Keith Bardwell said, “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. “My main concern is for the children…I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves. In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.” Then he said, “I try to treat everyone equally.” (Source)

First of all, how has he gotten away with refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples? Second, unless he knows of specific instances of children being abused or neglected, it’s not his business. Third, he may as well get out of the marriage business if he’s concerned about break-ups. The divorce rate in the U.S. is almost 50 percent.

There must be more to the story. Nonetheless, even if he was set up, he ensnared himself.

For liberals poised to use this silly incident to bolster arguments for homosexual “marriage,” see Loving the Interracial Marriage Distinction.

Rosenwald claims Stone responded to his e-mail this way: “Bite me Jew boy!”

Stone and NBC are denying she sent that particular response. She says her response was a simple, “Take me off this list!”

From: Stone, Jane (NBC Universal)
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:57 PM
To: ‘arosenwald@getliberty.org’
Subject: Re: ALG Calls on Congress to “Put Up or Shut Up” on Defunding ACORN

Take me off this list!

————————–
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Stone, Jane (NBC Universal) [Jane.Stone@nbcuni.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:57 PM
To: Alex Rosenwald
Subject: Re: ALG Calls on Congress to “Put Up or Shut Up” on Defunding ACORN

Bite me Jew boy!

————————–
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Newsbusters’s Matt Sheffield asked ALG for the message’s header, which the group is supposed to send today. Until that happens, it’s he said/she said, so I’ll reserve comments until then. But I will say this: I hope it’s not a hoax. Liberals bloggers, reporters, and everyone else will jump all over it, and rightly so, and try to discredit conservatives.

I have doubts about Stone’s alleged response, because I can’t imagine a producer being that stupid. Wait a second…yes, I can.

A couple years ago, a cable news producer e-mailed and asked for my comment on the Don “nappy-headed hos” Imus mess, which I’d intended to ignore. Later that day, I got an e-mail from someone from a Yahoo! account with the same name. The man called me an a**hole and a self-hater because I criticized Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, for promising to repeal a 1913 law that prohibited out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be illegal in their home state.

I e-mailed the dude at his work (twice) and Yahoo! accounts, trying to figure out what was going on. I received no reply from either account. I concluded that I’d caught a cable network producer red-handed sending hate e-mail from his work computer. I figured if he were not the Yahoo! person, he’d quickly e-mail back to set the record straight. He didn’t.

I could’ve turned his stupidity into a big ruckus but chose not to, though I’m sure he was sweating bullets. That was revenge enough for me. I still have both e-mails. Maybe I’ll shoot him an e-mail just to say, “Hi!”

You can ask a “doctor” to suck your unborn baby down a sink or to stick a probe in his brain and crush his skull. But woe to the one who kills an animal.

What a world. If you want to get on leftist hit lists, torture an animal. Wanna be a hero? Kill your baby.

It should go without saying that I don’t condone the torture of animals. Burning a kitten in an oven for kicks? It’s bad. Gross. Totally. But where’s the outrage for unborn children, tortured in the womb in the name of convenience? A little perspective goes a long way.

If you believe women have a right to slaughter the unborn, your venom toward people like Michael Vick looks hypocritically absurd in comparison. And PETA folks criticizing Obama for swatting a fly? Even if it’s tongue-in-cheek, it’s sickeningly incongruous.

Update: A reader comments: “17 year old Cherry [kitty killer] would be hailed a hero if she killed her unborn baby.”

I hadn’t planned to blog about this Henry Louis Gates mess. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. A so-called intelligent man, Harvard professor, respected scholar and all that, shouting at police and invoking racism where there was none. In that moment, he embodied the stereotype of the loud and ignorant-sounding black person shouting racism whenever something negative happens to him, even if the whole thing is his fault.

What convinced me to blog about Gates was this piece of news: Lucia Whalen, a white woman who reported what she thought was a break-in and who should be commended for giving a rat’s butt in the first place, did not mention the race of the two men she saw trying to pry open Gates’s door. (Source)

Whalen was accused of calling the cops because the men were black, not because they appeared to breaking into a neighbor’s house. The lack of racial reference on the 911 tape tends to refute that. Unfortunately, the lack of racist behavior on the cops’ or Whalen’s part will not change the minds of people who believe that Gates, who should know better, is some sort of oppressed martyr. Idiotic.

Going off on the police, no matter how angry you are, is an ignorant thing to do. And anyone who, at this point, given all that’s come out about this incident, still believes Gates was the victim of racism is willfully ignorant.

Gates has some issues to work out. Perhaps he needs a vacation. At any rate, he definitely needs a shrink.

I don’t know how I ended up on the same “panel” as the incomparable Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries (cool). Check out the post.

Update: Hanging out in SC, Mark Sanford’s domain. I was born and raised here and hadn’t realized how much I missed being called “ma’am” and “hon.” The first time a young man called me “ma’am,” I was not pleased. (Do I look that old?) Now, I dig it. My perspective changed.

Rest easy, everybody.

You’re not helping the defeat-Obama-in-2012 cause by e-mailing idiotic junk like this, especially if your name is Sherri Goforth and you’re a legislative aide to Tennessee senator Diane Black:

Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw. Funny stuff. We get it. All the other presidents are white, and Obama’s a spook because he’s half-black. Very original.

Goforth says she sent it to the wrong list. You sure did, honey. Best of luck dealing with the fall-out of your stupendously stupid actions. Get ready for all the venom leftists will heap upon you. They think you’re a racist anyway because you’re a Republican.

Learn a valuable lesson, you will.

What else could account for Planned Parenthood workers protecting grown men and further harming young girls by failing to report statutory rape? If you’ve got a better answer, let me know. From the press release:

“In a conversation recorded earlier this week between a 14-year-old girl and a Planned Parenthood employee, the employee is informed that the young girl believes she may be pregnant by her 23-year-old boyfriend. Planned Parenthood invites the young girl to the clinic for a pregnancy test and possible contraceptive services – and informs the young victim that her sexual abuser can come to the clinic to pick up the contraceptives. At no point does the employee raise any concerns about sexual abuse, despite the fact that the situation described constitutes Aggravated Indecent Liberties under Kansas law.”

As blogger and former labor and delivery nurse Jill Stanek notes, this latest allegation against the abortion mill comes in the midst of high-profile coverage of its dastardly deeds.

Brain cells die ignoble deaths, and the soul’s erosion continues apace.

In what I thought was a parody interview, Michael Steele, head the of the Republican National Committee, the same man who failed to challenge a cable show host when he compared white Republicans to Nazis, told GQ magazine this:

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
‘Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a damn about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a damn.

Here’s the problem with Steele’s thinking. Forget for a moment that he’s head of the Republican National Committee – a leader, for crying out loud. The offered-them-nothing refrain is why skin color outreach is counterproductive (not to mention useless). To me, it reeks of condescension. Whenever politicians start doing “minority outreach,” they treat people like children. What concerns should black Americans have that are different from everyone else’s? What “black issue” is more important than individual liberty, for instance? What “African American” concern trumps the necessity to uphold traditional values that have served American families and the nation well since its inception? What’s holier-than-thou about stating what you believe and defending your position?

For example, many people believe “affirmative action” (a euphemism for race preferences) is abhorrent, insulting, and immoral. People fought and died to get the government out of the skin color business. That’s what the whole civil rights movement was about! Yet Steele thinks opposing the continued practice of race preferences is to take an “absolute holier-than-thou attitude?” The GOP has got to be regretting Michael Steele’s chairmanship. And I don’t blame them.

But then again, I’m not a Republican, so I don’t have a dog in this fight.

If the “African-American” issues comment weren’t bad enough, Steele’s comments on child killing certainly are. This made me downright queasy:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Michael Steele, Republican, is pro-choice. I didn’t know this. You see, this is why being conservative is more important than being Republican. Being a conservative Christian is even more important. You either believe abortion is wrong, or you don’t. If you think women should be allowed to kill their babies for whatever reason, you’re not pro-life. There is no middle ground.

“I believe abortion is wrong,” some say, “but I support a woman’s right to kill her baby.”

Does that make any sense? It’s a weasel position typically expressed by people who don’t have the guts to call a thing what it is or take the heat for wanting to protect children, regardless of the consequences.

People seem to think it’s enlightened, intelligent, and/or sophisticated to support a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby. To hold the absolute position that child killing, in any case, is always wrong, is to risk being considered ignorant and/or a religious zealot.

Count me among the right-wing religious wackos, then.

The Republican party is in a quandary. You’ve got your first black chairman, but when he talks to mainstream media, he sounds like a liberal…and ashamed to be a “black Republican.” That’s a problem. But you’ve made your proverbial bed. Toss and turn, if you must, but lie in it you will.

Update: According to Politico, Michael Steele backtracked on his child killing stance:

I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.

I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a “choice” before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.

But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.

Why didn’t Steele say all that to the GQ reporter? It’s possible he said something similar, but the reporter left it out.

When talking to reporters, you’ve got to remember that they have an agenda, which is the story’s angle. If you hold a controversial position, you’ve must speak in black and white terms. Talking to reporter is no time to be wishy-washy. Say what you believe, and don’t allow the reporter to get you to qualify your answer. This attitude probably is why mainstream news reporters conveniently exclude my quotes. I won’t compromise just to see my name in a news story.

Unsolicited advice for Steele: Stay out of the spotlight and get to work!

The air’s out of the balloon now. A man named Herman Rosenblat claimed that while he was in a concentration camp, a Jewish girl whose family was pretending to be Christian gave him apples over a fence. One day he asked her not to come back because he had an “appointment” with the gas chamber. He wasn’t killed; he was transferred to another camp.

Years later, he went on a blind date with a woman who turned out to be the girl who’d given him apples lo those many years ago.

Critics cried foul. First, the concentration camp where Rosenblat said he was detained didn’t have gas chambers. Second, the Nazi’s didn’t tell prisoners when they were going to the gas chamber. The point was to trick them into going. Third, there’s no way Herman or Roma could have gotten close to the fence without the guards seeing them. Fourth, it was highly unlikely that a Jewish family who feared the Nazi’s wouldn’t know about their nine-year-old daughter’s daily visits to a concentration camp fence, for crying out loud, or would allow her to continue once they found out. And on and on.

Herman Rosenblat and his wife Roma ended up on Oprah, and Berkley Books offered him a deal for his memoirs, Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love That Survived. And you know Hollywood is partial to Holocaust stories. The book is set to be made into a movie.

Despite Rosenblat’s story being discredited, publisher Berkley Books stood by him until December 27, when the company canceled the contract. Rosenblat admitted he’d made up the “love story.” But guess what? Hollywood still intends to make the movie. It’s fiction, so why not?

Read all about it at The New Republic, which exposed the hoax. The latest article contains links to previous ones.

Perhaps the biggest burn victim is Oprah Winfrey. Her gullibility knows no bounds. This is the second memoir she’s endorsed and gushed over that’s turned out to be a big fat lie.

You may recall that after she made memoir author James Frey a lot of money, he confessed to fakery. The so-called bad boy drunk who wrecked cars, went to prison, fell in love with a fellow drunk in rehab who killed herself, tamed a wild beast of a hardened criminal, etc., was nothing more than a wanna-be bad-a**, a relatively unremarkable frat boy who spent maybe a few hours in jail. Check out The Smoking Gun’s outstanding piece of journalism exposing Frey.

Oprah asked Frey to come back on the show to explain himself. For the first time in years, I watched the show. I had to. It was funny and worth every minute. Frey looked like a little boy being scolded by his mommy.

Will Miss Oprah ask an old couple to return and explain themselves?

I’m not a Jew, so I don’t pretend to understand how upsetting Rosenblat’s lies must be to people who were imprisoned in the camps and their relatives. Why did he do it? “I wanted to bring happiness to people,” he said. “I brought hope to a lot of people. My motivation was to make good in this world.”

The problem, Mr. Rosenblat, is that your story was wide open for exposure. Your story was obviously phony to thinking people and easy to pick apart. How many Jewish people were touched in some way by the Holocaust? Did you not stop to think about Holocaust survivors who could verify, or in this case, refute, your claims? The ramifications were too great to even take the chance, in my opinion.

But, whatever. Time to dust off the live-blogging skills!

Update (12/30): NYT on fake love story memoir.

Related post:

• Crips, Bloods, and Rats

Unless you’re running for lives, there is no reason to “stampede” anywhere.

May I be blunt? Anybody who stampedes a store trying to get to sales items is an idiot, a complete and total idiot. If you stampeded or plan to stampede a store today, you’re an idiot, a complete and total idiot.

Must I really explain why?

Two of the thugs were under the husband’s command. More about the story here and here.

You don’t need a high IQ to figure out what happened based on the reported facts. The animals murdered the couple because they resented Pietrzak for a number of obvious reasons, which I don’t need to state here. I believe the intent was to violate the woman and kill both. Ransacking the place for valuables was an afterthought.

Speaking of IQ, how did these imbeciles get into the Marine Corps? They murdered two people, took some stuff, and hid it in their barracks. And they thought they’d get away with it? Their seething resentment and envy apparently was strong enough to overwhelm common sense. Now, they’re going to die (hopefully!) or spend their lives locked up. Was it worth it?

I hope all four are found guilty and sentenced to death. Poison in the veins, frying, hanging – whatever they do to enlisted men who murder. It is my wish that before the state executes them, some of their fellow thug-prisoners bound, gag, and torture them in the same manner the men appeal to God for forgiveness.

(Hat tip: Vdare)

————————————————————————————————
*Let's lay it on the table and acknowledge it. If the husband and wife were both black and the murderers white, ABC News and other news outlets would have cried "hate crime," regardless of what the police or the suspects claimed.

Update (12:12 p.m.): I’ve gotten e-mails, Facebook comments, and tweets about why I’ve closed comments on the blog. Life is just easier without them, and I can focus on other things during the day. When I get three comments on a long post, I spend too much time wondering why. When a post brings out the trolls, I kick myself for opening comments. (It is liberating to say what you’ve got to say “soapbox” style and not wonder about or even expect feedback.) But this topic is worth it, so I’ll open the post up for discussion.

—————————————————————————

God, did you bring me all the way to California so I could join the front line of the battle to protect traditional marriage?

Wow. I might be on to something. I was seething last night when I read about a pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd blocking traffic in the Westwood area of Los Angeles near the Mormon temple. Allow me to digress for a moment. I’ve never blogged my view of Mormonism, but here goes: Mormonism is not historic Christianity. [The rest I deleted. Too distracting, and it belongs in a different post.]

With that out of the way, I wholly support Mormons’ decision to support Proposition 8, a measure that amends California’s constitution to define marriage as between only a man and a woman. I will defend and stand with Mormons on this issue.

Back to the point of the post. Last night my sister and I watched a live camera feed on CBS2 of a group of homosexual “marriage” supporters holding up traffic as they “protested” their way to the gate of the Mormon Temple. They claim Mormons spent millions on “deceptive” ads supporting Prop 8, which a spokesman denies. The man wasn’t denying that his church supported the measure. He said the church as an institution didn’t pay for any ads.

The details aren’t overly important. As I watched people blocking traffic, protesting for their so-called right to make a mockery of marriage, my mind flashed to that grainy black-and-white footage from the 1960s. You know what I’m talking about, right? Blacks were fighting to be treated as first class citizens – to be allowed to vote in peace, to sit wherever they wanted to sit on a bus or train, to live where they wanted to live, to take advantage of all the rights and protections everyone else enjoyed. Legal segregation and discrimination were so demeaning that people were willing to pay with their lives, so their children and grandchildren could be FREE.

And to think some homosexuals compare themselves to civil rights-era blacks! It burns me up, man. To calm myself down, I came up with this idea. Let homosexuals experience an authentic “civil rights movement” moment, complete with billy clubs upside the head, firehoses in the face, and attack dogs at the rear. I don’t condone violence for the sake of violence, but if these people want to co-opt a legitimate movement, they ought to experience it in full.

Let’s spit on them and shout nasty things as they march by. Let’s throw things and push and shove. Let’s pour stuff on their heads (the wrath of God?) and pelt them with rocks. Let’s run them off the road, pull them out of cars and do mock-lynchings to scare the…out of them.

But that would be ridiculous, just as ridiculous as homosexuals comparing their so-called plight to what black Americans went through.

As I’ve said before (and I’ll quote myself), homosexuals hear this:

“Two people, three people, four or more people of any sex can do whatever they want to do to each other. I don’t care! And no one is stopping you from marrying. You just can’t marry a person of the same sex. You also can’t marry your sister or your father or a minor or more than one person at a time. You have the same civil rights as the rest of us, but marriage is not a civil right. The civil rights movement was about giving blacks what had been withheld from them for a long time: the right to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by everyone else. Homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, or whatever, are under those same protections. But what homosexuals want are special rights, one of which involves overhauling the institution of marriage. You have no civil right to do that.

Trying to turn your desire for acceptance into a right is clever. We’re big on rights in this country. In California, homosexuals can register as domestic partners, and they’ll have rights, protections, and benefits. But that’s not enough! People warned that once we relented on the domestic partnership issue, homosexuals would be clamoring for marriage. That’s exactly what they’re doing, and they’re willing to nullify the votes of millions of people to do it.

Here’s a slope slippery enough to sicken even the unreasonable: You know the old sayings…give a man a rope, and he wants to be a cowboy…Give them an inch, they take a yard? Just as allowing “civil unions” has given way to a demand for marriage, allowing marriage will give way to such horrors as men “marrying” boys. I can clearly see nutso parents consenting to allow their sons to “marry” some pervert. With homosexual marriage on one end and a lowered age of consent on the other, the kid wouldn’t even need his parents’ permission! Think I’m crazy? You better believe it can and will happen.

Isn’t it ironic that homosexuals, once rebels in a culture that shut them away in a closet, now want to encroach on heterosexuals and make a mockery of the institution of marriage? That’s revenge, my friends. It was nothing to do with so-called rights and “being with my partner forever” and “the right to love who I want to love” and the rest of that nonsense. They seek acceptance for something that appalls most people, something that God calls sin. If you think my opposing homosexual “marriage” means I hate homosexuals, you’re wrong. I hate the sin. I will never accept what is perverse in God’s eyes as normal, and I will continue to speak out against homosexual “marriage” and do what I can to prevent it.

You have to pick your battles in life. Where are my sword and shield?

In 1994, Susan Smith of Union, South Carolina, claimed a black man forced her out of her car, refused to let her retrieve her two sons in the back seat, and drove off. On many levels it didn’t ring true, especially the part about the man refusing to let her get the children. (For reasons obvious to “insiders.”)

We (family and friends) thought she and a boyfriend hid the kids from her ex-husband for revenge and made up a carjacking story. We were half right. She made up the carjacking story, and she hid those precious kids, alright: at the bottom of John D. Long Lake. Smith is serving a life sentence. The jury didn’t have the guts to send her to Old Sparky.

(There was something sketchy about that sketch, too. My brother saw it before I did, and he said it reminded him of a caricature from the minstrel show-era. Once I saw it, I agreed.)

But I digress. So this so-called McCain-supporter chick claimed a black man attacked her at an ATM machine and became upset when he saw her McCain sticker, or some such. Ashley Todd said he carved a “B” for Barack on her face. Michelle Malkin called it yesterday when she suspected it was a hoax. The “B” appeared as if Todd carved it herself while looking in a mirror: forward to her and backward to us.

I guess she decided to fake-hate* because she was bored. Troubled? Twisted? Whatever. If she wanted to see her name in lights (an aspiration of mine), this is not the way to do it.

Anyway, rest easy everybody. I just finished taping a couple of segments for Pajamas Media TV in El Segundo. I had to drive on the 405. Woo! Recovering…

————————————————————————————
*According to liberal types, the mugging and mutilation would not fit the defintion of "hate crime" unless dude used a racial slur while committing the crime. But all such crimes, regardless of whether the perp spoke or not, are hate crimes from my perspective. That's why hate crime statutes are, among other things, stupid.

Lewis Diuguid, a columnist for the Kansas City Star, played the race card and opened up a can of Drudge-linked worms with a blog post titled, “Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black.” An excerpt:

“The ’socialist’ label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

“J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

“Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr….W.E.B. Du Bois…Paul Robeson…A. Philip Randolph…”

Commenters are letting Diuguid have it.

As some point out, Barack Obama is a socialist, and socialists come in all races and nationalities. I can’t speak for John McCain and Sarah Palin, but when I use the word “socialist,” I’m thinking of white liberals in particular.

One can afford to spout socialist drivel in a country as wealthy and free as the United States. These people actually don’t want to live under socialism, whose main tenet is the divesting of ownership from individuals to a collective. In other words, the old “share the wealth” axiom. These house- and car-owning fools get off playing hypocritical gadfly to a system that bestows upon them the right to enter into contracts, own things, and keep the fruits of their labor (after rendering unto Caesar, of course). Irrational and willfully ignorant, the whole lot of them.

Diuguid is wrong about the other men mentioned in the post. They were considered more than mere socialists. They were left of socialism. It is a fact, not rumor or theory or hyperbole, that the Communist Party reached out to blacks during the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr., while not a registered member of the party, had Communist affiliations. W.E.B. DuBois, who helped found the NAACP, was a member of the Communist Party. Paul Robeson, singer, actor, and activist, was a Marxist and a Communist.

Communism is a nasty piece of work. It is a totalitarian system of government in which the state plans and controls everything. But that’s just a standard definition. Communism in practice has left a bloody trail from China to the former Soviet Union to Eastern Europe to Latin America to Vietnam and beyond. In a so-called classless society where one party rules, the government runs every aspect of individuals’ lives, both public and private. This blog post can’t do justice to the awfulness of communism.

It is so easy to tout the “benefits” of systems of government other than our own constitutional republic, because our system of government allows us the freedom to do that. No reasonable American wants to live under socialism or communism once he understands that how he chooses to live his life is secondary to what’s good for the collective.

I surmise that socialism and communism appeal to many blacks today because of what they perceive to be invidious racism. Their inability to rise higher in their profession or score a higher-paying job or reach the pinnacle of whatever they define as success is attributed to white people’s hatred of them. So is poverty. Since white people have all the power and use it to hold them back, it’s only fair to take from white people and give to the collective, so that all may benefit.

I’d rather take my chances and try to be successful on my own merits and earn my own way, without taking that which belongs to someone else. If I fail, I fail with a cheerful heart, knowing my failure belongs to me.

Related: Colorblind Thoughts

———————————————————-
*It doesn't make sense, but it rhymes!

More than one third of recent graduates of the Atlanta Police Academy has been arrested or “cited.” Crimes range from shoplifting to assault. (Source)

Strange to know the gun-equipped cop pulling you over may have a record of violent crimes. Nice.

“We would like, in an ideal world, to see every applicant with a clean record, but obviously that’s not reality,” whined Lt. Elder Dancy. “I don’t think you’ll find any departments who hire only applicants with squeaky-clean records.”

So, why is a cop with a criminal record more common today than “three decades ago”? Let’s speculate. Lowering standards for whatever reason (to redress past wrongs, to increase skin-deep diversity, etc.) in one institution reverberates throughout others. The dumbing-down tendency is pathological and irreversible. If I were a betting woman, I’d wager that the percentage of cops with criminal records and the department’s “diversity” goals are correlated.

But since I’m not, I won’t.