A Tale Of Two Effigies


Someone hanged Barack Obama in effigy in Plains Georgia, the town from which another clueless failed Democrat hailed. Jimmah Carter is pretty popular in Plains (as I imagine is Obama) and some miscreant hanged Obama in effigy. Some photos were snapped and then the little black doll with his name was removed. Most folks never knew it happened but the Secret Service is investigating the issue.

Someone hangs Obama in effigy and the Secret Service (SS) is investigating? This is not the first time and leader was hanged in effigy and I think the place where it was hung shows that it is symbolic of a failed president rather than a threat.

I saw these things all the time when I was in DC with the Gathering of Eagles. Leftists walked down the street with little George Bush dolls hanging in effigy. It is all part of the process and I sure don’t recall the Secret Service investigating.

I also recall that when Sarah Palin was hanged in effigy it was deemed not to be a hate crime. The police said that it was near Halloween and that people had a right to do it and all so it was no big deal. It really wasn’t a big deal except if it had been a Democrat (the referenced article even mentions that an Obama effigy would have to be investigated separately based on historical references). And now we see this is the case.

How long will it take the race baiters to claim it is racist because it involves the image of a black man and a noose?

No, someone hanged Obama in effigy to express dissatisfaction with him or his policies or both. Given that he has ticked off his base it could just as well be one of them.

No matter who it is the person or persons have rights to free expression and the Secret Service should spend its time on more constructive things like figuring out how to keep uninvited guests from entering the White House.

Some leaders don’t hang in effigy. Just ask Saddam Hussein. Oops, too late…

LA Times

Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

28 Responses to “A Tale Of Two Effigies”

  1. Adam says:

    I don’t mind the Secret Service looking into things as long as they don’t file charges simply for freedom of expression. There is at least once instance during the Bush years of the Secret Service investigating somebody simply for drawing pictures.

    I wouldn’t go out on a limb and speculate on the meaning or motive like you’re doing though except to say that if this were a hate crime there would need to be some sort of element of intimidation which doesn’t appear to exist aside from the obvious uneasiness some of the blacks in that community feel about it.

    This isn’t like burning a cross on a black family’s yard, spray painting a swastika on a Jewish business, or even like the noose in Jena high school tree where there was obvious racial tensions brewing.

    • Darrel says:

      Adm: “burning a cross on a black family’s yard, spray painting a swastika on a Jewish business, or even like the noose in Jena high school tree”>>

      Those were all liberals doing that by the way. Oh, and the KKK, very liberal organization too.


      • Adam says:

        Didn’t the Republicans free the slaves?

      • Big Dog says:

        Could have been. The KKK was started by the Democrats and some of them are liberal. Like say, Robert Byrd. Of course, the children who hung the nooses in Jena were not being racially motivated and it was not liberal or conservative. Only something ginned up by race baiters.

        • Adam says:

          The funny thing about this is that some Democrats moved beyond their racism such as with Robert Byrd who has called his work with the KKK the “the greatest mistake I ever made.” Others like Strom Thurmond never really renounced their racist views and simply switched to the Republican side when the Democrats stopped promoting segregation and racism.

  2. Adam says:

    But also let me say that we may find out details later on that changes my view on whether this is a hate crime or not but hanging a black doll from a noose is not automatically a hate crime.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Jena LA, wasn’t that where the students were accused of racial motivation when it was determined that it did not exist?

    The following morning, nooses were discovered hanging from the tree; reports differ as to whether there were two[6] or three[1] nooses. A black teacher described seeing both white and black students “playing with [the nooses], pulling on them, jump-swinging from them, and putting their heads through them” that same day.[6] Craig Franklin, assistant editor of The Jena Times, stated that the nooses were actually a prank by three students aimed at white members of the school rodeo team, and that the school’s investigating committee had concluded that “the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history.” [10] The names of those who hung the nooses have not been publicly disclosed.


    I am not reading anything into the event. It is a fact, if the offense is aimed at a Democrat then it is a crime, if it is aimed at a Republican it is OK.

    Let someone say that Ted Kennedy should die or express happiness that he did and they are terrible people blah, blah. Let Wanda Skyes say she hopes Limbaugh’s kidney’s fail and even Obama laughs at it.

    We know the double standard exists. If Rangel were a Republican the Democrats who now protect him would be calling for his head on a platter.

    I personally could care less if it caused uneasiness among the locals. The only question I have is did they do this on someone else’s property? If they hanged it on someone else’s property then they should be cited for trespassing. If it is their own property they should be left alone by everyone including the SS. No threat was communicated.

    But I understand. The country has to be hyper vigilant because we have the first half black Resident and the SS can’t let anything happen to him or riots will break out.

    Yeah, they should spend time trying to secure the White House.

  4. Big Dog says:

    I don’t see how it could be a hate crime. Hate is not a crime. People are free to hate who they want and the only crime would be if they acted violently toward that person. If you burn a cross on someone else’s property, it is a crime. If you burn it on your own then it is your business.

    Since this is a doll there is not “hate” crime but there might be a trespassing crime.

    The doll is black because Obama is black. It only makes sense and if that is hateful or a crime then any company that makes an Obama doll had better make it white…

    • Doug says:

      Hate is not a crime. No one says it is. A hate crime is not a crime *because* of hate. A hate crime is a crime that has hate as part of its motive.

      The doll is black because Obama is black, and it is racist statement because blacks, not whites, were the targets of lynch mobs.

      Why is talking to conservatives so often like talking to third graders? Why should anyone have to explain any of this to adults who have lived in the U.S. for more than five or ten years?

      • Blake says:

        The doll is black because O’bamma is black- and when Bush was hung in effigy, the doll was white-
        And there were plenty of whites who were lynched, except liberal history omits them.
        Why is talking to liberals an exercise in futility- oh that’s right- they refuse to live in the real world.

  5. Adam says:

    “It is a fact, if the offense is aimed at a Democrat then it is a crime, if it is aimed at a Republican it is OK.”

    This is of course a fantasy. You’ll have partisan opinions every time on what something is or isn’t. I’m not seeing anybody legitimate call this a crime yet.

    “If Rangel were a Republican the Democrats who now protect him would be calling for his head on a platter.”

    This is the same as the first quote. Since when do partisans not protect their own and call for the other side’s head on a platter in unabashed hypocrisy? It’s certainly not reserved for the Democrats.

    “I don’t see how it could be a hate crime. Hate is not a crime.”

    It’s not the hate that is a crime, it’s when you let the hate lead you to commit a crime to harm, intimate or terrorize a person or persons. I know you think a crime is a crime and there shouldn’t be special types of crime but this goes against our justice system that already assigns degrees to murder and to all other sorts of crime.

    “It only makes sense and if that is hateful or a crime…”

    It makes sense because you are writing off any chance of hate or threat in these actions. Because you don’t like Obama it appears you just want to see this as a legitimate form of protest and no harm done other than possible trespassing. We don’t know who put it up or what their motives were.

    But then again we’ve seen lately that we don’t need to know motives to draw conclusions, something you accuse my side of doing yet you can’t stop doing it yourself…

    • Big Dog says:

      Interesting. But I discount hate crimes because they do not apply to white people. If a minority commits a crime against a white there is NEVER a hate crime charged. I have never seen it and there have been some pretty horrific crimes where minorities hurt whites.

      The fact that this was against Obama makes no difference to me. I do not view freedom of expression as a hate crime or as intimidation. I find it interesting that burning an American Flag is viewed as free “speech” but burning a cross or hanging a person in effigy is a hate crime. What if burning a Flag causes “uneasiness” among veterans? Can we label it a hate crime and send people to jail?

      The motivation does not matter to me. You can’t read a person’s mind. If they hung a doll then they hung a doll. The colkor of the doll is an accurate representation of the guy it was meant to represent so that is fine.

      You know that I do not believe in hate crimes. I think they are moronic. If you committed a crime then what is gained by assuming you know why the person did it and charging them with hate? However, under the definition of hate crime the black panthers at the polling place in Philly committed a hate crime.

      The charges were dropped by the DOJ, wonder why?

      Oh, like I said, hate crimes are never filed against minorities who commit them.

      As far as a partisan protecting his own. I am partisan and want anyone who commits a crime OUT. I have stated that many times in this forum and have been one of the first to call for anyone who committed a crime FROM ANY POLITICAL PARTY, to step down or to be prosecuted.

      Anyone who justifies the crime by saying that it is about protecting one’s own is saying that it is OK as long as they stick together, as long as it is my criminal and not yours, blah, blah. It is like saying, as long as we charge whites and not blacks with hate crimes that is OK.

      • Adam says:

        We go over this every time you bring up hate crimes. It’s absolutely false that hate crimes do not apply to whites. The FBI keeps stats on hate crimes and I’ve shown you this before.

        In 2008 16.8% of race based hate crimes were white-bias motivated.

        Again though, we differentiate between petty crimes and major crimes, between types of murder and manslaughter. Why is it wrong to differentiate based on hateful motives when we already differentiate on many other motives?

        It’s convenient that you feel no need to differentiate between crimes motivated by hate since you are a straight white Protestant male with no major physical or mental disabilities. You are pretty much the least likely on the entire Earth to be the victim of a hate crime.

    • Blake says:

      Isn’t rape a “hate” crime? There is obviously no love there, just a need to control, and, yes- hate also.
      What about robbery? Does one Hate the fact that others have what one does not, and does that hate then not lead him to rob?
      And Murder, I think we can all agree on, is not a crime of LOVE, is it, Darrel?
      So wouldn’t ALL crimes be a certain level of hate then?
      It is ridiculous to draw a distinction, raising certain “special” (i.e., crimes against liberals and “minorities”) crimes to a special and heightened status.
      It’s ALL bad.

      • Adam says:

        It’s a shame that something as simple as placing a distinction between crimes committed because of a bias of race, gender, religion, or disability has you two so confused as to make such silly arguments as you do. It’s not that hard if you’d just educate yourself to the point where you see how asinine it is to argue every crime is a hate crime because there is no love involved.

        • Blake says:

          But I thought that was the VERY ESSENCE of crime itself- that it was grounded in hate, because if you loved your fellow man you wouldn’t do these things.
          If that is so, (and it IS), then its only a matter of degree- and what liberals then argue, is that it depends on WHO you hate- and that is racial profiling, and that is wrong.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Saying you renounce something and meaning it are two different things. The point is there are liberals and conservatives who are racists. I know you like to believe that liberals have gotten past it but that is not the case. There are plenty of them.

    And how do you know Strom was still a racist? He never specifically renounced his earlier views but that does not mean he did not change his position:

    Thurmond supported extending the Voting Rights Act, making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. a federal holiday and he was the first southern senator to appoint a black aide. However, he never explicitly renounced his earlier views on racial segregation.

    • Adam says:

      I don’t know if I said Thurmond was necessary racist all his life, just that Byrd has renounced his actions and has a strong record on civil rights in the last 70 years after he was in the KKK. I’m not sure a few votes by Thurmond speak louder than his 24 hours straight blocking civil rights legislation for instance given the fact that he never showed public remorse for supporting segregation.

  7. Big Dog says:

    I am the least likely kind of person to be the victim of any crime. However, explain how you can read a person’s mind to know what motivated them. Too many people have been accused of a hate crime based on the act, not the motivation.

    We have degrees of murder that are based on the crime and how it was carried out, not the intent of the person.

    16.8% were white biased motivated. So what color were the people who committed the crimes? Perhaps it was white people attacking other whites for something they did. I have seen quite a few horrific crimes where blacks were not charged with hate crimes. I have heard prosecutors say they would not go after hate crimes because the victims were white.

    This is the case. Being white bias motivated is different than being charged to a minority.

    I see no need to add hate to something that is already a crime. No one is a mind reader and if the person says he did not mean it to be hateful then how do you prove otherwise?

    • Adam says:

      Hate crimes are not that complicated. You complicate it by introducing nonsensical arguments.

      You act like it’s impossible to deduce motive which is nonsense. It’s like saying how can you prove a crime was premeditated if you can’t prove the person thought about the crime beforehand? This is outside the bounds of logical debate because we know our justice system can and does deduce motive every day for crimes, including premeditated crimes and crimes motivated by hate.

      Whites are victims of race based hate crimes 16.8% of the time. That’s the truth. Does it matter the skin color? You are wrong to say you discount hate crimes because they do not apply to white people. They clearly do apply.

      You can go on with your anecdotal argument about something you’ve seen or heard but that’s not a very strong argument. Not every hate crime is charged as such because of what we are already discussing: It’s hard to pin down motive or make a jury buy it either way. Also not every mixed race rime is a hate crime anyway.

      • Schatzee says:

        FYI – motive and premeditation are not the same thing. Motive is actually the reason for (or what motivates a person to) commit a crime. Premeditation simply means that the assailant had malice of forethought or thought about the crime before committing it. It is not necessary to prove motive for any crime (including murder) even though many juries love to have a reason for crime so they can “understand” it. Motive, unless specifically stated personally (i.e., in a confession) is speculation at best and not allowed in court cases (except in arguments where they may make suggestions but arguments are not considered evidence so they cannot be used in determining a case).

  8. Big Dog says:

    Did Byrd vote against the legislation? The wntire pint was that there are racists of all persuassions (liberal, conservative and in between). Renouncing it or saying you are sorry does not change the fact that liberals can be racists too.

    A lot of liberals opposed the civil rights act.

    • Adam says:

      Byrd did vote against it but he was hardly a liberal by modern standards. I’d love to see a liberal that opposed civil rights. There were plenty of conservatives in the Democratic party that did it. The liberal wing has only taken over in the last half century or so.

      I know people who identify with some liberal values and are racist (not mentioning any names from my dad’s side of the family) but equal rights has been a major tenant of liberalism for a long long time so you really have to question someone’s liberalism after that.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Your source says that white bias is the motivation, not that whites are the target of the crimes.

    I don’t see the need for hate crimes but I will gladly file hate crimes violations with the law the next time I see a moron burn a Flag. He was obviously motivated by hatred for the country.

    • Adam says:

      Again you are wrong. The quote:

      16.8 percent were victims because of an anti-white bias.

      Unless you think an African-American was attacked because of an anti-white bias then maybe it’s time you admitted you were wrong again in the face of clearly documented evidence by the FBI no less.

      You still think flag burning is automatically a hate crime and of course that is silly. It’s clearly hard for you to support something like the idea of hate crimes when you have no understanding of them and you continue to make weak arguments against.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Those could have been whites attacked by white supremacist groups for something they did. You know, like skinheads beat up a white guy for dating a black girl. It just says the victims were based on anti white bias, not who committed the crime.

    Show me all the hate crimes for black on white attacks. Hell, black on black crime is rampant, show me the hate crimes in that category.

    Where are the hate crime charges against the new black panthers in Philly? That was caught on tape and was a hate crime (and racial). Holder dropped all that, hmmmm…

    Hate crime legislation is unnecessary. If you committed a crime then what good would adding “hate” to it do? If you murder someone you would get the same sentence whether hate is added or not.

    Hate crimes equals the thought police. I hate liberals but would not kill them. If I did, would it be a hate crime (or social justice)?

    • Adam says:

      If you would take just a few minutes to review the FBI’s stats on hate crimes offenders you’d see how you continue to be wrong.

      Just 61.1 percent of offenders were white. What does that tell you? That’s right, 38.9 percent of offenders were not white. In fact 20.2 percent were black.

      So now we know that 16.8% of victims are because of anti-white bias and that 38.9% of offenders are non-white. Are you going to insist that this is no evidence that hate crimes count when it’s against whites or that only whites can commit hate crimes?

      It could be argued that keeping track of hate crimes against whites is not the same as filing charges. Here are a couple of examples of black men charged and convicted of hate crimes against whites:

      * Steven Johnson
      * Phillip Grant

      You’re wrong, still.

  11. Big Dog says:

    I am truly sorry Doug. I was unaware of all those lynch mobs running around the country. Now that you have told me about them would you care to show them to me?

    That happened a long time ago and now blacks are equal to whites (in my opinion they have always been equal but bad people did not treat them that way) and they get a leg up in many aspects of our society.

    How long will we pay for what people who are no longer alive did? When will we have the same concern for the Indians who had their land taken away?

    Hate is a moronic thing to attach to a crime. How does one define it and how does one know that hate was a motive?

    And Doug, when will we hold the blacks accountable for the blacks, who are now dead, that sold them into slavery?