A Gentleman’s view.

Largest compilation of exonerations ever finds over 2,000 falsely convicted over past 23 years

WASHINGTON — More than 2,000 people who were falsely convicted of serious crimes have been exonerated in the United States in the past 23 years, according to a new archive compiled at two universities.

There is no official record-keeping system for exonerations of convicted criminals in the country, so academics set one up. The new national registry, or database, painstakingly assembled by the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law, is the most complete list of exonerations ever compiled.

The database compiled and analyzed by the researchers contains information on 873 exonerations for which they have the most detailed evidence. The researchers are aware of nearly 1,200 other exonerations, for which they have less data.

They found that those 873 exonerated defendants spent a combined total of more than 10,000 years in prison, an average of more than 11 years each. Nine out of 10 of them are men and half are African-American.

Nearly half of the 873 exonerations were homicide cases, including 101 death sentences. Over one-third of the cases were sexual assaults.

DNA evidence led to exoneration in nearly one-third of the 416 homicides and in nearly two-thirds of the 305 sexual assaults.

Researchers estimate the total number of felony convictions in the United States is nearly a million a year.

The overall registry/list begins at the start of 1989. It gives an unprecedented view of the scope of the problem of wrongful convictions in the United States and the figure of more than 2,000 exonerations “is a good start,” said Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions.

“We know there are many more that we haven’t found,” added University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, the editor of the newly opened National Registry of Exonerations.

Counties such as San Bernardino in California and Bexar County in Texas are heavily populated, yet seemingly have no exonerations, a circumstance that the academics say cannot possibly be correct.

The registry excludes at least 1,170 additional defendants. Their convictions were thrown out starting in 1995 amid the periodic exposures of 13 major police scandals around the country. In all the cases, police officers fabricated crimes, usually by planting drugs or guns on innocent defendants.

Regarding the 1,170 additional defendants who were left out of the registry, “we have only sketchy information about most of these cases,” the report said. “Some of these group exonerations are well known; most are comparatively obscure. We began to notice them by accident, as a byproduct of searches for individual cases.”

In half of the 873 exonerations studied in detail, the most common factor leading to false convictions was perjured testimony or false accusations. Forty-three percent of the cases involved mistaken eyewitness identification, and 24 percent of the cases involved false or misleading forensic evidence.

In two out of three homicides, perjury or false accusation was the most common factor leading to false conviction. In four out of five sexual assaults, mistaken eyewitness identification was the leading cause of false conviction.

Seven percent of the exonerations were drug, white-collar and other nonviolent crimes, 5 percent were robberies and 5 percent were other types of violent crimes.

“It used to be that almost all the exonerations we knew about were murder and rape cases. We’re finally beginning to see beyond that. This is a sea change,” said Gross.

Exonerations often take place with no public fanfare and the 106-page report that coincides with the opening of the registry explains why.

On TV, an exoneration looks like a singular victory for a criminal defense attorney, “but there’s usually someone to blame for the underlying tragedy, often more than one person, and the common culprits include defense lawyers as well as police officers, prosecutors and judges. In many cases, everybody involved has egg on their face,” according to the report.

Despite a claim of wrongful conviction that was widely publicized last week, a Texas convict executed two decades ago is not in the database because he has not been officially exonerated. Carlos deLuna was executed for the fatal stabbing of a Corpus Christi convenience store clerk. A team headed by a Columbia University law professor just published a 400-page report that contends DeLuna didn’t kill the clerk, Wanda Jean Lopez.

Emails Show How Hawaii Stiffed Arizona Secretary Of State’s Birther Investigation  NICK R. MARTIN

From: Jill T. Nagamine

Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:15 PM
To: Bennett, Ken
Subject: Link to Hawaii laws and the Department of Health webpage

Hi Ken—

So sorry I’ve taken so long to get back to you. I may take a few more days to get your final response about what we can verify and how we will do so. I have been tied up with some legislative deadlines that take precedence. To start with, here are the links that I mentioned to you.

The first link is to the Department of Health’s website that was created in response to the high volume of inquiries about the President’s birth certificate. It includes the press releases issued by the former Republican-appointed Director of Health.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

The second is to section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which governs the confidentiality of vital records. Let me direct you to paragraph (g) which relates to verification of records.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

Another link is to section 338-14.3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which pertains to verification.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm

The last link is to all of chapter 338, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Hawaii’s vital statistics law.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/

Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii

—

March 30, 2012

Hawaii Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Vital Records Issuance Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801

Ladies and gentlemen:

Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth:

Department of Health File #151 61 10641
Time of birth: 7:24 p.m.
Name of hospital: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
Age of father: 25
Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa
Age of mother: 18
Birthplace of mother: Wichita, Kansas
Date of signature of parent: 8-7-1961
Date of signature of attendant: 8-8-1961
Date accepted by local registrar: August-8 1961

Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Ken Bennett
Arizona Secretary of State

—

From: Bennett, Ken
To: Jill T. Nagamine
Date: 04/16/2012 01:48 PM
Subject: RE: Link to Hawaii laws and the Department of Health webpage

Dear Jill,

Thank you for speaking with me several weeks ago and providing the helpful links below. I sent a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy of President Obama’s birth record to the Dept. of Health on March 30th. I was just wondering if you knew whether the request was received and how long it usually takes to process? Thanx.

Ken Bennett
Arizona Secretary of State

—

From: Jill T. Nagamine
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:39 PM
To: Bennett, Ken
Subject: RE: Link to Hawaii laws and the Department of Health webpage

Ken—

Thank you for this heads up. This is the first I heard of it. I will check with my client to see if they received your request.

Jill

Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii

—

To: Jill T. Nagamine
From: Drake, Jim
Date: 05/01/2012 11:52AM
Subject: Request from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office

Hello Jill. I just left you a brief voice mail message. I am wondering whether you can give me a ballpark timeframe on our request. As you know, the closer we get to November, the more my phone rings. I believe that having Hawaii’s response on hand might help to quell the inquiries! Thanks in advance. Jim

Jim Drake
Deputy Secretary of State

—

From: Jill T. Nagamine
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:11 PM
To: Drake, Jim; Bennett, Ken
Subject: Re: Request from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office

Dear Mr. Bennett and Mr. Drake—

My apologies for not responding immediately. I have recently been away from my office a great deal, including today. My client, the Department of Health, has forwarded your request for verification of President Obama’s birth record to me. We need more information to substantiate that you are eligible to receive verification. Hawaii Revised Statutes, section 338-18(g), provides:

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

As the Secretary and I initially discussed, it appears that you might be eligible for verification of the record based on subparagraph (2), but we need to see what your authority is “to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of your activities.” Will you send me a copy of your law that allows this, and will you send me information that shows:

(1) What list are you updating?
(2) Is it your normal procedure to update all entries on your list by requiring birth data verification?
(3) Are you requiring birth data verification of all entries on your list, rather than just targeting one name on your list? (please provide evidence that you are doing so)

You may address your response directly to me, and I will relay it to my client.

Thank you,
Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii

—

From: Bennett, Ken
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:12 PM
To: Jill T. Nagamine; Drake, Jim
Subject: RE: Request from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office

Dear Ms. Nagamine:

As the chief elections officer for the State of Arizona and pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 16-212, 16-301, 16-502, 16-507 and others, my office is tasked with quadrennially compiling a list of candidates for the Office of the President of the United States. This list is then officially “certified” by my office and transmitted to the fifteen counties for creation of the official ballots. The list is generated in the “ordinary course” of my office’s activities (every four years) and it is certainly made for a “legitimate government purpose” (elections).

Based on the above representation, I believe that my office has strictly and expressly complied with all of the elements found in Hawaii Revised Statutes, section 338-18(g).

I understand your client’s initial trepidation in responding to this request given the significant amount of email, fax and phone call traffic that this issue has spawned. My office too has received numerous constituent requests and I agree with Director Fuddy’s assertion in her letter of April 25, 2011 that the sheer volume of inquires has “been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources.” However, I am concerned that a rejection of a request by another State’s chief elections official will dramatically exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Ken Bennett
Secretary of State

—

From: Jill T. Nagamine
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 3:38 PM
To: Bennett, Ken
Subject: RE: Request from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office

Dear Mr. Bennett:

I am in receipt of your email dated May 17, 2012. As I have informed you and Mr. Drake, Hawaii law requires that for verification of a vital record the requestor must satisfy the requirements of section 338-18(g), Hawaii Revised Statutes, which provides:

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

I asked you for legal authority that establishes your right to obtain verification, and your email of May 17, 2012 provides me with references to Arizona Revised Statutes 16-212, 16-301, 16-502, 16-507, and unnamed others. These statutes seem to deal with election of presidential electors, nomination of candidates for printing on official ballot of general or special election, form and contents of ballot, and presentation of presidential candidates on ballot, but none, as far as I can tell, establish the authority of the Secretary of State to maintain and update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of his activities. I researched other sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes and was unable to find the necessary authority.

If I have missed something, please let me know. My client stands willing to provide you with the verification you seek as soon as you are able to show that you are entitled to it.

Thank you,
Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii

—

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Bennett, Ken wrote:

Dear Tom,

It offends and saddens me that anyone would characterize me as having “little interest” in the electoral eligibility of the President. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have personally met with Representative Seel, Jeff Lichter, and many others on multiple occasions. After considering the various options when we started working on this two or three years ago, I have consistently suggested what I believe is the best action: establishing a special private right of action in state law allowing any Arizona elector to challenge a presidential candidate’s qualification for office under expedited time frames in the courts. Ironically, I think that, after trying several other approaches, that’s what was most recently proposed in the Legislature by Carl. As the filing office for statewide, legislative and federal offices, our office does not have the resources, nor would I think it appropriate, to verify filings other than for elements that can be determined on their face: number of signatures submitted, completeness of documents, formation of committees, etc. Only in the courts can subpoena power, rules of evidence, and other judicial tools compel the production of and give impartial consideration to evidence on both sides.

Having said that, there are things we have been and are doing to insure the integrity of our ballot. First, we have revised the nomination forms and informed the parties that we will not include a Presidential or VP candidate on the ballot unless the candidates personally swear to meeting the itemized qualifications required in the Constitution. (In 2008, the Democrat nomination form simply said that their candidates had been “nominated” at the Party Convention)

Additionally, I have asked the State of Hawaii for a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” of the birth record of President Obama, as contemplated under HRS 338-18. This action was prompted, in large part, by constituents here in Arizona who wanted me to do whatever I could to verify the President’s eligibility. If the State of Hawaii does not confirm that he was born in Hawaii, his name will not appear on Arizona ballots.

From the tone of your letter, I assume you have personally concluded that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold his office, so the above actions probably fall far short of your desired outcome. However, I am doing what I think fulfills my oath of office based on the rule of Law. If you disagree with my past or future actions, you can obviously seek judicial review in the Courts.

Sincerely,

Ken Bennett
Arizona Secretary of State

—

From: Bennett, Ken
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:00 AM
To: ‘Brian Reilly’
Cc: Tom Ballantyne; Jeff Lichter; Jim Wise; Gabe Zolna; ‘crossroadswithvan’; Wesley W. Harris; Tom Jenney; ‘rodriddle’
Subject: RE: Your Oath of Office, Ken?

Dear Brian, Tom, and All,

Thank you for your emails seeking resolution to President Obama’s qualification for office and, therefore, his right to be on our ballot. In your calls for me to make sure he follows the law and is “subject to the same rational and reasonable standards as every other citizen”, it is imperative that we follow the rule of law as well.

Arizona law requires an individual to file nomination papers wherein they certify they meet the qualifications of the office sought and have met other requirements such as committee formation and signatures. We review elements in the filing that can be verified on their face (completeness, numbers of signatures, etc.). Challenges to the remaining facts in the filing (validity of each signature, residency and other qualification aspects) are solely brought through legal process in the courts.

Because of the importance and profile of the President’s case, and at the request of many constituents, I have gone the extra step of asking the State of Hawaii to verify the facts contained in his birth certificate. Hawaii is bound by their own statutes to provide such verification to other state officials in their official duties and, to Brian’s point, I do not believe they can avoid their duty to me under a criminal investigation loophole because I am not investigating them.

The fact that Obama certified his citizenship on the 2008 PPE form is irrelevant to me because Arizona does not grant its electoral votes in the PPE. I believe there is significance in changing our nomination form for the actual election to include the certification.

With all due respect, the MCSO investigation has not proven anything other than raised probable cause that the birth certificate posted on the Whitehouse website “may be” a forgery. The next lawful step would be for the Sheriff’s office to turn their findings over to the County Attorney for prosecution. Evidence would be brought on both sides and a judge should issue a decision. Whether or not that happens, if Hawaii can’t or won’t provide verification of the President’s birth certificate, I will not put his name on the ballot.

I can tell from the tone and language of your letters that the only acceptable outcome for you is that his name not be on the ballot, period. That may be what happens, but under my watch, it won’t happen based on opinions, petitions, probability or pledges to support or oppose me in the 2014 Governor’s race. My oath of office is to uphold the Constitution and laws of our State and country, and I’m going to do that by following the law. I look forward to continuing to work this issue under those parameters. Otherwise, I will respectfully agree to disagree.

Sincerely,

Ken Bennett
Secretary of State

The Most Powerful Special Interest in Washington: The Acronym

It’s the 21st Century, but the house Negro is still here.

Happy Birthday Malcolm X.

“…If you’re afraid of black nationalism, you’re afraid of revolution. And if you love revolution, you love black nationalism. 

To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro — back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes – they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good ’cause they ate his food — what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master’s house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, “We got a good house here,” the house Negro would say, “Yeah, we got a good house here.” Whenever the master said “we,” he said “we.” That’s how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master’s house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, “What’s the matter, boss, we sick?” We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s run away, let’s escape, let’s separate,” the house Negro would look at you and say, “Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?” That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a “house nigger.” And that’s what we call him today, because we’ve still got some house niggers running around here.

This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He’ll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about “I’m the only Negro out here.” “I’m the only one on my job.” “I’m the only one in this school.” You’re nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, “Let’s separate,” you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. “What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?” I mean, this is what you say. “I ain’t left nothing in Africa,” that’s what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.

On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro — those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn’t get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call ‘em “chitt’lings” nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That’s what you were — a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters. 

*The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro — remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn’t try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he’d die. If someone come [sic] to the field Negro and said, “Let’s separate, let’s run,” he didn’t say “Where we going?” He’d say, “Any place is better than here.” You’ve got field Negroes in America today. I’m a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man’s house on fire, you don’t hear these little Negroes talking about “our government is in trouble.” They say, “The government is in trouble.” Imagine a Negro: “Our government”! I even heard one say “our astronauts.” They won’t even let him near the plant — and “our astronauts”! “Our Navy” — that’s a Negro that’s out of his mind. That’s a Negro that’s out of his mind.

Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That’s Tom making you nonviolent. It’s like when you go to the dentist, and the man’s going to take your tooth. You’re going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they’re not doing anything to you. So you sit there and ’cause you’ve got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don’t know what’s happening. ‘Cause someone has taught you to suffer — peacefully.” [Listen] 

“We sick”? Yes, “we sick”. Because, sadly, there are still a lot of house Negroes running around today.

The Campaign Against Women

Despite the persistent gender gap in opinion polls and mounting criticism of their hostility to women’s rights, Republicans are not backing off their assault on women’s equality and well-being. New laws in some states could mean a death sentence for a pregnant woman who suffers a life-threatening condition. But the attack goes well beyond abortion, into birth control, access to health care, equal pay and domestic violence.

Firing My Own Bu-cannon by John Derbyshire 

Having recently enthused about Pat Buchanan’s latest book and then about the man himself here on Taki’s Mag, please forgive me one more column about him.

His firing from MSNBC official at last, Pat recorded an interview with Juan Williams the other day for the Fox Latino website. If your preferred Internet viewing is Fox Euro, Fox Sino, Fox Islamo, Fox Indo, Fox Lesbo, or one of the other group-identity Fox outlets, you may have missed the interview. It can be seen in its entirety here.

I’m offering some edited highlights with my own commentaries added. Mostly I’m giving my own answers to questions Juan Williams was asking Pat. The first question is about 6:20 into the interview, with the others scattered through the remainder.
JW: Let me ask you: Are you a racist, Pat?

PJB: Do I hate black folks? That’s what racism means. I hate black folks, I want ’em discriminated against.…No!

[JD: I honestly have no idea what that word means, and I no longer use it. Since you just did use it, Juan, presumably you do know what it means. So here’s a deal: I will truthfully answer any question you care to ask me about my own attitudes, beliefs, and behavior in the matter of race. Then you tell me if I am a racist.]

“You can have meritocracy or you can have equal group outcomes, but you can’t have both. Which one do we want?”

JW: You say things like “Mexico is moving north.” Do you see those folks as a threat to the American dream?

PJB: (Boilerplate tribute to Mexicans as “hard-working” and “friendly.” Easy with the stereotypes there, Pat!)

[JD: Threat to the American Dream? Yes. The Mexicans we’re getting are a low-mean-IQ population, from the bottom SES levels of a nation that has accomplished nothing in its 500 years of existence. This is bound to degrade the USA’s human capital. Further, Mexican society is rigidly stratified by race. These low SES levels are disproportionately Indian and mestizo, so by admitting them in quantity we are acquiring a new race problem while we continue struggling with the old one. This is dumb. No, it’s beyond dumb; it’s insane.]

JW: Don’t you think that the history of discrimination, particularly in the area of education, but continuing disparities in terms of educational outcomes—in terms of things like income, families, all the rest—the terrible history of slavery and all its consequences—you don’t think that’s a legitimate factor?

PJB: I think with African Americans it was…but did we enslave Puerto Rican Americans? Did we enslave Mexican Americans? No!…

[JD: The outcome disparities are a natural and predictable result of racial differences. Races are big old inbred local branches of the human stock, like dog breeds. They are bound to exhibit different statistical profiles on all kinds of traits, including behavior, intelligence, and personality. That’s Biology 101. Those different profiles cause the observed differences in outcome. They are observed in all multiracial societies, even where no history of slavery or oppression has been present: in Malaysia, for example.]

JW: But I’m saying….If you’re from Central America, Latin America, and…you find that there are, given our history, preferences for people who are white in the society….

PJB: Do you think they really loved the Polish folks that came, and the Greeks who came, and the Portuguese—they were all privileged?

[JD: “…preferences for people who are white in the society?” Which the heck society are you talking about, Juan? All of current American society, from billboard and TV advertisements to affirmative-action programs and “diversity” browbeating, from crime reporters telling us that a gang of raceless “teens” trashed a convenience store, to the media swooning over a dramatically under-qualified presidential candidate because of you-know-what, to the hysteria over “racial profiling” and the incoherent, reality-defying judicial doctrine of “disparate impact,” to immigration officers waving in welfare-hungry Somalis, Haitians, Salvadorans, and Mexicans while slamming the door in the face of white South Africans fleeing torture and murder, the entire society has for decades been giving nonwhites every possible break, and then some, all at whites’ expense. “Preferences for people who are white?” Hoo hoo hoo hoo!]

JW: Didn’t LBJ say that if you have one guy who’s been in chains and held in a dark place and not fed good food, and then you bring him to that starting line, that is not a fair race, Pat?

PJB: Tell me why, then, African Americans have succeeded. They succeed in Hollywood, they succeed as writers, as journalists, on TV, and they succeed in athletics, obviously disproportionately….

[JD: “…been in chains and held in a dark place and not fed good food….” For crying out loud, man, LBJ was speaking half a century ago. Slavery ended a century before that. How long will this excuse keep its charm? It’s not as though American blacks have been the only people ever to labor under legal disabilities. Europe’s Jews did so until the 18th century; women did so all over the Western world until the mid-20th. Once the legal disabilities were removed, those groups asserted themselves in a single generation. Slavery was commonplace in the ancient world. Epictetus had been a slave, as had Saint Patrick. Once given their freedom, slaves quickly assumed normal lives. Many American blacks did likewise. That the overall social, educational, criminological, etc. profile of American blacks as a group has remained so distinctive after so many decades in spite of massive legal favoritism, preferences, and the institutionalization of white guilt bespeaks intrinsic race differences.]

JW: And you think that if we look at American business, at the top of the American structure for law, for medicine, and we see an absence of people of color, that there’s no problem?

PJB: Let’s take the biochemistry class….

[JD: If there’s a problem, Juan, it’s a problem with reality. Because of race differences, meritocratic filtering will never deliver equal group outcomes: not in business, not in medicine, not in the NBA, not in homicide statistics. Carve it on a board and hang it on the wall: MERITOCRATIC FILTERING WILL NEVER DELIVER EQUAL GROUP OUTCOMES. You can have meritocracy or you can have equal group outcomes, but you can’t have both. Which one do we want?]

JW: But you know, Pat, that historically, people of color were kept out of schools.

PJB: Who was discriminated in the 19th century…? [T]he Irish…but also the Japanese and Chinese on the West Coast were brutalized….

[JD: And now “people of color” are preferentially admitted, with much lower test scores than whites and East Asians, leaving them to struggle in classes where they are out of their depth. How about we try the one thing we have not yet tried: race-blind meritocratic admissions?]

JW: People who are concerned about [immigration] are oftentimes labeled as xenophobic, as racist, as nativist, when in fact you think they have a legitimate concern.

PJB: Well, sure… (Proceeds to mention legal immigration! On a website accessible to impressionable young minds! Oh my God!)

[JD: Immigration is an aspect of national public policy, like defense, interstate highways, or air-traffic control. It is a legitimate concern of all participating citizens. Why should it not be a legitimate concern? Immigration policy determines, among other things, the demographics our children and grandchildren will inherit. How is that not a legitimate concern of all citizens?]

JW: You don’t think that the immigrants, legal and illegal, who are here are valued by their employers…?

PJB: The businessmen…let’s say they bring ‘em to a car wash. These illegal immigrants, they’ll work for less, you don’t need to pay all this other stuff and they work off the books…sure businessmen love that, Juan!

[JD: For once I can’t improve on Pat’s answer. Immigration, legal and illegal, is mainly a cheap-labor racket, with immigration practice and the enforcement, or more often non-enforcement, of immigration laws mainly dictated by powerful business lobbies—such as Microsoft Corp. and Big Agriculture—with the anti-white race-favoritism claques cheering from the sidelines. Both major political parties are paid whores for these lobbies. Current US immigration policy, as implemented, is nothing but a continuous assault on American citizens’ livelihood and rights.]

Eagle Forum: Minority Children Are Un-American Because They Don’t Have Conservative Beliefs

The Eagle Forum is one of the most dangerous conservative organizations in the country. Led by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum opposes equal rights for women and promotes an anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-sex education, and anti-vaccination agenda that has contributed to the current wave of social conservative extremism in the Republican Party. And now we can add anti-immigrant and pro-racism to that list.

In response to a New York Times report on Census Bureau data showing that minority births out-paced the births of whites for the first time in America, a blog on the Eagle Forum website, criticized the liberal media, accusing the NY Times of bragging about the numbers. Eagle Forum then bashed minorities, writing that more minority births “is not a good thing” because they are “un-American” and won’t vote for Republicans when they get older. Here’s an excerpt:

“It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.

The NY Times liberals seek to destroy the American family of the 1950s, as symbolized by Ozzie and Harriet. The TV characters were happy, self-sufficient, autonomous, law-abiding, honorable, patriotic, hard-working, and otherwise embodied qualities that made America great. In other words, the show promoted values that NY Times liberals despise.

Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.”

So Eagle Forum says that minorities, which includes African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and people of mixed heritage, are unpatriotic criminals who can’t read, don’t work, and live on food stamps. And Eagle Forum objects to minorities having babies because those babies will grow up to vote against Republicans. This is the kind of paranoia and hatred that has controlled the Republican Party for decades, and is just more proof that the Republican Party harbors racist feelings.

The American family, as depicted by Ozzie and Harriet in the 1950s never existed. There may have been some families like that, but the majority of American families, both then and now, are not. Eagle Forum is living in a fantasy world if they really think America should be like 1950s TV shows. Minorities are good for America. Minorities introduce new and fresh ideas, different cultures, and adds to the legacy of America as a melting pot, where people of all cultures and races can live free in peace. The folks at Eagle Forum seem to be too stupid to understand that when you hold an anti-immigrant and pro-racist agenda, of course minority groups are going to vote against you. Why would minorities vote against their own rights and interests? If conservatism is about keeping the white race large and in charge, who knows what kind of policies they could adopt to curb minority procreation. It’s a scary thought for minority groups to consider when stepping up to the voting booth this November.

To contact Eagle Forum and tell them that racism and hate is not okay, here is their contact information.

Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909 eagle@eagleforum.org

Obama Can’t Knock the Hustle By Robert Scheer

How did we end up with such smart scoundrels? Even after it was known that Jamie Dimon’s bank blew more than $2 billion on the same suspect derivatives trading that has bankrupted the world’s economy, Barack Obama still had praise for the intellect of his political backer and the integrity of the bank he heads: “JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is,” the president told the hosts of ABC’s “The View” in an interview televised Tuesday, adding, “Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got. And they still lost $2 billion and counting.”

A lesser bank would have gone under and needed to be bailed out, Obama argued: “That’s why Wall Street reform is so important.” But even when fully implemented, Obama’s tepid reforms would not have stopped this scam and will not stop the others that are sure to follow. Being one of the smartest bankers means you are among those who best know how to skirt the law or, if that cannot be done, how to successfully lobby to gut it.

Dimon understands and performs this drill well, for he was in cahoots with his mentor, Sandy Weill, in engineering a series of mergers and acquisitions that would have violated the Glass-Steagall law, which for decades had prohibited commingling investment and commercial banking. The two business executives were able to get Congress and President Bill Clinton to reverse Glass-Steagall, a change that made legal the creation of Citigroup, the too-big-to-fail bank that eventually was saved from bankruptcy only through an immense taxpayer bailout.

The best and the brightest in this case are the bane of the nation because their genius lies in outwitting all efforts to hold them accountable. Dimon, the most recent in a parade of now-disgraced Wall Street golden boys, was nonetheless just awarded $24 million in compensation for 2011 by JPMorgan. Like his mentor Weill, who ran Citigroup into derivative trading hell, Dimon will no doubt suffer little legal unpleasantness or social ostracism stemming from his dodgy behavior. Weill will soon be inducted into the American Academy of Arts & Sciences as an outstanding business leader and philanthropist.

The fact that Dimon first rose to banking prominence as he worked alongside Weill to reverse Glass-Steagall did nothing to tarnish his reputation in Obama’s eyes. Although Dimon was instrumental in establishing Citigroup, he had a falling out with Weill and left the bank before the great crash. In his subsequent reincarnation at JPMorgan, now the country’s biggest financial conglomerate, Dimon was a major supporter of Democrats and had more access to the president than any other Wall Street leader.

Dimon was not shy about turning to Obama, whom he had backed with campaign contributions, to complain about the Dodd-Frank regulations. With the JPMorgan CEO exercising his easy access to the president and his Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, the new regulations concerning bank derivatives trading were rendered meaningless. What did Obama think would happen when he appointed Dimon’s chief Washington lobbyist, William Daley, who served as presidential chief of staff through 2011, when the Dodd-Frank regulations were being promulgated?

As an Associated Press investigative report documented, Dimon led the Wall Street pack in the number of personal meetings and telephone calls with Secretary Geithner while the Obama administration was calibrating its response to the banking meltdown. Dimon has been a Class A director of the New York Fed since 2007, when Geithner was president of that institution, and the two worked closely then on details of JPMorgan’s takeover of Bear Stearns with a $55 billion Fed loan. That’s in addition to the $25 billion in TARP funds JPMorgan received.

Dimon’s close ties to Obama, whom he knew well when both were based in Chicago, were at moments tested by Obama’s feints into populism, but fellow Chicagoans Daley and Rahm Emanuel, who preceded Daley as chief of staff, made it clear that disagreements between the White House and Dimon were merely rhetorical. How much more influence could Dimon have wanted than having his former lobbyist controlling the president’s schedule?

It was a charade: Dimon pretended to welcome some banking regulation and Obama responded with the weakest of reforms.

Crunch time came this past February when JPMorgan executives, including Ina Drew, the recently resigned head of the bank’s unit that was behind the billions in losses, met with Federal Reserve officials to secure guarantees that the portfolio trading that later got the company into trouble was in fact legal. That so-called portfolio hedging, which Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said “is a license to do pretty much anything” and violates the intent of the law, has now in fact been accepted by both the Treasury Department and the Fed as legal. As a result, there is a regulatory loophole that Levin called “big enough … that a Mack truck could drive right through it.” Evidently one did.