Category Archives: Blacks in America

It’s official: FUCK THE NFL

Posted on by

You just drew your final line with me, National Football League.

You and all your sponsors and your Leftist sycophants at ESPN can all go to hell.

You are dead to me.

What’s acceptable and unacceptable in the NFL. The bottom are shoes of Tennessee Titans player Avery Williamson who was threatened by the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell when he wanted to wear them in honor of 9/11.

Also, remember when NFL Commissioner Goodell refused to allow the Dallas Cowboys to wear a sticker honoring five murdered Dallas Police officers in 2016? I certainly do, as I wrote about it in August last year.

Here is the heinously-offensive sticker that had to be removed and never further applied. A five-pointed star, with each point to represent one murdered officer.

From the NYDailyNews.com:

NFL rejects Cowboys petition to wear helmet decal memorializing Dallas officers that were killed

by Daniel O’Leary

The NFL has gone from the No Fun League to the No Feelings League.

According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Dallas Cowboys filed a petition for permission to wear a helmet decal memorializing the five officers killed in a tragic shooting in Dallas back in July.

The decal featured a star – similar to the one featured prominently in the Dallas PD logo – with a black circle around it and the phrase “Arm In Arm,” to signify support for the police and the Dallas community after the tragedy. The Cowboys opened up training camp while walking with their arms interlocked with members of the Dallas police department.

The team has worn the decal on its helmets during training camp, but will now have to be removed. According to the Star-Telegram, Cowboys VP Stephen Jones said the league had already rejected the team’s petition to wear it during the regular season but extended the ban to the preseason as well.

“Expanded the ban to the pre-season as well.” Translated: not just no, but hell no.

Anyone perceive the slightest bit of hypocrisy? Anywhere?

Let’s first start with this, as the Ravens and Jaguars decide to all take a knee across the pond at Wembley Stadium in England this Black Sunday the 24th.

From CNBC.com:

In rebuke to Trump, Ravens and Jaguars take a knee in London during US national anthem

About two dozen players, including Baltimore Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs and Jacksonville Jaguars running back Leonard Fournette, took a knee during the playing of the national anthem before the start of the teams’ game at Wembley Stadium on Sunday.

Other players on one knee during the performance included Ravens linebacker C.J. Mosley, wide receiver Mike Wallace and safety Lardarius Webb as well as Jaguars linebacker Dante Fowler, defensive tackle Calais Campbell, defensive end Yannick Ngakoue and cornerback Jalen Ramsey.

Players on both teams and Jaguars owner Shad Khan, who were not kneeling, remained locked arm-in-arm throughout the playing of the national anthem and “God Save The Queen,” the national anthem of Britain.

No players were kneeling during the playing of the British national anthem.

Of course not. That might offend the Brits. They’re a new and expanding market.

NFL, oh yes, you’ll definitely need some new and expanding markets after this Black Sunday the 24th.

How did the fans react?

Some other reactions on Twitter.

Then there is this, from ESPN.com. I want you to see and read how this is crafted by ESPN and Leftist journalistas.

Steelers remain in locker room during the national anthem

by Jeremy Fowler

CHICAGO — In a sign of solidarity, the Pittsburgh Steelers stayed in the locker room during the national anthem before their 1 p.m. ET kickoff with the Chicago Bears.

As the anthem began in Soldier Field, several Steelers coaches were on the sideline, including head coach Mike Tomlin, while the players were not present. Offensive coordinator Todd Haley, offensive line coach Mike Munchak and running backs coach James Saxon also were spotted.

ESPN translation? Race traitors and racists, every one of them.

Players took the field within a few seconds of the anthem’s end, just after fireworks launched, with quarterback Ben Roethlisberger one of the first players out of the tunnel.

Note this:

Left tackle Alejandro Villanueva, an Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, was seen on the CBS broadcast at the edge of the tunnel during the anthem, hand over heart.

Trust me. There are already Leftists readily attempting to identify and locate the black employee at the bottom left of the photo, hand over heart like most Americans, in order to expose him, humiliate him, embarrass him, perhaps even harm him.

He was outside. Standing. One man. Hand over heart. During the national anthem. One man who had served in the US military, who had served his nation and who had the courage, the balls, to be the one Steeler who honored and respected the US flag.

Standing. One man. Hand over heart.

But wait; there’s more. One day later Villanueva had regrets. He feels he let his team down. Translated: he’s a good man but the rest of his teammates made him feel guilty for his stance.

Jeanine Pirro wasn’t the only one weighing in. So did The Black Sphere’s Kevin Jackson.

Other people weighed in on the NFL issue. Why is it that the bulk of the insightful and cogent opinions were by young black males? Listen. First from CJ Pearson.

Terrence Williams spoke about the situation.

Then there was this brilliant piece by Brandon Tatum.

As far as the NFL is concerned — just like Hillary Rodham Clinton — it doesn’t have a problem. Everyone else has the problem. It’s everyone else’s fault but theirs.

And, like Hillary, they lack the ability to conduct introspection or self examination despite Captain Obvious visiting on a daily basis.

From the DailyCaller.com:

It’s Shocking How Empty The Stadium Was For Thursday Night Football

by David Hookstead

The San Francisco 49ers Thursday night game against the Los Angeles Rams kicked off in front of a nearly empty stadium.

Los Angeles Times reporter Lindsey Thiry tweeted a photo at the time of kickoff, which showed thousands of open seats. In fact, most sections in the photo have more empty seats than fans.

Further, we must remember the probity and innocence of the NFL players themselves, anyway. Ahem.

So what is this really about? You should ask the question and all the involved players should ask the question. Is it about this loose word “unity” as some are insisting? Unity in what, specifically? Unity in terms of only what those on the Left are advocating?

Or is it — as I suspect — about what Colin Kaepernick originally stated? The rampant and overwhelming gunning-down by Caucasoid police officers of innocent and unarmed young black males?

Except that premise is a fallacy. Police shootings of blacks have gone down over the years, not up.

From the NationalReview.com, this incredibly powerful, accurate and factual article:

Police Violence against Black Men Is Rare

by Phillippe Lemoine

And the media narrative to the contrary is damaging.

A few days ago, former police officer Jason Stockley, who is white, was acquitted of first-degree murder; he had fatally shot Anthony Lamar Smith, who was black, in 2011. Protests started in St. Louis, where the shooting took place and Stockley was judged, immediately after the verdict was announced. Although they were initially peaceful, they soon turned violent, and dozens of protesters were arrested while several police officers were injured. Since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, just outside St. Louis, in 2014, this has become a familiar pattern.

This article is not about whether Stockley should have been acquitted. Instead, I want to talk about the underlying narrative regarding the prevalence of police brutality against black men in the U.S., which is largely undisputed in the media.

According to this narrative, black men are constantly harassed by the police and routinely brutalized with impunity, even when they have done nothing wrong, and there is an “epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men.” Even high-profile black celebrities often claim to be afraid of the police because the same thing might happen to them. Police brutality, or at least the possibility that one might become a victim of such violence, is supposed to be part of the experience of a typical black man in the U.S. Events such as the death of Brown in Ferguson are presented as proof that black men are never safe from the police.

This narrative is false. In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face.

Let’s start with the question of fatal violence. Last year, according to the Washington Post’s tally, just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police. The year before, the number was 36. These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year, considering that happens to about 300 Americans annually and black men are 7 percent of the population. And they include cases where the shooting was justified, even if the person killed was unarmed.

Of course, police killings are not the result of a force of nature, and I’m not claiming these are morally equivalent. But the comparison illustrates that these killings are incredibly rare, and that it’s completely misleading to talk about an “epidemic” of them. You don’t hear people talk about an epidemic of lightning strikes and claim they are afraid to go outside because of it. Liberals often make the same comparison when they argue that it’s completely irrational to fear that you might become a victim of terrorism.

One might retort that, while it may be rare for a black man to be killed by the police, black men are still constantly stopped and routinely brutalized by the police, even if they don’t die from it. However, even this weaker claim is false. It just isn’t true that black men are kicked, punched, etc., on a regular basis by the police.

In order to show that, I’m going to use data from the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), which, as its name suggests, provides detailed information about contacts between the police and the public. It’s conducted on a regular basis by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and is based on a nationally representative sample of more than 70,000 U.S. residents age 16 or older. Respondents are asked whether they had a contact with the police during the past 12 months; if they say they did, they answer a battery of questions about the nature of their last contact, including any use of force. Since the respondents also provide their age, race, gender, etc., we can use this survey to calculate the prevalence of police violence for various demographic groups. The numbers in this piece are from my own analysis of the data, the details and code for which I provide here, but they are consistent with a 2015 report compiled by the BJS itself to the extent the two overlap.

First, despite what the narrative claims, it’s not true that black men are constantly stopped by the police for no reason. Indeed, black men are less likely than white men to have contact with the police in any given year, though this includes situations where the respondent called the cops himself: 17.5 percent versus 20.7 percent. Similarly, a black man has on average only 0.32 contacts with the police in any given year, compared with 0.35 contacts for a white man. It’s true that black men are overrepresented among people who have many contacts with the police, but not by much. Only 1.5 percent of black men have more than three contacts with the police in any given year, whereas 1.2 percent of white men do.

If we look at how often the police use physical force against men of different races, we find that there is indeed a racial disparity, but that this experience is rare across the board. Only 0.6 percent of black men experience physical force by the police in any given year, while approximately 0.2 percent of white men do. To be fair, these are probably slight undercounts, because the survey does not allow us to identify people who did not experience physical force during their most recent contact but did experience such force during a previous contact in the same year.

Further, physical force as defined by the PPCS includes relatively mild forms of violence such as pushing and grabbing. Actual injuries by the police are so rare that one cannot estimate them very precisely even in a survey as big as the PPCS, but the available data suggest that only 0.08 percent of black men are injured by the police each year, approximately the same rate as for white men. A black man is about 44 times as likely to suffer a traffic-related injury, according to the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Moreover, keep in mind that these tallies of police violence include violence that is legally justified.

Now, it’s true that there are significant differences in the rates at which men of different races experience police violence — 0.6 percent is triple 0.2 percent. However, although people often equate racial disparities with bias, this inference is fallacious, as can be seen through an analogy with gender: Men are vastly more likely to experience police violence than women are, but while bias may explain part of this disparity, nobody doubts that most of it has to do with the fact that men are on average far more violent than women. Similarly, if black men commit violent crimes at much higher rates than white men, that might have a lot to do with the disparity in the use of force by the police.

This is evident in the National Crime Victimization Survey, another survey of the public conducted by the BJS. Interviewers ask respondents if they have been the victim of a crime in the past 12 months; if they have, respondents provide information about the nature of the incidents, including the race and ethnicity of the offenders. This makes it possible to measure racial differences in crime rates without relying on data from the criminal-justice system, in which racial bias could lead to higher rates of arrest and conviction for black men even if they commit violence at the same rate.

NCVS data from 2015, the most recent year available, suggest that black men are three times as likely to commit violent crimes as white men. To the extent that cops are more likely to use force against people who commit violent crimes, which they surely are, this could easily explain the disparities we have observed in the rates at which the police use force. That’s not to say that bias plays no role; I’m sure it does play one. But it’s unlikely to explain a very large part of the discrepancy.

Some might say that, instead of consulting statistics like these, we should defer to black Americans’ own perceptions of how the police treat them. As various polls have demonstrated, black people are much more likely than white people to think that police violence against minorities is very common. But the issue cannot be settled this way.

Since individuals have direct knowledge of what happened to them personally, you can trust them about that. But when it comes to larger social phenomena, people’s beliefs are influenced by far more than just their personal experience, including the media. The far more compelling fact is that, if you draw a representative sample of the population and ask each black man in that sample whether a police officer has used physical force against him in the past year, you find that it’s extremely rare.

On many issues, liberals have no problem recognizing this problem. For instance, there is a cottage industry of articles deploring the fact that, although crime has fallen spectacularly in the U.S. since the 1990s, most Americans believe it has increased. Liberals are absolutely right to point out this misperception, but if people of any color can be wrong about this, there is no reason to think black people can’t be wrong about the prevalence of police violence against minorities.

Let’s throw in some more facts. Facts that some apologist elements may not care for because they’re, well, factual. Heather McDonald, a significant author when it comes to law enforcement facts and statistics, notes:

A recent “deadly force” study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios. Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he found that blacks were 24 percent less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent.

An analysis of the Washington Post’s Police Shooting Database and of Federal Crime Statistics reveals that fully 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. By contrast, only four percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops.

But isn’t it a sign of bias that blacks make up 26 percent of police-shooting victims, but only 13 percent of the national population? It is not, and common sense suggests why. Police shootings occur more frequently where officers confront armed or violently resisting suspects. Those suspects are disproportionately black.

Here are more damning facts that race apologists, racists, Race and Poverty Pimps, Leftists and Demorats don’t want you to know.

According to the most recent study by the Department of Justice, although blacks were only about 15 percent of the population in the 75 largest counties in the US, they were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults. In New York City, blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, commit under two percent of all shootings in the city, though they are 34 percent of the population. New York’s crime disparities are repeated in virtually every racially diverse city in America. The real problem facing inner-city black communities today is not the police but criminals.

In 2014, over 6,000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. In fact, a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. If the police ended all use of lethal force tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on the black death-by-homicide rate.

In Chicago, through just the first six-and-a-half months of 2016, over 2,300 people were shot. That’s a shooting an hour during some weekends. The vast majority of the victims were black. During this same period, the Chicago police shot 12 people, all armed and dangerous. That’s one half of one percent of all shootings.

The problem is now, with that and more, crime is going up. From UPI.com:

FBI: Violent crime up in 2016 for second year in a row

by Allen Cone

Sept. 25 (UPI) — Violent crime across the United States increased in 2016 for the second year in a row — a climb of 4 percent, according to annual figures released Monday by the FBI.

The 2016 violent crime rate was 386 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants — up from 373 in 2015, and the highest figure since 2012.

The FBI said last year there were 1,248,185 violent crimes — which include murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The report noted that those types of crimes increased across all population categories.

The 2016 rate, though, was still 18 percent lower than it was a decade ago — and the murder rate was 6 percent lower.

The Justice Department said the data report “reaffirms that the worrying violent crime increase that began in 2015 after many years of decline was not an isolated incident.”

I know why. You suspect it as well. It’s called “proactive” vs “reactive” police philosophies. You can only yell “over-policed” at law enforcement for so long before they take you up on the demand to reduce.

All that said, why are so many persons caving to what appears to be protests based in ignorance (Black Lives Matter itself was created behind the falsehood of “hands up don’t shoot)?

Easy. The NFL is a business. And as a business Roger Goodell and the NFL team owners realize that the NFL is 70% black. Not a shocking statistic. What this means is that the NFL itself fears its players — more protests, possible walkouts, etc. — more than it fears you, the purchasing and attending public. You’ll come back. You always have. You always will.

The NFL is, literally, counting on it.

Despite what Leftists and anarchists are pushing, this is at least for the time being, a free country.

Players — as long as there are no contractual conflicts, as with the Dallas Cowboys — are free to take a knee and refuse to attend the national anthem all they wish.

The owners are free to support their players.

Roger Goodell is free to support all the players who take knees or refuse to attend the national anthem wholesale.

Just as I am free to write this post. I am free to not just disagree but disagree vehemently.

I am free to stop watching the NFL and ESPN.

I am free to cut the cord to cable companies who still make me pay for channels that go against my views, such as anything having to do with Disney, ESPN, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, Comcast, CBS, et al.

I am free to compile a list of those advertisers who support the NFL and cut their cord as well.

And I am free to publish all this information far and wide on social media, on the blog and on the air at SHR Media.com.

We are all free. For the time being.

Do as you wish, NFL. I shall do as I wish.

Tomi Lahren nails it.

But even so, the bottom line is this: it’s not about the NFL. It’s not about ratings. It’s not about attendance or ticket sales or viewers. It’s something much larger.

First question that came to my mind: how long will it be before sports and other entities decide that it’s simply too controversial to even play the national anthem at all?

I value honesty and clarity. So let’s be honest and clear. We know why this occurs in the NFL and why it is not only accepted but in many ways encouraged. It occurs via GOWPs and guilt.

I have said and will continue to say: “no one is equal until everyone is equal.”

And even then, the picture is so much, much larger. It’s about the total dismantling of this nation, the removal of our current Constitution and Bill of Rights via the installation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and its subsequent rebuilding by Leftists and anarchists.

For now:

Black Sunday the 24h was the day the NFL pounded the final nail into its own coffin.

Lines are drawn. I am pushback.

So be it.

BZ

 

 Share

Floyd Mayweather doesn’t tow the BLM line?

Posted on by

Oh my, pearl-clutching all around, heart attacks proffered and black camshafts thrown — particularly in the radio studio in which this interview was conducted. Check the looks on the gesichts of those in attendance and the tone of the interviewer.

A portion of the interview itself.

Within the studio, the only reason Mayweather wasn’t interrupted is because of his melanin count. Guaranteed. The only reason.

Damn him for not towing the BLM line.

The media focused on Mayweather’s comments about “pussy grabbing.” They completely avoided his comments about taking care of your own business and working hard for your own goals, not letting what others think get in your way.

Damn Mayweather for actually acknowledging hard work, goals and accomplishments.

BZ

 

 Share

Black Lives Matters demands?

Posted on by

Ladies and gentlemen, if this isn’t a call for reparations, I don’t know what is. Just short, perhaps, of a shakedown for cash.

From the DailyWire.com:

Black Lives Matter Leader Pens List Of 10 Demands For White People. They’re Insane.

by Amanda Prestigiacomo

A Black Lives Matter leader from Louisville, Kentucky, is demanding white people pay for their inherent sin of being white by adhering to a 10-point list of demands, which includes small gestures like giving up your home and leaving your property to a minority family when you die.

Before I waste too much space and ignore my cogent, devoted and salient readers, I’ll reveal my most immediate and pertinent response up front: no. Or perhaps “go to hell.” Succinct. Honest. Clear.

My forebears fought and died for the blue. They were Yankees. Here is a relative who fought for the blue on my father’s side.

Chanelle Helm, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter-Louisville, penned the list of radical demands in Leo Weekly following the rally-turned-fatal riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, last weekend.

What are those specific demands? Let’s do the logical thing. Let’s list them in order, which is what most every site on the internet refuses, for whatever reason, to do.

1. White people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty.

2. White people, if you’re inheriting property you intend to sell upon acceptance, give it to a black or brown family. You’re bound to make that money in some other white privileged way.

3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free.

4. White people, if you can afford to downsize, give up the home you own to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.

5. White people, if any of the people you intend to leave your property to are racists assholes, change the will, and will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.

6. White people, re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing.

7. White people, especially white women (because this is yaw specialty — Nosey Jenny and Meddling Kathy), get a racist fired. Yaw know what the fuck they be saying. You are complicit when you ignore them. Get your boss fired cause they racist too.

8. Backing up No. 7, this should be easy but all those sheetless Klan, Nazi’s and Other lil’ dick-white men will all be returning to work. Get they ass fired. Call the police even: they look suspicious.

9. OK, backing up No. 8, if any white person at your work, or as you enter in spaces and you overhear a white person praising the actions from yesterday, first, get a pic. Get their name and more info. Hell, find out where they work — Get Them Fired. But certainly address them, and, if you need to, you got hands: use them.

10. Commit to two things: Fighting white supremacy where and how you can (this doesn’t mean taking up knitting, unless you’re making scarves for black and brown kids in need), and funding black and brown people and their work.

My first thought: Ebonics are so yesterday. Learn how to write and speak actual English. It’s the common language of air traffic controllers around the globe. You might try taking that as a veritable clue.

And no. I’m not making this up. Why mention male penis size unless it’s an issue in and of itself? I wonder what Leftists and Feminists and Anarchists and transgenders would think of that?

Again, I have a quite easy and ready reply. That’s this:

1 – 10 = NO. Not just regular “no” but extra-crispy “no.”

With this loving suggestion:

Try turning that fierce judgment inwards and try to examine just why such a select few of you are such foaming, despicable racists yourselves.

And with this addendum: nothing like a racist black female to cap off a blog post. From FoxNews.com:

Missouri senator who urged Trump assassination booted from committees

Sorry might not cut it for the Missouri lawmaker who called for President Trump’s assassination.

Missouri Senate leaders announced Tuesday that Democratic state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal has been stripped of her committee assignments, just two days after she tried to calm the controversy with a public apology.

Meanwhile, the state’s Republican lieutenant governor, Mike Parson, on Tuesday called for the Senate to go into special session to expel Chappelle-Nadal from the body.

“I do not make this request of you lightly, but you and I know it is the right course of action to take for the people of Missouri,” Parson wrote in a letter to members of the Missouri Senate.

It’s all President Trump’s fault. The man with the dead orange cat on his head.

Where do I keep finding these strikingly-racist black females?

Oh, that’s right. On their own blogs and social media sites splayed across the universe.

Trump is, after all, the anti-Christ. He is responsible for every planet in disarray beyond any sphere. He clearly forced, somehow, these women to be the most insanely stupid and racist versions of themselves whatsoever.

Unless that’s their, uh, “natural state.”

BZ

 

 Share

Minimum wage hikes hurt black communities

Posted on by

And Leftists can’t wait for it to occur.

Most recently, Jane Fonda said this about the minimum wage as per the Detroit Free Press:

Jane Fonda visits Detroit to push for $12 minimum wage

by Ann Zaniewski

Actress and activist Jane Fonda will be in Detroit this weekend for a fundraiser to promote a $12 minimum wage in Michigan and better rights for all workers.

Fonda will discuss her activisim and committment to workers’ rights from 6-8 p.m. Saturday at Colors Restaurant, 311 East Grand River Ave. She will “talk directly with restaurant workers about the struggles they endure receiving the tipped minimum wage,” according to a news release about the event.

My first thought was: where are the other $3 dollars per hour that Leftists are demanding? Why so tight with your wages, Jane Fonda?

After all, Fornicalia Governor Jerry Brown said, about the $15 minimum wage:

Gov. Brown admits $15 minimum wage makes no sense, signs bill anyway

by Eric Boehm

Economically, a $15 minimum wage doesn’t make much sense for many parts of California.

Even Gov. Jerry Brown, who on Monday signed a bill to increase California’s minimum wage to that level, knows that.

In what could go down as one of the most honest moments in political history, Brown told reporters that raising the minimum wage was more about culture and politics than about economics.

Trust me, Brown is in the throes of dementia per my sources. At many times his wife is actually running Fornicalia. Here, perhaps, his true thoughts emerged but for a brief moment.

“Economically, minimum wages may not make sense,” Brown says in a video posted online by the Sacramento Bee newspaper. “But morally, and socially and politically, they make every sense because it binds the community together.”

Right. Binding the community together in economic destitution.

Reaffirming my position that Leftists and Demorats think only of emotions and not facts or reality. Leftists were shedding flecks of enamel from their teeth when they heard this.

Sadly, as Larry Elder has talked about for years, the people most likely hurt by minimum wage laws are blacks in America.

What are the costs of a minimum wage in general? Economist Milton Friedman said this, applicable then as now.

The figures change; consequences do not. Milton Friedman said: “the people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks.”

From BET.com:

Black Teens Are Fired When the Minimum Wage Rises

Two labor economists report that when the minimum wage increases, Black teens suffer disproportionate dismissals.

It is no surprise that Black teens, 16- to 19-years old, are disproportionately unemployed. At the Great Recession’s bottom, African-American teens had an unemployment rate of nearly 50 percent while the rate for all teens was 27.1 percent. In the weak post-Recession, many teens compete for jobs against down-sized adults with college degrees.

And economists William Even from Miami University and David Macpherson from Trinity University report that when a state, or the federal government, increases the minimum wage, Black teens are more likely to be laid off. The duo analyzed 600,000 data points, which the Employment Policies Institute says included “a robust sample of minority young adults unprecedented in previous studies on the minimum wage.”

Why?

A key reason is that many young Blacks hold tenuous, low-skilled positions in the nation’s eating and drinking businesses, such as  fast food restaurants. The researchers report “that nearly one out of three Black young adults without a high school diploma works in the industry.”

There is a caveat.

It is a sector that welcomes their entry, and lauds young Black workers in its ads. But African-American teens working in that highly-competitive industry with its narrow profit margins should know that their job is on shaky ground when the minimum wage rises.

Is there any morality connected to the so-called “minimum” or “working” wage”

Is there any sort of an historical reference to the minimum wage and blacks in any general case? From PanAmPost.com:

US History Shows the Minimum Wage Has Harmed the Black Community

by Grant Phillips

Black teenage unemployment was roughly equal to their white counterparts in 1948, but has since diverged sharply away from whites. The same is true for the labor force participation of black teenagers.

The minimum wage continued to reduce black youth employment from 1940 to 1970, with the racial unemployment gap expanding as a result.

However, during this same period, the racial income gap shrank to it its lowest point. Wage growth for the entire black community — not just black youths — was almost double the subsequent growth from 1970 to 2000.

Let that statistic sink into your brain pan for a moment or three. The terrible trend built by Leftists began rolling in earnest.

While older blacks already in the workforce were less likely to be affected by the new price floor, the minimum wage effectively prevented black teens from gaining work experience, and the necessary skills for future labor. This was exacerbated by an education system rigged by racist government funding mandates, which prevented black teens from building sufficient human capital through schooling.

When this generation of black teens hit their 20s, many of them had no job experience and, because of wage floors, were unable to find employment. Eventually, they exited the workforce entirely.

Until 1970, the labor force participation rates of black males age 20-24 were equal to, and even slightly higher, than whites of a similar age.

Let me repeat and emphasize that last sentence: “Until 1970, the labor force participation rates of black males age 20-24 were equal to, and even slightly higher, than whites of a similar age.” 

How odd that this information flies directly in the face of what Demorats, Leftists and Poverty Pimps tell you.

Unemployment of the same group, which widened after the minimum wage, was 62 percent higher than whites in the same year. By 1980, both measures worsened as blacks exited the labor force in large numbers.

In 1965, the Great Society began to “fight” racial and economic disparity through a number of welfare programs and jobs initiatives that still exist today. These policies were targeted at the poor, and although blacks were continuing to make large economic gains, they disproportionately qualified because they were still the poorest demographic at that time.

LBJ’s “Great Society” was the beginning of the long claw to the bottom for American blacks, instigated by a man who said:

These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.

Or as LBJ is reported to have said to one of his black chauffeurs one day:

As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.

Or one of LBJ’s most famous quotes.

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”

That one seems to have been vastly prescient and accurate to this day. Just ask Dinesh D’Souza.

Unfortunately, the Great Society has had very little impact on the poverty rate, and has completely failed to reduce the socioeconomic disparity between black and white Americans.

Blacks made significant gains in economic prosperity up until the minimum wage and Great Society welfare state; all in spite of lawless government policies. Without these disastrous programs, they would have continued to make productive gains and close the economic gap.

The Cato Institute then asks, at Cato.org:

Why Did FDR’s New Deal Harm Blacks?

by Jim Powell

Good intentions are over-rated. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, for instance, has been hailed for its lofty goals of reforming the American economy and helping the under-privileged. Yet mounting evidence, developed by dozens of economists across the country, shows that the New Deal prolonged joblessness for millions, and black people were especially hard hit.

The flagship of the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery Act, passed in June 1933. It authorized the president to issue executive orders establishing some 700 industrial cartels, which restricted output and forced wages and prices above market levels. The minimum wage regulations made it illegal for employers to hire people who weren’t worth the minimum because they lacked skills. As a result, some 500,000 blacks, particularly in the South, were estimated to have lost their jobs.

That cannot be. Just ask Demorats and Leftists.

Marginal workers, like unskilled blacks, desperately needed an expanding economy to create more jobs. Yet New Deal policies made it harder for employers to hire people. FDR tripled federal taxes between 1933 and 1940. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls discouraged employers from hiring. New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. New Deal antitrust lawsuits harassed some 150 employers and whole industries. Whatever the merits of such policies might have been, it was bizarre to disrupt private sector employment when the median unemployment rate was 17 percent.

Then unions stepped in.

The Wagner Act (1935) harmed blacks by making labor union monopolies legal. Economists Thomas E. Hall and J. David Ferguson explained: “By encouraging unionization, the Wagner Act raised the number of insiders (those with jobs) who had the incentive and ability to exclude outsiders (those without jobs). Once high wages have been negotiated, employers are less likely to hire outsiders, and thus the insiders could protect their own interest.”

Wait. Unions love blacks. Right?

By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped.

Oh stop. Please. We’re told by Leftists and Demorats that unions historically then and now love American blacks. Just as Demorats have historically loved American blacks.

AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.

Uh. Ooops. And I haven’t even addressed the TVA — Tennessee Valley Authority — issue.

What about New Deal spending programs? They were channeled away from the poorest people, including millions of blacks, who lived in the South. These people were already on FDR’s side, so, from a political standpoint, there wasn’t anything for FDR, as an incumbent, to gain by giving them money.

Does this sound like something of a precursor to LBJ by FDR?

If FDR’s New Deal policies weren’t conceived with racist intent, they certainly had racist consequences. Hopefully in the future, more people will try to better understand the often startling, unexpected consequences of government interference with the economy.

You have to ask, though, are wages even the primary issue? From an episode of “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Mike Rowe makes a series of insightful points.

Then, from the Employment Policies Institute, at EPIOnline.org:

Minimum Honesty on Minimum Wage

It tells you all you need to know about the drive to alter New Jersey’s Constitution to hike the minimum wage that the measure’s proponents keep citing a study that was completely discredited more than a decade ago.

Back in 1994, Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger claimed that they’d looked at Garden State fast-food outlets in the wake of the state’s 1992 minimum-wage hike — and found that employment increased relative to similar restaurants in next-door Pennsylvania.

But six years later, the Card & Krueger study was debunked in the same economics journal that originally published it.

Perhaps after a crashing bit of reality set in?

Far from boosting employment, they found, the mandated wage increase in New Jersey decreased employment — just as economic theory would predict.

Sadly, some journalists are also playing this game: In recent months, writers in Bloomberg, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post and The New York Times have also trotted out the study to support their points.

Then Salem Radio’s host Larry Elder weighs in, at the WashingtonExaminer.com:

When left wing economists Gruber and Krugman practiced economics

by Larry Elder

President Obama, in his State of the Union speech, called for a minimum-wage hike and for government-mandated paid family and medical leave.

“We are the only advanced country on Earth,” said the President, “that doesn’t guarantee paid sick leave or paid maternity leave to our workers.” On the minimum wage, Obama issued this challenge: “And to everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”

In 2011 — less than four years ago — Gruber gave an MIT lecture called “Applying Supply and Demand.” About the minimum wage, Gruber said: “Let’s say the government rolled in and set a minimum wage. … Workers want to supply more hours than firms want to hire. … You end up with excess supply. And we call that excess supply ‘unemployment.’ ” He also insisted that a higher minimum wage pressures an employer to turn to automation: “We have a downward sloping demand curve, and why is it downward sloping? Because the higher the wage, the fewer workers the firm wants to hire. It would rather use machines instead.”

Hello Future? Fast food kiosks? Fruit picking machines? Even the Roomba?

Krugman even dismissed Card-Krueger, the widely cited minimum-wage study that purports to show its positive effect. Krugman pretty much dismissed it. “Indeed,” he wrote, “much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages ‘do,’ in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.”

“In short, what the living wage is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality. Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price — determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of apples or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away.”

Are you beginning to see a bit of a recurrent theme throughout the post? Something about the corruptive and deleterious effects of Leftist intrusion into the once-nuclear black family in America?

Cui bono?

BZ

 

 Share

Chicago’s great news: blacks are still shooting blacks

Posted on by

And Rahm Emanuel gets paid no matter who gets killed.

Skin in the game? Nah.

So does Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, et al.

Skin in the game? Nah.

From the ChicagoTribune.com:

29 people shot in less than 18 hours in Chicago

by Elyssa Cherney

In the pouring rain, the 23-year-old man pulled a fur-lined hood over his head and stood on the porch of his younger brother’s home in the Douglas Park neighborhood early Sunday, watching police investigate the city’s first homicide of the weekend.

The man said he heard people arguing and throwing bottles at each other about 2:30 a.m. before the shots rang out. He said he went to check on what was happening three doors down but then stopped, retreated back.

“When I noticed the commotion, I headed the other direction,” he said, as he was getting ready to go to work as a truck driver. “There’s a reason for the rain. Only God knew this was going to happen.”

The fatal shooting of Tywan Anderson, 23, in the 1300 block of South Fairfield Avenue, half a block north of Mount Sinai Hospital, marked the only fatality among 29 people who were shot from Saturday to Sunday morning, officials said. Of the people shot, three were teenagers — ages 14, 15 and 17.

Woo-hoo. In the city with the strictest gun laws in the nation. How well they work. Wait. I have a great idea. Let’s make them even more constrictive. That will solve everything.

Even left-leaning TheAtlantic.com admits Chicago has a serious problem.

The problem is real: 762 people were murdered in Chicago last year, a stunning 58 percent jump in homicides from 2015. So large was the sharp, sudden increase in homicides in one of America’s largest cities that it tangibly raised the entire nation’s homicide rate higher for 2016. But nobody really knows why it’s happening.

Is that true? No one knows why it’s happening?

Even the data on one of the most obvious possible causes—a sudden shift in policing tactics—offers little clarity. Street stops had been in steady decline since early 2014, when they peaked at 80,000 stops per month. By October 2015, they reached 60,000 per month and then plummeted sharply to 10,000 stops by December 2015. At first glance, that would seem to correlate with the sudden surge of in 2016.

What are the reasons? Because, after all, even Time magazine admits violent crime is on the rise in major US cities all through the United States.

Breitbart writes, on the Easter violence in Chicago:

Despite the low death rate, the number of wounded for the holiday weekend has far exceeded that of the last three years.

While the focus has often been misplaced on the police in the Windy City, those killed in confrontations with cops is relatively low. For instance, in 2016, only four of the city’s 717 shooting deaths were at the hands of police. Thus far this year, there have been no police-involved shootings.

[We also know the US DOJ is keeping Americans in the dark about Obama’s release of over 1,700 convicts in the last days of his presidency.]

Why is this problem not solved?

Because it is impolitically correct to focus policing and discipline on one segment or area of a given city. Stop and frisk worked.

Nothing is working now.

Black lives matter?

Don’t make me laugh.

BZ

 

 Share