Barack Obama: The New Race-Baitor In The White House

Yes, you read the title correctly. I purposely wrote it that way and will stand by it, especially after an interview he gave that was published in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. Basically, Obama reasserted his promises to make sure that Hispanics and blacks are scrutinized less by the criminal justice simply because of their skin color, no matter what the severity of the crime or how much evidence is against them. Obama might as well have said that if a white person commits a crime, prosecute them to the full extent of the law, but if a non-white commits the same crime, let them go because of their skin color.

It may be that I am being blunt, but taking someone's skin color into consideration is a complete departure from Dr. Martin Luther King who said that "content of character" was paramount and "color of skin" should not be considered at all.

Writing for Front Page Magazine, John Perazzo looks at the issue more closely and brings up some very thought provoking points. It turns out that racial profiling does not play a significant role in the judicial system decision making process, but that other factors do:

The most exhaustive, best designed study of this matter—a three-year analysis of more than 11,000 convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of offenders’ sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes. Race was found to have no effect whatsoever. In fact the researcher, Joan Petersilia, was forced to admit that these results contradicted conclusions she had drawn from an earlier study—in which she had not taken prior convictions and the use of firearms into account.

But what about the race issue? Where is that coming from?

Read this:

Black overrepresentation is almost entirely at the arrest stage—reflecting the simple fact that the “average” black breaks the law more frequently than the “average” white.

And this:

The National Crime Victimization Surveys, conducted annually by the Census Bureau, show that statistically the “average” black is far more likely than the “average” white to be identified, by a victim or witness, as the perpetrator of a violent crime. This racial gap, moreover, is approximately equal to the racial gap in actual arrest rates. “As long ago as 1978,” says Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald, “a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim identifications and in arrests—a finding replicated many times since, across a range of crimes.”

The fact that blacks engage in more crimes than whites is never mentioned by Old Media and was certainly not mentioned by the Barack Obama campaign or transition team. It is an embarrassment to them to tell the truth about this issue. If they did tell the truth, they wouldn't be able to play the race card.

In fact, the decisions after the arrest tend to favor blacks more than whites:

More:

At all the decision points subsequent to arrest, the outcomes are virtually identical for blacks and whites alike—and the slight differences that do exist tend to favor blacks.[2] In studies that consider all relevant variables—such as the defendant’s prior criminal record, the severity of the crime in question, the offender’s demeanor with police, whether a weapon was used, and whether the crime in question was victim-precipitated—no differences have been found in sentencing patterns, either in relation to the victim’s race or the offender’s race.[3]

Barack Obama's comments about the alleged disparities in the criminal justice system are nothing more than attempts at race-baiting a la Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright. For a man who says he didn't know about Wright's racial tirades and would have left the church had he known, Obama sure does seem to want to implement Wright's philosophy of racial hatred in his policies.

While Obama harps on this, notice that he is also ignoring things like the fact that inter-racial crime is more likely to be black-on-white than any other scenario. If Obama really wants to be the "post-racial" candidate, rather than the same-old, same-old race-baitor of the past thirty years, he will demonstrate "change" by taking the racial rhetoric out of his policies and go foward with Dr. King's dream of "not by color of skin but by content of character" fresh in his mind.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama: Tilting At Racial Windmills
John Perrazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com
December 16, 2008

Dennis Prager: Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride

Let's start off with Dennis Prager's first few paragraphs:

Gay Pride. Jewish Pride. Black pride. Hispanic Pride. Multiculturalism. Ethnic pride. Minority rights vs. tyranny of the majority.

That's right. You can't turn anywhere these days without seeing something about celebrating any one of these issues. But what you don't see is any celebration of white Christian heterosexual males.

In fact, usually, the only time you ever hear about white Christian heterosexual males is when some activist group has something bad to say about them or is criticizing them for some imagined transgression.

Why does one almost never hear expressions of group shame from members of any American group other than white Christians (specifically, white Christian male heterosexuals)? Are the only evildoers in America white male heterosexual Christians? Is there something inherently wrong about members of minorities expressing anything but group pride? Are there no minority sins worthy of shame? The latter is in fact the argument advanced by many intellectuals concerning black racism, for example. For a generation, college students have been taught that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because only the racial group in power, i.e. whites, can express racism. Of course, that is nonsense. A black can be a racist just as a white can be one. A minority race might not have the power to implement racist national policies but that hardly means that no minority group, or any individual, can be a racist.

Yes, it is nonsense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a prime example of a black racist. So are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and several recent leaders of the NAACP.

From Old Media, we are bombarded with ideas that only whites can be racist or prejudicial. Reality shows otherwise. For example, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report shows clearly that most inter-racial crimes are black on white crimes. Further, it also shows that blacks are more likely to be victims of crimes committed by other blacks than by whites. And yet, only the white on black crime ever makes the news.

And gay pride? Where is the pride in being the major group vector for HIV infections? I never hear any gay leaders expressing regret that the homosexual community is still leading the spread of AIDS. Or how about terrorizing a little old lady in California? Where is the pride in that?

Prager has more examples of a serious skew in pride vs. shame:

The relative absence of expressions of shame in the Muslim world over the atrocities committed in Islams name is an example of the above. The labeling of blacks who express shame over disproportionate rates of violent crime and out-of-wedlock births in the black community as Uncle Toms is another. The absence of any expression of shame in the gay community over the current blacklisting -- and attempts to economically destroy -- anyone who donated to the California proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman is another example.

This column is very thought provoking on many levels. Read it and then ask yourself, "Would I be proud if my ethnic/social group engaged in such shameful behavior?"

Prager's parting shot:

Expressing group shame when morally necessary is not airing dirty linen or giving solace to ones ideological enemies. It is, rather, one of the highest expressions of moral development. And it is therefore universally applicable. Being a minority doesnt exempt its members from moral responsibility. It will be a great day for America and the world when minorities begin to express shame as well as pride. In fact, there is real pride in expressing shame. Minorities should give it a try.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride
Dennis Prager
TownHall.com
December 16, 2008

Democrat-Controlled Congress Still A Do-Nothing On Energy Prices, Obama's 'Post-Racial Reparations' And How Networks Use Blacks

Okay, some good stuff to look at and chew on today as you go through your daily life. We have a Do-Nothing, Dem-Controlled Congress doing everything in its power to ensure that gas prices remain high. Sean Lengell of the Washington Times has written a pretty comprehensive article about this.

Excerpt:

Lawmakers failed again Wednesday to reach a compromise on how to address the rising cost of gasoline, with no deal in sight before Congress adjourns for its five-week summer break on Friday. The impasse centers on Republican demands that any energy plan include a provision to expand domestic oil drilling to areas currently off-limits, including a wildlife reserve in northern Alaska and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Democrats oppose the idea, saying oil companies already have millions of available drilling acres on land they're not using.

But the Dems seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact the reason the oil companies are not drilling on the lands they're not using is because ... (hang on to your seats) ... there is no oil under those lands! The Dems and libs are actually complaining that there is no drilling on lands under which there is no oil!

But this gets better:

Senate Republicans Wednesday blocked a wide-ranging Democratic measure that would extend tax breaks to an array of renewable-energy entrepreneurs. The measure, which also called for tax breaks for teachers, businesses and parents, failed to proceed on a vote of 51-43, with 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

Another concept that the Dems are completely incapable of grasping is that alternative energy is not a viable solution to the problem we have now. If you look at what energy sources compose what percentage of our energy supply, you will see that alternative sources are less than eight percent of the total. Getting that percentage over even twenty percent is not feasible at our present level of technology. Further, there are no prospects for any massive breakthroughs in research on these alternative technologies to make a large increase feasible. The Dems are literally trying to fund a pipe-dream while simultaneously punishing energy suppliers who have proven track records of supplying the energy we need.

But really, the problem is that Democrats Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are worshipping at the alter of environmental extremists and are constantly maneuvering to in order to satisfy that small minority to the detriment of the majority.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, had earlier this week offered Republicans four amendments after Republicans requested dozens. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, on Wednesday said he agreed to the offer, but Mr. Reid denied a compromise had been reached. "We've tried so hard to do something on energy. We've been trying for months," said Mr. Reid. "But Republicans have basically rejected everything." Republicans said Democrats balked after calling their bluff, adding that Democratic leaders are afraid to allow a vote on any Republican proposal to increase domestic oil production because they fear many of their members would cross party lines and support such a measure. "Democrats keep moving the goal posts," said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart. "They can't take 'yes' for an answer."

Given Reid's questionable ethics and Pelosi's antics over in the House, I am more inclined to believe Senator McConnell.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Energy Compromise Elusive As Recess Looms
Sean Lengell
The Washington Times
July 31, 2008

---

Barack Obama claims to be "post-racial." But is he? Will his actions equal his words? Not according to James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal.

Here is what he writes:

One of the most appealing features of the Barack Obama candidacy is the idea that Obama is "postracial"--that he is a candidate who is black and does not practice the adversarial politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. ... But a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin raises serious questions about Obama's postracialism. The paper describes an Obama appearance at Unity '08, "a convention of four minority journalism associations": "I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said. "I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

That sounds to me exactly like the politics of race used by Jesse "Love Child" Jackson and Al Sharpton. Taranto takes it even further:

Exactly what Obama is advocating here cannot be determined, but it seems to be something of an endorsement of the idea of "reparations for slavery," which is usually taken to mean cash payments. In this view, the following deeds are insufficient to balance the ledger between America and the descendants of slaves: the Civil War, the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the continuing practice of racial preferences. The idea of reparations is highly unpopular, and with good reason. Unlike the Japanese-Americans who in 1988 received compensation for their internment by a Democratic administration in the grips of wartime hysteria, no one alive today has ever been a slave. The idea of the government cutting checks to compensate people for a wrong that they did not personally suffer is unlikely to appeal to anyone except perhaps those who stand to receive those checks.

That's it. It's all about buying votes from the black community. Too bad. It shows that King's dream of "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" may have been completely thrown under the bus by a black candidate.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Check, Please
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
July 30, 2008

---

And what does Old Media think about race-relations? Larry Elder exposes that very nicely with a letter he received from a friend who participated in one of those racial "specials." From Larry's TownHall column:

Dear Larry, OK, Larry, I grew up a bit last night. Those (unflattering descriptive deleted) at that news network on cable used me like a two-dollar whore! I interviewed with them for almost 10 hours, and all that talk was whittled down into five-second sound bites that put me in a rather negative light. Part of our talk was about the crack epidemic. I spoke about the way we are fighting this drug war, which we should approach as a health issue as opposed to a law enforcement problem. I talked about the impact single parenthood has on crime rates. … I talked and talked. They edited it all down to, "If you don't want to go to jail, don't sell crack." I am really angry. The "wretched blackness" slant was so clear. I was on live for the half-hour preceding the beginning of the program. They ran a long segment with a black comedian/actor, talking about how he tells his son each and every day about how to talk to the police and how black men must be wary of cops. They cut to me, and I said that I was certainly in agreement that we need to talk to our children about respecting authority, but I also wondered if the comedian/actor talked to his son about the proper color shirt to wear in case some knuckleheads have a dislike of the color red or blue. The truth is that his son has more to fear from other young black men than he does from the police. I then quoted a homicide statistic: 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other black people. It was dismissed by the moderator so we could focus instead on how racist the cops are. Unbelievable. It should not surprise me, then, that producers and editors would give liberal, hypersensitive blacks room to make their points -- even if they were factually untrue. They spoke to a professor from Columbia, who was droning on about how the legacy of slavery is to account for blacks' out-of-wedlock birthrate. Slavery?! This nonsense was seconded by another panelist. When I corrected them and said that the out-of-wedlock rate was lower during Jim Crow … eyes began rolling, and my point was ignored in order to move on. And I was reduced to sound bites. Had to vent a bit. --Your friend.

If anyone here is the least bit surprised, please leave a comment and tell us why.

But Larry gives the real reasons for what is happening in the black community:

The problems of the "black community" have to do with the welfare-state-induced breakdown (or, more accurately, non-formation) of the family. This causes a disinterest in education, and leads to poor values, reckless and irresponsible breeding, as well as a lack of the job skills necessary in an information-age society. We also have grievance groups -- black "leaders"; the oh-so-sympathetic media; fear- and guilt-laden whites who refuse to say (as they do to their own children) work hard and play by the rules; and many reluctant blacks who refuse to preach the message of "no excuses, hard work" for fear of being labeled "Uncle Toms."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

A Black Conservative Lament
Larry Elder
TownHall.com
July 31, 2008