It is very interesting how some crimes are more important to report on than others.  It's amazing how some crimes (e.g. Duke non-rape case, the James Byrd death among others) are reported ad nauseum, especially if they fit the MSM's preferred politically correct narrative; that is, white racism/classism and black victimhood.  However, the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder, as horribly gruesome as it was, just doesn't quite fit the MSM's PC template.

Maybe that's why most national media outlets have avoided reporting on it.  Do you think it might be because it involves the gruesome rape and murder of a WHITE couple by five BLACK monsters?

Check out Michelle Malkin's Hot Air segment on this case on why the MSM is MIA in reporting on it.

Three cheers for ElisabethHasselback! 

As the "innocent, pure Christian," lone conservative on the popular, nonpolitical (yeah, right) chat show "The View," she showed on Wednesday that she had finally had enough of Rosie O'Donnell's intellectually inept, far-left, anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative pontifications, statements and outright lies.  Whether it was the hormones from her current pregnancy or whatever, Ms. Hasselback showed guts and not only challenged O'Donnell on one of her recent anti-Bush, anti-Republican distortions, but refused to back down from the liberal gasbag's personal cheap shots at her.  (Check it out on YouTube.)

Here's how Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham scores the O'Donnell vs. Hasselback joust:

"... I have to say congrats to Elisabeth for coming out on the better end of that fight.

According to my scorecard, she got mad points for her mention of Rosie's pathetic fight with Donald Trump. I awarded her several more points for turning the "do you understand me, little child-like Elisabeth?" line of argument back on Rosie by telling her to defend her own dark insinuations instead of relying on Elisabeth to defend them for her, you know, "as a friend."

And, where exactly does Rosie get off calling Elisabeth a coward? Elisabeth goes to work every day to defend her views on an ostensibly non-political show, usually against three co-hosts and the idiotic studio audience. There is no liberal on TV that faces similar odds day in and day out. Alan Colmes comes closest, but he's trained as a pundit, and he's facing much less asinine and abusive arguments from guests and co-host. Rosie can't manage to keep her composure with three allies and an unusually pleasant adversary in Elisabeth. She would implode if put in Elisabeth's shoes.

Rosie's a big, spoiled bully, and her "can you understand me, Elisabeth?" comments made it inappropriate for her to pull the "friend" card long ago."

Columnist Lorie Byrd makes an even better point about the need for conservatives to challenge and refute any and all myths, distortions and lies (of which there are many) that are repeated by the left ad nauseum to the point of ultimately gaining unmerited credence.

"Myths are born when an untrue statement is repeated frequently enough, and loudly enough, that many come to believe the statement must be true because they have heard it said over and over again, usually with no refutation. For too long conservatives have allowed statements like Bush “stole the election” and “lied us into war” to be repeated with little if any opposition. When outrageous statements are first made it often seems unnecessary to bother refuting claims that are demonstrably untrue. That was the case with the kooky 9/11 “truther” claims that floated around the internet. The claims that the US government played a role in the 9/11 attacks were treated by most as something only tinfoil hat-wearing Bush haters could possibly believe and most (including me) chose not to dignify them by bothering to respond. Popular Mechanics debunked the various 9/11 conspiracy theories in book form, after all, and to most (again including me) it seemed unnecessary to bother pointing out something so obvious.

The truthers did not stop though. They continued to spread the 9/11 conspiracy theories and even enlisted the support of celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell. What has been the result? Recent polls show that “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure." The lesson we should learn from this is that any inaccurate claim that is made, regardless of how outrageous or seemingly unbelievable, must be vigorously refuted as loudly and frequently as possible, getting all available facts into the public arena so that such unfounded theories are not allowed to take hold in the first place. Conservatives cannot depend on those in the media to do this. Too often reporters simply give public figures a microphone to say anything they please, not offering any fact-checking whatsoever...

Many in the anti-war movement are now trying to exploit the public’s anger and sadness over the war by spreading distortions and outright lies. Similar tactics have been successful in the past in exploiting the public’s discontent over the economy and other issues. Enough. It is time Republicans spoke out more forcefully and followed the recent example of Elisabeth Hasselbeck who decided enough was enough."

Amen to that!

 Hold Your Tongue, Unless You're Criticizing a Conservative
 
 
By David Almasi
 
 
A New Visions Commentary paper published May 2007 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 501 Capitol Court NE #200, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/543-4110, Fax 202/543-5975, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web http://www.project21.org. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.
 
 
 
Comments considered to cross the line of good taste recently have led to a surprisingly large number of firings among radio hosts and staff.
 
Most notable was Don Imus's April firing from CBS Radio and MSNBC after he called the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos."  The outrage from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others quickly got the veteran broadcaster fired.
 
But Imus was not the only one:
 
*    As the Imus controversy raged, Gary Smith of WSBG in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania was fired when he made "I'm a nappy-headed ho" the "Phrase that Pays."
 
*    In May, CBS Radio fired Jeff Vandergrift and Dan Lay - hosts of WFNY's "The Dog House with JV and Elvis" in New York City - for broadcasting a prank call in April to a Chinese restaurant that used a caller with an exaggerated Asian accent and demeaned Asian stereotypes.
 
*    Producer Eric Gray of San Antonio's KTKR was fired by Clear Channel Communications in May for a segment featuring an impersonation of black professional basketball player Allen Iverson, saying Iverson shot an illegal alien and solicited sex from a Mexican woman.
 
*    In Boston, WRKO host John DePetro was fired by Entercom Boston last November for calling Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Grace Ross a "fat lesbian."
 
In each case, retribution was swift and decisive.  After all, intolerant attitudes - especially those involving race - are frowned upon these days... unless the target is a black conservative.
 
Consider the abuse heaped upon Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  On May 9 - after the firings of Imus, Smith, Gray and DePetro and the same week Vandergrift and Lay were fired - XM satellite radio hosts Gregg "Opie" Hughes and Anthony Cumia laughed as a guest they called "Homeless Charlie" talked about wanting to rape Secretary Rice.  Cumia gleefully said, "I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice's face... as you were just like holding her down..."
 
XM officials condemned the segment, Opie and Anthony apologized and they were suspended - reportedly with pay - for 30 days.  They still, however, have their XM jobs.  They even continued to broadcast on their other nationally-syndicated CBS Radio show.  Al Sharpton said they should be fired, but only days later and after consulting his "associates."  Jesse Jackson refused to comment.
 
In Madison, Wisconsin in November of 2004, WTDY program director and morning host John Sylvester called Rice - then the nation's national security advisor - "Aunt Jemima."  When asked to apologize by his critics, Sylvester said, "I will apologize to Aunt Jemima."  He was not punished by his employer.
 
Dave Lenihan, formerly of KTRS in St. Louis, Missouri, did lose his job.  On March 22, 2006, while discussing rumors that Secretary Rice might apply for the job of NFL commissioner, Lenihan said: "She's African-American, which would be kind of a big coon.  A big coon.  Oh my God.  I am totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that."  He never finished the show.  He was fired immediately - not for demeaning Secretary Rice, but for accidentally saying "coon."
 
In the comics, Garry Trudeau can call Secretary Rice "Brown Sugar" in "Doonesbury" and Aaron McGruder can suggest a boyfriend might stop her from being "hell-bent to destroy" the world in the now-defunct "The Boondocks."  Ted Rall can suggest she is a "house n*gga" who needs "racial re-education." On the supposedly more-respectable editorial pages, Jeff Danziger and Pat Oliphant can draw her with accentuated black features and using poor diction.
 
All of these people, of course, have a right to their opinion.  They may not deserve the jobs they have (or had), but their fundamental freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our republic.  The true outrage is the selective indignation - particularly among those who claim to abhor racism - when it comes to black conservatives.  When it's someone such as Condoleezza Rice - an accomplished woman who has reached the top of her field - it seems a free pass is given to those who embrace the lowest common denominator.
 
Whatever happened to the notion that a sin against one is a sin against all?
 
 
#  #  #
 
 
David Almasi is the director of Project 21, where he coordinates media activities on behalf of the members of the black leadership network.  Comments may be sent to DAlmasi@nationalcenter.org.

Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.

Former Clinton NSA Sandy Berger Relinquishes Law Lincense 

From the Washington Times (May 17, 2007):

Samuel R. Berger, the Clinton White House national security adviser who was caught taking highly classified documents from the National Archives, has agreed to forfeit his license to practice law. 

    In a written statement issued by Larry Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, the former national security adviser said he pleaded guilty in the Justice Department investigation, accepted the penalties sought by the department and recognized that his law license would be affected. 

    "I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license," he said. "While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize." 

    In giving up his license, Mr. Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel, where he risked further disclosure of specific details of his theft.  (Itallics added.)  The agreement is expected to be formalized today. 
    
    Mr. Berger, national security adviser from 1997 to 2001, was convicted of removing documents from the Archives in 2005 while preparing to testify before the September 11 commission. 

    Fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and barred from access to classified material for three years, he also was ordered to undergo a polygraph test if asked -- although the Justice Department has declined to administer the test despite urging by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform.

Cool picture from Michelle Malkin's website:




Sowell on the new (illegal) immigration bill

Thomas Sowell (as always) sees right through the political "solutions" (more like band-aids) that politicians try to put on immediate problems.  Almost without fail, these "solutions" end up making things worse instead of better.  Check out his two articles on the "Amnesty Fraud."

Notable quote from the first article:

[Advocates of amnest for illegals argue] that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen.

The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.

Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue.

For example, there are undoubtedly thousands, perhaps millions, of unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals in this country and we cannot realistically expect to find and prosecute all these fugitives from justice.

But does anyone suggest that our focus should be on trying to normalize the lives of domestic fugitives from justice -- "bring them out of the shadows" in Ted Kennedy's phrase -- and develop some path by which they can be given an acceptable legal status?

Does anyone suggest that, if domestic criminals come forward, pay some fine, and apply to have their crimes overlooked, they can be put on a path to be restored to good standing in our society?

Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.

All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.

Notable quote from the second article:

[Comparing today's illegal immigrants] with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.

People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.

As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born.

These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico -- as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times -- reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

Terrence Jeffrey also has a great article out on the "demand side" of immigration reform: that is, targeting employers who hire illegals.

Advice for Paris Hilton: Quit Whining!

Right now, I'm sick and tired of hearing about how Paris Hilton is kicking and screaming her way to serving a 45-day jail sentence (of which she'll probably serve half) for violating her probation.  She needs to stop whining, do her time, and get her act together.  'Nough said.

Adversity is a part of life. We all have to play the hand we’re dealt, but how we play that hand (or not) determines that kind of person we are and will ultimately become. I have always admired people who have overcome seemingly insurmountable odds in the course of finding success and happiness in life. Such people inspire me to “keep on keeping on” whenever life hits me with the occasional curve ball.

Of all of the success stories I’ve read about and seen on film, few are as powerful as the story of Chris Gardner. The Pursuit of Happyness, the Oscar-nominated film starring Will Smith and his adorable real-life son, Jaden, and based on Gardner’s best-selling autobiography of the same name, is a success story for the ages: a man who, through a series of unfortunate events in early 1980’s San Francisco, CA, hits rock bottom, yet through sheer guts, determination and an indomitable spirit, succeeds in ultimately making a better life for himself and his son.

Here's an excerpt of Gardner's bio:

Born February 9, 1954 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Gardner never knew his father. He lived with his mother, Bettye Jean Gardner, whom he adored, and, when necessary, in foster homes. Despite a life of hardship and emotional scarring, his mother provided him with strong “spiritual genetics” and taught him some of the greatest lessons of his life, which he follows to this day. Bettye Jean convinced him that in spite of where he came from, he could attain whatever goals he set for himself by saying, “If you want to, one day you could make a million dollars.” Gardner believed this to be fact, and knew he would have to find a career he could be passionate about, and one that would allow him to “be world-class at something.”

Straight out of high school, Gardner enlisted in the Navy, just like his uncles, his role models, had done. After the military, Gardner went to San Francisco and took a job as a medical supply salesman. Then he reached a turning point in his life. In a parking lot, he met a man driving a red Ferrari. "He was looking for a parking space. I said, 'You can have mine, but I gotta ask you two questions.' The two questions were: What do you do? And how do you do that? Turns out this guy was a stockbroker and he was making $80,000 a month."

That pivotal encounter gave Gardner a clear career goal and he began knocking on doors, applying for training programs at brokerages even though it meant he would have to live on next to nothing while he learned. When he was finally accepted into a program, he left his job in medical sales. But his plans collapsed when the man who offered him the training slot was fired, and Gardner had no job to go back to. Then he was put in jail for $1,200 in parking violations he couldn't pay. Chris Jr.’s mother left and Gardner, despite his circumstances, fought to keep his son because, as he says, "I made up my mind as a young kid that when I had children they were going to know who their father is, and that he isn’t going anywhere."

Finally managing to enter the training program at Dean Witter Reynolds, Gardner’s meager stipend as a trainee meant he, like so many working poor in America, had a job but couldn't make ends meet. Chris’s co-workers never knew he spent his evenings trying to arrange day care, find food and a safe place for him and his son to sleep. After spending nights in a locked bathroom at an Oakland subway station, Gardner persuaded Rev. Cecil Williams, founder of a new shelter program for homeless women at Glide Memorial United Methodist Church, to let him and Chris Jr. stay at the shelter.

Gardner passed his licensing exam in 1981on the first try. He arrived early, stayed late and worked the phones day after day to lure new clients. He and Chris Jr. got an apartment, and in 1983 he joined Bear, Stearns & Company. After becoming a top producer, first in San Francisco and later in New York, Gardner left in 1987 to establish Gardner Rich & Company, Inc., an institutional brokerage firm specializing in the execution of debt, equity and derivative products transactions for some of the nations largest institutions, public pension plans and unions. The company has expanded into Christopher Gardner International Holdings and now has a business project underway in South Africa.

My wife and I watched the film (on DVD) this weekend.  Will Smith and his son, Jaden, are supberb.  The most emotional scene in the movie for me was when, after toiling for six months as an unpaid intern at Dean Witter, Gardner is called in by the firm's head honchos and is offered the full-time position - beating out 19 other interns.  After months of sleeping in homeless shelters and subway station bathrooms, all while caring for his young son, he had finally achieved his goal.  Tears of joy and relief begin flowing down Gardner's face.  I cried as well.  

As the real Chris Gardner says in the DVD documentary, The Pursuit of Happyness is more than just a "rags to riches" story.  It's the story of a man determined - despite one major setback after another, one obstacle after another, one disappointment after another - to do right by his child.  In an age of epidemic fatherlessness and broken families, Chris Gardner is more than just a sucess story.  He is a man's man.

If this were a white-on-black crime (à la the Simpson trial), we would have heard about it by now - and would still be hearing about it!

From CNSNews.com:

A judge in Knox County, Tenn., Thursday scheduled separate trials during the summer of 2008 for four defendants charged with the carjacking, rape and murder of a young couple even as the case of black-on-white crime remained mostly untouched by the national media.

Letalvis Cobbins, 24, and 25-year-old Lemaricus Davidson were slated to go on trial May 12 and June 16, 2008, regarding 46 charges including first degree murder, kidnapping and rape regarding the deaths of 21-year-old Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, 23, in early January.

Judge Richard Baumgartner also set July 14, 2008, as the trial date for 18-year-old Vanessa Coleman, who faces 40 state charges connected to the crimes, and August 11, 2008, as the date George Thomas, 24, will be tried on 46 charges in the case.

While more than a dozen family members and friends of the victims sat in the courtroom Thursday, Baumgartner said he expected each trial to last about two weeks.

Also on Thursday, Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols stated that he has not yet decided whether to seek the death penalty if the defendants are convicted.

Reports on the latest developments in the case quickly filtered out through the local news media, including television station WATE, Channel 6 in Knoxville.

Jamie Foster, the station's news director, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday: "Most of the people in the area were obviously very upset by this crime."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Christian and Newsom were out on a dinner date in Knoxville on January 6 when they were carjacked, kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered.

According to published news reports, the two were tortured at length in each other's presence, strangled and shot. Newsom's mutilated and burned remains were found along a railroad track the following day. Two days later, Christian's battered and burned body was found in a trash bin.

"Let's face it," Foster said. "It was a very brutal crime."

The suspects were quickly arrested and charged with numerous offenses including carjacking, kidnapping, rape, premeditated murder, theft and robbery.

"People want to see the suspects, if they are found guilty and responsible, pay for their crimes," Foster stated, even though the state does not have a "hate crime" law that would impose stiffer penalties for offenses committed on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

"This obviously is a big local story that we've been following from the beginning," he added. Still, in the time since the arrests were made, "there have been several other major stories going on in the local scene as well, so you haven't heard as much about it lately."

While indicating that "our focus here is on local news," Foster said that the story hasn't attracted much national attention.

"I can't really make policy for what the national news networks do," he stated, though "a few have requested video from us."

But Foster said he believes that situation will change.

"In all honesty, I believe that once more of the details come out, once this hits the courtroom, I think you probably will see more national coverage," he stated.

Cybercast News Service previously reported that Associated Press wire stories on the killings were carried by Knoxville news outlets, CBS News and Fox News, but other major media had yet to mention the matter. Conservative columnist Mark Alexander called it "a case study in journalistic malpractice."

A search of the Nexis database on Thursday found that since the May 8 story on this website, no other major media outlets have reported on the case. Telephone calls and emails seeking comment from ABC News, NBC News, CNN and the New York Times were not returned by press time.

However, conservative talk show host Michael Savage said on his May 9 radio program that the Knoxville situation "got me sick," and on Thursday, the Christian Broadcasting Network website discussed the story under the title "An Act of Domestic Terrorism You Haven't Heard About."

Robert Zelnick, a professor of journalism at Boston University, told Cybercast News Service Thursday the Knoxville murders, "as gruesome as they were, need a strong peg to reach a national audience."

"Racism would certainly be one. Celebrity involvement would be another. An epidemic of criminal activity of this sort would be a third," he said.

"The coincidence of white victims and black perpetrators doesn't pass muster, though the coincidence of white perpetrators and black victims might because of its relative infrequency," Zelnick added.

Still, "cases like this do make you resist the nonsense peddled by certain self-anointed black 'civil rights leaders' who suggest that the high incidence of black male incarceration is a function of society's racism," he said.

That claim is "nonsense," according to Zelnick. "It is a function of the breakdown of spiritual, cultural, educational and family value systems in the African-American community."

From Glenn Sacks' blog:

"There we were: your basic American family. My husband loved his job in foreign relations; I worked from home as a writer so I could be there for our kids, a girl and a boy. Yes, we had the usual quarrels over money and time, but we seemed happy enough, with one exception: My husband was content to stop at two children; I wanted more. Every few months, we'd go back and forth about this...and he'd say, 'We have two wonderful children. Why do you want to mess everything up with a baby?'

"I saw his point. Still, I'd look at my kids, thinking about how special each was, and wonder, Who else is waiting to be born? And then, in the space of a few impulsive moments, I stopped wondering and did the unthinkable. 

 "I knew I was ovulating. I had the diaphragm in my hand. But instead of putting it in, I told myself, 'Let's just see what happens. Just this once.' And I quietly put the diaphragm back in the medicine cabinet, knowing my husband was lying in bed waiting for me, knowing that he trusted me completely, that it wouldn't even occur to him that I could deceive him in this way. Afterward I told him that I'd forgotten to use it, and eased his fears with some lame remark like 'probably nothing will happen.'

"What makes an otherwise sane woman do something like this? I can try to ennoble it, to turn myself into Mother of the Year and make my husband out to be the bad guy because he didn't want more kids. But the truth is, I was selfish--selfish enough to think I should have what I wanted and everyone else would have to adjust."

The above quotes are drawn from "Confessions: The big lie I told my husband" (Redbook, Oct. 1998), told by a woman who had two children, lied to her husband about birth control, and then had twins.

Click here to read the rest.

Senegalese-American hip hop "artist" Akon is doing a great job earning his misogynistic thug stripes.  In a concert in Port of Spain, Trinidad on April 12, the chart-topping performer tricked a 15-year-old female fan (who, as a minor, shouldn't have been at the concert in the first place) onstage, and basically sexually assaulted her in a violent, dry-humping simulated rape. 




According to WorldNet Daily.com, high-level Trinidadian officials are furious.  Prime Minister Patrick Manning has called for a formal investigation of the performance at Trinidad's Club Zen, which has since been shut down.  Security minister Fitzgerald Hinds wants the hip hop star prosecuted.

(Click here to view video of the event.  WARNING: This video contains sexually explicit, graphic, and very disturbing footage.)

The young lady, Danah Alleyn, who is the daughter of prominent Trinidadian minister David Alleyne, subsequently came forward to expressing her regret for being at the concert in the first place, let alone going on stage with the performer.

The teen said she was permitted into the club despite being underage. She was part of what was characterized as an impromptu dance competition announced by the singer. The competition featured seven girls. Akon promised a trip to Africa to the winner. After the teen "won" the contest, Akon announced the Africa prize was actually him.

"I got carried away, I started to dance as well, but I never thought it was going to be like that," said Ms. Alleyne.  "I was shocked.  My head was hitting the floor."

The video shows Akon throwing Alleyne on the floor like a "rag doll" and simulating violent sex with her in various positions.  The crowd cheers the entire ordeal.

Though Akon and his managers have refused comment on the incident, his defenders on the Internet have attacked the girl for her provocative dress and alluring looks.  (Emphasis added.)

The young lady goes on to say, "This whole hop hop thing is a guise and I don't want any part of it.  I dont' want any part of it.  Look at what I have to go through with one mistake I made.  My Dad warned me every time and I didn't listen.  I am sorry."

Akon has since apologized for the incident, while Verizon Wireless has terminated its sponsorship of the singer in light of the incident.

In reporting on this disgusting and oh-so-common display of hip hop misogyny, Michelle Malkin asks a very important question:  Where's the outrage from the righteously indignant who last for radio shock jock Don Imus' head after calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos"?

I agree.  Sharpton?  Jackson?  Russell Simmons?  Damon Dash?  Anyone. 

[Cue sounds of chirping crickets.]

I applaud the the voters of this Dallas suburb for taking a stand on illegal immigration.

From the Washington Post:

FARMERS BRANCH, Texas -- Voters in this Dallas suburb became the first in the nation Saturday to prohibit landlords from renting to most illegal immigrants.

The ban was approved by a vote of 68 percent to 32 percent in final, unofficial returns.

The balloting marked the first public vote on a local government measure to crack down on illegal immigration.

"It says especially to Congress that we're tired of the out-of-control illegal immigration problem. That if Congress doesn't do something about it, cities will," said Tim O'Hare, a City Council member who was the ordinance's lead proponent.

The ordinance requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions.

Property managers or owners who break the rule face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine of up to $500.

Council members approved the ordinance in November, then revised it in January to include exemptions for minors, seniors and some families with a mix of legal residents and illegal immigrants.

Farmers Branch has become the site of protests and angry confrontations, and opponents of the regulation gathered enough signatures to force the city to put the measure on the municipal election ballot.

With Saturday's approval of the ban, opponents plan to fight it in court, and will seek a restraining order to stop the city from enforcing it.

I hope you all had a wonderful Mother's Day weekend. 

La Shawn Barber quotes from a National Review article by W. Bradford Wilcox on why whomen should marry before having children and stay married. 

 “Mothers who manage to get and stay married are much less likely to produce boys who end up terrorizing playgrounds, parks, and little old ladies walking home from the grocery store. One recent Princeton study found that boys who grew up in an intact, married family were half as likely to end up in prison as young adults. After studying murder and robbery rates in our nation’s cities, Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson observed, ‘Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.’ This is why neighbors should thank the married mothers on their block.”

The author goes on to say:

"Why does marriage matter so much for children? Typically, two parents bring more social and economic resources to the parenting enterprise than does one parent. Two parents offer one another mutual support, encouragement, and relief when a child is difficult, disobedient, or depressed. For instance, a husband can step in and relieve a wife who has grown angry or exhausted with her children. This, by the way, is one reason married moms are more likely to have children who report good relationships with them; because of the financial, practical, and emotional support they receive from their husbands, married moms are more likely to be affectionate and authoritative — and less likely to be abusive — than are single mothers.

Marriage also binds children to their fathers, who usually find it very difficult to maintain consistent and positive relationships with their children without the support and encouragement of their children’s mother. Finally, children who are fortunate to have married parents who are considerate of and committed to one another enjoy a measure of emotional security — not to mention a model of adult love that gives them hope for their own marital future — that their peers in broken homes do not."

Check out Ms. Barber's blog on black marriage as well.  It's a must-read.

 Where are Sharpton and Jackson?
 
 
Rape Jokes About Condoleezza Rice as Offensive as Insults against Rutgers Basketball Team
 
 
 
For Release: May 12, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org <;mailto:Project21@nationalcenter.org>
 
 
 In light of popular radio hosts joking on-air about violently raping Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the black leadership network Project 21 is asking: Where are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
 
Both Sharpton and Jackson protested when the now-fired Don Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos," but have issued no comparable condemnations regarding jokes about raping the Secretary of State.
 
On May 9, XM satellite radio hosts Greg "Opie" Hughes and Anthony Cumia laughed and gave encouragement to a guest, "Homeless Charlie," on their May 9 program who said he wanted to have sex with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
 
Cumia added, "I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice's face... as you were just like holding her down..." and having sex with her and punching her.  Homeless Charlie later said he wanted to have sex with Laura Bush and called Queen Elizabeth a "horse-faced b*tch."
 
The May 12 Washington Times reports that both Sharpton and Jackson refused repeated media requests for comments about the matter yesterday.
 
 "The shock here is not in the comments of Opie and Anthony or their guest, but in the silence from black leaders and groups that pretend to be about equality and tolerance," said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli.  "Being a successful black conservative such as Condoleezza Rice apparently automatically disqualifies her from the support of the vocal civil rights leaders."
 
XM spokesman Nathaniel Brown told the Associated Press the company "deplore[d]" the comments made on the "Opie and Anthony Show" but did not say if there would be any disciplinary action.  On May 11, Hughes and Cumia apologized for the segment, saying: "We apologize to the public officials for comments that we made on our XM show on May 9th.  We take very seriously the responsibility that comes with our creative freedom and regret any offence that that this segment has caused."
 
The pair was fired by CBS Radio in August of 2002 and CBS Radio was later fined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for sponsoring a contest in which a couple reportedly had sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.  Satellite radio has no federal content restrictions.
 
"However vilely they acted, I respect free speech and am not calling for Opie and Anthony to be fired.  I do take issue with the fact that the mainstream media has failed to show much interest in people making jokes about raping the Secretary of State," said Project 21 member Bob Parks.  "Remember the racist depictions of Condoleezza Rice in cartoons from the Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant and the New York Times's Jeff Danziger that didn't seem to create the slightest chirp from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?  These two have positioned themselves as the civilian version of the FCC, and the media lap it up.  Why the silence now over the Queen, Laura Bush and Condoleezza Rice?"
 
Project 21's Borelli added: "Will Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson eventually scream racism over Opie and Anthony's misbehavior and for boycotts of XM Satellite Radio or call for them to be fired?  Or will the dynamic duo impersonate 'The Invisible Man' and disappear from this scene to once again illustrate their selective moral outrage?"
 
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org <;mailto:Project21@nationalcenter.org> ,  or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html <;http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html> .

Glenn Sacks has an interesting blog on the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA).  Here's an excerpt:

Some American women perceive international dating as weakening American women's position within the marriage market. For example, prominent feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte labels foreign women who marry American men "scabs." She believes that
international dating may induce American women to "submit to patriarchy." In other words, international dating undercuts American women's never-ending struggle for equity in their relationships with men by providing men with "scabs"--women who can be substituted for American women who don't submit to male domination.

I don't buy it. There are probably some men who date internationally because they want a genuinely submissive wife. However, I believe most men who date internationally do so because they want to avoid America's divorce epidemic--an epidemic which has not spread to some foreign countries. The vast majority of American divorces are initiated by women, not by men. Is it so wrong that a man might want to protect the stability of the family he wants to create by choosing a woman who he believes will be less likely to initiative a divorce? It seems fair enough to me, particularly for men who have already gone through a divorce.

I'm skeptical that the IMBRA has much to do with a need to protect foreign women from American men--I think American women's advocates don't like men being able to date internationally. My overall view of international dating for men is that I don't recommend it nor do I oppose it. It's their lives, they  should be allowed to date whomever they want.

As one who is happily married to a foreign woman, I am all for any American man who seeks and finds happiness with a foreign-born woman.  More power to 'em!

Your thoughts?

Here we go again.  If so-called academics can find anti-black racism in a sport dominated by blacks, most of whom earn million$ a year in salaries and bonuses and who generated gazillion$ a year for their sport, then you know this "study" is absolutely bogus, race-baiting nonsense.  Like Mike Gallagher says in his new column, its the ultimate display of two academics with way too much time on their hands.

Referee Racism in Pro Basketball?
 

Black Activists Skeptical of New Study
 
 
 
For Release: May 4, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org
 
 
Washington, D.C. - Black activists charged today that premature release of a new study claiming a racial bias by NBA referees will unnecessarily incite racial tensions.
 
Business professor Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Joseph Price, a graduate student of economics at Cornell University, are scheduled to release a study at the annual meeting of the Society of Labor Economists May 4 and the American Law and Economics Association May 6.  The study, which purports to analyze 600,000 foul calls over 13 seasons, claims the rate of fouls called against a player can rise by up to 4.5 percent if the team of three referees contains one or more members of another race.
 
Wolfers told the New York Times, "Basically, it suggests that if you spray-painted one of your starters white, you'd win more games."
 
The Wolfers-Price study has not yet undergone peer review and is not yet scheduled for publication in a professional economics journal.
 
A National Basketball Association-commissioned study that is smaller in scope conflicts with Wolfers-Price study's conclusions.  It finds no bias among referees.
 
"Racism continues to generate headlines regardless of its plausibility.  The only thing this study proves is that if you shout racism you can get national media attention," says Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli.
 
"The authors of this study should be fouled out for exploiting racism," added Borelli. "Who would have thought the term racism would be applied to a game dominated by black players making millions of dollars?  Referees earn their position after years of training and working through the ranks of competitive officiating.  The coaches, players, fans, announcers and video replay constantly scrutinize calls made by a referee.  They are paid for their professionalism, expertise and judgment to referee games accurately and not to selectively color-code their calls."
 
Rod Thorn, president of the New Jersey Nets, who is black, cast doubt on the Wolfers-Price study's findings, telling the Times: "I don't believe it.  I think officials get the vast majority of calls right."
 
Black player Mike James of the Minnesota Timberwolves says of the alleged bias, "I've never seen it."
 
"The human element is the difference between real sports and fantasy sports.  There should be equal enforcement of laws and rules, but we are not living in utopia," says Project 21 member Council Nedd.  "One cannot commit a foul - or break a law for that matter - and then be surprised if they are caught and penalized accordingly."
 
Yale law professor Ian Ayres, who examined the Wolfers-Price and NBA studies for the Times, exemplified a predilection for finding racism in our society when he claimed the bias is subconscious.  Commenting about the alleged racism in the NBA, Ayres said: "I would be more surprised if it didn't exist.  There's a growing consensus that a large proportion of racialized decisions is not driven by any conscious race decisions... When you force people to make snap decisions, they often can't keep themselves from subconsciously treating blacks different than whites, men different from women."
 
"Professor Ayres shows his own bias by automatically assuming whites and men are aggressors," noted Project 21's Borelli.  "The study he supports, however, says that bias in the NBA can be black-on-white as easily as white-on-black.  Is Professor Ayres willing to admit he may have a bias of his own toward white-on-black racism to the extent he has to explain the alleged animosity as subconscious?"
 
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
 

 I agree with Glenn Sacks: America needs more fathers like this gentleman.

Knoxville father makes boy wear sign as punishment for using drugs

KNOXVILLE (WATE) -- A father took extreme measures Wednesday to discipline his 14-year-old son, who he claims was abusing drugs.

Because the boy is a minor, 6 News won't reveal his or his father's identity.

The boy was forced to wear a large sandwich board sign that said "I abused & sold drugs," while standing in front of Cedar Bluff Middle School.  

"I would like to say that I'm not out here doing this to humiliate my son,' the dad said. "I'm doing this because I love him. We do have an extreme drug problem in America, and maybe it's time for extreme measures that parents need to take to monitor this problem that we have."

The man says he recently learned after reading the boy's MySpace page his son was involved with marijuana and OxyContin. That's when he decided to take immediate action.  

"Basically he said, 'Well, I did do the crime and I'm willing to serve the punishment for it,' and he's taking it all in stride," the boy's father said.

The school's principal soon came out and asked the father to call it off, which he did.

By that time the boy said he had already learned his lesson. "This is embarrassing. I ain't going to be doing it again."  

And the boy added, "Drugs are for losers. That's all I can say."

Those were the words his dad hoped to hear.   

Click here to watch the video.