Posts

VIDEO: Why I Painted Over the BLM Mural in NYC.

This new episode of The Glazov Gang features Bevelyn Beatty, a Christian evangelist who is co-Founder of atwellministries.org.

Bevelyn explains Why I Painted Over the BLM Mural in NYC, revealing the war we’re in – and why she’s on the frontlines.

WATCH:

©All rights reserved.

RELATED:

Homosexuality Is the New Black

In order to have a fully functioning society, we must have some common baseline of beliefs that join us together, whether it’s a fraternity, a church, or a political party. Without this commonality, belonging to a group or a society is impossible.

We hold these trues to be self-evident: the Earth is round, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Barack Obama is the president of the United States, and if you are born with a penis you are a male. If you are born with a vagina you are a female.

Oh-oh! These last two are going to get me in trouble. Now I will be called homophobic, hateful, un-Christian, a divider, not fit for public service, unfit for management in corporate America, etc., but the question is, “Why?”

In God’s senility, he has become so old and feeble that he is making a lot of mistakes. He is mistakenly putting penises on girls and vaginas on boys. As the philosopher Protagoras argued, “Man has become the measure of all things.” This was the essence of the philosophy called relativism.

Many Christians and conservatives have willingly bowed at the altar of political correctness for political gain. Why do we feel the need to apologize for not wanting a man going to same bathroom as our 14 year-old daughter? Why do we feel the need to apologize for not wanting a woman going to the same bathroom as our 16 year-old son?

Spineless corporate America has never shown in any principles when it has come to issues of right and wrong. They respond only to profit and liberal orthodoxy. Why would a business oppose legislation describing those born with a penis as male and those born with a vagina as female?

These orbiters of “moral hypocrisy” have come out of the closet, literally, against the state of North Carolina because their governor, Pat McCrory, recently signed legislation codifying the biological principle of male and female.

How this bill, HB2, is being described as hateful and discriminatory is baffling to me. Singer Bruce Springsteen has made this his cause célèbre by cancelling his upcoming concert in Greensboro, North Carolina. Bruce seemed to have gotten laryngitis when it came to the lack of any Black actor nominees for the past two years for the Academy Awards, but I digress.

If the corporate community showed the same amount of outrage over the “real” discrimination towards the Black community, we would have more Blacks in the executive suites and on their corporate boards.

According to 2013 research by Richard L. Zweigenhaft of Guilford College, the board of directors of Fortune 500 companies are 87.2 percent White (about 75 percent male), 6.8 percent Black (5.3 percent male), 3.1 percent Latino (2.4 percent male), and 2.4 percent Asian (2 percent male).

Now let’s look at sports.

Based on 2013 research from Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, 19 percent of NBA players are White, but 98 percent of majority owners and 64 percent of the league office staff is White. In comparison, Blacks account for 76 percent of NBA players, and roughly 2 percent of majority owners and 18 percent of league office staff. In the NFL, Whites account for 30 percent of the players and 97 percent of majority owners. Even though 66 percent of NFL players are Black, not a single majority owner in the NFL is African American. When it comes to diversity in ownership, coaching positions and league office staff in the NBA and the NFL, Hispanics and Asians often fare worse.

Blacks account for 13.2 percent of the U.S. population, Hispanics make up 17.4 percent of the population and Asians account for 5.4 percent of the population. Homosexuals are estimated to be 3 percent of the U.S. population, but corporations are more aggressively seeking diversity based on sexual preferences than other measures of diversity.

Based on the above numbers, corporations, the NBA and the NFL should focus more on the lack of diversity among Blacks and Latinos on their corporate boards and the ownership and management of professional sporting teams;, not on this radical leftist agenda to allow confused people to go into bathrooms with people of the opposite sex.

The homosexual community has done a masterful job at the old art of bait and switch. They have portrayed their issue as one of equality, but their real goal is to obtain “legal status” as a protected class in order to get their radical agenda codified into law. All this other stuff is simply background noise.

Isn’t it amazing that former homosexual football player, Michael Sam, recently told Attitude Magazine, “It’s terrible. You want to be accepted by other people, but you don’t even accept someone just because of the color of their skin? I just don’t understand that at all. How are you saying that, “oh, I want people to accept me because I’m gay, but I don’t accept you because you’re Black or because you’re White or because you’re Asian.”

But yet, the corporate community throws millions of dollars at the white homosexual community despite their well-known discrimination of Black homosexuals. Can someone please reconcile this fact for me?

These same corporations that are criticizing HB2 in North Carolina are actively doing and pursuing business in countries that are the most repressive in the world in their treatment of homosexuals.

The NBA plays several exhibition games in China and spends millions of dollars advertising in this country. Google, PayPal, Facebook, Delta Airlines, Hilton Hotels, and Coca-Cola do millions of dollars of business in Saudi Arabia, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.

So, if they are so concerned about the treatment of homosexuals, why do they do business in these repressive countries?

This has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with the politics. Homosexuals don’t deserve special treatment based on their sexual preferences, but they do deserve equal treatment based on their humanity.

RELATED VIDEO: Homosexuality – Persons with same sex attractions deserve our respect and compassion. But the militant gay movement’s message that ‘gay’ is good is completely false. This lie is confusing society and hurting the individuals themselves.

RELATED ARTICLE: What goes on at a school “gay straight alliance” club event? Here’s the horrific truth.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

U.S. Census Bureau: Demographic and Economic Profiles of Iowa’s Electorate

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In advance of the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, the Census Bureau presents a variety of statistics that give an overall profile of each state’s voting-age population and industries. This is the first in a series of such profiles for all the states holding primaries or caucuses. Statistics include:

cb16-tps09_graphic_voting_iowa

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov

The Rampant Racists of Tinsel Town by Ivan Betinov

37270-Whats-black-and-never-works---Racist-meme

Graphic by Navigator.

It’s official, movie fans: all of the cinema celebrities, heretofore the paragons of Progressive thought, are actually a sinister conspiracy of racists.

For the SECOND year in a row, not a single actress actor performer of color was nominated for ANY of the top slots in the Oscars. This can obviously be due to ONLY one thing: RACISM!

Of the some 2,900 films released in 2015, only eight were nominated. And not one of those eight were primarily about Black topics or starred black actors in the lead. This means that some TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY-TWO films were denied nomination. And the ONLY cause a film can be denied nomination is RACISM!

There are over 7,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Twenty performers were nominated, total, for best actor or actress, or supporting actor or actress. Not ONE of them is an actor or actress of color. That means that THOUSANDS of actors and actresses DID NOT RECEIVE A NOMINATION for these awards. And the only reason an actor or actress can be denied a nomination is RACISM!

The only possible way to remedy this situation is to mandate that at least one out of every three nominations goes to a person of color, and that at least one award in each category go to one of the nominees of color.

This mandated win will affirm that black actors, actresses, and film makers will know that their peers truly respect their talent on the basis solely of their race, as that is the important thing.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

University to Hold ‘Segregated’ Diversity Workshops on Race

This month, to relatively little outrage or public notice, Oregon State University is holding segregated “diversity” sessions for students, staff, and faculty. At “retreats,” students and faculty will learn about identity and micro-agressions (for example: expressing a belief in merit, wearing an offensive Halloween costume, or having someone feel like she does not belong).

The Daily Caller reports that a total of four workshops will be held: one for non-white students, another for white students (to educate them about their “white privilege”), one for multi-racial students, and one for white faculty and staff called “Examining White Identity.”

The testimonials at the university’s website indicate that the sessions are sure to foster more “cry-bullies,” as we saw on campuses across the country in 2015. And it seems that among Oregon State’s 30,000 students, none raised significant objections to funding being spent on segregated sessions.

This same outrage almost happened in 2013 at Hamilton College, too. But that proposed segregated “dialogue” never went forward, thanks to students affiliated with the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization (AHI).

In 2013, from the lavishly funded on-campus Days-Massolo Center (ironically founded “to embrace the importance of supporting a diverse and inclusive community”), an email was sent inviting students to participate in a “dialogue about internalized racism.” The “dialogue,” however, was for “people of color” only. Another dialogue for white students and faculty was promised for the following semester, and the program would have culminated in a non-segregated session.

AHI students, led by senior Dean Ball, got the administration to back down.

Ball described what happened in a blog post at Legal Insurrection, a site run by Cornell law professor William A. Jacobson, a Hamilton College alum who has been dismayed by what’s been going on at the small elite liberal arts college.

Ball described speaking to Amit Taneja — Hamilton College’s “Director of Diversity & Inclusion” — and expressing dismay at this new form of segregation. Taneja, without any evidence, told Ball that his views were in the “minority” of the student body.

Ball pointed out that Taneja’s job description was to protect minorities.

Ball was a leader of the 150-member student body at the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, an independent non-profit education corporation founded by three Hamilton College faculty members: history professors Robert Paquette and Douglas Ambrose, and economics professor James Bradfield. The three were concerned about the decline of academic standards and loss of freedom. As Paquette puts it, AHI upholds the “ethos of a liberal arts education,” countering the all-too common liberal arts college’s “political agenda that masks a totalitarian impulse in a utopian illusion.”

The AHI offers students educational opportunities they rarely get in college: exposure to Augustine, Plato, and Leo Strauss through reading groups; lectures on and off campus by distinguished scholars and writers; the opportunity to write for a student newspaper, Enquiry, that respects their opinions; and internships, directed readings, and social gatherings at the AHI building on the village square, about 1.5 miles from the campus on the hill.

The center was originally to be on campus, but found itself the target of a faculty-led hostile takeover attempt. The story is related in the New Criterion; I now live in the building as one of two resident fellows.

The AHI students contacted the media, prepared a petition for Hamilton’s board of trustees, and wrote an op-ed for the student newspaper. They also sent out a campus-wide email with the heading “RACIAL SEGREGATION AT HAMILTON.” The email stated:

“The Alexander Hamilton Institute believes that no safe zone is worth the price of segregation. All are welcome to join us for a conversation on race.”

That was enough to get Taneja to open the “dialogue” to all races. That victory, however, marked the beginning of the harassment of Ball and other AHI students.

That very night, Ball was threatened with violence and accused of white supremacy, almost entirely by students he had never met. His Twitter and Facebook feeds were filled with “both fury and support over what the AHI had done.”

The following Monday, September 23, his character was attacked at the Student Assembly meeting, which, according to the SA president, drew more students than he’d ever seen. The next morning Ball found the campus littered with “hundreds of pieces of paper posted on trees, windows, doors, and everywhere else imaginable” with sayings about social justice from luminaries like Tupac Shakur.

Ball concluded:

“Hamilton’s campus was no ‘safe zone’ for me or anyone sympathetic to what the Alexander Hamilton Institute did.”

Now manager of state and local policy at the Manhattan Institute, Ball recalls those days. Although it was a student-led initiative, “[w]e always knew we had the full-throated support of [Executive Director] Professor Paquette and everyone else at AHI.” The agreement was implicit: “Professor Paquette and I had been through enough of these incidents at this point that this dynamic between us was understood.”

Paquette had challenged Taneja from the time of the self-identified social-justice activist’s hiring. Paquette recalls sending the trustees a lengthy letter in 2011 that used Taneja’s own words to describe who he was and to inform of what he intended to do as director of the “so-called cultural education (indoctrination) center.” Although the trustees and administration did not heed Paquette’s words in 2011, in 2013 AHI students forced Taneja’s hand.

To be sure, places like AHI can’t cure political correctness on our campuses. But when 19 year olds are surrounded by guest speakers like performance artist Rhodessa Jones, are ridiculed by their professors in class, and are punished for failing to complete assignments to their political specifications, it just takes a professor or two and a handful of peers to give them the confidence to face down the mobs of angry students and hostile administrators. Per Dean Ball:

“The AHI connected me to all of the like-minded students on campus and the AHI gave me the intellectual firepower I needed in the first place to effectively counter the administration’s tactics.”

In 20 years of teaching college English, I’ve rarely seen such poised, polite, well-rounded, and confident young people. They are polished writers and public speakers. I also recognize the students giving testimonials for the Oregon workshops, ending statements on question marks and repeating slogans like zombies. Sadly, they are far more common and their numbers have increased in recent years.

It looks like there is a need for something like the AHI in Oregon. Surely, there must be enough students there to confront this new form of Jim Crow: campus brainwashing sessions.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PJMedia.com.

How Affirmative Action Backfires by Richard Sander

Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court again this week, as it rehears arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas. (I’ve discussed the legal issues in Fisher here.)

But perhaps the most important question about racial preferences is one that’s not directly raised by the case: do they even work? Do they help underrepresented minorities to achieve their goals, and foster interracial interaction and understanding on elite campuses? Or do large preferences often “mismatch” students in campuses where they will struggle and fail?

Scholars began empirically studying the mismatch issue in the 1990s, but in the past five years the field has matured. There are now dozens of careful, peer-reviewed studies that find strong evidence of mismatch.

None of the authors of these studies claim that mismatch is a universal or inevitable consequence of affirmative action. But in my view, only demagogues (of which there is, unfortunately, no shortage) or people who haven’t read the relevant literature can still claim that mismatch is not a genuine problem.

It is helpful to think about mismatch as three interrelated phenomena that could affect a student of any race — let’s call her Sally — who receives a large admissions preference, so that she attends a college where her level of academic preparation is substantially below that of her peers.

First, “learning mismatch” occurs if Sally learns less than she would at a less competitive school, because the pace is too fast or her professors are pitching their material at a level that’s not ideal for her.

Others and I have argued that learning mismatch occurs on a massive scale in American law schools, where African-Americans (and some other students) tend to receive very large preferences and then, very often, are never able to practice law because they cannot pass bar exams.

Our best estimate is that only about one-third of black students who start law school in America successfully graduate and pass the bar exam on their first attempt (see my September 2006 blog post here).

A second form of mismatch — “competition” mismatch — occurs when students abandon particular fields, or college itself, because of the practical and psychological effects of competing with better-prepared students.

Suppose that Sally dreams of becoming a chemist, does very well in a standard high school chemistry course, and receives a preference into an elite school where most of her classmates have taken AP Chemistry. Even if Sally does not experience “learning” mismatch, she may nonetheless end up with a B- or a C in chemistry simply because of the strength of the competition.

A long line of studies (e.g., this excellent study by two psychologists) have shown that students receiving large preferences, facing these pressures, tend to abandon STEM fields in large numbers. Competition mismatch thus appears to have large and damaging effects on the number of African-Americans, in particular, graduating with science or engineering degrees.

The third type of mismatch — “social mismatch” — is in some ways the most intriguing.

Several studies have now found that college students are much more likely to form friendships with students who have similar levels of academic preparation or performance at college. The phenomenon operates even within racial groups, but when a college’s preferences are highly correlated with race (as they are at many elite schools), social mismatch can lead to self-segregation by minority students.

The result is decreased social interaction across racial lines. That’s particularly relevant to the Supreme Court’s deliberations because its tolerance of racial preferences has been based on the idea that a diverse racial campus promotes interracial contact and learning.

But if preferences promote substantial social mismatch, then race-conscious admissions actually decrease interracial contact and learning — not only at the school where the preferences are used, but also at the college that the preferenced minority student would have attended in the absence of preferences.

Of course, new studies of higher education come out all the time, and one can point to some study to argue almost any point. What makes the evidence of mismatch so compelling is the large number of very high-quality studies that have appeared in the past few years, performed by a wide array of scholars and appearing in the strongest academic journals that exercise the most stringent peer review.

For example, the highly-respected Journal of Economic Literature last year commissioned two economists to summarize the state of research on higher education mismatch. To ensure an impartial study, the two economists JEL selected started out with different views of mismatch: one was a skeptic, the other the author of research that had found evidence of mismatch. JEL also asked seven other economists, again representing a wide range of perspectives, to peer review the article when it was drafted.

The resulting article is circumspect, but unequivocal in finding that much of the evidence on mismatch (especially in law school and the sciences) is compelling.

The American Economic Review — one of the three or four top journals in the social sciences — also recently announced that it is publishing a comprehensive study of mismatch in the sciences. It takes advantage of an unusually large database from eight campuses of the University of California, covering the period before and after California voters, through Prop 209, made it illegal to consider of race in public college admissions.

The study could thus examine how UC students who, through racial preferences, attended the most elite UC campuses before Prop 209 compared with very similar students who attended less elite campuses after Prop 209.

Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban Aucejo, and Joseph Hotz conclude unequivocally: “We find less-prepared minority students at top-ranked campuses would have higher science graduation rates had they attended lower-ranked campuses.”

The gold standard for empirical research is a genuine experimental design, where a group of subjects are randomly assigned to “treatment” and “control” groups. While random experiments are routine in medical research, they are still uncommon in the social sciences. A revealing study of that kind was recently conducted by three economists working with the Air Force Academy. 

Based on other work, the researchers hypothesized that students entering the Academy with relatively weak academic preparation would learn more and do better if they were assigned to squadrons with particularly academically strong cadets, thus creating opportunities for mentoring and tutoring. The Academy agreed to do a large randomized experiment, assigning some of the targeted students to the experimental squadrons with strong peers, and other students to “control” groups comprised of more typical students.

Again, the results were unequivocal: academically weak students in the experimental group learned less and got worse grades. Having much stronger students in the same squadron increased the weaker students’ tendency to form study groups with other weak students — a strong demonstration of “social mismatch.”

All this impressive research — and much more in a similar vein — has had little impact upon educational institutions. Even though many educational leaders will admit in private that the research is compelling, they believe that any public admission that racial preferences are counterproductive would be met with the sort of campus reaction that routinely drives college presidents from office.

For the same reason, university presidents and other educational leaders aggressively block the release of information vital to mismatch research — data which could, for example, help determine the border between small, safe preferences and large, harmful ones.

All of this should give the Supreme Court pause in assessing racial preferences. Past Court decisions have invoked a traditional deference to the independence of educational institutions. But colleges and universities have demonstrated that they are politically incapable of acting as good fiduciaries for their most vulnerable students.

A version of this post first appeared at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Richard Sander
Richard Sander

Richard Sander is an economist and law professor at UCLA, where he has taught since 1989.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Mismatched’ black students pay the price of affirmative action – The Boston Globe

Student Demands: Conformity, Thought Police, Show Trials by Walter Olson

Of the demands being made by protesters in the current wave of unrest on American campuses, some no doubt are well grounded and worth considering. Some of them, on the other hand, challenge academic freedom head on.

Some would take control of curriculum and hiring out of the hands of faculty. Some would enforce conformity of thought. Some would attack the rights of dissenters. Some would merely gut the seriousness of the university.

Last night I did a long series of tweets drawing on a website which sympathetically compiles demands from campus protests — TheDemands.org — and noting some of the more troublesome instances:

  • From Dartmouth: “All professors will be required to be trained in not only cultural competency but also the importance of social justice in their day-to-day work.”
  • From Wesleyan: “An anonymous student reporting system for cases of bias, including microaggressions, perpetrated by faculty and staff.”
  • From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “White professors must be discouraged from leading and teaching departments about demographics and societies colonized, massacred, or enslaved under white supremacy.”
  • From Guilford College: “We suggest that every week a faculty member come forward and publicly admit their participation in racism inside the classroom via a letter to the editor” in the college paper.

My series drew and continues to draw a strong reaction. Now I’ve Storified the tweets as a single narrative, including some of the responses. Read it here.

Cross-posted from Overlawyered.

Walter OlsonWalter Olson

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

Biker Shootout: Libs Going Wacko over Race in Waco

Leftists are upset about what they view as a double standard with respect to the Baltimore/Ferguson affair and the recent Waco gang shootout. They’re right, too — there sure is a double standard.

And, as usual, it’s their own.

Consider, for example, an Associated Press piece by one Jesse J. Holland titled “Differing perceptions of Waco, Baltimore bothering some.” Holland starts out writing that the “prevailing images of protests in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, over police killings of black men were of police in riot gear, handcuffed protesters, tear gas and mass arrests. The main images of a fatal gun battle between armed bikers and police in Waco, Texas, also showed mass arrests — carried out by nonchalant-looking officers sitting around calm bikers on cellphones.” The idea is that while the black thugs in Baltimore and Ferguson received harsh treatment and coverage, the primarily white thugs in Waco were, relatively speaking, handled with kid gloves.

But pardon my tongue, this brings us to another complaint. Holland cites people who say that while Barack Obama and other politicians called the Baltimore miscreants “thugs,” no such descriptive is applied to the white Waco punks. He mentions in particular radio and TV commentator Roland Martin, who tweeted, “So the mainstream media refuses to talk (hashtag)WacoThugs, huh?” And Martin has a point: While the black Baltimore rioters and looters were called thugs, no white Waco rioters and looters were thus characterized. I wonder, why might that be?

Oh, yeah, that’s right: there are no white rioters and looters in Waco.

Minor details such as this seem to escape the notice of two-brain-cell journalists in search of a story, but a prerequisite for having “police in riot gear” is actually having, you know, a riot. The incident in Waco was an unforeseen event, meaning, the cops had no time to don any kind of special gear.

Perhaps they don’t teach proper analogizing in journalism school, but the Waco biker thugs aren’t analogous to the Baltimore rioter thugs; rather, they’re analogous to the person the latter were rioting over: drug dealer Freddie Gray. And no one went out of his way to call Gray a thug.

Martin also lamented that we won’t have a “panel discussion on their [the bikers’] childhood” or on “fatherless homes”; no doubt, as the media will soon drop the story. This is largely because they don’t have a black-on-white racial angle to play up, but also for another reason:

Whites won’t be rallying to the defense of the biker thugs.

Matters are proceeding as they should. The police went to the scene of the crime, fired on the thugs when necessary (perhaps killing some), brought matters to a conclusion and they made arrests — 170 of them. Moreover, all people, including whites, want to see justice done. In fact, no small number of whites would no doubt say that more of the thugs should have been shot.

Oh, as for the adjectives, it’s self-evident that the Waco criminals are thugs. The reason why the point had to be made in Baltimore is that politicians, media propagandists and race-baiting activists had euphemized the rioters as “protesters” who cared about Freddie Gray (whom they would have knifed in a second for 50 bucks) and had legitimate grievances. So even Obama, in a rare and fleeting moment of lucidity, pointed out the obvious: get off it — they’re just thugs.

The irony of the Lamestream Media’s reporting on what’s a flawed conception of a double standard is that it was created by their own exercise of a true double standard. As black pundit Larry Elder reported, police shootings of black suspects are down 75 percent over the last several decades, but you wouldn’t know it from cherry-picked reportage that seems designed to incite racial unrest. Consider the following list of perspective-lending realities the media refuses to cover:

  • As Elder also wrote, “In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops — and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.”
  • Of course, blacks are only 13 percent of the population. So far more significantly and as this recent Washington State University study shows, police are actually more willing to shoot white than black suspects. Why? Because police know that, as Ferguson officer Darren Wilson’s experience illustrates, shooting a black criminal can mean media crucifixion, career destruction, death threats and, basically, the end of your life as you know it.
  • Black suspects are as likely to shoot at police as to be shot at.
  • Relative to whites, blacks are shot by police at a lower rate than their involvement in crime would suggest. As sociologist and ex-cop Professor Peter Moskos writes, “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks [to] die at the hands of police. Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
  • According to FBI statistics, 46 percent of those who’ve murdered police officers during the last decade have been black.
  • Blacks commit more than half of all murders nationwide. And 93 percent of all black homicide victims are murdered by other blacks.
  • Stories of generally “unarmed” white suspects being shot by minority police abound but are never reported nationally. There was 20-year old white man Dillon Taylor, who was shot by a Hispanic cop last year; Iraq military veteran James Whitehead, shot by off-duty black police officer Robert Arnold in Texas in 2011 after a verbal altercation; white teen Gil Collar, shot by a black officer at the University of Alabama in 2012; and 46-year-old white man John Geer, shot with his hands up (according to four police officers on the scene) by a Hispanic cop with “anger issues.”

This isn’t to imply that all the above shootings were unjust, but such a standard is hardly necessary for the media to play the race card when reporting the rare white-on-black shootings. In fact, the media will trumpet the causes of obvious thugs, such as Ferguson’s Michael Brown, Baltimore’s Freddie Gray and Trayvon Martin, even in the face of evidence that thugs are precisely what they are.

Speaking of which, what do you think about the coverage of that unarmed 17-year-old shot by that grown man?

No, not cute little Trayvon.

Seventeen-year-old white kid Chris Cervini, shot by black martial artist Roderick Scott in Greece, NY, in 2009. Scott is built like a brick outhouse and admits Cervini never laid a hand on him, but says he thought his life could be in danger. He was acquitted by a mostly white jury, and I don’t question the verdict. But the verdict on the media is clear:

Guilty of using lies that have evoked hatred, fomented racial unrest, sparked riots, caused property destruction and led to innocent people’s deaths.

Guilty of gross malpractice and, by proxy, murder.

Guilty of being destroyers of civilization that have no moral right to exist.

Yes, #MediaLiesMatter.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

A Pox on Baltimore

Thanks to an infection and the antibiotics taken to rid myself of it, I have had several days of being able to do little more than watch the news on television, listen to it on the radio, and reading about it in my daily edition of The Wall Street Journal. If there was anything else happening in the world, you would not know it because it was 24-7 Baltimore, Baltimore, Baltimore.

Specifically, it was about the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, a known drug dealer and user with an extensive rap sheet. There are different descriptions of the manner of his death, but the details of the autopsy are still obscure beyond a reference to having received a blow to his spine. This is attributed to having been placed in the police van, shackled hand and foot, but not having a safety belt applied.

The response from a certain element of Baltimoreans was to begin to loot, vandalize and set fire to their own neighborhoods by way of protesting alleged police brutality. This followed his funeral on Monday. The Mayor’s response was to tell the police to stand down and let the protesters have their way. When that predictably did not work, the National Guard was called in and a curfew imposed.

Capping these events was the indictment of the six arresting officers by the State’s Attorney General, Marilyn Mosby that included charges of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. That seemed to appease the mob that passes for Baltimore’s citizens.

I wish I could say I have sympathy for Freddie Gray and his family, but I don’t. I wish I could say that I feel sorry that Baltimore has been a state of decline and decay since the last riots in 1968, but no one asks why the trillions of dollars poured in comparable cities since the days of Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” hasn’t demonstrated any results.

I wish I could say that the connecting factor between Baltimore, Detroit, and other Democrat-controlled cities was the primary reason that their citizens suffer unemployment, why their children attend schools that fail to teach them even fundamental skills, but what has evolved in these distressed cities is a culture that does not emphasize the traditional family, demand better education, and replaces the work ethic with the “entitlement” check. The Baltimore mother who chastised her son to keep him from participating in the riot is single and has five other children.

These cities are daily crime scenes. The riot was a crime scene.

And who is accused of Freddie Gray’s death? Members of the Baltimore Police Force who initially spotted Gray, a 25 year old with a criminal record, and went to investigate what they had observed. He ran. They ran after him. That’s what we want and expect our police to do.

The indictment, a purely political act intended to quell the angry mood of those Baltimoreans who protested by committing crimes, is an attack on every police officer in America. Most are good men and women, but like any other profession, there are some bad ones. The legion of police who protect us do not go around murdering suspects indiscriminately.

Tell that to State Attorney Mosby. Then consider that Freddie Gray’s attorney, William H. Murphy, Jr. donated $5,000 to her campaign. Consider that her husband, Nick Mosby, is a Baltimore city councilman with lots of reason to see the riots quelled.

What these cities and the decades reaching back to the 1960s all represent is a vocal resentment of police authority. Back then they were called “pigs.” America has been drifting away from the traditional respect and regard we have had for our police.

The problem isn’t the police.

It’s liberal notion that raising taxes and heavily regulating businesses large and small will somehow attract them to our cities. It doesn’t work that way. Our cities have become great dumping grounds for people who interest the Democratic Party only around election time.

And that is a problem for the police. It will be a growing problem for everyone if we cannot return to a decent respect for our police.

So, for now, a pox on Baltimore and on all the politicians from the President on down who keep telling us the police are the problem, not the world of Freddie Gray’s roaming our city’s streets.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

We’re ALL Out of Africa

I think if we were honest enough to admit it, we are all bigoted in some way. Our gender or religion doesn’t really qualify us as superior to anyone else, but we tend to fall back on these identities and, consciously or not, assume they give us a reason to feel that we are not only in possession of a special truth, but that it grants us the privilege to feel better than others.

When we examine the issue of race, however, the bigotry is inherent because racial groups are inclined to assign superior characteristics to their own. It’s called human nature.

There is something else “human” that we need to address, over and above skin color, eye color, hair and other visible differences.

“All human variants in DNA in all people alive today trace their origins to countless common ancestors, all of whom lived in Africa more than sixty thousand years ago. As humans, everyone is related by common ancient ancestry, and ultimately, everyone is African.”

Cover - Everyone is AfricanThat is the message of a new book by Daniel J. Fairbanks, the dean of the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University, a distinguished research geneticist and author. “Everyone is African: How Science Explodes the Myth of Race” ($18.00. Prometheus Books, softcover). In a world where race is a component of our lives, Fairbanks says, “Unfortunately, few people are aware of how much is known about the genetic basis of race—or more accurately, the lack thereof.”

“To many, the notion that race is inherited seems self-evident. Yet extensive genetic research has demonstrated that the genetic variation associated with what most people perceive as race represents a small proportion of overall genetic variation. When viewed on a global scale, there are no discrete genetic boundaries separating so-called races.”

DNA1It’s hard to argue with DNA, a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions of all known living organisms. Its scientific name is deoxyribonucleic acid and, along with proteins and carbohydrates, it composes the three major macromolecules deemed essential for all known forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer stands coiled around each other to form a double helix.

What we take to be “race” traces back some one hundred thousand years ago when our species, humans, all lived in Africa. Those early ancestors began to migrate from Africa eventually inhabiting the entire globe. That makes the “human race” one race.

So much evil has been done in the name of race that much of our history and the world’s stems from the notion that the variations, Caucasian, Negro, Asian, are determinative of various traits we attribute to these and other “races.” If we step back a bit, we will conclude we are talking about cultural differences, often the result of geological differences. As Fairbanks notes, regarding the findings of DNA research, “According to their estimates, people worldwide differ on average by about 0.1 percent, evidence that all humans are genetically quite similar to one another.”

It is hard, if not impossible, to argue with the science involved. “The oldest remains of what anthropologists call ‘anatomically modern humans’ (skeletons with features that resemble modern humans) are exclusively from Africa, dating to about two hundred thousand years ago. By contrast, the earliest remains of anatomically modern humans outside of Africa thus far discovered are about one hundred thousand years old.”

The migration out of Africa is dated to about sixty thousand to seventy thousand years ago “and their descendants, through many generations, eventually populated the rest of the world.”

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, “most of the mutations that became variants affecting skin, eye, and hair pigmentation happened outside of Africa in the distant descendants of people who originally left Africa..” Those variations then spread through their descendants within broad geographic regions.”

Those other people you see around you? You are related to all of them.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

I don’t usually play the race card, but —

The great thing about having this website is that it’s my personal blog and shared with occasional commentary from two people – my wife Angela, with whom I will celebrate 25 years on Christmas Eve, and my editor. Here you’ll find my personal thoughts, perspectives, and insights as a private free American citizen with a singular First Amendment right of free speech.

Of course there are those of the progressive socialist left persuasion, who feel individuals shouldn’t have completely free speech unless it freely agrees with their ideology.

I offer my assessments and analyses of current events, and readers are kindly welcomed to comment, but generally, the response emanating from those on the left isn’t debate — but rather abject disdain and personal assault.

But may I remind detractors of your simple choice of free will. You don’t have to visit my website if you don’t like my thoughts.

With that being said, many on the left say we need to have a conversation about racism in America. So let’s have one.

Let me start by saying it will have nothing to with how the white man has kept me down. As a matter of fact, what I have achieved could only have happened in America.

I was born and raised in the inner city of Atlanta, Georgia, in the same 4th Ward neighborhood that claimed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a favored son. My own elementary school, Our Lady of Lourdes, is located at the corner of Boulevard and the historic Auburn Avenue – near Ebenezer Baptist Church and Dr. King’s familial home just around the corner.

I grew up quite proud of my American black heritage and still am. I recall days walking down Auburn Ave. past the offices of black professionals — doctors, lawyers, and such — as well as black-owned small businesses on my way to the historic Butler Street YMCA where I learned to swim, play basketball, and box. Funny thing — when Dr. King was assassinated, I don’t remember anyone rioting and setting fire to businesses in my neighborhood.

I grew up in a simple two-parent home at 651 Kennesaw Avenue NE — I tell the story of Buck and Snooks West in my book, Guardian of the Republic. As it happens, Buck and Snooks were registered Democrats, and I had a blast telling Rep. John Lewis how I remembered as a boy my folks talking about him and voting for him.

My memories of the black community growing up were centered on faith, family, education, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and for my family — service to the nation in uniform. Those ladies and gents are conservative principles and values — or as I was wrote here — classical liberal principles.

My parents stressed not just to me and my brothers, but to our larger family and relations, that you should never allow yourself to be dependent upon someone else. As Mom would say, “self-esteem comes from doing ‘esteemable’ things.” She also drilled into my head that, “a man must stand for something or else he will fall for anything.”

Sadly enough today, if you are a black American standing for conservative principles and values — which are the foundation of the black community and what were once its strength — you are a target.

It’s white liberals who find themselves abhorring the existence of any minority that rejects their progressive socialist collective ideology and seeks to “think for themselves.”

You become the “uppity negro” and are derided with such loving terms of endearment as “House Ni!@er,” “Sellout,” “Uncle Tom,” and “Oreo.” Even worse, white liberals have co-opted other blacks to join in the mob-like attacks against those of us who just — well, embody those old school values in which parents (when there were a preponderance of two-parent homes) in the black community instructed us.

Then again, it was the Great Society policies of a progressive socialist big government Democrat president from Texas named Lyndon Baines Johnson that began the decimation of the black family. It resulting in today’s out of wedlock birth rate of nearly 72 percent — all because it was believed that rewarding a woman for having a child out of wedlock with a government check — as long as she kept the man out of the home — was a good thing.

So, in my black community, the venerable and strong black man who survived slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests (all from the same Democrat party) was finally killed off virtually — and literally in some cases through inner city gang violence — by Democrat policy.

And so it goes that the plantation has been restored, but this time it is a 21st century economic plantation of servitude and submission to the welfare nanny-state.

The real racism comes from the new plantation masters who have riled up the masses and mob to ensure this is not lost. And therefore, woe, despair, degradation, denigration, and derision upon those who are living up to their parents’ dream — Dr. King’s dream — and have escaped the progressive socialist inner city plantation because we fought through the “pursuit of happiness” to develop the “content of our character” and not await a government granted “guarantee of happiness” due to the “color of our skin.”

And that ladies and gents truly angers those on the left — just ask the likes of Justice Clarence Thomas, Star Parker, my fellow Atlantan Herman Cain, Condoleeza Rice, Senator Tim Scott, Rep-Elect Mia Love, Shelby Steele, Jason Riley, Harry Alford, Raffi Williams, Chloe Valdary, Harris Faulkner, Deneen Borelli,AlfonZo Rachel, Janice Rogers Brown, James Golden, Amy Holmes, Niger Innis,Kevin Jackson, Armstrong Williams, Deroy Murdock, JC Watts, Jesse Lee Peterson, Ken Blackwell, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Angela McGlowan, and Mychal Massie.

What have we all done to so anger the white progressive socialist left that we constantly draw their ire? We succeeded.

And therein lies the real racism about which the liberal media doesn’t want a conversation — black success based on fundamental American liberty and freedom enshrined in conservative principles such as individual sovereignty and free market entrepreneurship.

So someone like myself is regularly assaulted by left wing media outlets for the most insidious accusations. I remember while running for Congress in the 2010 cycle, the day my oldest daughter picked up the mail, and in it was a piece from the Florida Democrat Party which boldly displayed my social security number and my wife’s employment identification number — she is a financial broker. Why? It’s not far off from finding a burning cross in your front yard — my daughter screamed and began to cry and my wife was hysterical. And when we revealed this, the local Palm Beach Post newspaper ran a survey asking if I was making too big of a deal of this nefarious action.

Or how about a San Francisco-based far left progressive group called CREDO that showed up in the 2012 election cycle and ran a shadow campaign which included phone calls to homes stating that “did you know that Allen West beats his wife” — y’all know the typical progressive socialist attacks against black men — characterize them as violent. The truth doesn’t matter — actually the lie and deceit are the strongest tactics.

Could you imagine if a prominent black conservative owed $4 million to the IRS? Heaven knows what the liberal progressive media would say. But if you’re a progressive socialist overseer of the black community, not only do you get a national TV show, you get to visit the White House 82 times. And when was the last time a black conservative was invited into the Oval Office to sit with the “first black president?”

The real conversation about race in America needs to be about why the progressive socialist left despises black success not wedded to its ideology? Even former NBA great, Charles Barkley has come under attack for speaking his mind about certain matters on race — the real conversation that needs to be had.

What sense does it make for the black community to enslave itself to one political ideology and invest all of its political capital there? It has only led to abject disregard.

And so I conclude this essay of my thoughts — the real racism has always come from one party in America: the Democrat party. And their 21st century ” lynching” tactics and techniques are just the same but with better use of modern technology.

Unfortunately for them just as men like Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington and women like Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman took a stand, a new generation of freedom-minded blacks are stepping out of the shadows — even Dr. King’s alma mater of Morehouse College now has a Republican Club. Our voices will not be silenced, regardless of the new tactics of the same old gang.

All black lives matter, not just the ones progressive socialists use “prosecutorial discretion” to care about through the policies of economic enslavement as opposed to those black conservatives embrace — economic empowerment.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

The Road of Good Intentions and the Vested Interest in Race Consiousness

Jason Riley illustrates that old adage about the pavement on the road to hell in a reportorial account that reads with the ease of a memoir.  This book is something of a compact sequel to many by Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele who have busted destructive liberal myths about race.  In six succinct chapters Riley deals with the issues of politics, culture, crime, labor, education, and affirmative action.  He uses personal anecdotes and research to show how liberal policies have harmed instead of helped blacks.

Unlike Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele, to whom the book is dedicated, Riley had the benefits of growing up after implementation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Wrong-headed court rulings, legislation, and the encouragement of destructive behavior, however, nullified the benefits that should have accrued for the black community.

Griggs v. Duke Power in 1971 on the “disparate impact” from the employer’s requirement of a high-school diploma and minimal IQ scores is one such ruling.  It replaced equal opportunity with equal results, thus fundamentally taking away the incentives needed for long-term success.

Riley knows from firsthand experience what such misguided policies do.  He grew up in Buffalo in the 1980s.  His parents, although divorced, stayed involved (especially important in the case of his father) and moved from a black inner-city neighborhood to a largely white suburb.  Unfortunately, Riley’s two sisters and best friend succumbed to the culture that is increasingly more difficult to escape.  He did not and went on to join the Wall Street Journal, where he now sits on the editorial board.

The influence of Thomas Sowell’s clear-headed approach is evident in each of the book’s chapters.  In the first one, “Black Man in the White House,” Riley illustrates how political power among black and other ethnic groups (namely, the Irish) has not translated directly into well-being for the group.  Between 1940 and 1960 the black poverty rate fell from 87 percent to 47 percent, but between 1972 and 2011 it declined only from 32 percent to 28 percent and remained three times the white rate.  Demands for political racial power have resulted in gerrymandered black districts that have increased polarization and decreased the well-being of most blacks.  For example, the racial preference programs in hiring and contracting instituted by successive black mayors in Atlanta have not translated into advantages for average blacks and the black underclass.

In chapter two, “Culture Matters,” Riley relates the pressures placed on him while growing up to not “act white,” e.g., to speak ungrammatically and neglect school work.  Added to this is the message of victimization by the NAACP, the National Urban League, and most black politicians.  Such messages lead to an achievement gap between black and white students even in affluent suburbs, like Shaker Heights, near Cleveland, Ohio, as John Ogbu, professor of anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, found in his study, Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement.

The third chapter, “The Enemy Within,” is a devastating critique of black crime, the overwhelming majority of it black-on-black.  Riley speaks from the experience of being stopped by police because of looking like a criminal suspect.  Sadly, given crime statistics, police go on probability, as do black store owners.  Riley connects increasing crime rates–by 139 percent during the 1960s—to the expansion of criminal defendants’ rights: “In the 1950s, when segregation was legal, overt racism was rampant, and black poverty was much higher than today, black crime rates were lower and blacks comprised a smaller percentage of the prison population.”   Riley addresses outrageous claims that equate incarceration to slavery and Jim Crow by “celebrated academics,” such as Michelle Alexander, and asks “is it any great shock that black people without advanced degrees have less sympathy for black thugs?”

In the subsequent chapter, “Mandating Unemployment” Riley connects minimum wage laws to their origins by unions that wanted to exclude black labor and use upward pressure for their own wages.  The unemployment rate for young black men began exceeding that of young white men when the minimum wage law was amended to catch up with inflation in 1950.  There are more statistics: only 5 percent of hourly workers earn minimum wage, and most are 25 or younger and work part-time.  An increase typically benefits not the single mother in the ghetto but the suburban teenager.

In his chapter entitled “Educational Freedom,” Riley lays out how teachers unions act out of self-interest to increase their own numbers, driving up costs of education.  They give vast sums to Democratic candidates in exchange for favors.  In spite of an increase in federal per-pupil spending by an inflation-adjusted 375 percent between 1970 and 2010, the learning gap between black and white students remains what it was in 1970.  Presenting the improved academic performance of some Harlem charter schools as evidence, Riley proposes school choice as a viable solution.

Lastly, the chapter “Affirmative Discriminations” shows how race-based affirmative college admissions harm intended beneficiaries like the black law-school graduates who fail the bar exam at four times the white rate.  Riley quips, “Michigan’s law school likes to tout its diversity, but is it doing black students any favors by admitting them with lower standards and setting them up to fail?” Affirmative action harms the reputation of blacks across the board, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas found out when employers assumed that he had benefited from preferential treatment.

Some of Riley’s observations will be familiar to readers of Thomas Sowell’s excellent work.  But Riley marshals the evidence into a compact account, told from the perspective of a younger generation.  It’s still not working, is the message.  Will liberals listen?

Yes, if they are willing to give up the benefits that such a focus on race grants them.   Riley writes that “underprivileged blacks” have become “playthings for liberal intellectuals and politicians who care more about clearing their conscience or winning votes than advocating behaviors and attitudes that have allowed other groups to get ahead.”

We know what would happen if they did get ahead, if we did become the post-racial society liberals claim to want.

Many academics, pundits, and civil rights leaders would be out of jobs, and the political left would have to find something else to unite around.

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
By Jason Riley
Encounter Books, New York, 2014
HB, 205 pages, US $23.99
ISBN: 978-1-59403-725-2
Reviewed by Mary Grabar | September 4, 2014

Ferguson and the Real Race War

Since the shooting of Michael Brown by a white policeman and the ensuing riots and looting in Ferguson, MO, Americans have been told, yet again, that there is an epidemic of crime against black people in this country. But is there really a race war, and if so, which side is actually waging it?

RELATED COLUMNS:

Ferguson, Missouri: The Face of the ‘War on Whites’
Do We Perpetuate Black Stereotypes?
Hamas, Nation of Islam and New Black Panthers exciting violence in Ferguson, Missouri

Ferguson, MO: MSM Once Again Furthers The Big Lie

Mary and I were driving home to Florida from working on the Joe Carr campaign in Tennessee when I heard the report on the radio. “Unarmed black youth shot by police.”

Why did the reporter think it relevant to mention the race of the youth shot by police in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri? Police shooting an unarmed youth is compelling without the racial component.

When blacks commit crimes, the mainstream media bends over backwards to avoid mentioning the criminals’ race. For example. When flash mobs were breaking out across America committing crimes of violence, looting and vandalism, the MSM refused to report that the perpetrators were black youths. The MSM’s excuse is reporting the race of criminals is unnecessarily provocative.

So why does the MSM not apply the same logic and caution in cases where the alleged attacker is white? Remember how quick and eager the MSM was to convict George Zimmerman in the court of public opinion?

To push its racist-white-man-shoots-unarmed-angelic-black-boy story line, the MSM referred to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”. They flooded TV with photographs of a much younger Trayvon Martin including one of him in his little league football uniform. The MSM did everything in its power to hide the truth that Martin was a 17 year old thug. A major broadcast network even doctored audio to portray Zimmerman as a racist.

Obviously, the MSM wanted racial turmoil, division and riots in the streets. The Left’s bible, “Rules for Radials” by Saul Alinsky says they win by creating chaos.

The mainstream media is fully committed to helping Obama implement his socialist/progressive agenda. Promoting the false narrative that America is a racist nation is extremely helpful to Obama’s purpose.

The MSM has been complicit in assisting the Democrats’ efforts to exploit Obama’s race to silence opposition to his unprecedented dictatorship.

The MSM jumps on every opportunity to further the big lie that blacks are victims of an eternally racist America. The big lie feeds white guilt, making them more receptive to the government redistributing wealth and pandering to minorities. The big lie also inspires blacks to hate successful whites, inspires violence against whites and creates an entitlement mindset in blacks.

Whites feeling guilty for being white and blacks feeling resentful and entitled equals more Americans submissive to government controls and likely to vote Democrat.

During the Trayvon Martin trial, Leftists were all over TV promoting the big lie that black males are routinely attacked and murdered by whites in America. Their claim is totally absurd. The facts prove quite the opposite. Statistics confirm that blacks kill blacks and black attacks against whites are 39 times more likely than vice versa.

Please note that this article is not about the shooting. I am merely pointing out the mainstream media’s agenda driven reporting of the incident.

Once again, the MSM has successfully ginned up racial hate, division and riots in the streets.