Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The Most Dangerous Post Of 2014

When I first read this post, I thought that a conservative must have written it because it states what a lot of conservatives say about black criminals and the justice system.
It is why I would suggest to read the post twice. Once does not do it justice.
Why is what I am writing and what Michael Smith* wrote is that Mr. Smith is by his own admission a liberal.
So it is very important to read Mr. Smith's perspective thoroughly.
And I will start to analyze from the end because again, this is important to understand that this is not the ranting of some right-winger race superiorist.
Read the following two paragraphs and tell me that the truth has not smacked Mr. Smith in the face:

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.
My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

The second paragraph is true, unfortunately. Yes, a white-dominated jury will convict a black who has committed a crime against a white. And yes, it is done in reverse. Can we all say O. J. Simpson?
It appears to me what drives Mr. Smith even with the truth smacking him in the face is that he maybe able to reach one of those he represents and hopefully turn that person's life around.
The reality is that a conservative could not get away with the brute honesty Mr. Smith writes about. Whether I like it or not, it takes someone that thinks they can change the outcome to explain that in reality, they can't.
Mr. Smith is a public defender in a major Southern metropolitan area. According to Mr. Smith, 10% of the population is black. Yet they overwhelmingly make up the majority of his cases, fully 90% of his caseload are blacks. Mr. Smith has also represented whites, Hispanics and Asians. Amazingly, he says out of all the thousands of cases, only three are where he represented Asians and one of those was partially black.
Mr. Smith goes on to describe the attitudes of those groups he has represented.
Whites are respectful of his role. They come to court, dress appropriately, keep their head down and follow instructions and it is over. Ditto the Hispanics. Nothing about the Asians, but knowing their culture I am sure that they follow the whites and Hispanics.
When it comes to blacks, it is beyond a whole different story.
According to Mr. Smith, court is like a carnival to many of those he defends. To Mr. Smith it appears that whole families congregate in and around the courthouse and that they all seem to know each other. They gossip, laugh, wave at each other and congregate around the halls adding to the carnival atmosphere.
It also appears that blacks have no respect for Mr. Smith or any of those that are trying to help them. He is not given the respect of being called Mr. Smith. It's usually his first name (where do I see that on a national scale? Hmm, maybe the Dear Leader, President Obama?!) or even worse. Mr. Smith wrote that some openly refer to him, to his face, as 'dog'. For those of you not up on pop culture slang, the word dog is used as in friend. "What's up, dog?" Uh, correct me if I am wrong but referring to your lawyer with such familiarity shows absolutely no respect. Respect that he or she deserves. It also shows a familiarity that is not there. Why should Mr. Smith or any other public defender try in any way to help anyone who shows such little concern for his or her own fate?
Not only are they disrespectful but they do not understand that a public defender or any defense attorney are not Svengali. They can not snap their fingers and all the information regarding their case magically appears.
Upon their first meeting, while Mr. Smith is doing introductions and trying to explain their particular case, the blacks are totally impatient and want quick answers. In that first meeting, the public defender does not have all the case particulars. He tries to explain to them that they have to wait and get all the evidence and information before he can tell them everything and what options there are. But blacks, they live in the immediate. The here and now.
And the worst thing is that blacks, unlike any other group, do not see their public defender as there to help but part of the "man" and thus by nature against them. Ready to cut deals to their detriment. Thus they are hostile to the person that is trying to help them from the beginning.
Which leads to an interesting observation about the criminal acts he has noticed from each of the race groups Mr. Smith has represented.
Whites commit all kinds of crime from sexual to violent and everything in between. Hispanics generally are in the system due to sexual assault on children and or driving under the influence. Blacks seem to do everything but sex crimes in general. And keep in mind this is what Mr. Smith sees in his particular area of the United States. It is not meant to be a nationwide analysis.
Where I find the aspect of Mr. Smith that is actually sad and troubling is that the blacks he deals with, whether it is the suspected criminal, that family and the usual black victim and their families are essentially barely functional illiterate.
Mr. Smith asserts that if a case gets to trial, he tries to not have the black defendant take the stand in their own defense. For that is because, again in Mr. Smith's words,

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

WHOA! Could you imagine if any conservative were to write this? It is true, but Mr.Smith is blunt and to the point. Who can forget the testimony of one Rachel Jeantel in the George Zimmerman trial regarding the death of Trayvon Martin. While the article that I linked was from the Puffington Post and generally sympathetic to Miss Jeantel, no doubt that even they could not avoid the obvious.
That for whatever reason, and this is not where to address that, a lot of blacks can not effectively communicate and it will invariably hurt rather than help their cause.
And this, this maybe the most horrific, yes horrific, indictment about black defendants.
That they have absolutely no empathy for others.
Mr. Smith describes a case of three robbers and he was representing one that beat up a girl while his cohorts committed the robbery. According to Mr. Smith the defendant asks what are the chances for his case and Mr. Smith told the truth. That it was not good. And while the defendant was angry with Mr. Smith and delving into conspiracy theory, Mr. Smith pointed out that there was a video of the whole event. Mr. Smith asked the defendant what he thought a jury would think. The defendant said “They don’t care.”  But it gets better. When Mr. Smith asks said defendant if he felt any remorse for what he had done, well its so precious:

“What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

WOW! What can anyone say when faced with such a response? Except again, there is no remorse and or empathy for what they may have done in the commission of a crime.
Here are several other tidbits that I found sad and disturbing all at the same time.
Mr. Smith acknowledges that one the threads common in his clientele is the fact the black males do not have an active father in their lives. Sometimes the defendants meet their fathers for the first time in court and it is a meeting that is unemotional in every way.
An observation I want to note is Mr. Smith mentioning a 47-year old grandmother. I did some math and figured that granny probably had a child roughly between 17-20 years old. That child had a child probably at a younger age. Hence, a granny at 47. For some reason, it just blows me away.
Mr. Smith also notes that the women are having multiple babies with multiple fathers and that all are essentially wards of the state. All involved in some way get some kind of assistance from the government. And the males actually working?! Are you kidding?! They are sponging off of someone and collecting either social security disability for some kind of mental issue and or some kind of physical ailment that he sure can't figure out. When Mr. Smith asks what a defendant does all day, he gets a response that goes “You know, just chill.” That chill is courtesy of the United States taxpayer.
Oh and explaining how a defendant should dress for court appearances is amazing.
Mr. Smith tells a couple of situations involving a female and male defendant. The female is on trial for drugs and shows up wearing a baseball cap. A cap that has a embroidered marijuana leaf on it. And for the male, the defendant shows up wearing a t-shirt with this charming line: "Rules are for suckers". And the public defenders office has dress shirts, suits, neckties, and dresses for female defendants. Yet, mostly the males, want to wear the cool gang colors. And it's a group effort among Mr.Smith's co-workers to try desperately to convince a black, gang-banger defendant to wear at the very least a dress shirt and necktie.
The sadness is that this is not just Mr. Smith's metropolitan area in the South where this takes place.
This is nationwide in many an urban area. And at all levels from cities, counties, states and federal courts. Mr. Smith shares a statistic that, to me, is disturbing. Twelve percent of the United States population is black. Yet they make up 40% of the prison population. The chart below is as of 2009 but probably worse today than better.

It is staggering and disturbing all at the same time. 
How does this one group seem to have self-destructed in this nation?
Mr. Smith alludes to the breakdown of the traditional family among blacks.
And Mr. Smith does not go much further but I will.
Education is not separate but equal but abysmal for blacks in the inner city. No one seems to want to get a handle on it because it will break some sacred cows that the so-called black "leadership" has vented over the last 40 years. Money, money and more money has been poured into the predominately black inner-city schools and scores at all levels have worsened, not improved. Essentially, many teachers just show up and put in their time and hope not to get killed.
Since there is usually not a mom and dad, the gang that many of the black male youths eventually gravitate to become family. Ditto for the girls.
Yes, I am a white male and according to the PC forces, I have not only no right to note the problems but I am privileged simply by the grace of God of being born white. Yet I have grown up where I am the minority. Most of my friends have been Hispanic throughout my life. Many of them are at a much better station in life than I am. There goes my "white privilege".
But what seems to have prompted Mr. Smith to write the piece he did is he wanted to tell the truth. And it is clearly painful for him to do so. The truth is there is a serious problem in the black community. There are real solutions but it will take a concerted effort of many people, groups and forces. And some of those people, groups and forces need to end some of their rhetorical flourishes and realize there are a lot of us that want to help. That want to improve education for blacks. That want to restore as much of a traditional family structure as possible. That want blacks to stop gangs and make them unattractive for their children to ever join.
The conversation has to start somewhere and it has to start with truth.
That is why this is the most dangerous post of 2014.

Thursday, December 25, 2014


Here from the Right View From The Left Coast headquarters, Mrs. RVFTLC, Barney and Cashew and I wish you a very Merry Christmas and blessings for a very happy, prosperous 2015. I don't think I can say what Christmas is all about any better than Linus Van Pelt.
So, Linus, take it away!

Saturday, December 20, 2014

And The Fruit Of Anti-Police Rage Is Two Executed NYC Policemen

In my frame of mind, chest cold reeking havoc, I am pained to write this post but it has to be done.
Today in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, two NYC policemen, Wenjian Lu and Rafael Ramos, were blatantly executed in their police car by one Ismaaiyl Brinsley, a Black man.
It was not like Mr. Brinsley did not know what he was doing. The car that the two policemen were in was a clearly marked NYPD car.
In fact and indeed, it appears that Mr. Brinsley knew what he was doing and showed his intent on his now deleted Instagram site. Here is a bit of intent of Mr. Brinsley:

It is a bit fuzzy and his followers comments are intentionally fuzzed out. So here is what he wrote:

I'm Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours... ...Lets Take 2 Of Theirs. #ShootThePolice #RIPErivGardner #RIPMikeBrown This May Be My Last Post I'm Putting Pigs In A Blanket.

Charming fellow this Brimsley was.
Oh, the only good that has come out of this is that when police confronted Mr. Brimsley, he ended up killing himself.
That saves the good taxpayers of Brooklyn county the cost and spectacle of a potential trial.
The real story here is that this is the culmination of the anti-police rage in regards to two controversial police cases and one happened to be on Staten Island in New York City.
The first one is the case of Ferguson teen Michael Brown and his killing in August by former local police officer Darren Wilson. The second and more controversial case is that of Eric Garner in New York City in which a videotape appears that an NYPD officer is delivering a fatal chokehold that killed Mr. Gardner.
The purpose us not to re litigate either case but to show how the reaction, media and fanning flames led to today's events in Brooklyn.
Both cases brought out the usual suspects and they made protest all over the United States for weeks. Even in New York City at the beginning of the Christmas shopping season the flagship Macy's department store was the scene of "die-ins" in which people would simply drop to the ground as if they were dead. Here in my neck of the woods, the greater Los Angeles area, many of the protesters thought it would be totally awesome to try to block freeway traffic and in the process scare many people simply driving to their destinations. At least here that was not tolerated and police and California Highway Patrol officers got rid of those vermin quickly.
Led by the current race-huckster par excellence, Al Sharpton, reaction was very quick and definitely biased against anything the police did or did not do in those cases.
But here is the interesting one.
The current New York City mayor, Democrat Bill De Blasio, aka his given name, Warren Wilhelm, had a very negative comment about police and in regards to his teenage son, Dante.
Before that I must give a little bit about Mr. De Blasio and his family which is interesting to say the least.
Mr. De Blasio's wife, Chirlane, is Black and a "former" lesbian.
Say, I thought one was born that way?!
Sorry to digress.
Thus Mr. and Mrs. De Blasio's children are mixed race. They are the aforementioned son, Dante, and a daughter named Chiara. Here is a photo of the family.

It's important to show the family because it goes to the heart of Mr. De Blasio's comments.
And for good measure, Mr. De Blasio is probably the most left-wing mayor ever elected in New York City. That is saying a lot.
So, this is what Mr. De Blasio said when reacting to the Staten Island grand jury not returning an indictment against NYPD officer:

De Blasio said he and his wife Chirlane McCray, who is black, have had to instruct their son how to deal with cops amid a "painful contradiction."
"We've had to literally train him -- as families have all over this city for decades -- how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him," he said.

Why does Mr. De Blasio feel that he has to "train" his son to take "special care" in potential police encounters?
Oh, I think I know why.
Again, look at that photo.
Dante De Blasio is Black and has, to me, a good ol' 70s fro going on. So of course the NYPD is automatically going to harass Dante De Blasio, right? Isn't that what Mr. De Blasio means about the training to take special care?
Of course it is!
Mr. De Blasio is the mayor of New York City. He is not some two-bit community organizer type. He is the one that sets the tone of the city in general and the police department in general. From the comment he knee-jerk made, he does not have faith and or trust in the 30,000 member NYPD.
Is he not the most responsible for a person to think, hey man, we've got to get some pay back? Even the mayor seems to be on our side on this.
The reaction tonight to a press conference held by Mr. De Blasio and NYPD commissioner, William Bratton, speaks volume. The police turned their backs on hizhonor as he entered the room to make his comments.

Thus we see the fruit of the anti-police rage.
Two officers murdered, no executed, in cold blood.
And a mayor that holds more contempt than gratefulness for his police department.
My heart and prayers go to officers Lu and Ramos and their families. And to the people of New York City that now have more unnecessary pain.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Obama Betrays Cuba; Iran, North Korea Next On The Trifecta

Somewhere on the internets, I predicted that if the 2014 midterm national elections were a disaster for the Democrats, the Dear Leader, President Obama, would be even more extreme and as one of the extreme acts would re institute diplomatic relations with Red Cuba, Red Korea and Iran.
Well, well, well, what do we have here?!
Seemingly right on schedule, the Dear Leader, President Obama, announced yesterday that he was going to change course on Red Cuba and restore full diplomatic relations claiming that the 50+ years of an economic embargo had in fact "failed" and that Cuban "isolation" has not worked.
Well, I will take on the economic embargo first.
Of course it does not work when Red Cuba has relations with most of the nations of the world including the other two North American nations of Canada and Mexico. Does anyone think that Red Cuba does not have trade with these two nations? In fact and indeed the United States does have very limited economic ties with the regime of the Castro Bros. (Fidel and Raul).
But the economic rationale does not help because everything, I mean everything, runs through the clutches of the Castro Bros.
As noted here in this blog post by Mauricio Claver-Carone on the Huffington Post, It is a very complex way to do business with Cuba. But one thing is clear. It is ALL done thought the Castro Bros. and or other state entities. Mr. Claver-Carone notes that all trade to be done through the state and or it's entities is enshrined in article 18 of the Cuban constitution of 1976. Here is the article:

The State directs and controls foreign commerce.
The law establishes the State institutions and authorities empowered to:
create foreign commerce enterprises;

standardize and regulate export and import operations; and

determine the natural or juridical persons with the legal capacity to engage in said

export and import operations, and to negotiate commercial agreements.
Even Red China, with a mix of crony capitalism is less doctrinaire than the Castro's Red Cuba.
What Mr. Claver-Carone does explain is about the so-called "private sector" or "self-employed" sector that is neither private nor self-employed.
Basically, those that can become "self-employed" do not have the same rights that one would have in an open market. Again, in Mr. Claver-Carone's words:

Cuba's military and intelligence services control and run the conglomerates of Cuba. The "self-employment" sector represents a very small part of the island's economy and it is important, in the debate over sanctions, to understand its nature and limits. During economic crises, the Castro regime typically authorizes a host of services that Cubans can be licensed to provide, keeping at least a portion of what they may be paid. The world's news media refers to these jobs as "private enterprise," which implies "private ownership." Yet Cuba's "self-employed" licensees have no ownership rights whatsoever - be it to their artistic or "intellectual" outputs, commodity they produce, or personal service they offer. Licensees have no legal entity (hence business) to transfer, sell or leverage. They don't even own the equipment essential to their self-employment. More to the point, licensees have no right to engage in foreign trade, seek or receive foreign investments. Effectually licensees continue to work for the state -- and when the state decides such jobs are no longer needed, licensees are shut down without recourse.

Essentially, the people that are supposed to be "self-employed" work for the state, again that being the Castro Bros. With such strict guidelines, there is no such thing as a truly self-employed worker in Red Cuba. There is no such thing as any private enterprise as we understand it in the West.
Which leads to the obvious of why now is not the right time to re institute relations with Cuba.
Because it is the ultimate economic lifeline to the Castro Bros. They will be the ones to determine if McDonalds or Starbucks will be available to the slew of American tourists that diplomatic relations are supposed to lead to. They will get the massive kickbacks. And they will still be in power.
As far as isolation, no, Red Cuba has not been all that isolated in the diplomatic world. Most of the nations in the world have some kind of diplomatic relations with Cuba. In all 105 nations and or pseudo nations have embassies in Havana. Only the United States has an interest section through the embassy of Switzerland. Out of the 105 nations that have relations with Red Cuba many are what can be characterized as market or free market nations. The European Union has relations. Individual nations include France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom. Australia and New Zealand have relations. Missing from the list is Israel. But "Palestine" has an "embassy" in Cuba.
So, how many of these nations have trade relations with the communist regime?
Or the better way to phrase the question is how can Cuba maintain it's communist government when it has become a discredited ideology?
Well, Red Cuba still has extensive trade with Russia, no longer a communist nation. Russia is still Cuba's largest trading partner.
But if you look at this, seven and a half nations (Sorry, Red China is not a free nation but at least has crony capitalism), are capitalist, market-driven economies. Oh, and for extra measure, do you know the major food exporter to Red Cuba is . . .wait for it . . .the United States!
Now I know that a lot of people will retort that we have diplomatic relations with very unsavory nations and why not with Cuba? Some will claim that the reason Republicans won't change on the issue is because it "exploits" the Cuban exile community. No, there is no exploitation. The fact is that the Cuban community is divided on whether full diplomatic relations are a good idea or not.
If Cuba was in fact showing signs that the Communist party was relinquishing power and a democracy was going to take it's place, the United States can and should help in that development. But there is not one bit of any indication that the Castro Bros. will end their totalitarian grip on Cuba.
And yet, the Dear Leader, President Obama, feels inclined that now is the time to reinstate diplomatic relations and prop up the communist system, and by extension, the Castro Bros.
It's mystifying to say the least.
But we know that relations with Cuba are going to change.
The real question is what nation is next for the Obama Trifecta. Will it be Iran or North Korea?

Monday, December 08, 2014

Elizabeth Lauten, The Obama Daughters And Obamawhore Media Bias

Say, before this past weekend, had you ever heard of Elizabeth Lauten?
No?! Neither had I.
But by today, most Americans have heard of her, know at least something about a Facebook post she recently wrote about the daughters of our Dear Leader, President Obama. And that is Malia and Sasha Obama. And because she is a Republican, she gained the righteous wrath of the Obamawhore media.
So who is this Elizabeth Lauten gal?
Until last Monday, she was the communications director of Republican congressman Steven Fincher (R-Tenn.). Before that she was a press aide to former Illinois GOP congressman Joe Walsh and a was a PR gal before that.
Yeah, probably not the best one judging by this kerfuffle.
So, what was it that she wrote on her Facebook page that has the Obama cult and by extension the Obamawhore media?
Here is a screen shot of the now deleted post on her Facebook page:

Now I have read it several times and after the several times reading it, I come to the conclusion that this is a stream of conciseness post. This was not well thought out or something that Miss Lauten really planed to write. It is something we have all done on Facebook at one time or the other.
Before I go on, here is a photo of how Sasha and Malia Obama were dressed:
Well, sorry Miss Lauten, but the girls are dressed rather demure for girls their age in this photo. Sasha, on the right, IS wearing a short skirt, sure. But she is wearing tights and while you can't see them, booties.
On the other hand, Malia IS a little more daring. But again, for a girl of 13 years of age, it is also demure. Malia's sweater is rather long but the skirt, not so much. And what you don't really notice from this photo is that Malia is also wearing tights and booties.
But yeah, they look bored as hell. And maybe they are just sick of hearing their dad drone on and on and on as he is prone to do. So on that front, they are with the majority of Americans today.
Seriously, to the girls, he's dad. And they are probably thinking "When will he shut up and when are we gonna have some of the bird?"
So their daddy, the Dear Leader, President Obama, aka dad, turns to elicit some response and, as teen gals are prone to do, they sighed and or rolled their eyes.
The bottom line is that Miss Lauten made a mountain out of a non-eventful mole hill. I seriously believe that she meant well in her mind. That she thought more people would look at what transpired and think like her. How gauche the junior high school and high school daughters acted at a turkey pardoning.
But why, oh why did the Obamawhore media make a huge deal of this?
Well, where was this made a story?
In an online black website called The Root, which is a subsidiary of Salon.com, a horrible lefty website if there ever was one.
Here is a clue for people like Miss Lauten.
ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING that you put on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, whatever, will be combed through with a beyond fine tooth comb.
While most of us may have never heard of The Root, they made themselves by finding this obscure gal and something silly she ranted on her Facebook page.
Thus, wisely I might add, they had the wherewithal to get a snapshot of the post and while they offered their editorial analysis, that it was a direct diss at the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his daughters.
The rest of the Obamawhore media went to town that this was clear racism, hate of the Obama's, questioning their parental skills, etc., etc.
Why The Washington Post, which seemed to not have enough staff to investigate such actual events as what really happened in Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and other assorted issues surrounding the Obama administration, they sent two reporters to dig as much dirt on Miss Lauten as possible. Why an erstwhile website such as The Smoking Gun, informed us that Miss Lauten was a really bad girl herself. That she was arrested for shoplifting when she was 16 years old. And Chris Cilliza of the Post said poor Miss Lauten had the worst week in Washington.
Needless to say, all of this unwanted publicity caused Miss Lauten to resign her post.
So did anyone ever fire Andrew Sullivan when he went into full conspiracy mode about who the real mother of Tripp Palin is? After all, he still to this day believes that Tripp Palin is not Sarah Palin's daughter but really oldest daughter Bristol Palin's first child. How about to this day all the coverage of the Palin children not on political matters but their behavior?
Did we hear scolding over People magazine and a cover of then President George W. Bushs' daughters, Barbara and Jenna and their partying ways? Look at what made the cover of People back when W was in the White House:
Their escapades made the cover of a gossip magazine.
I thought, according to the liberal left especially, that the children of presidents were off limits to the usual political clap trap and vitriol?
Well, only children when they are in the White House.
For those of us on the conservative side, we see that long running movie, Double Standard.
And it really is a double standard.
But in this particular case, it was a very well played Alinskyite move.
Target, and destroy.
And they did.
The Obamawhore media made Miss Lauten and the possibility of latent racism the story.
Maybe they could read that Facebook post as I did and that it was not well thought out. That it was as I noted a stream of consciousnesses post that may have been written by Miss Lauten with an eye on her own past.
Nope, when it suited their purposes, they willingly used the Obama girls to make a point and destroy a beyond low-level Republican aide.
Miss Lauten has learned a hard lesson and the Obamawhore media has become more and more predictable.
Dissent in Obama's America will not be tolerated.