Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

FBI Reports Hate Crimes Down

December 12, 2012 by  

FBI Reports Hate Crimes Down

According to crime data from the FBI for 2011, hate crimes last year fell to the lowest level they have been since 1994.

The agency recorded 6,222 criminal incidents involving 7,254 offenses in 2011 that resulted from bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability.

Also detailed in the report:

  • There were 6,216 single‑bias incidents, of which 46.9 percent were motivated by a racial bias, 20.8 percent were motivated by a sexual‑orientation bias, 19.8 percent were motivated by a religious bias, and 11.6 percent were motivated by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Bias against a disability accounted for 0.9 percent of single-bias incidents.
  • Of the 4,623 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons in 2011, intimidation accounted for 45.6 percent, simple assaults for 34.5 percent, and aggravated assaults for 19.4 percent. Four murders and seven forcible rapes were reported as hate crimes.
  • There were 2,611 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property. The majority of these (81.4 percent) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism. Robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other offenses accounted for the remaining 18.6 percent of crimes against property.
  • Fifty-nine percent of the 5,731 known offenders were white; 20.9 percent were black. The race was unknown for 10.8 percent, and other races accounted for the remaining known offenders.
  • Most hate crime incidents (32.0 percent) occurred in or near homes. Eighteen percent took place on highways, roads, alleys, or streets; 9.3 percent happened at schools or colleges; 5.9 percent in parking lots or garages; and 4.4 percent in churches, synagogues, or temples. The location was considered other (undesignated) or unknown for 11.3 percent of hate crime incidents. The remaining 19.1 percent of hate crime incidents took place at other specified or multiple locations.

Hate crimes made up about six ten-thousandths of all crimes committed in 2011. Among religious hate crimes, the vast majority (63.2 percent or 936 victims) were committed against Jews. With fewer than 1,000 reported Jewish hate crime victims, the case can hardly be made for the Anti-Defamation League’s argument that Americans remain deeply anti-Semitic.

Curiously, despite the small number of religious hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans (only 12.5 percent or all religious hate crimes or 185 victims), the Southern Poverty Law Center doubled down following the release of the numbers, proclaiming in a headline: “FBI: Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Remain Relatively High.”

But the SPLC also argues that the FBI numbers are inaccurate: “The FBI statistics, which are compilations of state numbers, are notoriously understated. Two Department of Justice studies have indicated that the real level of hate crimes in America is some 20-30 times the number reported in the FBI statistics.”

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “FBI Reports Hate Crimes Down”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Harold Olsen

    I have my doubts about the accuracy of this reports. Hate crime of whites against blacks are probably down. But, it seems to me, that hate crime of blacks against whites have increased. Of course, those are not considered hate crimes and the brain dead media won’t report them. So, I believe this report shows hate crimes are down because Obama wants it that way, even though black on white hate crimes have increased. Maybe he wants us to believe what an NAACP spokesperson said back int the 80′s, that black people do not commit crimes.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Where do you read that black on white hate crimes have increased?

      • RP

        All you have to do is to look at the big cities like Chicago, Detroit, and even Norfolk, Va. for the increase of flash mobs. There have been white soldiers attacked by black gangs, also somewhere between 30 and 100 blacks attacking two reporters for a Norfolk newspaper. There was a flash mob in Chicago of over 30 blacks that attacked one white man. There was a man in Atlanta attacked by 15 or 20 blacks, which had the man in critical condition for several days. This is just touching what happened last year.Do you need otherexamples?

      • David Ozanne

        RP states it but failed to mention that yhese crimes are recorded by the police as petty ante problems not hate crimes. They are terrified of calling black on white hate crimes. Just look at the new black panther party telling the world on TV that they should kill white babies and white people. That is a hate crime, but it will never be caled that by the lame stream media bigots.

      • TeaParty Patriot (TPP)

        The statistics for black on white hate crimes have not increased because our AG and 0′bomb have declared that a black mugging or killing a white by a minority is no longer a crime much less a hate crime. To the 0′bomb it is “just” revenge and therfore justified. A good example is the administration/media conviction of Zimmerman in Florida.

      • eddie47d

        So Tea Party says that “blacks killing a white is no longer a crime”. Most people of any intelligence would automatically refute that blantant lie. Do you really represent the Tea Party thinking for if it is strictly a personal view maybe you should change your moniker as not to embarrass true patriots.

      • old hillbilly

        Hillarious!!! I they counted half the BO & lackies hate mongering dialog, speeches, & acts… no telling where they’d get the space to report it! It’d be like trying to swallow a whale for breakfast on Sunday morning!

      • vicki

        TeaParty Patriot (TPP) says:
        “…..because our AG and 0′bomb have declared that a black mugging or killing a white by a minority is no longer a crime much less a hate crime…..”

        Than eddie47d says:
        “So Tea Party says that “blacks killing a white is no longer a crime”. Most people of any intelligence would automatically refute that blantant lie. Do you really represent the Tea Party thinking for if it is strictly a personal view maybe you should change your moniker as not to embarrass true patriots.”

        Did you mis-read what Tea Party said? The statement clearly is an opinion about what SOMEONE ELSE (the AG and or obama) may have said and not the personal opinion of TPP.

        • http://yahoo.com Joann Flanagan

          Obvoiusly a Crime motivated by hate is a hate crime whether the target is an aristocrat by a jacobian or a bolshevik,a White person by a Black Muslim or whatever. To say otherwise is hypocritical as denying that abortion is murder,that sterilisation is mayhem,that presecution conscientious people for refuing to perform immoral that violate their religious because is religious persecution,ect.
          Joann Flanagan

      • eddie47d

        Your making an assumption on that one Vickie especially since he was wrong headed.

      • richcarro

        That’s the problem with this survey, they, the media hasn’t been reporting all the attacks that have been done by blacks, the survey is skewed against reporting black on white hate crimes because we have a black President creating a blackout on any of this news. Him an all the liberals all live in the same house.Both the President and the media all have no B*lls to tell the truth.

    • Warrior

      I wonder if “union” vs. “non-union” fits one of these categories?

      • anonymous

        unions are hate groups, so any crime they commit is a hate crime…..oh, i forgot, they don’t consider murder and assault by union members to be a crime, it is ‘protecting the wage’

      • rendarsmith

        What about feminists attacking men? Feminists are a hate group.

    • http://www.facebook.com/steve.ward.73932 Steve Ward

      I too have my doubts. There have been too many under reported accounts of hostility against whites in these recent years to believe this report. The Feds are seemingly attempting to ignore the more accurate numbers to get us to believe that this society is more peaceful than it really is. It seems that the reports are only interested in white on black crime to be reported as a “hate crime”.

    • MimoandK

      It’s not just black on white crimes that don’t get reported,also the hateful ways Christians are treated by gays and conservatives (not just republicans) are treated by liberals. It’s not reported on because so much of the “media” is already set up and operating like we’re a communist country.

      • eddie47d

        I look at crime statistics when they are shown every year and overall serious crimes are down. That has been a fact for four years now in reference to rape,murder,etc. Some places robberies have spiked though. Groups spreading hate have increased by a wide margin especially militia type organizations. That could come to a boil sooner than later since they have the numbers. You certainly left out the fact that there are a few Christian groups like the American Family Association that actively support the killing of gays. Now that is some in your face real hate.

    • Robert Smith

      From the article: “But the SPLC also argues that the FBI numbers are inaccurate:”

      Let’s see… Why should we trust any government numbers? After all the employment numberrs are a lie.

      (not)

      Rob

      • jt

        Please provide research and corresponding data indicating that the unemployment findings are an accurate indicator of actual unemployment. I’d like to read that study.

      • Vigilant

        Rob is one of those stupid people who actually accept the notion that people who have become so discouraged that they don’t look for work any more are actually not unemployed.

    • Steve E

      They figure the rate of hate crimes like the do the unemployment rate. They just remove hate crime criminals from the rolls because they are in prison and are not looking for another hate crime job. So they are removed from the statistics. Then they seasonally adjust the hate crime rate.

      • eddie47d

        If a crime is solved and prosecuted why would they still be considered in an active file or statistic?

      • Steve E

        Probably because they take out the number of people that are not looking for a job because there are none to be found. They are unemployed and are not counted as unemployed. So the number looks better.

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    SINCE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS LEGAL IN SOME AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, HOMOSEXUALS NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE “HATE-CRIME VICTIM LIST.”

    SINCE VOTERS IN SOME STATES THINK IT IS OKAY FOR HOMOSEXUALS TO MARRY, THE LEGAL BURDEN FOR PROVING SOMEONE’S HATRED OF HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE SET SO HIGH THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PROSECUTE ALLEGED OFFENDERS IN LARGE NUMBERS.

    • Steve E

      The only time I beat up on queers is when they try to make love to me.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        I HEAR ‘YA!, “Steve E.”

  • opey

    Like everything else, they use ovomit’s math!!!!!

  • Joseph Knight

    I am very offended that you show a Confederate flag in a story about hate crimes. That was the flag of brave men who rose to defend their homeland against an invading and occupying military force, not a symbol of hate. Shame on you.

    • http://liberty Tony

      To Mr. Knight:
      What the heck are you talking about? The Confederacy is nothing to be proud of. For the goals of the Confederacy during the civil war was one-to delete the Union. Two-to dissolve the constitution, and three- they wanted to create an aristocracy planter dictatorship. In essence, this movement wanted to expand the institution of slavery into new territories. Not only were blacks going to be enslaved but poor whites too with other unpopular groups. In general, the civil war on the south’s side was a rich man’s war and a poor one’s fight. The plantation owners would sit on their backsides,drink Mint Juleps, and send poor white famers plus black servants to do battle. Don’t believe the nonsense you see in Hollywood broadcast such as “Gone with the Wind”, “Song of the South” ,or “Birth of a Nation”, for it isn’t so. Good Morning now!!

      • Doc Sarvis

        You may also include how the KKK took up the Confederate flag as their symbol – there’s a bunch of cowards for you.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Tony,

        You write: “For the goals of the Confederacy during the civil war was one-to delete the Union.” No. The goal of the Confederacy was to remove itself from an oppressive government. The “union” was free to remain a union. It was a very “American” think to do. Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

        You write: “Two-to dissolve the constitution…” Please show this is possible by peaceful secession.

        You write: “They wanted to create an aristocracy planter dictatorship.” Please explain why hundreds of thousands of poor white boys who largely wanted to be left alone would fight and die to establish an “aristocracy planter dictatorship.” Your study of history needs to go beyond watching “Gone With The Wind.”

        You write: “Not only were blacks going to be enslaved but poor whites too with other unpopular groups.” You have just made an argument against your own point.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Elton

        you of course were there and know this to be fact. I doubt anyone today really knows just what the facts were, but my gut tells me it was about the same things we are experiencing today. That is the federal government trying to dictate what the states can and can’t do, even though the constitution does not allow it.

      • RP

        Remember that the first gun control law was enacted to keep blacks whether free or slave from rising up against whites during colonial times. Another thing you need to remember is that the KKK was started by Democrats. Also voter restriction against blacks was enacted by Democrats to keep blacks from voting. Now it is the Dems tht are trying to keep the military from voting, yet want to have illegals and felons vot ein our elections. Go Democraps!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Bob says to Tony: You write: “They wanted to create an aristocracy planter dictatorship.”

        And asks, “Please explain why hundreds of thousands of poor white boys who largely wanted to be left alone would fight and die to establish an “aristocracy planter dictatorship.” Your study of history needs to go beyond watching “Gone With The Wind.”

        Bob, may I suggest to you that a study of history beyond GWTW might lead one to the understanding that the “poor white boys” wanted to maintain their “one rung up from the bottom” position in the “southern planter society”?. That they viewed the Negro slaves as a threat to their position if they were ever freed and given equal status with whites? They fought not to maintain a “planter dictatorship” but a white dictatorship over blacks.

        And that a “study” of American history from post-Civil War to today might support that thesis? That all the segregation, discrimination, Jim Crow, etc. after the war was just the continuation of that need to “keep the negro in his place” and keep the “poor white boys” that one small rung up the ladder that made them feel important and superior? .

        (and you might want to read the actual documents of secession from the various states before you get too far afield on your “whys” behind the war)

      • Right Brain Thinker

        RP says: “Another thing you need to remember is that the KKK was started by Democrats. Also voter restriction against blacks was enacted by Democrats to keep blacks from voting”.

        RP has forgotten (or perhaps never knew?) that the Democrats he is talking about in these two sentences are now all voting Republican. LBJ, the civil rights movement, and Nixon’s “southern strategy” have flipped the coin on “who did what to whom”. Look at the voting results in MS, AL, GA, TN, AR, and SC for evidence of that.

      • Steve E

        Tony, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson. Longstreet, JEB Stuart and others were pretty wealthy and they fought in battle.

      • Charlie Tall

        Tony, your post is nonsense. Try reading the Confederate Constitution. Here’s a URL: http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

        Slaves in the Southern states were valued at nearly as much as all the land put together. The Confederacy was very much concerned that the US Congress, dominated by radical Republicans, would free these slaves, thus destroying the economy and bankrupting the South.
        Most of the Northern states had abolished slavery only a few years before the South seceded. In all of them, this was accomplished in a manner that either compensated the slave holders or allowed them to sell their property to the South. There were still slaves in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland at the end of the Civil War.
        In both the North and the South, at the middle of the 19th Century, it was conventional wisdom that blacks were inferior to whites, and that most blacks were innately incapable of taking care of themselves without a white person to guide them. This was considered to be an undeniable fact at that time. Some people (entitlement politicians) still believe it to this day.
        All of the Southern states had strict laws concerning the manumission of slaves within their borders. They recognized that simply turning loose a slave benefits neither the slave nor society, so they passed laws that required the master to provide for the education and support of the newly-freed man. The so-called generous North simply declared that the slaves were free and then left them to their own devices; thousands of freed slaves starved to death along the sides of Southern roads after the war ended. Others simply returned to work for their former owners and accepted shelter and sustenance as payment.
        The attitude in the South was similar to that held by any conquered people towards their oppressors. There was little difference to be found between the actions of the Northern forces in the South and those of Hitler’s Nazis in Poland, Russia, or any other conquered country. The truth is that the armies of the noble North, the brave Union, were nothing more than war criminals, beasts who tried to justify their crimes by pointing to slavery and claiming to have fought the war to free the blacks, when they really fought it to recover the revenues lost when the South left the Union.
        The KKK chose the Confederate battle flag as their symbol; the flag did not choose the KKK. If you are really looking for a symbol of hatred and bigotry, I suggest you try the Black Panther banner.

      • http://liberty Tony

        To Right Brainer Thinker:
        Right on with your assessment,. I, usually, don’t agree with your views but this time, you’re dead on. Mr. Livingston, you really need to look at the true goals of the Confederacy. I’ll have to provide you with a link to prove that this was a dictatorial movement. Now, to be fair, the Union was hardly great guys for they too supported slavery and the only reason the fought the south was to prevent secession. Next to Steve E., the people you mentioned, Robert E.Lee, Stonewall Jackson, John Bell Hood, also, Lee Clegburne were ,actually, abolitionists. They considered slavery a moral outrage. The only reason they fought for the south because they oppose “Federal Gov.” interference. Study up on history some more. Thanks!!

      • http://liberty Tony

        To Everyone: One more thing, believe it or not, poor white were. also, being enslaved. This was being done through indentured servitude. Read the book, “The forgotten slaves” and it will show you this.

      • Steve E

        Tony, I din’t say that Lee, Jackson, etc. were slave holders. I just said they were wealthy. I agree to what you said when you stated “The only reason they fought for the south because they oppose “Federal Gov.” interference.”

      • Vigilant

        Charlie Tall says, “There were still slaves in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland at the end of the Civil War.”

        Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware were the “border states” during the war, and did indeed have slaves at the end of the conflict. Nothing new here. It’s well known that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free slaves in the border states.

        New York had absolutely no slaves. “The last slaves were emancipated by July 4, 1827; the process was the largest emancipation in North America before 1861. Thousands of freedmen celebrated with a parade in New York.” (Wikipedia)

        “A total of 2,909 United States Colored Troops from New Jersey served in the Union Army. Because of the state’s long-term apprenticeship requirements, at the close of the American Civil War, some African Americans in New Jersey remained in bondage. It was not until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed in 1865 that the last 16 slaves in the state were freed.” (Ibid.)

      • Vigilant

        Charlie Tall says, “The Confederacy was very much concerned that the US Congress, dominated by radical Republicans, would free these slaves, thus destroying the economy and bankrupting the South.”

        Not true. The south had no such fears for several reasons:

        (1) Congress had no Constitutional authority whatsoever to free the slaves, and both the north and the south knew it. It would have required a Constitutional amendment. The Republicans didn’t garner near enough seats in the election of 1860 to even begin the amendment process (2/3 of both houses would have been required).

        (2) The South had been given assurances that the slaveholders were not in danger of losing their slaves. You’d have a hard time convincing even the most ardent of slavery proponents that the Corwin Amendment, passed by the 36th Congress, didn’t forever guarantee the right of the Southern people to own slaves.

        The proposed amendment said “no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or interfere within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

        Lincoln had NO problem with it. With much debate, the amendment passed both houses of Congress on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln took office.

        Neither the 36th Congress (1859-61) nor the 37th Congress (1861-63) was “dominated by radical Republicans.” The radicalization came about after the war was concluded.

        (3) It was never the aim of the north, prior to hostilities, to destroy the economy of the south. Such a contention is absolutely ridiculous. King Cotton was making fortunes for both northerners and southerners. It was an institution that was alive and well and, ironically, would have remained so much longer had the south not seceded.

      • Vigilant

        Charlie again errs with “The truth is that the armies of the noble North, the brave Union, were nothing more than war criminals, beasts who tried to justify their crimes by pointing to slavery and claiming to have fought the war to free the blacks.”

        I wonder where you got your history book. The North never claimed to be fighting for emancipation of the slaves. Lincoln never said it, and most certainly Northern soldiers didn’t say it.

        Be clear in what you mean to say. The Lincoln “cultists” may have said it to fancify the history books later, but no one claimed it during the period.

      • rkz777

        Tony, You’re simply a self identified carpetbagger and scallywag, there’s no denying it. Why? Because I know the truth about the South and the Confederacy. If you would only read the true history that was written and in archives, just that alone would slap you awake! But to hear such ignorance on your part is an old story of believed lies that were made up to give credence to those that wronged the South and its people. What the Southern people ( Men, women,and children ) suffered at the hands of the northern aggressors before the War Between The States, and throughout the War is a travesty beyond belief, and as far as what the War was fought over—It was for States Rights, not slavery. The slavery issue was used by lincoln,s cabinet ( Not his idea at all ), for what they thought would be harmful to the South, and that being initiated well after the War began ( Emancipation Proclamation ). And many Negroes fought for the South, at the side of Confederate soldiers, unlike what the union army did, which was to contain the Negro soldiers in groups led by a white officer. And the mule and 160 acres that was promised to each negro soldier, it never happened. Get your story together, seek the truth and you will be free yourself. There were many states in the north that had Negro slaves, before the War Between The States, during the War and well after. General grant had slaves as well, not letting them go until well after the War. And the only man hung for slave trading was a northerner! The Negroes were dragged to the ships by their own people to be sold to the west indies traders for bags of sugar,salt,clothing, and other goods. And their offspring have prospered here in America, their lives not as slaves.
        And if that sounds too rich for your acceptance, my people ( Scots and Irish ) were slaughtered by the limy english, and worked as mules here in America, and I haven’t claimed entitlements! Get off it and live your life for what it should be, but don’t step on my Southern Heritage!

      • Charlie Tall

        @Vigilant

        Vigilant wrote: “New York had absolutely no slaves. “The last slaves were emancipated by July 4, 1827…”
        The United States census of 1830 listed a curious fact: eight African-Americans in NEW YORK CITY owned seventeen slaves. That is three years AFTER Vigilant claims all slaves in New York were emancipated.

        New Jersey avoided freeing its slaves by the expedient of simply calling them “apprentices.”

        Otherwise, Vigilant agreed that slavery existed in all the other states I cited.

        I wrote that “The Confederacy was very much concerned that the US Congress, dominated by radical Republicans, would free these slaves, thus destroying the economy and bankrupting the South.”
        Vigilant disagreed with that statement, yet he fails to mention that almost all of the seceding states cited the preservation of slavery as a major concern, and that the Confederate Constitution barred the Confederate government from abolishing slavery.
        Why, I wonder, did they take those measures if they were not concerned that the US government would free the slaves?

        I wrote that the North, “…tried to justify their crimes by pointing to slavery and claiming to have fought the war to free the blacks.”
        Vigilant failed to notice the tense and wound up agreeing with me when he wrote, “The Lincoln “cultists” may have said it to fancify the history books later, but no one claimed it during the period.”

        Indeed, no one claimed it during the period, and I did not state that they did. Tense, Vigilant, tense. In this case, past tense.

        Finally, Vigilant failed to reply to any of the other assertions in my comments. He did not reply because he knows that they are true and accurate.

    • http://Yahoo Pyainter

      I agree with Mr. Knight as I too was offended as the moment I saw the Confederate battle flag with a knife across it I was assured that this article was yet another anti-white male puff piece that manipulated current crime data eliminating the increased black on white crime that goes on reported in the popular press and media. I refused to read it.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Pyainter,

        You write: “I refused to read it.” So you admit you are commenting out of ignorance.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • http://Yahoo Pyainter

          I didn’t have to read the article as the picture spoke a thousand words and told me it was going to be another ‘stereotypical’ anti-white male article and in particular southern males who are all assumed to be racist bigots.. I ask you would a responsible journalist put a hangmen’s noose in a picture about “Racial Unity” in a black publication?

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Pyainter,

            As I said…

            Best wishes,
            Bob

      • Kay

        I’m offended by LaRaza, the commie latino hate group that insists on flying the mexican flag, protesting and demanding amnesty for 12 million illegal criminals. We are working hard to resurrect the Committee on UnAmerican Activities, so when it happens you will see groups like this, many elected in Washington and a gaggle of dem funded groups hauled in and prosecuted. Anti-American is against the constitution and has no place in this country period.

      • eddie47d

        Kay: I’m offended by The Council of Conservative Citizens who say black people are a “retrograde species of humanity” and the Aryan Brotherhood with all their Swastikas.

      • Steve E

        When I saw the knife with the beer bottle opener slit on the blade, I thought this was going to be an essay on how bad beer drinkers are with hate. The Confederate flag didn’t even come to mind because the Confederacy was a peaceful nation and it was invaded by the ones carrying the American flag.

      • Vigilant

        Steve E says, “…the Confederacy was a peaceful nation.”

        You might want to research “Bloody Kansas” for a gander at the “peaceful” nature of the pro-slavery faction. As should anyone who wants a more objective view of the causes for the Civil War.

        Most biased history writings, of either the “Lincoln Cult” or the Neoconfederate Lincoln haters, look to north and south for their reasons; they should have looked to the midwest and west, because it was THERE that passions reached the boiling point that started the war.

        It was NEVER about defeating slavery in the south. It was about the extension of slavery to the territories that would become states.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Steve E says: “When I saw the knife with the beer bottle opener slit on the blade….”

        For everyone’s information and edification, that is NOT a really a “knife” per se in the picture but a bayonet, and the “slot” is not for opening beer bottles. The bayonet and its scabbard form a wire cutter when a pin on the scabbard is inserted in the slot—It looks and works sort of like a pair of hedge trimmers.

        Although the U.S. has a similar design, the one in the picture is clearly a SOVIET ARMY bayonet. Which makes me wonder a bit about what the source of the photograph might be. A communist confederate? Seems unlikely.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vigilant gets to the crux of the matter when he says: “It was NEVER about defeating slavery in the south. It was about the extension of slavery to the territories that would become states”.

        And the argument over extending slavery to the new states was really a fight to the death between two economic systems—the agrarian, slave labor-dependent, aristocracy-led one of the South and the industrialized, free labor, increasingly “corporate” led one of the North.

        The North was winning the “battle” that had been fought in congress and in the market place for years, so the southern states seceded in a last ditch effort to maintain their way of life in a separate confederation, one which could not exist without slave labor. Abolitionists aside, the North fought to preserve the Union. All the self-righteous carrying on in this thread about “invasions” and other motives is just rationalization.

        And all the hoo-hah over the flag? The flag in question is NOT the “Confederate Flag”. The flag in the photo is the Confederate BATTLE Flag, which is a symbol of the Confederate armies and soldiers that DID fight bravely and splendidly in a “lost” and misguided cause. The flag is deserving of respect ONLY because of the actions of the men who carried it, and not as a “symbol” of the South or what it stood for. I think the hate groups who did carry it at one time or another chose it because it is so much more visually attractive than the “real” Confederate Flag—-and that’s a shame.

        PS I would still like to know why a Soviet Army bayonet was used in t the photo—-was their any symbolism attached to that?

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “Tony” AND “Doc Sarvis,”

      “Joseph Knight” IS TALKING ABOUT THE CONFEDERATE FLAG’S SYMBOLIZATION OF SOUTHERN CULTURE – NOT, HATE.

      “Granny” [Irene Ryan] FROM, “Beverly Hillbillies,” LOVED THAT FLAG – AND I LOVE, “Granny.”

    • WILDFIRE

      “Very offended” over a photo of a flag! Get over it you imbecile. Try sticking to data and facts and intentions of the government within the story, rather than wasting people’s time with your whining about a picture. There are far many more concerns to be insulted by our governments actions to worry about the small stuff, but I suspect your brain can’t function at an IQ above your shoe size by which to contribute anything intelligent to the bigger issues based on your comments and knowledge of the confederacy. Typical liberal troll or in this case “Redneck Southern” still living in the past unable to be educated and informed of the facts and unable to get over it.

      You want to bicker about flags, then be insulted about Mexicans taking down American flags at our Schools and putting up their Mexico flag on American soil.

      Be insulted that Islam followers and muslims want to replace the US Flag that flies over the White House with their islamic flag. Those are current time occurrences not some event that happened hundreds of years ago that nothing can be done to change that history.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Joseph Knight,

      You write: “I am very offended that you show a Confederate flag in a story about hate crimes.” And if we’d shown a white man assaulting a black man, you’d have also been offended, and if we’d shown a black man assaulting a white woman someone else would have been offended (there is a crowd of commenters here who loves to shout “RACIST” at the drop of a hat), and the list goes on. You cannot deny that people have used the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of “hate” and have committed crimes while blaspheming the cause of the Confederacy. That does not imply that I believe the Confederate flag that was carried into battle in the 1860s had anything to do with criminality. To prove my point I give you the following links:
      http://personalliberty.com/2010/04/05/dont-pin-your-hopes-on-the-party-of-lincoln/
      http://personalliberty.com/2012/02/13/o-captain-my-tyrant/
      http://personalliberty.com/2011/10/10/cognitive-dissonance/
      http://personalliberty.com/2010/01/07/the-real-lincoln/
      http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/18/more-on-dishonest-abes-liberty-destroying-legacy/
      http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/11/dishonest-abes-legacy-and-the-2012-election/
      http://personalliberty.com/2012/05/14/the-lies-youre-told/

      It appears you are walking around looking to be offended. Many small-minded people do this. We once offended a man because we ran a photo of a doctor with a big nose in a story critical of physicians. He said the photo implied Jewish doctors were bad. So stick your offense in your pocket where it belongs. You aren’t the first to be offended by something we write or depict and I daresay you won’t be the last.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Well put, Bob. You sound like a charter member of P.O.O.P.. That’s People Offended by Offended People.

      • Steve E

        Perhaps if they make being offended a hate crime, we could then put all the liberals in jail.

      • rkz777

        Bob Livingston, And the American flag was carried by 20,000 KKK members down the street in front of the United States Capitol many years ago, did that make the American flag a terrible symbol. Why don’t you place the American flag under the knife? Every KKK member had a American flag which was held high. The Confederate Flag is just as honorable, and is not owned by anyone, other than those that believe in FREEDOM, the people of the South and the Confederacy, especially the Patriotic Confederate Soldiers. And it will fly with honor forever more. When you dishonor such, then expect to get a world storm back. Bob Livingston you are guilty of a hate crime in the most greivous way, and I will not ask for a apology from you because I know you are not capable or worthy of such, and you are so ignorant to the fact of the truth.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear rkz777,

          You write: ” And the American flag was carried by 20,000 KKK members down the street in front of the United States Capitol many years ago, did that make the American flag a terrible symbol.” Did I say the Confederate flag was a “terrible symbol?”

          You write: “The Confederate Flag is just as honorable, and is not owned by anyone, other than those that believe in FREEDOM, the people of the South and the Confederacy, especially the Patriotic Confederate Soldiers.” Do you have any idea where I’m from and have you ever read anything I’ve written prior to today?

          You write: “Bob Livingston you are guilty of a hate crime in the most greivous way, and I will not ask for a apology from you because I know you are not capable or worthy of such, and you are so ignorant to the fact of the truth.” And you are guilty of the crime of ignorance. See my response to Mr. Knight.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

    • eddie47d

      Tony is somewhat correct and those policies are still going on today.Although less with an all volunteer army. That was a big issue during the Vietnam War also where “poor soldiers” were drafted to serve in that false flag war. The question then was why should poor whites and blacks have to go over there to kill other poor people to advance the cause of the Elites and the Military Industrial Complex.

    • rkz777

      Mr.Knight, Thank you very much. I’m the Great/Grandson of a Great Confederate Patriot Soldier, who left his modest farm to fight for his state and his dear Southern Home, against a invading Army of northern aggression, who indeed invaded the South to force its oppression on the Southern people. THANKS AGAIN SIR! I STAND READY TO DO IT FOR THE SOUTH AS WELL.

      • Chief Boring

        This seems a good place to put in my two cents. My GGF and two great uncles served in Co. A, 18th Georgia Infantry, ANV. They owned no slaves, were poor dirt farmers, and fought because they were loyal to their state, Georgia. This was the same reason Lee resigned rather than accept command of the Union Army to invade Virginia. They did not fight for slavery, but accepted it, as most people of those times did. Bob, you have not yet said why the CBF was used in the picture. Absent a cogent reason, we whose families suffered in the war will likely be offended. My GGF died at Seven Pines. One of my uncles was greivously wounded and held at Camp Douglas, the Andersonville of the North, where resources did not dictate the poor treatment he received, as the lack of resources was the case in the South. The other uncle was captured at Cedar Creek and held at Point Lookout. Both were not released until June 1865. As for Sherman’s treatment of civilians, look up the Roswell Women. Four hundred were gathered up becasue they worked at Roswell Mills, making uniforms, and sent to Ohio. Their families never heard from them again, with few execptions. None of this means I am not a loyal American. I swore an oath to the Constitution, and retired from the US Navy as a Chief Petty Officer.

  • James Maxwell

    From what I’ve been able to read and find in the newspapers (Very littile by the way) there
    have been numerous racial events but the P0S in the white house has told the judical
    dept not to investigate nor prosocute them. There have been numerous events reported
    against the Black Panters and voter intemidation, muslim attack upon christians and such
    that never get any traction in the main stream news sources. You see them mentioned
    in local papers around the world and the US also but they are only mentioned once or
    twice and then they are removed from the print. The only time you see one pursued is
    when it happens to involve a Caucasion and someone of anoher race when they can
    blame the Caucasion and use it to inflame racial tensions.

    • eddie47d

      You must live in Podunk James for we in Colorado receive plenty of news. If a black commits a crime his picture is in the paper or his skin pigment is mentioned. The same with Hispanic citizens and white citizens. Nothing is covered up as you are proclaiming. That Black Panther case was dropped because there wasn’t any intimidation. You can’t prosecute somebody unless they actually caused harm . It was proven that they didn’t.

      • Charlie R

        “The black panther party case was dropped because there wasn’t any intimidation ” is pure “Holder-speak” and nonsense.

        That panther thug, by law, shouldn’t have been within 100 feet of the entrance.
        It was E. Holder, the same dude that approved “white on black” hate crime prosecution, while dismissing “black on white” hate crimes, that rendered the opinion you quote.

        The justice dept. gets to chose who it WISHES to prosecute and who it WISHES NOT to prosecute …. get the point Eddie?

      • eddie47d

        Your too quick to bring out the rope Charlie Vigilante! Working for the Taliban?

  • Tom Cook

    Sam, you or someone who put the Confederate Battle Flag on display with the hate crime title of your article is guilty of hate crime. That Flag represents to us Southerners–the better people of this nation–the valor of our ancestors who fought a vulgar invader of a sovereign nation in violation of our Constitution. The vicious rapacious yankees who invaded the South and fought total war against civilians were contemptible as are those ignorant present day yankees, mostly liberals from the northern blue states and they seem to live to revile the South, probably to a great extent to assuage the guilt they feel for the savagery of the tyrant Lincoln’s north.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Tom Cook,

      You write: “Sam, you or someone who put the Confederate Battle Flag on display with the hate crime title of your article is guilty of hate crime.” Please see my response to Mr. Knight above. It applies to you as well.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Charlie Tall

        @Bob,
        So why don’t you replace the current picture with one of a Black Panther banner crossed by a baseball bat?

        I believe you wrote an article about that, too, and it’s much more contemporary

        The Confederate battle flag (not national flag) and a Russian AK47 bayonet linked with the words “hate crimes” give the impression of an insult (or negative judgement) no matter what your explanation or intentions.

        It’s time for the nation to recognize another fact: non-whites can be racists, too. Indeed, non-whites are much more likely to be such. After all, it’s presidential policy.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Charlie Tall,

          You write: “So why don’t you replace the current picture with one of a Black Panther banner crossed by a baseball bat?” Because I am content with the one that appears.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Charlie Tall

        Communication involves transmission, medium, and reception. You transmitted a message with your article, the medium was the photograph, and the reception is the meaning as perceived by so many above.

        You wrote, “…I am content with the one that appears.”

        It is therefore obvious that the message so many received is what you intended. QED

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Charlie Tall,

          You write: “Communication involves transmission, medium, and reception. You transmitted a message with your article, the medium was the photograph, and the reception is the meaning as perceived by so many above.” The medium was the written word. The erroneous perceptions is not held by “so many above” but only a few.

          You write: “It is therefore obvious that the message so many received is what you intended. QED” argumentum ad populum.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Charlie Tall

        @Bob,
        You seem to misunderstand argumentum ad populum. No one is making the argument that the message received is correct because so many believe it is correct. Rather, the argument is that the message perceived is as intended, or as sent, because so many received it exactly that way. One is a determination by opinion, the other by fact.

        However, I am quite willing to believe that the message the author sent with the picture is not the message he intended. I have no reason to disbelieve you on this point.

        Whatever, the photograph used was clearly a very poor choice.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        In case you didn’t see my comment earlier in the thread, I am wondering about why you would use a SOVIET ARMY bayonet on a CSA battle flag for the photograph. Couldn’t anyone find a good old American one to use?.

  • T. Jefferson

    The 59% white offenders and 20.9% black offenders seems a bit skewed. It isn’t however surprising. This administration has stated that most black on white crime can not be classified as “hate crime”. Every white on black altercation, no matter how minor, is classified as “hate crime”. Only one in a hundred black on white altercations is viewed in the same fashion.

    • Patriot higgins

      they forgot to mention that the 2010 cences says that there are 3 1/2 times as many whites than blacks so that 20% black could be 70% compairable.
      Fed prison figures around 600k white 850k black
      Rape is a hate crime!! black on white huge. Evan blacks dont like blacks.
      No, I am not anti-black,,But I am pro-white & proud of it.
      No, I am not A raisest, but I am a REALIST
      Follow the real numbers.
      13% blacks,6% male,3% adults 18-50 year old .
      Why are they in every add block to A large extent ??
      Where are the spanish prople in these adds?? twice as many in cences

  • jt

    Just a reminder to all those who’ve been irreparably damaged by the photo at the top of this page:

    Your countrymen are under no obligation to ensure your continued ignorant bliss. Nor are they charged with any duty to render your lives free of discomfort, real or imagined.

    If you CHOOSE to be offended, then you have reaped the benefits of that right to choose. Congratulations, and good day.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear jt,

      Well said.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • rendarsmith

    Now Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are going to broaden the definition of “hate crime” so they can claim that they are up. This is exactly what the feminists did for the definition of “rape” so they could claim there were more than there really and continue to get financial government support.

  • http://Www.anunews.net 1776

    The SPLC & ADL are both globalist funded, anti-White, anti-American & anti-Christian propaganda outlets.

  • http://liberty Tony

    To Mr. Livingston and Everyone else: Please read these two links and they will clear up any theory about the “nobility” of the “lost” Confederate cause. http://www.upress.state.ms.us/books/1338. Then this one-http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-secede/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story_1.html. Next, we all should be happy that hate crimes are going down. It’s time to work together in promoting this nation’s constitutional liberties. Thanjs!!

  • Bob

    If you take a chicken and call it a pig…You still have a chicken…Facts are Facts!
    The FBI can put any spin on Hate Crimes they want to or are told to But you still have a crime of hate when you have 10+ beating on one…You can put any name on anything you want, But it will never change the fact of what it is!
    ALL People need to wise up and see things for what they are and not for what their being told!!!

  • Neal

    I am offended that you use one of my nation’s flags in association with an article on hate crimes.

  • http://yahoo.com Joann Flanagan

    So hatecrimes are down? Are they!
    What abortion which is a hatecrime innocent unborn children and sometimes against their mothers when it’s a mandatory abortion done without the mothers’ informed consent!
    What about the Obama/Sebelius conspiracy against the Civil rights of groups they are starting religious persecution against by forcing members,clergy included,to subsidise immoral abominations forbidden by their religions!
    What about involiuntary sterilisations?
    There is a lot of hate going under the aegus of birth control!
    Joann Flanagan

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

    I seriously doubt these FBI numbers. Only white, male, Christian, heterosexuals are ever accused of ‘Hate Crimes” – generally. You are automatically considered a bigot if you are a Christian. You are labeled a sexist, a mysoginist and a bigot if you are against murdering babies in the womb. You are labeled a homophobe if you are against the state sanctioned ‘marriage’ of homosexuals. You are considered a domestic terrorist if you protest against murdering babies in the womb, want less government and less centralization of government or are a returning soldier. You are labeled a racist if you criticize any black politician for any reason, and an anti-Semite if you criticize any policy of Israel, or condemn the barbarity of Islam’s practices.The problem is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and the agenda behind it! Obfuscation, division, then destruction. Divide and conquer…
    I’m a white, Christian, heterosexual man, I’m proud of that, and I don’t care if that ‘hurts your feelings’!!!

    • http://liberty Tony

      Hey Dan: I have a question, if a person disagrees with a “white heterosexual male” on anything, do you see this as “reverse discrimination”? Just curious. In general, we, as a nation, need to end this foolishness. I stated this in an article last week dealing with a simliar subject, yet we have to start working together or this great country is doomed.

      • Vigilant

        Tony, please learn the difference between “freedom of speech” and “discrimination.”

        Disagreement per se entails no discrimination.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “Dan Mancuso” – YOU ARE ON POINT; NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO THOSE WHO WILL NEVER CHANGE.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CAH,
        Some interesting commentary from a black Rush Limbaugh. He needs to wear sunglasses because he couldn’t face the camera otherwise. What’s your reaction?

        http://www.youtube.com/v/F0sk4yGaEk8&hl=en_US&fs=1&

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        I SAW YOUR VIDEO LINK.

        YOU HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHO I AM.

        ALTHOUGH THE MALE IN THIS VIDEO MADE SOME GOOD POINTS, HE SPOKE IN ANGER. [Calling Negroes "savages" and "monkeys," etc.]. THE SUNGLASSES AND BLACK “SKULL-CAP” PROVE THIS MALE IS A LIAR AND BEING UTILIZED FOR PROPAGANDIC PURPOSES. [For those of you who believe in paid shills, this male is a "poster child."]. “Right Brain Thinker,” AS EVIDENCED BY HIS SPEECH, THE MALE IN THIS VIDEO IS WORKING WITHIN AN Afrocentric FRAMEWORK – HE PROBABLY GOES HOME TO A TYPICAL NEGRO FAMILY. DO NOT TRUST THIS MALE IN “BROAD DAYLIGHT.”

        AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, “Right Brain Thinker,” I AM Homosexual Uncle Tom. MY HOMOSEXUALITY IS THE “GUIDING FORCE” BEHIND MY HATRED OF NEGROES. I HAVE NO NEED TO CALL NEGROES BAD NAMES – LIKE, THOSE UTILIZED BY THE MALE IN THIS VIDEO. THROUGHOUT MY LIFE, I PURPOSELY SEPARATED MYSELF FROM NEGROES BECAUSE I PREFER THE “CAUCASIAN WAY” OF DOING THINGS. I LEARNED THIS VALUE FROM MY MOTHER.

        MOREOVER, “Right Brain Thinker” – UNLIKE, THE MALE IN THIS VIDEO – I DO NOT CONSIDER THE KENYAN TO BE “black.” THE KENYAN HAS A CAUCASIAN MOTHER AND WAS RAISED BY A MONGOLOID [INDONESIAN] MALE. THE KENYAN’S BACKGROUND IS THE REASON WHY HE HAS DONE NOTHING FOR, “Black America” – THE KENYAN DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO BE A “black” MAN BECAUSE HE IS NOT [AND, CAN NOT] BE A “black” MAN.

        SO, IN SUMMARY “Right Brain Thinker,” I AM A HOMOSEXUAL SEPARATIST.

        THE MALE IN THIS VIDEO IS A FAKE – HIS SUNGLASSES PROTECT HIM FROM GETTING “SMOKED.”

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CAH,

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says: “YOU HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHO I AM”. I have been reading your posts for some time now and am still working on “understanding” you. I haven’t gotten to the point of understanding you enough to be able to MISunderstand you. This response helps me a see a bit more about you.

        You said, “THE MALE IN THIS VIDEO IS A FAKE – HIS SUNGLASSES PROTECT HIM FROM GETTING “SMOKED.”
        That’s exactly what I thought and why I sought your reaction—-as I said, without the glasses, he wouldn’t have been able to look into the camera.

    • rkz777

      Mr. Mancuso, You’re right on the money, and don’t apologize to these imperfections. They are a kind not meant for the true GOD fearing world. Stick to your beliefs, teach your children about their kind and protect them as much as you can. Stand up for your rights and the rights of your family and keep your resolve, stay the course, for these shallow minded individuals will be caught up by the winds of hell and perish in the fires that never end. Keep your beliefs and you shall see your reward in HEAVEN.

  • rkz777

    I retired six years ago, but immediately signed on for temporary employment, because retired money wasn’t enough. I’m not going to work much longer, and I’m not going to work so that this thug socialist and his czars in the white house can play muslim games and give my hard earned money for my family to the no work pigs of this world, who are the socialist polling booth lever pullers for his kind. They can put it where the sun doesn’t shine. WHAT I GET FOR WORKING IS MINE AND MINE ALONE, NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THAT! OVER MY DEAD BODY!

  • rkz777

    And for those mindless fence post who accepted the socialist dumbed down teachings of the public school systems that were manipulated by the socialist federal system in washington, you will never understand the truth about the South and its glorious history and culture. You believe only the lies told by the deceitful mongrels that inhabit the halls of self idolization, rot and ruin. There is no help for your kind and I’m glad that you have retained yourselves in the pits of festering pus. Your only hope at being saved is to come forth now with your request for forgiveness, if there is such a thing for you. A very sick life indeed to be lived at the will of those that control you for their gains, while you eagerly wholler in the bowles of rotting blindness. And the truth that will set you free is just under your noses. A shameful waste of what was meant to be a human being. GOD PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THESE PITIFUL CREATURES. THANKS BE TO GOD.

  • chuckb

    unfortunately the south lost the war. i have a feeling this war isn’t over yet and the bolshevik party in washington is instigating a race war,
    the new bolshevik party is a majority minority party, there is much hate for the white man brewing and with the black messiah in power they feel the power is in their court. so be prepared, trouble is on the horizon.

  • Rennie

    It is NOT a hate crime if the victim is white, that is how they report it now, just like the mob in Michigan was not “violent” or “racist” because they were organized labor.

  • Chief Boring

    It is insulting that this story is illustrated with the Confederate Battle Flag. Put it to rest; please! And the SPLC has a vested interest in their being “hate crimes”. They feed on them. This category of crime speaks to motive, and are violations of the First Amendment. One can say almost any thing, or hold egregious views. It is the acting on these views that are crimes.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.