Judicial Insanity and Schoolyard Massacres
MR. CLINTON’S long visit to Africa has helped to strengthen his already strong support among Blacks in America — and it has given him a vacation from the Monica and Kathleen and Gennifer and Paula circus which has engulfed his administration. That circus will be shifting into high gear again now, and we’ll be talking about it more in future programs. But today let’s take a look at some of Mr. Clinton’s more serious transgressions against the American people.
You know, his scandalous behavior and his lying about it and his attempts to get witnesses to lie are important because they show us what sort of person he is; these things help us to understand what a degenerate piece of White trash we have in the White House. But they are not the really important things about the Clinton administration; they are more like a sideshow, more like comic relief from the real damage Clinton and his controllers are doing to us and to our country. Consider, for example, Mr. Clinton’s appointments to the Federal courts. We all know, of course, that he has done more than any other President in history to increase the number of Jews in the Federal judiciary. His most notable moves in that direction have been his appointments of two Jews to the nine-justice Supreme Court, but nearly all of his judicial appointments have been aimed at increasing so-called “diversity” in the courts. In most cases when his appointees haven’t been Jews they’ve been Blacks or other non-Whites. The rule seems to be, anybody but a heterosexual White male.
One Clinton judicial appointment was in the news in the Philadelphia area a few days ago when the appointee, Frederica Massiah-Jackson, withdrew her nomination after it became clear during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings that she would not be approved. Now, that’s really something, for the Politically Correct U.S. Senate to balk at approving a judge who is not only female but also Black.
Actually, the Senate already had approved her appointment last fall, shortly after Clinton nominated her. In the recent Senate hearings her appointment was being reconsidered. How did that come about? Let me tell you.
For the past 15 years Massiah-Jackson has been a judge on Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas, and she’s made quite a reputation for herself as a Black racist who always sides with Black defendants — and in Philadelphia that means most criminal defendants. She curses and swears at White prosecutors and lawyers in the courtroom, but that’s not the reason they persuaded the Senate to reconsider its approval of her nomination and then showed up at the Senate hearings to testify against her; what motivated them is her habit of refusing to convict or to punish Black career criminals. Philadelphia prosecutors cited case after case in which her behavior in the courtroom was so outrageous as to be almost beyond belief.
For example, there was the 1990 case of the Black homosexual rapist who grabbed a 13-year-old boy walking on the grounds of the Albert Einstein Medical Center in North Philadelphia, dragged him into some bushes, and sodomized him. When the child cried during the ordeal, the rapist slashed his face and head with a razor-knife, the kind with a retractable blade used to open boxes. When the Black rapist had finished with him, the boy crawled out of the bushes and was seen by two hospital employees, who came to his aid. The naked, bleeding child told them that the rapist was still in the bushes. Then they saw a Black man come out of the bushes and rearrange his clothes. They summoned police, who seized the man and found the razor knife and a bloody rag in his belt pouch.
When the case came before Judge Massiah-Jackson, she would not admit into evidence the testimony of the two eyewitnesses who saw the rapist coming from the bushes, saying that they had seen him under what she called “unduly suggestive” circumstances. She also threw out the evidence of the razor-knife and the bloody rag, saying that the police hadn’t had probable cause to seize the items.
In two other cases where Blacks were charged with assault involving serious injury to the victims, Judge Massiah-Jackson ruled that the two victims, who had been shot in the abdomen, suffered severe internal damage, and subsequently underwent colostomies, had not had “serious injury” inflicted on them. By so ruling she was able to downgrade the seriousness of the charges against the Black assailants.
Now, this doesn’t mean that Judge Massiah-Jackson is without feelings, however. When, despite her efforts, a jury returned a guilty verdict against a Black who had raped a 10-year-old child and she was obliged to impose a mandatory minimum five-year sentence on the rapist, she wept in the courtroom. She cried. She told reporters and spectators, “it’s not that I think the rape didn’t occur, but five years is a lot of time.” After serving his sentence, the rapist was freed and promptly raped a nine-year-old child.
Judge Massiah-Jackson is capable of being tough on crime, however. When a White criminal was unfortunate enough to come before her she imposed an especially harsh sentence on him, explaining that one of the aggravating circumstances in his crime was that he was a “Caucasian.” That’s what the woman said in her written opinion. The aggravating circumstance which justified a maximum sentence was that the defendant was a “Caucasian.”
When the details of her courtroom behavior were presented to the Senate during the past few weeks and even that thoroughly corrupt body began backing away from confirming Clinton’s appointment of Massiah-Jackson to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, she wailed that her record was being “distorted.” She was being subjected, she complained, “to an unrelenting campaign of vilification and distortion.”
One of the witnesses against her, Pennsylvania’s Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, replied to this charge of distortion: “We don’t make up the words that appear in court documents. Those are taken down by stenographers.”
Judge Massiah-Jackson has her supporters as well as her critics, of course. President Clinton, who had recommended her to the Senate as a “highly qualified” judge and urged her confirmation, was angry when Morganelli and others opposed her. He sent her a letter, in which he wrote: “Sadly, in recent weeks your nomination became a target for baseless attacks that mischaracterized your record without affording you a reasonable opportunity to respond.” Baseless attacks!
And Massiah-Jackson also has other supporters. The Jewish mayor of Philadelphia, Edward Rendell, responded to her withdrawal of her nomination by saying: “I view this result with a great amount of
sadness. . . . I’m disappointed because a basically decent individual has been subjected to a level of intensity that I’ve never seen any other judge subjected to.”
The Jewish chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Mark Aronchik, was bitter when many of his fellow lawyers opposed Massiah-Jackson. He said: “Only weeks before her nomination was to go to the Senate for confirmation . . . we see this tactic of selective distortion of a record . . . .”
The Jewish editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Jane Eisner, wrote on March 17, the day after Massiah-Jackson’s withdrawal:
“Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson’s lamentable withdrawal yesterday from her quest for a Federal judgeship leaves the nation’s judiciary a poorer place. The Federal bench desperately needs qualified candidates from all America’s communities, and as the first African-American woman nominated from this district, she would have brought a welcome and necessary diversity to the court.”
Massiah-Jackson also had enthusiastic supporters in the Senate. The leader of her Senate support was Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Arlen Specter. Specter, of course, is not only a Republican; he also is a Jew.
Jane Eisner spoke for all of Massiah-Jackson’s Jewish supporters when she accused those who testified against her of “McCarthyite tactics.” Wrote Eisner with obvious bitterness in her Philadelphia Inquirer editorial: “Once the charge was ‘soft on communism.’ Now it’s ‘soft on crime.'”
Well the diversity-mongers lost this round of the fight. Massiah-Jackson went down in flames. But that was only one round. Make no mistake about it: the bad guys are winning most of the other rounds, and they’re winning the war. Most of Clinton’s appointees have been approved, and although they’re not as obvious in their anti-White malice as Massiah-Jackson is, they’re all the more dangerous because of that. The Jews and their collaborators are winning the war against White America on all fronts, and they’ll continue to win as long as they retain their control of the mass media and are able to keep the White public hypnotized.
The Massiah-Jackson spectacle really only received substantial media coverage in the Philadelphia area, so perhaps the rest of the country should not be blamed for sleeping through it. But there are other signs of what Jewish media control has done to America which are seen by everyone, and I hope that at least a few White Americans are being awakened by these signs.
An especially tragic sign was the killing of four White schoolchildren and a White teacher in Jonesboro, Arkansas, a few days ago. This is the third mass killing of schoolchildren by other children in the past five months. The media bosses put on a pretense of being mystified. “How could this happen?” they ask. And then they supply the answer to their question. The reason for all of the killings is the easy availability of guns, they tell us.
But that explanation is nonsense, and they know it. Fifty years ago, when I was in school, kids had even more access to guns than they do now, but they didn’t massacre their classmates. When I was in school there were virtually no gun-control laws or other restrictions, and more of the population was rural than now — which meant that using guns regularly was a part of the lives of more schoolchildren. So it’s certainly not easier access to guns which has made the climate in America’s schools murderous. Guns haven’t caused the change which has taken place in America.
You know what has caused the change, but let me tell you anyway. Actually, there have been two changes. One is the consequence of the loss of racial and cultural homogeneity in our schools. It used to be that a school was like a big extended family. The teachers were all White, and so were the kids. There was a sense of community. But that sense of community is long gone. Even in areas which are still mostly White, such as Jonesboro, the alienation caused by the diversity-mongers has become a major factor in the antisocial actions of many children. One of the young killers, Mitchell Johnson, idolized Black culture and often pretended to be a member of the Bloods gang.
The other factor is the influence of television on children’s lives, on their behavior, on their attitudes. And I’m not talking simply about television violence. I’m talking about the pervasive influence, the pervasive effect of television altogether. It distorts a child’s grip on reality. The child exposed to five or six hours of television every day, all of his life — and that’s most American children today — loses his ability to distinguish between the real world and the imaginary world he sees on the television screen. The connection between the child’s actions and the consequences of his actions becomes fuzzy in his mind. The child fails to develop a normal sense of responsibility.
Of course, I’m generalizing. The effect of television is much stronger on some children than on others. Some children do maintain a fairly good grip on reality and do grow up to be more or less responsible adults. But the average effects of television are still there, and they manifest themselves in the sort of tragedy we had in Jonesboro a few days ago. This never happened before we had racial integration and television, but it will happen more and more often in the future as so-called “diversity” and its consequent alienation continue to grow, and the influence of television remains with us.
Probably it already has occurred to you, but the Clinton attempt to make a Federal judge out of this Massiah-Jackson creature in Philadelphia and the tragedy in Jonesboro are not unrelated. Both are the sorts of things which couldn’t have happened when we had a sane country. The corruption of the political system and the judicial system on the one hand and the alienation of our children on the other hand, their loss of their sense of community and their sense of responsibility, go together. We fell victim to both of these afflictions as a consequence of losing control of our society, of letting things get entirely out of hand, of abdicating our responsibility to maintain control over our own destiny. And in order to have a sane and healthy society again we must take charge of our own affairs again.
That is easy to say, “we must take charge of our own affairs,” but how do we actually do it?
Well, it’s always been my belief that in order to do anything successfully — especially if it’s a difficult or complex thing — we ought to try to understand it first. And if we want to get ourselves out of a mess, part of what we need to understand is how we got into the mess in the first place: how did we lose control of our affairs? I’ve tried to explore various aspects of that question in these broadcasts. I’ll restate briefly one of the most important conclusions we reached.
We failed to understand the absolutely essential role of the mass media, the media of news and entertainment, in the development of our modern society until we had lost control of those media. We failed to understand that as a society grows and becomes more complex and more centralized, the mass media become the principal organs in the society for shaping public opinion; they take the place of the direct person-to-person communication which characterizes very simple and non-centralized societies. And by shaping public opinion the media are able to play a decisive role in formulating public policy and in determining the makeup of the government. We didn’t understand that — or at least we didn’t understand it fully — until, during the course of this century, a small and alien minority had insinuated itself into a position of dominance over the media. That small and alien minority, of course, is the Jews.
And in that one fact lies the explanation of why policies which are destructive of everything that we hold dear, policies which are morally abhorrent to us, policies which have brought our whole civilization to the brink of ruin, have been promoted by the mass media and enforced by the government in Washington. In that fact is the reason why so-called “diversity” has become a new government-enforced religion: a religion in which Massiah-Jackson’s being a Black female excuses the sort of African tribal “justice” she has been dispensing in Philadelphia and qualifies her for the Federal judiciary.
And after we let the control of public policy slip out of the hands of our people and into the hands of the media bosses, we began feeling impotent; we began feeling that we no longer had control over our lives or the lives of our children. And so we just sat back and became spectators. We let events take their course. We let the television raise our children and teach them their values. And then what happened in Jonesboro happened.
What this tells us is that if we really want to regain control of our lives again, regain control of our society and our civilization, we must first regain control of our mass media. As long as the media of news and entertainment remain in the hands of the people who control them now, most White Americans will continue to be confused and misled. When the next schoolyard massacre takes place, Americans will hear another call for gun control from the media, but they will not hear any true explanation of why we are seeing more and more of this sort of tragedy.
And when the next national election takes place, we will get another President who is beholden to the media bosses instead of to the American people and who will appoint more judges of the sort Bill Clinton has been appointing.
My broadcasts, of course, cannot overcome the much greater influence of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the television networks — but they are a start, and your support in making it possible for our influence to grow is appreciated.
* * *
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, April 1998