Housing Authority Chairman Refuses to Step Down Over Bigoted FB Comments

Well this guy is a sad, pathetic creature.

Meet Malcom "Mac" Butler, chairman of the Rowan County Housing Authority. Rowan County has a population of about 140k people and is slightly west of the middle of North Carolina.


picture from Raw Story source

Mr. Butler made some very offensive comments on Facebook — and one in particular about protests over Moral Mondays — that have drawn the ire of many and led to a request by the local chapter of the NAACP that he be fired. Here are a couple excerpts of his FB posts from a Raw Story article, starting with the one about the protesters.

“Gee, they are all black,” Butner posted. “I guess the white folk could not get off because they were too busy working (and) being productive, good citizens.”

He also claimed liberals and Democrats “don’t have a principled bone in their body and they don’t care even if our constitutional republic is destroyed.”

“To hell with the lesbos, queers, liberals and baby killers,” he added.

“The primary difference between the leaders of the Confederate States of America and the Union is that Confederate leaders were godly gentlemen and the Union folks were not,” Butner posted June 5.

You sir, are no gentleman.

As is often the case, county officials are saying their hands are tied.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development met with the county chairman Tuesday to discuss the issue. There is no formal investigation at this time.

County Commissioner Craig Pierce said the county cannot fire Butner for what he does on his personal time.

“Until we have something from a department that is requiring or requesting us to take some action, we aren't in a position to do anything," he said.

source - WSOC TV

If this guy had any sense of decency at all, he'd resign and find a rock to crawl under.

Strange timing.....

I just recently had an interview with a housing authority - not the one in the article- and I could tell the guy HATED poor people.

He drilled me about my personal finances and debt. And not just in passing, these were very specific questions.

It made me so angry. I went on to tell him about my experience being homeless as a child and that I thought it would add to my understanding of how important agencies like these are to people.

He looked at me with such disgust - needless to say I didn't get the job.

So people do have a right to say what they want but if their public views show they do not believe in handling their programs according to the law, then they should not have that job.

originally posted by: Daughter2
Strange timing.....

I just recently had an interview with a housing authority - not the one in the article- and I could tell the guy HATED poor people.

He drilled me about my personal finances and debt. And not just in passing, these were very specific questions.

It made me so angry. I went on to tell him about my experience being homeless as a child and that I thought it would add to my understanding of how important agencies like these are to people.

He looked at me with such disgust - needless to say I didn't get the job.

So people do have a right to say what they want but if their public views show they do not believe in handling their programs according to the law, then they should not have that job.

Who better to run the HA then a smug jerk who hates everyone who isn't just like him right? Ugh!

He has first amendment rights. And his term expires in September.

This feels like a non story.

a reply to: Moresby Though I am no fan of bigotry, Michelle Obama has urged all minorities to "look for racism". If you seek you will find.
Logically though, if racism was that rampant you wouldn't have to look for it. In our oversensitive PC society it hits the front page if you make a slur in a private conversation.
However if you refer to a white person as a "racist cracker" it is perfectly acceptable. If a GROUP of blacks beats a white almost to death it's not racially motivated, if a store clerk asks a black person "may i help you" it's hate speech.
In America it's all about pointing fingers at whites and making up non-sense buzz phrases like "white privilege". Racism is totally acceptable in the US as long as it is anti-white.
It's not really about race at all,it's about money. If Farrakhan, Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama types didn't foment and stir up racial hatred they'd be broke and/or unemployed.

a reply to: abe froman

I suggest if you're having a hard time finding racists, you friend Mr. Butler on Facebook. It's interesting that this guy makes bigoted remarks and you completely ignore that and move on to talking about Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Obama. Which of these three men hacked Mac Butler's Facebook account?

a reply to: abe froman

It's quite simple: There is no freedom of speech if speech we don't like isn't protected with the same vigor as speech we do like.

a reply to: Moresby

Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.

a reply to: MoresbyThat's true however, in America you can call people honky,cracker,whatever you want, but you are not allowed to respond in kind. If you don't believe me, try typing in the N word and see what happens.

a reply to: theantediluvianYou just proved my point.

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: abe froman

It's quite simple: There is no freedom of speech if speech we don't like isn't protected with the same vigor as speech we do like.

I'm not really seeing this as a First Amendment issue. Nobody is suggesting that he be arrested, harassed, tarred and feathered, etc etc. Free speech as it has come to be, after hundreds of years of struggling, guarantees that he has a right to say what he wants — it doesn't mean that anyone has to like it. This guy is a public servant and I'm arguing his comments prove that he is unfit for duty.

a reply to: theantediluvian
No argument there, don't re-appoint this clown.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Moresby

Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.

He wasn't speaking as a member of the housing authority. He was speaking as a private citizen.

Also, the housing authority isn't a private entity.

Plus, his term ends in September. This a complete link-bait non story.

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Moresby

Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.

He wasn't speaking as a member of the housing authority. He was speaking as a private citizen.

Also, the housing authority isn't a private entity.

Plus, his term ends in September. This a complete link-bait non story.

You keep harping on the fact that his term is up in September. I don't see how that's particularly relevant to the issue at hand? So if his term ended in 2 years rather than 2 months, would that change your opinion?

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: theantediluvianYou just proved my point.

How's that? The extent to which bigotry is pervasive is not a function of your ability to recognize it. I can't speak to your life experiences, but from my own, I can tell you that it's alive and well.

Ever heard of ]Stormfront? Stormfront Website Posters Have Murdered Almost 100 People.
How about popular racist website chimpout.com?
Ever seen /r/racism on Imgur?
How about /r/whiterights on Reddit?
Remember all of those racist tweets over last year's Miss America?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Moresby

Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.

He wasn't speaking as a member of the housing authority. He was speaking as a private citizen.

Also, the housing authority isn't a private entity.

Plus, his term ends in September. This a complete link-bait non story.

You keep harping on the fact that his term is up in September. I don't see how that's particularly relevant to the issue at hand? So if his term ended in 2 years rather than 2 months, would that change your opinion?

Because he's not resigning. And, by the time their investigation finishes, he'll already be gone.

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Moresby

Here we go again. The 1st protects the populous from the GOVERNMENT making laws to prohibit free speech. Not a private entity. Like a housing authority. They can set any rules they want on acceptable speech.

He wasn't speaking as a member of the housing authority. He was speaking as a private citizen.

Also, the housing authority isn't a private entity.

Plus, his term ends in September. This a complete link-bait non story.

You keep harping on the fact that his term is up in September. I don't see how that's particularly relevant to the issue at hand? So if his term ended in 2 years rather than 2 months, would that change your opinion?

Because he's not resigning. And, by the time their investigation finishes, he'll already be gone.

But some Bozo appointed this guy and without an investigation they'll just appoint another person like him.

If it works like it does where I'm at, county elected officials appointment members of the housing agency. The public SHOULD know that someone with such a low view on minorities was selected by their elected officials.

The agency that treated me so bad just a few years ago had a huge scandal. A bunch of rich politically connected white guys basically sucked funds from the housing agency. It was so bad they nearly had their federal funds cut off and they actually were restricted leaving a lot of poor without benefits. The replacement for these crooks was that nasty person who interviewed me.

So the problem is with the people who appointed this guy.

originally posted by: Daughter2
Strange timing.....

I just recently had an interview with a housing authority - not the one in the article- and I could tell the guy HATED poor people.

He drilled me about my personal finances and debt. And not just in passing, these were very specific questions.

It made me so angry. I went on to tell him about my experience being homeless as a child and that I thought it would add to my understanding of how important agencies like these are to people.

He looked at me with such disgust - needless to say I didn't get the job.

So people do have a right to say what they want but if their public views show they do not believe in handling their programs according to the law, then they should not have that job.

Guess that would be called "classism"? It seems often ignored as a topic. I've had to deal with that behavior myself, even to the point of having to ask the person why they were volunteering to "help" needly people but threatened to call the police on someone because they asked a non harmful question. Helping others in situations found they were treated with scorn such as "Beggars can't be choosers" in a food line where they had a special health/dietary request, to someone getting their foodtamps cut, who was in dire need-elderly and disabled- because the receptionist made a mistake but they had refused to correct it replying with "We can't change it. Re-apply again in six months."

I agree they should not have these jobs, it's almost as if they are trying to be sadists, trying to punish people.