up the house. That has happened to my parents when they were landlords as well. Some people get absolutely pissed and want to tear up everything in the house just for sh&ts and giggles.

AJBIGJ
08-23-2013, 07:23 PM
Good job. I really liked what you wrote because it helps further the discussion.
But from a landlord perspective you are looking for people that will be good tenants and not tear up the house. That has happened to my parents when they were landlords as well. Some people get absolutely pissed and want to tear up everything in the house just for sh&ts and giggles.

What becomes interesting, say in the act of doing that very thing, you turn away 49 black people, 15 Mexicans, 12 API's and only 1 white person, because, well that's just the way it happens to play out statistically. They file a class action suit, then what?

CYBERFX1024
08-23-2013, 07:27 PM
Honestly I don't know what I do to tell you the truth.

garhkal
08-23-2013, 07:43 PM
Exactly.. BITD we used to have stores with big signs saying "Owner reserves the right to refuse service to anyone" Now a days it seems anyone actually does that, they got lawyers all in line waiting to sue.

AJBIGJ
08-23-2013, 07:44 PM
The question becomes, "what specifically should be the role of the State in defining a "Marriage"?" This is where legal elements are key. Pre-DOMA, Post-DOMA, under neither circumstances were religious institutions forced by the Federal or even State governments to define their marriages in a specific fashion. It basically defined "Marriage" only as it applies to government, i.e. what protections, privileges, and conditions would apply in specific instances. The repeal of DOMA Section 3 removed the constraint that put New York marriage contracts on unequal terms with Mississippi contracts when applying Federal benefits. Essentially, the Federal Government has assumed a "No Position on this Subject" stance. That is why this distinction between the State and Society is so important. Some people would have us believe Christians are being stoned in the street in front of angry mobs, this simply is not true. Right now, under most circumstances, the only "persecution" Christians generally are receiving is in having their feelings hurt by people expressing their own opinions on the subject. I say this as a Christian by the way, if the distinction needs to be made. Yes, Christianity in general is getting some very bad PR in the way it is being portrayed by society especially through the news media, which has absolutely nothing in comparison with death by Asphyxiation hanging on a cross upside down. I wish I could take the spewers of this specific hyperbole, lock them in a room with race-baiters who would have us believe the Jim Crow Era part 2 is happening as we speak, slide enough food under the door for ten to live for three weeks straight, then accept what emerges as members in society once again. I'm exaggerating of course but I hope it gets the point across.

Pullinteeth
08-23-2013, 08:01 PM
So then just eliminate the tax breaks for being married and any other government entitlements that comes from being married and you won't have to. If you remove the gov from marriage, who marries whom becomes irrelevant.

AJBIGJ
08-23-2013, 09:02 PM
Wow, the mods are definitely getting thorough, going so far as editing quotes in quotes of other posters to remove non-bannable content (or did I miss something) that is owned by other posters, having the overall effect of making my posts even less coherent than they normally are (if such a thing is possible!)

garhkal
08-24-2013, 03:32 AM
You still see those signs...does not mean it is really legit.

The owner does not and can not reserve the right to refuse service to categories of people that are protected under the Civil Rights act...or their state EEO acts, etc on the basis of that characteristic.

You also see signs that say, "By paticipating in this event you agree not to hold us liable for any theft, damage, injury, etc."...those are also not necessarily legally enforceable.

Then what's the point in having them if htey can't be enforced?

garhkal
08-24-2013, 07:37 PM
Imo if its meaningless in actuality, why have it (like all those states that have laws on the books that are never enforced)..

bombsquadron6
08-25-2013, 11:57 PM
It was pointed out earlier on this thread that there are something like 2.5 million government workers so it can be expected that at least some of them are racists of whatever persuasion. But this particular black racist who ran a website advocating a race war was responsible for purchasing guns and ammo for the government. That is what makes him particularly frightening to me. Are they planning to do an inventory, I hope? Anyway, someone else brought up Oprah Winfrey who was not allowed to handle a $38,000 purse that she said she was interested in buying in a store in Switzerland. So she decided to make it into an international incident. (She also stated after it happened that she was not dressed up at the time and it sounded like she was probably wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt.) So the Swiss shopkeeper is a racist because Oprah looked like she didn't have the money to be in that store? I doubt they would let me have a look at that purse, either, but that doesn't matter to Ms. Winfrey who is a renowned race-baiter. I doubt that anyone in Switzerland gives a rat's ass about Oprah Winfrey. She is not much different than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in my view.

John Drake
08-26-2013, 01:35 AM
It was pointed out earlier on this thread that there are something like 2.5 million government workers so it can be expected that at least some of them are racists of whatever persuasion. But this particular black racist who ran a website advocating a race war was responsible for purchasing guns and ammo for the government. That is what makes him particularly frightening to me. Are they planning to do an inventory, I hope? Anyway, someone else brought up Oprah Winfrey who was not allowed to handle a $38,000 purse that she said she was interested in buying in a store in Switzerland. So she decided to make it into an international incident. (She also stated after it happened that she was not dressed up at the time and it sounded like she was probably wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt.) So the Swiss shopkeeper is a racist because Oprah looked like she didn't have the money to be in that store? I doubt they would let me have a look at that purse, either, but that doesn't matter to Ms. Winfrey who is a renowned race-baiter. I doubt that anyone in Switzerland gives a rat's ass about Oprah Winfrey. She is not much different than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in my view.

You're absolutely right - that employee's attitude is alarming, and it's good that he's been exposed.

As for Ophrah - remember her career is based on publicity. Like it or not, she has made a livelyhood of drawing attention to herself, as have many other celebrities. Kim Kardashian probably would have reacted the same way.

Ted Nugent also comes to mind with his declaration that he would be "dead or in prison" if Obama won. Have either of those things happened yet?

bombsquadron6
08-26-2013, 05:53 PM
Oprah Winfrey looks at everything through the prism of racism and is more that willing to accuse any and every white of being racist. It is counter productive in the long run since many of us who try very hard to be reasonable and fair dismiss her as a race baiter. Her recent accusations against the Swiss shopkeeper backfired on her partly because shortly after that an incident occurred in New York City involving one of the members of the Duck Dynasty (Robertson) family. He was politely escorted out of the Trump Hotel by a staff member who thought he was a homeless guy. Robertson later joked on TV news that it was a case of "facial profiling" and was a good sport about the whole thing. He said he realized the staffer had no idea who he was and made the whole incident humorous. Of course, his gracious reaction was compared to Ms. Winfrey who was anything but gracious in her somewhat similar situation.

And Ted Nugent...What can you say about him but he is an extremist who resorts to name calling? I can understand being outraged about what has happened to Detroit, his hometown, but really Ted, you're aren't helping matters with the inflammatory rhetoric!

garhkal
08-26-2013, 06:39 PM
Oprah Winfrey looks at everything through the prism of racism and is more that willing to accuse any and every white of being racist. It is counter productive in the long run since many of us who try very hard to be reasonable and fair dismiss her as a race baiter. Her recent accusations against the Swiss shopkeeper backfired on her partly because shortly after that an incident occurred in New York City involving one of the members of the Duck Dynasty (Robertson) family. He was politely escorted out of the Trump Hotel by a staff member who thought he was a homeless guy. Robertson later joked on TV news that it was a case of "facial profiling" and was a good sport about the whole thing. He said he realized the staffer had no idea who he was and made the whole incident humorous. Of course, his gracious reaction was compared to Ms. Winfrey who was anything but gracious in her somewhat similar situation.

And Ted Nugent...What can you say about him but he is an extremist who resorts to name calling? I can understand being outraged about what has happened to Detroit, his hometown, but really Ted, you're aren't helping matters with the inflammatory rhetoric!

First time i have heard about that duck dynasty guy incident.

bombsquadron6
08-26-2013, 06:48 PM
It was a story that ran in numerous media and is easy to find if you do a search of Duck Dynasty, Robertson and Trump Hotel. It's worth looking at and I was impressed with how the Robertson family responded. It just happened a week or so ago.

Pullinteeth
08-26-2013, 08:46 PM
It was a story that ran in numerous media and is easy to find if you do a search of Duck Dynasty, Robertson and Trump Hotel. It's worth looking at and I was impressed with how the Robertson family responded. It just happened a week or so ago.

here you go...
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/trump-hotel-not-apologizing-for-booting-duck-dynasty-star.html
http://theblacksphere.net/2013/08/duck-dynysty-star-kicked-out-of-hotel/