The Race Pimps Who Let Anthony Stokes Down

Anthony Stokes was killed in a car crash.  He was driving a stolen car and was being chased by police.  This normally wouldn't make national news, but Anthony Stokes had health problems that put him in the national spotlight two years ago.  

As a 15-year-old he was diagnosed with severe heart problems that could not be taken care of with medicine.  His only chance of survival was heart transplant.  Initially the hospital said he didn't qualify for the transplant by the protocol in place.  He was listed as "non-complaint".  

Race groups ran to his defense once his mother talked to the media.  Stokes, according to his mother, was turned down do behavioral issues.  He had some problems in school as well as problems with the law.  While his records as juvenile are sealed, the family admitted he had some issues with violence.  This of course turned into a race thing.  From Think Progress

Regardless of Anthony’s specific past, his story fits into a larger pattern of racially-motivated skepticism about young black men. The routine criminalization of black youth — thanks in large part to the so-called “school-to-prison pipeline,” which funnels a disproportionate number of black teens into the justice system for minor infractions — ensures that teens like Anthony are often seen as threats. And once society labels those kids as criminal, suspect, or “non-compliant,” their lives are typically considered to have less value.

Now the hospital never publicly commented on their decision, as they cannot due to HIPPA.  So we only have the word of the mother of what that meant.  She herself said that the worry was that he wouldn't do the proper follow-ups and take his meds in a timely fashion.  Which if you know anyone that has had an organ transplant are vital to long-term survival.  

The real tragedy of this story, besides the loss of a young man, is that people who ran to defense were no where to found once he was given the heart transplant.  Where were the race baiters who cried for the injustice once the camera's went away?  The SPLC were all to willing to stand in front of the camera to use that young man for a political talking point.  But after the heart transplant was completed he lost his usefulness.  

If they are standing up and talking about how #blacklivesmatter why weren't they giving the support that teenager so obviously needed?  Where were his parents to help keep him on track?  I realize that every child that goes wrong isn't a direct relation to parenting skills. While growing up I knew a girl whose older siblings both became doctors and she was hell on wheels.  Some children, regardless of the circumstances of their upbringing, turn out differently than what people would expect.  But in many cases the children that do go wrong at a young age are doing so because they don't have proper role models and a family unit that is functional.  

The young man was given a second chance at life with his heart transplant.  But he wasn't given a second chance to live that life in a way that honored the donor.  He was a political tool and talking point about how this country doesn't care about young black men.  While the SPLC did indeed give him a name of therapist to help him with the transition after his surgery, they did no follow-up to make sure he was actually attending.  

This is one of the reasons that I can't take these race pimps seriously. When the camera is on, they are right there to soak in their time in the media glare.  But when the media hype dies down and the real work that needs to be done is beckoning, they are nowhere to be found.  

I am certainly not excusing the young man, he made the choices that resulted in his death, but he isn't the only one that deserves the blame.  If the race baiters want to say that black lives matter, then they need to be in the trenches and reach out to the at risk kids that are so selfishly using to increase their own coffers.  

When the black community finally has enough of the people who are using them for their own ends, maybe they will see some progress.  But until then, stop telling me that I don't think black lives matter, when you can't do something as simple as making a follow-up phone call to see if the kid ever bothered to show up for the therapist.  Stop telling me that the mother, who had no problem going in front of the camera for guilt shaming the hospital into changing protocol for surgery couldn't do anything when the red flags were appearing everywhere, including another arrest in January of this year.  That is the time that she should have gone back in front of the media and shamed all the race baiters who said they wanted her son to have a chance at a better life but simply walked away when the real work had to be done.  

Getting the transplant was the easy part.  That isn't what was going to give him a second chance at life.  The second chance was seeing the error of his ways and living a life away from crime.  That was going to take real work and dedication outside of the spotlight.  That was the time to show that black lives matter.  It is a shame that no one bothered to show up.  

Hey, What About All The Others Who Were Wrong in the Sterling Scandal?

I will say at the offset that I don't have a problem with what the NBA owners did.  Not because I think private speech should be punished or that racist speech is worse than other type of "hate" speech, but because I believe in the rule of law.  Part of that rule of law is contract law.  The NBA franchise agreement gives the owners the right to fine and suspend others with a simple majority vote.  When you sign that, you agree to the terms and conditions.  Mr. Sterling doesn't have a legal leg to stand on to stop the suspension or the fine.  

But there is a great number of people who are being left out of this conversation.  We can start with former commissioner David Stern.  It isn't like Mr. Sterling's comments should come as any surprise.  He was fined one of the largest fines in the history of the country for discriminating against minorities in housing.  His racists views were well-known long before that phone call became public.  David Stern did nothing about it.  Neither did any of the other owners, well at least as far as we know.  There may have been talk behind closed doors, but publicly no one did anything.  

We then can move onto the Los Angeles Chapter of the NAACP.  To me they come out looking far worse in this than Sterling ever will.  It shouldn't be overly surprising that a 80-year-old white man has racist tendencies.  It was a perfectly acceptable way to be and to think when he was growing up.  Yes, he should have "evolved" by now, but he is far from the only one from that generation that has not.  What I can't possibly fathom is the fact that organization  was about to give him a "Lifetime Achievement" award knowing full well he has history of discriminating against minorities.  Apparently to the NAACP it matters none if you actually are racist if you write some big ol checks along the way.  Did the NAACP not know about his housing discrimination issues?  Or did they just want the money more?   Sterling is just a racist.  The NAACP Los Angeles chapter are a bunch of money-grubbing opportunists that will allow the people they are said to be protecting to be violated against as long as they get theirs.  They will close their eyes to the very serious offense of housing discrimination as long as they are getting paid to.  Which just further proves that the organization has long since outlived their usefulness and should disband.  How can they possibly be taken seriously after this?  Not that I took them seriously about this beforehand, but I hope that some people will open their eyes.  Especially when you consider they are still saying today, they are "willing to work with him" as long as he finances some things.  Another words, write them another check.  

Now we can move onto the Congressional Black Caucus.  They seriously want the government to get involved with the NBA and how they set up their franchising?  Really?  They pounced on this to keep themselves in the news and to prove to the few people in the country who think that they actually accomplish anything are doing something.   C'mon the very last thing any professional sports franchise needs is the government getting involved.  They are actually profitable.  That will turn around quickly if the feds get their grubby mitts involved.  

We then have dear ol' Rev. Al who couldn't wait to get his five minutes in front of the camera.  He is now calling for more diversity in the game of basketball.  I suppose close to three-quarters of the players being black isn't good enough.  The NBA has more minority coaches and front office personnel than any other major sports in the country.  They have done the job of letting the free market decide who does and who does not have ownership as well as management positions all their own.  They don't need any interference from others.  

I now that many people are upset that Sterling is being punished for a private conversation.  I agree that shouldn't happen.  The problem is that we just can't ignore the conversation now that it is out there.  That conversation shined a light on his other transgressions that were wildly well-known within basketball circles that no one bothered to do anything about.  Yes there is a great deal of faux outrage involved.  But the NBA is far better off without this man in their ranks.  They real shame of the whole thing is that they waited so long to do it.    

But I have to say the most ironic part of the entire story is this:

Sterling was investigated, tried and convicted for housing violations by none other than that "racist" George W. Bush administration.  His AG office tried and fined him.  The NAACP of Los Angeles was going to give him a lifetime achievement award. You really can't make this stuff up folks.  

Parent's Night for Blacks Only - Apparently White Parents Don't Have Questions or Concerns About Their Child's Education

This happened in Portland, Oregon 

Do these idiots not realize how racist this is?  I guess not.  

H/T KXL 

Tired of Being Called Racist? Well, Here is What is in Store for You

Tribute or Insensitive? Chanel Steps in it With Indian Headress

More politically correct nonsense, now from the fashion world.  Chanel did a show for its pre-fall collection in Texas.  The theme of the collection is south-western with a Native American feel to it.  They had the audacity to use headdresses as part of the finale of the show.

Heaven forbid do something that shows of the beauty of the Native American culture.  Then you are, at best, insensitive and probably racist too.

When you look at the clothes that they were showing you can clearly see a Native American flair to them.  Personally, while I wouldn't wear the pieces with the fringes on them, just not my style, they are quite beautiful and obviously well crafted pieces.  But of course with the hypersensitive culture we live in, the demands for apologies abound.

Chanel has issued a statement:

"Native Americans are an integral part of Texas' rich history and culture and the feather headdress, a symbol of strength and bravery, is one of the most visually stunning examples of creativity and craftsmanship. We deeply apologize if it has been misinterpreted or is seen as offensive as it was really meant to be a tribute to the beauty of craftsmanship."

This constant need that some have to turn everything into a conversation about race really needs to stop.  The word has lost its true meaning at this point.  People should be very concerned about that because when real cases of it come up, people will not take them as seriously as they should.

Take a look at some of the photos and you can see for yourselves that nothing was meant as disrespect to Native American culture.  They were simply doing what fashion houses do at fashion shows, making the outfits over the top.

About Megyn Kelly and White St. Nick

I just love all this.  I really do.  Megyn Kelly had a panel discussion on blog post that was written by a black woman and her feelings of inadequacies as a child seeing a white Santa Claus.  Her tongue and cheek suggestion was that we now make Santa into a penguin so that no one else is forced to feel bad about themselves as she did as a child.  

This discussion, per the usual, turned into calls of "RAAAAACIST" and of course White Privilege.  I wonder how many actually watched the segment or just read what has been written about it?  

St. Nicholas was white.  St. Nicholas is what Santa Claus is based upon.  That isn't up for debate.  It is history.  He was a historical figure.  The point of the segment was that just because something in history is uncomfortable, is that a good enough reason to change it?  Her answer is no, it isn't.  She is right about that.  

Across human history there are many things that are uncomfortable.  The crusades, slavery, and the holocaust just to name three.  Do we get to change what happened because someone is uncomfortable with the history of it?  I am white of European descent.  I am only one generation away from it in fact.  I am only the third person in my family to be born in this country.  Now, do I get to whitewash the history of European whites that held blacks in slavery just because I don't like the fact that they did it?  No, I don't.  That is our history.  The same way that blacks that come from African decent don't get to whitewash the fact that many blacks on that continent made money on selling their fellow countrymen into bondage.  That is their history.  

I was reading an article not to long ago on the 9/11 museum that will be opening at The World Trade Center.  Some people didn't want the hijackers mentioned at all, they wanted it to be about the victims only.  I say heck no.  We don't get to decide for ourselves what that day was and what it was not.  19 men hijacked planes and killed 3,000 innocent people based solely upon their sick religious views.  That is what happened.  It doesn't matter that some people may be uncomfortable with that pesky little fact.  Muslims have to deal with it.  Saudis have to deal with the fact that the majority of them came from that country.  It isn't up for debate, or at least it shouldn't be.  

She was making no statement on race.  She was talking about why do we, as a culture, want to change historical figures into a narrative that fits a more "modern, feel-good, politically correct" thing?  What right do we have to do that as a society?  It benefits no one to change our history.  

This has played out in bright colors this week with the death of Nelson Mandela.  I can't think of another recent example that showcases what Ms. Kelly was saying.  Upon his death he was either characterized as a saint or the devil.  The truth is he contained elements of both.  His history does contain acts of violence and innocent people being killed due to those acts of violence.  That cannot be left out of the conversation about his life.  But the other side to that coin is that he left the violence behind him once he was out of imprisonment and tried to lead a country out of a government that was based on oppression, racism, and nothing short of tyranny.  Now I don't agree with his socialist views of government, but I didn't live that life in that time.  I am sitting in the cheap seats and it is real easy for me to say what I would and would not have done in his position, living in that country, as a person of color, in that time.  Freedom isn't free.  We say that all the time in this country when it comes to conversations about our troops and America's standing in the world.  I can think of no example of when a country that was under a tyrannical regime working towards more freedom for its citizens that didn't involve bloodshed.  It isn't pretty, but it is reality.  If there is one thing that makes me crazier than anything else, it is when people don't want to deal with the realities at hand.  We don't get to change our history simply because we don't like it.  Unless of course you want to be intellectually dishonest and lazy.  

There was nothing racist about what Megyn Kelly said.  She wasn't saying that black children can't look to Santa Claus the same way white children do.  She wasn't saying that Santa is only for the whites of the world.  She was saying St. Nicholas is a historical figure and nothing in the world is going to change that fact.  Deal with it.  

An Open Letter to Oprah Winfrey

Dearest Oprah:

I heard about your comments to the BBC about how racist we are against President Obama.  Many "hate" President Obama simply because he is black.  Well I don't "hate" President Obama at all.  While I have seen him in person on a few different occasions, I have never actually met the man.  It is very hard to "hate" someone who you never actually have met.

What I do despise are his policies and I, for the life of me, don't get his worldview.  That somehow I am responsible for the saving of the collective soul of America.  That no matter what I do for charity I am still somehow not doing it the right way, because I am saying that it isn't the responsiblity of the government.  I have always respected your works towards charity.  You should be an inspiration to many around the world because you have taken what you have been so blessed to earn and use it to help those less fortunate.  If it were up to Obama you would paying a much higher tax rate and the government would be taking care of it.  Well, attempting to anyway.  You would have far less to give away those free cars.  Remember those, the ones that people were so upset about when they found out they had to pay "taxes" on?

Another thing that has left me scratching my head in your statements is you.  You happen to be one of the richest black women in the country.  Did you get any of that money from the white people who are so racist that they "hate" President Obama?  I mean how could you have become so successful and rich beyond your wildest dreams if this is such a racist country?  For that matter how did this racist, horrible country elect a black man that they "hate" not just once, but twice?  It blows the mind, I mean how can that happen?

I stopped watching your talk show years and years before you decided to move onto other things.  But one of the interviews I did watch was when you interviewed President Bush after his book was released.  One of the things that struck me at the time was your utter lack of knowledge that President Bush couldn't just order the National Guard in Katrina, well at least not without violating the law.  I guess you have forgotten the hate and the vitriol that surrounded President Bush and the cries of racism about killing the black man in NOLA.  Were the people who did this racist against white men?  Was it liberal "white guilt" that propelled the calls of Fascism and the Hitler mustaches?

I have thought long and hard about the question if this country was ready for a black president.  I have long ago come to the conclusion that the answer is no.  But I would suggest to you that you are part of the reason why.  Simple dissent of any policy initiative against this president is called racist.  You don't like Obamacare, raaaaacist.  You didn't like the spending of almost a trillion dollars of borrowed money in a so-called stimulus package, raaaaacist.  You were against Cash for Clunkers, raaaaacist.  You have a problem with the debt almost doubling in the time that President Obama has been in office, raaaaacist.  I can only assume that President Obama has been perfect, has yet to make any mistakes, and deserves no criticism whatsoever.  Heck, there is even republican/conservative "cord words" now.  Who knew?  I mean if you are a supporter of the 10th amendment, you want Jim Crow and slavery to be reinstated in this country.  Didn't we just get a lesson on state rights just yesterday with President Obama's "fix" to the millions of people who are losing their health insurance?  The insurance industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the country.  The states will have to grant exemptions for them in order for the  "If you like your plan, you can keep it. period." promise to be fulfilled.  It isn't as simple Obama's magic wand!!!!  Imagine that, Oprah.  He isn't omnipowerful.  He can't, just with a stroke of the pen, change laws and regulations.  Those state laws about insurance regulations must be raaaaacist too.

I will concede that people in this country are still racist.  I will further concede that it has real world effects on some people's lives.  What I hope that you will also concede is that "many" of the opposition that is there towards your good buddy, President Obama, is the normal political process in this country and it isn't unique to him.  It is actually a testament to how far we have come.  But people like you and the Sharpton all blacks are a victim crowd, can't seem to accept that.  It must be racist.  What else could it be?

I have to wonder Oprah, were you this quick to cry racism when Clarence Thomas was attacked in the hearings for his seat on The Supreme Court?  Did you cry out for Presidential Nominee Herman Cain?  Do you weep for Allen West and the racism he faces when he gets called an Uncle Tom and a race traitor?  I am not sure I have ever seen those statements from you.  Did I miss something?  Maybe I did.  I don't follow you all that closely anymore.  I can't imagine why that this Oprah.  Oh, it must be raaaaacism.

Not Only Can't Miley Cyrus "Twerk", She's a Racist Too

Like listening to all the talk about Miley hasn't been painful enough, now this:

Aura Bogado ‏@aurabogado6h

Every time I see @MileyCyrus slap that black woman's butt, I think about the way that enslaved blacks were whipped for white entertainment.

Oh, please.  The young woman obviously had a bad performance last night, I don't know as I didn't see it.  Nor do I care to.   But to call her racist is simply crossing the line.

Get a life lady.  Would the performance been better had the butt slap happened to a white woman?  From what I have seen, the answer is no.

Tawana Brawley Finally Paying her Comeuppance

Tawana Brawley, the woman who falsely accused various men of holding her captive, raping her, then leaving her in a trash bag with racial slurs scrawled across her body has had her wages garnished in what is due to one of the men she accused.  Steven Pagones has been waiting years and years for the payments on the settlement he was given, more than $400,000.  You may recall this is the case that helped make Al Sharpton a household name when he came to her defense after she accused all white men of rape.

Sharpton staged sit-ins and rallies in order to see "justice" done in this case.  Police could find no evidence to file charges, but of course that didn't stop the race baiting Sharpton from pushing the issue.  Once it reached a grand jury they found no evidence to back up her claims.  The story goes that she stayed away from home for several days and couldn't find a reasonable excuse that her parents would believe and came up with this story.  While it does seem to be the case that her mother's boyfriend was a violent man who reportedly had beat her in the past, it still doesn't justify ruining the lives of innocent men.

Brawley showed no signs of rape or of hypothermia immediately after being found in a trash bag.  Brawley had no cuts, no abrasions, or virtually any other injuries at all.  It has even been reported that the hospital noted that her teeth had been recently brushed.  Hardly indicative of a person being held captive in the woods for days.  One neighbor says she saw Brawley crawl into the trash bag on her own accord and last but not least, all the writing found on her was written upside down.

To tell you the truth this isn't even good enough.  It is mind numbing to me that she was never prosecuted for bring false charges.  In my opinion every woman who brings false claims of rape should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What Brawley allowed to happen was even bigger than the men who were falsely accused, it brought a city; and a nation for that matter, to a racial divide that was totally unnecessary as well as potentiality dangerous.

This is the first time that Brawley has had to pay in any way for what she had done.  It is long since time that paid for her crime and her dishonesty.

Reason 34,289 Not To Live in Seattle

I love the pacific northwest, especially Seattle.  It is simply beautiful.  But I could never live there.  The people are  certifiably insane out there.  Shortly after the state announces it will spend millions upon millions of tax payer dollars to make all state paperwork gender neutral comes this,  

 An internal memo at Seattle City Hall is causing quite a stir. It suggests government workers no longer use the terms "citizen," or "brown bag."
According to the Office for Civil Rights, the terms are potentially offensive and other words should be used.

Citizen should be changed to residents and they have not quite come up with a replacement for brown bag, they are thinking sacked lunch may be more appropriate.  Oh my.  Apparently someone has gotten into their head that brown bag is a racial slur.  

And while city leaders publicize "brown bag" lunch meetings as a way to designate a bring-your-own lunch time event, the term has a sorted history. 
"It used to be a way people could judge skin color," Bronstein said in a phone interview

Don't these lawmakers have anything more pressing to deal with than this?  I mean Seattle has one of the highest levels of homelessness in the country and this is what they are choosing to deal with?  Have you ever heard anyone use the term brown bag lunch as a racial slur?  I didn't think so.  

Is is any wonder that our society and government is in such a mess?  

The Zimmerman Trial - My View

I cannot wait for this trial to be done.  This case has gotten on my nerves from the very beginning.  The coverage on this trial has been irresponsible at best.  Both sides have been gone overboard. There is zero proof that Zimmerman is a racist.  Even the federal investigation has said that.  Of course, the race baiters have kept this meme going, but that is what they do best.  They will continue this regardless of what the facts are.  Even after the attorney for the Martin family has said this case isn't about race, they continue.

Here are some things that I think that have gotten lost in whole melodrama that has been playing out.

For the Zimmerman Supporters:

While it is true that he was under no legal obligation to listen to the 911 operator, he still should have gone back to his car and gone to the meeting place he set up.  Had he done that Trayvon would likely still be alive and his life would have gone on as normal.

The fact that Trayvon smoked pot proves nothing.  Many people in this country smoke pot and are not drug dealers, gang members, or thugs.  I have smoked pot in my lifetime and I can assure you I have never been any of those things.  I was a stupid kid who made some bad choices when it came to using drugs.  People who smoke pot have a habit of discussing it and using it with their friends.

The injuries to Zimmerman were relatively minor.  It is a medical fact that injuries to the skull have a tendency to bleed a great deal, it is not indicative of a severe injury in many cases.

Just because Zimmerman is the only witness, doesn't make his story true.  A lifetime in prison is a very good incentive to lie.

Zimmerman has not been totally consistent in his story.  On the 911 call he said he believed Trayvon to be teenager.  In his Hannity interview he said he believed him to be the around the same age as him.  That is troubling, any time a person who is accused of crime changes a key element in his story, it is reasonable doubt he is not telling the truth.  If he is lying about that, what else is lying about?

Having pot in your system also means nothing.  It is said that Trayvon had traces of it.  Pot can stay in your system for quite some time.  If I am not mistaken it can be found in your blood for up to 14 days.  All that says is that some time in the two weeks before his death he smoked pot.  So what?  Pot isn't a drug that is known to cause aggressive behavior.  Usually you want to sit and eat.

Most, if not all, neighborhood watch groups do not want you to carry a weapon.  The legality of the weapon is beside the point.  While he had the legal right to carry it, the chances increase that things get out of control and someone ends up dead.  This being a perfect case in point.  It also opens up that homeowners association to liability.  Another case in point, they did indeed settle a lawsuit in regards to wrongful death.

If you are going to call the parents of Trayvon liars for saying it is their son they heard on the tape, then you must do the same for the Zimmerman family and friends.  The FBI experts say it is not possible to tell.  All of them are speaking from their hearts, not from something that is fact based.

If you going to say that Zimmerman had the right to "stand his ground", then you must say the same for Martin.  It is just as likely that Martin felt intimidated by being followed by a man he didn't know.  Evidence has been presented that is indeed the case.  Trayvon had the same rights under the law that Zimmerman had.  Rights are extended to everyone, not just who you think is the more sympathetic.

I have read and seen a great deal about Martin's mother trademarking her son's name once the protests and rallies were in full force around the country.  That was a very smart thing to do.  Why should some jerk get to make money of her son's death?  As far as I know she has done nothing to profit off it, she just protected her family from others doing just that.  She was given sound legal advice and she followed it.  Remember when Jay-Z decided to sell shirts during the whole Occupy Wall Street thing?  He went to make money for himself and did nothing to further any other cause than to make his bank account bigger.  People would have done exactly the same thing in this case.  If you just buried your child would you want to see that happen?

There is zero evidence that Martin was a gang member.  A kid who seemed to be heading down the wrong the path yes, but that doesn't make him a gang member.  Generally speaking, in a court of law that isn't relevant to the case at hand and what happened on that night.  That is the only issue that really matters; what happened the evening he was shot to death?

Zimmerman also had a criminal past, including incidents of violence.

It has never made sense to me that Martin would say "you are going to die tonight".  I have never believed that.  Now, had the comment been I am going to kick your ass, that I would believe.  But for it to escalate immediately to a death threat doesn't seem logical.

The next time you feel inclined to make statements about Trayvon Martin's mother, just remember a few things.  It is very likely she sent her son up to stay with his dad because he seemed to be heading down the wrong path.  That choice cost her son his life.  Imagine the guilt that mom feels.  She buried her youngest child.  That should never happen. I don't care what your child does, you never want to bury them.  

For the Martin Supporters:

Zimmerman was well within his rights as a neighborhood watch member to call the police and to watch what a stranger was doing in the neighborhood. Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to follow orders of 911.  They have no legal authority to "order" anyone to do anything.  They can advise, but they can't order.

Martin is not Emmett Till.  The comparisons are simply ludicrous.  I have actually heard people say that Zimmerman should be found guilty to make up for those that didn't get justice in the past.  Huh?  Zimmerman shouldn't be expected to pay for sins of the past that he has no control over.  

The Department of Justice did an investigation to see if this could be labeled a hate crime.  No evidence that Zimmerman acted in malice because of the race of Martin exists.  It just isn't so.  Zimmerman has lived a life that most others have, they people of all colors in his life.

Just yesterday we heard of a case that a man who found out his dad was cheating on his mother put him in a coma with one punch.  To say that Martin had no way of defending himself is sheer nonsense.  He was close to six feet tall. Martin was taller than Zimmerman, by four inches in fact.

There is some evidence that Martin may have committed theft in the past.  If this report is true the police in Miami let him slide on the theft to keep the numbers of crime stats down in the public school system.  Clearly, he was not a saint.  That jewelry came from somewhere and the screwdriver was there for a reason.  It is possible that Zimmerman simply nailed him for what he was, a thief.  

One of the things that has always bothered me about this case is that the phone call that Martin was on disconnected.  Doesn't it make sense that had it been Zimmerman that started the fight wouldn't the phone just have been dropped and stayed connected?  That seems the most logical.  The fact that the phone was disconnected makes it seem more likely that Martin started the fight.  If it is true that Martin started the fight, it goes a long way to it being self-defense and not some racist wannabe cop who targeted some innocent black child.

There is no other way for Zimmerman to have had the injuries that he had other than Martin causing them.  Martin did have scraped knuckles from being in a fight, he also showed no sign of defensive wounds.  He clearly got the better of Zimmerman in that fight.  That doesn't mean he started it, but he did cause injury to Zimmerman.  That gives credence to  Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

The law doesn't state that Zimmerman had to be in danger of losing his life, it only states that he had to reasonably believe that he was in danger of his life or bodily injury.  You can disagree with that, but that is what the law states.  Many victims who shot intruders/criminals are never touched, but are still covered under the law of self-defense.

One thing that rarely gets mentioned in the coverage of this trial is the fact that there was a reason that there was a neighborhood watch set up.  There had been breaks-ins in the recent past.  Many of those break ins were done by young  black males, it adds a layer to what George Zimmerman saw as suspicous.  The profiling wasn't based on race, but on recent past criminal history.  

The eyewitness that had the best view of the fight has said clearly that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.  Which again, backs his claims of self defense.  

The gun shot evidence shows that the gun didn't make contact with his body, but did have contact with the hoodie.  That also backs Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top and leaning over him.  

We have seen people turn this into a media mess.  One side saying this innocent little child was gunned down in cold blood by some bigger white guy who was doing it for no other reason than he was black.  The other side saying he was just some thug who got what he deserved.  That I take real issue with.  Simply because someone has done things that are against the law, doesn't make them worthy of a death sentence at the hands of a man from the neighborhood watch.  Who exactly gets make those decisions if that were the case?

The cold hard truth is this.  We don't know who started the fight.  That piece of information is crucial to knowing what happened and who holds any criminal liability for the death of Trayvon Martin.  Had Zimmerman started that fight he simply couldn't use self-defense as an excuse simply because Martin got the better of him.  If that were the case, I could go pick a fight with any one that I didn't like and use it as excuse for killing them.

Both parties made bad choices that night.  A 17-year-old died because of those bad choices.  Zimmerman should have gotten into his car and drove to the area where he was to meet the police.  Martin should have used his phone to call 911 instead of talking with his gal pal.  The bit of the time-lapse seems to indicate that he had enough time to return to his home.  Had any of those choices been made that evening none of us would even know the names of these two families.

This is a tragedy, not entertainment.  One family buried a son and brother.  The other family has lost virtually everything trying to defend themselves against these charges,  have been living in hiding, in large part due to irresponsible media and even some "movie stars".  No one wins here no matter how this turns out.  The Martin family truly believes that their son was murdered.  If they are wrong about that, it doesn't change what they feel in their hearts.  The Zimmerman family believes that he acted in self-defense and has no criminal liability.  He could spend the rest of his life in jail for something he firmly believes he had to do in order to protect himself.  It will take a long time for the Zimmerman family to get back to "normal" after this.  He will continue to have to live in hiding if he is found not guilty, for at least a time.  

You never know what a jury will decide, but the court has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's story is not true.  Based on that, they must acquit. We can hope we don't see riots in the aftermath as we did with the Rodney King Trial.  Now, that doesn't mean that Zimmerman is not guilty.  It just means that prosecution didn't prove the cause beyond a reasonable doubt.  We will never know what really happened that night.  But this trial has given the Martin family justice, as much as the law can give to the family.  What they want is their son back.  No court can ever do that.  But Zimmerman was judged by a jury of his peers.  That is justice, no matter how it turns out.  

Race Baiters and the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court released its decision on Shelby County V. Holder.  This case dealt with only one section of the Voting Rights Act; section 4.  This section used data from the 1960's in order to decide which states/counties/districts have shown acts of discrimination in allowing minorities to vote, ever.  

There is no denying that in sections in the country the ability for minorities to vote was made almost impossible.  In many cases, those areas are in the south.  But the question in front of the court was does the federal government still have the right to micro manage every aspect of how voting procedures are done in all these areas of the country close to 50 years later.  They answered no.  Chief Justice Roberts said that times have changed and the law must change with those times.  

I am not going to sit here and deny that racism exists, it most certainly does.  We have heard recent stories about churches in the deep south refusing to marry inter-racial couples.  But the other side to that coin is that in many of the areas that this section covered have minority voters registered at equitable numbers of their populations.  

Now we have all the racebaiters out in force today saying that minorities will be again denied the right to register and vote.  Where is the proof of that?  Many areas of the south have black representatives at all levels of government.  Is that automatically going to stop simply because one small provision of the act needs to be adjusted?  It is simply ridiculous.  But Jesse Jackson usually is.  

Herein lies the problem.  We are not in 1964 anymore.  Times have changed and the congress was warned years ago that this provisions needed to be updated, not just rubber stamped to continue for an additional 25 years.  This section actually forced the areas it covered to get permission from The Department of Justice if they needed to do something as simple as change a voting location 25 feet away.  How exactly is that going to effect minorities from voting?  If a white person can get 25 feet so can anyone else.  

In one recent instance, one small town wanted to take the party affiliation off the ballot on local elections.  The Department of Justice said that was going to disenfranchise black voters.  All it was going to do was make people actually research who was running instead of seeing a letter after their name and voting based on that.  Since it was a very small town, most people most likely knew them anyway.  But it didn't stop the federal government from sticking their nose into business that had nothing to do with them.  

Congress should have acted on this years ago.  Why won't they?  They are afraid of being labeled racist simply because they admit that many areas of the country no longer discriminate when it comes voting.  The democrats don't get to hold onto they are the champions of minorities and the republicans don't want to get called names.  So what do they do?  They simply act like nothing has changed in 5 decades.  We all know that it has.  

Many on the left are talking about the voting rights act has been gutted.  No such thing is true.  What we really have seen here is that voting rights act has been successful and it is a law that has done what it was supposed to do (the law was always supposed to be a temporary one until things leveled out) and we should be celebrating that.  There may very well still be areas of the country where problems exist.  Lets figure out where those areas are and write laws that make sense.  If this is still such a problem, it should be no problem being able to prove it.  

But of course that will make the likes of Jesse Jackson less relevant.  We wouldn't want that would we?  

The Obama Tape

Last night a video of a speech that President Obama gave back in 2007 was released in its entirety.  The tape is divisive, race baiting, and pandering.  One must ask themselves why that fake accent he is putting is not the moral equivalent of black face?  It isn't like the president grew up in a predominately black neighborhood and was speaking "Ebonics" as a child, then as an adult learned better diction but occasionally falls back into old habits when back in the "neighborhood".  Why the black community doesn't see how condescending it is for him to speak that way in front of them is beyond me.  

The speech was also widely inaccurate in terms of Katrina.  Of the course the media's conventional wisdom has been that President Bush put his feet up on his desk and thought to himself, hey I am gonna kill me some black people today.  New Orleans is what was put on television.  It certainly wasn't the whole story. The damage caused by the storm itself was much worse in Mississippi than New Orleans.  New Orleans actually survived the storm quite well until the levees were breached.  But New Orleans is what people saw.  The media didn't totally ignore what was going on in other parishes in Louisiana, but they almost did.  There was another parish that was just as devastated as NOLA was, and that one is predominately white.  The help didn't get to them anymore more quickly.  The government failed.  Which to me isn't a surprise.  I don't think the government is all that quick or efficient.  Matter of fact the government was by design meant to move slowly.  To me the biggest failures of Katrina in New Orleans was Mayor Nagin not doing enough to get those people out of there before the storm hit.  The Governor also was far too lax in her call for federal help.  

To this day many people don't realize that President Bush couldn't do anything for the first few days.  That pesky little thing called the constitution got in his way.  The state had to request federal troops.   The governor didn't do that for days.  We don't want the President of the United States to have the power on his own to put military forces on the ground in this country.  It is an invitation to tyranny.  

I also think it comes as quite a surprise to people like me who gave money to funds to help the victims of Katrina that I didn't care.  After all I am white, they were mostly black, so hey so what.  My church went to NOLA for about two years after the storm hit, cleaning up areas and helping people rebuild their lives.  We raised over $100K in those efforts in just the first month.  I am sure over the two years we raised a considerable greater amount.  But now I am being told that I didn't care.  That is news to me.  Not only did my faith based community give funds, they gave their time and their sweat.  But I guess I am just that average white person he talked about months later.  

I also found out that my roads don't need to be fixed.  Really?  I pay taxes too.   One of the things that I was reminded of while listening to that speech is the controversy here in D.C. surrounding the opening of the Walmart in several depressed neighborhoods.  He specifically mentioned that people have to go too far to do their everyday things.  That is very true in the neighborhoods that these stores are scheduled to open in.  But they have been fought tooth and nail.  It is mostly about Walmart not being unionized, but they won't admit that.  One of the D.C. council members actually said that opening them is a bad idea because people will get arrest records when they can't resist the urge to shoplift.  Yes, they really said that.  That is how little they really think of the poor.  

But the president had that covered too:

“We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.”

I must be an idiot.  It never occurred to me that being poor meant you couldn't figure out how to get to work on time or even understand why that would be important.  I didn't realize that they need to be taught how to dress.  Now, I can imagine that a person of limited income may need some help being able to afford nicer business attire, but not that they were unable to comprehend that they needed it.  I didn't know that being poor means that your intellectual capacity is very limited and the government needs to sweep in and teach you everything that may need to know how to behave in an office setting.  

Sadly, many in this country agree with him on this.  This is why I can't be a liberal.  I have more faith in the individual, even the poor ones.  I don't think they are so stupid they don't know these things without a government program to teach them.  Now, I would like someone who agrees with these statements to explain to me what makes you think if they lack the intellectual ability to grasp this without a government program why do you think they will ever get it?  Obviously you think they are so stupid that the concept of being on time to work doesn't occur to them on their own.  

Even this won't wake up the inner city/poor black community.  Here he is, telling you that you don't have the capacity to complete simple and basic thought processes on your own.  You are totally dependent on government to do that for you.  Yes, he has your best interests at heart.  

But, even more sadly is that, as president, he has done none of those things to help you.  The unemployment rate is almost doubled that of the general population.  But, hey details.  What do I know? After all, I am the racist for thinking this tape says something important about the liberal mindset of minorities and the poor.  Even though I have said repeatedly that being poor is more of a barrier in this country than color is.  Being born white and poor is no easier than being born black/hispanic/asian/ and poor.  I am still the racist.  

Of Dog Whistles and Other Such Things

I have enjoyed the spin on the left about the convention this week.  The outright falsehoods that are going on about the auto plant in Wisconsin has been quite amusing.  The video and newspaper reports that prove that the plant was indeed still making cars when President Obama took the oath of office doesn't seem to deter them.  I guess Romney's underwear is truly magic since the videos dated long before he choose Paul Ryan as his running mate.  

The outright disgusting behavior that was shown towards Mia Love and Condi Rice was very sad,  but even worse, it was expected.  The cries of the female version of Uncle Tom was heard loud and clear.  We get it, you don't like any person of color being conservative.  They are not allowed to think for themselves.  They must follow your vision, because after all, you are the party of tolerance.  

The left got their pants all twisted by Ann Romney's line of 'I have a real marriage'.  She wasn't talking about gay marriage.  She was talking about the same thing that every other married couple knows to be true, marriage is work.  The movies and the fairy tales don't tell you that when you are growing up.  She had five children to raise with a husband who travels.  She has dealt with real tragedy in her life.  The loss of a child, numerous health problems in breast cancer and the knowledge that she will be dealing with MS for the rest of her life.  She has come out the other side of those things with her marriage in tact.  That is not an easy thing to do.  The rates of divorce in our country prove that.  

Chris Matthews schooled me this week on the words that I am not allowed to use.  Chicago means racist.  Golf means racist.  All that secret code, oh my.  Al Sharpton has decided that the fact that Romney has a proven and clear record of putting minorities and women in positions of power and authority is a negative.  I am not even going to try and figure that out.  In his world up is down and black is white.  The only people who can legitimately put minorities is someone who shares his world view.  If not, I guess they are just pandering.  Some have gone as far to say that proves that they are racists.  Paul Ryan's college girlfriend who happens to be black is also somehow proof that he really doesn't like black people.  You figure it out, it just makes my head hurt.  

But this has to be one of my favorites of the week.  

 But that line about how when America needs to accomplish something great, "you need an American"? Dog whistle to the birthers?

Now, take a look at what he actually said:

Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon. And I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us: that unique blend of optimism, humility and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.

She is just pulling this crap out of thin air.  He didn't say when America needs to accomplish something, he said when the world does.  He was talking about American Exceptionalism.  Something that Maria Cordona obviously cannot even begin to understand.  The left doesn't see America in the same vision that I and others on the right do.  They just don't.  They don't view our place in the world as something special.  We are just one of many to them.  We should be more like Europe to them.  Why they don't just pick up and move to Europe is something that I don't understand.  You like it there so much, pack your bags.  No one is stopping you.  I will help you pack.  

Pizza, Safety, & Raaaaacism

Jets Pizza in Dearborn, Michigan will no longer be delivering pizza in the city of Detroit after dark.  Recently a 19-year-old employee was shot point-blank in the chest while delivering a pizza.  The normal procedure had been two people would go to make any delivery in Detroit.  One of the delivery people was legally armed.  It was the last delivery of the night and only person remained and was willing to go to make the delivery.  Luckily the young college student was not killed.

The cries of raaaaacism didn't take long.  So let me see an employer has to take the extra step of hiring people who have legal carry permits in order to protect the delivery man from being robbed and/or shot at while in the city limits.  The management/owners of this pizza place have at very least a moral obligation to their employees for their safety.  In some states it may even be possible that they have a legal one.

I am sorry, but his has nothing to do with race, this has to with safety.  A young man was doing his summer job and was shot in the chest and the bullet nicked his lung.  He is a football player and more than likely will miss the season because he was trying to be responsible and do the job for which he was hired to do; deliver pizza.

Detroit is the armpit of U.S. cities at this point in time.  If I owned a business that had delivery options available it is very possible that I wouldn't even go into Detroit in broad daylight.  I wouldn't be able to live with myself if one of my employees was badly injured or worse yet killed just to make a food delivery.  It isn't worth it.

I do have sympathy for the people who are left in that city.  Good paying jobs are not easy to come by, the crime rate is very high, gangs have infested the city, and it is just downright dangerous.  The public school system is an abject failure.  We could spend $50K per student and it probably wouldn't make a dent.

But this has become the new mantra in the U.S., cry racism at every turn.  As an employer do you really think it makes a difference that the city is mostly black?  Do you think the owner of this restaurant would do something different if the city were mostly white and still just as dangerous?

A local resident said this:

Ryan, a resident of southwest Detroit where the shooting happened, said he would “never let his wife outside after dark.” Would he go outside himself after dark? “Yeah, I would, but I’m armed,” Ryan said.
He added that many delivery companies in Detroit won’t go to addresses they don’t already know.

This man lives there and is afraid to let his own wife go out onto the streets after dark.  Is he racist too?  Maybe he is one of those safe hating black men?

Another said this:

John from Chesterfield called in and said, “This is not racist, this is a high probability risk assessment. I was in the military … If you’re going to go into Detroit after dark the risk assessment is you’re going to be robbed, shot or mugged … There are people in Detroit who don’t want to go out after dark either, it’s crazy, but that’s it.

One more for good measure:

Mike, a U.S. Post Office manager, said he had a part-time carrier who moonlighted in that area as a pizza delivery man, and he was also attacked. “The guy jumped out of the bushes and basically attacked him, pulled out a gun … It’s very dangerous over there. I’m black, I’m from the city, but that’s the highest crime area I staffed. I can’t blame the pizza owner for doing that. He has to look at those employees every day.”

The owner/management of this business is doing the responsible thing.  He is protecting his employees from danger that can easily be controlled by not making deliveries after dark when the chances are high they will be robbed, mugged, or even killed.

As I said, I have a great deal of sympathy for the people in Detroit who are stuck in this crime ridden area and sadly can't find a way out.  From what I have heard, the mayor is really trying, but has yet to make a significant difference as of yet.

If you bought me a house, paid all of bills, gave me a very healthy monthly salary, I still wouldn't live there.

This isn't about racism, this is about common sense.  Sadly, there are elements in that city that put zero value on human life, personal property, or civil liberties.  I realize it is easy to say that the citizens need to band together to stop these elements when I am not the one doing it.  I remember a woman in Baltimore who tried to do just that and she was murdered, and her killer was never found.  She was killed in broad daylight in the middle of the street.  Someone saw who did it, but are too scared to come forward.  I can't say that I blame them.  But the problem is, until the citizens band together to rid their city of these elements, they won't be getting any pizza deliveries from Jets.  I have this feeling that many others will be doing the same.  The honest people in this city are being held prisoner by the thugs.

Where is Jesse Jackson on this issue?

Quote of the Day - Toure Edition Part 2

“That really bothered me, you notice he said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.”
“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization, you are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Toure on the following comment by Governor Romney:

"He demonizes some.  He panders to others.  His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51% of the pieces.  If an American president wins that way, we all lose.  So, Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago, and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."

See my decoder ring (because all republicans and conservatives apparently have one) must be on the fritz, because I don't see any code words that really mean nigger.  

Can another of you please tell me which cereal box the decoder rings are in this month, so I don't miss any other code words?  Thanks.  It is greatly appreciated.  

Sadly, Toure is part of the problem and he doesn't even see it.  There was nothing even remotely racist about the Governor's comment.  As I said yesterday, the word racism has lost all meaning in this country.  We no longer use it properly and it is now used like a club to squash dissent of our president.  This is a very sad time in America.  

Chains, Politics, Racism, & VP Biden

All the political chatter today is about Vice President Biden's remark

"put y'all back in chains"

But let's looks the entire quote in context

“Romney wants to, he said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y’all back in chains,”

To me these look very different when taken in full context.  He was using a metaphor.  A poor one may be, but a metaphor just the same.

Much has been made of the fact that this took place in Danville, Va which is a city that has a population of almost 49% black.  This is what I find offensive.  If he had said this in a city that had a population that is say only 8% black it would have been different?  You can see from the pictures of the event that the crowd was diverse.

What I find so offensive is that what I am hearing in this uproar is that apparently we are supposed to change our language depending on who were are talking to.  Does that mean that I am supposed to create a blog for hispanic readers, another for whites, and yet another for blacks?  That I am supposed to change the language I use for the point I am trying to make depending on the skin color of the reader?  That is really offensive to me.

Is what he said stupid?  Of course it is.  But in full context it wasn't racist.

I do believe that Biden has some preconceived notions of things.  I think many will remember that he once made a comment about Indians and 7-11's.  The fact of the matter is that in the area that I live in you would be hard pressed to find a 7-11 that didn't have employees that are not of Indian descent.  What he said is true, at least in this area of the country.  That may not be true everywhere, but here it is.  So is that racism/bigotry?  No, it isn't.  Maybe it isn't polite to point it out, but that is about political correctness, not racism.

See I am no fan of how everything we say and do in this country has to fit into some preconceived notion of being politically correct.  Who is it that makes these rules?  Because we all know that they are different for different people.  Had Paul Ryan used the same words the likes of Roland Martin would be the first one to screaming and yelling it was indeed racist.  Whereas today he is saying that it isn't.  For once I actually agree with him that it was not a racist statement.

We need to get past all this PC nonsense and realize that using the metaphor of chains has nothing to do with slavery.  It is a commonly used metaphor that covers all kinds of things.  I am sick to death of everything being labeled "offensive" or "racist".  It is no more attractive when it comes from the right then when it comes from the left.

I dare anyone who disagrees with me on this to look me in the eye and tell me honestly that you wouldn't feel that had the exact same scenario happened to a politician you agree with, you wouldn't be defending it and saying it wasn't racist and people were over-reacting.  If you can't do that, then stop playing the same "racist" card that has been played on us for the past four years.

Is VP Biden a gaffe machine?  Oh, yes.  He is not the smartest tool in the shed, that is for sure.  He also has a habit of changing his dialect up a little bit depending on the crowd he is front of.  Which is offensive.  But there is no proof that VP Biden is a racist and that this comment was nothing more than metaphor of a theme that the right has been using for the past two years, of unshackling the private sector.  Could he have used a different word than chain?  Yea maybe.  But why should he have?  At some point we have to get beyond this nonsense and stop equating everything to race and slavery.

Take it away Joe: