Sunday, April 8, 2012

How could the American people have voted such an unqualified, inexperienced and left-leaning ideological individual into the highest office in the land?

Hernando Today (FL) ^ | April 8, 2012 | Staff

It is becoming more and more apparent that the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C., is like a petulant child if he doesn't get his way.
To say that he is audacious is an understatement. He is more of a recalcitrant individual who, by the way, takes many liberties with the facts. His latest tirade against the Supreme Court of the United States is yet another example of a ruler, not a leader.
For a constitutional law professor, he must have been asleep when the class was studying the Constitution. He certainly must have never heard of Marbury v. Madison, which established the right of the Supreme Court to review laws, as passed by Congress, as to their constitutionality.
They have stricken over 150 laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional; it would seem that the facts are on the court's side. His misstatement that the health care legislation was passed by a strong majority is yet another example of playing loose with the truth and facts.
His very argument against the "unelected" group of people is how to demonize your opponent from the president's bible, "Rules For Radicals." His years as a community organizer educated him well in the art of demagoguery, lying and personal attacks.
How could the American people have voted such an unqualified, inexperienced and left-leaning ideological individual into the highest office in the land?

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Shared experiences connect Romney and Netanyahu

Mercury ^ | April 7, 2012 | Michael Barbaro
The two young men had woefully little in common: one was a wealthy Mormon from Michigan, the other a middle-class Jew from Israel.
But in 1976, the lives of Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu intersected, briefly but indelibly, in the 16th-floor offices of the Boston Consulting Group, where both had been recruited as corporate advisers. At the most formative time of their careers, they sized each other up during the firm's weekly brainstorming sessions, absorbing the same profoundly analytical view of the world.
That shared experience decades ago led to a warm friendship, little known to outsiders, that is now rich with political intrigue: Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is making the case for military action against Iran; and Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, is attacking the Obama administration for not supporting Netanyahu more robustly.
The relationship between Netanyahu and Romney -- nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem; strengthened by a network of mutual friends; and heightened by their conservative ideologies -- has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East. Only a few weeks ago, on Super Tuesday, Netanyahu delivered a personal briefing by telephone to Romney about the situation in Iran.
"We can almost speak in shorthand," Romney said in an interview. "We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar."
Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Netanyahu -- it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

ObamaCare: Too big to fail, too long to read!

North Platte Telegraph (NE) ^ | April 8, 2012 | Editorial

As we await the U.S. Supreme Court decision sometime in June on President Obama's Affordable Care Act, Americans are pondering what will happen if the insurance mandate portion of the 2,700-page bill is ruled unconstitutional, a very real possibility given the tough questioning the provision received when the court heard oral arguments last week.
However you stand on the question of requiring Americans to purchase health insurance, the possibility of rejecting the primary funding provision of the law, and allowing the rest of the huge law to stand, is a dire prospect. Even our free-spending lawmakers flinch at the possibility of vast new entitlements in the face of virtually no corresponding funding source.
We hope the court throws the whole thing out, the issue goes back to Congress, and that this time, our lawmakers can draft a law that isn't too long and complicated to read and comprehend.
Surely, that isn't asking too much.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Should Obama Conquer the Supreme Court? ^ | April 8, 2012 | Austin Hill

Quick – can you guess who I’m describing here?
He campaigned against financial mismanagement, and the “harsh realities” of global capitalism. He pledged during his campaign to end corruption in both the government and the private sector.
After being elected President, he claimed that he had “inherited” the worst economic situation in recent history and then went about consolidating his power. Once privately-owned enterprises were “restructured” into government owned entities, some even organized into workers’ cooperatives.
Unemployment remained painfully high, even as the much-celebrated “reform” measures were being implemented. As private sector workers suffered with worsening economic conditions, government employees enjoyed the comforts of steady work and benefits while the President and other policy makers sought increasing control over the nation’s privately-owned wealth.
Does this seem like a description of the Obama Presidency? Certainly this depicts, at least in part, what we’ve experienced in the U.S. since the earliest days of Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign.
But - believe it or not - this is actually a description of the ascendency of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. In fact, you could call this a “textbook case.” I’ve paraphrased a bit for the sake of column space, but this description of Chavez appears in “International Business: Competing In The Global Marketplace,” a text book currently used among M.B.A. students at many of America’s top graduate business schools.
Chavez became the democratically elected President of Venezuela in 1998, a decade before Barack Obama was elected to be our President. And the reason Chavez has been able to morph in to a dictator – he has successfully seized control over privately owned banks, tv stations, farms and gold holdings, to name a few items – and the reason he is still in power today, is because the first thing he did after taking office in 1999 was to substantively change his country’s constitution and re-arrange the nation’s judiciary.
The fact that one man could so quickly seize control of the entire country of Venezuela, probably speaks to some relative weaknesses in that nation’s constitution. And the fact that no U.S. President – not even Barack Obama – has seized this type of control over America, speaks to the relative strengths of both our U.S. Constitution itself, and the separation of powers among our three branches of government that are stipulated by our Constitution.
With so much of our individual liberty resting on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution – and yet with most of human history having been littered with not-so-benevolent dictators like Chavez – we should both expect that powerful leaders will want to overreach in to our lives, and be vigilant to call fowl when they do.
Unfortunately, it seems that most Americans are shocked by President Barack Obama’s contemptuous remarks about the Supreme Court last week, as the court review his signature “healthcare reform” law. Worse still, it seems that very few Americans recognize the President’s behavior is problematic.
Of course, President Obama is not the first White House occupant to desire more power than the Constitution allows. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, angered when the Supreme Court overturned some of his “new deal” (read “big government”) programs that he believed were unquestionably necessary to save the country, famously began maligning the Justices of the Supreme Court, publicly labeling them the “9 Old Men.” And as a means of overcoming the “separation of powers” obstacle, he proposed to “reform” that old, antiquated Supreme Court system by adding up to six new justices – justices that he could select and appoint!
Of course, FDR didn’t get his way. The Congress rejected his court reform legislative proposal, and the American people took a dim view of Roosevelt trying to circumvent the Constitution.
But that was the America of 1937. Today, it’s not difficult to imagine that President Obama could curry the favor of millions of Americans, if he chose to campaign against the Justices who may vote to overturn his all-important “Obamacare” law.
Who would stand with Obama in this type of Constitution-bending effort? Start with the entire AFL-CIO. Then add the entire “occupy” movement, and the burgeoning “99% Spring” uprising, and the prevailing powers of the Democrat Party. Put them all together, and you’ve got a critical mass of Americans who neither care nor understand a wit about history, “limited government,” the U.S Constitution, or the Separation of Powers. They want “stuff” – “free” healthcare, education, or whatever – and they want raw power in Washington to deliver that stuff, and to do so by whatever means.
“9 old men.” That pejorative description wouldn’t apply with the makeup of today’s Supreme Court. But we should all prepare for President Obama to take direct aim at, say, 5 or 6 “old” white men – men who are too strictly adhering to an old Constitution that was written by old white men – should the Supreme Court dare to think differently about the President’s healthcare reform law.

And the President’s party won’t dare to question this tactic. But who will?

The Real Employment Situation – January 2009 through March 2012

Natural Born Conservative ^ | April 8, 2012 | Larry Walker, Jr.
"Our economy's now created more than 4 million private sector jobs over the past 2 years. And more than 600,000 in the past 3 months alone," Mr. Obama boasted to a forum at the White House on women and the economy, on Friday (CBS News).
And in related news, on the previous evening, Egan-Jones Ratings Co. cut the U.S.A.’s credit rating one step to AA, the second downgrade in nine months and two levels below its highest grade, with a negative outlook citing the nation’s increasing debt burden (Bloomberg).
Most of us are well aware of the nation’s impending debt implosion, but the real employment situation has been distorted beyond reason. I understand how badly Mr. Obama is fighting against returning to the obscure existence he led prior to 2008, but if he was at all capable, he would at least tell us the truth about where we stand. I’m frankly weary from all the sugarcoating and distortion of facts. So what’s the real employment situation?
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
In order to know the truth, we must examine not so much monthly trends in employment, but rather changes which have occurred from the end of January 2009 through March 2012. When we examine the entire record, we find that our economy hasn’t created any jobs at all over the past 3 ¼ years, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Instead the unemployment rate has risen from 7.8% to 8.2%, the number of nonfarm jobs has declined by 740,000, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 624,000, and total employment has declined by 153,000. Meanwhile, the working age population has grown by 7,865,000, while the civilian labor force has only managed an increase of 471,000, causing the number of persons no longer counted in the labor force to balloon by 7,395,000.
The truth is that our economy hasn’t created any new jobs since Obama’s policies took effect. The total number of jobs peaked at an all time high of 146,387,000 in January of 2008, and through March of 2012 the number stands at 142,034,000, more than 4.3 million off the mark. If we had more jobs than existed in January of 2008, then Obama would have something to brag about, although not much. But since the truth is somewhat inconvenient, we are supposed to ignore the fact that we are more than 4 million jobs in the hole, and submit to repeated media brainwashing and succumb to the belief that we have somehow moved ahead by over 4 million. Phooey! Here are the facts.
Unemployment Rate
The unemployment rate rose from 7.8 percent in January of 2009 to 8.2 percent as of March 2012, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Employment Situation 4/6/2012). (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Nonfarm Employment
Nonfarm payroll employment declined by 740,000 through March of 2012, from 133,561,000 in January of 2009 to 132,821,000. (See table B-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Unemployed Persons
The number of unemployed persons increased by 624,000 through March of 2012, from 12,049,000 in January of 2009 to 12,673,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Total Employment
The number of persons employed declined by 153,000 through March of 2012, from 142,187,000 in January of 2009 to 142,034,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Civilian Noninstitutional Population
The Civilian Noninstitutional Population (working age population) increased by 7,865,000 through March of 2012, from 234,739,000 in January of 2009 to 242,604,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Civilian Labor Force
The labor force increased by 471,000 through March of 2012, from 154,236,000 in January of 2009 to 154,707,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted) The labor force hasn’t grown at all since October of 2008.

Not in Labor Force
The number of persons not in the labor force increased by 7,395,000 through March of 2012, from 80,502,000 in January of 2009 to 87,897,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

To make the claim of having created more jobs than Mr. Bush, which we all know was Mr. Obama’s insinuation; he must first match Mr. Bush’s all-time-high of 146,034,000. If the number of persons who involuntarily dropped out of the labor force (7.3 million), since Mr. Obama’s policies took effect, had instead been jobs created, Mr. Obama might go down in history as the all-time greatest. However, since we presently have 4.3 million fewer jobs than existed at Mr. Bush’s peak, and since under the direction of Mr. Obama, 7.3 million new working age persons have been pushed straight into joblessness and generational dependency, Mr. Obama’s policies should perhaps be branded as the most ineffective in U.S. history.
Since employment is a lagging economic indicator, and because economists are calling for recession in 2012, and since the statistics above represent the sum total of Obama’s economic accomplishments, we’re in for serious troubles ahead. To reiterate, Mr. Obama’s policies of Inordinate Stimulus, Undue Debt and Global Warming Foolishness caused the Looming Recession.
Photo Credit: A swarm of Western Toad tadpoles eating algae. Photo: Kristiina Ovaska
Reference: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation Summary

Obama Admin: Tax Cuts Work in China, Just Not in the U.S. ^ | April 7, 2012 | Erika Johnson
While speaking recently about the communist government in China, Undersecretary of State Robert Hormats -- an Obama appointee -- praised China's decision to spur economic growth by lowering taxes. So, at least somebody in the Obama administration definitely understands and embraces the basic lower-taxes-equals-higher-productivity principle of free-market economics, while President Obama himself chooses to neglect that certain principle. I award the administration zero points for consistency on this one:
“China lowered taxes very recently, which will help increase demand, but it’s also good to boost consumption in China,” said Hormats. “So I think what’s interesting is that—sure, there are issues with China that I’ve mentioned--but I think a lot of the reform procedures that are going on in China are consistent with the kind of things that we think will be good for China and for the global system.”
Meanwhile, in a speech in Vermont on Friday, President Barack Obama argued that it was "basic math" that taxes needed to be increased on wealthy Americans so the government could provide more to the poor.
“But if you’re making more than $1 million a year, you can do a little more,” Obama said. “This is not class envy. This is not class warfare. This is basic math--that’s what this is.
“Look, if somebody like me gets a tax break that they don’t need and that the country can’t afford, then one of two things are going to happen--either it adds to our deficit, or we’re taking something away from somebody else,” said Obama.
“Look, there’s no way of getting around that,” said Obama. “Either folks like me are doing more, or somebody who can’t afford it is getting less. And that’s not right.”
Wow. Those are among the most distasteful comments I've ever known President Obama to utter -- and that's saying something. He keeps trying to disclaim his basic point -- "this is not class warfare" -- but that's exactly what this is. The lecturer-in-chief is trying to make the case that if you sit above a certain arbitrary income level (apparently, $1 million a year is the magic number), you are actually depriving somebody else of that income. As if there is a finite supply of prosperity to be had, and there's only a certain amount available to go around. As if people don't create wealth, but rather just hoard money. Honestly, what does he think "the rich" do with their income above a million dollars? Eat it? As if privately held money isn't put to a productive, well-allocated use that contributes to economic growth, which helps everybody. I don't think President Obama really understands the basic term "opportunity cost" -- and it's either straight-up economic malpractice, or something worse.
Republicans and Democrats -- in fact, particularly Democrats -- all agree that a government can (read: can, not should) use taxes to discourage certain behaviors. Why does President Obama want to discourage people from being rich? From working hard, being highly productive, diversifying the economy, and providing a product or service that a lot of people want to buy? Anyone who calls President Obama a practical socialist is often deemed a crazy right-wing extremist, but, sorry folks -- this Robin-Hood mentality is pretty darn socialist, and it's an embarrassment to our country.

The President’s Abysmal Record

Commentary ^ | 04.05.2012 | John Steele Gordon

Is this the week the Obama administration’s remarkable incompetence begins to be the narrative? If so, he’s toast.
The president’s astonishing, not to mention indefensible, lecture to the Supreme Court this week, in which he turned 200 years of American constitutional history on its head, has been the talk of the blogosphere. But it’s not just the fact that he pretends to have not heard of Marbury v. Madison, it’s the anger behind his remarks that he is having trouble concealing. Even his old professor at Harvard felt he had to weigh in.

It is not hard to see why he might be angry. His single major domestic accomplishment, Obamacare, is in mortal peril in the Supreme Court. InTrade has the chances of its being overturned at 63.8 percent this morning. And it remains deeply unpopular with the public at large. His other domestic efforts have been largely a bust. The stimulus did not produce the promised economic boost and recovery from the recession remains stubbornly slow and unemployment stubbornly high. Green energy is failing and failing and failing. The price of gas has nearly doubled since he became president, despite the recession, while domestic production of oil and natural gas has been rising despite his policies, not because of them.
And, of course, the country continues hell-bent towards the fiscal cliff at the rate of $1 trillion plus per year. Obama, and the Senate Democrats, have not even tried to do anything about something the people in poll after poll have called their number one concern.
As for his foreign policy successes, I’d list them except there haven’t been any. His failures are numerous. Our antagonists, such as Iran, Korea, Russia, and China have little or no respect for him, and thus no inclination to play ball. He has managed to alienate such important allies as Britain and Israel. Indeed, his very first foreign policy act was to insult Britain by summarily returning a bust of its great national hero, Winston Churchill–the man who saved the world in 1940–to the British Embassy. It’s only gotten worse. Last week, his open-mic gaffe with the Russian president was greatly embarrassing. This week’s summit with Mexico and Canada revealed deep problems within the North American alliance, problems that were hardly noted in the American mainstream press–a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama re-election campaign–but were widely on view in the Mexican and Canadian media.
In sum, it’s a remarkable record, especially for a man who thinks of himself as a transformational figure in American history. The president looks in the mirror and sees FDR. Increasingly, the rest of the country look at him and see Jimmy Carter, perhaps even James Buchanan. They were both one-term presidents.

A Black Man, The Progressive’s Perfect Trojan Horse ^ | Lloyd Marcus
As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the democrat’s unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming “no” from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. “Don’t urinate on me and tell me it’s raining.” Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The democrats are lying. Signing Obamacare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.
I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.
Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America’s goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lorded Obama as the first clean and articulate African American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants.
White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America’s sins of the past.
Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, “I’m votin’ for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me”.
Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive’s young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.
Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it.
Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.
The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question.“Why are you siding with these white racists against America’s first African American president?” I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, “These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama’s skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama’s race is not an issue”.
Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama’s race not being an issue. In reality, Obama’s presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator’s virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama’s race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional.
No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said “no” to both president’s proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer. He is black.
The mainstream liberal media ontinues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.
My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be “played” and intimidated by Obama’s race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, Obama’s progressive agenda must be stopped.
Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American, singer/songwriter, entertainer, author, artist, and Tea Party patriot

DHS To Grant Illegal Aliens “Unlawful Presence Waivers” ^ | April 02, 2012 | Judicial Watch
In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama Administration is working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them “unlawful presence waivers.”
The new measure would apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens. Here is how it would work, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement posted in today’s Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government; the agency will grant “unlawful presence waivers” to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that’s a U.S. citizen.
Currently such aliens must return to their native country and request a waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process. In other words, they must enter the U.S. legally as thousands of foreigners do on a yearly basis. Besides the obvious security issues, changing this would be like rewarding bad behavior in a child. It doesn’t make sense.
But the system often causes U.S. citizens to be separated for extended periods from their immediate relatives,” according to the DHS. The proposed changes, first announced in January, will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.
The administration also claims that relaxing the rule will also “create efficiencies for both the U.S. government and most applicants.” How exactly is not listed in the Federal Register announcement, which gives the public 60 days to comment. That’s only a formality since the DHS has indicated that the change is pretty much a done deal.
This appears to be part of the Obama Administration’s bigger plan to blow off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty. The plan has been in the works for years and in 2010 Texas’s largest newspaper published an exposé about a then-secret DHS initiative that systematically cancelled pending deportations. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who said the government bounced their clients’ deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed.
In late 2011 a mainstream newspaper obtained internal Homeland Security documents outlining “sweeping changes” in immigration enforcement that halt the deportation of illegal aliens with no criminal records. This also includes a nationwide “training program” to assure that enforcement agents and prosecuting attorneys don’t remove illegal immigrants who haven’t been convicted of crimes.
Judicial Watch has been a front runner in investigating the Obama Administration’s stealth amnesty program by pursuing DHS records concerning “deferred action” or “parole” to suspend removal proceedings against a particular group of individuals. Last spring JW sued DHS to obtain information because the agency ignored a federal public records request that dates back to July 2010.

Entitlement junkies take what they can get!

Gary Foss THE OP-ED REVIEW - Email | April 7, 2012 | Gary Foss / Charles Sykes
Milton Friedman may have argued that there is no such thing as a free lunch, but you’d have a hard time convincing millions of Americans of that today. They know better – or at least they think they do. A record 46.5 million Americans rely on food stamps, and in 2010 the federal government paid out more money in the form of benefits than it collected in federal income taxes.
But perhaps the most striking measure of the success of the entitlement state has been the way it’s eroded the stigma of being on the dole, while spreading dependency as a virtue as widely as possible. In other words: Everybody should buy everybody’s free lunch. And free breakfast too. (Did I mention free dinner also would be nice?)
The cultural shift has become so pronounced today that even some progressives are showing signs of unease. Were it not for her impeccable ideological pedigree, Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, might have irreparably damaged her standing with her mother’s friends when she produced a brief video for HBO about her recent encounters outside a New York welfare office. In the Pelosi video, a man waiting in line is drinking beer and smoking cigarettes as he admits that he’s fathered five children by four different mothers. “I’m here to get a check … whatever they’ve got to offer,” he explains. “It’s not like they’ve got a checklist … I’m just here to get what I can get.”
Of course he was. In the video, Alexandra Pelosi quizzes one man: “Why should I help you? Why should my tax dollars be going to you?” He replies, “Because my ancestors came here to help build this place – my ancestors, the slaves.” The last time the man worked, he says, was “half a decade” ago.
Around the country, there is a lot of “taking” going on. There was some mild bureaucratic embarrassment in Michigan recently when a 24-year-old woman who won $1 million in the state lottery was found to be collecting food assistance. “I feel it’s okay because, I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay,” explained the woman, Amanda Clayton. “I have two houses.” She was utterly without embarrassment of any kind. Like the upstanding gentleman in Pelosi’s video, Ms. Clayton was echoing the British welfare queen who declared, “I don’t feel bad about being subsidized by people who are working. I’m just working with the system that’s there. If the government wants to give me money, I’m happy to take it. We get what we’re entitled to.”…..
Clayton’s use of taxpayer assistance after buying a new home and car with her winnings was not unusual. Another Michigan resident continued receiving food assistance after he won $2 million in the 2010 state lottery. That’s what prompted congressman Dale Zorn (R-MI) to pass legislation in his state’s House earlier this year that would remove large-sum lottery winners from welfare rolls. (Legislation is pending in the Michigan Senate.)
Yet there’s still plenty of freebies left to dole out. And as those freebies multiply and as politicians up the bidding, notice how often the two sides seem to talk past one another, using words that carry radically different meanings, depending on the speakers.
While GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney was campaigning last week in Peoria, Illinois, a young woman was caught on camera declaring: “So you’re all for like, ‘yay, freedom,’ and all this stuff. And ‘yay, like pursuit of happiness.’ You know what would make me happy? Free birth control.”
Wants have been transformed into “rights” in America and ultimately into obligations and entitlements. Consider this young woman’s thought process. In the alchemy of the new entitlement culture, freedom and the pursuit of happiness are transformed into a demand for free stuff that makes her happy. You could argue with her that freedom means something other than free stuff and that the pursuit of happiness was never intended to imply a guarantee of taxpayer-financed bliss. But she knows what she wants, and she wants it for free. Romney, to his credit, told the woman that if she wanted free stuff, she should “vote for the other guy.” Romney continued, “Politicians get up and promise you all kinds of free stuff, more and more stuff that you won’t have to pay for, and you know what? We get elected that way, in many cases, politicians do. That’s not something I subscribe to.”
But the Romney heckler illustrated the way in which wants have been transformed into “rights” in America and ultimately into obligations and entitlements. The process can be illustrated this way: “I want you to buy me lunch. Therefore, I need lunch. And if I need something, I have a right to it – and you, therefore, have an obligation to pay for it.” The equation looks like this: Wants = needs = rights = obligations. The laundry list goes far beyond free lunch to include free health care, free cell phones, free birth control, free mortgage bailouts– and on and on.
We’ve seen how this worked out for the Greeks, of course. But for a growing number of Americans, what happened in Greece is irrelevant: The entitlement state appeals to voters who believe they will bear no consequences for the costs or sustainability of the program. Questions of affordability don’t come into it, because they know they will never have to pay for it. (Recall that 49.5 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.) They are not thinking of the burden to their children, their grandchildren, their friends, their fellow citizens of the country, or anyone else. As long as it is free to them – it’s free. And good luck telling them otherwise.

Charles J. Sykes is senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Institute and author of seven books, including A Nation of Moochers: America’s Addiction to Getting Something for Nothing.

Shooting Victim was Holding Leash, Not Weapon (Black man shoots unarmed Hispanic)

Fox Phoenix ^ | April 4, 2012 | Fox Phoenix

LAVEEN - Police are saying more about a shooting at a Taco Bell Tuesday night in which one man died.
They're also identifying the victim as 29-year-old Daniel Adkins.
About 7:30 p.m., a 22-year-old man and his girlfriend ordered food at the Taco Bell drive-thru and were told to pull up while their order was prepared.
At the same time, Adkins stepped around a corner into the path of the vehicle and angry words were exchanged between he and the driver.
They got into an altercation and Adkins was shot once by the driver. He died at the scene.
The driver, a 22-year-old black male, called police but has not been arrested.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Democrats ARE Responsible for Black Culture of Anger!

ThyBlackMan ^ | April 7, 2012 | Lloyd Marcus

Black twenty-year-old male Danielle Simpson with two black associates were interrupted by 84 year old Geraldine Davidson while in the process of burglarizing her home. They duct taped her mouth, bound her hands and legs and threw the white former school teacher and church organist into the trunk of her own car. Ms Davidson was severely brutalized before the trio eventually tied a rope attached to a cinder block around her legs and threw her, still alive, into the river.
Brutal crimes are not unique.
But, here is what makes this case remarkable. For seven hours, Simpson rode around in Ms Davidson’s car stopping for fast food and opening the truck to show off his victim to his black friends. Due to fingerprints left on the car, detectives estimate that around ten people viewed Ms Davidson in the trunk.
Incredibly, not one person called the police or lobbied to set the poor elderly woman free.
What could possibly harden these black youths to such an extent? Perhaps one of the detective investigating the case nailed it when he described the black criminals and their friends as part of a “culture of anger”.
For the murder of Ms Davidson, in 2009, Danielle Simpson was executed by Lethal injection in Texas.
Fast forward to the democrat led Trayvon Martin rallies across America. If justice was their true motivation, they would allow the case to unfold. To demand Zimmerman be arrested without knowing the facts is absurd and irresponsible. The democrat’s obvious purpose for their race rallies is to fuel the eternal flames of their well-nurtured “culture of anger”.
Sadly, democrat efforts to cultivate black anger is bearing much fruit. Before the Trayvon Martin incident, black flash mobs were attacking white strangers across America.
The horrific rape/murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom received scant publicity because it was seen as politically incorrect to publicize a beautiful white couple being brutalized by five black thugs.
Exploiting Trayvon Martin to fuel the Democrat’s culture of anger, Democrat US Rep. Bobby Rush spoke to the House wearing a “hoodie”. Rush assumed Martin was racially profiled and said, “just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum.” Yet another example of a Democrat jumping the gun to further their storyline before all the facts are in.
Sixties radical, Angela Davis faithfully contributed to the Democrat’s culture of anger. Davis said Trayvon’s story is not unique. According to Davis, blacks are physically attacked by whites all the time. Davis also accused white America of systematic racism against blacks. Will someone please inform Ms Davis that a black man is leader of the free world solely because millions of white Americans voted for him. At only 12% of the US population, black votes alone could not have put the Obama’s in the White House.
The Trayvon Martin incident has afforded the Democrats a golden opportunity to build upon their culture of anger. Al Sharpton said “Enough is enough!”
Jessie Jackson said, “Blacks are under attack!”
So, according to US Rep. Bobby Rush, Angela Davis, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, the majority of Democrat leaders, pundits and the democrat supportive mainstream media, black Americans are routinely physically attacked by whites. Is there any wonder why millions of black Americans are fuming in a culture of anger?
Well, allow me to crush the Democrat’s perfect liberal paradigm with the truth/facts. F.B.I and U.S. Justice Dept. statistics confirm blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than white violence against blacks.
Ninety percent of the victims of race crimes are white.
What are the consequences of the Democratic Party keeping black America stewing in their well-crafted culture of anger? Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. Blacks are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife. Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 percent against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanics. Who can deny, black criminals are angry at whites and fellow blacks. Blacks are seven times more likely to end up in prison.

Old Dogs New Tricks

Digital First ^ | February 18, 2012 | John Paton

(Speaking notes for an address to the Canadian Journalism Foundation Toronto, Canada, 2/16/2012)
Good evening.
I’m old media.
This is my 36th year as a newspaper man – apologies – my 36th year as a multi-platform news executive.
It’s a career I started as a copyboy on this same street about a dozen blocks east of here.
I was hired for taking a picture of a belly dancer fooling with a drunk columnist. I was given the job of a guy who had just been fired for being a drunk. And I ended my first night on the job, taking home – dead drunk – the guy who hired me.
In my career the only reprimand I have ever received – if you don’t count the odd suspension for insubordination – was about expenses, specifically it was about booze. It read: “You are no longer allowed to order an Armagnac, digestif or any other after dinner drink that is older than you are.”
This is commonly referred to as the Golden Era of journalism.
And now, like many of you, I am struggling hard to teach this old dog new tricks.
Struggling to accept that much of what we know is no longer valid.
And trying to come to grips with the fact that crappy newspaper executives are a bigger threat to journalism’s future than any changes wrought by the Internet.
All of us have been subjected to the annual spectacle of a gaggle of print publishers gathering on a panel – Doug Knight, our moderator this evening, has officiated over a couple of these – to declaim they are not dead yet.
It’s an embarrassing display played out time and time again at conferences where our industry heads look like aging ingénues at Stratford declaring they can still play Juliette. And nobody has the heart to break it to them.
Or worse still, mediocre journalists, wrapping themselves in the flag of long-form journalism, to deride the value of social media as a reporting tool. A tool they don’t understand or care to understand.
And then having to watch them use that ignorance to dismiss the phenomenon of participatory journalism.
When I hear these hacks cry out that their work can’t be reduced to 140 characters I always think – if only – and pine for the useful hours I could get back in my life if spared their thumbsuckers.
And while these false, zero-sum arguments play themselves out, Rome burns.
And in the United States of America, where I work, the fire is burning faster and fiercer than ever before.
Since 2005, the U.S. newspaper industry has lost more than 60% of its advertising revenue and so many jobs no one can accurately count them.
And while this is not yet the story in Canada, I would say the only difference between here and where I work in New York City – is time.
It’s not like the Internet isn’t coming to your town.
The Journal Register Company – the Company I took over two years ago – and, more recently, MediaNews Group –which we now both run under Digital First Media – could be the poster kids for what ails the US newspaper industry.
We count our products in the hundreds.
Our employees in the thousands – ten thousand actually.
Our audience in the millions – 57 million actually.
And our revenues are counted in the “Bs” as in billions.
And, it is profitable. With better margins than an average Dow Jones listed company.
We have titles pre-dating the American Revolution and can stretch our lineage back to at least one predecessor title co-founded by Benjamin Franklin. Well, just about stretch if we stand on a high stool.
Another title was around to publish George Washington’s obit.
And our core mission is enshrined in the nation’s Constitution.
And none of the above will save it or other companies like it – unless we and our industry profoundly change how we do business.
You can’t fix what you won’t admit is wrong.
So let’s start with this one: Print’s coming back.
A show of hands please if you think that’s true – heads up people this is a trick question.
In America from 1985 to 2005 – the very peak of print newspaper advertising revenue – the average annual growth was 2.7%. Again, that was the Golden Era.
And for those of you wrapping the daily sheet in heavyweight glossy stock betting on a return to the Golden Era – at that rate of growth -it will be more than a quarter of a century before we are back to – 2005 levels.
But that is not going to happen as advertising gets ever less share of marketers’ dollars.
And newer, sexier platforms are targeting customers in such terrifyingly precise ways that we print folks are effectively taking a knife to a gunfight.
In 2012, in the US, it is expected there will be more advertising on the web than in newspapers and by most estimates more Americans now access their news via the web than print.
The customers have spoken.
But are we listening?
I would argue not nearly hard enough.
The debate rages on where that news starts – largely print – rather than how people access it – largely the web – and how it might be blocked.
And so, for awhile, we were treated to spectacles like the online copy enforcer RightHaven pursuing stay-at-home bloggers obsessed with their cats who happened to pick up some online news copy for a post. RightHaven died a deserved death.
Now we have the Associated Press playing around with NewsRight – the word Right is used a lot by print people. This time, we are told, NewsRight is out to nail companies who are not bloggers – it would seem – and to gather data on how our copy is used. Okay. We’ll see.
In the meantime, where are the industry efforts to understand and act upon how news is actually created and consumed?
Where are the industry efforts on understanding how professional journalists can come together with the people we used to call the Audience and who, armed with laptops and broadband access, are in the same business as us?
I meant what I said earlier when I used the word struggle.
I am not a Net native. I’m a newspaper man. My father was news photographer’s assistant and then a printer. The first hands that ever held me had ink under the fingernails.
And it’s tough enough struggling with concepts such as open publishing and participatory journalism and to let go the control we used to have on copy because of our control of the means of production, without print’s knuckle-draggers refusing to acknowledge we need to change at all.
Because change we must.
And if we are going to change we are also going to have to admit that the Print model is broken. Don’t believe me – then read any of the newspaper company Chapter 11 filings in the United States or Clay Shirky.
If you haven’t read Shirky’s essay Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable and you are in the newspaper business then brother let me tell you – you are not paying enough attention.
His message is simple:
“If the old model is broken, what will work in its place? The answer is nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the Internet just broke.”
And his message is clear:
You don’t tinker or tweak a broken model. You start again anew. And I would add build upon our foundations.
To do this you have to let go of those things we once held true. Like:
- We are the gatekeepers of information.
- That we are the agenda setters and that we decide what news is and what is not.
- And that we keep the Outside world outside and only let in the chosen few – people like us.
So, if we can admit the Print model is broken what else must we recognize isn’t working anymore.
I think it is this:
As career journalists we have entered a new era where what we know and what we traditionally do has finally found its value in the marketplace and that value is about zero.
Our traditional journalism models and our journalistic efforts are inefficient and up against the Crowd – armed with mobile devices and internet connections- incomplete.
Our response to date as an industry has been as equally inefficient and in many cases emotional.
“You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone” is not much of a business model.
The French philosopher Roland Barthes argues that when culture becomes nature we are in the presence of myth.
In our blustering for self-justification we have created a myth of our value. Without ever establishing its economic value, we have argued our value as journalists and journalism itself is self-evident and unassailable.
This has been one of the most gut-wrenching struggles for me to deal with because clearly journalism is not without value but, for sure, how it is largely practiced in print today – particularly “he said last night journalism” – nearly is valueless.
Today news organizations that do not embrace how news is now created and consumed – Digital First and Print Last – are ignoring not only how their customers desire to get news but how they understand it as well.
We ignore this at the risk of killing our business but worse we ignore it when the solution to our future is sitting under our noses – the power of our brands – if we would only let go of the past and embrace the future.
The University of London professor Celia Lury argues in her essay “The Brand as New Media Object” that brands themselves are platforms for content.
Dr. Melissa Aronczyk at Carleton University argues, with co-author Devon Powers, in their work “Blowing Up The Brand” that “the relationship between consumers and brands become less about the consumption of the product than about social relations, experiences and lifestyles such consumption enables.”
In an industry that has been hidebound to its production process – printing – but equally wedded to the belief that its brands stand for something, I think the professors’ arguments point to a way forward for newspaper companies as news companies.
Just as the printing press divorced the reader from the writer with the pen and created a whole new world of scalable audiences and techniques of communication, the new digital platforms demand journalists use each platform to its utmost advantage.
The first steps in this transition have been our Digital First strategy but clearly it is also a case of Digital Right – the right uses for the right platforms on the right occasions. And not just the simple re-purposing of content from one platform to another in order of priority.
Online stories today that do not link are now considered inferior by consumers. News companies, as brands, cheapen and destroy themselves if they do not allow the social interaction that society now demands of the new digital tool set.
Marshall McLuhan knew this when he said the Medium Is The Message.
In the news business, particularly a legacy business like newspapers, if we don’t understand this and take advantage of the Medium’s potential we will cease to be the Messenger.
And it is in this role of Messenger that we have tied up our ideas of brand values.
Such as:
- A Messenger the community can trust.
- A Messenger known for its accuracy, integrity, etc.
But what does it mean to be the Messenger in today’s new news ecology where the people we used to call the Audience are now equally participants, competitors, colleagues, arbiters and sources?
At Digital First Media we have started to answer that question by first unlocking our brands and sharing our content into this new eco-system for all to use. And where we, in turn, aggregate the Audience’s content, curated under our brands.
The Audience – at the Journal Register Company – has responded to this initiative by doubling in about a year.
Letting go of control is a very hard thing to do. And allowing the Audience – or the outside – in is even harder.
Often when I talk about bringing the Audience into the news conversation, the aforementioned aging ingénues respond sharply, reminding me:
- “We have always connected with our communities.” Read: letters to the editors or streeters.
- “Our readers are part of our process.” Read: surveys and citizen members of editorial boards.
- “We hear and act on their complaints.” Read: the ever-ineffectual Ombudsman.
When I worked at the Toronto Sun, as both a reporter and an editor, we said the same things usually wrapped up in this tidy little phrase:
“We produce a newspaper for the guy who rides the Queen St. streetcar.”
I bought into that, even though as a guy who actually did ride the Queen Street streetcar to work it was obvious about half of the riders – men and women of color; non-English speakers struggling to find their way in Canada’s largest city – looked nothing like the self-satisfied white guys – me included – who sat around the rim deciding what was news.
The web ensures that doesn’t happen anymore. Or at least it doesn’t happen for a long period of time for a news company trying to survive.
Extending Professor Lury’s argument that brands are platforms, at Digital First Media we have taken our initiative to unlock our brands and share our content one step further.
In Torrington, CT we have literally extended our brand, the Register Citizen, by using the newsroom itself as a platform.
At the Register Citizen we have established an Open-to-the-Public newsroom and all are welcome.
They are welcome to work at blogging stations set up right in the newsroom. They are welcome to use the community meeting rooms and they are welcome to attend the news meetings themselves. For those who can’t make it the news meetings are also live-streamed.
In Torrington we have tried to embody the basic values of the web – transparency, inclusiveness and interactivity.
Placing online fact-checking boxes on every story is our direct request for help to correct any mistakes we may have made. I believe this is an act of transparency that is bonding us closer to that community.
To be clear, we have accepted we are no longer the old-fashioned agenda-setters or gatekeepers of information for our communities. Clearly communities know what they want and can organize themselves around issues and activities.
What we can do, however, under the power of our brands, which are still trusted, is help organize relevant information out of the river of content now available in each community.
Vint Cerf, Chief Evangelist at Google and called by some the Father of the Internet, is very clear about this:
“People’s trust in journalism has always been about branding.”
And as the community has become even a physical part of the newsroom we are building a better connection with that community than we have ever had before. In Torrington, the community has responded by driving the newspaper’s digital audience to more than five times its print audience and it has taken the Register Citizen from a loss to profitability.
Along with the Community Media Labs at all Journal Register Company dailies and which are now being rolled out at Media News Group, Torrington’s Open-to-the-Public newsroom is becoming a new model of community engagement that works and enhances the news organization’s brand value.
This is a brand value being built by the community itself as the community takes ownership in what the local news organization does and helps to establish its key values of community involvement.
The gate is forever open now. There is no longer a gatekeeper on community news. Communities will now value those institutions – like Twitter – that help the flow of news and those – like us – that add context and reflect the values the communities themselves set.
Adding value to the new free-flow of news requires a new news organization.
Our journalism tied to the power of participatory journalism is in my opinion an unbeatable combination as we help communities make sense of the river of information on the web.
In New Haven, CT we have created what we believe is a local newsroom that adds value.
It has four key components: Breaking News; Investigative Reporting; Audience Engagement and Widgets.
Audience Engagement and Widgets are the new no-brainers. Newsrooms must share content and they must engage their audience as demanded through the new digital tools that are powering social media.
No social media connection. No news organization.
While the crowd can be as fast or even faster on breaking news, adding the context we have through our community connection and professional newsrooms is both vital and additive to brand value.
However, it is the re-establishment of an investigative reporting unit – a victim of cutbacks in local newsrooms a long time ago – which can add the greatest value.
Finally, again, and using the new digital toolset, we are asking questions that others are not asking.
That virtuous circle is complete when the news organization’s engaged audience pick up those questions and demand answers.
From a business perspective we are getting closer to the Holy Grail of value alignment with our communities.
Trust me when I say all of this is easier to say than do and it takes a commitment from the entire organization. If you are not fully committed the community will know it in a heartbeat.
And then you are dead because a thing of value has to earn its value – constantly. I strongly believe sharing content will mean more prosperity not less in the future.
One of the reasons I am so stern on paywalls and other walled gardens is because I firmly believe that in the future content will go the audience and not the other way around.
Smart, original content, tagged with advertising will gain value by being shared through networks.
Shared content equals influence.
And influence in the new eco system equals engagement.
And engagement equals value to those advertisers and others trying to reach that engaged audience.
While online news start-ups here in Toronto like OpenFile understand this intuitively too many newspaper publishers do not.
And they continue plow on by slashing editorial, research, marketing and even sales resources – our only core competencies – to meet profit expectations.
An aside, newspapers get the investors they deserve.
In the US with many newspapers either in, coming out of or threatening to go into bankruptcy, newspaper managers appear to be equally bankrupt of ideas as they seek to please investors by slashing costs and driving short-term gains.
Investors, being no fools and recognizing newspaper managers have no plans to truly transform their business, are simply doing their jobs when they keep management focused on producing short-term gains.
Investors don’t buy into myth. They buy into math.
If you want investors to take a long-term view on our industry or our companies then you better give them a long-term plan that works. Give them a plan they will back.
And I would add it should be a plan built on the editorial floor where the core of our business lies.
The rest of transformation is mechanics.
If it is not core to your business- and in newspapers core means content and sales – then reduce it, stop it, sell it or outsource it.
And for God’s sake stop listening to newspaper people. We have had since the mid-90s to get this right and clearly we are no good at it.
Put the digital people in charge – of everything.
They can take what we have built and make it better.
It is so very important we get this right – not just for the industry and investors – but for our communities.
“The newspaper is the place where communities are formed,” writes New York University professor Aurora Wallace in her book Newspapers and the Making of Modern America. Dr. Wallace continues: “Newspapers are … the engine behind the construction and maintenance of strong communities … when they falter, we must ask what else will suffer as a result.”
We owe it to the communities who have sustained us not to falter just because we are afraid to change.
Finally, I would say to newspaper execs learn to let go and love the ‘Net.
I am here to tell you, you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Metaphorically, I still chase cars down the street and bark at cyclists but I’m picking my marks better now and for old dog I’m starting to catch some of them.



Sing Along


Batter Up

Blacks Can Murder Whites, and It Won’t Make National News! ^ | April 8, 2012 | Doug Giles

If you’re a 20-year-old black male, you can beat an 85-year-old white woman to death and pummel her 90-year-old white husband straight into ICU, and it won’t make the national news.
Yep. Tyrone Woodfork, a black male who -- much like Trayvon Martin -- looks like Obama’s son, allegedly killed Nancy Strait and broke her husband Bob’s jaw, several ribs and shot him in the face with a BB gun last month in Tulsa. 20-year-old Tyrone also raped the nearly blind 97-pound Mrs. Strait, a great-great-grandmother, before he murdered her.
Did the above monstrous crime make the national news? Are you kidding me? Why, hell no. Of course not, silly!
Why wasn’t it fit for primetime, you ask? Well, it starred the wrong races in the wrong roles, and it thus did not fit into the fairytale the Left’s trying to foist on us goobers of Obamaland.
For those of you who have not heard diddly squat about a black twentysomething’s senseless, atrocious burglary, rape, battery and murder of an elderly white couple, here are the details regarding the couple, the crime and the culprit(s):

-Bob and Nancy Strait, the victims, grew up in rural Oklahoma during the Great Depression. -Bob and Nancy met on a blind date in 1946 and married a month later. They had 6 kids, 18 grandkids and about 50 great- and great-great grandchildren.
-The Straits just celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary.
-Bob served in the 101st Airborne Division in WWII.
-Bob loved woodworking, and Nancy loved quilting.
-The couple used to sit on their porch and play the guitar and sing together during the warm summer evenings.
-On either Tuesday evening (3/13) or Wednesday morning (3/14) Tyrone invaded their home and stole $200 in cash as well as the Strait’s TV and Dodge Neon after raping Mrs. Strait and severely beating Mr. Strait.
- As noted, Nancy died from her injuries. Bob is in serious condition and is being treated at a nearby hospital.
-Mrs. Strait’s funeral was on Friday, March 23, 2012.
-The family has set up a fund—The Nancy Strait and Bob Strait Support Trust—to help pay for Nancy’s funeral service and Bob’s medical care.
-The Tulsa cops are looking for five more murderous morons suspected in this sick and twisted tale.
I wonder if President Obama is going to lecture the nation on this despicable act and tell us something similar to what he said regarding Trayvon’s shooting, namely:
“It is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together—federal, state and local—to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to ask ourselves how does something like this happen? And that means that we examine the laws, the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.”
Will Spike Lee and the New Black Panther Party tweet Tyrone’s address and put out a bounty on the remaining pieces of crap who have yet to be arrested for killing Nancy and brutally beating Bob? Spike and his ilk are all about “justice,” correct? Or is it more about “just us”?
For two more (out of many) recent black-on-white crimes that have ranged from unreported to insanely underreported, click here and here.