Perceived Racism helps Democrats win Elections

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 11th, 2013

Politics 101

The Media labeled George Zimmerman a ‘White’ Hispanic to create a Racial Component where there was None

On February 26, 2012, 28-year old ‘white’ Hispanic George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year old black Trayvon Martin in Sanford in central Florida.  Zimmerman said it was self-defense.  Others are saying he stalked Martin because he was black.  It was the news media that called Zimmerman a ‘white’ Hispanic.  To make this a black-white racial issue.  Some cable channels are carrying the trial of George Zimmerman live.  Because they have made it a big story.  The trial is about over.  And they will soon turn it over to the jury.  Six women.  To decide Zimmerman’s fate.  While the city prepares for ‘Rodney King’ like rioting should the jury acquit Zimmerman.

On April 14th, 2012, a mob of 30 or more black youths brutally attack two white journalists from The Virginian-Pilot.  Which appeared to be more of a black-white racial issue than George Zimmerman.  A member of the neighborhood watch following a stranger in the neighborhood (Martin was living there temporarily).  Whereas the journalists from The Virginian-Pilot were sitting at a red light when someone threw a rock at their car.  Presumably because they were white.  When the male journalist got out of the car a black mob descended on him.  Making it look like an assault based solely on race.  Yet few reported this assault.  Even the journalists’ own paper.  Those who reluctantly reported on it played down the racial component.

So why is the apparently less racially motivated assault (the Zimmerman shooting of Martin) treated more like a racial hate crime while the apparently more racially motivated assault (the journalists from The Virginian-Pilot) is treated less like a racially motivated hate crime?  Why did the media label George Zimmerman a ‘white’ Hispanic?  Making a racial component where there was none?  While ignoring a racial component where there is one?  Well, because some believe that white-on-black crime is still a big problem in this country.  So much so that we can ignore instances of black-on-white crime.  To right past wrongs.  And end lingering racism in this country.

In 2011 the Majority of Homicide Victims AND Homicide Offenders were Black

Alright, what does the data say?  Is there still lingering racism in this country?  This nation that elected a black president?  Twice?  Are there still past wrongs to right?  Well, let’s begin with some homicide statistics.  Pulled from the CDC (see Table 34 (page 2 of 4). Death rates for homicide, by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age: United States, selected years 1950–2010).  Pulling the number of deaths for white and black males per 100,000 resident population we see that, in fact, blacks suffer a far higher homicide rate.

Black White Homicide Victims 1950-2010

So maybe there is something to say about lingering racism.  And past wrongs to right.  Until you dig a little deeper into the data, that is.  According to the FBI (see Expanded Homicide Data Table 3) there were 14,548 homicides in 2011.  Now, one would expect if there is lingering racism in this country that the higher number of black victims of homicide would correspond to a high number of white murderers.  But according to the FBI that’s not the case.  If you add up the number of black and white murderers in 2011 it totals 10,215.  Approximately 70% of all homicides.  So the lion’s share of homicides are committed by blacks and whites.  But whites were only responsible for 46.3% of those homicides.  While blacks were responsible for 53.7% of them.

So blacks committed the majority of homicides in 2011.  To put that into perspective you have to consider what percentage of the population is black.  Approximately 13%.  So you have about 13% of all Americans committing more than half of all homicides.   Which means the high homicide rate of blacks is not due to whites.  It’s due to blacks.  Suggesting that we don’t have lingering racism in the country.  Like the media is trying to say with the Zimmerman-Martin trial.  What we really have is a serious black-on-black crime problem.

A High Profile Case like the Zimmerman Trial can do Wonders to Create Actual Racism

While the Zimmerman trial is receiving full media coverage the brutal attack of The Virginian-Pilot journalists disappears into obscurity.  Because the racial component is wrong.  Just as it is wrong for the high homicide rates in Chicago.  So the media doesn’t cover it.  Unlike the Zimmerman trial.

In the first 6 months of this year there were 259 homicides in Chicago.  And 201 (77.6%) of these homicide victims were black.  While they only make up 33% of the population of the city.  In fact, not only were the majority of homicide victims black.  According to the Chicago Tribune (see Homicide numbers reveal stark contrast) the majority of murderers were black, too.  Which is why the media isn’t interested in the epidemic of crime in Chicago.  Especially the gun crime in Chicago.  Because the racial component is wrong.

So why is the media obsessed with white-on-black crime but ignores black-on-white and black-on-black crime?  Because white-on-black crime is politically useful.  Over 90% of blacks voted for President Obama.  As Democrats get the black vote.  Because of this perception of lingering racism.  And the perception that white Republicans are racists.  A high profile case like the Zimmerman trial can do wonders to create actual racism.  To drive a wedge between the races.  And further paint whites like the ‘white’ Hispanic George Zimmerman as racists.  Which resonates not only with blacks.  But with young people.  Those first-time voters.  And those college kids.  Who believe the United States is a racist country.  And vote Democrat to end that racism.  Which they believe they will do if they keep Republicans out of office.  And reporting on the epidemic of black-on-black crime in Chicago or blacks assaulting white journalists in Virginia do nothing to advance that political agenda.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT171: “The IRS scandal shows why conservatives must hide in the closet while liberals enjoy their free speech.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 24th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

There is no Free Speech in the Workplace these Days unless You’re a Liberal

You’ve probably noticed something in today’s workplace.  You can tell who the liberals are.  And you have a pretty good idea who the moderates and conservatives are.  How?  Easy.  Liberals are very outspoken in the workplace.  They have no problem talking politics.  Or making nasty comments about conservatives.  Especially the Tea Party conservatives.  Who they will openly disparage in the most vulgar terms.  Especially when talking to fellow liberals.  And they will always have a snide remark for the conservatives in the workplace.

Moderates, on the other hand, are friendly and easy going.  They prefer to avoid politics.  And will be friendly with people on both sides of the aisle.  While conservatives will be polite and respectful to their coworkers.  Avoiding politics for the most part.  But when they do talk politics they will lower their voice, look to see who is within earshot and will only talk politics with a fellow conservative.  Why is this?

Because there is no free speech in the workplace these days.  Unless you’re a liberal.  For a liberal can call George W. Bush an idiot.  They can call the American people who elected him idiots.  And can say that he was an illegitimate president because of that fiasco in Florida and those hanging chads.  Which, incidentally, had Al Gore won they would never have counted hanging chads to determine how many votes to reverse because they thought the voters were confused.  But if you call President Obama an idiot in the workplace they will call you a racist.  And they may discipline you for a hate crime.  They may even do this if you criticize his failed Keynesian economic policies.  Which they will still call racist.  And a hate crime.

Liberals believe that their Stubbornness and Narrow-Mindedness is Open-Minded and Enlightened

And it’s difficult for a conservative to have liberal friends.  For if they know you are conservative it won’t be long before one of them will say something about how you want to take food away from children.  Or how you want to screw the working people to give rich people a tax break.  Or how you’re a racist.  They’ll say it in a joking manner.  Drawing laughs from others in the group.  But you don’t dare criticize them.  You don’t ask them to explain why they hold a particular view or opinion.  Not if you want to keep them as a friend.  For they can joke about how uninformed and out of touch you are.  But they’ll never be able to explain why they hold a particular view or opinion.  For they are most likely just repeating what they heard or saw in the popular culture.  Or heard in a union meeting.

You may have all the history in the world on your side.  You may be current with all the economic and financial issues of the day.  You may even have a degree in history or economics.  It won’t matter.  You can cite Adam Smith, Montesquieu, David Ricardo, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc., all day long.  But it won’t matter.  You can explain Say’s law and prove it in contemporary terms how supply creates its own demand.  For example, no one was demanding the Internet.  In fact, when it first came around it took a long time to convince people of its value.  The supply (the Internet) came first.  Then the demand (our enjoyment of the World Wide Web) followed.  Eventually.  Proving Say’s law.  But it just won’t matter.  Because your liberal friends will just laugh with all-knowing condescension at how uninformed and out of touch you are.  Then they may just get mean.  And start with the name calling.

Which is why there are closet-conservatives.  While there is no such thing as a closet-liberal.  Because a liberal doesn’t have to be guarded about what they say.  But a conservative does.  A conservative cares deeply about where the country is heading by following the failed Keynesian policies of the past.  They would like to engage in the political process.  To engage their friends in debate.  To try and persuade them to change their political views.  But their friends don’t want their views or opinions challenged.  And will resent you for even trying.  While being exasperated that you won’t change your views and opinions to match theirs.  Calling you stubborn and narrow-minded.  While they believe that their stubbornness and narrow-mindedness is open-minded and enlightened.

Does the IRS’ Suppression of the Conservative Voice during the 2012 Election make the Obama Presidency Illegitimate?

A conservative cannot win by coming out of the closet.  Not in today’s workplace.  Or in his or her circle of friends.  Even if you have a good liberal friend where you can both speak your minds because your liberal friend will have liberal friends.  How many times have you been at a party with your liberal friend and all of a sudden year hear a snide remark about your political beliefs from a complete stranger?  It makes you wonder how that even came up in conversation.  And you wonder what else your friend told this stranger about you.  And who else knows your ‘dirty little secret’.  That you are a conservative.

This is where it gets a little scary.  For in your liberal circle of friends there could be some government workers.  Maybe an IRS agent.  And the last thing you want to make public is that you’re a Tea Party conservative making donations to conservative candidates.  Because when it comes to party politics it’s a little like living in a police state if you’re a conservative with money.  For money equals free speech today.  Because money pays for political ads.  Like those ads the Democrats flood the airwaves with during an election campaign.  For they are well funded.  They have rich Hollywood elites at thousand-dollars-a-plate fundraisers.  Public school teachers.  And public sector union members.  Who all send a portion of their union dues to Democrat coffers.  Whether they want to or not.  So some conservatives want to donate money, too.  To level the playing field.  And get their voice heard against this well-funded liberal drumbeat.  But making political donations can bring an unpleasant spotlight on you.

Case in point Frank Vandersloot.  CEO of Melaleuca.  Which made a million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.  Just as liberal Bill Maher made a million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting President Obama.  Soon a Democrat website for the reelection of President Obama published Vandersloot’s name.  And unleashed a personal assault on him.  And his business.  Business then suffered.  Soon after the IRS audited him.  Twice.  And the Department of Labor audited him.  Something Bill Maher did not suffer for his million dollar donation to a super PAC.  It cost him almost $80,000 in legal fees.  But the audits came up empty.  No fines.  Or penalties.  In fact the IRS owes him a refund.  Which he was still waiting for as of May 2013.

Was this harassment of Vandersloot just a coincidence?  The recent IRS scandal suggests that it wasn’t.  And shows why conservatives must hide in the closet while liberals enjoy their free speech.  For when conservatives donate to super PACs they don’t get treated like Bill Maher.  They get treated like Frank Vandersloot.  Which really dissuaded other conservatives from coming forward to exercise their free speech.  Resulting in suppressing the conservative voice during the 2012 election.  And suppressing, as a result, conservative voter turnout.  Suggesting that the Obama presidency is the illegitimate presidency.  Not the Bush presidency.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT117: “If a gay gene is identified an abortion of a gay fetus will be labeled a hate crime.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 11th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Left opposes Traditional Marriage but supports Same-Sex Marriage for the Money

According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law there are approximately 9 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the United States.  Based on a population of 311,591,917 that comes to approximately 3% of the population.  Which is a small number.  Which explains why same-sex marriage ballot initiatives are so often defeated.  Some people are opposed to same-sex marriage.  Some are opposed to making changes to existing laws to accommodate 3% of the population.  Whatever their reason voting majorities are against it.  Despite this same-sex marriage is a big issue.  Especially for some politicians.  In particular those on the Left.  As evidenced by President Obama’s recent evolution from being opposed to same-sex marriage to being in favor of it.  Which is puzzling when you consider the Left’s position on marriage in general.

They don’t like it.  Especially if it leads to a woman giving up a chance for a career to instead stay at home and raise a family.  For these women are not feminists.  These are enemies to feminism.  The Left has given women everything they could possible ask for.  So they don’t have to get married and become some man’s chattel.  Birth control.  Abortion.  Child support.  Public housing.  Etc.  Everything to help a woman avoid the tyranny of marriage.  Because marriage is nothing more than bondage.  A desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant.  To keep them cooks in the kitchen and whores in the bedroom.  While men go out and live life.  While coming home to a surrogate mother to attend to all of their needs.  Which is why the Left so opposes the repugnant institution of marriage.  Unless it’s for a same-sex couple.  Then it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So why is the Left so opposed to traditional marriage but all for same-sex marriage?  Money.  There is a lot of money in the LGBT community.  Because there is a lot of talent in the LGBT community.  People who go on to great stardom.  And become rich.  Who want it all.  Including marriage and a family.  So though small in numbers they are large in money.  So by supporting same-sex marriage the Left is trading votes for money.  Votes that for the most part they’ve already lost.  Traditional conservatives and Christians.  But they run a risk with this policy.  With the Independents and moderates.  The political center.  For there are a lot of traditional marriage advocates in the political center.  As there are in the black and Hispanic communities.  Who have some strong religious values.  And support the traditional family.

As we Practice Selective Breeding we’ll Breed the Different Gradually out of Existence

These are very complex and polarizing issues.  For no one wants to be labeled a bigot.  Well, some don’t mind.  Sadly.  But the majority do not want that label.  So on the one hand they want everyone to be able to have and enjoy what they can.  Which makes it difficult for them to see severely injured veterans.  And people stricken early in life with a debilitating disease.  Who will never be able to have and enjoy what they have.  But on the other hand they are devout in their religious beliefs.  And it’s a matter of conscious that they can’t ignore.  For the same reason that they oppose abortion.  For they see it as the destruction of a human life.  Even if doctors determine their child will be born with a severe birth defect they oppose abortion.  And they will carry that baby to term.  While some on the Left say the kinder more humane thing to do would be to abort that pregnancy.  For what kind of quality of life can that child expect?

Scientists have been unlocking the mysteries of DNA.  And have identified a lot of the genes that make us who we are.  Now here’s an interesting thought exercise.  Let’s suppose they identify a lesbian or gay gene.  As well as a bisexual and transgender gene.  And a doctor tells a heterosexual couple that they are going to have an LGBT child.  A couple that votes for politicians on the left side of the aisle.  Who have no moral problem with abortion.  For they are staunch defenders of women’s health and reproductive rights.  This couple is aware of how hard it is for an LGBT child to grow up and come to terms with their sexual identity.  Especially in this cruel and bigoted world.  Some of these children suffer horrible.  And carry scars into adulthood.  What if this couple chooses to do the kinder and more humane thing?  And choose not to bring this child to term?  Would that be a hate crime?

People are aborting pregnancies when a doctor tells them their child will be born with a birth defect.  And there are lot of people aborting pregnancies when the sex isn’t ‘right’.  As some cultures favor a male son.  So when a sonogram shows a female in the womb many choose abortion.  So would they abort an LGBT pregnancy?  Perhaps.  For we do live in a cruel and bigoted world.  Let’s hope it doesn’t come to this.  Though we are beginning to practice selective breeding.  As people are buying eggs and sperm to create the ‘perfect’ child.  It’s sad to consider what we may lose as this technology advances.  For we will be leaving behind a better world.  To enter the surreal.  Where people begin to look like everyone else.  An Orwellian existence where conformity is the rule.  And they breed the different gradually out of existence.

The Same-Sex Marriage and the Traditional Marriage Groups will Join Together in Opposing LGBT Abortion

Whether an LGBT abortion would be a hate crime or not it would still be criminal.  For can you imagine aborting a pregnancy that would become another Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky?  Had his parents not brought him to term because he was going to be gay we would not have Swan LakeThe NutcrackerRomeo and JulietThe Seasons (Les saisons).  And the list goes on.  Then there is West Side Story.  One of the greatest musicals of all time.  Music by Leonard Bernstein.  Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim.  Choreography by Jerome Robbins.  All gay.  Bernstein also turned the classic Candide into an opera.  Sondheim is perhaps the greatest composer of American musical theatre.  CompanyA Little Night Music (with the classic Send in the Clowns).  Sweeney ToddSunday in the Park with George.  And Into the Woods.  Just to name a few. 

Then there’s Elton John.  Who made the piano a bona fide rock instrument.  Some of the best music in the Seventies was his.  If you lived then you owned some or all of these albums.  Madman Across the WaterHonky ChâteauDon’t Shoot Me I’m Only the Piano Player.  Goodbye Yellow Brick RoadCaribouCaptain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy.  And how about Freddie Mercury?  Perhaps the greatest rock front-man of all time.  The talent in Queen was deep but it was Freddie that packed those stadiums.  Can anyone imagine Monty Python without Graham Chapman?  Or a Lord of the Rings without Sir Ian McKellen playing Gandalf?  We loved Lily Tomlin in Nine to Five and All of Me.  And who doesn’t love Jane Lynch in pretty much anything she’s in?  Ellen DeGeneres’ standup made you laugh.  And Liberace just made you smile.  What a sad, gray world it would be without these people in our lives.

The point is not that the LGBT community is here to entertain us.  Or to fund our politics.  It’s that they are here.  And our lives are better because of it.  We’ve grown to love some of these people.  Some before ever knowing their sexual orientation.  But when we learned that Graham Chapman was gay it didn’t stop anyone from loving Monty Python.  Or Graham Chapman.  So when the day comes when they can identify a gay gene in your unborn baby this is what we could lose.  This rich tapestry from our lives.  And that would be a shame.  Interestingly, though, it would bring the same-sex marriage and the traditional marriage groups together on one issue.  Abortion.  Or their opposition to abortion.  At least in opposition to abortions of LGBT pregnancies. 

Like I said, these are very complex and polarizing issues.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,