served.”rnA more honest version of events wasrnreported in the equally anti-Denny’srnWashington Post a year ago: “Six blackrnSecret Service agents ordered food at arnDenny’s in Annapolis that took so longrnto arrive, they say, that in effect theyrnwere denied service. . . . The six blackrnagents sat together. Their supervisor,rnalso black, sat among white agents. Allrn21 agents, who had less than an hour torneat, ordered in rapid succession. Whenrnthe six black agents realized that all thernwhite agents and the supervisor had beenrnserved but they had not, they sent [agentrnRobin] Thompson to ask the waitressrnabout it. She said their meals were onrnthe way. When Thompson demandedrnto see the manager, the waitress said hernwas on the phone. White agents [havernsaid] the waitress rolled her eyes afterrnturning to leave the black agents’ table.”rnThe Post further reports that the sixrnagents were the last to order, that theirrnorders were complex, and that they didrnget their food. But the agents “refused itrnbecause there was no time to eat.” “Wernhad to go to Roy Rogers and eat in thernvan,” one S.S. type whined to the Post.rnPoor babies.rnLet’s review. The President was speakingrnnearby, meaning the restaurant wasrncrowded. It was the busy state capital, atrnnoon, but all 21 agents were seated. Allrnwere served, but some later than others.rnThat’s a “civil rights violation”?rnThe implication is that no white manrnhas ever experienced late service in arnrestaurant. None has ever sat andrnwatched people who were seated after hernwas served first, and maybe even finishrntheir meal before he was served. And tornlook at things from the other side of therncounter, what harried waitress might notrnroll her eyes at a table of surly bureaucrats,rnregardless of the root causes ofrntheir rage?rnYet, at the first sign of delay, civil servantrnThompson marched up to the waitressrnand loudly demanded the food. Thernwaitress said it was on the way. Thompsonrnthen veiled that he wanted to see thernmanager. But the latter was on thernphone. Naturally, this series of blatantlyrnracist acts—by white taxpayers againstrnblack tax-consumers—became a nationwidernclass-action suit with a $54 millionrnpenalty.rnOn that very day, perhaps not coincidentally,rnDenny’s had settled anotherrnsuit in California for $34.8 million, includingrn$6.8 million for Saperstein,rnMayeda & Goldstein. But the Californiarncase was restricted to that state. Thernsuit stemming from Annapolis gatheredrnplaintiffs from all over the country, exceptrnCalifornia. In retrospect, it’s clearrnthat the lawyers and the Justice Departmentrnwanted to take their racial racketrnon the road. It’s even possible that thernwell-to-do feds were provoking a working-rnclass woman as part of a scheme orchestratedrnin Oakland. The agents werernemployed, after all, by Bill Clinton. Anrnactual trial might have answered thisrnquestion, but when the plaintiffs’ lawyersrnrun the show, the media are the onlyrncourt. Even granting good intentions byrnthe agents, is it now illegal to roll yourrneyes? If so, I can think of a number ofrnclerks of color who are going to be inrndeep trouble.rnIn the incident that kicked off thernCalifornia suit, black federal judge KennethrnHoyt had to wait “an inordinaternlength of time for service” at a Denny’srnin Eureka, California. (Is there no end tornthe white man’s perfidy?) While hernwaited, he claims, fellow patrons tauntedrnhim with racial epithets. Sure they did,rnjudge. This sounds like one of the Fibsrnof Racism that festoon the media. Andrnindeed, there is no proof it took place.rnBut let’s suppose someone did make arnremark, perhaps in response to thernjudge’s loud, pompous complaints aboutrndiscrimination. Was Denny’s supposedrnto toss out the taunting customer? Ofrncourse. That’s “civil rights.” But if arnblack taunts a white, throwing out thernblack would be “a civil rights violation,”rnand Denny’s would be fined another $54rnmillion.rnThe California lawyers began shoppingrnfor plaintiffs as soon as the Crime ofrnAnnapolis was publicized, and indeed itrnwas major international news for severalrndays. In one Virginia case, a black choirrndirector with three busloads of kidsrnpulled up to a Denny’s at 11.00 P.M. on arnSunday night and demanded quick service.rnOnly one cook was on duty, so thernnight manager suggested the biggerrnDenny’s just up the road. KKK! Thernchoir director filed suit.rnAs the pile-on continued, Jesse Jacksonrnwent on a national victimology tour,rnand there were NAACP pickets at Denny’srnrestaurants all over the country.rnLeading the lynch mob was the JusticernDepartment’s newly appointed head ofrncivil rights, Deval L. Patrick (knownrnto some of us as D’Evil). During confirmationrnhearings, he was hailed as thernmoderate alternative to Lani Guinier.rnYet how could Guinier’s voting schemesrnbe worse than Patrick’s assault on privaternenterprise? And he assured us, justrnin case we were worried, that Denny’srnwas only the beginning.rnIt surely is. Yet with the central state,rnthe elites, and the media at war with thernmajority of taxpayers, and with redistributionrnfrom the productive to the parasiticrnour major economic activity, Americansrnmay begin asking how the fedsrncame to require involuntary servitudernfrom whites. Before the passage of thern13th Amendment, blacks complainedrnabout being forced to serve whites inrnservice occupations. That’s why thernamendment abolished not only slavery,rnbut also involuntary servitude. Blacksrncould no longer be forced to wait onrnwhites. But civil rights is the new involuntaryrnservitude, and whites better hoprnto it. Or they can realize that the twornthings that distinguish a freeman from arnslave are the freedom of association andrnthe freedom of contract. Whether wernlook at the economy from the standpointrnof liberty, prosperity, or justice, it’s clearrnthat civil rights laws have enslaved thernmajority. It’s also clear that it’s time forrna slave revolt.rn—Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.rnTHE TENTH AMENDMENT isrnalive and well in Ohio. On June 28,rnright before the state legislature recessed,rnRepresentative Michael Wise and SenatorrnGrace Drake introduced into thernOhio General Assembly “House ConcurrentrnResolution No. 44” with 27rnhouse cosponsors and 3 senate cosponsors.rnThe resolution was referred to thernHouse Committee on Economic Affairsrnand Federal Relations, where it sits untilrncommittee members return and schedulernhearings. My representative reportsrnthat our legislature will not reconvene forrnany significant period of time until afterrnJanuary.rnOur organization. We the People, is arnloose network of people interested inrnconstitutional issues, and we are busilyrnbuilding a network of allies who are sickrnof seeing our liberty chipped away byrnfederal mandate. We are meeting withrnour representatives and taking note ofrntheir voting records and stands on constitutionalrnissues. We, together with organizationsrnlike United We Stand, ThernChristian Coalition, garden clubs, cafeteriarnmeeting groups, and with any in-rnDECEMBER 1994/7rnrnrn