“I am not a defendant,” Mitchell declared. “I do not have attorneys.” The court “lacks territorial jurisdiction over me,” he argued, to the amazement of his lawyers. To support these contentions, he cited decades-old acts of Congress involving the abandonment of the gold standard and the creation of the Federal Reserve.

I had no idea Ron Paul had such strong support in Baltimore.

I question this rhetorical choice by the judge:

Gardner tried to argue that the court had no power over him under “common law.” “At common law,” Judge Davis replied, “you were property. You were bought and sold just like those Timberlands on your feet today can be bought and sold. That’s what your ancestors were, some of them, and that is what my ancestors were, some of them.”

That was really good. Thanks for linking to it.

Why do you question the rhetorical choice?

Is Ron Paul big with white supremacists? I guess I can look that up... a quick search indicates that he might be...

Yes, that was very interesting.

I thought these guys were crazy or extremely ignorant until I got to the part where they no longer face the death penalty.

The reason I don't think that his referencing slavery is appropriate is because:

A#1 - the "common law" gets used all the time, and to shoot down a black man trying to assert rights under it by saying that common law essentially doesn't apply to him is ridiculous. Whether or not the common law would have recognized the defendant as being more than a slave (which it would have, since there were freeborn black men in America during the common law era and nobody would be able to make any sort of viable assertion today that the defendant was in any way presently enslaved), the legal validity of the common law is not impacted either way and would most certainly apply to any black man asserting rights under it today.

B#2: The judge was trying to make the point that the defendant was relying on legal arguments espoused by people who were very much pro-slavery, but, again, that doesn't make the legal argument itself any more or less compelling and certainly doesn't make it right to bring up the fact that the defendant would have been a slave 150 years ago.

C#3: Can you think of any instance in which you think it's appropriate to tell a black man that 150 years ago he would have been a slave in order to coerce the man to stop talking? This is crass intimidation and vaguely threatening behavior. I wouldn't recommend, for example, trying it in the real world.

All that being said, I don't think it's a big deal. The judge was trying to convince these men that their chosen course of action was a poor one (and as Lorelei pointed out, I'm not sure he's even right about that). I just think that, as a rhetorical tactic, it wasn't the best way to go.

You know the judge was also black, right? That makes it less offensive, but not inoffensive IMO.

I don't think it affects my issues with it.

This "flesh and blood defense" mumbo jumbo came from a Jewish charlatan named Charles Gale. He lived in Hollywood and was financially well off. Look it up. Did any poor whites ever really did fall for this stuff? I don't know. But, there usually IS a person of Jewish origin behind any weird cult or movement. This, unfortunately, gives support to "vast conspiracy" theories.

I wonder if this anti-semite has read Maus?

I'm sure this anti-semitic Loika individual could find something about Jewish conspiracies in Maus too. That's the way it works with mind-bogglingly dumb idiots who have zero attachment to reality. That's nice how said anti-semitic idiot respectfully capitalized all the J's though.

It's possible that I'm reading her(his?) comment wrong, but I don't think Loika was being anti-semetic...

Loika: "But, there usually IS a person of Jewish origin behind any weird cult or movement."

Guh, wah, RumorsDaily? I think the words "usually" and "any weird cult or movement" make the anti-semitism plain as day.

I read that as lamenting the fact that there's often enough of a nugget of truth to the conspiracy theorists tales that allow the true anti-semites to believe that, yes, Jews really are trying to take over the world, rather than, yes, occasionally a Jew is in fact behind some odd movement though that doesn't by itself signify any sort of larger conspiracy.

Not that I'm wasting any time on this, but I forgot to mention that the dude's name was William Gale, and like Loika, he was a "raving anti-semite." "Look it up" in the article that prompted this post.

That's a kind interpretation, but it's wrong. It is not the case that Jewish people are behind most weird cults and movements, and indeed that's a very blanket claim to make, in my view informed by anti-semitism. Do I need to go through the details of how wrong this claim is, or do you see what I mean?

RD, I'm having trouble remembering the last time I heard the phrase "Jewish charlatan" in a friendly context. Not saying it couldn't crop up...

I guess I'm looking at the word "unfortunately" in Loika's comment and it's shading my opinion. From the point of view of an anti-semite, why would it be unfortunate that other people see a vast Jewish conspiracy when they see one bad Jew? I would think that true anti-semites would glee at the chance to use specific instances of Jewish charlatanry to extrapolate out to a larger Jewish conspiracy.

The comment in its entirety seems potentially ill-informed, but not necessarily mean spirited. Without more, I'd be willing to grant some leeway on this.

PS - I'm now tempted to start a band called the Jewish Charlatans.

"The comment in its entirety seems potentially ill-informed, but not necessarily mean spirited."

Perhaps this is true, but I'm not sure anti-semitism requires malicious intent. If I believe that all Jewish people have large hooked noses and are money-grubbing based on ignorance and not necessarily on ill-intent, I still hold anti-semitic beliefs. His final sentence does indeed separate him from the absolute crazies, but I still think the cult line is anti-semitic out of ignorance.

The words "usually" and "any" in the cult line make me think that you might be right.

For a different perspective, here's a website that analyzes whether Judaism is a cult:

http://www.beingjewish.com/family/nocult.html

I'm tempted to agree with RumorsDaily, believe it or not. I seem to remember someone once somewhere using the phrase "black asshole" and one of you arguing it isn't necessarily racist. The part that made me think it wasn't antisemitic was:

This, unfortunately, gives support to "vast conspiracy" theories. (emphasis mine)

For example, I remember when two Jewish businessmen who ran a failed savings & loan in the 80s were convicted of fraud and one of them committed suicide. My family at the time commented on how it's a shame that Jews were involved and that it gave truth to the idea of Jews as money-grubbing greedy bankers.

The main difference here is it's true that a lot of Jews are connected with the world of finance, and it's not true that a lot of Jews are connected with the world of cults.

Crazymonk, I think that "anti-semitic" necessarily implies malice. Hence the "anti". Otherwise it's just stereotyping, in this case incorrect stereotyping.

Er, I guess RumorsDaily already covered my first point. I maintain my second. Crazymonk, if you believe all Jews have hooked noses and eat Catholic babies' blood on Passover (it's true, look it up) because you have been misinformed you are believing a sterotype that comes from anti-semites (who used these characterizations to demonize Jews) but you yourself are not anti-semitic.

But what if I then choose to hate them *because* of the stereotype? If the stereotypes are such that they easily lead one toward hate, aren't they in and of themselves anti-semitic? Or at least the people who are spreading those stereotypes, knowing full well the implications, are?

The choosing to hate Jews and the use of stereotypes to cause ill is certainly anti-semitic. Ignorance is not (cf South Pacific: "You've got to be carefully taught"). It's fuzzy whether stereotypes can themselves be anti-semitic. You could probably argue successfully either way.

And what if you believed that [stereotyped group x] actually were a threat to you in some way due to misinformation (so you're not just being a dick, you REALLY believe it's true), and you began to take action to 'thwart' said group... your actions would not be racist? Or ethnicist? Or anti-whatever? Dude using the internet to comment on random other dude's blog is not some naive country bumpkin who's never seen but a local newspaper. I kind of can't believe you're serious.

I agree there are fine distinctions to be made in terms of responsibility, but it is the utterance in this case that is the culprit, and I do not believe you can argue successfully any other way. He wasn't talking about anything true. He said cults tend to be started by Jews, lending credence to the stereotype that Jews are behind everything bad.

Like Jesse, I am stunned. It's awesome that with the addition of a word - 'unfortunately' - one can be instantly absolved of several blatantly anti-semitic remarks.

Also, it's kind of hilarious that y'all interpreted the 'unfortunately' as applying to stereotyping of Jews. The quoted ref was obviously citing the post, in which said vast conspiracy is about defense attorneys & the Fed. Not Jews. I think he's just reaffirming the fact that Jews suck because they spark these vast conspiracies that poor white folks might believe. S/He's all 'unfortunate' about the poor white folks. To support my interpretation, I would point to the fact that Loika is a Jewhater. You Jews are weird.

You do have a point flea.

Jesse, I wouldn't be so sure of the bumpkin-ness of random blog readers. Check out the Obama post on Rumors Daily's page, now with some 600+ posts, and quite a few of them bumpkinny.

I don't know, would a Jew hater take so many pictures of shirtless men:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/loika/

??

This is getting weird. Next thing you know people will be auctioning hand-made knives in my comments section.

Man, when I get more time I'm going to start posting updates to the Knifemaker's Guild Directory.

Look for them in October.

PS - wanna buy a knife or know who the anti-christ is?

Yo, do you know this person, or did you pick a random loika?

Random Loika.

Read all these comments and don't know whether to laugh or cry. Been reading the Hook-nosed Country Bumpkin's Encyclopedia of Knowledge and found the great statesman John C. Calhoun had a theory like this called nullification, before the Civil War. It didn't catch on.

I still can't tell if he/she's sincere. I think it's a joke, but damn the internet and it's lack of clarity when delivering potential racism and sarcasm.

damn, shouldn't loika be flaming the troll thread by now?

How about we assume it's a joke. It's not funny.

And by not funny I mean: anything's fair game. The only rule is that I need to laugh sincerely. I didn't laugh.

Fanatics usually don't laugh much.