Law and Shamrocks
by Dr. William L. Pierce
I AM PLEASED to see that the public reaction to Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardons of so many Jewish criminals is continuing to snowball. How can even the dullest lemmings fail to notice that the two cases making the most headlines are, first, the case of Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green and, second, the case of the New Square four — Benjamin Berger, Jacob Elbaum, David Goldstein, and Kalmen Stern from the ultra-Orthodox town of New Square, New York — and that everyone involved in these cases, except Bill and Hillary themselves, is a Jew? I think that’s wonderful, but I hold out no hope that any mainstream commentator on these cases will draw the correct conclusions from them. Let us just be grateful that a perceptive few will be led to understanding, and the lemmings will be left with something to scratch their heads about.
I mentioned in my broadcast last week that the reason the Clintons did what they did is that they thought they could get away with it. They figured that respect for the law already has declined to the point that no one would care enough to call them to account. And for the most part they are correct. Unfortunately for them, however, they made a few political miscalculations. They failed to foresee just how juicy a political scandal would erupt. They would have gotten away with everything except that some politicians simply couldn’t resist using the scandal for their own benefit, and some Jews, seeing the potential for damage to Jews generally, began publicly distancing themselves from what the Clintons had done. And then, as I said, things began to snowball. The results of an opinion poll, in which 102,746 Internet users participated — that’s a substantial poll — the results were posted last week by Netscape. More than three-quarters of those voting — that’s 78,466 votes against 24,279 votes — more than three-quarters believe that a corrupt deal was made between the Clintons and the Jews of New Square, New York: votes for Hillary in her New York Senate race in return for pardons for the four convicted New Square Jews who had stolen more than $40 million from American taxpayers. If a similar public opinion poll were taken now for the Marc Rich case, I am sure that an even higher percentage of the public would express their belief that the pardon was corrupt: that it involved a payoff for Clinton. The one true statement Bill Clinton has made in connection with all of this is that he didn’t expect such a strong reaction, or in his own words: “I was blindsided!”
As I just said, he made a political miscalculation, but his judgment that the system has become so corrupt that he should have been able to get away with what he did was more or less on target. Let me give you a few more examples to illustrate just how dangerously corrupted the system has become.
Last month 21-year-old Matthew Marshall was sentenced in a Houston, Texas, courtroom to spend the next ten years of his life in prison. He had been convicted, along with four other young White men, of violating the civil rights of a Black family in the Houston suburb of Katy. The five young men had burned a cross in front of a house occupied by the Blacks. They didn’t assault the Blacks. They didn’t threaten the Blacks. They didn’t steal anything from the Blacks. They didn’t even wake the Blacks up. But when the Blacks woke up of their own accord the next morning they found the charred remains of a six-foot cross in their front yard. The Blacks called the police, and shortly thereafter the five young White men were arrested, because, as in most such cases of foolish, alcohol-fueled vandalism, the young men didn’t have enough sense or self-discipline to keep their mouths shut about their prank. So now as punishment for that foolish prank Matthew Marshall must spend the next ten years in some hell-hole of a Texas prison, where the majority of the inmates will be Blacks and mestizos.
The judge, David Hittner, justified the severity of his sentence with the comment that in a pre-trial hearing he had heard young Marshall’s father use a “racial slur.” The judge smugly told a group of approving reporters: “It appears that the seeds of his racism were sown at home.” If you’re interested you can find the story for yourself in a February 5 Associated Press report from Houston. Ten years of living hell for a stupid, drunken prank and a “racial slur” — by his father. Compare that with the punishment of the four New Square Jews who stole more than $40 million from the American people and whose religion is a continuing slur on all the rest of us. They received sentences ranging from two years to seven years — and then Bill Clinton turned them all loose.
Marc Rich stole billions and never served a day in prison. And now Bill Clinton has given him a lifetime “get out of jail free” pass to ensure that he never will be punished for his massive crimes. The average prison sentence in the United States for a felon convicted of armed robbery is just under eight years, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics. The average sentence for sexual assault is six years. If a Black accosts you on the street, puts a gun to your head, and takes your wallet, your wristwatch, and your cell phone, he’ll get eight years, on the average. If he sexually assaults your wife, he’ll get six years. Blacks don’t ordinarily burn crosses, but we can imagine an equivalent prank: leaving a sign in a White family’s yard that says, “Black power!” or, “Go back to Europe, you honkies.”
Now, if the police even bothered to arrest the Blacks who did that, what do you imagine their punishment would be? A $50 fine for littering, perhaps? If a judge sentenced one of them to ten years for violating the rights of the White family, Jesse Jackson would have his traveling riot in action in Houston the next day. There would be outraged editorials about “Jim Crow law” in newspapers all across the country.
Well, of course, judges understand that sort of thing. A judge, after all, is just a lawyer with political ambitions: a cross between a lawyer and a politician, and that’s a bad combination. He has several things on his mind when he judges or when he passes sentence. First, he thinks about his fellow lawyers. He considers the wealth and status, the prestige and importance, of the defense attorneys. If you walk into a courtroom with a $600-an-hour lawyer who has political connections, and he brings four of his legal assistants with him, at $100 an hour each, you will have a lot of sympathetic consideration from the judge. If you ever make the mistake of going into court without a lawyer, thinking that because you’re familiar with the law, and justice is on your side, you can handle the matter yourself and save having to pay a lawyer, you’re a goner. The judge will have made up his mind before the first witness is heard to punish you for trying to beat one of his fellow lawyers out of a fee.
The judge also will consider how the judges — which is to say, his fellow lawyers — on the appeals court will view the matter. Judges don’t like to have their decisions overturned.
Most of all, however, the judge will consider how his decision will be treated by the media, especially if it’s a case with any political aspect. Judges always want to give Politically Correct decisions: decisions that will not be looked on unfavorably by the media.
What about justice, you ask. Are you serious? Well, of course, I’m being too cynical. Justice is available in American courts, and you can get just as much as you can afford to pay for — unless, of course, the media really have it in for you.
None of this, unfortunately, is fundamentally new — except for the influence of the media. Jonathan Swift was making similar complaints about the courts in England 275 years ago. Nevertheless, there is a trend, and the trend is quite definitely downhill. And it’s not just that there have been a few noteworthy flukes recently. It’s true that Bill and Hillary have done more to undermine respect for the law than anyone since when O.J. Simpson was able to get clean away with slitting the throats of two people by the simple expedient of spending $10 million on lawyers and thereby earning a remarkable degree of indulgence from the judge.
I want to emphasize again that the Clintons are crooked but not stupid. In fact, Bill has been remarkably astute throughout his career at calculating what he could get away with, what the system would tolerate. He just failed to foresee the amount of public attention that would be focused on his pardon of Marc Rich. And once the public attention was there, there were plenty of Republican lawyers ready to go into a feeding frenzy, hoping to use the Clinton scandal to augment their own careers. The feeding frenzy in turn brought all sorts of other Clinton misdeeds to light that otherwise would have escaped public notice. So far Hillary has been the one most hurt by that. She had to give back the White House silverware, and her brother Hugh, also a lawyer, had to promise that he would give back the $400,000 fee he had accepted from a couple of convicted sleaze balls to use his influence as Bill’s brother-in-law to secure pardons for them. That must really have hurt!
The Clintons have damaged the rule of law in America, not just in their latest scandal, but throughout the whole eight years of the Clinton era. But they are more significant as highly visible symptoms of decay than as agents of decay. The decay was well under way long before the Clintons came to Washington. A political system that was not already in near-terminal condition would never have admitted the Clintons as members.
Today we want to stay focused on just the judicial and law-enforcement part of the system, rather than on the system as a whole. We are concerned about the increasing corruption of the courts and of the legal establishment, the increasing politicization of law enforcement agencies, the increasingly bizarre rulings coming from the courts, the more and more reckless and unprincipled acts of legislatures. A visitor from another century would be alarmed. We should be alarmed too, except that we’ve become a bit numbed from being exposed to gradually increasing corruption for such a long time — and the controlled media keep telling us that things are getting better and better, with more and more Black judges being appointed to the courts by the politicians, more and more female judges, more and more Politically Correct decisions from the courts, more and more Black police officials in our big cities, more mandatory “sensitivity” conditioning for cops, and so on.
As I said a moment ago, I’m not basing my dim view of the state of our legal system on just a few flukes. There definitely is a trend. The case of the 21-year-old White man in Houston who was sentenced to ten years in prison last month for a Politically Incorrect prank is not unique. Last year an 18-year-old White boy in Maryland was sentenced to ten years for a similar prank involving a cross and a Black family. Last month a 21-year-old White man, Kenny Vierra, was sentenced to six years in prison because he punched a Mexican in the nose in a parking-lot altercation in Sun City, Florida. Six years for one punch in the nose because Vierra referred to the Mexican as a “wetback” before he punched him and because Vierra had a swastika tattoo on his chest. That was enough for a politically ambitious judge to decide that a “hate crime” had been committed.
Another young White man, Jack Houston, who had been in the car with Vierra but who did not get out of the car during Vierra’s altercation with the Mexican also was sentenced to six years in prison. A White girl who also was in the car with Houston, 23-year-old Staci Ann Schillace, was sentenced to seven months in jail. The two who stayed in the car were punished for having encouraged Kenny Vierra. The judge who handed down those sentences must be pretty proud.
In San Diego, California, a 25-year-old White man, Alex Curtis, has been held without bond since last November while the government prepares to try him on charges of having violated the civil rights of San Diego-area Jews. He could receive ten years in a Federal prison if convicted. Curtis used to publish what the government describes as a “neo-Nazi” newsletter. He is accused of inspiring a couple of friends to harass local Jewish big shots. The friends are alleged to have put a snakeskin through the mail slot of the local office of Jewish Democratic Congressman Robert Filner and to have left anti-Jewish literature outside the office and also outside the home of Morris Casuto, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Curtis himself is alleged to have written an unkind remark about Morris Casuto on a wall outside a synagogue near Casuto’s house. For these pranks Curtis is being held without bond, like some dangerous Colombian drug lord or Mafia chief, and is facing ten years in prison. If you want to read the details about his case, go to the Web site for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Morris Casuto’s boss, by the way, is Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Foxman is one of the Jewish officials who helped secure a pardon for Marc Rich from Bill Clinton. Ten years for Matthew Marshall, six years for Kenny Vierra, six years for Jack Houston, ten years for Alex Curtis — and a pardon for Marc Rich.
Yes, there is a trend in our judicial system, and it is toward Political Correctness. Judges — and lawyers generally — who in a sane and healthy White society should be the foremost guardians of our civil liberties, have instead become the greatest enemies of those liberties. There are, to be sure, other factors in addition to the corruption of lawyers. Letting Blacks sit on juries has led to a real Alice in Wonderland situation. They acquit high-profile Black criminals, such as O.J. Simpson, who are guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, but woe unto any Politically Incorrect White man whose fate they are asked to decide. They have turned civil suits where they constitute a majority on the juries into games of Russian roulette. They think nothing of awarding astronomical sums for the most trivial injuries, even for hurt feelings.
And of course, there are the Jewish media relentlessly pushing the notion that the most fundamental civil liberty, the one civil liberty that really needs to be protected, is freedom from being offended or made to feel insecure, and the way to protect that most fundamental civil liberty is to enact more “hate crime” and “speech crime” laws and have them rigorously enforced by the legal and judicial establishment. And for the most part the lawyers — including the judges — are going along enthusiastically with that notion. Which is why young White men accused of “hate crimes” are being treated so savagely by the courts today. A White man who punches a non-White in the nose or slips a snakeskin through a Jew’s mail slot is dealt with more severely than a Black who commits armed robbery or sexual assault on a White woman.
As I indicated earlier, part of the reason for this is that many judges are politically ambitious, and they want to be on the right side of the Jewish media. Another part of the reason is that judges, along with the rest of the lawyer class, are riding pretty high on the hog. As this society goes down the drain they are keeping their feet dry, and they want it to stay that way. Black rapists and armed robbers are not a threat to their comfort and security. White “hate criminals” are a threat, because they challenge the system that has rewarded the judges so generously. That’s a very shortsighted, irresponsible, and immoral way for them to look at the world and their place in it, but that’s the way it is these days. Things can only get crazier and crazier, more and more repressive and unjust, as Political Correctness fastens an ever-tighter grip on the legal and judicial establishment.
I’ll give you an example of just how crazy things already are. Boston used to be a substantially Irish city, and even the city’s subsidized housing projects were largely Irish. Even as the Black minority grew to a majority in the public housing, the poor and elderly Irish occupants had their areas, and the Blacks had theirs. Mixing, however, has been inevitable, and with mixing has come friction — especially since Blacks have been taught by the media to walk with chips on their shoulders. They’ve learned that Whitey nearly always will back down.
It wasn’t always that way. When the courts forced racial integration on the Irish of South Boston in the 1970s, the Irish fought back. They didn’t fight back hard enough, though, and the judicial establishment eventually beat the Irish — that is, the Whites — into submission. These days the Blacks not only walk with chips on their shoulders, they look for any excuse at all to take offense at something Whitey says or does. They know the courts will back them up.
An instance of this is reported in the Irish Echo, the largest-circulation Irish-American newspaper. As more and more Blacks in Boston’s public housing moved into areas where Irish already were living, the Blacks noticed the prevalence of shamrocks being displayed by Irish residents on their doors, in their windows, on playground equipment, and so on. The shamrock is the most common symbol of Irish ethnicity, of Irish pride. Well, the Blacks don’t like it, and they have complained about it to the Boston Housing Authority, the BHA. I’ll read you the first three paragraphs of a story in the February 14 issue of the Irish Echo:
In a controversial measure designed to placate offended minority residents, officials of the Boston Housing Authority are asking residents to remove shamrock displays from doors and windows in housing developments across the city, the Irish Echo has learned. Confirming rumors that have been circulating around South Boston in recent weeks, Lydia Agro, BHA’s communications director, told the Echo that housing managers are advising residents that shamrocks and other ‘bias indicators” are offensive to some minority residents and should not be publicly displayed.
“There are a number of symbols that have been identified by some of our residents as making them uncomfortable and unwelcome,” Agro said. ‘In response to those concerns, we’re including shamrocks along with swastikas, Confederate flags, and other symbols which give offense.
Now, I’ll bet you wouldn’t have believed that if I hadn’t just read it to you from a newspaper. How long do you think it’ll be before some ambitious, Politically Correct judge sentences some elderly Irish widow to ten years in the slammer for displaying a “bias indicator” in her window? Does that sound ridiculous? If I had told you ten years ago that in the year 2000 an 18-year-old Maryland boy would be sentenced to 10 years in prison for burning a small cross in someone’s yard, you would have thought that ridiculous too.
Times are changing, but they’re not getting better — and they won’t get better until they’ve gotten bad enough to make White Americans rebel and take the administration of law away from those now misusing it in such a destructive way.
* * *
Source: Free Speech magazine, March 2001, Volume VII, Number 3