Bishop Jackson to Blacks: End Your Slavish Devotion to the Democrat Party

The press conference speech below is even better.

Quote of the Day: Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter

The following quotes come from Mayor Nutter's remarks from the Mount Carmel; Baptist Church pulpit where he excoriated some (obviously not all) of the black, urban youth of his city in which he said about flash mobs that attack the innocent on Philadelphia streets, “You’ve damaged yourself, you’ve damaged another person, you’ve damaged your peers and, quite honestly, you’ve damaged your own race” He also said,

“Take those God darn hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt ’cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt. Nobody.”

“If you walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ’cause you look like you’re crazy!”

“The Immaculate Conception of our Lord Jesus Christ took place a long time ago, and it didn’t happen here in Philadelphia. So every one of these kids has two parents who were around and participating at the time. They need to be around now.”

“Parents who neglect their children, who don’t know where they are, who don‘t know what they’re doing, who don‘t know who they’re hanging out with, you’re going to find yourself spending some quality time with your kids in jail.”

To fathers: “If you’re not providing the guidance,and you’re not sending any money, you’re just a sperm donor.”

These observations are certainly not limited to black youths, either, although some are addressed to the worst of urban styles.

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ... v. Regents of the University of Michigan

In a case that sets the 14th Amendment squarely on its head, in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights And Fight For Equality By Any Means Necessary (Bamn) et al. v. Regents of the University of Michigan et al, ___ F. 3d ___ (7/1/2011), the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that a state may not ban discrimination on the basis of race if the ban results in minorities not being able to be the beneficiaries of racial discrimination.

In 2006 the citizens of Michigan voted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, including preferences, by a referendum proposition that read,

(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(3) For the purposes of this section “state” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.

In a 2 to 1 decision, in bafflingly obtuse language, the majority suggested that the proposition "works as a reallocation of political power or reordering of the political process to place 'special burdens' on racial minorities."

Huh?

How is it possible, logically or practically, that eliminating preferences places special burdens on minorities? The only "burden" is a prohibition upon race-based preferences.

In my view, discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. Period.

In a university admissions policy, for example, there are as fixed number of admissions available. preferring one race necessarily discriminates against another. However the elites may think it benefits society to have racial quotas, from the standpoint of the student refused admission to support another's preference, it is wrong, pure and simple.

In its analysis, the majority said that because the proposition classified on the basis of race, the court had to strictly scrutinize the legislation. The majority had the legal analysis exactly backward. As the dissent pointed out:

“The central purpose of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race.” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976). We apply strict scrutiny to those laws that racially classify individuals, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 216 (1995), and intermediate scrutiny to those laws that classify individuals based on gender, United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531 (1996). Racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny if (1) the law classifies on its face or (2) the law has a discriminatory impact and a discriminatory purpose. See Davis, 426 U.S. at 241. The district court concluded that Proposal 2, which prohibits racial classifications, a fortiori does not classify facially on the basis of race. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action, 539 F. Supp. 2d at 951. Although the district court did find “sufficient evidence to establish a fact question on the disparate impact part of the test,” it did not find a discriminatory purpose. Id. Indeed, it stated that “the demonstration of a discriminatory purpose . . . dooms [the] conventional equal protection argument.” Id. Furthermore, the district court found the equal protection argument based on gender “even less compelling” due to the less exacting level of scrutiny. Id. at 952. I agree with the conclusions of the district court.

Proposal 2 does not establish a facial racial classification because its text does not draw distinctions on the basis of race; in fact, it prohibits them. Additionally, Proposal 2 does not classify racially on an impact theory because it lacks a discriminatory purpose. “[A]bsent a referendum that facially discriminates racially, or one where although facially neutral, the only possible rationale is racially motivated, a district court cannot inquire into the electorate’s motivations in an equal protection clause context.” Arthur v. Toledo, 782 F.2d 565, 574 (6th Cir. 1986). Thus, no heightened level of scrutiny need be applied to Proposal 2, and under rational basis review, Proposal 2 is easily justifiable. Proposal 2 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause under the conventional analysis.

How can a state law prohibiting racial discrimination, but either placing burdens upon or preferring minorities ever be a race based classification? It can't, except in the Orwellian world of the progressives.

I think the Supreme court will likely take this case for review, because it is so high-profile and so important.

Click on the title of the case for a .pdf of the whole thing.

Memo to NAACP: Embrace Whites Who Want Smaller Government

The tea parties are all about smaller government. Here is the good news: The Daily Caller is reporting on studies that show that whites who want smaller government are less likely to be racist than whites who want more government.

Of course this makes sense. Whites who want less government generally believe that all people, white, black, and other have the inherent ability to fend for themselves.

Big government liberals believe that blacks need to government to give them a boost.

Which attitude is the racist one? No contest.

Another important finding: White Democrats are more likely to be racist than white Republicans.

Are you listening NAACP? Jesse? Al?

Obama the Race Baiter

The US News and World Report is saying that President Obama thinks that race is a component in the Tea Party opposition to him and his policies.

I am not surprised that he thinks so. This is a guy who thought that everyone would like the federal government take-over of the nations health care system if he explained it well enough. He explained it over and over again, but the problems exist in the concept and in the legislation and cannot be explained away.

So, the President needs a scapegoat. No one will listen to his wonderful explanations for his far left programs, because we are all racist. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party folks valuing personal freedom more than big government nannies intruding into every aspect of our lives. No. The Government-is-good crowd truly cannot conceive anyone disagreeing with their unrealistic utopian views.

Shame on you Mr. President, for your myopia.

Moron of the Day: Donny Deutsch of MSNBC

On Morning Joe, Donny Deutsch interview race-baiter Al Sharpton, saying that Arizona was a strange state, because among other things, it does not recognize Martin Luther King Day.

WRONG!

ARS 1-301 specifically recognizes Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday.

Al Sharpton takes the bait, of course. You would think he would know if there were still a state that did not recognize Dr. King and would organize protests or something. Still, it was Deutch who asked the question with the demonstrably false premise.

Video follows:



Congratulations to Donny Deutsch, Moron of the Day.

Martin Luther King Day

I have said loud and long in this space that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. Dr. King, whatever flaws he may have had, did a great thing for this country. He taught us most eloquently and forcefully the principle that a that person should be judged not by the color of skin, but by the content of character.

Exploiting a wonderful legacy, there are race hustlers in the country that give lip service to Dr. King's principle, but agitate for privilege based upon skin color rather than meritorious character. Shame on them. You know who they are.

Thanks to Dr. King, in my judgment, sledgehammer legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its imitators are no longer as vitally necessary as they once were. I believe that society has changed enough that as fine as are the principles in that legislation, we are now at the point that the laws are now doing more harm than good to those who are supposed to be protected. Laws have an inertia of their own. Once enacted, they are hare to get rid of or replace with something better.

I think it is time to re-examine these laws in the light of today's reality. Credit Dr. King and others who fought with him for, if not the change itself (which may have been inevitable) but for the speed at which change in society's attitudes have occurred.

Increasing Minority Employment Opportunities

Unemployment among the minority populations continues to be a serious problem. It needs a solution.

Sometimes the best solution to a problem is completely counterintuitive.

The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act applies only to employers with 50 or more employees. The Ohio Civil Rights Act applies to all employers. Most employment opportunity is with small employers.

I believe that the biggest impediment to small employers hiring minorities is the Ohio Civil Rights Act. Why? Many small employers believe, not unreasonably, that unsatisfactory minority employees will use the threat of going to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to avoid being fired.

What small employer can afford huge legal fees for a defense if the employee does not work out? Free at-will employment creates jobs. It allows employers to experiment with marginal candidates, because they know that if an employee does not work out, the employee may be freely terminated. Employers are not afraid to hire.

But if you throw penalties for wrongful termination into the mix, employers will be much more selective in hiring. Why take a chance on someone with questionable qualifications? If the employer is faced with a claim of discrimination, even if not meritorious, terminating the minority becomes very expensive. In the employer's mind, why take a chance by hiring a minority in the first place?

We have come a long way since 1964. Yes, there is still racial discrimination based upon purely racial attitudes. I believe, however, that most employers, when given the opportunity, would prefer to give minorities a chance to do well. Under the current system, a small employer does not dare give a job to minority who is not fully qualified. There is nothing unlawful about discriminating against an unqualified candidate. Isn't it better to encourage small employers to give marginally qualified minorities a chance to make good?

The solution: Repeal the Ohio Civil Rights Act.

If may not "feel" right. It is certainly counterintuitive ... until you think it through. Increasing penalties or increasing enforcement would have the opposite effect, discouraging employment.

I believe at-will employment regardless of race is better for minority employment. Yes, it would fail to punish racial discrimination in some cases. However, it would result in greater minority employment overall.

Isn't that really better for all of us?

NAACP Dishonesty On Video

In our blog post yesterday, we condemned the racist elements within the NAACP.



For a report on who wrote the report alleging racism in the tea parties, go here.  Does anyone really think that the reports conclusions were not pre-ordained?

Dishonesty.

Racism and Antisemitism in NAACP Condemned

The Voice of Reason hereby condemns all racism and antisemitism in the ranks of the NAACP and urges the NAACP to take effective and public steps to rid itself of these bad elements..

The racism of the NAACP is well documented (example here) and need not be repeated further.  The NAACP antisemitism is best exemplified by its embrace of Louis Farrakhan at one of its summits where Farrakhan jabbered nonsense about whitey and the Jews.  Report here..

The hypocritical NAACP has released a report claiming that there is bigotry in the tea party movement.  Guess what?  There are conservative bigots, liberal bigots, progressive bigots, black bigots, white bigots, red bigots, yellow bigots and green bigots scattered throughout society, and can be found in any movement or large organization.  The Democratic party for instance.

If the tea part is so bigoted, why is Herman Cain so popular among the tea partiers?

The NAACP has abandoned all pretense of credibility, in my opinion.

Dr. Mildred Jefferson, R.I.P.

Dr. Mildred Jefferson passed away at age 84 last Friday.  From Boston.com:

Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School and the first female surgical intern at Boston City Hospital, broke many race and gender barriers during her long career as a doctor. But it was when she turned to politics, emerging four decades ago as a eloquent leader of the antiabortion movement, that she began to win a following.

 Despite Dr. Jefferson's ground breaking career, her passing is being ignored by most of the major media.  I suppose it is because of the obvious.  The major media have become so issue-driven that the achievement of Dr. Jefferson must be smothered under her politically incorrect belief that unborn children should not be murdered.  Dr. Jefferson was a board member and three term president of National Right to Life.  (I differ with Dr. Jefferson and National Right to Life on the proposed remedies to the abortion problem, but this is about her, not me.)

As a physician, she remained true to her Hippocratic oath:

“I am at once a physician, a citizen, and a woman, and I am not willing to stand aside and allow this concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged, and the planned have the right to live,’’ she told [American Feminist] magazine.

She must have been a very interesting person:

Dr. Jefferson broke many barriers yet didn’t have a driver’s license. “The story was that she was always thinking about so many interesting things that she wouldn’t be paying attention to the road,’’ [close friend Anne] Fox said. 

Thank you, Dr. Jefferson, for showing that everyone with the skill, intelligence and determination can become successful and serve society, despite artificial barriers such as race or sex.  Thank you for your life of service.

Rest in peace.

Hollywood Hypocrisy in Action

What’s the Difference Between a Tea Party and Oscar Night? You See Black People at Tea Parties, reported at BigHollywood.com.

Of course it may be true that no black or other minority actors or actresses had remarkable performances this year. I am sure The Root would disagree. I am not a big enough movie-goer to assess any of the performances, nominated or not. I am not one to advocate for Oscar quotas based on race. Sometimes disparate impact outcomes are justified. That is not the story you usually hear from big liberal Hollywood types.

Will this year's dearth of Oscar nominated minorities lead to the Black Oscars or something? Wouldn't that be sad?

Entitlement Mentality

The Reason websites, reason.org and reason.com have interesting tidbits of information.

I was struck by one that illustrates the depths to which we have sunk into the Nanny state. It is not even a story about bad behavior by the government. It is about the attitude of certain recipients of Nanny state benefits. The entitlement mentality. Those who think they have special rights. Here is the report:

Two women have filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations claiming they were denied service at a Lake Wales bar because they are black. Mildred Richardson and Ida Mae Royal said they went to the bar for a sandwich and when a waitress asked them what they wanted they said they wanted to order lunch. They say the waitress told them they didn't serve food, and they believe that constitutes racial discrimination. The bar's owner, Kerry Winkler, says he doesn't have a food license and no one—regardless of their color—can order lunch there.

US Lies to UN Human Rights Panel

Hillary Clinton, our agenda-driven Secretary of State, has issues a report (UPR 2010 submission) to the United Nations Human Rights panel claiming that housing discrimination against minorities caused the current and continuing financial crisis. Specifically the report said,

46. Following the recent economic crisis, the issue of predatory lending, and particularly discriminatory lending, is an area of enforcement focus. The recession in the United States was fueled largely by a housing crisis, which coincided with some discriminatory lending practices. The subsequent foreclosure crisis has disproportionately affected communities of color, and the federal government has focused resources and efforts to determine whether and where discrimination took place, as well as to ensure greater oversight going forward to prevent similar crises in the future. In this respect President Obama signed major financial reform legislation in 2010 that includes a new consumer protection bureau, among other provisions.

In other words, housing discrimination fueled the recession.

Huh?

In an insightful article in The American Thinker, Jack Cashil destroys the report's main premise.

Let us begin with this premise always and oft repeated. Discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. As Mr. Cashil points out, racial discrimination in favor of minorities actually hurts the allegedly benefited minority:

To make the accusation of discrimination work, the report writers had to ignore the most telling set of data, namely default rates. In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development did a comprehensive study of FHA loans that originated in 1992. The sample size was substantial -- nearly 250,000 loans.

Given that the FHA insures only modest loans for low- and moderate-income people, the cross-racial comparisons were for comparable properties. What the study revealed, among other results, was that after the seven prosperous years from 1992 to 1999, blacks were defaulting on their loans more than twice as frequently as whites, and Hispanics were defaulting three times more frequently.

Here is the crucial point: if minorities had been held to a higher standard than whites, their default rates should have been lower than whites, not higher. These numbers suggest the opposite and the obvious: blacks and Hispanics were held to lower standards and have been for at least the last forty years. Chinese-Americans, by the way, actually did have lower default rates than whites.

As to why black homeownership rates are lower, only the willfully blind can fail to see the problem: namely, the government-induced collapse of the two-parent black family. In 1993, the average income for households headed by divorced women was 40 percent that of married couples; for unmarried women, it was only 20 percent. As the numbers suggest, many of these women could not manage homes of their own. Homeownership rates for female-headed households have struggled to stay above 50 percent. For married couples, by contrast, the rates have hovered consistently in the 80th-percentile range.

Read it all (link above).

I can remember being told by a black woman that she avoided black doctors, because she was afraid that they had been pushed along, unqualified, by affirmative action. That is a sad, but very real effect of a well-meant policy of racial discrimination by preferences. The implicit assumption is itself racist: blacks are not capable of succeeding on their own, so they need white help on the form of preferences.

Racial discrimination is wrong, and even well-intended discrimination is harmful. The Obama administration is telling the United Nations that President Obama is committed to making the situation worse.

Is this a great presidency or what?

Al Sharpton Told Off ... In the Nicest Way

Watch Al Sharpton's face.

Ben Jealous: Racial Provocateur? Or Mentally Ill? You Decide.

The NAACP's Ben jealous makes false accusations against the American who attended Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally on Saturday, implying that they are racist.

Glenn Beck takes him down:

Employers Check Backgrounds, Get Targeted for Discrimination Complaints

Is it illegally discriminatory to run criminal or credit background checks before hiring? Watch out, the Obama administration may go after you if you do.

WASHINGTON — Companies using criminal records or bad credit reports to screen out job applicants might run afoul of anti-discrimination laws as the government steps up scrutiny of hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics.

A blanket refusal to hire workers based on criminal records or credit problems can be illegal if it has a disparate impact on racial minorities, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency enforces the nation’s employment discrimination laws.

Read it all here.

The Justice Department points out that 38% of the prison population is black compared to about 12% of the general population. Why is that?

Is it because blacks are more likely to be incarcerated for the same crimes? That is not my observation (anecdotally) in court proceedings I have observed, but that may be part of it.

If it is not because of a higher incarceration rate, it must be because of either a higher rate of committing the crimes or a higher rate of getting caught. Why?

It would take serious studies to look into it, and we may never have the answer.

Since most crimes by black criminals are against black victims, it would be hard to describe it as some sort of racism backlash (i.e., Whitey took from us, so I'm gonna take from whitey). Is it cultural, perhaps related to the high rates of illegitimate births in the black community (which may have started with a poorly designed welfare system: ADC used to encourage illegitimate children by increasing welfare payments with each illegitimate birth. -- economics in action)? Fatherless households have greater risk of poor socialization of children. Although the white community is catching up, the black community, I understand, still leads in fatherless households.

We humans are so complex, I am sure there are no simple answers.

Still, black, white, Hispanic, or other: doesn't a history of criminal behavior say something about the likely prospective behavior of the prospective employee? Does the Government have the right to force employers to hire criminals? Isn't that simply too much government intrusion?

If government is going to intimidate employers into not checking backgrounds, who will be responsible if the employee commits the next crime while on the job?

Apologies

From Legal Insurrection:

Still Waiting For Apologies

Now that the left-wing blogosphere and Democratic media operatives Media Matters and Think Progress have found the Religion of Context when it comes to Shirley Sherrod ...

how about finally apologizing for the months long smear in 2009 that Census worker Bill Sparkman was killed by anti-government, Tea Party-affiliated, right-wing talk show inspired extremists. Think Progress, which is leading the charge on Sherrod, linked the Sparkman killing to Michele Bachmann's concerns that the Census was too intrusive, and numerous left-wing bloggers did the same.

There never was a shred of evidence to support the allegations, and it turned out that Sparkman committed suicide.

And while we're at it, how about some apologies for all the false allegations by Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Charles Blow and numerous left-wing bloggers claiming that health care protesters were violent, and falsely linking the Tea Parties to the Amy Bishop shooting, the IRS Plane Crasher, the Fort Hood attack, and the Pentagon shooter.

And while we're at it, all the left-wing bloggers who called health care protesters thugs and a mob and astroturf and terrorists and Birthers and harassers and manufactured and frightening and vicious and "Karl Rove's wet dream."

And while we're at it, the Democratic Party and left-wing bloggers who have seized on a strategy of painting all political opponents as crazy.

And while we're at it, how about Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer apologizing for calling health care protesters "un-American"; and Harry Reid for comparing opposition to Obamacare to opposition to ending slavery; and Sheldon Whitehouse for invoking Kristallnacht and comparing health care opponents to white supremacists; and Alan Grayson and his groupies for saying Republicans wanted patients to die; and the Southern Poverty Law Center for serving as a tool of the Democratic Party by branding legitimate political opposition as racist.

And while we're at it, how about all those who have elevated the use of the race card to the central tool in the Democratic Party arsenal, thereby tearing at the fabric of this country (and ruining my Saturday nights).

And while we're at it, the Democratic base which thinks it's a riot to make fun of Trig Palin.

There are so many apologies needed. Shirley Sherrod is the least of them.

Still, two ... uh, multiple ... wrongs do not make a right.

Shirley Sherrod deserved an apology even though lefies who are wrong NEVER apologize. The willingness to apologize when wrong is one of those many things that demonstrates that the right to be more honorable than the left.

I apologize to Shirley Sherrod

While there are things in the full video that give me pause, I apologize to Shirley Sherrod for calling her a bigot. She admits in the beginning of her story that she was a bigot, but she was telling the story to stop bigotry by blacks. Good for her.

Tea Party Resolution; Updated; Further Updated

Since the Tea Party is a movement and not an organization (although some may try to make it one), it seems to me that any member of the movement has as much authority as any other to propose a resolution. Here is my modest attempt:

The Tea Party hereby resolves that it calls upon the NAACP to repudiate the racist elements of its organization and the organizations that it expressly or impliedly supports, and make elimination bigotry from all side and sources a top priority.

Let's face it, discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. Bigotry on the basis of race is wrong. You can't define away black bigotry by claiming that only whites can be racist. Such a definition is bigotry per se.

Update: Below is a video of Shirley Sherrod, a federal employee, bragging about discriminating against a white man based on his race (i.e., doing the minimum so she won't get a complaint) speaking to an appreciative NAACP audience. Bigot.



Further update: The lady bigot on the clip resigned today.

Even further update: The speaker winds up the speech saying that even though she initially responded in a bigoted way (not her words), she learned she need to help all poor people regardless of race.



Oddly, the NAACP had a copy of the full video (I did not). The NAACP without looking at the full video condemned the speech. Her supervisor at the Department of Agriculture forced her to resign.

And here is the commentary by Riehl World View on the entire tape in context:

Several disputes have broken out on Twitter over the full-length, 45 minute version of Shirley Sherrod addressing an NAACP gathering. Sherrod spends 15 - 20 minutes recounting tales of racism in the South, including the murder of her Father. On a personal level that is tragic. But the fact remains, she uses it as a device to provide her with absolute moral authority to speak on issues pertinent to today. And if you listen carefully to Sherrod, I believe she reveals herself to be both a racist, who sees things in terms of color, as well as a latter day Marxist. She uses race, in part, to justify those views.

In Sherrod's view, there is no one world, or even two. There are three. The elite, or wealthy, the whites, propped up over blacks, and then there are blacks. Far from the post-racial America some of her rhetoric would lead you be believe she embraces as a vision, this is a woman trapped by views of race and class that make her a poor public servant at best. Listen to these three minutes and decide for yourself.

In her world, any racism that existed in the past very much exists today. She hasn't truly grown at all based upon her own words.

Nonetheless, the selective editing and presentation of the video should give us all pause ... and caution about selective editing. Others have noted that the NAACP release appears to have some editing as well.