The Jackson family celebrates the acquittal of a boy-loving freak… in a casino. How appropriate. While we fiddle, civilization declines.
Addendum: Thug rapes and kills 11-year-old girl. Acquitted. Then he attempts to rape 13-year-old girl. Acquitted. Either prosecutors in Cleveland don’t know how to try cases or the defense lawyers are just that clever. When this fool rapes and kills another child, let’s hope Cleveland ships in prosecutors from out of town.
{ 65 comments }
Here is what blows my mind
After the trial ended Monday, Coccoz, 45, was among the jurors who criticized the testimony of the accuser’s mother. Coccoz also questioned the woman’s parenting choices.
“What mother in her right mind would … just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone, and not so much Michael Jackson but anyone, for that matter?” Coccoz said Monday.
And this woman attended the bloody party! Sorry, but this is just opening the door for claims of a sour jury…
It’s only 7am, and already I am disgusted by a fellow human being.
La Shawn:
I believe Michael Jackson is far more cool-headed and cold-blooded than his public image displays.
Much of the cosmetics and child-like behavior may be a “cover” for his pedophilia.
The first indicator is his professional “perimeter shield” around his bedroom – no witnesses, no microphones etc. No phycical evicence indicates brilliant attention to detail.
The broken families and the sorry personalities of the witnesses and parents indicate some attention to detail as well – carefully selectiong victims that would not be credible in a courtroom.
Michael Jackson is now off to Europe, where the age of legal consent in some places is 12, and where the law is poorly or not enforced.
I don’t believe Michael Jackson will change anything, except he will be more careful.
La Shawn:
I believe that Michael Jackson is not a nut case, but a cold blooded pedophile.
The first indicator is his professionally installed perimeter defense – no microphones, cameras, witnesses. The total lack of physical evicence indicates a brilliant attention to detail.
In addition,I believe Jackson has carefully selected his victims and families to be NOT CREDIBLE – quite obvious at his trial.
Now, Jackson is on his way to Europe, where the age of consent is 12 in some places, and the law is hardly enforced.
I believe Jackson was, and remains, a cold-blooded pedophile.
Thank you for that commentary, La Shawn. It takes simple posts like that to get things back into perspective. I find it ironic that while Bush and Democrats as well want to preach about the children, leaving no child behind and all, the courts don’t take cases of child molestation or murder seriously. PC-Politics juxtaposed with societal realities. Thank God He loves children.
I’m just wondering if any of the jurors were bought upfront, or anticipated a possible reward, beyond the usual book/movie deal.
“Thug rapes and kills 11-year-old girl. Acquitted. Then he attempts to rape 13-year-old girl. Acquitted. ”
Is there something you know that is not in the article? The article didn’t really take a stance as to the veracity of the claims against him.
Well, except that they didn’t quote his accusers.
But what’s sad is that a lot of people will still say “there wasn’t evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt” or “the prosecution messed up” or “the mother was a horrible character,” etc. The bottom line is if the accusers were telling the truth, and because the case was “flawed” they’re assumed to be lying.
La Shawn, how do you justify calling a man guilty when a court has found otherwise? (I’m referring to the Hines case)
This is the court of public opinion, Richard, not a court of law. I’m not a member of a jury, and I’m under no obligation to be fair and impartial.
People are deemed Guilty or Not Guilty based on whether the state proved its case. It doesn’t mean the person didn’t commit the crime. Think about juries that practice nullification. For various reasons they decide to ignore the evidence and find a defendant Not Guilty, even though there’s ample evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Has your liberalism rendered you incapable of making moral judgements unless a panel of 12 people in a court of law declares someone “Guilty?”
Heaven help us.
That animal got a fair trial and was acquitted unjustly in my opinion. His legal rights were protected, but he’s not protected from my opinions.
Richard,
The Emperor of Japan, at the conclusion of WW2, faced no conviction and never saw a court room. It was agreed that he would just step away from running Japan as part of the peace.
Was he any less guilty of the crimes committed under his watch, and often at his order?
Just of curiosity, what do you think of the “Mississippi Burning” trial that is in the works, where they are trying a man again who was previously found not guilty?
So LaShawn, in your ‘court of opinion’ you obviously studied the transcripts of the case, and were privy to the same testimony that the twelve jurors in each trial were?
Or, are you suggesting that you heard of some undue influence on the jury that colored their reasoning?
LaShawn,
The acquittal of Michael Jackson and his jubilant “victory†celebration even one attended by a hypocrite juror does not surprise me in these declining days of civilization. It’s Anthropology 101 on the “Rise and Fall of Civilizations†when you can see and sense the loss of humiliation within our own citizens. Just look at the proliferation of the “F-word†and society’s now casual and shameless acceptance of its use.
You two are ridiculous. So the standard for me is sky-high: unless I’ve read the transcripts of the trial, I am incapable of forming an opinion about this criminal based on what I’ve read about him?
If that’s the new standard, all bloggers, including you two, need to close up shop and find something more productive to do. But of course, the standard applies only to me.
Unsolicited advice: Save yourselves the aggravation and stop reading my blog because I have opinions about lots of things based on first impressions. So does 99.9 percent of the population, including you two, but why bring all those people into it…
“So the standard for me is sky-high: unless I’ve read the transcripts of the trial, I am incapable of forming an opinion about this criminal based on what I’ve read about him?”
I’m really just curious as to whether you know something other than what is in the article. It certainly didn’t go either way in the article.
Do me a favor, actus. Take a break from commenting on LBC today. – Admin
I now realize how terribly unfair it was of me to blame my dog for that “special” aroma I smelled in my study last night. I mean, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I must renounce my opinion that he did it. Therefore I hereby proclaim that he did not do it, he’s totally innocent, and I’m ashamed of myself for blaming him without a signed confession.
La Shawn,
Your comment to Dell was perfectly stated. His statements about you reading or not reading the transcripts of the case are absurd. Even Jackson’s attorney has come out and acknowledged that Jackson has issues with small children and it would be best if he changed his behavior. He said if Jackson approached him for a child custody case, he probably would reject it. He said he just did his job and the prosecution didn’t do theirs very well. I think this borders on jury nullification in the sense that juries refuse to convict celebrities in almost any case.
Why doesn’t our Justice system work for celebrities? Can anyone think of one celebrity that has been convicted of a major crime?
Is it the jury’s infatuation with the star, the expensive lawyers they can afford, the miss-understanding of ‘reasonable doubt’ to mean ‘no doubt, or all of the above?
La Shawn, consider imposing a requirement on the ‘one line rhetoric’ that at least every other comment he posts must be an opinion of his own, not a one line retort to someone else’s opinion.
You do have the patience of Job, girl.
La Shawn:
Thanks for sticking to your opinions. You are undoubtedly correct, but in a court of law, there were doubts.
No doubt, few prosecutors could compete with Jackson’s attorneys. The prosecution was outclassed – especially with the pathetic witnesses they had.
Just my not so humble opinion – another factor that hurt the prosecution is that they confused the jurors with the endless irrelevant details – like what Jay Leno thought.
The prosecutors did everything they could to prolong the trial as long as possible – after all, it was their “day in the sun”. They never had a strong case, but it was weakened by the endless progression of non-relavant withesses.
La Shawn, there may be “reasonable doubts” to jurors, but I just know you and I would never leave our loved ones – especially boys – alone with Michael Jackson.
Add me to the Dell and Actus camp on this one.
LaShawn, of course you’re correct when you say everyone forms an opinion based on first impressions; that is human nature. On first blush, I would guess he is guilty as well…
And on TRIVIAL matters, sure, first impressions are often good enough.
But on serious matters… matters of life & death, justice, etc., aren’t we supposed to attempt to rise above that? To look deeper? To make a judgement based on the available facts rather than acquiesce to our first impression?
My first impression was that sure he is probably guilty… but then I remind myself that I haven’t followed the case, I don’t know all the facts, I don’t know both sides of the story… so I reserve judgement… I think that is all Actus and Dell are trying to point out… why are you so confident to run with a mere first impression?
I note that you didn’t say “I THINK he’s guilty, based on my first impression.”
You wrote about it as if you were absolutely sure.
Quem Jupiter vult perdere, dementat prius (Whom God would destroy He first sends mad).
James Duport 1606-1679
I understand the court of public opinion but even an opinion should be based on some fact. I don’t think MJ is a cold-blooded pedophile and no one has presented anything other than his or her opinion as evidence to the contrary. I didn’t follow the case that closely but no one with any credibility stepped forward to present evidence that MJ is a child molester.
MJ has been around a lot of children and if he were some monster, as some believe he is, I think there would be a long line of parents looking to put Mike behind bars.
The only thing we can say about Mike that is for certain is that he is strange and is probably detached from reality. That is enough to not allow my children not to be around him, but to go from there to pedophile is a stretch.
I knew a pastor who was accused of molesting two 14-year-old girls. One of the girls was his granddaughter. No one believed that his granddaughter would lie on him… why would she. Well, after a few days of him sitting behind bars she finally tells the truth. She lied. Why, because he wouldn’t let her be on his radio show because of her grades. There are teachers who have lost their jobs because kids get angry and accused them of “touching themâ€. Only after some considerable time has the truth come out and for many it is too late. An accusation equates to guilt with many. Even after a person recants or a jury finds the person not guilty, it not enough and people will still view them as having gotten away with a crime. And please don’t use that ‘not guilty doesn’t mean you’re innocent’ line, it’s tiresome. Because I could easily say that being found guilty doesn’t’ necessarily mean you committed the crime. That is evident is the number of death row cases that have been overturned. How many innocent men are rotting away in prison now.
This family wasn’t credible and there is no way that I believe this boy or his mother based off of their history. I think if this same accusation had been levied against someone that was more respected in the community, the mother and son would have been shown the door and this case would have never seen the light of day. But because MJ is what he is… odd, they bring the case and that alone is enough to make people believe he is a monster. Well, I don’t buy it.
Some very good points there, James. But Jackson’s own words, admitting sleeping in the same bed with young boys, prove him to be far worse than just being strange and detached. It’s not a stretch to assume, here in a private discussion, outside of court and the stringent proof required there, that the guy is a child molester.
When people get so self-righteous about not judging a case when they were not on the jury, I wonder if they extend the same consideration to people in the military.
Right now every rumor, hearsay, innuendo and slander is deemed true in the media and given maximum exposure. When the evidence proves otherwise, it doesn’t seem to make any difference.
They’re on crack today, Evon.
I will never defend the sleeping with kids things. That is enough for me to say hey, Mike… you are “blanked” in the head, kid. But as I have read, he let the boys sleep in his bed and he slept in a sleeping bag. I may be wrong but I’ve read that somewhere.
And I do understand the lower stnadard of proof in the realm of public opinion. I hear Bush speak and I think to myself… he’s an idiot. Others hear something profound. That’s cool. But I want more before I label Mike a child molester.
It’s bad enough that I’m ashamed of the fact that I use to wear a “Thriller” jacket. I just thank God I never went as far as the one white glove and a curl in my head… *whew*.
This is the court of public opinion, Richard, not a court of law. I’m not a member of a jury, and I’m under no obligation to be fair and impartial.
You’re not under any obligation to be impartial, but I’d have thought your faith puts you under an obligation to be fair.
I don’t deny that the guilty are sometimes found innocent (and vice versa). But I’d have thought that you’re on dodgy legal ground by boldly proclaiming someone guilty when a court has found them innocent. You’re entitled to form an opinion on “first impressions”, but a careful weighing of evidence is a surer foundation. Unless you favour a system based on “give ‘em a fair trial – then hang ‘em”.
I should have added that I’m only commenting on the Hines case. To my jaundiced view, wealth and celebrity rendered the Jackson trial a fiasco.
I think the entire MJ case tilted on Mom’s past and testimony. The one juror resented having fingers snapped at her; while a perfectly reasonable complaint, Mom wasn’t the victim (alleged or otherwise), so the jurors opinion of that act was besides the point.
I think the mom was a grifter, and I think she set her boy up to be fondled by someone who has been known to do such a crime (evidence: the huge payouts). And I think that’s exactly what happened.
But reasonable doubt lead to an aquittal. And mom continues to rant. And a little boy will never be believed ever again.
Jim R,
The only celeb I can think of to get convicted recently is Martha Stewart
“Has your liberalism rendered you incapable of making moral judgements unless a panel of 12 people in a court of law declares someone ‘Guilty’?”
Good point–that’s why Christians are so despised–they’re not looking to societal standards to define morality, they’re looking to the Bible.
Yes, that’s the way to make a telling point with Ms. Barber: You tell HER what HER faith requires HER to do. She gets to make that call, Hall, not you.
As La Shawn implied in this thread, and as she’s flatly stated in other posts and comment threads, this is her domain, and she’s the queen of her domain. If she wants to be arbitrary and capricious, that’s her right. You don’t like it, crawl back to your own blog and squawk about it. A reader of this blog could conclude that, like vampires, you suckers comment on this blog solely to leave links back to your much-less-well-read blogs and feed off of La Shawn’s superior traffic flow.
Certainly, you aren’t so sanctimonious to think that you have superior insight into these matters than does La Shawn. Are you?
That’ll be $350.00 La Shawn. Invoice payable on receipt.
SCSI, does Winona Ryder count?
LawWife,
You’d have have to ask JimR
I just find it bizarre that a child molester can’t be forced to wear an anklet in most places, but Martha Stewart is wearing one after serving her “hard time”.
Leaving the url of your blog in a comment is just good form Kevin. If you imagine that leaving a comment here brings masses of hits to my blog, you’re very mistaken! But if La Shawn would prefer me not to leave my blog url, or indeed not comment at all, she has only to say the word. I’ve never received even a hint of that from her, and you so eloquently point out, it is her domain.
I’m sorry you think I was being sanctimonious. I’d just hate to see La Shawn being hit with a libel suit by an overzealous lawyer. Where I disagree with La Shawn I suppose that does mean I assume I have “superior insight” – that’s in the nature of believing yourself to be right, isn’t it? Those aren’t the words I would choose for myself though. But, as I say, I’m not disagreeing with La Shawn as such — just trying to point out that saying X is guilty when a court has said the opposite might be legally unwise.
You were kind enough to point out my sanctimony. I wonder if you can hear how arrogant you sound? Maybe you routinely use people’s surnames to address them: where I come from it is bloody rude. I’m just saying…
As for telling La Shawn what her faith requires, I wouldn’t have thought that a call to fairness was very controversial. But I’m British, and what you would call a liberal. So what do I know?
“But I’m British, and what you would call a liberal. So what do I know?”
Asked and answered.
Don’t like the attitude. Begone. – Admin
“Does Winona Ryder count?”
I meant to rule out Martha and Winona with the qualifier ‘major crime’, resulting in a major punishment.
I thought conservatives respected the law? Michael Jackson was not on trial for BEING a pedophile. He was on tril for the 10 counts he was bogusly charged with and due to the lack of compelling evidence, he was acquitted. Surely no onbe has a problem with that and as Christians, we KNOW that his punishment IF he was truly guilty of anything WILL most certainly come.
Come on people. Whining bout a just verdict and an OUTSTANDING job by the jury is unbecoming a conservative and certainly unbecoming an American.
On another note regarding racial overtones in the MJ trial. Remember when the OJ jury was called stupid and incompetent for their verdict because they were mostly Black? Yet the media and those white people polled for these polls on race show they are unhappy with the verdict in this case. Notice however, they are trying their best not to call their WHITE brothers and sisters in this trial or the Robert Blake trial stupid.
I have an idea for White People who think MJ should have been convicted just for BEING a freak. If they really feel that way, then go arrest the following people:
Bill Clinton for BEING a murderer, racist, liar, sexual pervert, serial harasser and racist
Bill Oreilly for BEING a sexual harasser
Barney Frank for being a homosexual
Gov. McGreevy for being a homosexual
Sen. John Kerry for being a serial liar and war coward
Rep. Bernie Sanders for being a socialist
Nancy Grace for being a racist man-hating psychotic running loose on the streets
Ozzie Osborne for being weird and a drug addict
Hillary Clinton for being a securities fraud
“Deep Throat†Mark Felt for being a tattle tale snitch and breaking federal law
Terry McCauliffe for insider trading
Patricia Ireland for being a homosexual
All women who have ever had an abortion. Arrest them for Child Murder.
Gloria Allred for impersonating a reptile and being a man-hating psychotic interfering with people’s pursuit of happiness for a dollar and some face time on TV
Half the California legislature for being homosexual
The San Francisco mayor
How about going back and executing instead of coddling Andrea Yates and Susan Smith. They KILLED 7 children between them as opposed to allegedly feeling one up.
White People need to check up and the media needs to IMMEDIATELY stop trying to persecute and rosecute people (ANYONE) in the media.
Are you listening Sean Hannity and Nancy Gr……aww never mind
Love the sinner, but hate the sin. God does that for us all the time, and He expects us to treat each other the same. Where would we be if people had given up on us?
Michael, and the entire Jackson family, has many issues and Michael has made some very bad choices (the understatement of the year). But, instead of taking pot shots, we – as Christians – should be lifting him, his family and everybody involved, up in prayer.
If we believe what the Bible says, then we believe that life and death are in the tongue. Are we calling on the Lord to send someone to be the light in the darkness around Michael, to lead him to God by speaking life into him and being a Godly example to him? Or are we speaking death with every sarcastic and self-righteous remark?
Michael will NOT escape God’s judgement in this life, or the next, if he does not repent and turn away from those things that are not pleasing to God. So, just lift the whole situation, including all involved currently and/or in the future, up in prayer and let God’s will be done.
“Thou shalt be fair.”
Nope, don’t know that one.
LaShawn,
I wish I could blame crack but I think a lot of these lefty commenters are just following the lead of high-profile lefties.
Recently I heard Eleanor Clift asked about the professor who referred to fundamentalists as “moral retards.” In that supremely condescending, patronizing voice “senior” media women reserve for us ignorant conservatives, she informed us that “a process was in place” at the college to evaluate his comments.
When one of their own is called to account publicly, lefties are quick to talk of “letting the process work.”
Yet there was a process working for months to determine who was responsible and punish them for Abu Ghraib but still the New York Times ran 50+ front page articles on the story. When they can attack the military, forget about process; full steam ahead with maximum publicity for the scandal.
Right now the UN has become a full employment program for every thug and crook in the Third World but God forbid that we should send anything less than a milquetoast ambassador to it. Here the Dems are following the lead of their 2004 Presidential candidate and what he had to say during the debates.
I now am resigned to the Dems double standards. But at times I feel the need to comment on it.
Evon
“Recently I heard Eleanor Clift asked about the professor who referred to fundamentalists as “moral retards.†In that supremely condescending, patronizing voice “senior†media women reserve for us ignorant conservatives, she informed us that “a process was in place†at the college to evaluate his comments”
Whats interesting is that the comments had nothing to do with the college. why even have a process?
A prof makes outrageous and slanderous remarks, and it has nothing to do with the college? Let me clue you in, Actus; if one of my employees said that sort of slanderous thing in public, about ANY group, it would most certainly have something to do with my company. There would be a reprimand in the file that same day, and a dismissal if it happens again.
“A prof makes outrageous and slanderous remarks, and it has nothing to do with the college?”
He made them anonymously in another forum. what does that have to do with the comments.
And if you were familiar with them, you’d know they werent slanderous. The argument is very simple: people who just follow rules are, well, just following rules.
“Let me clue you in, Actus; if one of my employees said that sort of slanderous thing in public, about ANY group, it would most certainly have something to do with my company.”
Well, I guess your employees don’t have much acadmeic freedom.
Academic freedom? Is that supposed to be a joke? Or do you honestly believe that people working for me should be left free to say abominable things that reflect poorly upon my company? Utter, complete nonsense!
Actus, you really need to get out of academia and see what makes the real world turn. “Academic freedom” is an artificial environment designed by ivory tower elitists to provide worm-infested tenured lunatics with big degrees a platform of moral relativity, totally devoid of any sort of accountability. You can have that world, if you want it. Just don’t try to push it onto me. I’ll stick with the world where responsibility still exists to some degree (despite the leftist push otherwise), and where people are held accountable for their actions.
Actus,
Responsibility and common sense are the themes today. Usually it is reading comprehension. But go try to work for any corporation and see if you can be reckless with your words.
And I don’t even get this one. Usually a leftist has a “well-inentioned” ideal. But the ideal or utopian wish for people to not have any accountability and be able to “freely” state anything? Maybe I’m missing something on this utopian “well-intentioned” wish but it doesn’t fly with anyone else that believes that WORDS MEAN THINGS (ala reading comprehension is key).
“Academic freedom? Is that supposed to be a joke? Or do you honestly believe that people working for me should be left free to say abominable things that reflect poorly upon my company?”
I honestly think they don’t have much academic freedom. No surprise really. Are they academics? I don’t think so.
“Actus, you really need to get out of academia and see what makes the real world turn.”
My world, in educational — staff and student, non-profit, for profit, independent contractor, and unemployment experiences is plenty real.
“And I don’t even get this one. Usually a leftist has a “well-inentioned†ideal. But the ideal or utopian wish for people to not have any accountability and be able to “freely†state anything?”
I think there is sometihng to be said for intellectual and other exploration that is done anonymously, that it shouldn’t be breached or punished. Just ask, for example, publius, for why.
Now I’m dizzy again, after chasing Actus around and around again on his big merry-go-round.
Word mean nothing to him.
I think you guys should just ignore actus.
“Word mean nothing to him”
just like the ones I used to justify the value of anonymous,unhindered speech.
La Shawn, once again you speak wisely.
I’m glad to read La Shawn’s comment about ignoring a particular commenter [unnamed because using it would cause my comment to be held up in La Shawn's spam control].
My original quarrel with him was the attempt to smear Pope Benedict XVI as a Nazi. Now that I’ve been watching EWTN I think I know how this came about. Some time ago a group of gay activists disrupted a meeting where then Cardinal Ratzinger was to speak by chanting something that rhymed Nazi with a disrespectful shortening of Cardinal Ratzinger’s name. Ratzi – Nazi. The police had to be called to calm things down and remove the disrupters. [The disruption was a typical example of the Left's policy of free speech is only for those who agree with them.]
Now the Lefties have always been a few yo-yos short of a toy store in the creativity department. They probably had to strain their brains for months to come up with the Ratzi – Nazi jingle and they are loathe to give it up–it would mean more months of work trying to come up with another jingle. So they have to perpetuate the falsehood that the new Pope was once involved in the Nazi party.
This is like the so-called torture of military prisoners. Truth is no defense. If the Left needs it to be true they will keep repeating it.
By the way, then Cardinal Ratzinger was reported to be a model of calmness and class during that demonstration.
“So they have to perpetuate the falsehood that the new Pope was once involved in the Nazi party.”
Its really not false that the guy was in the hitler youth. It’s also quite well known that it was a pragmatic decision made at the time.
He’s just what we need: a pragmatic pope that isn’t going to take insane moral stances, and will be reasonably pragmatic given the current situation.
Evon, if I understand it correctly, Ratzinger had no option, as all young men were ordered to join the Hitler Youth during that period. In addition, there was a large difference between being drafted into the Hitler Youth and being a member of the Nazi Party (which Ratzinger was not), albeit a difference that Ratzinger’s noisy leftist critics find it easier to ignore.
“In addition, there was a large difference between being drafted into the Hitler Youth and being a member of the Nazi Party (which Ratzinger was not), albeit a difference that Ratzinger’s noisy leftist critics find it easier to ignore.”
See: I don’t want to ignore it. I want to promote that instead of takign some suicidal moral stance against hitler or nazism, our pope chose the pragmatic route.
RedBeard
Ratzinger was automatically enrolled in the Hitler Youth. He needed to attend at least one meeting to qualify for the subsidy for his education which he needed because his family had limited funds. When a teacher pressed him about attending a meeting, he said that he would not. The teacher said that he understood and the young man was not penalized…but he could have been. He was never a Nazi.
Evon: “a few yo-yos short of a toy store” I love that, can I use it sometime.
Ironic thing about those “good old days” is that the liberals just ate up that bile, while the conservatives hated this so-called progressive revolution. I guess that speaks truth to the adage tha when you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.
Thanks, Evon. Good historical perspective. The facts are, as usual, terribly inconvenient for the screaming left.
Andy,
Use it whenever you like. I’d be honored.
Evon
Never wrestle with a liberal. You’ll both get dirty, but only the liberal will like it.
RedBeard
I should add that the husband of a friend of mine’s dad was in the Hitler Youth as a full-fledged, meeting-attending member. He came to regret it but, at the time, taking part gave him many benefits. Had Pope Benedict XVI actually been a Nazi, I’d need more information on his words an actions since then. My guess is the lefties love to bring that up our of sheer perversity. They can be so petulant when they don’t get their way.
In a similar vein, I’m happy to hear that in his book, Senator Byrd says he regrets his involvement in the KKK. I can think of words other than the “foolish” he used to describe it, though. His membership in the Klan was purely voluntary. He chose to join.
I’m wondering if, in his book, he says that he regrets his letter protesting the integration of the military. I can’t believe the way minorities give Democrats a pass on racist comments and actions.
Evon, I’m afraid Bryd is going to carry his love of the klan to his grave. What he regrets is not being able to turn the klan into the state religion.
Evon,
He was 14, and drafted into the Hitler youth, like all german boys at the time. When he was 18, they pulled him out of seminary, and sent him off to serve in an anti-aircraft unit, from which he promptly deserted.
Comments on this entry are closed.