* But for the wrong reasons.
Stop the presses!  There is a young black woman spilling the beans on how racist the Demorats and, specifically, the Clintons truly are?

That the Demorats and, specifically, the Clintons profit from keeping black people down?

Yes, stop those presses.

Because someone is telling the truth and that is such a rarity in today’s American Media Maggot industry.

From TheNation.com:

Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote

by Michelle Alexander

From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.

Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.

Wait.  Is there actually a young black female who sees through the Hillary Clinton pandering-to-blacks-bullshit — as exemplified, for instance, with her condescending “accent” here in a black church?

People see what they want to see, and for too long blacks have seen “goodness” in the Clintons, when there really isn’t anything present in the Clintons save that of self-enrichment.

According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that we—black people—are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.

And it seems we’re eager to get played. Again.

Ah, finally an American journalist “gets it.”  Because mostly the American Media Maggots, lapdogs for the Clintons and Leftists, don’t want to “get it.”

From the Clinton saxophone on Arsenio Hall to the “our first black president” quote, the Clintons have curried black votes.  And mostly gotten them.

What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?

No. Quite the opposite.

Uh oh.  This might not be good.  For the Clintons.

Alexander asks: if the time under Bill Clinton was good for the Clintons and supposedly for America, what was it like for blacks?

Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on Drugs—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.

Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”

And that is how Alexander’s slant is now revealed.  The Three Strikes law federally and in many state governments was largely responsible for the reduction of crime in the mid-to-late 90s and early 2000s.  The streets were calmer, safer, violent crime was down and New York under Giuliani was the safest it had been in at least two decades.

Demorats made crime their issue because, for a few years, Bill Clinton waltzed about in a brief fog of clarity and resolution.  He was always a much more insightful politician than Hillary ever was or will be.

Uh-oh; looks like Bill Clinton pissed off Alexander.  Because, in her estimation, Bill wrapped blacks in the Clinton cloak of betrayal because he did something about crime.  Alexander writes:

All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”

Taking a hard look at this recent past is about more than just a choice between two candidates. It’s about whether the Democratic Party can finally reckon with what its policies have done to African-American communities, and whether it can redeem itself and rightly earn the loyalty of black voters.

Oh the shame!  Oh the breast-beating!  Oh the abject treachery!  Crime down, criminals arrested!

An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.

Really, Alexander?  The truth is, the 90s were when more educated and qualified minorities were hired for law enforcement than at any other time in US history.  My department hired more blacks, more Asians, more hispanics than at any time, more than Caucasoids.  How do I know this?  Because I worked backgrounds, doing checks on potential recruits for our academies.  Further, these new black, Asian, hispanic and female graduates were placed, after graduation, directly into plumb assignments with little or no street experience in order to be more “progressive.”  Ahead of Caucasoids males, of course.

That’s how we got Rampart, for example, you see.  Because behind the scenes law enforcement and other businesses were lowering their standards.  How do I know?  Because I watched it.  I helped do the hiring and was involved in the academy training.  I knew how tests and evaluations were jury-rigged because the department wanted to be “more diverse.”  All over.

Now, demographically in Fornicalia, the minorities are the Caucasoids.

So stop with the whining, Alexander.  What you’re saying is that, for a time, because it was politically expeditious and the public was tired of being shot and raped and murdered and robbed — INCLUDING BLACKS — steps were taken to reduce crime.  And guess what?  It worked.

But in a way Alexander is quite correct.  The Demorats haven’t done blacks any favors for not just years, but decades.  Bill and Hillary were just a small portion of the destruction.  The greatest destruction came about when Demorats decided to pay young black women to keep fathers away from the once-nuclear black family, resulting in a corrosive black culture and the utter breakdown of the black family, a breakdown that continues today.

Crime is trending up, for the multiple reasons I delineated here.  But let’s not just delude ourselves about Moar Free Cheese as Alexander wishes.  Let’s point out that today blacks comprise 13% of the US population but commit 37% of all US murders.  Let’s call that disproportional, shall we?  It is also a fact — all of the above by way of FBI statistics — that 90% of black murders are committed by blacks. Let’s call that also by what it is: startlingly disproportional.  But truthful.

Nice try, Alexander, but I happen to be older than you and lived through those times.  I know what happened and I have the societal results to prove it.

Interesting concepts; wrong reasons.

BZ