Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/25/cop-who-shot-michael-brown-has-a-not-so-spotless-background/

[Crafty_Dog]

second post of day

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2014/08/24/black-lies-and-white-anger/?singlepage=true

[G M]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/25/cop-who-shot-michael-brown-has-a-not-so-spotless-background/

So nothing bad about the officer could be found. I wonder what the examination of the author of the above piece would find...

[G M]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/25/cop-who-shot-michael-brown-has-a-not-so-spotless-background/

So nothing bad about the officer could be found. I wonder what the examination of the author of the above piece would find...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/competing-media-narratives-of-darren-wilson-and-michael-brown/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152314396513715&fref=nf 

[Crafty_Dog]

second post of the day

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e8_1409202738

[G M]

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/08/27/blacks-must-confront-reality-n1882887/page/full

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/02/overwhelming-majority-say-keep-nfls-washington-redskins-name-says-new-poll/ 

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/25/video-native-american-washington-redskins-fans-fight-back-to-save-team-name/

[DougMacG]

From Media Issues:  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1066.msg84447#msg84447

I didn't see the anything racist in the Bill O'Reilly comments other than the entire topic of analyzing people by group membership.

Former Sen Jim Webb wrote about the myth of white privilege here:  http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408

O'Reilly accurately commented on the breakdown of the black family, which is true but not unique to blacks.  White families are breaking down at the same rate; they are just at a different point on the same time line.  What O'Reilly has right is that the breakdown of the family for all is the biggest problem in our culture and our economy.  It is not unique to blacks but it hit them first and it hit them hardest.

The blame, I very strongly believe, is not white privilege but white guilt that is driving our massive welfare programs that are throwing blacks and black families disproportionately into the eternal dependency of the government.  When you choose to receive food stamps, or SSI, or Section 8 housing, or free Medicaid or subsidized Obamacare, or the free Obamacare phone, or cash welfare benefits, you enter into an agreement with the government that you will keep your earned, reported income under a livable level, or lose your benefits.  As an inner city landlord, I very commonly witness families afraid to list the husband or father of the children on the lease for fear of losing their benefits.

When a woman sees the government as the provider, instead of the husband and father of the children, the loyalties go toward keeping that support.  When a man does not take the responsibilities of a family he started, he very often goes on and fathers more children and creates more non-("treaditional") families.  Then if he ever earned significant reported income it would mostly go to child support that he otherwise does not have to pay - so he doesn't.  Both the man and the woman living in so-called poverty face effective marginal tax rates far higher than either Warren Buffet or his secretary.

There is no simple, easy solution for this but it is crazy to deny or ignore this enormous unintended consequences of our policies that are ripping our society apart from its foundation.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VqgTdUFtq8

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/11/01/6249252/neo-nazis-vs-the-klan-it-must.html?rh=1

[ccp]

What?

This is nuts.  You mean this kid did not rob and manhandle a smaller Indian store clerk than attack a police officer who asked him to not walk in the middle of the road.  I suppose the police officer pulled him into the car through the door window to attack him.

Why do we have to put up with this?

****Greatest show on Earth? 5 agencies to meet Michael Brown's parents

Prior to pleading case to U.N. Committee Against Torture

Published: 2 hours ago

By Jerome Corsi and Curtis Ellis

NEW YORK – The parents of Michael Brown will meet with about 20 representatives of the Obama administration in Geneva, Switzerland, before pleading their case to the United Nations Committee Against Torture, according to the director of the nonprofit group organizing their trip.

Ejim Dike, executive director of the U.S. Human Rights Network, told WND that Michael Brown Sr. and Lesley McSpadden – the parents of the black teen who was killed in a confrontation in August with a white police offer in Ferguson, Missouri – will meet Nov. 11 in Geneva with the U.S. officials.

The parents, who demand the immediate arrest of Officer Darren Wilson, say their “goal is not only to achieve justice in Ferguson, but to unite governments around the world against the human rights violations that result from racial profiling and police violence.”

The officials, who also will be in Geneva to speak to the U.N. Committee Against Torture, Dike said, are from the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense and the State Department.

After meeting the U.S. officials, Brown’s parents will address the 53rd Session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture, Nov. 12 and 13.

At issue is U.S. compliance with the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was passed by the U.N. in 1984 and ratified by the U.S. in 1994.

The parents’ U.N. invitation is the result of a 13-page position paper written by Saint Louis University Law School assistant professor Justin Hansford with the support of  left-leaning advocacy groups, Hands Up United, the Organization for Black Struggle and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.

The U.N. panel, Dike told WND, realizes “the issue of gun violence and police violence especially directed at black and brown people in this country is really a grave human rights concern.”

The committee consists of so-called independent legal experts from countries such as the Republic of Georgia and communist China. The panel’s two members from the U.S. have recused themselves from hearing the case.

Hansford’s paper characterizes the Aug. 9 shooting in Ferguson as the murder by a white police officer of an innocent black youth who had his arms raised in an attempt to surrender.

However, the findings of the grand jury considering whether or not Wilson should be prosecuted have leaked out, and they indicate the officer was acting in self-defense and won’t be charged.

The U.S. already has been reviewed twice this year for alleged noncompliance with U.N. treaties on civil and political rights and the elimination of racial discrimination. The mother of Trayvon Martin, the black teen killed by a neighborhood watchman in Florida, and the father of Jordan Davis, a Florida black teen fatally shot over loud music, participated in the reviews in August.

Hansford’s position paper calls among other things for the arrest of Wilson for the alleged murder of their son, the resignation of Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson and an apology from Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon for alleged intimidation and excessive police force against those seeking to protest the Brown shooting.

The document further calls on the U.N. to demand that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice conduct “a nationwide investigation of systematic police brutality and harassment in brown and black communities, and youth in particular.”

A website, FergusonToGeneva.com, makes available the Hansford report and accepts donations to defray the costs of the trip to Geneva.

As WND columnist Jack Cashill has noted, the leaks of grand jury findings appear to be an attempt by the Justice Department to prepare the public for the likelihood that Wilson will not be charged in Brown’s death.

An Oct. 17 New York Times story, for example, shows Wilson’s version of events inside the officer’s vehicle lines up with the forensic evidence.

As Wilson told the story, Brown reached for the gun, and it was fired twice, with one shot striking Brown on the hand. In the scuffle, Brown “punched and scratched [Wilson] repeatedly.”

Forensic tests meanwhile showed Brown’s blood on the gun, on Wilson’s clothes and on the interior door panel.

The autopsy also indicated Brown did not have his hand’s up in surrender, discrediting a crucial claim that became a central theme of protesters.

[Crafty_Dog]

Charles Blow is a black columnist for the NY Times

Race, to the Finish
NOV. 12, 2014


Last week, the economist and former Richard Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein went on Fox News and delivered a racial tirade completely detached from the the anchor’s line of questioning.

When asked by the anchor about a Fox News poll showing the economy was the No.1 issue for voters, and how that poll result might work for or against Democrats in the midterms, Stein skirted the question altogether and instead spewed an extraordinary string of psychobabble about how “what the White House is trying to do is racialize all politics” by telling lies to African-Americans about how Republican policies would hurt them. He continued: “This president is the most racist president there has ever been in America. He is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans.”

Pat Buchanan, the two-time Republican presidential candidate, assistant to Richard Nixon and White House director of communications for Ronald Reagan, wrote a column this week accusing Democratic strategists of “pushing us to an America where the G.O.P. is predominantly white and the Democratic Party, especially in Dixie, is dominated by persons of color” in their last-minute get-out-the-vote appeals to African-Americans, by invoking Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Jim Crow.

This glosses over a hundred years of history that will be tucked quietly away into some attic of amnesia.

Let’s review how we got to this point where African-Americans vote so overwhelmingly Democratic and are suspicious of Republican motives.

As NPR reported in July, “If you’d walked into a gathering of older black folks 100 years ago, you’d have found that most of them would have been Republican” because it was the “party of Lincoln. Party of the Emancipation. Party that pushed not only black votes but black politicians during that post-bellum period known as Reconstruction.”

As Buchanan, writing in American Conservative, pointed out, “The Democratic Party was the party of slavery, secession and segregation, of ‘Pitchfork Ben’ Tillman and the K.K.K. ‘Bull’ Connor, who turned the dogs loose on black demonstrators in Birmingham, was the Democratic National Committeeman from Alabama.”

But allegiances flipped.

The first wave of defections by African-Americans from Republican to Democrat came with Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal in the 1930s. According to the Roosevelt Institute: “As Mary McLeod Bethune once noted, the Roosevelt era represented ‘the first time in their history’ that African-Americans felt that they could communicate their grievances to their government with the ‘expectancy of sympathetic understanding and interpretation.'”

By the mid 1930s, most blacks were voting Democratic, although a sizable percentage remained Republican. Then came the signing of the Civil Rights Act by the Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson — although he wasn’t perfect on the issue of race, and the bill passed partly because of Republican support.

In response to the bill, Barry Goldwater waged a disastrous campaign built in part on his opposition. As NPR put it: “Goldwater can be seen as the godfather (or maybe the midwife) of the current Tea Party. He wanted the federal government out of the states’ business. He believed the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional — although he said that once it had been enacted into law, it would be obeyed. But states, he said, should implement the law in their own time.” Whites were reassured by the message, but blacks were shaken by it.


Richard Nixon, for whom both Stein and Buchanan would work, helped to seal the deal. Nixon had got nearly a third of the African-American vote in his unsuccessful 1960 bid for the White House, but when he ran and won in 1968 he received only 15 percent. In 1972, he was re-elected with just 13 percent of the black vote. That was in part because the Republican brand was already tarnished among blacks and in part because the Nixon campaign used the “Southern strategy” to try to capitalize on racist white flight from the Democratic Party as more blacks moved into it.

As Nixon’s political strategist Kevin Phillips told The New York Times Magazine in 1970: “The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.”

That’s right: Republicans wanted the Democrats’ “Negrophobes.”

The history of party affiliations is obviously littered with racial issues. But now, there is considerable quarreling and consternation about the degree to which racial bias is still a party trait or motivating political factor for support of or opposition to particular politicians or policies.

It is clear that our politics were “racialized” long before this president came along — and that structure persists — but that’s not the same as saying the voters are racist.

To get more directly at the issue of racism in political parties, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight Politics looked at “a variety of questions on racial attitudes in the General Social Survey” and specifically at “the numbers for white Democrats and white Republicans.”

This wasn’t a perfect or complete measure of racial bias, but more a measure of flagrant bias — the opinions of people aware of their biases and willing to confess them on a survey.

That said, they found that:

“So there’s a partisan gap, although not as large of one as some political commentators might assert. There are white racists in both parties. By most questions, they represent a minority of white voters in both parties. They probably represent a slightly larger minority of white Republicans than white Democrats.”

Still, the question is how much of this muck at the bottom of both barrels sullies what’s on top? The best measure many find for this is in the rhetoric and policies of party leaders.

The growing share of the Democratic Party composed of historically marginalized populations — minorities, women, Jews, L.G.B.T.-identified persons — pushes the party toward more inclusive language and stances. The Republican Party, on the other hand, doesn’t have that benefit. They can’t seem to stop the slow drip of offensive remarks, like those of the Republican governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, who referred to the president’s policies last week as “tar babies” or the obsessive-compulsive need to culturally diagnose and condemn black people, like Stein’s saying this week that “the real problem with race in America is a very, very beaten-down, pathetic, self-defeating black underclass.”

At that rate, Republicans will never attract more minorities, try as they may to skip over portions of the racial past or deny the fullness of the racial present.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/12/video-washington-redskins-strike-back-at-pc-police-sues-native-americans/?utm_source=Newsletter+11%2F13%2F14+9am&utm_campaign=11%2F11%2F14+9am+&utm_medium=email

[Crafty_Dog]

The Other Ferguson Tragedy
Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, and 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.
By Jason L. Riley
Nov. 25, 2014 7:21 p.m. ET
544 COMMENTS

We now know that Michael Brown was much more of a menace than a martyr, but that won’t stop liberals from pushing an anti-police narrative that harms the black poor in the name of helping them.

The black teen in Ferguson, Mo., robbed a store, attacked a white police officer and was shot dead while resisting arrest. That was the conclusion of a St. Louis County grand jury that brought no charges against the officer after considering all the physical evidence, along with eyewitness accounts from blacks in the vicinity of the confrontation.

Not that any amount of evidence would have stopped the hooligans in Ferguson Monday night who were determined use Brown’s death as a pretext for more bad behavior. Nor will evidence thwart liberals who are bent on making excuses for black criminality and pretending that police shootings are responsible for America’s high black body count.

According to the FBI, homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, who are 10 times more likely than their white counterparts to be murdered. And while you’d never know it watching MSNBC, the police are not to blame. Blacks are just 13% of the population but responsible for a majority of all murders in the U.S., and more than 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. Liberals like to point out that most whites are killed by other whites, too. That’s true but beside the point given that the white crime rate is so much lower than the black rate.

Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do. The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of “over-policing” certain neighborhoods to juice black arrest rates. Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the emergency calls originate, and they spend much of their time trying to stop residents of the same race from harming one another.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani pointed this out recently on “Meet the Press” in a debate with sociologist Michael Eric Dyson. “What about the poor black child that is killed by another black child? Why aren’t you protesting that?” Mr. Giuliani asked.

“Those people go to jail,” Mr. Dyson responded. “I do protest it. I’m a minister. They go to jail.”

Mr. Dyson might want to try protesting a little harder. Chicago had 507 murders in 2012, only 26% of which were solved. “To put it another way: About three-quarters of the people who killed someone in Chicago in 2012 have gotten away with murder—so far, at least,” Chicago Magazine noted. Mr. Dyson and others on the left are not oblivious to this black pathology, but they are at pains even to acknowledge it, let alone make it a focus. Instead, liberals spend their time spotlighting white racism, real or imagined, and touting it as an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes.

Ferguson helps further that agenda in ways that Chicago does not. Hence, the left posits that the Michael Brown shooting is the norm, even though the data show that it’s the exception. And if black criminal behavior is a response to white racism, how is it that black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher, racial discrimination was rampant and legal, and the country was more than a half-century away from twice electing a black president?

Racial profiling and tensions between the police and poor black communities are real problems, but these are effects rather than causes, and they can’t be addressed without also addressing the extraordinarily high rates of black criminal behavior—yet such discussion remains taboo. Blacks who bring it up are sell-outs. Whites who mention it are racists. (Mr. Dyson accused Mr. Giuliani of “white supremacy.”) But so long as young black men are responsible for an outsize portion of violent crime, they will be viewed suspiciously by law enforcement and fellow citizens of all races.

Pretending that police behavior is the root of the problem is not only a dodge but also foolish. The riots will succeed in driving business out of town, which means that Ferguson’s residents will be forced to pay more at local stores or travel farther for competitive prices on basic goods and services. Many Ferguson residents today can’t go work because local businesses have been burned down.

Even worse, when you make police targets, you make low-income communities less safe. Ferguson’s problem isn’t white cops or white prosecutors; it’s the thug behavior exhibited by individuals like Michael Brown, which puts a target on the backs of other young black men. Romanticizing such behavior instead of condemning it only makes matters worse.

Mr. Riley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board and the author, most recently, of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).

[G M]

There is no money in facing the truth about black crime rates.

[DougMacG]

Jason Riley is right.  I thought Giuliani was clumsy in making his points in the heated exchange on Meet the Press, but he introduced crucial facts that didn't go away just because distractions followed.

If you are a black who was murdered, there is a 93% chance your murderer was black, even though blacks comprise only 13% of the population.

With rounding, there is a zero percent chance your murderer was a cop, or a white cop.

Because of thugs like Brown and terrible crime statistics in certain black neighborhoods, there is a much larger need for a police presence.  That presence is there to protect black victims!  Because of those population statistics, there is something like an 87% chance (or greater) that the additional cops available for those assignments are not black.  If you are in that neighborhood and your mind is consumed with race-centric thinking, and you are black and a police officer is white, then everything that happens appears to be racial when mostly it is not.

I believe the high crime level in these neighborhoods is not racial, but cultural, and is accelerated by a half century or more of our failed social spending programs that tear apart the families in these neighborhoods, who happen to be disproportionately black.  The males are free to go through life without the responsibilities that keep the other males in our society from being criminals and street thugs.  (Proof that this is cultural, not racial, comes from the fact that blacks not in this environment don't behave like this and whites and others living in this culture do.)  The result of our policies is that many, many males go through life diverted away from the moral and financial burdens and responsibilities of getting a good education, job, credit, mortgage, home, supporting your family financially and otherwise, and keeping your criminal record clean.

[G M]

You can look at the UK for a perfect parallel culture of criminality with a very white subgroup

[Crafty_Dog]

That is a good point GM.


I think this piece well written:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/ferguson-fraud-113178.html#.VHapHoWwX3R 

[G M]

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_3_oh_to_be.html

[Crafty_Dog]

Pasting Coulter's piece here from the Media thread:

Leftists Willing to Fight to the Last Drop of Black Blood

Posted By Ann Coulter On November 27, 2014

The riot in Ferguson reminds me, I hate criminals, but I hate liberals more. They planned this riot. They stoked the fire, lied about the evidence and produced a made-to-order riot.

Every other riot I’ve ever heard of was touched off by some spontaneous event that exploded into mob violence long before any media trucks arrived. This time, the networks gave us a countdown to the riot, as if it were a Super Bowl kickoff.

From the beginning, Officer Darren Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown wasn’t reported like news. It was reported like a cause.

The media are in a huff about the prosecutor being “biased” because his father was a cop, who was shot and killed by an African-American. What an assh@le!

Evidently, the sum-total of what every idiot on TV knows about the law is Judge Sol Wachtler’s 20-year-old joke that a prosecutor could “indict a ham sandwich.” We’re supposed to be outraged that this prosecutor didn’t indict the ham sandwich of Darren Wilson.

Liberals seem not to understand that they don’t have a divine right to ruin someone’s life and bankrupt him with a criminal trial, just so they’re satisfied.

The reason most grand jury investigations result in an indictment is that most grand juries aren’t convened solely to patronize racial mobs. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was basically demanding an indictment of Wilson before Big Mike’s body was cold. It was only because of racial politics that this shooting wasn’t dismissed without a grand jury, at all.

Obama says anger is an “understandable reaction” to the grand jury’s finding. Why? And why — as almost everyone is saying — are we supposed to praise the “peaceful protests”?

There’s nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can’t the peaceful protesters read?

The night of the riot, Obama said the law “often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion.” Maybe, but not in this case — except toward Officer Wilson.

I know liberals were hoping they had finally found the great white whale of racism, but they’re just going to have to keep plugging away. They might want to come up with a more productive way to spend their time, inasmuch as they’re about 0:100 on white racism sightings.

Anyone following this case has seen the video of Big Mike robbing a store and roughing up an innocent Pakistani clerk about 10 minutes before being shot by Officer Wilson. They’ve seen him flashing Bloods gang signs in photos.

They know Brown’s mother was recently arrested for clubbing grandma with a pipe over T-shirt proceeds. They’ve seen the video of Brown’s ex-con stepfather shouting at a crowd of protesters after the grand jury’s decision: “Burn this bitch down!”

Liberals will say none of that is relevant in court, but apparently they don’t think actual evidence is relevant either. It’s certainly relevant in the court of public opinion that the alleged victims are a cartoonishly lower-class, periodically criminal black family.

TV hosts narrated the riot by saying it showed “the community” feels it’s not being listened to. Only liberals look at blacks looting and say, See what white Americans made them do?

That’s their proof of injustice — look at how blacks are reacting! (While I don’t approve of the looting part, I do approve of the whole throwing-bottles-at-CNN part.)

The looters aren’t the community!

The community doesn’t want black thugs robbing stores and sauntering down the middle of its streets. The community doesn’t want to be assaulted by Big Mike. The community didn’t want its stores burned down.

That community testified in support of Officer Darren Wilson. About a half-dozen black witnesses supported Officer Wilson’s version of what happened. One was a black woman, who saw the shooting from the Canfield Green apartments. Crying on the stand, she said, “I have a child and that could have been my son.”

And yet, she confirmed all crucial parts of Wilson’s account. She said “the child” (292-pound Big Mike) never had his hands up and the cop only fired when “the baby” was coming at him. “Why won’t that boy stop?” she asked her husband.

I always want to know more about the heroic black witnesses. They are put in a position no white person will ever be in and do the right thing by telling the truth — then go into hiding from “the community” being championed by goo-goo liberals.

White people don’t feel any obligation to defend some thug just because he’s white. Only blacks are expected to lie on behalf of criminals of their own race.

But real heroism doesn’t interest liberals. They only ooh-and-ahh over blacks with rap sheets. The only meaningful white racism anymore is the liberal infantilization of black people.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152314396513715&set=vb.673253714&type=2&theater

[DougMacG]

A different look at race than Obama, Holder see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGTUcS-yQtQ

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_2_the_myth.html

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/05/know-your-enemy-heather-mac-donald

http://www.larryelder.com/b/Five-Myths-of-the-Racist-Criminal-Justice-System/-267027081583001581.html

[Crafty_Dog]

http://tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/187316/meet-the-mormons?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=04ce402174-Tuesday_December_9_201412_9_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-04ce402174-207194629

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOmYcmeOUoQ&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.diversityinc.com/news/white-s-c-cop-fired-charged-shooting-unarmed-black-man/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0514hm.html

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/chair-of-africana-studies-at-cal-state-long-beach-convicted-torturer-of-women/

[G M]

http://nypost.com/2014/12/28/holder-and-obama-are-making-race-relations-worse-inflaming-hatred/

Not accidental.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/watch-man-holds-up-hands-and-lies-down-and-cops-still-kick-him-in-the-face-and-taser-him/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/06/police-source-al-sharptons-viagra-prescription-found-youll-never-guess-where/

and while we are at it:  http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/01/the-woman-who-ruined-the-lives-of-the-duke-lacrosse-team-with-sharptons-help-is-back-in-the-news/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=27457

[ccp]

Where does this guy Sharpton get his power from?  I don't understand it. 

He got his own cable show.  He extorts from corporations, he goes in and out of a revolving door to the WH for God's sake.

He shows up at every remotely racial event happening or tragedy he wants and is suddenly the spokesperson the microphoned  media run up to and give a forum.

I just don't get it.  Why are people so fearful of this guy? 

[Crafty_Dog]

A very good question.

[ccp]

We are always treated to the first woman this or that or first Black woman this or that or first Latino woman this or that so why not this:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=first+muslim+woman+on+most+wanted&qpvt=first+muslim+woman+on+most+wanted+&FORM=VDRE

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/01/15/syracuse-appoints-nation-of-islam-member-to-school-board/

[Crafty_Dog]

I wonder if Dowd is aware of LBJ's comment that with the Civil Rights Voting Act he would have "niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years"?
==========================


WASHINGTON — I WENT Friday morning to see “Selma” and found myself watching it in a theater full of black teenagers.

Thanks to donations, D.C. public school kids got free tickets to the first Hollywood movie about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on his birthday weekend — an effort that was duplicated for students around the country.

The kids did plenty of talking and texting, and plenty of fighting over whether there was too much talking and texting. Slowly but surely, though, the crowd was drawn in by the Scheherazade skills of the “Selma” director, Ava DuVernay.

The horrific scene of the four schoolgirls killed in the white supremacist bombing of a Birmingham, Ala., church stunned the audience. One young man next to me unleashed a string of expletives and admitted that he was scared. When civil rights leaders are clubbed, whipped and trampled by white lawmen as feral white onlookers cheer, the youngsters seemed aghast.

In a delicately wrought scene in which Coretta Scott King calls out her husband about his infidelities, some of the teenage girls reacted with a chorus of “oooohs.”

DuVernay sets the tone for her portrayal of Lyndon Johnson as patronizing and skittish on civil rights in the first scene between the president and Dr. King. L.B.J. stands above a seated M.L.K., pats him on the shoulder, and tells him “this voting thing is just going to have to wait” while he works on “the eradication of poverty.”

Many of the teenagers by me bristled at the power dynamic between the men. It was clear that a generation of young moviegoers would now see L.B.J.’s role in civil rights through DuVernay’s lens.

And that’s a shame. I loved the movie and find the Oscar snub of its dazzling actors repugnant. But the director’s talent makes her distortion of L.B.J. more egregious. Artful falsehood is more dangerous than artless falsehood, because fewer people see through it.

DuVernay told Rolling Stone that, originally, the script was more centered on the L.B.J.-M.L.K. relationship and was “much more slanted to Johnson.”

“I wasn’t interested in making a white-savior movie,” she said.

Hollywood has done that with films like “Mississippi Burning,” which cast white F.B.I. agents as the heroes, or “Cry Freedom,” which made a white journalist the focus rather Denzel Washington’s anti-apartheid activist, Steve Biko.

Instead of painting L.B.J. and M.L.K. as allies, employing different tactics but complementing each other, the director made Johnson an obstacle.

Top Johnson aide Jack Valenti told Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian, that L.B.J. aspired to pass a Voting Rights Act from his first night as president. Valenti said that his boss talked to him about it the night of J.F.K.’s assassination in the bedroom of Johnson’s house in D.C., The Elms, before the newly sworn-in president went to sleep.

On the tape of a phone conversation between President Johnson and Dr. King the week of L.B.J.’s 1965 inauguration, the president said that he indicated the time was yet ripe to ask Congress for it, and he made it clear that they both needed to think of something that would move public opinion more than a presidential speech.


“Johnson was probably thinking, at least in part, of the spring of ’63, when J.F.K. was privately saying the public wasn’t yet politically ready for a comprehensive civil rights bill,” Beschloss said. “Then came the May 1963 photograph of Birmingham police setting dogs against African-American demonstrators, which helped to move many white Americans who were on the fence about the issue.




“Once Selma happened, L.B.J. was, of course, horrified, but he knew that the atrocity would have an effect on white Americans similar to Birmingham that would make it easier for him to get a Voting Rights Act from Congress.”

In an interview with Gwen Ifill on P.B.S., DuVernay dismissed the criticism by Joseph Califano Jr. and other L.B.J. loyalists, who said that the president did not resist the Selma march or let J. Edgar Hoover send a sex tape of her husband to Mrs. King. (Bobby Kennedy, as J.F.K’s attorney general, is the one who allowed Hoover to tap Dr. King.)

“This is art; this is a movie; this is a film,” DuVernay said. “I’m not a historian. I’m not a documentarian.”

The “Hey, it’s just a movie” excuse doesn’t wash. Filmmakers love to talk about their artistic license to distort the truth, even as they bank on the authenticity of their films to boost them at awards season.

John Lewis, the Georgia congressman who was badly beaten in Selma, has said that bridge led to the Obama White House. And, on Friday night, the president offset the Oscar dis by screening “Selma” at the White House. Guests included DuVernay, Lewis and Oprah Winfrey, who acts in the film and was one of its producers.

There was no need for DuVernay to diminish L.B.J., given that the Civil Rights Movement would not have advanced without him. Vietnam is enough of a pox on his legacy.

As I have written about “Lincoln,” “Zero Dark Thirty,” and “Argo,” and as The New York Review of Books makes clear about “The Imitation Game,” the truth is dramatic and fascinating enough. Why twist it? On matters of race — America’s original sin — there is an even higher responsibility to be accurate.

DuVernay had plenty of vile white villains — including one who kicks a priest to death in the street — and they were no doubt shocking to the D.C. school kids. There was no need to create a faux one.

[ccp]

Crafty,

Did you see Selma?

[Crafty_Dog]

Not yet -- Have you?

This article caught my attention because I am on the alert for Oliver Stone-like "improvements" of the story.

[ccp]

http://native-american-reparations.wikispaces.com/

[ccp]

though some say the invasion in the SW is a form of reparations for the war from 170 years ago:

http://www.latinola.com/story.php?story=1232

[ccp]

And of course Black reparations:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

[ccp]

http://www.adversity.net/reparations/reparations_for_reverse_discrimination.htm

[ccp]

I've also heard reparations arguments for Chinese in American, Chinese in Japan.

How about reparations for Pol Pot.  Or in Rhwanda.

Or for Mao?  Or for Stalin?  Or countless other Middle Easterners who spend more time killing each other than any other group.

How about reparations for the Blacks killing Blacks in the US?

I could go on.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

[Crafty_Dog]

http://michellemalkin.com/?p=162894

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2015/01/22/tables-are-turned-as-christian-files-complaint-against-baker/

[G M]

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2015/01/22/tables-are-turned-as-christian-files-complaint-against-baker/

Some animals are more equal than others.

[Crafty_Dog]

Griggs v. Duke Power deeply offended me when I first read about it in law school.

=====================================================================

Disparate Scalia
A better response to the Justice on housing discrimination law.
Jan. 22, 2015 7:00 p.m. ET
WSJ

A challenge to the Obama Administration’s antidiscrimination excesses finally got a day at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, though not without a few oral-argument surprises. Not least, Justice Antonin Scalia sometimes seemed open to blessing these political abuses.

“Disparate impact” is the legal theory that local governments and businesses can be liable for racially disproportionate results without anyone ever proving—or even suggesting—the intent to discriminate. Instead the Administration is claiming racist outcomes through statistical manipulation. In 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the first time codified disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act.

The problem is that this 1968 statute was designed to prevent intentional discrimination—behavior that segregates, classifies, restricts. Never contemplated by Congress, disparate impact was discovered by the Supreme Court in the 1971 employment decision Griggs v. Duke Power, and the lower appellate courts then spread it throughout U.S. law.

Liberals are prophesying a return to Jim Crow in Texas v. the Inclusive Communities Project, though Texas is merely arguing for the original housing-discrimination meaning. The more compelling objections came from Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence on statutory construction. He suggested that Congress endorsed disparate impact in 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act. These add-ons created exemptions for three specific business practices from disparate-impact culpability.

Taking the 1968 and 1988 legislation together, Justice Scalia suggested, meant Congress must have accepted disparate impact except for the carve-outs for those three scenarios. Mocking Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller ’s argument, he put the question squarely: “That’s a very strange thing for Congress to do, to believe that those court of appeals’ opinions are wrong and yet to enact these exemptions.”

Mr. Keller ought to have answered: Merely because federal courts and the executive rewrote a statute does not change the statute itself. Look to the text, not the judicial metamorphosis. The fact that Congress barred some uses of disparate impact in 1988 doesn’t validate all other uses or require a new High Court imprimatur for the 1971 judicial interpretation.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., in December. ENLARGE
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., in December. Photo: Associated Press

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli leaned hard on the three exemptions. But then if he’s so confident in his reading of the statute, what explains the Administration’s political exertions to prevent the High Court from joining the housing disparate-impact debate?

The Justice Department in 2012 engineered a quid pro quo settlement in a case out of Minnesota that the Court had already agreed to hear, meaning the case was pulled from the docket at the 11th hour. The next year the Court voted to hear a New Jersey dispute, but that township also settled in a deal brokered by liberal foundations and housing groups.

For 40 years there were no formal disparate-impact regulations for housing, but HUD suddenly adopted a formal administrative interpretation only after the Court accepted the Minnesota suit. Justice Samuel Alito pointedly asked Mr. Verrilli, “Should we be concerned about the use of Chevron to manipulate the decisions of this Court?”

Justice Alito is referring to the wide degree of legal deference the High Court extends to regulatory parsing of statutes. Mr. Verrilli responded with a crack about overestimating “the efficiency of government”—har, har—but Justice Alito is right to wonder if the Administration is attempting to game the standard of judicial review.

Justice Scalia did circle back to the essential point: “Racial disparity is not racial discrimination.” Whatever the statistics say, the Justices ought to reject the notion that one kind of racial bias can be remedied by another. If the HUD rule is allowed to stand, municipalities, landlords, bank lenders, you name it, will inevitably adopt tacit racial quotas to ensure the numbers work out and thus avoid a possible HUD drive-by.

This form of judicial modesty belongs to the cannons of “constitutional avoidance,” here meaning the Court should avoid producing the potential for illegal or even unconstitutional outcomes such as race-based housing programs or zoning laws. Rebuking the HUD rule would also send a message about the proliferating harm that disparate impact is inflicting on the private economy not merely in real estate but across the government.

To borrow one of Chief Justice John Roberts ’s formulations, the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.