Comments From & On Our Race Baiter In Chief

Obama appeared at today's White House Press Briefing to weigh in on the Zimmerman trial, its aftermath and racism in America. Some of what he said was good, some was bad - but unfortunately, the most important of his points were simply utterly outrageous.  Here are his entire remarks:



Here are the test of those remarks with comments in blue:


The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week, the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave an — a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, you know, I — I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s — it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.


I think it horrendous that, at no point does Obama similarly mention George Zimmerman, his family or parent, nor the mountain of death threats being made against them.


The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there are going to be a lot of arguments about the legal — legal issues in the case. I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a — in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.

But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling. You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away.


According to the racial grievance industry, our nation is still 1950 Selma, Alabama writ large. Outrageously, many in the racial grievance industry - including the NAACP and members of the Congressional Black Congress - are comparing the Zimmerman case is to the savage racist murders and subsequent denial of justice in the cases of Emmet Till and Medger Evers. Emmet Till, a 14 years old Missippi boy, was tortured and murdered in 1955 by a group of white men for the crime of flirting with a white girl. Two men were acquitted by an all white jury at trial, after which they bragged of their act of murder. Medger Evers was a former soldier and civil rights activist assassinated in 1963, Mississippi, by a member of the KKK, Bryan de la Beckwith. Two trials held at the time resulted in hung juries. Beckwith was not successfully prosecuted for the murder until 1994.

Obama just blessed off on that viewpoint as, at least, not unreasonable.  That is absolutely outrageous.


There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And you know, I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.


One, Obama is suggesting that Trayvon Martin was racially profiled by George Zimmerman.  Wow.   No one on either side of the trial claimed that by the conclusion of the trial.  Nor is there a single bit of evidence of that.  But Obama just gave it a wink and a nod.

Two, there is a reason people, including blacks such as Jessee Jackson, react that way at the approach of young black men that they don't know.  It is because, statistically, blacks are exponentially more likely to commit crimes, and especially violent crime, including murder and robbery, than other racial groups.  In 2011, blacks made up 13% of the population. Yet according to FBI Crime Statistics, in not a single category of crime, with the exception of DUI was the number of total criminal incidents committed by blacks equal to or below their proportionate representation in society. In 2011, blacks in the U.S. were responsible for 49.7% of all murders, 55.6% of all robberies, 32.9% of all forcible rapes, and 33.9% of all aggravated assaults. The FBI does not publish like statistics for victims, but looking at the numbers, blacks were just as likely to be the victims of crime out of all proportion to their representation in society. In 2011, 49.9% of all murder victims were black.

So if the presence of blacks, and particularly young black men, causes such an unfortunate reaction in others, it is not because of their racism, its because of the reality of rampant black criminality.  That is not a fault of whites, nor for that matter, Jessee Jackson.

Three, this plays right into the claims that there should never be racial profiling.  Now, after listening to many in the racial grievance industry speak about "racial profiling" this past week, it seems that what they mean is they don't want anyone not black to feel suspicious about a black person, irrespective of how they are acting.  That is not merely a philosophical argument - it is as real as the crime and murder rate differentials between NYC and Chicago.  New York City, under Nanny Bloomberg's aggressive 'Stop & Frisk' policies, something the same racial grievance industry claims is racism - now has less than a third of the murder rate of Chicago where, if you are black, it is statistically less safe to live than it is to be a soldier in Afghanistan.


The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.


This is an attack our criminal justice system without adjusting for the reality of grossly disproportionate black criminality relative to population.  Further, it is a back handed slap at the Zimmerman verdict.  Regardless of the facts at trial, Obama is saying that it is reasonable that blacks interpret it as a racist incident.  Just horseshit.


Now, this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.


This is a non-sequiter.  There is no ":historical context" for massively disproportionate criminality in the black community. The racial grievance industry interprets the plight of all blacks through is the utter canard that all whites in the U.S. are racist.  We - and in particular those on the right - are all Bull Connor Democrats.  That is not a "historical context.  That is an incredibly destructive fantasy,


We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.


No, black violence is not born out of a "very violent past."  That is not merely an excuse, it is false.  It is born out of a breakdown in the black family unit that has gotten worse, not better, since Daniel Patrick Moynihan's landmark report of 1965.  It there is ever going to be a true "dialogue" on race that has a chance of improving the plight of blacks as a whole, that is where it has to begin.  In fairness, that dialogue would, as Moynihan pointed out, have to acknowledge the role of racism in current situation of blacks.  But we arrived at that point in the dialogue in 1965.  Any and every attempt to continue the dialogue since then has been met with the 'race card.'      .


And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So — so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it or — and that context is being denied. And — and that all contributes,


So, if I understand this argument, unless non-blacks are willing to drown themselves in guilt for past historical sins that they did not commit, then the racial grievance industry is justified to be frustrated..


I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.


This is the single most outrageous statement that Obama makes - one that undergirds the whole racial grievance industry,  It, to use the words of Obama, painting America with a "broad brush."  He condemns our society and our legal system as irredeemably racist.  It means that we are still the America of Till and Evers.  And that is pure bullshit.
.
Two cases come immediately to mind - O.J. Simpson and Roderick Scott.  Simpson was given the same treatment that the murderers of Till and Evers were given.  That case was a travesty of justice, but leave it aside.  Roderick Scott is of particular note.  His case, decided just days ago, was a photo negative of the Zimmerman case. Scott is a black man in Rochester, New York who came upon three 16 year old white boys whom he believed were stealing from cars in the area. Brandishing a gun, he ordered them to stay in place until the police arrived. According to Scott, one of the boys charged him, saying that he was going to "get" Scott. Before the boy so much as touched Scott, he lay dead of two gunshot wounds that Scott claimed he fired in self defense. Unlike Trayvon Martin, the person Scott shot had no history of any troubled past. Like Trayvon Martin, the boy's parents are inconsolable, believing their innocent son was murdered. Scott was acquitted of manslaughter charges within the past week following a jury trial.


Now, the question for me at least, and I think, for a lot of folks is, where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? You know, I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.


Again, Obama portrays Martin as an innocent victim.  Trayvon's death is a tragedy, but what did he do on that night he died for which he should be honored?  The only possible inference is that he is a martyr to racism.


But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government — the criminal code. And law enforcement has traditionally done it at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.


Obama just told the racial grievance industry that, try as they might, there will be no federal civil rights case filed against George Zimmerman.  It is called burying the lead.


That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation, we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it’d be productive for the Justice Department — governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists. You know, when I was in Illinois I passed racial profiling legislation. And it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way, that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and in turn be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously law enforcement’s got a very tough job.

So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And — and let’s figure out other ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations. I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.

On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?

And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.


Given that neither racial profiling nor Stand Your Ground laws were implicated in the Zimmerman case, this is Obama's way hoodwinking blacks into believing that he and the rest of the racial grievance industry are standing up for them.  And therein lies the true irony of the racial grievance industry.  The demands of Obama will, if pushed forward, have their most clear and negative impact on one identifiable racial group - blacks.  The racial profiling laws would make another Chicago of New York City.  Taking away Stand Your Ground laws would most hurt the black population, those most subject to violence and those most likely to rely on Stand Your Ground in defense.  That pales in comparison, though, to the fact that while more black teens will murdered and more blacks put in jail for defending themselves, at least more money will flow into the coffers of the NAACP and the members of the Congressional Black Caucus will have a better chance of reelection. It's obscene  


Number three — and this is a long-term project: We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?


This is the only redeeming part of Obama's remarks.  It is the thousand dollar question.  It is unfortunate that Obama only gets to it after reinforcing all of the canards of the racial grievance industry.  And because of that, it is why nothing will happen under Obama's watch to change the dynamic in the black community.  That is the real tragedy of what will be President Obama's legacy.


You know, I’m not naive about the prospects of some brand-new federal program.  I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I do recognize that as president, I’ve got some convening power.

And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that — and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed — you know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. You know, there have been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.

On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s a possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

And let me just leave you with — with a final thought, that as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. I doesn’t mean that we’re in a postracial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated. But you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they’re better than we are. They’re better than we were on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.

And so, you know, we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues, and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days I think have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long, difficult journey, you know, we’re becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Bob Parks On The Zimmerman Trial & Its Aftermath

Bob Parks is a conservative journalist and radio show host. He runs the website Black & Right. He appears in a Sun TV interview on the Zimmerman case as well as how it is being exploited by the racial grievance industry. It is well worth a listen.



And here is another radio show host, Larry Elder, also on the Zimmerman trial with CNN Host Piers Morgan. Let the fireworks begin:



Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Detroit Heads To Bankruptcy

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people money. And as Instapundit is fond of pointing out, anything that can't go on forever won't. So today it is for Detroit.

Just as the Soviet Union was the poster child for failed communist economics, so is Detroit the poster child for failed left wing policies in America. Detroit, wholly under Democratic control since 1962, has gone from one of our nation's premier cities to failure and ruin. It faces unfunded pension liabilities of between $17 and $20 billion and has stopped paying money it owes to unsecured creditors just so it can keep city services running. The city has been spending $100 million in excess of revenues for at least the past five years.

So now this poster child for all that is wrong with Democrat misrule filed for bankruptcy today - with all that means for the all powerful unions and public pensions.

The state took over the management of Detroit's finances earlier this year, declaring it in a financial emergency. After studying the city's finances for several months, Kevyn Orr, the Governor's designee for restructuring Detroit, put together a deal that would have meant breaking union contracts and permanently reducing pensions. The unions and pensions are screaming bloody murder - not merely refusing the offer, but going to court, requesting that the state not be allowed to file for bankruptcy because the Michigan state constitution provides that public pensions cannot be touched. That is a pretty easy legal question. Art. I Sec. 8 gives Congress plenary power over bankruptcy law, and as such, it cannot be altered by any state law.

At least one Democrat city council woman has floated the request for Obama to give Detroit a federal bailout, arguing it was justified since Detroit's Democrats turned out strongly for him in the last election. Just send them some of those free Obamabucks.

That would be grounds for civil war. Update: Joshuapundit has up a much more detailed post on the bankruptcy that is well worth a read.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Interview of Zimmerman Case Alternate Juror

1. The evidence indicated that Trayvon Martin arrived at his home, then doubled back to confront Zimmerman.

2. There was no evidence shown that it was a racist incident. The evidence was to the contrary.

3. The evidence shows that it was Zimmerman on the ground and screaming for help.

4. The verdict was accurate based on the evidence.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Stand Your Ground: Holder's Pandering And The Reality Of The Black Community

Eric Holder's latest paen to the vociferous racial grievance industry is to suggest that Stand Your Ground laws play an unfair role in violence against blacks. As I said the moment Holder made the claim, the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus will eat this up. It will give many in their constituency the illusion that their leaders are taking a firm stand against something implicated in imaginary rampant white racism. Of much greater import, I opined that those who would be most hurt by removing Stand Your Ground laws would of necessity be blacks - that group of people far more likely to suffer violent crime, and indeed, to suffer it from other blacks. And lo and behold, this from the Daily Caller:

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites. . . .

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

So Hodler takes a law to task as racist that actually protects law abiding blacks most of all. What a nightmare.

There are several inexcusable obscenities in American society. One is the endless cycle of poverty, single parent homes, criminality and poor education effecting a large strata of black society. Another is the racial grievance industry that does NOTHING beyond paying lip service to these conditions. It paints a picture of America still in 1950's Selma with the deeply racist Bull Connor Democrats still in control. I truly hope that there is a special place in hell for the leaders of the racial grievance industry. They are causing untold harm to our nation and, even worse, they are devastating to black culture and society.

Related: Speak of the devil, I just now saw this from The Hill:

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are readying a flurry of bills in response to George Zimmerman’s acquittal on charges in last year’s fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

The lawmakers are drafting proposals intended to rein in racial profiling; scrap state stand-your-ground laws; and promote better training for the nation’s neighborhood watch volunteers, among other anti-violence measures. CBC members had remained largely silent throughout the trial, but following the verdict, argued forcefully that, decades after the civil rights movement, the nation’s criminal justice system still discriminates against blacks and other minorities.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), an icon of the civil rights era, said the decision “seems to justify the stalking and killing of innocent black boys and deny them any avenue of self-defense.” Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), head of the CBC, decried “the presumption of guilt so often associated with people of color.”

“George Zimmerman targeted Trayvon Martin as a potential criminal because Trayvon Martin is black,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told MSNBC Monday.

“Anyone who denies that racism isn’t alive today, particularly in the so-called justice system, is exceedingly delusional,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who wore a hoodie on the House floor last year in a demonstration.

“This verdict points to the reality that there are far too many walking America’s streets wearing a hoodie, carrying snacks and soft drink, which can result in a ‘death sentence’ particularly if they are young, black and male.”

Leading the legislative charge is Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and a CBC member, who for years has pushed legislation to curtail racial profiling in the nation’s law enforcement agencies.

Conyers’s proposal is still being crafted, but past iterations have barred any law enforcement agent from targeting people based solely on race, gender or religion. It would also mandate race-sensitive training as a condition of receiving federal funding and require the Justice Department to provide Congress with periodic reports detailing discriminatory profiling practices.

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), a CBC member who represents the district where Martin lived, said problems would persist until Congress acts.

“Until we pass meaningful laws against profiling, Americans will continue to be singled out and arrested for driving while black, shopping while black, walking while black and just plain being black,” said Wilson, who’s also working on the racial profiling bill. “My own children, and nearly all of the young men I know, have been stopped by the police at least once, for no apparent reason.”

Right - because laws against profiling will help blacks every bit as much as repeal of stand your ground laws. Compare and contrast the black murder capital of America, Chicago, a place more deadly than for Americans than Afghanistan and a place that studiously does not "profile," with, and I hate to say it, but Nanny Bloomberg's New York City. Under Bloomberg, NYC has instituted a highly aggressive stop and frisk program - something that clearly falls in the CBC's definition of profiling. That program has had a tremendously positive impact on crime in NYC, to the benefit of all but, particularly, to blacks and hispanics. This from NPR:

Closing arguments are set to take place Monday in the federal class action trial involving New York City's stop-and-frisk policy. The trial has been going on for two months in Manhattan.

Plaintiffs in Floyd v. City of New York claim the New York Police Department, its supervisors and its union pressured police officers to stop, question and frisk hundreds of thousands of people each year, even establishing quotas. They argue that 88 percent of the stops involved blacks and Hispanics, mostly men, and were in fact a form of racial profiling.

The police and the city argued that these policies were goals, not quotas, and have made New York the safest big city in America.

"I can't imagine any rational person saying that the techniques are not working and that we should stop them," says Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The city also argued that these stops took place in high crime areas where the crime was often black on black or Hispanic on Hispanic. As NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told public radio station WNYC: "Ninety-six percent of the shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. Crime is down in this city in the last two decades 80 percent."

So the CBC and Eric Holder want to ritually sacrifice George Zimmerman, they want to repeal all stand your ground laws, and they want to end "racial profiling." Not a single one of those actions will help, in any way, the black population of our nation. To the contrary, each in their own way will do significant damage to the black population - including the sacrifice of the racially innocent George Zimmerman. But all will help the racial grievance industry to gather money and stay in power. Bastards. Absolutely worthless bastards.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Mort Zuckerman On The "Phony Recovery"

I still stand in mystification that Obama was able to be reelected after proving himself utterly incompetent to run the American economy. At any rate, this from Mort Zuckerman in the WSJ on the "economic recovery" that isn't:

In recent months, Americans have heard reports out of Washington and in the media that the economy is looking up—that recovery from the Great Recession is gathering steam. If only it were true. The longest and worst recession since the end of World War II has been marked by the weakest recovery from any U.S. recession in that same period.

The jobless nature of the recovery is particularly unsettling. In June, the government's Household Survey reported that since the start of the year, the number of people with jobs increased by 753,000—but there are jobs and then there are "jobs." No fewer than 557,000 of these positions were only part-time. The survey also reported that in June full-time jobs declined by 240,000, while part-time jobs soared by 360,000 and have now reached an all-time high of 28,059,000—three million more part-time positions than when the recession began at the end of 2007.

That's just for starters. The survey includes part-time workers who want full-time work but can't get it, as well as those who want to work but have stopped looking. That puts the real unemployment rate for June at 14.3%, up from 13.8% in May.

The 7.6% unemployment figure so common in headlines these days is utterly misleading. An estimated 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed; they are virtually invisible and mostly excluded from unemployment calculations that garner headlines.

At this stage of an expansion you would expect the number of part-time jobs to be declining, as companies would be doing more full-time hiring. Not this time. In the long misery of this post-recession period, we have an extraordinary situation: Americans by the millions are in part-time work because there are no other employment opportunities as businesses increase their reliance on independent contractors and part-time, temporary and seasonal employees. . . .

What's going on? The fundamentals surely reflect the feebleness of the macroeconomic recovery that began roughly four years ago, as seen in an average gross domestic product growth rate annualized over the past 15 quarters at a miserable 2%. That's the weakest GDP growth since World War II. Over a similar period in previous recessions, growth averaged 4.1%. During the fourth quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, the GDP growth rate dropped below 2%. This anemic growth is all we have to show for the greatest fiscal and monetary stimuli in 75 years, with fiscal deficits of over 10% of GDP for four consecutive years. The misery is not going to end soon.

ObamaCare is partially to blame. The health-insurance law requires employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance or pay a $2,000 penalty per worker. Under the law, a full-time job is defined as 30 hours a week, so businesses, especially smaller ones, have an incentive to bring on more part-time workers.

Little wonder that earlier this month the Obama administration announced it is postponing the employer mandate until 2015, undoubtedly to see if the delay will encourage more full-time hiring. But thousands of small businesses have been capping employment at 30 hours and not hiring more than 50 full-timers, and the businesses are unlikely to suddenly change that approach just because they received a 12-month reprieve.

These businesses' hesitation to hire is part of a larger caution among employers unsure about the direction of government policy—and which has helped contribute to chronic long-term unemployment that shows no sign of easing. . .

That brings us to a stunning fact about the jobless recovery: The measure of those adults who can work and have jobs, known as the civilian workforce-participation rate, is currently 63.5%—a drop of 2.2% since the recession ended. Such a decline amid a supposedly expanding economy has never happened after previous recessions. Another statistic that underscores why this is such a dysfunctional labor market is that the number of people leaving the workforce during this economic recovery has actually outpaced the number of people finding a new job by a factor of nearly three. . . .

Do read the Zuckerman's entire op-ed.

The policies underlying all of this economic train wreck are clear: Obamacare, increased taxes, an insane corporate tax structure complete with massive incentives for companies to keep money earned overseas out of the U.S., and strangling regulations. The only thing that has kept our economy growing at all has been the very dangerous fed policy of printing money and buying up its own debt. What little recovery there has been is not built on economic fundamentals, it exists on a fed created debt bubble that invites future inflation on a grand scale. We will be cleaning up this mess for decades.

Bottom line, the only people who could possibly vote for the lefties like Obama and his ilk are, on economic issues at a minimum, utter and complete idiots who could not successfully turn a profit on a lemonade stand.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Race Industry's DOJ Sponsored Lynching Of George Zimmerman

The Holder DOJ, at the urging of their partners in the racial grievance industry have reopened an investigation into whether George Zimmerman acted with racial animus when he shot Trayvon Martin. The partners want Zimmerman charged with violation of Martin's civil rights. The DOJ has ostentatiously set up a tip line for anyone to provide evidence of Zimmerman's racial animus.

Setting up a tip line in an investigation is nothing new. It is often done when police are trying to solve a crime. But this is justice turned on its head. This is a tip line set up after the FBI has already investigated and concluded definitively that there was no evidence Zimmerman acted with racial animus. Setting up a tip line at this point in an already concluded investigation is, to my knowledge, unprecedented. And this isn't the local police, this is the DOJ - an organization that is supposed to represent everyone in this country. This is not the investigation of a crime. It is a government approved attempted lynching of George Zimmerman as a sacrifice on the alter of racial politics.

The facts show that George Zimmerman was in fact the poster child for what race relations should be in America. First, just to note, Zimmerman himself is half Hispanic, part white, and part black - indeed, black enough to qualify as black before any college admissions board in the country. One could note that Zimmerman is less white, if you will, than President Obama, the man for whom Zimmerman, a Democrat, voted in the Presidential elections. The facts show that Zimmerman went out of his way to befriend and support people of every race in his neighborhood. For years he mentored local black children. And, in an act of what has turned out to be the purest irony, Zimmerman went on a one man crusade on behalf of a homeless black person who had been beaten by a white teen.

This country, white and black, should be seething with anger at what is happening in today's America. As Thomas Sowell opined at Townhall, this attempt to sacrifice Zimmerman on the alter of racial politics has been nothing short of a complete perversion of our legal system.

The outrage should be palpable. Whites should be outraged at the utter travesty the left is making of our politics and legal system, all for political gain. Blacks should in addition be outraged that the left and "black leaders" have a wholly unsupportable laser focus on Zimmerman case while studiously ignoring, for years and decades, all of the real problems of the black community. None of those problem have to do with white racism. Unfortunately, the reality seems to be otherwise, as I am hearing from very few, white or black, in positions of power in government or the media taking this head on. None of our Congress critters are calling Obama, his DOJ, Rev. Al, the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus to account. As Yeats wrote in The Second Coming, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Two columns are related to my post and worthy of note. The first is by Dennis Praeger, writing at the American Spectator:

The greatest hope most Americans -- including Republicans -- had when Barack Obama was elected president was that the election of a black person as the country's president would reduce, if not come close to eliminating, the racial tensions that have plagued America for generations.

This has not happened. The election, and even the re-election, of a black man as president, in a country that is 87 percent non-black -- a first in human history -- has had no impact on what are called "racial tensions."

In case there was any doubt about this, the reactions to the George Zimmerman trial have made it clear. The talk about "open season" on blacks, about blacks like Trayvon Martin being victims of nothing more than racial profiling and about a racist criminal justice system, has permeated black life and the left-wing mainstream media.

I put quotation marks around the term "racial tensions" because the term is a falsehood.

This term is stated as if whites and blacks are equally responsible for these tensions, as if the mistrust is morally and factually equivalent.

But this is not at all the case.

"Racial tensions" is a lie perpetrated by the left. A superb example is when the New York Times described the 1991 black anti-Semitic riots in Crown Heights, Brooklyn as "racial tensions." . . .

Since neither black animosity nor the left's falsehood of "racial tensions" is based on the actual behavior of the vast majority of white Americans, nothing white America could do will affect either many blacks' perceptions or the leftist libel.

That is why hopes that the election of black president would reduce "racial tensions" were naive. Though a white person is far more likely to be murdered by a black person than vice versa, all it took was one tragic death of a black kid to reignite the hatred that many blacks and virtually all black leaders have toward white America.

Let's put this in perspective. Ben Jealous of the NAACP, Al Sharpton of MSNBC, Jesse Jackson, and the left-wing media compete to incite hatred of America generally and white America specifically. Over what? A tragic incident in which a Hispanic man (regularly labeled "white") said, with all physical evidence to support him, that fearing for his life, he killed a black 17-year-old (regularly labeled "a child").

The very fact that George Zimmerman -- who is as white as Barack Obama -- is labeled "white" bears testimony to the left-wing agenda of blaming white America and to the desire of many blacks to vent anger at whites. . . .

The second column of note is by Jennifer Rubin at WaPo:

Holder went to speak to the NAACP on Tuesday. It took him no time to denounce the “stand your ground” laws, the Florida version of which was not invoked in the Trayvon Martin case. But of course to denounce laws of self-defense, on which the case did turn, would be both inane and unhelpful in stirring the base. So grab an issue, associate it with a hot-button topic and demagogue to audiences prepared to cast doubt on the justice system that Holder is sworn to uphold.

But the intellectual dishonesty did not stop there. As his own Justice Department quietly tells reporters, there is no evidence of racism on which to base a civil rights case. Yet Holder bonds with his audience over another round of racial aggrievement and anger. He shares innocuous incidents (he was pulled over twice in his car and questioned while running to a movie) to involve race and establish his bona fides with those already incensed about the George Zimmerman acquittal. Does it matter the jury found ample doubt and no evidence of racism? Does it matter there was no evidence of racism unearthed by the FBI? Facts are irrelevant when you are stirring the pot of racial antagonism. . . .

If Holder were an MSNBC talking head or lefty pundit parroting the racial angle and averting his eyes from the facts, it would be nothing extraordinary. Intellectual dishonesty is the order of the day. But he is the attorney general of the United States, for goodness sakes. He has a higher obligation to the truth and to promoting respect for the courts. Instead, he chooses to bend and twist the facts to deliver an indictment of American justice and his fellow citizens that casts them as menacing, unfair and biased.

No wonder that Holder, the left and the racial grievance-mongers could not accept the proposition that the states previously under the watchful eye of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have changed in 50 years. No, no, you see, the bias is there — it has to be. Just like Zimmerman has to be racist. They are convinced that the stain of racism never fades. The absence of evidence is not going to get in their way.

The need to perpetuate a false narrative to sustain the appearance of racism is as endemic on the left as it is reprehensible. And leading the charge, alas, is the attorney general.

Let me add in conclusion, it is not just enough to fulminate over this. This needs to end - and step one is to get our people in Congress to man up and take this issue head on - for the benefit of all America, and especially the black community.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Racial Grievance Industry & A Juxtaposition Of Three Cases - Zimmerman, Scott & Spooner

What do George Zimmerman, Roderick Scott and John Henry Spooner have in common? All three are men who shot and killed boys who were below the age of 17 and of a different race.

Zimmerman of course shot Trayvon Martin, black, during a brutal attack that left him bloody. The penultimate issue for the jury was whether Zimmerman was under a "reasonable" belief that he faced a threat of imminent bodily harm. That the jury did so has caused the racial grievance industry in the U.S. to go into overdrive.

John Henry Spooner is a an elderly white man in Millwauke who shot and killed an unarmed 13 year old black boy - and his neighbor - outside of the boy's home because he suspected that the boy had stolen some of his guns. He goes to trial tomorrow. There is no claim of self defense. It appears from the few facts known that this was murder, pure and simple.

Roderick Scott is a black man in Rochester, New York who came upon three 16 year old white boys whom he believed (or observed, not quite sure) were stealing from cars in the area. Brandishing a gun, he ordered them to stay in place until the police arrived. According to Scott, one of the boys charged him, saying that he was going to "get" Scott. Before the boy so much as touched Scott, he lay dead of a gunshot that Scott claimed he fired in self defense. Unlike Trayvon Martin, the person Scott shot had no history of any troubled past. Like Trayvon Martin, the boy's parents are inconsolable, believing their innocent son was murdered. Scott was acquitted of manslaughter charges yesterday following a jury trial.

Now, I admit, I only know about the facts of Spooner and Scott cases from news stories, not from the jury trials, so the thumbnail sketches that I have given above do not tell the whole story, and indeed, could well be biased. That said, let's assume the stories are accurate. Which of these two cases would you think would be national news and why?

Zimmerman did, of course, but the other one is, it may surprise you, the Spooner case, which is being billed by Yahoo News at least as "a case that bears some striking similarities to George Zimmerman's." No, there are virtually no similarities between the Zimmerman and Spooner cases. But the Zimmerman and Scott cases are indeed photo negative similar. Both were within the bounds of reasonable questions of fact on manslaughter and self defense - and both have been answered by a jury. These cases are indeed strikingly similar.

Yet you likely won't hear a single person on the left who knows of the Scott case. You will not hear of it on the national news. The Rev. Al will never mention it. And rest assured that the NAACP will not be making it their raison d'etre to insure that Scott is punished under federal civil rights laws. There will likely not be death threats against Mr. Scott, nor will he have to spend the rest of his life being hunted by the members of the racial grievance industry. And indeed, the Scott case is strictly making it to the local news - it appears nowhere on Yahoo news, ABC, CBS, NBC, or even for that matter, MSNBC.

There is probably no greater proof of how the racial grievance industry is manipulating blacks and this nation than the treatment of these three cases.

And there are others. Former representative and army officer Allen West - a man who believes that Zimmerman should have been given a trial, but solely for manslaughter - in fact points out that the Zimmerman case is no longer about justice. It is only about power and money for the racial grievance industry. Where is, he asks, the NAACP in respect to outrageous black on white violence, or for that matter, the statistically significant problem of black on black violence?



Where are they indeed.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Zimmerman Case: Of Idiots, Race Baiters, Animals & . . . A Few Who Get It

The Zimmerman case has brought out the full panapoly of the worst in our nation, along with a smattering of the intellectually honest.

The Idiots

Stevie Wonder - Mr. Wonder has vowed not to perform again in Florida until the state rescinds the Stand Your Ground law. Somebody tell this idiot that the Zimmerman case was purely a self defense case - the Stand Your Ground law was never raised in the Zimmerman trial.

The Race Baiters

Eric Holder - The most politicized - and race baiting - attorney general our nation has ever had, spoke today before the penultimate race baiters, the NAACP. What did he attack today to satisfy the NAACP lust for racial vengence? Stand Your Ground laws - while never mentioning what he well knows, that Stand Your Ground was never raised in the Zimmerman trial.



Like virtually everything that a race baiter touches, this is actually insidious in respect to the black community. Blacks do not merely commit crimes at the greatest rate in our nation, they are also much more likely to be the victims of that crime. Just what law abiding black victims need is to make it more difficult to legally defend themselves. As to Holder's assertions regarding stand your ground laws, I know of no data whatsoever that would support his claims.

Chicago's First Baptist Church, University Park -

Hillary Clinton - She gave a speech to a black sorority, painting Trayvon Martin as an innocent angel and a victim, There were no words of support for the jury verdict, nor for George Zimmerman, nor for the people or businesses suffering violence at the hands of animals in the wake of the jury verdict. Rather Clinton described the verdict as causing "heartache, deep painful heartache."

Charles Blow - At the NYT, Blow puts the all the blame for innocent Trayvon Martin's death on "the system," amazingly enough, even including the right to self defense.

Yahoo News - Yahoo begins their story: "In a case that bears some striking similarities to George Zimmerman's, a 76-year-old Milwaukee man is set to stand trial this week in the 2012 shooting death a 13-year-old boy he had accused of stealing from him." Striking similarities? Read about the case. That statement is insane. There is not a single similarity beyond the fact that a person with black skin is dead.

The Animals

Baltimore: A group of black teens chased down a Hispanic man in Baltimore then pistol whipped and beat him, shouting that "this is for Trayvon."

Mississippi - Three blacks pulled a white jogger into their car then pummelled him, shouting that "this is for Trayvon."

Los Angeles - Rioters (race not identified) damaged cars, assaulted people and swarmed a Wal Mart.

Pennsylvania - Someone painted "Kill Zimmerman" on the wall of a commercial business and then set it on fire.

A Few Who Get It

Jason Riley - WSJ: Race, Politics & The Zimmerman Trial

Richard Cohen - WP: Racism versus Reality Kudos to Cohen, a left wing journalist, for making a decent effort at intellectual honesty while literally bleeding onto the page in an effort not to overly offend his left wing readers.

Patrick Brenan - NRO: "There Is No Such Thing As Black On Black Crime?"

And One Who Doesn't

Yamiche Alcindor - USA Today: Experts: Prosecutors failed to humanize Trayvon. Mx. Alcindor opines that the reason Zimmerman wasn't convicted was because the state failed to humanize Trayvon Martin, arguing that they should have played more on the emotion of the jurors. She must not have watched the trial. The state's whole case was emotion, not fact. Further, if Trayvon had been portrayed realistically, it would only have been easier for the jury to decide that he was a troubled teen who made a fatal - and criminal - error in attacking Zimmerman.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Black Teens Worthy of Emulation & Honor

A story to cleanse the pallet of the stench of race-baiting politics. Obama yesterday called on America to "honor Trayvon Martin." I have no intention of joining the crowd that thinks Martin worthy of "honoring" for attacking a "weird cracker." Trayvon's death is a tragedy, but he is neither victim or hero. I will however happily honor the two teenage boys who today joined the search for a kidnapped 5 year old girl and, by their persistence in a dangerous situation, succeeded in rescuing her. This from CNN:



Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Race & The Zimmerman Case (Updated)

The Zimmerman case is the poster child for all that is wrong and destructive with racial politics in America. The left has been trying to make this into a race hate crime, something which it never was. Nor was this case about Florida's Stand Your Ground law, something never raised as a defense at trial. This has been about racial politics from start to finish - facts be damned.

The race machine - and the left which is fully invested in it - has built up a pile of myths surrounding this case, none of which stood the test of evidence at trial. They painted Treyvon Martin as an innocent angel who did nothing wrong while demonizing a white man (actually a mixed race hispanic, white and black, but let's not confuse the issues with facts) who supposedly hunted Trayvon down, accosted him and then killed him for no reason but racial animus. No one more so than the nation's worst race baiter, Al Sharpton (a man actually responsible for murder) has led the charge:



As to the facts and law presented at trial, it is clear that both Zimmerman and Martin had every right to be where they were on the night of the shooting. What Trayvon Martin did not have a right to do was begin pummelling Zimmerman. What Zimmerman had a right to do was act in self defense if he reasonably believed himself in danger of serious harm. Listen to those screams on the 9-11 tape and it is apparent that the person screaming felt himself in extremis. Since we know that Martin was on top, pummelling Zimmerman, it follows logically that it was Zimmerman making those panicked screams for help. [Update: One of the jurors has just in confirmed the above as the basis for the jury verdict] This from Protein Wisdom:

Anyone with half-a-brain who actually watched the trial cannot come away without knowing that it was Trayvon’s own behavior that led to his death. It was the behavior embodied in his “creepy-ass cracker” remark, his braggadocio attitude about street-fighting and his problems with authority that had him bounced to his father’s home that ultimately killed him, not George Zimmerman. . . .

So when Martin circled back to teach the “creepy-ass cracker” a lesson in respect by punching George in the nose, then beating his head against the concrete for 40 seconds while George screamed for help, then it was Trayvon, not George, that ended his own life.

George never did anything illegal, though those that want the sheep civilians to “shelter in place” in their homes at night, tried to use this show trial to reinforce the meme that The State will take care of you, don’t you dare try it on your own. . . .

The race machine, epitomized by Sharpton, wants desperately to milk this incident for all of the black rage and white liberal guilt that its worth, irregardless of the facts. And for their part, many on the left, including Obama, want to use this as an excuse for limiting access to guns. Obama actually has a foot in both camps, calling not only for gun control - apparently irrespective of whether Zimmerman used his gun in a legitimate act of self defense - but also called on the nation to "honor" Treyvon Martin, certainly suggesting that Martin was the innocent in this matter.

The last thing any on the left, from Obama on down, want is to have someone point out that this case is, more than anything, an indictment of the black subculture that promotes violence and criminality. For instance, Tristan Breaux, the recently elected 25 year old head of the Norfolk NAACP wrote the following on his Facebook Page:

"I wonder why it is that we are always willing to say someone who clearly had a shaky past, was the victim," Breaux asked . . . referring to Trayvon Martin. . . .

The post went on to ask if people are blinded to why Trayvon was staying with his dad and why he wasn't at home at at time of the shooting.

For his intellectual honesty, the left has turned on Breaux and are now calling for his ouster. And Mr. Breaux is not the only voice of honesty - rapper Lupe Fiasco can also likely expect a backlash one would imagine for his non-conformist remarks in the wake of the trial.

As to the legacy of this case, the attorney who runs the site Talk Left gives a good summation:

. . . [T]he legacy of this case will be that the media never gets it right, and worse, that a group of lawyers, with the aid of a public relations team, who had a financial stake in the outcome of pending and anticipated civil litigation, were allowed to commandeer control of Florida's criminal justice system, in pursuit of a divisive, personal agenda.

Their transformation of a tragic but spontaneous shooting into the crime of the century, and their relentless demonization of the person they deemed responsible, not for a tragic killing, but for "cold-blooded murder," has called into question the political motives and ethics of the officials serving in the Executive branch of Florida's government, ruined the career of other public officials, turned the lives of the Zimmerman family, who are as innocent as their grieving clients, into a nightmare, and along the way, set back any chance of a rational discussion of the very cause they were promoting, probably for years. . . .

The NAACP is now calling for Holder's Justice Department to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman. The big problem for this is that none of the evidence, including that unearthed during an FBI investigation, showed any hint of racial animus in George Zimmerman's past. But then again, this is not about facts, its about myths and political power. This is doing a grave injustice not merely to our nation and to the Zimmerman family, but most tragically to the black community. This is saying that there are no problems in the incredibly dysfunctional lower strata of black society, but rather that it is all a function of racism. No one sums up the myths of this case or the specious argument more so than the NYT editorial board in their op-ed of yesterday:

. . . While Mr. Zimmerman’s conviction might have provided an emotional catharsis, we would still be a country plagued by racism, which persists in ever more insidious forms despite the Supreme Court’s sanguine assessment that “things have changed dramatically,” as it said in last month’s ruling striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. (The Justice Department is right to continue its investigation into whether Mr. Zimmerman may still be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws.)

The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.

These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.

It has been a bad year so far for gun control. But if anything, cases like this should be as troubling as the mass killings that always prompt a national outcry and promises of legislative remedy. We were heartened that President Obama, in his statement after the verdict was issued, took the opportunity to denounce once again “the tide of gun violence” sweeping the country.

In the end, what is most frightening is that there are so many people with guns who are like George Zimmerman. Fear and racism may never be fully eliminated by legislative or judicial order, but neither should our laws allow and even facilitate their most deadly expression. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed boy walking home from the convenience store. If only Florida could give him back his life as easily as it is giving back George Zimmerman’s gun.

The NYT is hardly the only outlet keeping up the myths, and indeed, are positively staid in comparison to Salon's Edward Wyckoff Williams who writes that the trial was part of the "new Jim Crow," that calls not to riot are unreasonable, and that:

The nation’s sociopolitical consciousness remains plagued by a three-fifths compromise that devalues the lives of black people in general, and black boys and men in particular. . . .

For African-Americans this is not new. The paradox of being implicitly excluded from the guarantee of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness has been reiterated and reinforced by public policy and social malaise for centuries. President Barack Obama is not immune — as he’s become the target of incessant “white rage”: race-baiting attacks, prejudice and bias even prior to his election. The Republican Party and its neo-Confederate Tea Party wing has been committed to invalidating his political and legislative legacy as much as the Zimmerman jury invalidated the civil rights of Trayvon. The disparate precedent set, therefore, becomes all the more insulting when we’re told to simply shut up and bear it. . . .

What words written here can suffice to argue on behalf of an innocent dead child, as his murderer walks free — absolved by the system that failed to hold him responsible from the very beginning? The very logic that precipitated Trayvon’s death and rendered jurisprudence to justify his killing reflects the misguided principles at the heart of Zimmerman’s defense: that this black boy had no right to live. . . .

And that's not even the most outrageous example of this political myth of victimization and rampant white-conservative racism. The worst comes from The Guardian, where Gary Younge wrote over a picture of then 12 year old Treyvon that it is now "Open season on black boys after a verdict like this."

The race machine is in overdrive and there not going to let this one go so long as they see the possibility for political and monetary gain. Al Sharpton, who demanded not merely the arrest of Zimmerman but his conviction, will be "mobilizing" protests in 100 cities . . . to pressure the Justice Department into taking legal action against George Zimmerman." And the animals are out, with death threats against Zimmerman and other "crackers." These are people fed on a steady diet of victimization and the myth that we are still in (Democratic controlled) 1950's Selma. It is obscene.

But the settling of accounts on this is far from just on the side of the race baiters. The parents of Trayvon Martin are considering a civil case against Zimmerman - and that is the one where all of the unvarnished truth will come out. What will be on trial in such a proceeding is not merely Zimmerman, but also Trayon Martin. All of the evidence kept out of the criminal trial will likely be admissible in a civil trial, and from just what is out in the public domain today, it would likely paint the picture of a young man with impaired judgement, uncontrollable by his mother and caught up in the black subculture of violence. Zimmerman, for his part, plans to sue NBC - and hopefully others - for their role in demonizing him.

And then there is the Special Prosecutor in this case, Angela Corey. One could argue that her decision to bring suit in this case - even for second degree murder - was within the outer boundaries of her discretion. But what is beyond argument is the way she handled this trial, including the withholding of key evidence and the termination of a whistleblower who brought her actions to the attention of the defense attorneys. She needs to be fired and subject to a civil suit for these acts.

Lastly, to add on a personal note, I am so tired of this horseshit it is beyond belief. I am deeply conservative, as are many, but hardly all, of my friends. I firmly believe in equality for all and that neither racism nor race baiting have any place in this country. And indeed, I know of no one among my friends, nor in the larger circle of those on the right, who believes in anything else. I resent the hell out of being labeled a racist by the left because I refuse to kow tow to their use of the race card or because I think their policies a complete failure. I am apoplectic with Sharpton and his ilk doing their best to gin up rage in the black community for their own power and wealth while doing nothing to fix the real problems in at least a large strata of black society. At the heart of those problems is, as David Goldman writes at PJM, "the breakdown of the black family" and all that means for criminality, jobs and education - something apparent ever since Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan raised it in his 1965 report "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action." As Goldman concludes at PJM:

Why have civil rights organizations and black clergy wagered their reputations on the Zimmerman case? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the issues that really concern African-Americans simply are too painful to discuss. Five years after the ultimate boost to self-esteem — the election of the first black president — things are getting worse faster. If black leaders — from Barack Obama and Eric Holder on down — can’t talk about the real problems, the prospects for the future are frightening indeed.

Goldman is right. The race baiters need to be called to account every bit as much as actual racists. And the race card, something that has done so much to harm our nation, needs to be put in the dust bin of history.

In conclusion, this from Martin Luther King, quoted in today's WSJ by Jason Riley:

"Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."

The problems of actual racism in our society have greatly receded since MLK's remarks. But clearly, the problems raised by MLK have not - least of all by the race baiting industry exploiting the tragedy of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Academic Concept Of Pathological Altruism & Explaining The Left

At the WSJ, James Taranto is effuse in his praise for Barbara Oakley:

We don't think we'd ever heard of Oakland University, a second-tier institution in suburban Rochester, Mich., but Barbara Oakley, an associate professor in engineering, may help put the place on the map. Earlier this week Oakland's Oakley published a fascinating paper, "Concepts and Implications of Altruism Bias and Pathological Altruism," in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The paper is a concise summary of an innovative idea that informed Oakley's two recent books . . .

The PNAS paper has the virtue of brevity, running only eight pages despite including 110 footnotes. Yet it's remarkable for its breadth and depth. It introduces a simple yet versatile idea that could revolutionize scientific and social thought.

Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm." A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, "an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable." Thus, she explains, if you offer to help a friend move, then accidentally break an expensive item, your altruism probably isn't pathological; whereas if your brother is addicted to painkillers and you help him obtain them, it is.

So, I clicked over to read the paper - and now agree with Mr. Taranto. What Oakley has posited is not new. Indeed, it has been perhaps the primary complaint as regards the acts of the left for decades, if not centuries. But what Ms. Oakley does is raise that complaint to academic acceptability. She puts it in the language of academia, explains it with clarity, and provides thorough documentation. This from Ms. Oakley:

The bottom line is that the heartfelt, emotional basis of our good intentions can mislead us about what is truly helpful for others. Altruistic intentions must be run through the sieve of rational analysis; all too often, the best long-term action to help others, at both personal and public scales, is not immediately or intuitively obvious, not what temporarily makes us feel good, and not what is being promoted by other individuals, with their own potentially self-serving interests. Indeed, truly altruistic actions may sometimes appear cruel or harmful, the equivalent of saying “no” to the student who demands a higher grade or to the addict who needs another hit. However, the social consequences of appearing cruel in a culture that places high value on kindness, empathy, and altruism can lead us to misplaced “helpful” behavior and result in self-deception regarding the consequences of our actions.

Pathological altruism can operate not only at the individual level but in many different aspects and levels of society, and between societies. Recognizing that feelings of altruism do not necessarily constitute objective altruism provides a new way of framing and understanding altruism. This previously unrecognized perspective in turn may open many new, potentially useful lines of inquiry and provide a framework to begin moving toward a more mature, scientifically informed understanding of altruism and cooperative behavior. The thesis of pathological altruism emphasizes the value of true altruism, self-sacrifice, and other forms of prosociality in human life. At the same time, it acknowledges the potential harm from cognitive blindness that arises whenever groups treat a concept as sacred.

Think about virtually all of the legislation that has come from the left over the past half century or more that has proven to be disastrous in the long run. Take for but one example the creation of the housing bubble, caused by social engineering and from which we have still not recovered. And indeed, Ms. Oakley does in fact address precisely that:

Ostensibly well-meaning governmental policy promoted home ownership, a beneficial goal that stabilizes families and communities. The government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae allowed less-than-qualified individuals to receive housing loans and encouraged more-qualified borrowers to overextend themselves. Typical risk–reward considerations were marginalized because of implicit government support. The government used these agencies to promote social goals without acknowledging the risk or cost. When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth far less than they originally had paid. Government policy then shifted . . . the cost of this "altruism" to the public, to pay off the too-big-to-fail banks then holding securitized subprime loans. . . . Altruistic intentions played a critical role in the development and unfolding of the housing bubble in the United States.

The implications of "pathological altruism" as an academic theory and area of research are far reaching indeed. It is a concept that would require a level of rational analysis now routinely shouted down by the left. In a larger context, it would provide a challenge on every level to the left's post modernism. It would elevate objective facts as a counter point to pure emotionalism.

Taranto ends his column with this thought:

Oakley concludes by noting that "during the twentieth century, tens of millions [of] individuals were killed under despotic regimes that rose to power through appeals to altruism." An understanding that altruism can produce great evil as well as good is crucial to the defense of human freedom and dignity.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Approved Thoughts For Small Children

From the People's Cube via Maggie's Farm. And lest you think that this clever photo lacks any sort of basis in reality, this from Maggie's Farm:

Researcher Says that Berenstein Bears, Franklin the Friendly Turtle Perpetuate "Racist," "Socially Dominant Norms" to Children:

Parents who read their kids stories about happy, human-like animals like Franklin the Turtle or Arthur at bedtime are exposing their kids to racism, materialism, homophobia and patriarchal norms, according to a paper presented at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Surveillance - Everything BUT Mosques

The massive surveillance apparatus that exists under Obama to combat "terrorism" seems to have one massive, gaping hole - it does not include mosques. This from IBD:

The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.

. . . This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.

What other five-alarm jihadists are counterterrorism officials missing right now, thanks to restrictions on monitoring the one area they should be monitoring?

Religious freedom is at the heart of our "civil rights," as set forth in the Bill of Rights. Our nation was founded on religious tolerance in the decades after the bloody European religious wars. But at that time, our nation was almost wholly sects of Christianity and Judaism.

Our only relationship to Islam at around the time of the founding was external. The merchant ships of our newly formed nation was under sustained attack the "Barbary pirates" - North African Islamic groups that justified their war on us on the basis of their religion, Islam. In a 1796 meeting of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams with an envoy from the pirates:

. . . [Adams and Jefferson] ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador [from the Barbary States] replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.

An argument can be made that at the time of the crafting of the Bill of Rights, Islam was beyond the consideration of the drafters. Moreover, there is no corresponding doctrine of conquest and enslavement of non-believers in either Christianity or Judaism. Indeed, because of these and other related doctrines, Islam is as much a political system as it is a set of religious beliefs. While virtually everyone in this country would agree that there should be no compulsion as to religious beliefs, that alone should not in any way protect Muslims or mosques from full and unfettered surveillance and, where warranted, police action. Arguments to the contrary wrongly conflate Islam wholly with religion - and for many if not most sects of Islam, it is far more than just that.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Institution Of Arab Islamic Slavers

From Black Educator:

Here's a brief summation of the history of Arab enslavement of African Peoples. It is important to know this history in order to understand both the evolution of Western capitalism's slave trade and the current atrocities against Africans (by Africans) unfolding in the name of Islam and/or "Arab Civilization.

Islam & slavery by BLACKMUSICS

I touched upon a lot of this in my post, The Origins Of The Slave Trade & The Race Hustler's Holy Grail. The combination of ignorance and falsehoods that surrounds the historical - and modern - institution of black slavery is appalling. That combination is useful only in as much as so many have a stake in promoting slavery as an "original" sin of whites.

And slavery of blacks by Islamists is ongoing. The Washington Post ran a story less than a month ago, Timbuktu's Slaves Liberated As Islamists Flee, documenting the practice by Muslims of enslaving blacks in Mali. As disheartening as the story itself was, equally disheartening was some of the supremely historically ignorant comments. One in particular sticks in my craw - "Religious fundamentalists (conservatives) of all stripes have no problems with slavery." That statement is so hateful, so stupid, and so historically wrong that it leaves me in amazement. White Christian fundamentalists are the people that drove slavery not merely from our nation, but from acceptability on the world stage. The whites who in fact supported slavery, the KKK and other such institutions were Democrats. White Republicans started the NAACP. And the Republican Party was quite literally born out of opposition to slavery. Want more, go here and here.

Update: Almost as if on-cue, just as I am complaining about the complete and total rewrite of history by the left, MSNBC runs a retrospective on segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace, the man who, in 1959, tried to stop blacks from integrating into then all-white Alabama schools. MSNBC identified George Wallace, who was a life long Democrat until registering as an Independent late in life, as a Republican. Scurrilous idiots.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

A Real Scandal

Today, the Obama administration dropped its right to appeal a judge's decision mandating that the Abortion Plan B pill be made available over the counter to underage girls without limitation - no prescription necessary, no need for parental consent. I've written on this before (see here and here). It is the left's war on the family and on religion. It is replacing parental discretion with the left wing government's judgement on how children should be raised, and it is furthering the left's goal of sexualizing our children. Of all the scandals coming out of Washington today, this one is the least noticed, yet the one with the greatest potential long term ramifications.

Read More...

Summary only...

NSA, Gen., Hayden, Mike Mukasey, Snowden & . . . China? (Updated)

Former NSA and later CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden is one of the people in the best position to discuss the NSA programs that aggregate vast amounts of "meta-data" on phone calls in, to and from the U.S. Here he is on the Fox News Sunday show, speaking of their use, value, and alluding to safeguards:



In the WSJ,former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote today in full throated defense both of the NSA program and to assure that it is not being misused, drawing contrasts to the IRS. He also takes pains to point out that the type of meta-data being gathered by the NSA does not violate Article 4 of the Constitution.

I am inclined to agree that the NSA program is probably valid and legal. It is unfortunate for the nation that the exposure of this program comes on the heels of real scandals of government abuse of power. It is more unfortunate that this reveals yet more of our intelligence methods to those who would do us harm.

The leak of this information came from Edward Snowden, a 29 year old described in the WSJ:

Mr. Snowden told the Guardian he grew up in Elizabeth City, N.C., though his family later moved to Maryland. He described himself as having been a poor high school student who eventually obtained a GED. He enlisted in the Army in 2003, but left the military after a training accident. He started working as a security guard at an NSA site, went on to work for the CIA, and left that job in 2009, he told the Guardian.

I have real questions about how this joker got a top secret clearance. That aside, Snowden claims that he leaked the information on the NSA program because he was concerned with privacy and government overreach. But then he seeks asylum with . . . China? Well, Hong Kong, which is today a province of Communist China. Given Snowden's avowed motives, his choice of places to defect ought to be raising, well, red flags. This from former CIA agent Bob Baer on CNN today.



Update: The Daily Beast has a primer on how to keep "NSA at bay. Do government surveillance disclosures have you fearing Uncle Sam’s reach? Winston Ross looks at PGPs, secret phone apps, and burners like The Wire to cloak your digital trail."

Update 2: Dafyyd at Big Lizards agrees that the NSA program was probably Constitutional and non-intrusive to ordinary Americans. Says he, "Nevertheless, I have a very strong feeling (I'll make it a prediction) that, strangely enough, this non-scandal will turn out to be the most devastating scandal of the Obama administration." I concur in the reasoning he lays out in his post.

Law prof. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection expresses the disquiet I and probably most feel about this massive gathering of data:

But I’m also concerned with what could be done with the information gathered about American citizens not suspected of a crime if put into the hands of politicians and political groups, and bureaucrats who work for or are sympathetic to such politicians and political groups.

That really is the crux of the issue as exists now. From Benghazi to Fast and Furious and, most importantly, to the IRS's multiple scandals, I have no trust that this information will not be misused by the left to punish political "enemies," as Obama has previously classed us on the right.

Also at Legal Insurrection, Mandy Nagy points out that the Snowden leak was largely already made public by NSA cryptologist Bill Binney in 2011 and even earlier than that by NSA employee Thomas Drake. The only thing that is new, really, is that the MSM and the left (to the extent there is a distinction) have taken note and are up in arms about all of this.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...