Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Liberal Reaction to Mugging Shows why Racial Apologists Will Block Real Minority Progress

When you make excuses for bad behavior there is no reason to expect positive change!

Michael Brown, killed in Ferguson Missouri, would be alive today if he had obeyed the cop's order to get out of the street and walk on the sidewalk. He would be alive today if he had actually put his hands up and surrendered after the fracas with Police Officer Darren Wilson. Heck, he'd likely still be alive today if instead of turning and charging at Wilson he had just run away. But that's not what happened. The evidence is clear.

Instead of driving that message home Obama and the race hustlers blame the police. On Tuesday night Obama spent hundreds of words lecturing the police, very few on the real problem of black crime and attitudes towards cops.

That attitude that somehow the cops are to blame was amplified in a Time Magazine column written by Columbia University professor John McWhorter who suggests that the reason Brown acted was because of "the preset hostility to the cops that Brown apparently harbored. And that hostility was key because it was indeed totally justified."

With that kind of excuse making is it any wonder there is so much violence in the black community?

In that same vein, Oliver Friedfeld is a student at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. He was mugged recently by young black men. In a letter to the school newspaper he describes his feelings on the matter. Not only did he say he forgives them, but he understands the reasons that justify the crime:
Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. They wanted my stuff, not me. While I don’t know what exactly they needed the money for, I do know that I’ve never once had to think about going out on a Saturday night to mug people. I had never before seen a gun, let alone known where to get one. The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine. . .

Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as “thugs?” It’s precisely this kind of “otherization” that fuels the problem.
Friedfeld is in the School of Foreign Service at Georgtown. When he graduates he'll get a job at the State Department where that warped "blame America" type of thinking will fit right in as diplomats excuse Iran getting a nuke and sympathize with the grievances of terrorists.

Liberal Guilt and Race Hustling Block Racial Progress and Black Safety

Jason Riley, himself black, points out in the Wall Street Journal, that the real tragedy here is the refusal to be honest about the epidemic of crime among blacks. It isn't just privileged whites like Freidfeld getting mugged, it's thousands of blacks being killed not by police officers but other blacks:
According to the FBI, homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, who are 10 times more likely than their white counterparts to be murdered. And while you’d never know it watching MSNBC, the police are not to blame. Blacks are just 13% of the population but responsible for a majority of all murders in the U.S., and more than 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. Liberals like to point out that most whites are killed by other whites, too. That’s true but beside the point given that the white crime rate is so much lower than the black rate.

Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do. The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of “over-policing” certain neighborhoods to juice black arrest rates. Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the emergency calls originate, and they spend much of their time trying to stop residents of the same race from harming one another.
Racial profiling and tensions between the police and poor black communities are real problems, but these are effects rather than causes, and they can’t be addressed without also addressing the extraordinarily high rates of black criminal behavior—yet such discussion remains taboo. Blacks who bring it up are sell-outs. Whites who mention it are racists.
And if black criminal behavior is a response to white racism, how is it that black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher, racial discrimination was rampant and legal, and the country was more than a half-century away from twice electing a black president?
Pretending that police behavior is the root of the problem is not only a dodge but also foolish. The riots will succeed in driving business out of town, which means that Ferguson’s residents will be forced to pay more at local stores or travel farther for competitive prices on basic goods and services. Many Ferguson residents today can’t go to work because local businesses have been burned down.

Even worse, when you make police targets, you make low-income communities less safe. Ferguson’s problem isn’t white cops or white prosecutors; it’s the thug behavior exhibited by individuals like Michael Brown, which puts a target on the backs of other young black men. Romanticizing such behavior instead of condemning it only makes matters worse.
Once again, the race hustlers and their media enablers block any honest discussion of the real problem. Since they profit from the hysteria there seems little chance the situation will improve any time soon. How many more blacks will die before the black community recognizes that cops aren't the problem?

A Victim of Ferguson Rioters Finds Justice in Kindness of American People

Nancy Dubose's dream of owning a bakery was shattered by looters but restored by the generosity of the American people!

Nancy Dubose, a single mom with two children, had a dream. She loved to bake and wanted to open her own business in Ferguson, Missouri. She sold cakes on weekends to save money to open her shop and finally achieved the dream in June. Then the trouble started. For weeks after the Michael Brown shooting not a single customer walked through the door. Then, after the Grand Jury announcement rioters broke the windows of her shop and damaged her equipment.

After viewing the damage tears run down Nancy's face as she wonders whether her dream has been shattered:

Nancy isn't alone. 25 businesses destroyed, damaged or looted in Ferguson were minority owned. Thanks to the rioters scores of workers are out of jobs right before the holidays. Where is their justice?

Fortunately, Nancy is going to be OK. Some kind soul set up an internet funding campaign to raise money to restore Nancy's shop. As of this writing over $109,000 has been contributed by over 3,500. The amount may go much higher after Rush Limbaugh gave out the address on his radio show Wednesday afternoon. Something tells me that Al Sharpton is not among those contributing to restore Nancy's dream!

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Top Democrat Says ObamaCare Was a Mistake

But he won't help fix the problem!

From National Journal. Excerpt of remarks at the National Press Club by New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the #3 Democrat in the U.S. Senate:
"After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus, but unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them," Schumer said. "We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem—health care reform."

The third-ranking Senate Democrat noted that just about 5 percent of registered voters in the United States lacked health insurance before the implementation of the law, arguing that to focus on a problem affecting such "a small percentage of the electoral made no political sense."

The larger problem, affecting most Americans, he said, was a poor economy resulting from the recession. "When Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought, 'The Democrats aren't paying enough attention to me,' " Schumer said.
A stark admission but too little and way too late!

Is This What Justice Looks Like for Ferguson Protesters?

People who don't respect the rule of law deserve no consideration for their views!

UPDATE: AP has a report about the changing stories of some of the people who claimed Wilson executed Brown. Turns out some of them were not even at the scene and others changed their story once the autopsy results were released. Will these "mistaken" or lying people be held accountable?

NBC has the story of Officer Darren Wilson, the policeman who shot and killed Michael Brown. Wilson's testimony was found to be accurate and matched the other facts in the case. What a shame this news couldn't have been released immediately after the shooting. Everything else you heard about the shooting was a lie. Not that it matters to the looters, shooters and rioters in Ferguson.

UPDATE: Obama supports controls on police but says very little about criminal violence.

Obama was in Chicago Tuesday. He spoke one sentence condemning the criminal violence in Ferguson yet that appeal to law and order was lost in remarks that suggested the police, not just in Ferguson, but nationwide were partly to blame.

He went on to say he "instructed the Attorney General" to investigate not the looters, but the Ferguson Police and to extend those efforts nationwide focusing on law enforcement, not law breakers. Holder was instructed to "start identifying very specific steps that we can take to make sure that law enforcement is fair and it is being applied equally to every person in this country." While he said he had "no sympathy at all for destroying your own communities," the totality of his statement suggests otherwise.

Michael Brown is dead because he was a thug who strong armed a convenience store owner and tried to take the gun away from a cop. And instead of surrendering, he charged the officer. This has NOTHING to do with law enforcement attitudes towards blacks and Obama should be ashamed for pretending it does. No wonder so little progress in race relations has been made during his tenure as President!

UPDATE: Witness statement confirms Officer Wilson's account. How long will he live if his name is revealed?

From the NY Times report:
Some people claiming to be eyewitnesses said Mr. Brown was shot in the back, Mr. McCulloch said, but later changed their stories when autopsies found no injuries entering his back. But others, African-Americans who did not speak out publicly, he said, consistently said that the youth had menaced the officer.
Will those who lied in their initial testimony and in police interviews be held accountable? Don't bet on it!

Then, there are the other black eyewitnesses who told the truth. Here's the entire testimony of Witness #10. Page down to the yellow highlighted area. Witness #10 said he saw the initial scuffle and heard the gunshot inside the police officers car and feared that Brown had murdered Wilson. Witness #10 continues:
WITNESS #10: The police officer exited the vehicle with his weapon drawn pursuing Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was quite a distance and he stopped and when he stopped, he didn't get down on the ground or anything. He turned around and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or anything. I can?t recall the movement that he did. I?m not sure if he pulled his pants up or whatever he did but I seen some type of movement and he started charging towards the police officer. The police officer then returned fire, well,not returned fire, open fire on Mr. Brown.
...Um, after that, Mr. Brown then paused. He-he-he stopped running and when he stopped running the police officer stopped firing. And, then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge towards him and after that the police officer returned fire and um well not returned, I?m using wrong. . .a started to fire once more at him. Um, if I had to guess the rounds that were fired then it would be four to five more shots and after that Mr. Brown collapsed and fell to the ground.
The blood trail of forensic evidence at the scene presented to the Grand Jury also confirms the movements testified by both the witness above and Officer Wilson.

UPDATE: Aerial photos show extent of the damage. Where is the justice for those who lost jobs and property?

How many of these burned out businesses were black owned? How many blacks are out of work right before Christmas? Full size images here.

From the Daily Mail.

Burning down the pizza restaurant. How many jobs were lost?

Looting a liquor store. Is this justice? What does it tell you about these people?

The police showed restraint. Not so for the rioters.

I have NO respect for people who do this to the flag.

Since when did looting become a legitimate tool of protest? This isn't political protest. It's mayhem. SCUM!

UPDATE: Full testimony of Officer Wilson before the Grand Jury is here. Full transcript of Grand Jury proceedings is here. Note how the NY Times story describes the outcome:
The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer.

The accounts of several other witnesses from the Ferguson neighborhood where Mr. Brown, 18 and unarmed, met his death on Aug. 9 — including those who said Mr. Brown was trying to surrender — changed over time or were inconsistent with physical evidence, the prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, said in a news conference.

“The duty of the grand jury is to separate fact and fiction,” he said in a statement watched by a tense nation. “No probable cause exists to file any charges against Darren Wilson.”
Some people claiming to be eyewitnesses said Mr. Brown was shot in the back, Mr. McCulloch said, but later changed their stories when autopsies found no injuries entering his back. But others, African-Americans who did not speak out publicly, he said, consistently said that the youth had menaced the officer.
So, the whole nasty hubbub was founded on a lie! How do you suppose that happened? Who benefited from the outrage? Race hustlers like Al Sharpton, Obama and the Democrats who shamefully used the lie to stoke anger in the black community to motivate them to vote!

Monday, November 24, 2014

What's Going On? Defense Secretary Hagel Resigns After Less Than Two Years

Hagel's resignation is just the tip of a very large iceberg of disgust w/ Obama's national security policy!

Hagel was Obama's third Secretary of Defense. The first two, Gates and Panetta have each written books criticizing Obama's conduct of national security. Hagel is reported to be deeply unhappy with the way the White House treated him. Resigning less than two years is very unusual. How long will it be before the Hagel book comes out.

What a shame that the generals who are seething about Obama's conduct don't follow Hagel's lead and make the problem more public.

It should be abundantly clear by now that the problem in national security policy won't go away by changing the Secretary of Defense. Three times is not the charm. The problem lies at the top!

VIDEO: Saturday Night Live Dumps on Obama Immigration Move

A good education for the no-nothings who don't understand the Constitution!

Remember the old School House Rock "How a Bill Becomes Law" cartoon? Saturday Night Live updated it to explain Obama's unconstitutional move on immigration:

Jay Nordlinger nails it. He writes that for Obama and the left "democracy is what you can get away with!"

Friday, November 21, 2014

Obama Gives Voters a Slap in the Face And Invokes Constitutional Crisis with Lawless Unilateral Immigration Move

Blacks and other low skilled Americans will feel the pinch as employment opportunities goes to newly legal workers!

Like ObamaCare, acting unilaterally without any bipartisan support in congress Obama's unilateral act on immigration is intended to be divisive. An act of this magnitude taken solely by Presidential fiat is unprecedented, reckless and a danger to democracy. Imagine the decades of bad feelings generated between Hispanics and Americans because of the way Obama rammed this down our throats.

Blacks will be hardest hit (1,2) as competition for less skilled jobs that black rely on just got harder. And some Hispanic leaders are not happy because Obama's action still leaves six million "in the shadows" with all the negatives Obama described as rationale for his action. They demand a total amnesty and with no way to stop Obama's dictatorial moves they might get it.

As in other domestic and foreign policy missteps the Obama gang doesn't seem to have thought through the consequences of such a unilateral action. David Gergen, writing at CNN:
President Obama's executive order on immigration seems to move us into uncharted, dangerous waters.
the challenges of immigration policy do not represent a national emergency, nor do they touch upon the military authorities of a president. Rather, they represent the chronic, abysmal failures of politicians in Washington to govern well from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
As Mark Krikorian writes in National Review, the Reagan and Bush examples were presidents trying to implement congressional directives, as is constitutionally permissible, whereas the current action is the President telling Congress "I'm going to implement my own directives."
Against the spirit of the Constitution

One can argue whether this executive order is legal, but it certainly violates the spirit of the founders. They intentionally focused Article One of the Constitution on the Congress and Article Two on the president. That is because the Congress is the body charged with passing laws and the president is the person charged with faithfully carrying them out.
For a president to toss aside such deep traditions of governance is a radical, imprudent step. When a president in day-to-day operations can decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore, where are the limits on his power? Where are the checks and balances so carefully constructed in the Constitution?
Sadly, we instead have an action from the White House that will cast a dark shadow over prospects for legislative cooperation, falls short of what the immigrant population had hoped and steers us into deep, unknown waters in our governance.
Existing immigration law specifically forbids the kind of action Obama is taking:
No major change may be implemented unless the Congress specifically provides, in an appropriations or other Act, for funds for implementation of the change.
Obama is in clear violation of the law but who will stop him? It's the act of a dictator!

You might have seen the video below where Obama describes his limitations under law that were swept away last night. Here is a better produced version:

May 5, 2010: Obama: "Anybody Who Tells You It's Going To Be Easy Or I Can Wave A Magic Wand And Make It Happen Hasn't Been Paying Attention How This Town Works."

July 1, 2010: Obama: "I Believe Such An Indiscriminate Approach Would Be Both Unwise And Unfair. … This Could Lead To A Surge In More Illegal Immigration."

October 25, 2010: Obama: "I Am Not King. I Can't Do These Things Just By Myself."

March 28, 2011 Obama:"With Respect To The Notion That I Can Just Suspend Deportations Through Executive Order, That's Just Not The Case."

March 28, 2011 Obama: "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

April 20, 2011: Obama: "I Can't Do It By Myself. We're Going To Have To Change The Laws In Congress…"

There are SO MANY more but you get the point!
Obama's unilateral action is a big flip of the finger to American voters who only weeks ago said STOP! We have a lawless President prepared to do whatever he wants and to hell with the Constitution!

Global Warmers Say Snow is a "Thing of the Past." Tell That to the Folks in Buffalo!

Every single prediction made by global warming alarmists has been proven false by history. Yet the alarmists never give up. Why? Follow the money!

Remember when the global warmers said "snow was a thing of the past." That headline appeared first in The Independent, a British newspaper in 2000:
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
You think the Warmers would have learned since then but no, in the New York Times a variation of the headline was repeated in February 2014 when half the U.S. was locked in Ice and Snow. Not only that but at Christmas last year Greenpeace ran an ad with Santa informing the kiddies that Christmas was canceled because the North Pole had melted.

Tell it to the folks in Buffalo who are experiencing record snows and across the country were record lows and high snows are breaking records going back more than a century (1,2).

Not sure where she thinks she's going. The roads are all blocked.

Some made the most of being totally snowed in:

But the Warmers never give up. Despite the fact that they predicted just the opposite (or that NONE of their scaremongering predictions have come true) they simply change their tune and continue. The Washington Post has a columnist who insists that "global warming" is the reason winters are colder. So now we're supposed to believe that prediction?

Four years ago Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr writes
“This failure to skillfully predict any of the extreme weather patterns we have seen in the past should be a wake-up call to policymakers and the public that the climate science community is overselling the prediction skill that is possible.”
That's putting it mildly. So why do the alarmists persist? MONEY! Trillions at stake. Think about all Obama's grants to fund "green jobs"  are nothing but a kickback scheme to fund Democrat campaigns.

Another truism from 2010 came from an Investor's Business Daily editorial which ran the week before the December blizzard & nailed it:
No matter what the weather, it's all due to warming. This isn't science; it's a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.

Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they're so wrong? Maybe it's because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them "mitigate" the adverse impacts of warming.

This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate.
Think about that while you are shoveling the snow this winter!

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

As Obama Foreign Policy Unravels, Deaths from Terrorism Skyrocket

The trend to contain the violence has been erased during the Obama years!

The annual report on peace and terrorism from the Institute for Economics and Peace is out. It's not good news:

Scope of terrorism grows worldwide. Full size image here.
Among the key findings:
  • 17,958 people were killed in terrorist attacks last year, that’s 61% more than the previous year.
  • 82% of all deaths from terrorist attack occur in just 5 countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.
  • Last year terrorism was dominated by four groups: the Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIL, and al Qa’ida.
I thought Obama had won the war on terror? Didn't he say so at least 32 times just since the Benghazi attack in 2012?

Most troubling is the sharp spike up. This chart from the Atlantic illustrates the point:

In June Obama declared"The world is less violent than it has ever been." Really?

Palestinians Celebrate After Terrorist Kill Americans in Synagogue in Israel

Tell me again why I should care anything for the Palestinians?

Imagine what would happen if a Christian or Jew walked into a mosque and began shooting people and hacking others to death and defiling the holy place. There would be riots in Muslim hotspots all over the world. You know the drill. But when Palestinian Muslims do this in a Jewish synagogue the world mostly shrugs. Except for the Palestinians. They celebrate. Here's what happened in Jerusalem on Tuesday (more at the Daily Mail):

Imagine what would happen if someone did this to a Koran!
Bloodlust in Palestine. No tears from me when they get what they deserve. Bombs away!
Three American Jews were among the five dead. 

Monday, November 17, 2014

Obama Prepares to Shed Past Principles on U.S. Constitution in Lawless, Political Immigration Move

Constitution of the United States of America:The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Article I, Section 8.

What? ANOTHER video showing Obama saying one thing and then doing something else? It's almost as bad as Obama's Lie of the Year: "if you like your plan you can keep it. Period!"

“I take the Constitution very seriously,” he told a Pennsylvania town hall in 2008. “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive Branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” 
“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. . . . Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the [immigration] laws on my own. . . . That’s not how our Constitution is written” (July 25, 2011).
“This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. . . . There are laws on the books that I have to enforce” (Sept. 28, 2011).
“If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws” (Nov. 25, 2013).
And what do you bet that when Republicans try to reign in Obama's constitutional overreach he'll somehow try to convince the news media that THEY are the problem!
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator