by Tim Young
Tell me, what does it mean when a white adjudicator is unmoved by the racism, oppression and police terror that Black folks in this country are subjected to but becomes unhinged when a Black man decides to demonstrate in opposition to it. Again, what does it mean?
That “white adjudicator” just so happens to be United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As for that Black man, he is no other than San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepemick.
By now, we all know that Colin Kaepernick is refusing to stand for the national anthem until significant change has been made in the way that Black folks in this country are treated. By taking a knee during the national anthem, he is drawing attention to the race problem that America refuses to face. Some see his peaceful protest as heroic and long overdue; others, however, think that he needs to dial it down and “stay in his place.”
That leads me back to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the woman that some folks in the media commonly refer to as “the notorious RBG.”
It seems RBG has been pretty outspoken lately. First she injected herself into the 2016 presidential election by dropping bombs on Donald Trump. I’m paraphrasing here, but she basically said that Trump was ignorant, flippant and unfit to be president of the United States. She later said in another interview that Colin Kaepernick’s protesting of the national anthem was “dumb and disrespectful.”
People were probably willing to overlook RBG’s tirade against “The Donald,” but by taking potshots at Colin Kaepernick, she opened up a whole new can of worms. What she learned from her blunder was this: When you come after people like “Kap,” people who support Kap are going to come right back at you!
By taking a knee during the national anthem, he is drawing attention to the race problem that America refuses to face. Some see his peaceful protest as heroic and long overdue; others, however, think that he needs to dial it down and “stay in his place.”
I’m pretty sure that judges are prohibited from politicking and mouthing off about social issues. The American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct states in Canon 4: “A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary” and, in Canon 1: “A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
Your Honor, were you being fair and impartial when you blasted Colin Kaepernick for engaging in peaceful protest? Was your public attack on Colin Kaepernick not akin to protest shaming?
Your Honor, what statute or canon gives you the license to tear away at a man for merely exercising his constitutional rights? Is it pride and prejudice that caused you to lash out at Colin Kaepernick, or will the Commission on Judicial Performance conclude that comments made by the notorious “RBG” fall under the scope of “harmless error?”
Your Honor, with all due respect, the evidence shows that you have willfully violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, having found good cause, I, Timothy James Young, hereby request that you recuse yourself from the court of public opinion.
Your Honor, were you being fair and impartial when you blasted Colin Kaepernick for engaging in peaceful protest?
As an innocent man on Death Row, it bothers me that a U.S. Supreme Court Justice would feel the need to castigate a Black football player simply because he chose to “take a knee.” The hypocrisy here is that white people engage in demonstrations all the time. They not only have a history of desecrating the cross and the American flag, but they’re also guilty of castrating, mutilating, and burning people at the stake! Thus, my question is, why hasn’t “the notorious RBG” ever felt the need to castigate any of them?
The underlying issue here is that racism is not only alive and well, but it dwells within the highest court in our land. And with 60 percent of the white electorate voting Donald Trump into office (smdh), racism will only expand. That makes me wonder about what the future holds in store for people like me, the people who are fighting for vindication and relief. Sadly, if I were to juxtapose the case of Dred Scott, circa 1853, I would be forced to conclude that judicial racism is still the cornerstone of white supremacy.
The “notorious RBG” may not have committed any felony offenses by revealing her true colors, but she certainly didn’t do herself any favors. In the event that her vitriol has created a firestorm, my prediction is this: When the embers have cooled, and the smoke has cleared, it will be Colin Kaepernick who is standing on the right side of history.
The underlying issue here is that racism is not only alive and well, but it dwells within the highest court in our land.
In fact, if we consult history, it shows us that the stance taken by Colin Kaepernick is no different from the stance that was taken by Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks or Muhammed Ali. Therefore, to hate on Colin Kaepernick is to hate on all the Black freedom fighters who came before him.
The reality here is that white America has two faces. They despise freedom fighters while they’re alive, but they glorify them and put their images on stamps once they’re dead and gone. Why do they do this, you ask? Well, why do they propagate the lie that Christopher Columbus “discovered” America?
They do it to control the narrative! Controlling the narrative not only allows them to brainwash people, but it also allows them to water down the true essence of our heroes, sheroes and leaders.
The reality here is that white America has two faces. They despise freedom fighters while they’re alive, but they glorify them and put their images on stamps once they’re dead and gone.
From this point forward, white America no longer gets to look down upon us for taking a knee.
They no longer get to act like racism, oppression, and police terrorism doesn’t exist. They no longer get to subject our freedom fighters to the measures that are outlined in National Security Memorandum 46 (see below). No, the jig is up!
Tim Young’s writings, radio interviews and information pertaining to his wrongful conviction can be viewed at Timothyjamesyoung.com. Tim is always looking to network and build. Send our brother some love and light: Tim Young, F-23374, San Quentin State Prison, San Quentin CA 94974.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM-46
MARCH 17, 1978
Presidential Review Memorandum NSCM/46
TO: The Secretary of State, The Secretary of Defense, The Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: Black Africa and the U.S. Black Movement
The President has directed that a comprehensive review be made of current developments in Black Africa from the point of view of their possible impacts on the black movement in the United States. The review should consider:
The President has directed that the NSC Interdepartmental Group for Africa perform this review. The review should be forwarded to the NSC Political Analysis Committee by April 20.
(The review Brezinski called for, which can be read in full at http://www.finalcall.com/memorandum-46.htm, begins with this section:)
If black African states assume attitudes hostile to the U.S. national interest, our policy toward the white regimes, which is a key element in our relations with the black states, may be subjected by the latter to great pressure for fundamental change. Thus the West may face a real danger of being deprived of access to the enormous raw material resources of southern Africa which are vital for our defense needs as well as losing control over the Cape sea routes by which approximately 65% of Middle Eastern oil is supplied to Western Europe.
Moreover, such a development may bring about internal political difficulties by intensifying the activity of the black movement in the United States itself.
It should also be borne in mind that black Africa is an integral part of a continent where tribal and regional discord, economic backwardness, inadequate infrastructures, drought, and famine, are constant features of the scene. In conjunction with the artificial borders imposed by the former colonial powers, guerilla warfare in Rhodesia and widespread indignation against apartheid in South Africa, the above factors provide the communist states with ample opportunities for furthering their aims. This must necessarily redound to the detriment of U.S. political interests.