Late one night, a black woman living in a predominately white neighborhood was startled awake by the sound of breaking glass. Inside her 4-year-old son’s room, she found a brick. Attached to it was a note: “Keep Eastside White. Keep Eastside Strong.”
Yes, a clear-cut case of racism. A hate crime. Yet incredibly, the police decided otherwise. Why? Police said the note did not constitute “hate speech.” Accordingly, the crime “probably would be criminal mischief and deadly conduct, both misdemeanors,” according to police.
No doubt, the brick-throwing incident — and the police’s handling of it — would surely make a good story for Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates, Jr to include in yet another essay or book on America’s deep-seated racism. Racism that he recently experienced first-hand.
The forgoing incident, by the way, occurred not long ago in Austin, Texas. However, two small details were changed to make a point: The mother was in fact white, and she was living in a predominately black neighborhood. This may help to explain why police decided there was no hate crime: Hate crimes, of course, can only be committed by whites against other racial and ethnic minorities.
There is a young man imprisoned in the California State Prison system whose story has to be told again and again until he is pardoned or otherwise released from his sentence. His story really boils down to one question: Should not our sons be accorded the same legal protections as our daughters if they are raped or fighting off an attempted rape?
This is the story of Steven Nary, an 18-year old sailor who stood nary a chance after a night on the town turned horribly wrong.
Obama has really put his foot in his mouth this time by insulting police officers just for performing their duties.
Normally, I would always blog about policy issues and leave these Obama gaffes for other blogs. But in watching the story explained on Fox News below, I began to realize that there was a policy angle after all.
And pay attention to the part of the transcript that Deb snipped out from NRO, where Charles Krauthammer makes the point:
I think it was important, because the Democrats have suffered for almost a half a century of a reputation of being soft on crime. The flip side of that is tough on cops, or insensitive to the duties and the sacrifices of law enforcement.
In 1998, Obama was one of only three senators to vote against a proposal making it a criminal offense for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang.
In 2001, Obama voted against a measure that would have expanded the penalties for some gang activity to include the death penalty. The bill was vetoed by then-Gov. George Ryan (R ) not long after he had issued a moratorium on the death penalty in the state.
Obama, at the time, said the bill would unfairly target minorities, stating, “There’s a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color … I think it’s problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.”
Obama opposes the death penalty except for terrorists, serial killers and child-murderers, but his campaign added that he does not support the death penalty as it is currently administered in this country.
On a 1999 vote making adult prosecution mandatory for aggravated discharge of a firearm in or near a school, the senator voted “present.”
He explained the vote, saying, “There is really no proof or indication that automatic transfers and increased penalties and adult penalties for juvenile offenses have, in fact, proven to be more effective in reducing juvenile crime or cutting back on recidivism.”
And in 2001, Obama voted “present” on a bill that would increase penalties for trafficking in Ecstasy and other designer drugs.
The senator questioned the length of some drug penalties when compared to other crimes, noting that selling 15 tablets of Ecstasy was a Class X felony, as was raping a woman at knifepoint.
…During Obama’s campaign against Rush, the senator missed a vote on the Safe Neighborhoods Act that would have made illegal gun possession a felony, and Ryan blamed Obama and two other lawmakers for missing the vote and dooming the legislation, though it failed 31-17.
As an Illinois state senator, for example, he acted more as a friend to criminals than to cops, legislating among other things:
• Curbs on what he called a “broken” death penalty system.
• A measure to expunge some criminal records and give job grants to ex-cons.
• Tougher handgun controls.
• A vote against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang.
• Opposition to a bill requiring juveniles to be prosecuted as adults for firing a gun at or near a school.
At the federal level, Obama would:
• Repeal “unfair” mandatory sentences for crack convictions.
• Provide drug counseling instead of jail time for some abusers.
• Rethink criminal penalties for pot.
• Ban profiling by federal law enforcement, even if it helps catch violent criminals including terrorists.
• Strengthen hate-crime laws and beef up civil rights enforcement against police chiefs who profile.
• Provide job training, drug rehab and counseling for ex-cons.
• “Re-enfranchise” felons denied the right to vote.
In addition, Obama, who once vowed to repeal the Patriot Act, still talks about reforming it. He also once proposed banning executions of inmates, arguing he was against capital punishment.
…”In our criminal justice system, African-Americans and whites are arrested at very different rates,” Obama recently complained. “It has to do with how we pursue racial justice.”
This Cambridge, MA story is consistent with Obama’s previous voting record against public safety and law enforcement.
Michelle starts by talking about two murders that occurred at almost the same time. Which one was more important to Obama and the left-wing media, and why?
She writes:
When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.
Tiller’s suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, was white, Christian, anti-government, and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruiting center attack, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, was black, a Muslim convert, anti-military, and anti-American. Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.
In the column Michelle notes the following differences between the two stories:
Obama issued a statement condemning the murderer of the abortionist, but not the murder of the military recruiters
The Justice Department dispatched federal marshals to protect abortion clinics, not military recruitment offices
The left-wing media labeled the murderer of the abortion doctor a terrorist, not the murderer of the military recruiters
The left-wing media blamed conservative media for one murder, but militant Islam was not blamed for the other murders
Michelle asks what Obama had to say about the deaths of two of our brave soldiers:
…President Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of George Tiller. Obama’s omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.
She goes on to catalog some more incidents showing where the real threat of domestic terrorism lies. Most of them I had never even heard of. It just goes to show you that some victims are more equal than others, especially when you are trying to squash down the good and lift up the evil – so that the distinctions that make people able to judge others will be demolished. Abortion good, patriotism bad. Feminism good, military service bad.
Watch this video with Evan Sayet and you’ll learn how the secular-left thinks.
We need to understand how it has become possible for the secular-left to be viewed as “moral” while faithful conservatives are viewed as “immoral”. One worldview views the universe as an accident and human rights as fictions. The other believes that God grounds human rights and that every person has a purpose that makes them valuable: to know God.
UPDATE: Nice Deb says that the anti-war left is to blame for the death of the military recruiters. Turnabout is fair play. She has a lot more at that link, too.
WINTERY KNIGHT 