Sunday, 21 July 2013

REV. AL OBAMA, OR IS IT PRESIDENT BARACK SHARPTON?

Ken Berwitz

I wish I were able to dispute the following excerpt from Michael Goodwin's latest column in the New York Post.  But, frankly, it is very hard to do so:

Is Al Sharpton president of the United States? Or just attorney general?

I ask because it's not clear where the rabble-rousing rev's agenda ends and White House policy begins. These days, they are one and the same.

President Obama erased the final distinction Friday by describing the Florida shooting case exclusively in racial terms. Obama's headline-grabbing statement that "Trayvon Martin could have been me" and his attempt to justify black anger were straight out of Sharpton's playbook.

Don't get me wrong - a personal speech on race from the first black president could be a game-changer in the right context. But this one suffered a fatal flaw - it ignored the fact that race played absolutely no role in the trial, including in lawyer statements, the evidence, testimony and the jury's unanimous verdict of not guilty. Even the FBI found no evidence of racism by defendant George Zimmerman.

Sadly, Mr. Goodwin is 100% correct.

This is not now, and never was a racial incident.  As we have discussed repeatedly, George Zimmerman is of mixed racial ancestry, he did not even identify Trayvon Martin as Black to the police dispatcher until he was specifically asked his color, and after almost 17 months of the FBI digging to find something - anything - that could be construed as racist activity in Zimmerman's past, it came up as dry as the Sahara desert.

Let me say this plainly and bluntly:  the only reason this is being seen as a racial incident is because President Obama, the race hucksters of this country, and a media ever-willing to go along with the race angle - in part, out of fear that not doing so will cause them to be accused of the dreaded "r" word - have contorted it into one.

Whatever you think of George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin, the shooting was a tragedy - one that, had either of the two participants acted differently than they did, could have been avoided. 

But turning the tragedy into Operation Racial Firestorm, i.e. by racially flaming it, and then pouring accelerant on the flames, makes it 100 times worse.

And, most dispiritingly, I don't see this ending any way but badly, for all sides.

free` Ken wrote; "This is not now, and never was a racial incident." ---------------------------------- Sorry Ken, but it is now a racial incident. 100s of black people have been attacking non-blacks over the verdict. If that isn't racial I don't know what is. Like I said a day or two ago, less than 20 miles from my house people were being attacked because of "justice" for trayvon. I don't know how worried most people are, but I don't go anywhere unarmed. (07/21/13)

free` P.S. I also carry my weapon in the fully loaded and and one in the chamber, just like Zimmerman. (07/21/13)


ANSWERING REP. FREDERICA WILSON

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, at a "Justice for Trayvon" rally, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) angrily assured participants that "little Black boys, and big boys and Black grown men, will continue to be singled out and arrested for driving while Black, shopping while Black, walking while Black, eating while Black, and just being plain old Black."

She has a point.  Those words ring true.

The problem?  Ms. Wilson declines to mention that, although no serious person doubts racism plays a hand in this, there are other reasons - very logical reasons - which have nothing to do with racism.

Let me answer Ms. Wilson by posting the first few paragraphs of an excellent article by Walter E. Williams, written last year, which addresses exactly this issue:

Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery.

The magnitude of this tragic mayhem can be viewed in another light. According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. It's a tragic commentary to be able to say that young black males have a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.

A much larger issue is how might we interpret the deafening silence about the day-to-day murder in black communities compared with the national uproar over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Such a response by politicians, civil rights organizations and the mainstream news media could easily be interpreted as "blacks killing other blacks is of little concern, but it's unacceptable for a white to kill a black person."

Mr. Williams goes on to talk about the violent crimes committed by this population segment against White victims as well.

Now for some cold, hard logic:  if you know that a specific population segment is dramatically more likely to commit crimes, especially violent crimes, than the general population, will you worry more about coming in contact with that population segment?

OF COURSE you will. You would have to be nuts not to.

Sadly, that is a day to day reality for Black males - including the large majority who do not commit crimes, but only try to go about living normal lives.

Is it fair that a young Black male who is simply walking down the street may be looked at with suspicion and fear by others?  No, it is not.  But, based on probabilities, is it reasonable that - knowing nothing other than that he is a young Black male - those others would be more apprehensive about him than they might be about someone else?  Yes, it is.

And who should that young Black male be blaming for the unfair situation he has, through no behavior of his own, been placed in?  The people who fear a high-crime population segment he happens to be part of?  Or the people within that segment who commit the crimes, and therefore generate the fearful reaction? 

Regular readers may remember a game I sometimes play, called "Erase The Face".  It is a simple game, in which I take what seems to be a racial situation, remove the racial component, and see if the result is the same.  Let's play it now:

Suppose it became known that men who wear red bandanas commit crimes far more frequently than the general population.  Suppose you are walking down the street and see man with a red bandana coming toward you.  Will you be more apprehensive about him than you might be about other people?  Will you consider crossing the street to avoid him?  If you are in a car, will you lock the door to that car? 

If the answers are yes - and I strongly suspect they are - you now understand that there is more to this than simply hating someone based on his skin color.  

But if you're still not convinced, let me add race to the equation, but in a different way than you might expect:

Suppose you are Black.  Suppose you are aware that young Black males commit crimes far more frequently than the general population.  And also suppose you are walking down the street and see a young Black male coming toward you.  Will you be more apprehensive about him than you might be about other people?  Will you consider crossing the street to avoid him?  If you are in a car, will you lock the door to that car? 

The answers to these questions are important; very worthwhile for Rep. Wilson, and her enthusiastically cheering rally participants to think about.  I hope they do.


THE RECOVERYLESS RECOVERY

Ken Berwitz

We are now 4 1/2 years into the Obama Presidency.  And the unemployment rate, which was 7.6% the day he was elected, then rose over 10%, then gradually, over the years, trickled back down to ..... 7.6%, exactly where it was when he campaigned on promises of getting us out of the economic mess George Bush put us in.

That, by itself, would be laughable if it didn't translate into real people in real financial straits.  But, bad as the economy is under Obama, that 7.6% unemployment level does not begin to tell the real story.  

We have talked for years about the increasing number of people who simply gave up looking.  This has left the work force at its lowest level in 34 years (since Carter, if you're keeping track).  Ironically, because people who have stopped looking are not counted in the unemployment statistics, this serves to make the unemployment data look better, not worse. 

Friday's Investors Business Daily had an excellent editorial on this subject that brings this fact home with crystal clarity  And since - as the editorial points out - most mainstream media keep pretending that the job situation is far better than it is (aka fooling the public on behalf of Barack Obama), I thought I would post several of its key excerpts:

Jobs: Hardly a day goes by that we don't see some release or comment from a pundit, politician or financial analyst telling us how "solid" the job market is. Well, it's not. And don't take our word for it.

Former Bureau of Labor Statistics chief Keith Hall recently was asked about the unemployment rate, which shows 7.6% of all Americans without jobs. His answer was shocking.

"Right now (the standard unemployment rate) is misleadingly low," Hall, now with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, told New York Post financial reporter John Crudele.

While it barely got mentioned by the mainstream media mob, Hall says the plunging employment-to-population ratio leads him to believe the real rate of unemployment is much higher than 7.6% perhaps 10.6%.

The BLS itself puts out several "alternative" measures of unemployment. One of them, the so-called U6 gauge, adds to ordinary unemployment those who are discouraged, part-time workers who want full-time jobs and those who are "marginally-attached" to the workforce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the chart above shows, the real rate of unemployment is about 14.3% - nearly two-thirds higher than when the recession began in December 2007.

Over the past five years, our own monthly IBD/TIPP Poll shows the total number of those who don't have full-time jobs but want them has consistently hovered above 20 million. And it won't get better. ObamaCare, as a recent surveys of employers indicate, is one of the most efficient job-killers ever signed into law.

Sadly, despite ample evidence their policies have failed, President Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party plunge recklessly ahead with their plans to regulate, tax and control the economy to death.

Don't believe the media's employment hype. Job creation begins and ends with a healthy, profitable private sector, not with big government and welfare handouts.

There is the true story.  Not the made-for-low-information-voters garbage so many "journalists" have been pumping out at you. 

As regular readers know, I make frequent references to Baack Obama's Accomplice Media.  If you have not seen this kind of information in those media, you shouldn't wonder why.

AJinFLA Most of those statistics can be warped in any direction you want. Unemployment, you can count lost jobs and see the trend reversed in the middle of 2010...... and say we are now going into the right direction. However, one very real number are people's 401K's and retirements which have essentially doubled under Obama from 2008. That is REAL MONEY. I can touch that right now, as long as that holds true, good luck convincing anyone regardless of how many statistics are spun that things are worse today than when Obama took office. (07/23/13)


ANTHONY WEINER AND THE AL JAZEERA DONATION

Ken Berwitz

Over the last two years, most recently on May 26th of this year, I have written that my biggest concern about Anthony Weiner's run for the mayoralty of New York City is not his sick habit of sending pictures of his genitals to women he "met" on the internet.  My biggest concern is his wife, Huma Abedin, a Muslim whose family is neck-deep in the Muslim brotherhood -- and who, not incidentally, was one of Hillary Clinton's closest advisors when she was Secretary of State.

Now, I find out that a donation of $4,950 has been given to Mr. Weiner from a lobbyist for al jazeera, the Qatar-based "news network" with close ties to the Muslim brotherhood.  (That's an interesting amount - just under $5,000.  I wonder if donations of $5,000 or more require legal disclosures which are intentionally being avoided here).

You can learn a lot more about Huma Abedin's family ties, and why you should be so concerned about them, by clicking here and reading a (typically) fact-filled article by Walid Shoebat - one of the few people who seem to give a damn about this.

At what point do major media - such CBS, NBC and ABC, for example - pay any attention at all to this?  When do they start asking how it is possible that a Muslim woman from a Muslim brotherhood family has no apparent problems with that family when marrying a Jew? 

Is the political power of Anthony Weiner (he was a congressperson, and significant force in the Democrat Party before his internet disgrace caused him to resign, and now is a serious NYC Mayoral candidate) the trade-off that makes it acceptable?

Are you as troubled as I am that they are so clearly looking the other way?


ANSWERING REP. FREDERICA WILSON

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, at a "Justice for Trayvon" rally, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) angrily assured participants that "little Black boys, and big boys and Black grown men, will continue to be singled out and arrested for driving while Black, shopping while Black, walking while Black, eating while Black, and just being plain old Black."

She has a point.  Those words ring true.

The problem?  Ms. Wilson declines to mention that, although no serious person doubts racism plays a hand in this, there are other reasons - very logical reasons - which have nothing to do with racism.

Let me answer Ms. Wilson by posting the first few paragraphs of an excellent article by Walter E. Williams, written last year, which addresses exactly this issue:

Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery.

The magnitude of this tragic mayhem can be viewed in another light. According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. It's a tragic commentary to be able to say that young black males have a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.

A much larger issue is how might we interpret the deafening silence about the day-to-day murder in black communities compared with the national uproar over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Such a response by politicians, civil rights organizations and the mainstream news media could easily be interpreted as "blacks killing other blacks is of little concern, but it's unacceptable for a white to kill a black person."

Mr. Williams goes on to talk about the violent crimes committed by this population segment against White victims as well.

Now for some cold, hard logic:  if you know that a specific population segment is dramatically more likely to commit crimes, especially violent crimes, than the general population, will you worry more about coming in contact with that population segment?

OF COURSE you will. You would have to be nuts not to.

Sadly, that is a day to day reality for Black males - including the large majority who do not commit crimes, but only try to go about living normal lives.

Is it fair that a young Black male who is simply walking down the street may be looked at with suspicion and fear by others?  No, it is not.  But, based on probabilities, is it reasonable that - knowing nothing other than that he is a young Black male - those others would be more apprehensive about him than they might be about someone else?  Yes, it is.

And who should that young Black male be blaming for the unfair situation he has, through no behavior of his own, been placed in?  The people who fear a high-crime population segment he happens to be part of?  Or the people within that segment who commit the crimes, and therefore generate the fearful reaction? 

Regular readers may remember a game I sometimes play, called "Erase The Face".  It is a simple game, in which I take what seems to be a racial situation, remove the racial component, and see if the result is the same.  Let's play it now:

Suppose it became known that men who wear red bandanas commit crimes far more frequently than the general population.  Suppose you are walking down the street and see man with a red bandana coming toward you.  Will you be more apprehensive about him than you might be about other people?  Will you consider crossing the street to avoid him?  If you are in a car, will you lock the door to that car? 

If the answers are yes - and I strongly suspect they are - you now understand that there is more to this than simply hating someone based on his skin color.  

But if you're still not convinced, let me add race to the equation, but in a different way than you might expect:

Suppose you are Black.  Suppose you are aware that young Black males commit crimes far more frequently than the general population.  And also suppose you are walking down the street and see a young Black male coming toward you.  Will you be more apprehensive about him than you might be about other people?  Will you consider crossing the street to avoid him?  If you are in a car, will you lock the door to that car? 

The answers to these questions are important; very worthwhile for Rep. Wilson, and her enthusiastically cheering rally participants to think about.  I hope they do.


THE RECOVERYLESS RECOVERY

Ken Berwitz

We are now 4 1/2 years into the Obama Presidency.  And the unemployment rate, which was 7.6% the day he was elected, then rose over 10%, then gradually, over the years, trickled back down to ..... 7.6%, exactly where it was when he campaigned on promises of getting us out of the economic mess George Bush put us in.

That, by itself, would be laughable if it didn't translate into real people in real financial straits.  But, bad as the economy is under Obama, that 7.6% unemployment level does not begin to tell the real story.  

We have talked for years about the increasing number of people who simply gave up looking.  This has left the work force at its lowest level in 34 years (since Carter, if you're keeping track).  Ironically, because people who have stopped looking are not counted in the unemployment statistics, this serves to make the unemployment data look better, not worse. 

Friday's Investors Business Daily had an excellent editorial on this subject that brings this fact home with crystal clarity  And since - as the editorial points out - most mainstream media keep pretending that the job situation is far better than it is (aka fooling the public on behalf of Barack Obama), I thought I would post several of its key excerpts:

Jobs: Hardly a day goes by that we don't see some release or comment from a pundit, politician or financial analyst telling us how "solid" the job market is. Well, it's not. And don't take our word for it.

Former Bureau of Labor Statistics chief Keith Hall recently was asked about the unemployment rate, which shows 7.6% of all Americans without jobs. His answer was shocking.

"Right now (the standard unemployment rate) is misleadingly low," Hall, now with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, told New York Post financial reporter John Crudele.

While it barely got mentioned by the mainstream media mob, Hall says the plunging employment-to-population ratio leads him to believe the real rate of unemployment is much higher than 7.6% perhaps 10.6%.

The BLS itself puts out several "alternative" measures of unemployment. One of them, the so-called U6 gauge, adds to ordinary unemployment those who are discouraged, part-time workers who want full-time jobs and those who are "marginally-attached" to the workforce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the chart above shows, the real rate of unemployment is about 14.3% - nearly two-thirds higher than when the recession began in December 2007.

Over the past five years, our own monthly IBD/TIPP Poll shows the total number of those who don't have full-time jobs but want them has consistently hovered above 20 million. And it won't get better. ObamaCare, as a recent surveys of employers indicate, is one of the most efficient job-killers ever signed into law.

Sadly, despite ample evidence their policies have failed, President Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party plunge recklessly ahead with their plans to regulate, tax and control the economy to death.

Don't believe the media's employment hype. Job creation begins and ends with a healthy, profitable private sector, not with big government and welfare handouts.

There is the true story.  Not the made-for-low-information-voters garbage so many "journalists" have been pumping out at you. 

As regular readers know, I make frequent references to Baack Obama's Accomplice Media.  If you have not seen this kind of information in those media, you shouldn't wonder why.

AJinFLA Most of those statistics can be warped in any direction you want. Unemployment, you can count lost jobs and see the trend reversed in the middle of 2010...... and say we are now going into the right direction. However, one very real number are people's 401K's and retirements which have essentially doubled under Obama from 2008. That is REAL MONEY. I can touch that right now, as long as that holds true, good luck convincing anyone regardless of how many statistics are spun that things are worse today than when Obama took office. (07/23/13)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!