DISQUS

chetly · 2 years ago

Details Todd,

Could you provide details on how Bristow and VanDyke are "tied" to the groups you allege, and what your source material is for that claim.

Kevin Shopshire · 2 years ago

Buy Americian Did they have to go that far for a racist? What's wrong with our domestic racists? They should buy American and only employ racist Americans. Hell, there are far too many of them here, and they don't have to look far.

bruthav · 2 years ago

Buy American You're so right about them finding a domestic racist!  I nominate racist "reverends" Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.

Kevin Shopshire · 2 years ago

Sarcasm That was sarcasm, by the way. The problem is Revs. Sharpton and Jackson are not racist. That's like saying the Irish are racist because they celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Also, miss the significance of the word "reverends" in quotation marks.

bruthav · 2 years ago

Sharpton & Jackson The quotation marks are used to underscore my belief that these men are preachers in name only.  They are race-baiting political opportunists that despicably hide behind the label Reverend.  So they may call themselves Reverend, but they are far from Christian men in words, actions and deeds.

You're obviously not familiar with the recorded comments that Sharpton and Jackson have made about whites, and often Jews in particular.  Furthermore, their statements about Ward Connerly and Clarence Thomas -- conservative blacks --  are beyond the pale. 

Sharpton and Jackson epitomize racist hate mongers in the sense that they paint whites (and conservative blacks) with broad strokes (i.e., all whites are racist, all whites are privileged, all conservative blacks are "Uncle Toms" and Klansmen, etc.).  They support criminals, and criminal activity, by offering up "racism" as the cause and/or excuse for their plight (i.e., incarceration. See the Jena 6).

Your comment that these "men" (not quotation marks) are not racists is either disingenuous, or woefully ignorant -- or both.

bruthav · 2 years ago

Sharpton & Jackson That should read (note quotation marks).

LoRayne Apo-Joynt · 2 years ago

Thank you for your comment Please note our Comment Policy:

-- Keep comments on topic: We welcome discussion on any of our stories.  We do, however, ask that discussion stay on the topic of the post.  Posts that do not relate to the topic will be deleted with no notice.

-- Keep discussions respectful: There are many different viewpoints represented both by the reporters and our audience.  Different viewpoints and opinions are welcome, but personal attacks are not.  Personal attacks on the writers, other commentors, or other attacks will not be tolerated, and those posts will be deleted with no notice.

-- No spamming comment threads: Spam will be defined as any repeated comment, as well as any off-topic comment, including commercial spam or comments not advancing the current topic.  All comment spam will be deleted without notice.

-- Comment threads are meant to continue and discuss the topic in the post.  Anything that does not advance the topic will be deleted without notice.  We ask that you please adhere to these rules so that all of our audience can enjoy reading our stories.

Kevin Shopshire · 2 years ago

Not based on fact That may be your belief that "these men are preachers in name only," but it's certainly not based on any facts. They certainly are Christians. What really ironic is that a real racist hatemonger like Ann Coulter claims she's a Christian.

I am familiar with their "recorded comments." I fail to see how advocating for your own people who have been discriminated against for years and continue to be discriminated against makes you a racist hate monger.

Now, you are saying they are not men because they don't agree with their narrow point of view. If they are not men what are they? My comments that they are not racist is neither disingenuous, or woefully ignorant but a correct assessment.

chetly · 2 years ago

Todd Source material for the claims made herein?  I know there may have been a bit of a distraction there from odd commenter.

Todd A. Heywood · 2 years ago

Material facts Chetly

My apologies for the delay. I thought I had posted this on Friday night but it evidentally did not take. You may find the directed information at the following links:

http://www.michiganm...

http://yafwatch.blog...

http://yafwatch.blog...

I hope this assists you in getting Mr. Anuzis to retract his past statement of support for Mr. Bristow. Thanks for the interest.

Heywood

chetly · 2 years ago

On what basis Todd, on what basis do you assume I planned on asking Mr. Anuzis to do anything, let alone imply that I have such an obligation?  Seems awfully glib, and irrelevant to this topic.

Also, on what basis do you claim Mr. Anuzis even made such a statement?  That is, for me to ask Saul to retract something, it might be helpful to know what the statement is precisely. Indeed, necessary.

Was it "support" for Bristow himself or his views, or was it "support for Bristow's right's".

I'll look at your links momentarily.

chetly · 2 years ago

Thoughts In the 9/14 article, you prove that Bristow was in a facebook group with some character named Wigington, and, while the objection was raised about facebook groups being so prolific, you note that Wigington and Bristow were "co-administrators". The facebook group links to the American Patriot movement, and its description is rather innocuous (espousing patriotism), although the linked to website is mysteriously gone (proving nothing since websites come and go).

At the other end, you then prove that Wigington made bad comments on a separate third website, Stormfront (which is a bad place), and that Wiginton himself is probably a racist and white-supremacist. 

You're missing something in between - did Bristow know of Wigington's status and continue to associate with him.  Indeed, the evidence is that Bristow disassociated with the group after learning of Wigington's character -- perhaps a positive news story would be in order.

None of your comments quoted were comments in the American Patriot or Job group that Bristow could or should have been able to see, and if Bristow wasn't a reader of Stormfront, he'd have no way of knowing that Wigington was racist.  So Bristow may have cooperated with him in the limited way we all do with hundreds of people on Facebook, in a group that doesn't have a racist mission, but not know of the racist beliefs.  If this is the standard of "ties", then I suppose you avoid a libel suit (because "ties" is so vague as to hardly qualify as a "fact" anyway), but everyone can be tied to racists in some way.

The first YAF link, while it is tedious to read the facebook discussion through snapshots and I admit to only scanning them, appears to disprove the other half of your statement in this article (the MM article above).  That is, the comments by Jason Van Dyke, which you label as "acknowledging Preston" and "agreeing and disagreeing" with Preston, seem to prove to me that Van Dyke doesn't have racist beliefs (at least not noticeably).  That Van Dyke "acknowledged" Preston in a thread about Preston doesn't prove a link -- indeed, he specifically acknowledge that he has never met the person and then analyze several of his statements.  I think the second link you provide on the whole proves that Van Dyke (who clearly knows Bristow well) believes in full equality of treatment under the law. Van Dyke argues there that he believes people are "born equal under the law" "despite physical differences" (I'm not giving exact quotes) and that unequal treatment by government should come only after people make choices that cause that. While I don't necessarily agree with this choice of analogies and framework for the issue, I don't see its obvious problems in terms of racism.  Hence, I think your second link undercuts your story.

On the other hand, Van Dyke's membership in the Facebook group CCofC, is an incredibly bad display of judgment, at the least.  It's actually the best "tie" - anyone who knows CCC would not associate with it, and the mission statement in the group contains objectionable points (although I know alot of people join facebook groups just because a friend sends an invite, and they don't read it closely, so I don't consider it very valuable evidence by itself).

If the best MichiganMessenger can muster is a facebook membership, I'm disappointed.  I really look forward to Todd's analysis of why YAF was listed as a hate group by SPLC -- there are two questions here, what standards did SPLC use and what standards should they use (and the corrollaries of how Bristow fit into or didn't those standards).  I'd hope SPLC does better than MM's "ties".