This is perhaps one of the most thoughtful, response about the Ferguson situation. I hope and wish that more people read it, understand it and learn from it.
This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that Black lives hold no value; that you may kill Black men in this country without consequences or repercussions. This is a frightening narrative for every parent and guardian of Black and brown children, and another setback for race relations in America.”
Congressional Black Caucus head Rep. Marcia Fudge
Ninety-three percent of blacks are killed by other blacks,” Giuliani said, triggering a heated argument on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I would like to see the attention paid to that that you are paying to this.”
“Black people who kill black people go to jail,” Dyson said. “White people who are policemen who kill black people do not go to jail.”
“What about the poor black child that was killed by another black child?” Giuliani asked. “Why aren’t you protesting that?… Why don’t you cut it down so that so many white police officers don’t have to be in black areas?”
“When I become mayor, I’ll do that,” replied Dyson, exasperated.
“White police officers wouldn’t be there,” Giuliani said, “if you weren’t killing each other
Former Mayor of NYC Rudolph Giulani
Those two quotes or a variation of them pretty much encapsulate the debate about Michael Brown, Ferguson and the wider issue of blacks males, crime and the police. The issues are more complicated than those two statements assert but both are partially correct even if not exactly as the quoted intended.
The statistics for young black males are stark. Black males commit and are a victim of homicide at extremely disproportionate rate compared to White males or Asians. We can try to excuse it in a variety of ways but those facts remain. This is where the CBC head is correct, black lives have been cheapened. The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case or the lack of charges by the Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case did not demonstrate that Blacks lives are cheaper, this has been demonstrated for years by ignoring the rampant deaths of thousands of Blacks at the hand of other Blacks for years.
Black people around the country are rioting for the last two days and had been holding protest since August because of the Michael Brown shooting by Officer Darren Wilson but have been silent for the 136 homicide victims in the St. Louis area. Just last October 19th siblings, 35-year-old Margaree Dixson and 29-year-old Jermaine Jones, were killed by gunshot 2 hours and a few blocks apart. They were homicide victims number 109 and 110, in a little over month almost 20 other homicides have been committed, few of these ever get solved.
A local news station reported last week that 73% of the more that 136 homicides this year remain open. A case remains open until an arrest is made but in cases where arrests were made only 8% was there an actual conviction, last year. The same story is repeated nationwide in NYC, LA, New Orleans, around the country. This is a problem, it not just that Black lives are cheap, is that no one wants to come forward and identify the perpetrators, and they know this. As Nicole Rice, the sister of the two siblings killed explains in the interview:
No answers, no answers, all my answers are to God, I don’t know nothing, I know people talk, and I have clues to what their talking about,” Rice said. I don’t blame the police because they’re doing everything they can do to find out what’s going on, If anyone knows anything, just what you heard, that would give a motive, It goes back to my little niece, well she’s really my cousin, but i call her my niece and her murder has never been solved so you ask me if my brother rand my sisters will be? No. Because no one will talk.
“Snitches get stitches” as DeAndre Joshua, 20 found out he was shot and killed on the first night of rioting. His body was found inside his car, which had also been set on fire. Though no official confirmation has been made, DeAndre fit the description of one of the witnesses that provided testimony to the Grand Jury that heard the evidence in Michael Brown’s case. He is also a close friend of the other person that was accompanying Brown that day, Dorian Johnson. Regardless of whether this was related to any testimony he may have provided or just a victim of opportunity for someone with a grudge against him, he has become just another statistic that will be forgotten in the aftermath of the Riots.
Ms. Fudge is correct that Black lives have been cheapened, they are continually being cheapened everytime that the community hides their criminals from justice. They are cheapened everytime that a riot is started because someone broke their monopoly on killing blacks. Especially when that person was in the act of committing a felony which led to their death. Black lives are cheapened when they excuse all wrong doing by blaming race, poverty or the “white establishment” for every ill in their communities. Children are held to a higher standard of conduct than the one of many black criminals.
When the Black community celebrates and elevates a petty criminal like Michael Brown, or Trayvon Martin it only ensures that other young Black youths will follow in those footsteps. It also means that because they have been convinced that the law devalues them that they will continue to ignore the law and this never ending cycle will continue. The CBC and Ms. Fudge know this, that is why they are trying as they have done with the Educational system by trying to establish a separate system of grading and disciplining Black students to downgrade aberrant or illegal behaviour.
To restate the “civil rights” argument in a clearer way: Young black men are disproportionately imprisoned. One in three black men have gone to prison at some time in their life. According to the ACLU, one in fifteen black men are incarcerated, vs. one in 106 white men. That by itself is proof of racism; the fact that these individuals were individually prosecuted for individual crimes has no bearing on the matter. All that matters is the outcome. Because the behavior of young black men is not likely to change, what must change is the way that society recognizes crime itself. The answer is to remove stigma of crime attached to certain behavior, for example, physical altercations, petty theft, and drug-dealing on a certain scale. The former civil rights movement no longer focuses its attention on supposedly ameliorative social spending, for example, preschool programs for minority children, although these remain somewhere down the list in the litany of demands. What energizes and motivates the movement is the demand that society redefine deviancy to exclude certain classes of violent as well as non-violent felonies.
Which brings us to the quote by Giulani, perhaps ironically is the fact the CBC ( Congressional Black Caucus) were instrumental in pushing for passing legislation that called for more cops and stricter mandatory sentences in the late ’80’s and early 90’s. During those days crime was rampant, drugs and gang warfare was taking a terrible toll on the communities that they represented. In those days the cries where not about police brutality (though it did exist), but for more cops, tougher sentences, loosening of forfeiture laws. The laws that were passed then did have their intended effect, crime now is at the lowest levels in 40 years but had an unintended effect of targeting criminals which were disproportianately Blacks young males.
Rather than addressing the causes of why young Black males are committing more crime, the civil rights movement and the CBC kept blaming racism and the Establishment for the failures of their own community to address this problem. They still ignore the issue, instead they elevate the violent assaults of Trayvon Martin and Martin Brown as noble young black male martyrs.
Michael Brown assaulted a police officer and attempted to remove his gun, what purpose does the supporter of Brown think he was trying to do this? If, this is true do you really want that person in your neighborhood, if attacking a police officer is not out of bounds for him, do you think that attacking someone else would have been? The answer I get when these questions are posed is that he was unarmed and did not deserve to die for stealing cigarillos, but this does not answer the question is just deflects it and since most do not have to live in Michael Brown’s neighborhood it would not affect them either way.
Golda Meir the former Prime Minister of Israel once said about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict:
Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us (the Jews).
In many ways the Arab and Israeli conflict is a metaphor for the issues that afflict the Black community. A day will come when Blacks will love their children enough and value their lives enough to stop accepting violent or illegal behaviour as normal and start addressing those issues in their communities. When they realize that all Black lives matter, not just those few that die at the hands of non-Blacks and stop excusing themselves of the problem.
Here’s Police Chief of Milwakee-Police Chief Edward Flynn on the subject.
While I agree with Mr. McDaniel on the substance of his article, I disagree on some of the consequences he predicts for now. Two quick reasons, the EO only accomplishing in “officially” articulating what has been already public policy of this administration. The second reason is that it will not affect as many people as is has been claimed, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to another problem in our country, a bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy. You can read the new guidelines for the handling of illegals at:
The issuing of work permits is separate and will post as soon as more information is available. As Mr. McDaniels adds in response to a comment;
“If Mr. Obama had actually considered immigration “reform” a matter of importance, he had two solid years with absolute control of Congress, yet he chose to do nothing. Thereafter, he said, in public, more than 20 times that he did not have the lawful authority to do what he has done. Now Mr. Obama is claiming he waited six years and just got impatient. His lips were moving, so he was lying.
Congress fails to do something the President wants? Too bad. That’s our system of government; that’s checks and balances. That’s lawful.
Congress fails to do something less than a majority of Americans want? Too bad. That’s lawful, and if the people don’t like it, they can vote them out. That’s lawful too. They had their chance on November 4, and they repudiated Barack Obama and cleaned house on the Democrats.
Obstructionist? That’s lawful too, and if the people don’t like it, they can vote them out. But let’s remember that the House has sent more than 300 bills to the Senate, where Harry Reid, surely acting under orders from Mr. Obama, has not so much as allowed a vote on any of them. The people didn’t like that and gave control of the Senate to Republicans, kicking Reid out. All completely lawful and within the Constitution.
Even if one likes what Mr. Obama has done–the result–the means are entirely wrong, unlawful, and harmful to America.”
On Friday, November 21, 2014, Americans rose from slumber in a new nation, a nation not conceived in liberty, nor dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.By the blatantly unconstitutional ruses of “prosecutorial discretion” and imperial impatience, President Obama has swept away any restraint on presidential whim. He now unquestionably rules by edict, and all Americans are no longer free men and women, but subjects liable to awaken tomorrow to find more and more of their liberty, their opportunity, their ability to live their lives as they choose, gone.
President Obama has thrown down the last, definitive card. If all of his previous usurpations of the powers of the legislative branch, if every instance of his demonstrated contempt for the very real and specific constitutional limitations on executive power were not enough, his immigration power grab has made it plain: if he gets away with it…
View original post 1,524 more words
Keith Hennessey, has a great break-down on Gruber, the MIT economist and his view on the “stupidity of American voters”. The same thought process is often applied to other Progressive policies, like Climate Warming, Immigration, Voter ID, etc. I will expound on one of his points of utilizing experts and science as validation for their policies in another post.
Now in its sixth season the CBS legal, political drama “The Good Wife” is still one of the best reviewed and critically acclaimed series on TV. It is also very Progressive and it is not afraid to let this be known. The series is based in Chicago, the protagonist Alicia Florrick is the wife of now governor Peter Florrick who in the start of the series was a disgraced States Attorney facing charges of corruption and an infidelity scandal. Taking cues from the Clinton and Eliot Spitzer scandals The Good Wife’s creators Robert and Michelle King have woven a series that demonstrates Progressive thinking and displays it for the country to see.
The characters in the show seem a checklist of constituencies for Progressive. It features Alicia Florrick, the good wife who gave up a promising law career to raise a family and help her husband’s political career, later she stood by him when he was plagued by scandals. Peter Florrick disgraced DA who fails upward, into the Governor’s Mansion, Eli Gold the Jewish lawyer and fixer, a gay brother, a bi-sexual investigator whose methods are questionable, the only Black recurring character was according to the show the largest and ruthless drug-dealer in the city, in this season he is implicated in at least 3 murders.
It is no wonder that Progressive leaders from Valerie Jarrett, Gloria Steinem, Bill DeBlasio and Donna Brazille (3 times) have made cameos on the show but aside of showing how Progressive thinking works in TV land it also shows how easily discarded their principles are. In this season of the show Alicia is running for District Attorney’s office making the show more political than in the past not that the show lacked that aspect before. If you want to see Progressive ideas and thoughts acted in action this is a great place to start.
There has been an uproars in Conservatives sites about Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was instrumental in not just devising Obamacare but in ensuring that the CBO (to whom he is one of its academic advisers) would score it positively. At the same time he was instrumental in hiding the taxes that were hidden as fees to dupe the people into supporting the bill.
If that was not bad enough, he is seen gloating about how successful he was at this. The condescending attitude he displays rather gleefully as he spikes the football is infuriating to not just Conservatives but to many others including some supporters of the law. For an economist he puts partisanship above his trade as he is quoted as saying in this Esquire Magazine interview from November 13:
“What I don’t get is these stupid governors who are turning down the Medicaid expansion,” he said. “This is preposterously stupid. First of all, your low-income people get health-insurance, and you get billions and billions of dollars of stimulus in health-care spending. For example, there are one million uninsured Floridians who are below the poverty line. The federal government is saying we’ll pay to insure them, and, in addition, we’re sending billions of dollars to you. And Rick Scott says no. There is no basis for turning this down except to put your political agenda ahead of the needs of your state’s citizens. They say they’re worried about the federal deficit? Why? They’re governors, for god’s sake. This is one of the criminal failures of our political system. It is an enormous failure.”
He arrogantly sees as a failure for Governors, not all of whom were Democrats of not accepting “Free Money”, but it is really free money? Of course not, and no matter how creative he was in designing the law nothing can hide that. After 2 years those same Governors would have to find the funds on their own to cover the new expensive entitlement program, which seems to be ACA’s only success, expanding Medicaid enrollment. All the other promises decreasing premiums, keeping your doctor, budget neutral have all fallen by the wayside and the law in not fully implemented, yet.
In the The Good Wife, Alicia can sermonize about standing by your man, pretend she is not an atheist, defend a notorious Drug Kingpin, only to drop him as a client because is now a liability as she runs for office of DA, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The show also excuses the illegalities of their own investigator, who bribes, intimidates, break-ins, steals, etc., does anything that she can to help her employers win their cases. The end always justifies the means.
The Legacy Media or MSM as I like to call them, has circled their wagons around Gruber. As Allahpundit reported here:
Those in the center-left press who have deigned to debase themselves by addressing a story of interest to conservatives insist that there is nothing much to see here. Not only was Gruber’s admission that the ACA was designed to hide its true costs and impact on the American economy already widely known, they say, but that the American public is generally to blame for Gruber’s mendacity.
They hate it when they have to hurt you, so don’t make them do it.
The Progressives and only them know what is good for you. The American people are too stupid to understand the nuances of such policies, so it is necessary to lie and hide the effects of those policies. The same can be said about other pet projects of Progressives, Global warming, immigration, minimum wages, unions, common core, etc. They know what is best, they need to get over on those stupid Bible Thumpers as Gruber is quoted on one of the 5 videos that have surfaced so far, the end justifies it.
Progressives wanted Health Care Reform, they got reform, that it has helped some people there no doubt. That it has hurt many others there is also no doubt, that it will negatively affect more people than those that have been help time will tell. As Eli Gold tells Alicia paraphrasing; “Americans don’t want the truth, they want nicely staged events where we tell them what the truth is”. That is how Progressives view Americans a gullible audience waiting to applaud their dressed up product, nothing more.
Elections season is over. There are some celebrating, while others are still in shock. The finger-pointing has begun for some, while others are lining up the excuses. Others on the other hand are trying to game the system because it failed them.
The President has invalidated the results because only 1/3rd of the Nation bothered to vote in the Mid-Terms, leaving the other 2/3rds without a say in the matter. We cannot take the word of the minority as either a mandate or rebuke to his party or his policies.
The Tyranny of the Minority, is that they flipped the Senate from Democrat Party control to Republican, a terrible thing, indeed! How can we allow a minority of the people have the control to make such momentous decisions! It was not a national election! It was just a … National Election where all the seats in Congress we up for grabs and 36 of the 100 Senates seats would be determined. Oh, I almost forgot 72% of the State Governors (36) were up for election as well.
I would say that the President misspoke, it is just as likely that 2/3rds of the country opposed him and just voted by not bothering to cast a vote. Or that since he personalized the election when he said on Oct 2nd; “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” that only 1/3rd of the population supports his administration and that is why the Republicans won.
More telling is that the first minority-elected President would use this argument or excuse as to why the Republicans gains are not meaningful is more important. After all his coalition that got him elected and re-elected is composed of minority groups which he managed to play against each other in order to win. Now that this coalition is not succeeding he just dismisses the results.
There are others making this same argument as this editorial from Newark’s Star-Ledger complains:
The problem is that all states, big or small, get the same two seats in the Senate. That gives a nearly vacant state like Wyoming the same heft as California or New York. It gives a voter in Cheyenne 66 times more power than a voter in San Francisco in shaping the Senate.
Tom Moran the author of the editorial is not stopping there, he cites another reason for the Republican’s success which also blames those long dead “White Guys” (Founding Fathers) that wrote the Constitution.
The founders gave states the power to draw their own district lines, and both political parties have used it shamelessly through our history. The core idea is to draw district lines so that your opponents win big in just a few districts, wasting as many votes as possible.
Republicans happen to have the advantage after the 2010 census, so it was their turn to make mischief.
Gerrymandering, named after Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and salamander in 1812 after he redrew an district that had the shape of a salamander. This excuse which I have seen repeated in several Leftist sites and repeated by several Prog commentators is especially rich, since gerrymandering has long been used by Democrats to preserve “Minority Districts”, and would have not effect on state-wide Senate or Governor races where Congressional Districts don’t apply.
The same gerrymandering that produced Texas 30th Congressional District created in 1991 after the 1990 decennial Census allotted Texas extra seats.
This was one of 3 such districts that were intended to increase minority voting districts. Texas Governor George Bush opposed the new district as racial considerations were only considerations to the districts odd dimensions. In 1996, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision agreed and the district had to be redrawn. There are many District 30s out there but since districts are only redrawn every 10 years, unless there is a change of party affiliation in charge there is not impetus to fix the gerrymander.
Many of those complaining about gerrymandering are on record as supporting the practice in order to increase minority voting districts and increase their odds of gaining control of Congress. Now that the Congressional map is not as favorable this old dead White Guy legacy has to be relegated to history and State with a larger population need a larger proportion of Senators.
The Republicans won big, not only did they flipped the Senate, they also padded their Majority in Congress. They also added 3 extra more Governors with the Alaska still in contention but who regardless of the winner will caucus with the Republicans. That would make 29-30 Governors out of the 50 States. Some minority!
I guess this is more indicative of Progressives mentality, it is only good if it helps their cause. Otherwise it is antiquated, misguided, discriminatory and worst of all conservative. The idea of 2 Senators per State was designed with express purpose of preventing larger more populous States of being able to solely dictate policy and demolish the participation of smaller less populous States. Originally, the State’s Legislature would pick who would represent their own States.
This arrangement worked well until 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified. Long sought by Progressives since the 1890’s and its chief supporter Williams Jennings Bryan who ran for President 3 times losing in every occasion, and was serving as President Wilson’s Secretary of State at the time of the Amendment passage.
Interesting enough the 1890’s (the process had started years earlier) the Democrats regaining control of Southern States and changing their own Constitutions to restrict the Black vote. Poll taxes, grandfather laws and other means were used to restrict or deny the Black population their right to vote especially since in many Southern States Blacks constituted a large part of the population, a majority in many of those same States.
I should also note that the first Black Senator, Hiram Rhodes Revels in 1871 and the second Blanche Bruce in 1875 were both elected by the Mississippi Legislature under the original system. It was not until Edward William Brooke III from Mass. was elected in 1966 that we would see another Black Senator in Congress. All 3 were also Republican. This election Republican Tim Scoot became the 1st Black Senator elected by popular vote in the former Confederate States.
The MSM has made much of the perceived ideological Right shift of the Republican Party, emphasis and demonizing the Tea Party influence for instance. The ideological shift Left of the Democrat Party which began in control its caucus in 2006 has been all but ignored. In 2006 the dissatisfaction with the Middle East Wars, the misrepresentation of the Bush Administration’s handling of Katrina among other things paved the way for the 2008 election of President Obama in a wave election as a result of that;
In 2009, Democrats had 60 senators, when you include the two independents who caucused with them; in 2015, they will have 45.
In 2009, Democrats had 256 members of the House; in 2015, they will have 192.
In 2009, Democrats had 28 governors; in 2015, they will have 18.
In 2009, Democrats controlled both legislative chambers in 27 states; in 2015, they will control only 11.
In 2009, Democrats controlled 62 legislative chambers; in 2015, they will control only 28 (with one tie and two still undecided).
The results of those 2 elections were rolled back beginning in the wave 2010 elections by the Republicans and in 2012 though minor loses on National offices, there made gains in many States in local elections, either consolidating or flipping local Legislatures.
MId-terms elections are really about your motivating your base. Historically, the President’s party suffers some loses in Mid-Terms only 3 times in 1934, 1998 and 2002 have the President’s party made gains on the Mid-Terms. Looking at shorter-term trends, after this past election it would mean that from 1994 until at least 2016 the Republicans would have control of the Senate for 12 yrs and House for 18 yrs something that should concern the Democrats.
The successes of by the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 appear an aberration rather than a trend. If President Obama and his Party want to deceive themselves and believe the cheering media that is on them. In the meantime as the President alluded to the Tyranny of the Minority will continue. How long before this minority is considered a majority, I guess we will have to wait until 2016.