Race-Based Standing: the most outrageously perverse violation of Civil Rights laws in America (the Warren Court was a Fraud)

Returning to one of my favorite (actually one of my least favorite) topics, I ask you, Gentle Readers (and violent readers—come one, come all, I don’t care—so long as you read this page, read and react to your computers as violently as you wish!) to read and review the following Civil Rights statute, 42 U.S.C. Section and tell me why there should be a requirement of racial standing (facts indicating race-based discrimination or racially biased laws or customs, practices, and policies having the force and effect of law) to sue under any of its three clauses:

42 U.S.C. §1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

(R.S. § 1980.)  I simply don’t see any racially biased language in there at all, do you?  And yet, here’s what the United States Supreme Court had to say on July 5, 1983 in its opinion about 42 U.S.C §1985 in the case of UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 610, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul E. SCOTT et al., 463 U.S. 825, 103 S.Ct. 3352 (1983).

         The Supreme Court, Justice White, held that: (1) civil rights conspiracy statute provides no substantial rights itself to the class conspired against, and thus the rights, privileges and immunities that it vindicates must be found elsewhere; (2) because First Amendment restrains only official conduct, plaintiffs claiming infringement of right which had its source in First Amendment were required, to prove that state was somehow involved in or affected by the conspiracy; and (3) civil rights conspiracy statute was not intended to reach conspiracies motivated by bias towards others on account of their economic views, status or activities, and cannot be construed to reach conspiracies motivated by economic or commercial animus.

        WHY THE HELL NOT?  WHEN THE LANGUAGE IS RACE-NEUTRAL, and when the SUPREME COURT HAS STRUCK DOWN ONE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM AFTER ANOTHER in the 25 years from Bakke v. Regents of the University of California in 1978 through Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, why do the Basic Civil Rights Statutes Remain (or seem to remain, but without exaggeration and usually quite literally) limited to instances where members of the Ku Klux Klan are being sued by African Americans?  Is that limitation apparent in the language quoted above?  Just because there is a mention of “going in disguise”….   

I submit to you that Civil Rights in America is an ongoing scandal designed to weaken the American people and make them Dependent rather than Free. The entire Warren Court program was a Fraud and a Massive Deception against the American People.  A little historical background: Earl Warren, first as Attorney General and later as Governor of California, showed his early concern for race-based Civil Rights by rounding up the Japanese American population of California and putting them all into Concentration Camps as “Nisei”—suspected of collaborating with the Empire of Japan which, in case nobody had noticed, these Japanese Americans (and in many cases their grandparents and parents) had LEFT, coming to the United States to make a better life just like so many people of German extraction, including, just for example, two Texas born Germans, namely General Dwight D. Eisenhower who was in charge of the liberation of Europe, and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, born in the heart of the vast early 19th Century Texas-German Colony in the town of Fredericksburg, who commanded the war in the Pacific.  (Later, ironically enough, in the 1960s-70s, there was no more conservative American Senator than the Japanese American Linguistic Semanticist S.I. Hayakawa. **)

I contend that Earl Warren was appointed to the Supreme Court precisely because, like his counterpart Adolf Eichmann in Germany, he utterly lacked scruples when it came to articulating the propaganda of race for political and demagogic ends.  It mattered not whether masses of people die or marginally benefit from racially divisive rhetoric so long as THE RULING ELITE and GOVERNMENT benefit, to promoting one race at the expense of another.  This was the history of the American War Between the States of 1861-1965: the socio-cultural fabric and techno-economic infrastructure richest part of the United States had to be destroyed to make way for Centralization of Power and Finance.  The “rhetoric” in favor of the War was Demagogic Race-Divisive: “Free the Slaves, Punish the Slaveholders.”  So successful was the War Between the States that the South remained the poorest part of the United States for a hundred and ten years after Abe Lincoln’s War, and Racially Divisive Rhetoric prevails 150 years later as the sesquicentennial of that war is celebrated—all to the disadvantage of those White Americans who had created the freest society on earth (slavery notwithstanding) and the most productive industrial-agrarian economy the world had ever known.  

For those who still think 16th President Abraham Lincoln’s legacy, and that of his War against the Constitution of 1787, is a good thing in light of history, I challenge them to compare the American Race-Relations Scenes in 1875, 1900, 1925, 1950, 1975, 2000, and today with the same scene in the same years in Brazil.  In that territorially largest of all the nations of the Western Hemisphere, emanciapation took over a generation: slavery was abolished, not all at once but only in small steps.  First the children of slaves were born free (1871), then all Slaves over 60 were freed (1885), and finally the sale any person into or as a slave was abolished by Royal Decree by Princess Isabel (The Empire of Brazil was ruled by the Portuguese branch of the Capetian Aviz Braganza Dynasty throughout the 19th Century) in 1888.  Brazil today is widely recognized as having less racial tension than any long-term multi-cultural/multi-ethnic/multi-racial society on earth.  

In 1950, however, just after Earl Warren had released the last Japanese from internment in California and just before he was appointed by Eisenhower to the Supreme Court, the “Cold War” between the United States and its Western European Allies on the one hand and the Soviet Union and her allies on the other was declared as the first national “Eternal War” envisioned by Orwell in his book 1984—a neverending conflict designed to justify the existence of powerful centralized governments whose existence seemed to depend on the power to destroy other powerful centralized governments (and their subject populations).

In the United States, a new generation of Black Americans had been empowered by their status as war heroes in World War II, and as returning veterans.   The Communist Party had made major pre-War inroads into the Urban Black communities living up North, but with so many black beneficiaries of the GI bill going home with military medals, standing and knowledge, the potential for a final abolition of the “badges and incidents” of slavery by true economic emancipation were about to be realized.

The purpose of Orwell’s Perpetual War in 1984 was Social Confusion and Control.  So was the purpose of the Cold War between the Eastern (Communist) and Western (Capitalist) Blocks.  Certain Whites had to be sold on the idea that the Communist Threat lingered and was growing among the Negro population of America, while the Black population needed to be sold on the idea that they could achieve more by making demands than following orders (despite their experience exactly to the contrary during World War II).  So it was NECESSARY to create a nearly eternal internal revival of the War Between the States in the post-World War II era.  

Harry Truman, himself briefly a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a lifetime member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, reluctantly obliged, signing the 1948 Civil Rights Act into law just in time to become a divisive issue in the election year, launching the national career of (then) Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.  Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren Chief Justice in 1953, Ike’s first year in office.

The 1950s and 60s saw race-riots and desegregation tear the South apart again, but the North felt the same sting as the U.S. Courts were used as merciless engines to DIVIDE and CONQUER the American population (ironically enough) in the name of DESEGREGATION and FREEDOM.

By 1974, the Southern Resistance to Desegregation had been crushed, and with it, all remnants of Constitutionally meaningful States Rights.  Thousands of “Civil Rights” cases had been won by Plaintiffs, and yet, oddly enough, the Country, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, was MUCH less free and people quieter in the face of both governmental and corporate corruption than EVER BEFORE IN HISTORY!  

Why was that?  Because the REAL effect of the Civil Rights movement was to destroy CIVIL LIBERTIES and the CONSTITUTION together, and to make the Federal Government more all powerful than Hitler or Stalin had ever realized in their dictatorships in regard to control over the thoughts or day-to-day lives of the people. 

The hidden cost of desegregation of the schools was the Federalized destruction of education (“dumbing down” as it’s sometimes called) of both blacks and whites.   American Education is now a shabby shadow of itself, and Americans graduate from High School knowing close to nothing of any real value in regard to economics, history, law, political process, science, or technology.  Even the basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic are generally recognized to progress not much farther than the fifth grade for the vast majority of the population, which has become a nation of paper-pushers in offices and service/”support” employees otherwise.  

And yet we are all equal—all as slaves on Uncle Sam’s Plantation….. And that is why the express and explicitly racial language of the texts of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1982 today rings so very hollow:

42 U.S.C.A. § 1981:   Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

42 U.S.C.A. § 1982:  Property rights of citizens

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

Unlike 42 U.S.C. §1985, which appears to be racially neutral, 42 U.S.C. §§1981-1982 are expressly racially divisive and biased, and entirely to no purpose IF the White Population is subject to the kind of degradation and destruction of its rights as have been experienced since 1913, 1933, 1953, 1964, 1974, 1986, 1996, and 2001, just to mention a few of the key years in the past hundred years when the freedom, autonomy, and substantive rights of the people and states of the Union were progressively stripped away, right-by-right.

By 1974, the whole concept of “America, Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” had become nothing more than a commercial slogan, not nearly as resonant or valuable as “I’d like to buy the World a Coke.”   We had been swindled of our birthright as Americans through Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, the Kennedy Assassination, the Great Society, the 1960s, and Watergate-Watergag Nixon, Ford, and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller—who initiated the mass imprisonment of America with his New York based “War on Drugs”, which Nixon had so enthusiastically adopted as National Policy.  The “War on Drugs” was fascinating because it was apparently, facially, colorblind—-just like 42 U.S.C. §1983, but in fact it seemed designed to put more blacks back on the Plantation than Whites—is that because only the blacks had any hope for a better future by then?  I’m not sure…

In any event, I want to return to the theme of this article, the outrageously perverse violation of Civil Rights Laws in America by quoting one more statute, the Civil Rights Removal Statute, which (as written and codified) should be THE MOST POWERFUL SINGLE ENGINE for Federal Oversight of State Compliance with the Civil Liberties Guaranteed by the Constitution:

28 U.S.C.A. § 1443. Civil rights cases

Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.  (June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 938.)
What can it be called besides a TRAVESTY that the U.S. District Courts STILL follow the line of cases starting with Strauder v. West Virginia and Virginia v. Rives in 1871 that limited such removal as follows (from Greenwood v. Peacock384 U.S. 808, 827-828; 86 S. Ct. 1800, 1812;
16 L. Ed. 2d 944, 956-7;  1966):
It is not enough to support removal under ß 1443 (1) to allege or show that the defendant’s federal equal civil rights have been illegally and corruptly denied by state administrative officials in advance  [***957]  of trial, that the charges against the defendant are false, or that the defendant is unable to obtain a fair trial in a particular state court.  The motives of the officers bringing the charges may be corrupt, but that does not show that the state trial court will find the defendant guilty if he is innocent, or that in any other manner the defendant will  [*828]  be “denied or cannot enforce in the courts” of the State any right under a federal law providing for equal civil rights. The civil rights removal statute does not require and does not permit the judges of the federal courts to put their brethren of the state judiciary on trial.  [HN8] Under ß 1443 (1), the vindication of the defendant’s federal rights is left to the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.  Georgia v. Rachel, ante;  Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303. 26   See also  Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313….(other Citations Omitted).

This Language of Judicial Sophistry is an insult to the very concept of Federalism, and to the very  notion of the Supreme Court as ideologically committed to genuine equality of rights or of the equal protection of the law.  This is the language of a Court that does NOT believe in Civil Rights for Everyone, or in Genuine Equality of the law: precisely because this Judicial interpretation of the Civil Rights Law divides society and permits governmental oppression, on all levels, it is contrary to the letter of the law.  

But the LANGUAGE adopted by Congress is a model of the great Swindle—the great deception by which Congress led the American people to believe the demogogic rhetoric of race was in favor of equality, while the Court’s careful interpretation ensured that equality under the law and equal access to the Courts and judicial WOULD NOT HAPPEN IN AMERICA.

The American People should demand that Congress overturn the Supreme Court’s judicially formulated policy and practice of refusing to allow and/or remanding Civil Rights Removals under 28 U.S.C. §1443. The Supreme Court established this policy or practice by Greenwood v. Peacock (see attached full text copy of Greenwood v Peacock 1966), which was but one in a series of 3 cases decided 1966-­1975. It is now time review, reassessment, and reversal of these cases (including Georgia v. Rachel and Johnson v. Mississippi, as well as the earlier Strauder and Rives decisions from the 19th Century).  The Court’s national judicial policy of remanding cases removed on civil rights grounds on the grounds that this series of 3 cases contradicts both the express language adopted by Congress and all subsequent jurisprudence on equal protection. Specifically, I assert and ask Congress, and all the Federal Courts to recognize, determine, hold, and rule that the judicially formulated policy and application of Civil Rights removal under 28 U.S.C. §1443 must itself be subjected to strict scrutiny because this policy (Greenwood v. Peacock and Georgia v. Rachel) too narrowly allocates the benefits and advantages of removal to Federal Court on grounds of civil rights violations in a racially discriminatory manner and without respect for the broad language of the statute.

The German Philosopher Hegel always wrote about the truth that resides in and is revealed by the Contradictions inherent in all things.  The Warren Court reveals its true soul in the decision of the Civil Rights Removal Cases: that which is racially neutral and positive for all must be made racially divisive and therefore negative for all: because ONLY THE DEPRAVATION OF RIGHTS should be applied equally to all people.  And the Judges of both the State and the Federal Courts must have all their arbitrary and capricious power reserved to them.  That was another of the dubious triumphs of Earl Warren’s duplicitous legacy.

Nothing makes the illogical nature of race-based standing as a prerequisite to Civil Rights review that to review the Supreme Court’s own (1966-­1975) decisions in light of its equal protection jurisprudence of 1978-­the present time.  Such an honest and comprehensive comparison of the two distinct lines of precedent and case law will require the invalidation of the racially discriminatory policy of construing the broad civil rights removal statute only to apply to an extremely narrow range of cases involving express statutory discrimination by race. Federal Courts have a duty to review all state court proceedings where the outcome is predetermined by state statutory policy, not merely those where state laws concerning race lead to predetermined outcomes.

That the door to Civil Rights Removal should be opened without regard to race is established by the second line of jurisprudence, which can be found in the cases Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, J.A. Croson v. The City of Richmond, Adarand v. Pena, and Grutter v. Bollinger (See “Advance Sheet” texts of City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. (Opinion) 488 U.S. 469 (1989) and Grutter v. Bollinger 2003—Opinion).

These cases hold that all governmental programs of racial discrimination, even discrimination in favor of in favor of racial minorities, must be subjected to strict scrutiny.  The strict scrutiny test requires that the government seeking to uphold its racially biased program must demonstrate a compelling objective and show that the racially disparate treatment is the most narrowly tailored and most constitutionally appropriate means to achieving this objective.

Both Logic and Decency require that America review the racial classification and racial discrimination scheme set up and imposed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Georgia v. Rachel, Greenwood v. Peacock, and Johnson v. Mississippi as a Federal law predating Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, (1978), Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989) and Adarand Contractors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995) and to apply the strict scrutiny test to this race-­based inequality in the application and enforcement of the law relating to civil rights removal under 28 U.S.C. §1443.

* In my Sophomore Year in College (at Tulane University in New Orleans) I recall giving an impromptu speech at some sort of student organized Seminar on Freedom in which I charged that “Freedom in America is a Swindle”.  I was heavily under the influence of Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, to whom I had been introduced by my Freshman Seminar on “Crisis in Culture as Reflected in Modern Literature” with Cleanth Brooks (one of Louisiana’s Famous “Fugitives” or “Southern Agrarians” with Allen Tate, Robert Penn Warren, Eudora Welty, among others) at the time (and possibly of other exotic things as well as anthropology and cultural evolution in history). But what I was basically talking about was mindless conformity in the student body and society as a whole—the world made deaf to reflective words in general but socio-political philosophy in particular by rock ‘n roll (I started my own progressively aggravating hearing loss as a teenager in that loud party world), blind to beauty and truth by Movies and Television (this was before the advent of the Personal Computer—although I was one of the first to purchase an Apple II in 1980), and generally insentive to touch, smell, and taste by our culture of commercialism, mass production, and drugs.  (I rather fondly call one blonde girl with large round glasses in particular telling me how she loved to hear me saying the word “swindle” over and over again, and she invited me to repeat it to her privately after the Seminar… but here I digress).

** Samuel Ichiye Hayakawa’s words resonate with me to this very day in contemplating Barack Obama and his allies: Relevant even to the subject of this article read very carefully what Hayakawa wrote about his own first and most famous book, published 70 years ago:

The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler’s success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer’s conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue.

© Charles Edward Lincoln, III, October 25, 2011, Draft 4:15 AM, written in Santa Monica 90405.

3 responses to “Race-Based Standing: the most outrageously perverse violation of Civil Rights laws in America (the Warren Court was a Fraud)

  1. Pingback: Race-Based Standing: the most outrageously perverse violation of Civil Rights laws in America - Stormfront

  2. You can’t even get your geography right. Canada is the larges nation by area in the Western Hemisphere followed by the United States. Brazil is third. And Brazil did not have a well entrneched landed class using democracy to oppress people.

    • Charles Edward Lincoln III

      Sternguard Friegen I believe? Is that you chiming in here from the Frogblower? I suppose I have to concede I was thinking of Brazil having a much larger INHABITED area with a much large population density than Canada—Baffin Island alone is immense, Ellesmere not far behind, but the entire population of Nunavut is less than 32,000, and there are several “wild” tribes of Native Americans in Amazonia bigger than that…occupying much less territory. Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories is a sufficiently desolate “city” of 18,000 or so—I’ve visited there and took a low flying aeroplane tour of part of Nunavut in 2007. But you add the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Laborador, Northern Quebec, and Alberta-Saskatchewan north of Edmonton and….well, Brazil still seems way bigger. And the USA is only bigger because of Alaska…. Amazonia is teaming with life…. But, like most Frogblowers, your pedantic need to attack thinking people betrays itself as foolish—you may be right about “gross territorial size and ranking” but Brazil had a plantation system every bit as entrenched or “entrneched” as you wrote as the American South, which is why the Confederados (including some of my cousins) were attracted there after the war. Brazil is still extremely hierarchical today, as are all Latin American countries, and that is why so many GERMAN refugees found comfort and solace in Latin America after World War II… and their descendants do so happily to this day… so…. “get a life,” you know?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s