Political Correctness

A Congressman's Racial Slur

Bobby Rush v. Mark Kirk


Congressman Bobby Rush

Today we start with a quiz. Two politicians, one black and one white, have a disagreement on an issue. One airs an opinion, and the other responds with a racial insult. What will happen next?

A) The politician who used the racial insult will be roundly and widely denounced and forced to resign from office.

B) Nothing.

The answer is: It depends. It's impossible to determine the correct answer without knowing whether the epithet came from the white politician or the black politician. In a society that treats racism, correctly, as a grave offense, it shouldn't really matter. But apparently it does.

If you don't believe me, consider the case of Illinois' U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, a black Democrat, and Sen. Mark Kirk, a white Republican. Kirk has been urging law enforcement agencies to destroy Chicago's biggest gang by arresting its members—all 18,000 of them.

It's easy to spot possible flaws in this proposal. There is no jail in Chicago big enough to hold all those arrestees. There are not enough police in the city to carry out such a massive detention. There is no reliable membership list to make sure that only the guilty get picked up.

It would cost a lot of money—Kirk wants the federal government to provide $30 million for the task. It would divert cops from just about everything else they normally do.

Some of these defects obviously occurred to Rush, who found no merit in the idea. "It's a sensational, headline-grabbing, empty, simplistic, unworkable approach," he told the Chicago Sun-Times. All fair points, made in perfectly acceptable language.

But Rush wasn't content to stop there. Kirk's proposal, he declared, is "an upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about."

After reconsidering, Rush issued a more temperate statement, expressing his sincere regret that Kirk's "current plan does not include the option to create jobs, provide affordable and safe housing, quality health care and improve schools in urban areas." But on the topic of the senator's pale complexion, Rush saw no need to amend or retract his words or apologize for them. (His spokesperson did not return my calls asking for comment.)

Nor did the Sun-Times treat the comment as scandalous. Kirk's spokesman ignored it in a mild statement, saying, "The senator will continue to work with Sen. Durbin, Mayor Emanuel, law enforcement and the entire congressional delegation to keep Illinois families safe."

But consider how things would have gone if it had been Kirk instead of Rush who made an insulting racial comment—not even the N word, but something less offensive.

I won't attempt to come up with a hypothetical equivalent, since ethnic slurs are really not my strong suit. But it's fair to assume that if Kirk had used any sort of pejorative racial term to refer to Rush, he would have soon been renouncing it in a desperate attempt to save his political career.

It's true that Kirk grew up in comfortable circumstances, attended outstanding institutions of higher education and lives in a serene suburb where African-Americans are thin on the ground. So calling him a highborn dilettante unversed in urban problems is not outrageous, though it is irrelevant.

After all, I would guess that on the West Side of Chicago, there are black residents who wouldn't mind seeing thousands of gang members locked up. It would not be surprising to hear sentiments similar to Kirk's coming from black conservative political figures—such as Herman Cain, a tea party favorite, or Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who has a near-perfect rating from the American Conservative Union. Rush didn't question Kirk's expertise when he voted to expand background checks for gun purchases, which Rush also supports.

For Rush to now dismiss Kirk because of his background is no more legitimate than it would be for Kirk to remind everyone that Rush was a leader of the violent Black Panthers and spent time behind bars on a weapons charge. Neither approach addresses the real problems of crime in Chicago.

The congressman has every right to decry the substantive shortcomings of Kirk's proposal. But those shortcomings would exist regardless of who made it. What he has no business doing—what no one has any business doing—is using patronizing language that disparages an entire race. _

Rush wouldn't quietly endure insults like that directed at him. They are no more tolerable coming from him.

NEXT: Syrian Government Warns Citizens To Avoid Visiting Turkey

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “an upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about.”

    It would be nice if people were angrier about the ad hominem than the perceived racism.

    1. If not for Ad Hominem, I’d get no responses at all. For some reason people seem to think that just because I’m an evil, soul sucking socon government employee po’ white boy in a deep blue state, anything I say should be disregarded. Oh, wait I forgot ‘gundamentalist’ it’s the newest so called slur the lefties have been tossing my way of late.

      1. government employee

        All the rest is irrelevant. Anything you say should probably be disregarded.

        1. Micah. I just agree… Jesse`s bl0g is amazing… last wednesday I bought a brand new Volkswagen Golf GTI since I been making $7305 this-past/5 weeks and-over, 10 grand last munth. this is certainly the most rewarding I’ve ever done. I started this nine months/ago and immediately started earning minimum $75 per hour. I went to this web-site….. grand4.com
          (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

  2. There is no reliable membership list to make sure that only the guilty get picked up.

    Sure there is. Arrest the guys with badges and uniforms.

    1. just before I saw the receipt 4 $4303, I did not believe that…my… cousin actualie earning money part-time from there pretty old laptop.. there brothers friend started doing this for only and just now repaid the mortgage on there home and bought Lancia. we looked here, kep2.com

  3. It’s not racist unless a white boy says it. Anyone else is just being real.

    1. Bingo.

    2. Govt tools sucking on the same teat- “pot calling the kettle…white?”

  4. It’s easy to spot possible flaws in this proposal. There is no jail in Chicago big enough to hold all those arrestees. There are not enough police in the city to carry out such a massive detention. There is no reliable membership list to make sure that only the guilty get picked up.

    It would cost a lot of money — Kirk wants the federal government to provide $30 million for the task. It would divert cops from just about everything else they normally do.

    And Chapman walks right by the elephant. What crime did all 18,000 citizens commit that constitutes grounds for arrest? Is membership, or really, association a crime in Illinois?

    1. RICO baby!

    2. Isn’t there a part of one of those Amendment thingies that says something about freedom of association?

      1. This is Chicago, your ‘rights’ mean nothing there.

    3. I wondered the same thing. Can mere membership be grounds for arrest, even in the absence of evidence that a specific individual has committed a crime? I hate gangs as much as the next guy, but you can’t go around arresting people before they do something. Or maybe you can these days.

    4. If you’ve spent any time in Chicago, you’d realize that 18,000 barely scratches the surface.

  5. Stop saying African-American. They’re fucking black (brown technically). If this fact offends your pitifully weak ego, then fuck off.

    1. It gets really funny when blacks who have never stepped foot onto the western continent, presidents of African nations for example, are referred to as African-Americans in the news.

      1. I could see African-American, but that should apply to Eqyptians, Libyans, etc., too. Do Arabs born in Africa get to call themselves African-American? Why do I not here European-American all that much? Should it be Somalian-American or Zimbabwean-American? How does someone born in South Africa get to refer to themselves? Only blacks born there can call themselves African-American? How far back do your ancestors have to go before you are grandfathered in? Is there a one drop rule that applies? Inquiring people want to know.

        1. I don’t use the term (I just say black and nobody has ever had a problem with it) but it doesn’t really bother me either (except when idiots use it to refer to people who aren’t American). Heck, we rarely even use the “American” part when racially identifying Americans of Asian descent, and nobody (on either side) seems to complain about that. Also, when people know what specific country their ancestors are from, it’s not uncommon to use the term “Ethiopian-American” or “Nigerian-American” (at least when talking about the larger national community. Usually when people just say “I’m Ethiopian (or Italian or German or Japanese or whatever),” it’s understood they’re talking about ancestry, if there’s not any reason to think they’re actually from that country).

        2. I’ve tried to milk as much as I can from the fact that I learned my blonde, pale ass is like a 16th Ghanaian.

      2. Yeah that nomenclature really grinds its way into your brain too, I remember years ago seeing something that referred to Val James as the first African-American to play in the NHL and I kind of shook my head and thought “wait a minute, that’s not right…” before it occurred to me that every black player prior to Val’s debut had technically been “African-Canadian”.


      1. Hottest African-American ever!

    3. “African American” certainly has it’s place. Americans descended from African slaves are a distinct cultural and to some extend genetic group. But it is just stupid to say that when what you mean is “black” and you don’t know that person’s nationality.

      1. “African American” certainly has its place, which is to refer to an immigrant from Africa who permanently resides in America. If you were born here, and especially if your roots go back several generations, then you’re just American whether you’re black or white or whatever.

        1. Immigrants from Africa would probably identify more as a “(insert country name)-American” because they actually know what specific country they’re descended from.

          As I said, I don’t use the term, but I don’t really know why people get worked up about it. Everybody refers to people from East Asia as “Asian” (and in America, the term “Asian-American” is rarely used to describe a specific person) and nobody gets worked up about it. I think it’s pretty straightforward that “African-American” simply means an American of African descent

      2. By your standard, 43% of the US population should not be referred to as white, but as German-Americans. Perhaps a black guy with German ancestry should be called “German-American” but we both know that it means something different. “African-American” as it’s commonly used is a pandering euphemism.

        1. What about people with very dark skin who can’t trace their ethnic background back to Africa? If you’ve ever seen people originally from the southern part of India and Sri Lanka (Tamils) or many of the aboriginals of Australia, their skin color is often considerably darker than that of most Africans. But calling them African American would be ridiculous.

          1. Obviously. To answer your question, they’re simply called “Indian” or “Sri Lankan” and in the case of Australian aborigines they might call themselves simply “Australian” or maybe they include the aborigine qualifier. I don’t know as I’ve never met one

            1. *I will add that I’m pretty sure some Australians do refer to Aborigines as “black.” I don’t know how widespread that is, or if the aborigines themselves use the term

              1. Abos, black fellas, or if you’re trying to be correct, Koori or Aboriginal.

        2. Most white people have ancestors from multiple European countries and many might not even be fully aware of what those countries are (and of course descendents of slaves don’t know where specifically their ancestors came from, and because slaves were taken from many modern African countries, they too have descent from more than just one country). To expand on your point, I don’t think it’s at all uncommon for a white person to say “I’m German” or “I’m Italian” or “I’m Polish” in America, and it’s understood they’re talking about ancestry. I agree that the term “African-American” isn’t really necessary and while it’s definitely a PC term (even though I haven’t met a single person offended by the term “black”), it also isn’t anything getting worked up about.

      3. “African-American” is a meaningless term. Africa has more genetic and cultural diversity than the rest of the world combined; it’s like lumping Chinese and French together as one culture and heritage because they are both light skinned. Furthermore, many light-skinned people are descended from slaves, and many European immigrants were themselves escaping slavery (feudalism) and put their lives on the line to free the slaves of the South.

        The term “African-American” was created by white racists, and it is perpetuated by black racists. It should have no place in political or social discourse.

    4. I once worked with a woman in the Pharmaceutical industry who was as white as the driven snow, but was also the daughter of a Portugese family and was born in Mozambique. She had dual citizenship there as well as in the USA. So she was much more African-American than any of the racists at the meeting of the Ethicon African-American Society who insisted that she was not allowed to join.

  6. C’mon, son! “White boy” is not a slur, but merely an “observation”. If Rush were trying to insult him, he would have called him a “jive-ass peckerwood honkey motherfucker”.

    1. Oh, sure, I’m sure the black boy didn’t mean anything derogatory at all.

    2. Double standard –
      Rush Limbaugh said: “an upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about.”

      Chaos ensues…

  7. “Gundamentalist”?

    I R 1

  8. At least he didn’t say, “Go back to Hymietown, Cracker!”

    1. I thought Jesse Jackson was referring to New York City when he said that. Chicago isn’t usually called Hymietown.

      1. Pollack Polis?

  9. whatever.

  10. Kirk has been urging law enforcement agencies to destroy Chicago’s biggest gang by arresting its members — all 18,000 of them.

    The Chicago Police Department has 18,000 employees?

    1. According to Wikipedia they’ve got a little over 12,000 officers and 15,000 employees.
      So no, the cops are not the biggest gang.

      1. Well, if the biggest non-gang is 18,000 and CPD is 27,000, it sounds like CPD is the biggest gang.

        I’m sure not all 18,000 members of the “gang” are foot soldiers or generals either. Somebody has to work those corners.

        1. No. CPD is 15,000 employees. 12,000 of which are sworn officers.

          1. Ah, I see. I guess I was supposed to read your link or something. [sniff]

            (I’m spending the day fucked up on cold medicine.)

    2. That’s how I read that.

    1. She is lucky she didn’t get the Empire State Building or Times Square response and end up full of bullets.

      Of course, the cops might have been laughing too hard to shoot.

      1. Maybe the cops have bad taste and think she’s good looking.

        1. Did you see the picture? I don’t think so.

      2. If the cops used those tactics she would have been safe. The only people at risk of being hit would be bystanders.

    2. The bawdy barrister, who lives with her churchgoing mom in Flatlands, pulled off her panties, showed cops her lady parts, then lunged at them and yelled, “Suck my p—y,” and, “Eat my ass, you f–king pigs!” police said.

      Oh shit, that’s funny.

      1. “Suck my p—y,”

        I vaguely recall an old joke where the punchline went something like: “I ain’t about to fuck with anybody who can eat that much ice cream.”

  11. Maybe I’m waaayyy off here but isn’t a black politician talking that way part of the problem?

    Is he inferring whites can’t help to solve this problem? If not, what has his ‘kind’ done exactly? I keep seeing a whole lotta blame the white guy from inner-city/ghetto blacks (African-Americans – and I’m Roman-Canadian) but not much on meaningful change.

    I watched a video a while back on youtube where a Detroit black commentator (I forget if he was a scholar or philosopher) explained why Detroit was rotting. Basically, it’s the militant blacks who overtook the power – he used that statue of the fist as a symbolic gesture. He suggested it meant using force as opposed to being a part of a community – within black communities across the country. It was very interesting listening to him speak about how entrepreneurial blacks were once upon a time.

    This is all off the top of my head but that was the gist of it I think.

    1. Blacks were systemically transformed into serfs of the welfare state.

  12. “an upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about.”

    Obviously Kirk should have proposed drone-striking the gang members.

    1. I think he would’ve proposed phasers on stun.

  13. Is he insinuating that middle-class black people have some special knowledge about gang activity? That seems kind of offensive.

    If I went up to a black kid at my university and started asking him about drugs and gangs, he’d rightly be offended.

    1. Didn’t you know? The only group with a universal claim to the pity that comes with a hard life and endless discrimination is the blacks.

  14. “an upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about.”

    Except for the “white,” this sounds like something George Wallace or other segregationists might have said about Northern freedom riders in the 1960s.

    1. can you stretch a little farther in search of a meaningless analogy? And when the Wallaces said things like that, the consensus was how wrong they were. When Rush says it, crickets. Or, as evidenced by you, misdirection.

      1. Crickets it is. Parts of Chicago are war zones, with gross violations of the rights of law-abiding citizens, yet any outsider offering a “solution” is told to mind his own business. It was wrong in 1965 and wrong today.

        1. But the solution is retarded, along the lines of ‘lock up bad people’. It’s ‘tough on crime’ bullshit… got a problem with crimes, just djin up arrests and assume the cops are probably arresting the right people when you told them to just start arresting thousands of people – which they won’t. But it makes you look like you’re doing something.

          It is kind of an upper-middle-class elitist solution because it basically boils down to, because we have a crime problem in black neighborhoods, just start arresting black people.

          The knee-jerk right wing “lets make a big show of arresting a bunch of people for jaywalking” approach will work just as well as the all those stupid ass left wing ‘gun buy-backs’ which is their non-solution.

          If you really wanted to tackle the issue, you’d need to (1) end the drug war and provide legal alternatives (2) school choice and truancy officers (3) repeal 95% of the regulation making it illegal for poor people to work (as they haven’t coughed up the cash money down for licensing, permit, proper zoning, etc.) (4) community review boards with the power to fire police who don’t understand they are there to serve the community not oppress it, (5) drastically reduce all non-essential welfare (like cell phones and internet) so more people have to work and (6) wait a generation or two for these things to take effect.

          1. It is kind of an upper-middle-class elitist solution because it basically boils down to, because we have a crime problem in black neighborhoods, just start arresting black people.

            Except no one is suggesting that. Arresting known gang members is just a bit different from arresting random black people.

            1. Define “known gang member.” I can’t speak about Detroit, but knowing how the police operate/have operated in many parts of this country, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of “random black people” got arrested along with “known gang members”

  15. OK, Pop Quiz; Did Rush get away with this because he’s Black, or because he’s a Democrat?

    1. You know who runs this town?

      The Jews?

      No, the gay Jews.

      1. Master Blaster

      2. Thought is was Sicilian Jews.

  16. Calling whites white is now considered racism?

    1. It was the “boy” part. Everybody knows “boy” is offensive to Blacks.

    2. By being racially classified as white, we are locked out of most government programs as the default ‘non-minoirty’ So one who favors such things might see bring this up as…. Buahahaha, I couldn’t make it through that post with out cracking up.

      No, no it’s not. Not by anyone with a brain.

    3. Calling whites white is now considered racism?

      I wouldn’t think so, no.

      However, I would think that insinuating that someone has no ability to rationally address a problem because they are white would qualify.

    4. Telling people to shut up because of their race (whatever it may be) is indeed racist.

  17. Thank you, Bobby Rush for confirming my suspicion that gun control for politicians of an urban bent has nothing to do with loyalty to a misguided ideology but is instead the result of the gangs being your top donors.

  18. I’m surprised that nobody seems offended by the fact that he wants to “lock up” people who haven’t been accused of a crime…other than belonging to a subversive group. The Yokeltarian is strong today.

    1. The Yokeltarian is strong today.

      Is that suppose to mean something?

      1. Not if you’ve been conditioned to knee-jerkedly always make the following calculus: Democrat < Republican.

        1. Is that the why you think Chapman makes for bringing this matter up? Republicans Democrats? Please, please continue.

          1. makes for bringing

            ‘brings’, of course. I originally worded it ‘case’ for the noun but decided it was awkward. Should have left it alone.

            1. The point being that a federal politician suggests that the federal government aid in rounding up 18,000 members of an undesireable group under completely unconstitutional grounds and is called a racist by another politician…and all anyone here does is bitch about the racism slur.

              1. That may be fair criticism, as far as it goes. Both parties are a parasitical class so to single one out as worse than the other may be seen as missing the broader point of libertarian minded reform. Except, in this case, the urban political machine of the Democrats siphons and impoverishes the lives of those it supposedly represents, more so than the suburban Republican machine does for the lives of those it supposedly represents. That is kind of hard to ignore in this scenario.

                1. There is a missing word after ‘siphon’. To the best of memory, it was ‘from.’ Tough, long morning.

                2. Agreed to a point. But that was not what the article was about. Think about it. Had some Team Blue jackass said the same thing about rounding up some militia, and a Republican had shot back a retort about “Fascism” or “Big City Socialist” or “Fake America” or some other assholish response, nobody here would take umbrage to the retort.

                  1. Chapman is a member of Team Blue. His criticism here is like that of a neoliberal pointing to the excesses of liberalism.

                    ‘Big City Socialist’ (never heard that specific one before) is a fair dig at anyone advocating redistribution or ‘social justice.’ ‘Fascist’ is also a fair description of anyone who supports police state tactics, be it rounding up gang members under RICO, or DHS and FBI practices of surveilling groups, right or left.

                    1. But then “upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about” is all technically true then. The inverse to the kind of response small towners always give when some federal or state level politician offers legislation or comment on rural issues.
                      If name calling is fair game, then Rush is only calling it like it is.

                    2. I really didn’t have a problem with that, either; notice Chapman’s language here: What he has no business doing — what no one has any business doing — is using patronizing language that disparages an entire race. _

                      Rush wouldn’t quietly endure insults like that directed at him. They are no more tolerable coming from him. is the overly sensitive political correctness that mostly gets lambasted in these parts. Chapman is merely trying to remain consistent in the framework of his left libertarian outlook. That is his albatross to bear.

                    3. I should say, his ‘particular left libertarian’ outlook. I know some younger left libertarians whose language is quite a bit more rough edged than even my own. His outlook is aristocratic noblese oblige, theirs is more what would be associated with the Occupy movement.

                    4. Incidentally, I’ll probably have more to say about this in other upcoming threads, but I believe Occupy is going to be the surprise comeback of 2014. Not in the mostly useless protest we saw in 2011, but in the primary season. Then they were pretty much squelched in favor of establishmentarian regulatory advocates in 2012, but rights advocates, legalization, prison reform, etc., will be able to do get out the vote drives they were not allowed to do last year in the coming mid-terms. Hence, Occupy will be a useful vessel for doing just that.

                    5. I agree that there is a double standard, and blacks get to say all kinds of shit that would lose a white his job. But I’m still way more disturbed by Kirk’s comments (and the lack of retort by Reason and this commentariate) than by Rush’s faux pas(or heartfelt statement depending on one’s analysis). Partisanship should not take precedence to defense of liberty, and Kirk’s statement should not be getting a pass like it is here.

                    6. I don’t know man. Depends on whether you’re analyzing this particular incident or using at as a springboard to make a broader point, as Chapman is.

                      Kirk is an idiot, but in the long-run, race-based identity politics is the bigger problem for libertarians. It seeps thought the entire culture and generates REAL anti-liberty legislation (Kirk’s proposal is a joke that will never see the light of day). Humans are intrinsically tribalistic, and while both parties are guilty of exploiting this weakness from time to time, the Democrats do it as a matter of course, and you have to take advantage of any opportunity to expose them at it that you can.

                    7. Maybe you should read the thread. Jesus. Pretty much the entire thing is people questioning the point of the racial commentary, and there is a whole discussion on the stupidity of the plan.

                      Rage against the…whatever it is Reason did this time.

  19. Police are worse than any gang – they are state/federal protected thugs

  20. “It’s easy to spot possible flaws in this proposal. There is no jail in Chicago big enough to hold all those arrestees. There are not enough police in the city to carry out such a massive detention. There is no reliable membership list to make sure that only the guilty get picked up.”

    Here’s another “possible flaw”: it’s not a crime to belong to a “gang.” It’s “amusing,” I guess, that it isn’t until Steve reaches his third “possible flaw” that it occurs to him that this “massive detention” would simply amount to jailing black kids who look like they’re “bad guys.” Well, at least he got there.

  21. I look forward to seeing the poor trashy black-boy solution to the problem.

    1. You already saw it. Lock everybody up without trial.

  22. Everybody is missing what’s really wrong with the column. FTA:

    “For Rush to now dismiss Kirk because of his background is no more legitimate than it would be for Kirk to remind everyone that Rush was a leader of the violent Black Panthers and spent time behind bars on a weapons charge.”

    Chapman is wrong. It would be perfectly legitimate and indeed beneficial to the public for Kirk to remind everyone that Rush was a leader of the violent Black Pathers (racial separatist/terrorist organization) and spent time behind bars on a weapons charge. That’s the only important bit of information in the column, and people need to be reminded of it continually, since a lot of people seem all too eager to forget. It doesn’t mean that everything Rush says should be discounted automatically, but it does suggest that his views on violence, guns and urban problems in general should be taken with a measure of skepticism.

  23. It’s articles like these that extinguish every glimmer of hope I see in libertarianism. Equating “elitist white boy” with the n-word, and assuming all Black Panthers are violent, is the sort of sentiment that seems to simmer below the beard-stroking pseudo-intellectualism that libertarians hide behind.

    1. He explicitly did not equate “elitist white boy” with the n word.

      1. He didn’t have to. It’s quite implicitly entrenched. It’s what made all of us click on this piece of garbage passing as “clear mind” op-ed.

        If it makes elitist white boys butthurt to be called out on their privilege, it only shows that there’s something inherently wrong in equating the n-word with white privilege.

    2. The Black Panthers was a revolutionary socialist organization advocating armed resistance and following a racist ideology. It’s not a stretch to attribute the stated beliefs and goals of an organization to one of its leaders.

      1. I thought the 2nd Amendment applied to all U.S. citizens. Correct me if it only applies to “states’ rights” (code word for racist ideology) advocates.

        I’m not justifying violence against person or property, but if your community was held in perpetual disregard and subjected to violence by state and status-quo majority (“real Amurricans”), wouldn’t you call your community to arm itself for its own protection?

        Also, last I checked, “socialism” is an ideology Americans are allowed to have. The Black Panthers’ brand of socialism, i.e. doing and pulling together for their own community, is not inherently bad. It’s when outsiders code it as some kind of unamerican dog-whistle, as you have done, that it somehow means something evil — and only amongst yourselves.

  24. And for what it’s worth, incarcerating thousands of people based on status and not conduct is 1) a massive violation of civil liberties, and 2) the sort of solution that a non-black, non-poor person would come up with to address the problems of southside Chicago. Stating that thousands of black residents would probably agree with this solution is incredibly reductionist. Shame on the author for pointing out a false equivalence based on racial and class invective to justify suppressing civil liberties.

    1. Do you really think anyone here supports suppressing civil liberties?

      “Elitist white boy” IS equivalent to the n-word in its irrelevance to rational discourse, though obviously one is far worse when considering the attached emotion. Talk about your false equivalencies.

      It never fails to amaze how often critiques of “libertarianism” largely revolve around the criticizer not understanding the argument because they’re too stuck in outmoded dichotomies.

    2. I think most people here agree on #1.

      On #2, well clearly if poor blacks already knew how to stop being poor they would already not be poor. Why would you expect the solution to poverty to come from people who are poor?

      False equivalence? Not all Black Panthers are violent? The KKK used to build churches, you know. The biggest problem blacks face is racist leadership that wants to ghettoize them under institutions they can use to extract wealth for themselves.

      1. I’m quite sure blacks agree with you on that last observation.

  25. It would divert cops from just about everything else they normally do.

    Not that arresting them is kosher, but when you say it isn’t for reasons A, B, and C, I would at least expect reasons A, B, and C to all be good reasons.

    Two of three ain’t bad?*

    *My apologies to Meatloaf

  26. “current plan does not include the option to create jobs, provide affordable and safe housing, quality health care and improve schools in urban areas.”

    Bobby Rush is exactly why none of things are going to happen in black-dominated areas. No one wants to open a business in areas like Cicero where the entire store has to be kept away from customers behind bulletproof glass, but because Bobby Rush is a “black leader” he can’t advocate any solution that might be seen as blaming blacks. So he and his cronies get government jobs, blacks stay poor and reliably Democrat. Chicago works.

  27. A problem he knows nothing about? Really?

    The problem is that black people are killing black people–not just in Chicago, but all over the country.

    A lot of that killing is gang related–and some could be resolved by getting rid of drug prohibition–but a whole lot of it is male posturing–homicidal male posturing.

    Kirks’ idea is heavy handed, unconstitutional, and it might work. It might give a tiny bit of breathing room to the black people that actually have to deal with this crap. Rush sure as hell doesn’t. Rush doesn’t have to worry about stray bullets. Kirk’s not thinking about Rushs’ sensibilities–he’s thinking about people who don’t want to pick their babies up from the morgue because gang A was disrespected by gang B so they had to have a shootout near the playground.

    And shit like this comes up ‘cos we’re not allowed to really address the problem without some old race hustler going off.

  28. Blacks leader have no idea how to end sub-culture black gang-banging violence. Neither do their elitist-white liberal friends.

    They have both failed to stop black on black murder.

    1. “Black leaders” are responsible for the existence of this sub-culture, by creating the self-serving idea that there is a “black community” that they are a “leader” of.

      Furthermore, anybody who doesn’t want to be part of the “black community” can leave: you don’t have to vote for these people, or respect them, or listen to their advice, or live in their neighborhoods.

  29. Progressives say (with a straight face) that racism only works one way; they believe that you can’t be racist towards white males because white males are “in power” and aren’t disadvantaged.

  30. Bobby’s a Soul Brother and an OG from back in the day. Honkies can’t touch this.

  31. “remind everyone that Rush was a leader of the violent Black Panthers and spent time behind bars on a weapons charge. Neither approach addresses the real problems of crime in Chicago.”

    Um, the fact that a sitting Congressman was part of an armed domestic terrorist organization and a criminal himself is part of the problem – a rather flippant attitude towards the use of violence and arms, don’t you think?

  32. upto I saw the check which said $7629, I did not believe that my cousin woz actualie bringing home money parttime online.. there neighbour had bean doing this for only 21 months and as of now cleared the depts on there house and bourt a great new Mercedes. we looked here, Go to site and open Home for details

  33. you have mentioned appreciate it for posting informative article amazing post want more

  34. really great absolutely written subject material i am so grateful for your article post

  35. absolutely written subject material im obliged for the post exactly what i was looking for

  36. like this blog you are a very smart person great post

  37. this really answered my problem some genuinely nice stuff on this internet site dead composed content

  38. this actually answered my drawback thanks i’ve a link to my page i couldn’t refrain from commenting

  39. i’ve read and find good information from your articles thanks for finally talking about this everyone loves this

  40. awesome article post a cool post there mate exactly what i was looking for

  41. regards for helping out top post you are a very clever person

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.