That’s just straight up extortion.
A Cuban restaurant owner in Louisville is slamming Black Lives Matter activists for sending him and other small business owners a list of diversity demands that they were told to meet or risk repercussions like ‘having their store fronts ‘f****d with’.
The letter went out to business owners in East Market District in Louisville, also known as NuLu, during a protest on July 24 that forced some of the businesses in the area to close.
It demanded that businesses employ at least 23 percent black staff, bought at least 23 percent of their inventory from black retailers or make a recurring donation of 1.5 percent of their net sales to a local black charity, and that they should display a sign showing their support for the movement.
It also listed a series of ‘repercussions’ if the businesses didn’t comply which included a boycott, social media shaming, and an ‘invasive reclamation’ whereby black owned businesses with competing goods of services would set up ‘booths and tables’ outside the store fronts.
[…]
Fernando Martinez, who owns La Bodeguita de Mima, claims that one of the activists warned him: ‘You better put the letter on the door so your business is not f*cked with.’
The Koreans in South Central had a solution for that sort of problem.
Very inexpensive, too.
Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group that not 1 liberal here will condemn.
How sad.
Will liberals here condemn this awful extortion? No?
Didn’t think liberals would oppose evil.
Kevin’s joined Dad29’s Mind Reader Club. Up late, still demanding the denouncing.
jjf,
I don’t see your denouncenent of this awful evil.
Wall of Moms! hasn’t made it to Louisville yet. This is peaceful protesting. Get your mind right.
How agitated should we get about the claim, Kev? The story says that the owner claims “one protester” said that to him.
And that story also says “The BLM protesters in Louisville say the list was not a set of demands but that they want to start a conversation with local businesses.”
Here’s perhaps a more reputable coverage?
Did you even read the article you linked to jjf?
I doubt it because it would show that you lied about the article.
Where’s the lie, Inspector Frammer?
Rat jjf, you implied that these threats really not real or just minor.
But in fact the protestors were violent and threatening, per your article.
So, yeah, it is a big deal.
Well, in Owen’s Daily Mail story, the owner says one protester said something threatening to him. In the other story I supplied, the owner is quoted as saying several protesters said it to him.
Maybe we should call in the expert witness Dad29 to determine if this is “many” and again, as I asked the first time, to know if we should be concerned.
So again, show me on the doll where I lied to you.
Mar:
The business owner is free to follow the demands or not. I thought you were all about freedom and allowing individuals to make choices.
None of the repercussions are violent or against the law. Seems the conservative snowflakes are melting over nothing. Funny because Kevin and others have consistently said they have no problems with boycotts. Did they lie?
jjf,
Have you denounced this representative of BLM extortion?
No?
Every time I spot a conservative doing something dumb, can I ask you to denounce it? And before you get a chance to respond, can I say that I bet you love it? Let’s skip a step. Can I just insist you love dumb stuff?
That is what liberal media does to conservatives ALL THE TIME!!!
You hate it when liberals are asked?
Figures.
I guess basic decency is not in liberals playbook.
Do you denounce this BLM extortion or not?
Simple question.
Looks like the liberals here are the Antifa and Black Lives Matter supporters.
Even though both groups love violence, are racist to the core and hate civil society.
Le Roi says he supports law enforcement but will not specifically denounce these 2 groups. What a hypocrite.
Randall and jjf are too ignorant understand the difference between a ra demand with violence and a request without violence.
Of course extortion is criminal. Do I conflate it with everything else about the BLM protests? Of course not.
The extortion claim in question here is not present in the letter, right?
Still supporting racist BLM terrorists.
Good for you jjf.
mar:
You are still making fact-free assumptions. Just as I have told k, you don’t get to tell me what, how, or when to do something.
Well, Le Roi, then don’t tell us not to make assumptions on your views. Especially e voice opinions here.
The fact you refuse to specifically to condemn Antifa and BLM tells us a lot about you and your views.
If you cannot handle it, too bad.
The extortion claim in question here is not present in the letter, right?
And the letter is the only verified evidence we have. There is no proof one of the BLM members said what the shop owner claims. It wouldn’t be the first time someone in WI lied to make another group look bad:
https://isthmus.com/news/news/how-the-kyle-wood-hoax-went-viral-self-proclaimed-conservative-watchdogs-spurn-reporting-basics/
Every time I spot a conservative doing something dumb, can I ask you to denounce it?
Mar’s excuse is always they aren’t conservative, or that they are just a small minority of conservatives and don;t represent true cosnervatives.
So why does he say one BLM person represents all of BLM? Kindo f hypocritical, eh?
“So why does he say one BLM person represents all of BLM? Kindo f hypocritical, eh?”
Umm, Randall, if you think this 1 person is atypical of BLM, then you must not read the newspapers, read this blog in the past few months. You never went on their web sites, listened to the leaders of BLM and actually investigate BLM.
What’s a “cosnervatives”?
A conservative in drag.
Randall, it’s Louisville KY. Not even WI. You’d think if the shop owner was truly concerned about extortion, that he’d file a complaint and the police would investigate. Has anyone spotted him doing that?
Mar, did you spot any peaceful protesters in all of your BLM research on the Internets?
“Mar, did you spot any peaceful protesters in all of your BLM research on the Internets?”
Umm, no. Not for from the leaders and true believers of the group, the organization BLM.
From splinter groups, perhaps. Those who do not belong to BLM, yes.
But the true believers, no.
I don’t see where the question was ever if a liberal would denounce the BLM movement as a whole. The question was:
Feel free to preface with “If true”, but if the act occurred, say was caught on video, would a liberal condemn it? It was a singular act question, it is you, Randall and other liberals, who have cloaked the act in ‘the whole movement’ seemingly to avoid giving an answer.
Jjf came close when he said “of course extortion is criminal”, but he didn’t apply it, he went general and basically said all BLM people are not extortionists. All reasonable people would agree with that too, but it does not answer the question. Rioting, looting, attacking police are criminal too, so is your base response to that ‘All BLM marchers/protesters are not rioting or looting or attacking police so end of topic’? No blame to any because all are not guilty? I can follow that logic, but I don’t agree with it and I would be surprised if you did.
Bwa ha ha! And how would that end? If the police even bothered:
Police: Did you threaten that store owner?
Thug: Which one?
Police: The Cuban restaurant on 10th.
Thug: No, I did not.
End of investigation. Until, perhaps, six weeks from now when the restaurant is vandalized and that specific person is conspicuously and provably in another town at the time. He will be ‘innocent’ then too, right?
Tuerqas, not sure which system of law you like to use, but using “thug” is a bit prejudicial, and if someone didn’t do it, then they didn’t do it.
As for your previous comment, which way do you prefer to whitewash? If 99.999% or more of the BLM protesters were peaceful, should I emphasize the miscreants who looted, and declare BLM to blame?
Tell me more about free speech and encouraging bad behavior and who should be blamed.
DMOTP Jiffy tap dances in circles: The extortion claim in question here is not present in the letter, right?
Doesn’t need to be because the letter itself is full of extortion demands and threats……
For Business Owners & Non-Profits in NuLu our demands are as follows:
2. Retail locations will include a minimum of 23% inventory of Black retailers or make a recurring monthly donation of 1.5% of net sales to [empower the Black Lives Organization and Movement].
Repercussion of Non-Compliance
* Boycott: public boycott, coordinated through social media and mail announcement of your NuLu establishment AND any other businesses owned by you.
* Protests: Visible media-covered demonstration/sit-in outside your establishment.
* Invasive Reclamation: Placement of booths/tables outside your establishment where competing Black proprietors will offer items comparable to those offered by you.
—————————————————————————–
Kentucky State Statute Section 514.080 – Theft by extortion 1 A person is guilty of theft by extortion when he intentionally obtains property of another by threatening to: (a) Inflict bodily injury on anyone or commit any other criminal offense; or (b) Accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or (c) Expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or (d) Use wrongfully his position as a public officer or servant or employee by performing some act within or related to his official duties, either expressed or implied, or by refusing or omitting to perform an official duty, either expressed or implied, in a manner affecting some person adversely; or (e) Bring about or continue a strike, boycott, or other collective unofficial action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or (f) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense…….(3) Theft by extortion is a Class A misdemeanor unless the value of the property obtained is: (a) Five hundred dollars ($500) or more but less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), in which case it is a Class D felony; or (b) Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more, in which case it is a Class C felony.And of course, since BLM is an interstate organization, Federal extortion laws would apply….
CHAPTER 41 – EXTORTION AND THREATS
§ 875 Interstate communications
(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Personally, I think a smart DOJ lawyerman could apply RICO as well.
Well said MjM. I wonder if the NY Attorney General will investigate them or if they are just biased on who they audit?
MjM, I guess we’ll need to wait and see if anyone is charged or any suit is brought.
Yes, ‘thug’ was bad manners, but it fit. Anyone putting up those signs is looking for a fight. Like any business could just hire 2-6 more employees right now, especially restaurant owners. Or just pay 1.5% to a ‘movement’ you may or may not believe in? How is that not a perfect definition of extortion?
No, you should champion the movement if you believe in it and actively call out the bad behavior of those that seek to take personal advantage while hiding behind the cause.
We all know at least 95% of liberals are behind the cause just because their platform says they need to be. Few liberals will ever be convinced otherwise. Since Republicans are not categorically racist, at least their platform doesn’t demand them to be, the people that the BLM movement is supposedly targeting are conservatives and Republicans, assuming the purpose is change rather than just haranguing to get votes in November. Liberals are not going to stop the fringe (thugs) from looting and committing extortion, etc. However, if ‘reasonable’ liberals were denouncing the bad behavior it may convince some cons or reps to the cause. Staying silent on looting, vandalism, extortion and rioting will convince no Republicans and few conservatives to join your movement.
So the question is, do you believe in your cause (in which case: Denounce! Denounce!! Denounce!!!) or do you not really understand the whole thing, you are just a liberal who believes in whatever big brother Democrat tells you and every act committed under the liberal aegis is grand?
No, I think BLM is about policies and practices that disproportionately affect Black people, to the point of their death.
I don’t support looting and property destruction. Simple, no?
I also don’t support the violence that Trump encourages. It’s the old “who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” trick.
DMOTP Jiffy believes! (the tripe) : No, I think BLM is about policies and practices that disproportionately affect Black people, to the point of their death.
Who is responsible for those “policies and practices”, Jiffy? Where are these policies enforced? Where are the practices practiced?
What, exactly, are the “policies and practices” you claim to know for sure “disproportionately affect” black folk, and what is the cause of this disproportion?
Glad to hear you believe in BLM: An organization created by Weather Underground-trained avowed Marxists, and built on a pillar of endless lies.
You are the perfect fit, stooge-wise.
Yes, ‘thug’ was bad manners, but it fit.
I think “thug” is a pretty accurate description. Maybe even a bit milder than they deserve. The term communicates accurately, which is the point of language. That the accurate term offends speaks to the behavior being described and not the writer’s ability to communicate. Language need not be softened to satisfy the mob’s self-esteem. Let them whine.
MjM, you think the policies and practices come from conservatives and Republicans?
That is a senseless statement. So, who is the BLM movement trying to convince? No one? Pointless. Each other? Done. Other Dems? Done. A majority of officials who dictate and pass policy? Well, theoretically they have all the Dems now, so to get more they need…wait for it…Republicans or Independents(or at least their seats)! If they are not trying to convince others that black lives actually matter, then what is the purpose?
You might say they need more Dems, but I think Obama proved where Dem priorities lay as there was zero legislation concerning racism when he spent over a year with a super-majority. Dems have had majorities in Milwaukee for decades and the black plight is worse than ever according to liberals. That means that Dems have failed to change racist policies or practices(by your past definitions that makes them racist, I still call it simply ‘self-interest’). All this BLM activity and Dems are pushing to de-fund police? Now who is that going to hurt worse, the average suburbanite or the minorities in the middle of the unrest?
If it’s just ‘about policies and practices’ not getting them changed, then in the end it is really just about the rioters. And since Dems have never changed policies or practices (for the better), the movement is really about getting enough people behind the movement to provoke real change. And that means bi-partisanship. Dems have already proven that a Dem super-majority at any level won’t change the BLM movement in a positive manner, so what is left is to try and convince Reps and Indies to help.
And that may be the biggest liberal problem: Most do think that all they really need is more Dems in office (because that is what Dem officials, educators and curriculum is teaching). But getting more Dems (or more Reps) is not going to fix the problem, getting them to act on the problems is what would help. But since there is no culpability and elected officials are not held accountable by their electors, they are all free to spend their time setting up their re-election in 2, 4 or 6 years instead of doing their jobs.
Well, in all you wrote, you didn’t really address why my statement was senseless or not. You went off on several tangents I didn’t raise.
Racist ideas and policies run quite deep into society and into the past. I don’t you’re going to have much success if you try to constantly fit observed problems (such as the murder demographics you mentioned) into partisan molds.
You are correct in recognizing the role of self-interest, but people used racist ideas to justify that self-interest and the racist policies that kept some people down and benefited others.
So people start re-examining how policing and social work are done. Good for them. There are plenty of other models to emulate.
Again, as I asked you in a previous thread, it’s one thing to tout a statistic about, say, black murder rates. It’s another to begin to recognize how it might come to be. What is the reason for it? Do you think there’s something different about a black man that causes him to murder more often? And if you can identify a difference, or imagine a correction that would reduce that situation, would you want to do it, could it be carried out?
I absolutely did, you just didn’t have the world-view to understand it, apparently. A social movement by definition is to promote a change or correct a social injustice. Your words:
There is no change there. The movement is not about policies and practices or about evoking an emotion (to the point of their death), it is about changing those policies and practices, which is what I was talking about.
Absolutely, but you won’t acknowledge basic facts so you will never come up with a decent solution. You won’t acknowledge that the Dems in power are certainly racists by your definition. If not, how have these racist ideas and policies persisted in Milwaukee? You are flat out denying (above) that partisan politics have anything to do with institutional racism when politicians are the ones who shape policy! How is that such a disconnect for you? Racism is an observed problem and it fits perfectly into partisan molds. The voters did not enact the Dem policies in Milwaukee that have failed so miserably for decades, the representatives did. So either they are racist or just 100% invested in self-interest to have treated their constituents so. I guess you can fall back to saying that Dems are just self-interested while Republicans are hiding their racism behind self-interest, but then I’d just laugh in your face anyway. I have thought about it from many more sides than the one peek hole you use to view the problem, I have come up with solutions.
Liberals just talk about racism and snidely or directly blame Republicans for being racist, even though Dems have shaped policy long enough to make some sort of change. Heh, I guess your statement above does fit your world-view after all. A social movement is just something to talk about and accuse others of, not anything to act upon.
I assume since you did not comment on it that you finally saw how you called me a racist? Was it an accident?
Just to look at housing, the Feds over the course of decades had the policies that caused red-lining, and Milwaukee banks and realtors and builders and home buyers cheerfully played along and enjoyed the benefits, regardless of who they were voting for. And then they ran for the suburbs.
Racist ideas and racist policies came from both parties. It’s something they can agree on. It seems ridiculous to me that anyone would say “we didn’t have anything to do with that” when they want to defend their party.
(Similar moment: “We didn’t have anything to do with slavery” / “We invented Western Civilization.”)
No, I don’t see how I called you a racist. You predicted I would do that, and I asked you why you thought that would happen. Kind of whiny, like you expected someone to call you “racist” just because you brought up some unpleasant statistic about murder.
I look forward to hearing your solutions to racism.
Re-imagined history is likely to be a tough sell around these parts.
Do you understand the purpose of the policies that led to the housing crisis? It was a negative attempt to attack institutional racism by the Government. They mandated that banks relax their lending policies so that minorities would find it more possible to buy houses. There were huge fines involved in non-compliance so the banks (large ones especially) said okay fine, we’ll comply. The smaller bank my wife worked for paid the fines (only about 1.5 million a year for a 7 bank chain) and did not relax their spending policies. Which bank was racist? You are implying that regular home buyers benefited somehow. If you had good credit, there was zero benefit gained from those mandates. Only the people who did not have the good credit and the big banks (by requirement) benefited. Then all those ‘burbers that you mock got screwed when it inevitably fell through and everyone’s houses fell in value. The un-talked about fact: Government regulation caused the crash.
I would not disagree, but one Party runs on pretending to have solutions to institutional racism and has routinely won the areas hardest hit by racism for long enough periods at a time to have actually made some sort of difference. That Party has failed to gain even small steps in any major city in the US on that platform promise. For the record, I am not defending any party. As an independent, I am simply looking in and judging the lack of progress by the party of progress. If Republicans had been in charge in Milwaukee the last 60 years, we would be denouncing their failures on the problem even though they never said they would do anything about it in the first place anyway. They pretend it doesn’t exist.
Well, I guess you didn’t call me a racist, you said I thought I was a racist out of the blue, with no words from me to that effect. So that means I can feel free to state what you believe for you in the future like Kevin always does, and those back and forths are so fun, right? So see, I was right you did call me a racist! Don’t ever complain that I am ‘putting words in your mouth’ you have approved that tactic.
On solutions: First identify a few premises and causes for the problems, and here is where I will draw on aforementioned unpleasant facts.
1) Psychological studies on criminals include several consistent commonalities. Among them include low self-esteem. Another consistency is lack of a job. An often overlooked corollary is that crime should be considered a job. Criminals do have jobs, preying on other people and not getting caught is work, and it pays. Even illegal work creates its own sort of pride, taking the place of honest self-esteem and is the substitute for it until they are caught.
2) Black people do not prey on other blacks because they hate them (excluding personal frictions), the vast majority of crime by all races is statistically committed in/near the neighborhood of residence, i.e. where you live and work. Neighborhoods with little employment, get higher crime rates than those where jobs are more readily available.
The vicious circle: We ‘need a job to get a loan to buy a car to get to work’ is an example of institutional racism.
#1 solution: Don’t give companies tax breaks for building out in the country/suburbs, give them better tax breaks for re-furbishing a factory block in the city, where city residents will get the jobs. The Milwaukee common council routinely scares businesses away by adding taxes, fees, restrictions and all types of other hoops to jump through in order to re-locate to or build in Milwaukee. To get a car or a house, fix your credit, maybe gain a bit more self-esteem, you need a decent job. Then your neighbors get jobs that support you like restaurants, stores and everyone is paying taxes instead or receiving them.
#2 solution: Mandate that more of the city tax income gained from these projects above stay local. Once you have satisfied most of the self-interest in an area, it will be much easier to find and address actual racism.
Tuerqas – I wasn’t talking about 2008, I was talking about red-lining.
Both parties claim to have solutions to institutional racism. Just ask ’em. These days, GOP likes to blame Dems for any problem in the cities.
In broad terms, I’d agree with your two premises there.
The solutions – I’d say every city (urban or rural) offers incentives. They feel they’re competing with each other. Hasn’t Milwaukee given benefits and incentives to some projects but not all?
Yes, the solution to red lining was to relax the lending rules and it caused the crash in 2008. The reason those loans are denied due to high risk are because they are high risk. And the people at high risk are not the suburbanites. Loans are not largely denied due to location, they are denied due to how much risk the institution is taking on that the loan will be paid back. Jeff Bezos is not going to be denied a loan because he chooses to put an Amazon outlet center in a slum.
I disagree, neither side is offering good or bad solutions (since the housing crash) to institutional racism, they are both just blaming the other for it. Dems still blame the GOP, it just rings a little (more) false since Republicans have not been in a position to change those things in quite a while save at a national level. Both sides of Government blamed the banks for their last failed solution, even though it was their fault.
No, they don’t and it is sad. Cities charge extra, have dozens more laws to navigate, etc. They make it harder for so many things they should be trying to make easier. A city councilman will likely say it is so much more complex, and you know what, it may be, but those are problems from the old laws that are causing the inner city problems. It is his/her job to make the process easier to improve the lives of his/her constituents.