Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category

Before he jumped into the race, Joe Biden’s Democrat presidential challengers brought up his history of his inappropriate (and creepy) touching of women of all ages. As quickly as it started, though, it died down. That’s unfortunate. Joe Biden is a creepy old white man.

As sad as Biden’s creepy touchy habits are, that isn’t his worst character defect. This article highlights Joe Biden’s worst character defect.

Never willing to let a good race-baiting opportunity go to was, “former Vice President Joe Biden rang the alarm that ‘Jim Crow is sneaking back’ at a campaign rally in South Carolina, the south’s first primary state that is seen as key to clinching the Democratic nomination.” This isn’t surprising, just disgusting and repetitive. Joe Biden has been doing this for years. Here’s another instance of Biden playing the race-baiting card:

Simply put, Biden is both a race-baiter and a pervert. It’s time that sensible Democrats rejected this type of campaigning. That’s if sensible Democrats still exist. Then there’s this:

On systemic racism, Biden gave the example that if two men named “Jamal” and “John” applied for the same job, “John” would easily get the gig.

I’m tired of hearing this crap. That sounds like something another old white Democrat (Mark Dayton) said.

Biden held a campaign rally Saturday in Columbia, the Palmetto State’s capital and home to the University of South Carolina. Bidden added to his usual fighting-for-the-middle-class stump speech by calling for protecting voting rights and ending “systemic racism.” Biden cited numerous states’ voting laws which he said are “mostly directed at people of color.”

Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams tried playing that race card, too. They almost won. Neither race should’ve been close. Apparently, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to race-baiting:

It’s sickening to see Democrats pandering to Al Sharpton, aka Tawana Brawley’s co-conspirator. While it’s sickening, it isn’t surprising.

John Ellenbecker, St. Cloud’s former mayor, is the worst kind of bigot. Like too many leftists, he’s heard things that’ve never gotten said. He’s certain of things that he doesn’t have proof for. This LTE caused lots of comments, including this comment from Mr. Ellenbecker:

the proposed moratorium WAS/IS about excluding people from St. Cloud. The desire to exclude people from St Cloud is based upon bigotry - that is a simple fact. You can delude yourself if you like - but bigotry is bigotry - and it is alive and well and living in those who proposed the moratorium. Bigots aren’t bigots because they disagree with me. Bigots are bigots because of what is in their heart and soul. Rather than arguing with me why not examine why you don’t want Somali Americans residing next to you.

This is simple fact? Forgive me if I’m not persuaded by Mr. Ellenbecker’s allegations. What’s his proof? FYI- Mr. Ellenbecker went to law school. I don’t know if he’s still a lawyer because I’ve heard that he’s had some ethical difficulties. He should be familiar with the concept of presenting verifiable evidence. Apparently, the law school he attended taught him that allegations are verifiable proof.

Here’s how Robert Ahles responded to Mr. Ellenbecker:

You keep making things up. No one mentioned Somali Americans or them residing next to me, next to Dave Bechtold, or next to many community member concerned about the additional taxpayer costs. I’m guessing I’d probably rather live next to a Somali American than next to a John Ellenbecker.

Well played, Mr. Ahles. Stick in the proverbial dagger, then give it a sharp twist or 2.

This isn’t surprising when you think about it. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee insisted that then-Judge Kavanaugh shouldn’t be afforded the presumption of innocence. The Obama administration’s Department of Education sent out a guidance letter instructing universities not to give people who were accused of sexual assault the right to an attorney, the right to cross-examine his accuser or any other due process rights.

Is it any wonder why lots of people don’t think that Democrats care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?

When the NYTimes hired Sarah Jeong, they hired a blatant racist. The only explanations for that hiring is that they don’t vet people or they don’t care if a person is a racist as long as they hate Republicans. Check out this collection of racist tweets Ms. Jeong posted:

What type of sicken human being writes such hateful things? The NYTimes’ reputation has suffered greatly in years past. This hiring won’t help restore that reputation.

Then there’s this:

As you can see, this wasn’t just a one-off mistake. There are around a dozen tweets and retweets from the millennial where she admits how much she hates white people, writing things like: “Dumbass f—— white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants” and “Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

What’s telling is that the NYTimes hasn’t fired her.

Michael Nutter is the former mayor of Philadelphia. He’s written this op-ed to defend the Philadelphia Eagles football team for not attending the customary Champions Day event at the White House. In his op-ed, Nutter quoted President Trump’s statement, which said in part “(The Eagles) disagree with their President because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country.”

Nutter then said “Here is where the lying begins and ends with Donald Trump — none of the Eagles took a knee during the playing of the National Anthem during last year’s regular season or playoffs.” Technically, Nutter is right. None of the Eagles took a knee a la Colin Kaepernick. Saying that they didn’t protest during the national anthem is another story.

This article proves that Eagles players protested during the Anthem. The title of the article is “Eagles’ Malcolm Jenkins explains why he protested during the national anthem.” Instead of taking a knee, here’s what Malcolm Jenkins did:

Does Mayor Nutter really want to base his argument on a trivial technicality? What’s most interesting is that Jenkins didn’t deny protesting:

Last week, prior to this political firestorm, Jenkins’ explained at his locker why he started protesting during the national anthem by raising his fist, and whether he believes the initial message has been lost.
Here is what he had to say:

“I think that is why the demonstrations were in fact very effective. Here we are going into three years later and we are still having conversations about it. Even though it gets confused sometimes, it is still creating that dialogue. I think the reason that we are still talking about it is that we have yet to find a better way to do it. To create this much buzz. Nobody has provided another platform for it to have the same weight so we will continue to figure out what we have at our disposal to bring as much attention to this cause as possible. To continue to stay on message about it being about systemic racism, about our criminal justice system, about police brutality, about lack of education and economic opportunities in our community of color. We will keep repeating that. If you want to talk about the anthem and the anthem is going to bring the cameras to me, so be it.”

My first recommendation to Jenkins is to stop listening to DeMaurice Smith. He thinks like a politician. My second recommendation for Jenkins is to pull his head out of his ass and start working towards a solution. Starting conversations without a goal in mind is just wasting time. Saying ‘we want to start a conversation’ is saying ‘pay attention to us. We don’t have a solution.’ If you want to change society, prepare enough to recommend a solution or a series of solutions.

Putting a fist in the air isn’t a solution. It’s a high-profile temper tantrum. If you want to be taken seriously, do the homework. Do the research. This isn’t kids’ stuff. This is about positively impacting millions of lives who need help.

Finally, I’d recommend to Jenkins to start advocating for African-American athletes to stop giving the Democratic Party 90-95% of their vote. That’s a surefire way of guaranteeing that you’ll be taken for granted. Putting that bloc of votes up for competition increases the politicians’ accountability.

A chill ran through me when I read this article. What’s frightening is that this program is built on the theory that disparities in discipline are based in racism. This isn’t just wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s political correctness gone too far.

Paul Sperry’s investigation lies at the heart of this potential crisis. Sperry’s investigation into the PROMISE Program revealed that “Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient. Documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations and interviews show that his school district in Florida’s Broward County was in the vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence.”

Whether the Minnesota program is called the PROMISE Program or not, the guiding principles are virtually identical. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights “announced 43 districts have suspension and expulsion disparities that violate the state Human Rights Act ‘because they deny students of color and students with disabilities educational access and negatively impact academic achievement.'”

What’s required is a discipline system that outlines each district’s behavioral expectations. Penalizing schools for disciplining students of color based on quotas is dangerous. Disciplining schools based on legitimate racism is one thing. Disciplining schools based on liberal fantasies like implicit bias and white privilege is dangerous. Either a student isn’t behaving or he/she is. The color of their skin, their ethnic background or their country of origin is utterly irrelevant.

This statement is frightening:

“Studies have proven that higher rates of school suspensions and expulsions among students of color and students with disabilities can have lasting negative impacts in their lives and education. That is why the (department) takes seriously any allegation or evidence that indicate disciplinary measures are falling disproportionately upon children of color and students with disabilities in our schools. It is our responsibility to fully review such allegations, and work with local school officials to ensure equal treatment under the law for all kids.”

According to this article, the federal directive was “issued jointly in 2014 by the US departments of Education and Justice” and “warned public school districts receiving federal funding and that they could face investigation and funding cuts if they fail to reduce statistical ‘disparities’ in discipline by race.”

This isn’t proof of racism. Again, school districts have the right to expect proper behavior. Period. If students of color are getting disciplined more often, perhaps the remedy is to insist that students of color improve their behavior. In the system described by Commissioner Lindsey, what criteria is his department using in determining who gets investigated?

For more information on this subject, check out Heather MacDonald’s article.

Ideologues like Gov. Kate Brown, (D-OR), don’t get it when it comes to border security. Their reflexive hatred for President Trump eliminates the possibility of rational thought. This morning, Gov. Brown took to Twitter to state her position on illegal immigration. She said “If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no. As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by [President] Trump’s plan to militarize our border.”

Angel Mom Sabine Durden replied “Do you have 2 lose a loved one at the hand of an illegal and join the many angel families before you get it? This isn’t about ur dislike of @POTUS, but about the SECURITY AND SAFETY of the citizens you are responsible for. Want ur child’s name in a story like mine?” Ms. Sabine then included this picture memorializing her slain son:

Do you have 2 lose a loved one at the hand of an illegal and join the many angel families before you get it? This isn’t about ur dislike of @potus , but about the SECURITY AND SAFETY of the citizens you are responsible for.
Want ur child’s name in a story like mine? pic.twitter.com/QFpRstJDkO

— Sabine (@sabine_durden) April 4, 2018

Here’s a little background on Sabine and Dominic Durden:

Durden’s son, Dominic, was killed four years ago in a fatal motorcycle crash. On July 12, 2012, Dominic, 30, was on his way to work when an illegal immigrant driving an unlicensed pickup truck took a wrong turn. Dominic was killed instantly.

The driver, Juan Zacarias Lopez Tzun, was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala with a record of drunk driving convictions. His initial sentence included nine months’ jail time, five years of probation, and a restitution fee of $18,800.

Then there’s this:

For Ms. Durden, the hardest part about Dominic’s untimely death was knowing that his killer was permitted to remain in a “sanctuary city” of Riverside County, California, after having demonstrated irreverence for its laws on multiple occasions. “I want my country to be protected, and I want others to never know the kind of pain and grief this causes — not just when your child gets killed, but when it’s avoidable.”

Gov. Brown apparently doesn’t want to hear from people like Sabine Durden. If she took time to listen, it might change Gov. Brown’s mind. That might lead her to get out-of-step with the Democratic Party.

There’s a personal cost that Gov. Brown isn’t considering:

“I’ve been called racist, Nazi, Hitler,” [Sabine] said, adding that she commonly has to report threatening Facebook messages she receives from strangers. But even more upsetting, she shared, are the biting comments from people who she “thought were friends,” telling her that she should “leave things alone and not separate families.” “And then I remind them, ‘What about my family?’ I don’t have one left. My only child is dead,” she said. “When they call me a racist, I show them a picture of Dominic and tell them, ‘That was my son,'” she laughed, referring to Dominic’s mixed race.

It’s time for Democrats to take their first real look at this crisis rather than acting like puppets dancing for campaign contributions from La Raza and other open borders organizations. Thus far, Democrats have demagogued this issue. When someone disagrees, they accuse that person of being a racist. The notion that Sabine is accused of being a racist is disgusting and dishonest. Whoever made that accusation should be publicly humiliated. Period.

This is the third Angel Mom I’ve written about this week. I’m writing about these women because their stories need to be told. I’m writing about things that the MSM hasn’t written about. That’s because they don’t want the real story to be told. This is too important to not get told.

At a time when SJWs run most suburban schools, I had difficulty reading this post. The opening paragraph states “Last fall, the state Department of Human Rights delivered letters to 43 Minnesota school districts and charters, notifying them that — based on significant disparities in their student discipline data — they were under investigation for violating the state Human Rights Act.”

My initial reaction was that these investigations weren’t complaint-driven. If they were complaint-driven, why would the MDHR send notifications to entire school districts? Doesn’t that sound like a scattergun approach? It certainly isn’t a focused investigation.

That theory is verified by the MDHR’s Hostile Environment in Education webpage. According to the website, a “hostile educational environment (hostile environment) is created when a child is subjected to conduct that interferes with or denies the child from participating in or enjoying the benefits, services or opportunities in the school’s programs and the conduct is intimidating or abusive on the basis of actual or perceived protected class status. The Act identifies the following protected classes: race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation or disability.”

A later paragraph says “In assessing whether the conduct created a hostile environment, school officials should assess whether the conduct was subjectively and objectively offensive.” I’m betting that the vast majority of instances are subjective. This paragraph is frightening in the age of snowflakes:

If the school determines that a hostile environment was created, school officials should address the needs of the student who was the target of the hostile conduct and take action to stop the conduct from occurring again, which may include taking adverse action against the individuals who engaged in the harassing conduct.

Again, there’s no talk about addressing specific complaints. If you want something to be effective, it has to address specific offenses, not nebulous conditions that are as much perceived as real. This webinar video ‘explains’ how people with good intentions can still do “bad things”:

Specifically, that webinar talks about “implicit bias.” It’s a way for progressives to explain how ‘good’ people can still be racists and how we need government to protect people from good people who are subconsciously racists.

According to this website, everyone has implicit biases:

A Few Key Characteristics of Implicit Biases

1. Implicit biases are pervasive. Everyone possesses them, even people with avowed commitments to impartiality such as judges.
2. Implicit and explicit biases are related but distinct mental constructs. They are not mutually exclusive and may even reinforce each other.
3. The implicit associations we hold do not necessarily align with our declared beliefs or even reflect stances we would explicitly endorse.
4. We generally tend to hold implicit biases that favor our own ingroup, though research has shown that we can still hold implicit biases against our ingroup.
5. Implicit biases are malleable. Our brains are incredibly complex, and the implicit associations that we have formed can be gradually unlearned through a variety of debiasing techniques.

Apparently, Commissioner Lindsey’s ‘investigators’ think that these school districts are filled with racists that don’t know that they’re racists. The first question I’d ask these people is whether they’ve visited the schools in these districts or if they’re just relying on reports from these districts. If these investigators haven’t done much in the way of investigating, then this office should be shut down or, at minimum, be dramatically transformed. As it exists right now, it’s place where SJWs bully people.

William McGurn’s column, titled “Wanted: An Honest FBI”, perfectly puts on display the difference between how Republicans see law enforcement and how Democrats talk about law enforcement.

McGurn’s column starts by talking about James Kallstrom. Kallstrom is described as coming “up through the FBI ranks, eventually becoming an assistant director and heading the bureau’s largest field office in New York. Over his career Mr. Kallstrom is credited with revolutionizing the bureau’s electronic surveillance, as well as leading big cases ranging from the probe into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 to mob investigations such as the one that helped send the “Teflon Don”—Gambino crime boss John Gotti —to prison.”

In McGurn’s article, Kallstrom said that he doesn’t recognize the FBI he worked in for 28 years. Kallstrom said that “99% of FBI agents are dedicated professionals. But the leadership in Washington has harmed the bureau’s reputation.” That’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have expressed clearly that they’re upset with the political leadership within the FBI and the DOJ. By comparison, Democrats have branded officers on the streets as racists:

Picture that. Gov. Dayton said that the police officer that shot Philando Castile wouldn’t have shot him if he was white. First, that’s insulting to that officer’s professionalism, training and willingness to put himself in harm’s way. Second, notice that Gov. Dayton didn’t question the police chief. He criticized an officer on the street. How disgusting.

The problem started, [Kallstrom] suggests, when Mr. Comey allowed then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ensure the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails would go nowhere. He rattles off a list of irregularities disturbing to any investigator: the reluctance to go to a grand jury for subpoenas, the immunity deals granted Clinton associates, the farce of an FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton that had a dozen people in the room, including Cheryl Mills, who was permitted to attend as counsel when she was a potential co-conspirator, etc.

While the Justice Department, not the FBI, makes these decisions, Mr. Kallstrom says Mr. Comey did have an option: “That was the moment he should have held a press conference, to announce his resignation—and then explain to the American people why he would not stay and preside over a sham investigation.”

Let’s be perfectly clear. There’s nothing right about not impanelling a grand jury and not insisting that materials be turned over.

Kallstrom is right. The Lynch-Comey investigation was a sham from start to finish. The political leadership of the FBI is compromised by its partisanship. Republicans have taken great pains to not question the rank-and-file investigators. They’ve focused on the top brass.

By comparison, Democrats have frequently questioned whether rank-and-file police officers are racists. If Democrats can’t stop thinking of rank-and-file police officers as racist, then we’re at a tipping point.

Yesterday, I wrote this post, which I titled “Why Ed Gillespie will win”, I wrote “Don’t be surprised if this causes an anti-Democrat backlash that swamps Northam. In fact, I’d argue that the backlash has already started.” This NRO article examines the Latino Victory Fund’s offensive ad.

Ben Shapiro wrote “Monday, just days ahead of Virginia’s hotly contested gubernatorial election, the Latino Victory Fund released an ad opposing Republican Ed Gillespie. The ad is uniquely horrifying. It features four minority children, Latino, Asian, Muslim, African-American, running for their lives from a white man driving a pick-up truck. The truck is festooned with a giant Confederate Flag, a ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ license plate, and a prominent ‘Gillespie for Governor’ bumper sticker. It runs the children into a dead end, its lights washing out their terrified faces. The children wake up in their beds. We then flash to video of the Charlottesville white-supremacist march, as a voice asks, ‘Is this what Donald Trump and Ed Gillespie mean by the American dream?’ This sort of thing is insane, and it divides the country beyond any reconciliation. Alexander Hamilton recognized the danger of impugning the motives of political opponents in Federalist No. 1: ‘In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. . . . And yet . . . a torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.'”

Shapiro calls LVF’s anti-Gillespie ad “the worst in political history.” He’s right. What the LVF did was stupid. This close to election day, GOTV operations are super-important. This ad will create a turnout higher than any GOTV operation Ed Gillespie could’ve put together:

That’s why Ed Gillespie will win.

A month+ ago, Ed Gillespie didn’t seem to have much of a chance of becoming Virginia’s next governor. This morning, I’m predicting that he’ll win next Tuesday’s election. This article explains why he’s likely to win. The article opens by saying “A television ad depicting supporters of Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Ed Gillespie as Confederates who attack children of color has been pulled in the wake of the terror attack in New York City. The Democratic group Latino Victory Fund removed the controversial ad, which showed a pickup truck driver chasing down children of color on Tuesday, Oct. 31.”

This close to an election, polling isn’t reliable because things are fluid. At this point in the campaign, it’s all about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) operations, capitalizing on backlashes and momentum swings. I’d bet the proverbial ranch that the pulled ad is creating an anti-Northam backlash. Cristobal J. Alex, the “president of the LVF,” posted a tweet saying “We knew our ad would ruffle feathers. We held a mirror up to the Republican Party, and they don’t like what they see. We have decided to pull our ad at this time. Given recent events, we will be placing other powerful ads into rotation that highlight the reasons we need to elect progressive leaders in Virginia.”

Alex apparently didn’t learn the first rule of holes, which is that “if you’re in one, stop digging.” This Washington Post editorial states “Ralph Northam would not have run this ad and believes Virginians deserve civility, not escalation,” a spokesman for Mr. Northam emailed us.” Northam didn’t criticize this ad immediately:

Northam’s silence says everything that voters need to know about Northam’s lack of character. Ben Shapiro’s article details the ad, saying “Monday, just days ahead of Virginia’s hotly contested gubernatorial election, the Latino Victory Fund released an ad opposing Republican Ed Gillespie. The ad is uniquely horrifying. It features four minority children, Latino, Asian, Muslim, African-American, running for their lives from a white man driving a pick-up truck. The truck is festooned with a giant Confederate Flag, a ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ license plate, and a prominent “Gillespie for Governor” bumper sticker. It runs the children into a dead end, its lights washing out their terrified faces. The children wake up in their beds. We then flash to video of the Charlottesville white-supremacist march, as a voice asks, ‘Is this what Donald Trump and Ed Gillespie mean by the American dream'”

Don’t be surprised if this causes an anti-Democrat backlash that swamps Northam. In fact, I’d argue that the backlash has already started.