See 1 below.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IRS alleged scandal, as of last week, looks like the scandal most always thought it was. The lone black Democrat who has been trying to scuttle The House investigation appears, more and more, to be a shill working on behalf of The White House. And, I thought that was Carney's job! (See 2 below.)
And you wonder why people do not trust government, Obama, the IRS and the entire D.C. shebang. Well click on this and have it explained to you: "Conservative Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) fought back tears today as he dressed down a top IRS official at the Oversight Committee hearing today on Capitol Hill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
And you wonder why people do not trust government, Obama, the IRS and the entire D.C. shebang. Well click on this and have it explained to you: "Conservative Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) fought back tears today as he dressed down a top IRS official at the Oversight Committee hearing today on Capitol Hill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Netanyahu caves to Kerry? Now two pre-conditions! Why? (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
De racializing or playing them race cards again?
Is president cool seething inside? You decide. (See 4 ,4a, 4b and 4c below.)
----
Smoke on this sermon for a while: "If you are familiar with Rev. Manning you won't be surprised -if not sit down!
---
De racializing or playing them race cards again?
Is president cool seething inside? You decide. (See 4 ,4a, 4b and 4c below.)
----
Smoke on this sermon for a while: "If you are familiar with Rev. Manning you won't be surprised -if not sit down!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Didn’t Obama Already Save Detroit?
The news that the city of Detroit is declaring bankruptcy may not surprise many observers who were aware of how economic decline, shrinking population, the burden of huge public employee contracts and political corruption was leading inevitably to this outcome. But it might come as something of a shock to the vast majority of Americans whose only thoughts about the subject prior to today were framed by the demagoguery on the issue that came from President Obama’s reelection campaign. As we all recall, Democrats spent a good deal of 2012 telling us that “General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead” and hounding Mitt Romney for saying that Detroit would be better off going bankrupt rather than being bailed out by the federal government. But yesterday we learned that all the sunny talk about what Obama had accomplished did nothing to save the city.
1)Didn’t Obama Already Save Detroit?
The news that the city of Detroit is declaring bankruptcy may not surprise many observers who were aware of how economic decline, shrinking population, the burden of huge public employee contracts and political corruption was leading inevitably to this outcome. But it might come as something of a shock to the vast majority of Americans whose only thoughts about the subject prior to today were framed by the demagoguery on the issue that came from President Obama’s reelection campaign. As we all recall, Democrats spent a good deal of 2012 telling us that “General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead” and hounding Mitt Romney for saying that Detroit would be better off going bankrupt rather than being bailed out by the federal government. But yesterday we learned that all the sunny talk about what Obama had accomplished did nothing to save the city.
Of course, Democrats will say that when they were talking about “Detroit” last year, they were just using the word as shorthand for the automobile industry and not referring to the Motor City itself. But the memory of the way the president pounded Romney on the issue should do more than point out Obama’s hypocrisy. The collapse of what was once one of America’s great cities should also inform us about the way the liberal project is dooming municipal and state governments around the country as well as Washington to a sea of debt that cannot be sustained. Detroit isn’t just the most spectacular example of urban blight. It’s the poster child for the consequences of liberal governance.
Some liberals are telling us today that Detroit’s experience is so unique that what has happened there can’t be compared to any other city’s problems. It’s true that there is no more absolute example of urban collapse. But Detroit isn’t the only place where the decline of labor-intensive manufacturing and white flight caused a collapse. While other large cities, such as New York and Philadelphia, underwent crises that were met and overcome in the last generation before undergoing revivals, Detroit has been going downhill for more than 60 years. While Detroit had particular problems that may not have been faced elsewhere, the basic conundrum is not unique. But rather than face up to the need to change the old liberal formula of expanding government and letting corruption go unchecked, this bastion of liberalism refused to alter its course. Decades after leaders like Ed Rendell and Rudy Giuliani showed how it was possible to govern places that were thought ungovernable, Detroit continued acting as if the old boodle theory of politics could continue as mayors as well as other politicians were involved in criminal conspiracies rather than reform.
The lesson here is that a government that continued to overpromise and create unfunded liabilities to please political constituencies cannot survive indefinitely. And that goes straight to the glaring problem that was the foundation of President Obama’s false boasts about “saving Detroit” that caused Romney so much trouble last fall.
Detroit’s bankruptcy shows that federal bailouts for industries can’t solve all the country’s problems, especially when cities are sinking under the weight of generous municipal contracts for public employees. It’s true that many other cities that are facing shortfalls because of debts they’ve signed off on to pay off unions are working better than Detroit, where 40 percent of the street lights don’t work and it takes nearly an hour for police to arrive at an average high-priority emergency.
But unless the power of unions to bankrupt municipalities and state governments is cut back—much as Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have tried to do—everywhere, Detroit won’t be the last city to go bankrupt. The accumulation of debt to pay off the promises made by liberals is a problem that threatens cities all over the country, even some that are seemingly in much better shape than Detroit.
The Obama paradigm of building more entitlements like ObamaCare and throwing federal money at regional problems is based on the liberal assumption that the government piper will never have to be paid. Democrats have blasted their Republican counterparts as heartless Tea Party extremists and obstructionists for refusing to play along and let the system go on as it has for decades building debts that can’t ever be met. But unless someone or some group is able to enact real change, Detroit is America’s future, not, as some are telling us, an exception to the rule.
This week we got a wake up call that tells us that Obama didn’t save Detroit from bankruptcy. He is merely one more in a string of liberal enablers that helped create the situation there that may well be replicated elsewhere eventually, even in cities that are not in as dire straits today as Detroit is. It’s time for America to sober up and realize that without government reform based on the end of liberal illusions, Detroit will become a metaphor for how America became like Greece: bankrupt, corrupt, and a shadow of its past faded glories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2)
PeggyNoonan: A Bombshell in the IRS Scandal
No, it wasn't confined to a few rogue workers in Cincinnati.
When the scandal broke two months ago, in May, IRS leadership in Washington claimed the harassment of tea-party and other conservative groups requesting tax-exempt status was confined to the Cincinnati office, where a few rogue workers bungled the application process. Lois Lerner, then the head of the exempt organizations unit in Washington, said "line people in Cincinnati" did work that was "not so fine." They asked questions that "weren't really necessary," she claimed, and operated without "the appropriate level of sensitivity." But the targeting was "not intentional." Ousted acting commissioner Steven Miller also put it off on "people in Cincinnati." They provided "horrible customer service."
House investigators soon talked to workers in the Cincinnati office, who said everything they did came from Washington. Elizabeth Hofacre, in charge of processing tea-party applications in Cincinnati, told investigators that her work was overseen and directed by a lawyer in the IRS Washington office named Carter Hull.
Now comes Mr. Hull's testimony. And like Ms. Hofacre, he pointed his finger upward. Mr. Hull—a 48-year IRS veteran and an expert on tax exemption law—told investigators that tea-party applications under his review were sent upstairs within the Washington office, at the direction of Lois Lerner.
In April 2010, Hull was assigned to scrutinize certain tea-party applications. He requested more information from the groups. After he received responses, he felt he knew enough to determine whether the applications should be approved or denied.
But his recommendations were not carried out.
Michael Seto, head of Mr. Hull's unit, also spoke to investigators. He told them Lois Lerner made an unusual decision: Tea-party applications would undergo additional scrutiny—a multilayered review.
Mr. Hull told House investigators that at some point in the winter of 2010-11, Ms. Lerner's senior adviser, whose name is withheld in the publicly released partial interview transcript, told him the applications would require further review:
Q: "Did [the senior adviser to Ms. Lerner] indicate to you whether she agreed with your recommendations?"
A: "She did not say whether she agreed or not. She said it should go to chief counsel."
Q: "The IRS chief counsel?"
A: "The IRS chief counsel."
The IRS chief counsel is named William Wilkins. And again, he is one of only two Obama political appointees in the IRS.
What was the chief counsel's office looking for? The letter to Mr. Werfel says Mr. Hull's supervisor, Ronald Shoemaker, provided insight: The counsel's office wanted, in the words of the congressional committees, "information about the applicants' political activities leading up to the 2010 election." Mr. Shoemaker told investigators he didn't find that kind of question unreasonable, but he found the counsel's office to be "not very forthcoming": "We discussed it to some extent and they indicated that they wanted more development of possible political activity or political intervention right before the election period."
It's almost as if—my words—the conservative organizations in question were, during two major election cycles, deliberately held in a holding pattern.
So: What the IRS originally claimed was a rogue operation now reaches up not only to the Washington office, but into the office of the IRS chief counsel himself.
At the generally lacking House Oversight Committee Hearings on Thursday, some big things still got said.
Ms. Hofacre of the Cincinnati office testified that when she was given tea-party applications, she had to kick them upstairs. When she was given non-tea-party applications, they were sent on for normal treatment. Was she told to send liberal or progressive groups for special scrutiny? No, she did not scrutinize the applications of liberal or progressive groups. "I would send those to general inventory." Who got extra scrutiny? "They were all tea-party and patriot cases." She became "very frustrated" by the "micromanagement" from Washington. "It was like working in lost luggage." She applied to be transferred.
For his part, Mr. Hull backed up what he'd told House investigators. He described what was, essentially, a big, lengthy runaround in the Washington office in which no one was clear as to their reasons but everything was delayed. The multitiered scrutiny of the targeted groups was, he said, "unusual."
It was Maryland's Rep. Elijah Cummings, the panel's ranking Democrat, who, absurdly, asked Ms. Hofacre if the White House called the Cincinnati office to tell them what to do and whether she has knowledge of the president of the United States digging through the tax returns of citizens. Ms. Hofacre looked surprised. No, she replied.
It wasn't hard to imagine her thought bubble: Do congressmen think presidents call people like me and say, "Don't forget to harass my enemies"? Are congressmen that stupid?
Mr. Cummings is not, and his seeming desperation is telling. Recent congressional information leads to Washington—and now to very high up at the IRS. Meaning this is the point at which a scandal goes nowhere or, maybe, everywhere.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, finally woke the proceedings up with what he called "the evolution of the defense" since the scandal began. First, Ms. Lerner planted a question at a conference. Then she said the Cincinnati office did it—a narrative that was advanced by the president's spokesman, Jay Carney. Then came the suggestion the IRS was too badly managed to pull off a sophisticated conspiracy. Then the charge that liberal groups were targeted too—"we did it against both ends of the political spectrum." When the inspector general of the IRS said no, it was conservative groups that were targeted, he came under attack. Now the defense is that the White House wasn't involved, so case closed.
This is one Republican who is right about evolution.
The IRS scandal was connected this week not just to the Washington office—that had been established—but to the office of the chief counsel.
That is a bombshell—such a big one that it managed to emerge in spite of an unfocused, frequently off-point congressional hearing in which some members seemed to have accidentally woken up in the middle of a committee room, some seemed unaware of the implications of what their investigators had uncovered, one pretended that the investigation should end if IRS workers couldn't say the president had personally called and told them to harass his foes, and one seemed to be holding a filibuster on Pakistan.
Still, what landed was a bombshell. And Democrats know it. Which is why they are so desperate to make the investigation go away. They know, as Republicans do, that the chief counsel of the IRS is one of only two Obama political appointees in the entire agency.
To quickly review why the new information, which came most succinctly in a nine-page congressional letter to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, is big news:
Those trying to get to the bottom of the scandal have to dig in, pay attention. The administration's defenders, and their friends in the press, have made some progress in confusing the issue through misdirection and misstatement.
This is the moment things go forward or stall. Republicans need to find out how high the scandal went and why, exactly, it went there. To do that they'll have to up their game.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Netanyahu's Surrender?
By Jerold S. Auerbach
Last week a white flag seemed to be waving over Jerusalem. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, known for his proclivity for yielding to American pressure was reported to have accepted the surrender terms dictated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and imposed by Secretary of State John Kerry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Netanyahu's Surrender?
By Jerold S. Auerbach
Last week a white flag seemed to be waving over Jerusalem. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, known for his proclivity for yielding to American pressure was reported to have accepted the surrender terms dictated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and imposed by Secretary of State John Kerry.
To meet Palestinian conditions for the resumption of peace talks, Netanyahu seemed willing to cross his own (repeatedly asserted) red line -- no Palestinian preconditions for negotiations. But after Kerry's relentless arm-twisting, he was reportedly prepared to accept Abbas' preconditions. First, there would be yet another freeze on Jewish settlement construction in Judea and Samaria (formerly Jordan's West Bank), where 350,000 Jews now live in the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. Second, Israel would negotiate based on its vulnerable pre-1967 temporary armistice lines (memorably identified by Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban as "Auschwitz borders"). Third, Israel would release 250 Palestinian prisoners, many with Jewish blood on their hands, as a goodwill gesture.
Anyone familiar with Netanyahu's record as prime minister would not have been surprised. In 1997 he signed the Hebron Protocol, partitioning the ancient Jewish city where Abraham buried Sarah in the tomb known ever since as Me'arat HaMachpela. Jews were -- and remain -- confined to a tiny and vulnerable ghetto. In 2009, early in his current round as prime minister, Netanyahu capitulated to Palestinian demands for a ten-month settlement freeze as a condition for negotiations. Palestinians never came to the table.
Anyone familiar with Netanyahu's record as prime minister would not have been surprised. In 1997 he signed the Hebron Protocol, partitioning the ancient Jewish city where Abraham buried Sarah in the tomb known ever since as Me'arat HaMachpela. Jews were -- and remain -- confined to a tiny and vulnerable ghetto. In 2009, early in his current round as prime minister, Netanyahu capitulated to Palestinian demands for a ten-month settlement freeze as a condition for negotiations. Palestinians never came to the table.
Based on his past record, it seemed reasonable to conclude that Netanyahu would capitulate to American pressure once again. Israeli President Shimon Peres, whose contributions to the disastrous Oslo Accords twenty years ago propelled the Palestinian Authority to legitimacy, while consigning many hundreds of Israeli civilians to death in terrorist attacks and suicide bombings, sounded euphoric at the prospect of another Israeli surrender. "I believe that [Kerry's] significant effort will bear fruit on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side," he said, with both parties "making an effort to overcome the final obstacles."
But for Israel to agree to return to its temporary armistice lines of 1949, even if only for the purpose of negotiation, would be a concession that invites disaster. At its narrowest, barely 10 miles wide, it would once again have an indefensible eastern border. The nearby Samarian hills would be open to Hamas and Hezb'allah infiltration, if not Palestinian invitation, and rocket and terrorist attacks on nearby Israeli cities (Tel Aviv, to cite a random example) would surely follow.
Following the Six-Day War, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan explained the meaning of Israel's stunning victory. In a ceremony on the Mount of Olives, near the ancient Jewish cemetery, which (like the Old City and Western Wall) Jews had been prohibited from visiting during the years of Jordanian occupation, Dayan declared: "We have returned to all that is holy in our land. . . . We have returned to the cradle of our people, to the inheritance of the Patriarchs. . . . We will not be parted from the holy places."
Not so fast. Given what Netanyahu seemed prepared relinquish even before talks began, it is easy to imagine how he would respond to future American pressure to satisfy Palestinian demands for a final solution. The Palestinian Authority has already indicated that no Jews would be permitted to live in the State of Palestine. That means that 200,000 Jews living in East Jerusalem and 350,000 Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria would face expulsion from their homes. "What will become of Israel?" asked Abbas Zaki, member of the Fatah Central Committee: "It will come to an end."
There is more than ample justification for Jews to remain where they are, continuing to develop their prospering homeland in the face of persistent worldwide efforts to deny its legitimacy. It includes the divine promise of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people; centuries of ancient Jewish sovereignty there; the defining Zionist principle of settlement; international law, which ever since 1922 -- when Great Britain relinquished two-thirds of Palestine to King Abdullah -- has assured Jews the right of "close settlement" west of the Jordan River; and the fruits of military victory in its defensive war for survival in 1967.
Although Netanyahu's track record suggested the likelihood of substantial Israeli concessions even before negotiations began, Palestinians predictably seized the opportunity to miss their opportunity. At the last minute, the governing Revolutionary Council of President Abbas's Fatah movement rejected Kerry's plan. Netanyahu was off the hook -- for now.
But you never know. The story is told of the scorpion that reached a river bank, hoping to get to the other side. Unable to swim, he pleaded with a frog to transport him. "Why should I?," asked the frog. "You will sting me and I will die." The scorpion pointed out the folly of that: then they would both perish. The frog was persuaded and the scorpion climbed on his back. Half way across, the scorpion stung the frog. "Why did you do that," asked the sinking frog. The drowning scorpion replied: "That's the Middle East."
3a)
| Palestinians: Kerry gave written guarantees to Abu Mazen |
| [A simple question: if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accepted a written invitation to participate in a wife swapping - cocaine snorting party could he argue that as long as he doesn't write himself that this is a sex-drug orgy that it doesn't matter what was written in the invitation?] "Kerry gave guarantees for resumption of talks" In the West they deny the claim of the Palestinians, in Israel: renewal of the process without a declaration of the basis of 67 lines Palestinian sources say that US Secretary of State Kerry, gave the head of the PA Authority Abu - Mazen [AL: Mahmoud Abbas] a guaranty letter that the renewed talks are on the basis of the 67 lines. According to the sources, the letter stated that the parties will not make moves that would endanger the success of the talks - Israel will not publish tenders for new construction in the settlements and the Palestinians will not carry out diplomatic measures against Israel. A senior Western source denied the claims of the Palestinians regarding the 67 line. Diplomatic sources in Jerusalem said that the process resumes without an Israeli statement that the basis for talks is the 67 lines, without a construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, and without releasing prisoners before the talks. |
4)CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I thought it was a political speech addressed to his constituency on the left, which I thought was unfortunate, even though it sounded like a philosophical speech addressed to the whole nation. I gave him and Holder credit all week for trying to deracialize the issue and what Obama did, I think, unfortunately today is to re-racialize it.
The first statement he issued after the verdict on Saturday, I think it was, was to talk about we have to honor what the jury decided. And then he spoke about helping our communities, thinking about our neighbors and gun control. But it wasn't about race, and as we know from the trial, race was not an issue in the trial. The prosecution didn't speak of race; the jury said it wasn't an issue; the FBI investigation didn't find any hint of racism in Zimmerman, but Obama reinjected it. Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt and I'm not sure why I still do. Three days in a row, I probably ought to consult a physician by now.
I think the main message of the speech was what he buried which was they are not going to continue, they're not going to pursue a federal prosecution. He knows, Holder knows there is no case for a hate crime. But he buried it, it a throw-away line. And the rest -- all the racial stuff, and the sympathy he expressed for all those who were upset -- I think was a rhetorical fog, if you like, a compensation for the fact they are not going to get the demand that you're going to hear in the demonstrations tomorrow for federal charge against Zimmerman. So I think it was a balancing act as a way to mitigate the fact that they are not going to pursue an unwinnable prosecution of Zimmerman. (Special Report, July 19, 2013)
4a)President's Trayvon speech worthy of maestro
Watching President Barack Obama play the race card late last week in the matter of the Zimmerman trial reminded me that the guy from Chicago has truly amazing powers.
He stood in the White House briefing room, and through the magic of his own silky rhetoric and skill with metaphor, he was able animate the body of a slain African-American teenager, Trayvon Martin.
Obama pronounced the killing as racially motivated, though he didn't use the words. He didn't have to, such is his prowess. It was so smooth that few noticed. He put the killing in a racial context, and that was enough.
"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago," Obama told reporters at the White House on Friday, addressing last weekend's acquittal of Martin's shooter, George Zimmerman.
Could Obama have been Trayvon Martin 35 years ago?
Perhaps. If so, then any of us could have been Trayvon Martin. And I could have been Trayvon Martin. Racial motives weren't established at trial. And reportedly, the FBI still hasn't found racial motives in George Zimmerman, who is Hispanic.
Race was established by the president of the United States, and by other political and media actors. It's a cynical business, about money and power, about keeping divisions between American tribes. There are the black tribes that see Martin in the context of the old civil rights struggles and leverage, and white tribes that see Martin being used to pummel them with racial guilt.
The algebra of all of this is as old as some musty textbook in your uncle's garage. We've seen it before. We've heard the lines, the formulations, the slogans, and some of us recite them the way we recite phrases from television commercials. We're given just enough evidence and we're told we must choose a side.
Yet none of this tribalism has anything to do with what happened the night Martin was killed. Politicians don't worry about that. They're experts at the game of tribes, and a tribal America is what nourishes them.
Americanism should be about something more than tribes and groups. Americanism should instead be about individuals, about individual promise, individual accomplishment.
Only an individual can give another respect. Tribes can't. What tribes do is battle other tribes over the spoils of government. This has nothing to do with individual respect. It has everything to do with group leverage.
Clearly, Martin and Zimmerman didn't give each other respect. Each one could and should have walked away, and didn't. Many homicides happen that way, with bad choices and stupidity and anger. Homicides are never political at the beginning. They become so only after the body is cold, when the political actors approach and heat things up.
The rest of the president's commentary was quite touching, describing how young African-American men are followed in department stores, and how he was one of those followed, or how motorists lock their doors, how women clutch their purses when a black man enters an elevator.
It was compelling talk for a president who avoids discussing race almost as much as he avoids discussing all those young African-American men shot down in Chicago every year in the street gang wars.
But first came the sound bite in which he became Trayvon Martin. He knew what he was delivering. It was no accident. The rest of it was the cover. Many will applaud him for initiating sensitive discussion about race in America, and many will miss completely what he did.
He played the race card and they didn't see it coming. He attributed racial motive to a homicide even though the race angle was never established in court. And he'll be praised. That's skill. That's power.
Despite Obama's assertion that he could have been Martin, the jury did not believe that the teenager was killed because he was black.
Many in the news media clearly believed the race angle, which reinforces American tribalism. Perhaps the worst of many violators was NBC News. That network's cynical editing of Zimmerman's 911 emergency call should cost them millions in damages.
By saying he could have been Trayvon Martin, President Obama bypassed the evidence and established his own motive. Only a maestro could accomplish this.
"I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul searching," Obama said, and I hope he included himself in the search.
"There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race," he continued. "I haven't seen that to be particularly productive. When politicians try to organize conversations they end up being stilted and politicized, when folks are locked into the positions they already have."
They get locked into positions with help from those who would ostensibly lead them away from ignorance and anger and fear. No one wins the game of tribes but the leaders.
4b)Obama: "Trayvon Martin Could Have Been Me 35 Years Ago"
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week, the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave an -- a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.
First of all, you know, I -- I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s -- it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.
The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there are going to be a lot of arguments about the legal -- legal issues in the case. I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.
The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a -- in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.
But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling. You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn’t go away.
There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.
And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.
And you know, I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.
The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.
Now, this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.
We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.
And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.
I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.
So -- so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it or -- and that context is being denied. And -- and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.
Now, the question for me at least, and I think, for a lot of folks is, where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? You know, I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.
But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government -- the criminal code. And law enforcement has traditionally done it at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.
That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation, we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.
Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it’d be productive for the Justice Department -- governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.
You know, when I was in Illinois I passed racial profiling legislation. And it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.
And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way, that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and in turn be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously law enforcement’s got a very tough job.
So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And -- and let’s figure out other ways for us to push out that kind of training.
Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.
I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.
On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?
And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.
Number three -- and this is a long-term project: We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?
You know, I’m not naive about the prospects of some brand-new federal program.
I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I do recognize that as president, I’ve got some convening power.
And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that -- and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed -- you know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.
And then finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. You know, there have been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.
On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s a possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.
And let me just leave you with -- with a final thought, that as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. I doesn’t mean that we’re in a postracial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated. But you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they’re better than we are. They’re better than we were on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.
And so, you know, we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues, and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days I think have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long, difficult journey, you know, we’re becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.
All right? Thank you, guys.
4c)Subject: THE ELECTION OF A BLACK PRESIDENT HAS MEANT NOTHING
By: Dennis Prager
The greatest hope most Americans — including Republicans — had when Barack Obama was elected president was that the election of a black person as the country’s president would reduce, if not come close to eliminating, the racial tensions that have plagued America for generations.
This has not happened. The election, and even the re-election, of a black man as president, in a country that is 87 percent non-black — a first in human history — has had no impact on what are called “racial tensions.”
In case there was any doubt about this, the reactions to the George Zimmerman trial have made it clear. The talk about “open season” on blacks, about blacks like Trayvon Martin being victims of nothing more than racial profiling and about a racist criminal justice system, has permeated black life and the left-wing mainstream media.
I put quotation marks around the term “racial tensions” because the term is a falsehood.
I put quotation marks around the term “racial tensions” because the term is a falsehood.
This term is stated as if whites and blacks are equally responsible for these tensions, as if the mistrust is morally and factually equivalent.
But this is not at all the case.
“Racial tensions” is a lie perpetrated by the left. A superb example is when the New York Times described the 1991 black anti-Semitic riots in Crown Heights, Brooklyn as “racial tensions.”
For those who do not recall, or who only read, viewed or listened to mainstream media reports, what happened was that mobs of blacks attacked Jews for three days after a black boy was accidentally hit and killed by a car driven by a Chasidic Jew.
A Brandeis University historian, Edward S. Shapiro, who wrote a book on the events, described those black attacks on innocent Jews as “the most serious anti-Semitic incident in American history.”
Blacks stabbed a Jewish student to death, injured other Jews, and screamed, “Heil Hitler!” and “Death to the Jews!” while carrying signs with messages such as “Hitler didn’t finish the job.”
And how did the New York Times report the most serious anti-Semitic incident in American history?
As racial tensions.
One of the Times reporters who covered those riots was Ari Goldman, now a professor of journalism at Columbia University. Last year, eleven years after the riots, this is how Goldman described his former newspaper’s reporting of the events:
“In all my reporting during the riots, I never saw — or heard of — any violence by Jews against blacks. But the Times was dedicated to this version of events: Blacks and Jews clashing amid racial tensions.”
As a New York Times editorial described the black attacks: “The violence following an auto accident in Crown Heights reminds all New Yorkers that the city’s race relations remain dangerously strained.”
That was the entire left’s take: “strained relations” between blacks and Jews. “Racial tensions.” Both sides equally at fault.
Once one understands that “racial tensions” is a euphemism for a black animosity toward whites and a left-wing construct, one begins to understand why the election of a black president has had no impact on most blacks or on the left.
Since neither black animosity nor the left’s falsehood of “racial tensions” is based on the actual behavior of the vast majority of white Americans, nothing white America could do will affect either many blacks’ perceptions or the leftist libel.
That is why hopes that the election of black president would reduce “racial tensions” were naive. Though a white person is far more likely to be murdered by a black person than vice versa, all it took was one tragic death of a black kid to reignite the hatred that many blacks and virtually all black leaders have toward white America.
Let’s put this in perspective. Ben Jealous of the NAACP, Al Sharpton of MSNBC, Jesse Jackson, and the left-wing media compete to incite hatred of America generally and white America specifically. Over what? A tragic incident in which a Hispanic man (regularly labeled “white”) said, with all physical evidence to support him, that fearing for his life, he killed a black 17-year-old (regularly labeled “a child”).
The very fact that George Zimmerman — who is as white as Barack Obama — is labeled “white” bears testimony to the left-wing agenda of blaming white America and to the desire of many blacks to vent anger at whites.
And that is why the election of a black president has meant nothing. Indeed, to those whose lives and/or ideologies are predicated on labeling America and its white population as racist, it wouldn’t matter if half the Senate, half the House and half the governors were black.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment