Chicago's New Top Cop: A Race Baiter That Stands Against the U.S. Constitution

-By Warner Todd Huston

Once again St. Sabina, the “Catholic” Church on Chicago’s South Side, makes the news for race-baiting and down talking our U.S. Constitution. This time it is Chicago’s new Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy, who appeared at the church and indulged his inner Father Pfleger with a rant on how the US is filled with racists and how the U.S. Constitution was written to kill minorities.

After the race-baiting “Father” Michael Pfleger left the stage, Chicago’s new top cop took his turn at stirring the race hatred instilled deep in the parishioners by years of Pfleger’s demagoguery. Superintendent McCarthy didn’t disappoint the crowd eager for more race-baiting, for sure.

“So here’s what I want to tell you…,” McCathy said warming to his theme. “Slavery. Segregation. Black codes. Jim Crow. What, what did they all have in common? Anybody getting’ scared? Government sponsored racism.”

Then he really got into the weeds…

Now I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of the African American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy. Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms, into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children.

The NRA does not like me, and I’m okay with that. We’ve got to get the gun debate back to center, and it’s got to come with the recognition of who’s paying the price for the gun manufacturers being rich and living in gated communities.

This cretin hit all the prosaic, left-wing, demagoguing talking points, didn’t he? What is he, running for Democrat nomination for president here? In fact, it most certainly seems that McCarthy is angling for politics instead of law enforcement with this pandering nonsense, doesn’t it?

So, the Constitution is made to kill blacks and browns and gun manufacturers are nothing but eeeevil rich people. Yep, all the left’s favorite tropes.

What is it with big cities that attract so many anti-American liars like this McCarthy to them?

Ah, but Garry “Joseph” McCarthy had another talking point for more slanderous wallowing. You guessed it, he went after Sarah Palin.

Superintendent “Joseph” McCarthy said he had been watching an episode of Sarah Palin’s Alaska and her caribou hunting episode made him furious, or something.

She was caribou hunting and talking about the right to bear arms. Why wasn’t she at the crime scene with me?

Um… maybe because she isn’t a Chicago cop, you idiot?

But let me make a supposition, here. I will guarantee that “Joe” McCarthy has never in his demagoguing life seen an episode of Sarah Palin’s Alaska. You got it. I am calling this man a liar. And a panderer.

Finally, it looks like we might be expecting Garry “Joseph” McCarthy to be a law-breaking top cop. If he is so against the Second Amendment, my guess is that he’ll be violating the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions that run against his un-American point of view and he’ll find ways not to enforce the Court’s decisions.

With the City of Chicago already running into major trouble with roving bands of black gangs attacking and robbing people in broad daylight in wiliding incidents (and it’s only a matter of time before they start killing people) we have a top cop more interested in appearing at racist churches making race-baiting speeches than doing his job. Emanuel better watch out because what we obviously have here is just another arrogant jack-booted thug that thinks he should be allowed to make up his own laws instead of enforcing the laws actually on the books.

Rahm Emanuel better quickly rein in this man who seems to be running for some political position instead of doing his job as the city’s highest police official.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Interesting piece. I grew up in a few of the most notorious neighborhoods here in the city. Gun violence was a real part of my life. However, I am empathetic enough to understand that the gun violence that plagues Chicago does not mirror other parts of our country experience with guns. My first question I would post to you is how would you go about addressing the gun problem in the inner city while protecting American's constitutional right to bear arms?

    Also, I am interested in knowing your true response to McCarthy's quote "Slavery. Segregation. Black codes. Jim Crow. What, what did they all have in common? Anybody getting' scared? Government sponsored racism." My second question to you is do really believe these codes were not sponsored and furthered by our government? I ask these questions not as Left Wing nut, as I am apathetic to both sides of the political spectrum. Rather, I ask you these question because I am genuinely interested in hearing your perspective.

    Thanks for your time.

  • In reply to lpitts:

    First of all, congratulations for asking real questions. Unlike 99% of the commenters on this site.

    Now, I think we know the main cause of the gun violence in Chicago: gangs (and by extension, drugs). Root out gangs and the violence will fall to a slight level. I am not a big fan of the "war on drugs" and feel that contributes a lot to it. It has NOTHING to do with guns and everything to do with gangs and drugs.

    As to your second question, I ask one in return: so what?
    Sure past laws (in only parts of this country) kept minorities down. But guess what? We used the same government and legal mechanisms to be rid of those oppressive laws. So, dwelling on the past in this case is, well, idiotic.

    People used to burn witches at the stake, too. Should we worry today that people are going to be burned at the stake? Only an idiot would.

    Focusing on victim status keeps people down just as much as Jim Crow used to. Race baiters have created a new plantation and in order to keep their personal power they have no problem keeping "blacks and browns" as the Superintendent said, stuck on that plantation. Garry McCarthy is a race baiter that wants blacks and brown under HIS thumb.''

    He was a terrible choice for that position. I think Emanuel is going to have major trouble with this one.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    In response to your take on gun control, I agree that the "war on drugs" is ineffective, as the recent information revealed about the ATF's effort to trace the flow of guns to the drug cartels in Mexico that contributed to deaths that prompted the request for Director Nelson to step down. Furthermore, I believe guns have become the scapegoat for the social issues that live in these communities with high drug and gang activity. It is very easy for the power to be proclaim a war on guns, but it is nearly impossible to stop the flow of such guns. The reason being, except for isolated incidents with the acquisition of firearms that lead to killings, most of the guns found in our streets are illegal. With that said, my experience has led me to build a negative connotation with them. However, I understand that that is my experience and usually the experience of most black and brown people growing up in communities that are underdeveloped and under-invested. To some degree I believe capitalism or rather business, would be a better scapegoat.

    I am firm believer in business. For the most part, business does not discriminate or rather its main function does not care for political affiliations other than to further the respective business' goal. The goal is simply to maintain liquidity and profitability. Generally speaking, in these communities infested with drug and gang activity, the true saving grace of business is absent.

    As to your second response, I expected a little more. I just recently took a course on gender and cultural studies in society. Granted this course, in my opinion, this course had an agenda, I was still opened to some of the readings we were exposed through said course. For the most part such readings suggested that the interconnected of oppressive forces by way of established institutions create and maintain more victims of racism, sexism, and genderism rather than one institution alone. Furthermore, the oppressive and repressive actions of both independent and interdependent institutions prove more detrimental and make more of an impact than said independent and interdependent institutions redemptive and restorative actions. I say all that to say that clearly Jim Crow Laws were oppressive and repressive. However, affirmative action policies don't reverse the effects of government supported oppressive and repressive laws. Rather, in my opinion affirmative action undermines, to some degree, minorities successes and functions in part to help the government feel better about itself. Which in return creates the illusion of salvation through policy.

    As to your last point on victim status being used as a tool for more control, I do believe Superintendent McCarthy's ingratiating speech to the congregation of St. Sabina was a ploy for him create a working relationship with the community that has become the poster child for gang, gun, and drug activity. I just don't buy that he was race-baiting, by your admission the government did further oppressive and repressive laws. The question is how deeply have the laws and practices effect our community. I am not a proponent of fighting for victim status, but rather dispel the dismissive tones of those that are limited in their empathy for the black and brown community. I don't view it as racism though, I view it as the lack of empathy or limited empathy. Yet, achieving empathetic relationships beyond cultural bounds will not fix the gang infested, drug infested, underdeveloped, and under-invested neighborhoods that we call home. I am proponent of more black and brown stepping up to the plate. I grew up on welfare. I have lived in the projects. I have went to some of the worst schools and so have my siblings. Yet, I have two older brother that graduated from University of Illinois and I am currently a junior at DePaul University School of Commerce. At the risk of sounding narcissistic, I believe the solution to such issues is well, me. A metaphorically me.

    Again, thanks for your time.

  • In reply to lpitts:

    P.S. Please excuse some of the grammatical errors.

  • In reply to lpitts:

    ========= clothes6.us ======

    Cheap Nike air Jordan shoes33$,Air Force 1 33$, Nike dunks SB shoe,Nike Shox shoe. Wholesale Cheap Nike shoes with discount jersey, High quality T-shirts,ED hardy t-shirts,ED Hardy hoodies,ED hardy shoes,ED hardy Jeans,Evisu shoes,GUCCI shoes,LV Handbag,Chanel Handbag

  • In reply to lpitts:

    What is an jack-booted thug?

  • In reply to lpitts:

    Dear The Onion

    I very much enjoyed your recent piece on the Chicago police chief "race baiter". Thanks!

  • In reply to MrSmooth:

    Dear The Commenter,

    I am glad the day nurse at your home let you use the computer this weekend. You must have been a good boy for a change.

  • In reply to lpitts:

    'Race baiting'? Just like 'culture wars'

  • In reply to ljsmith:

    Yeah, typical. Call racism again. You just can't help yourself, can you? One day you'll actually try to think before you type.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    It doesn't take much to think circles around you. Problem is you're so thin skinned and full of yourself, you don't realize it. Keep it up,you'll get far.

  • In reply to ljsmith:

    lj smith ...please educate yourself on the THREE-FIFTHS clause.

    Delegates OPPOSED to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College.

    The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers REDUCED THE POWER OF THE SLAVE STATES relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

    And yes McCarthy was race baiting and pandering. If you do some true research, you will find that most of the ills of the inner city inhabitants were designed that way by democrat politicians since the civil rights days. McCarthy is just another wolf oppressor in sheeps clothing mold. The sooner the community can finally understand this, the sooner the black population will truly be liberated.

  • In reply to hetrack:

    My argument isn't about the three-fifths clause any more than it's about repeal of prohibition. The constitution is an eighteenth century document. The inability to adopt to the twenty-first century is because of a diverse populace with diverse needs. White, black, brown, we all want to be heard. We all want a voice and KNOW it is our right. One size no longer fits all. If a black community on the Southside feels threatened and, yes, oppressed by the flow of weapons into their community, then they should have a right to control that flow. If it were Gary Cooper coming in at 'High Noon' to save Dodge from the outlaws, you all would be applauding. But because its McCarthy at St. Sabina's, you all pick up the latest Supreme Court ruling and call foul. Like I said, RACIST.

  • In reply to ljsmith:

    You may or may not be right about the Constitution not "fitting" us any more. (I think you are completely wrong, but...) But here is the thing... the founders didn't imagine that every last clause and word of the Constitution was meant never to be changed. The fact is, they created a mechanism by which to amend it. Unfortunately, leftists think that they don't need to do it it the right way. They think they can just pass unconstitutional regulations, bad laws, or have some left-wing, activist judge. It's completely un-American.

  • In reply to ljsmith:

    To the author, what neighborhood of the City of Chicago do you live in?

  • In reply to ljsmith:

    I just keep re-reading this entry and it's really astonishing to me that this meets the editorial standards of the Chicago Tribune. One of the nation's oldest and most revered news organizations is now publishing the rants of cantankerous old people. I hate to take it to a personal level with this entry, but it's just not well written and comes across as very juvenile.
    Sadly, I think this entry is pretty indicative of the blogging quality on Chicago Now.

Leave a comment