JUSSIE SMOLLETT – INVERTED JUSTICE

JUSSIE SMOLLETT – INVERTED JUSTICE

Joseph Sullivan 

Warning:  Controversial Content!!!

If you’re a reader who knows me personally or even if you’re only a casual reader of what I’ve written previously... then I hope you know how strongly I believe in the color-blind application of the law.  

But if you’re predisposed (prejudiced) in your belief that only “racists” criticize black people - then I suggest you find something else to read because I can’t reach you and you can’t be reached about this subject…

There’s an element of the Jussie Smollett “case” that is being completely avoided in the mainstream media - even FOXNews dances on “egg-shells” about it…  I won’t…

Indignant politicians and media talking heads complain that Mr. Smollett is receiving kid-glove treatment because he is such a “big important celebrity”.

Oh Really?...

Time and again - in every case, I can recall where the elements of a Liberal metropolitan environment; a black man or woman suspected of criminality and intense national media attention intersect – “INVERTED JUSTICE” is far more likely to result than a color-blind application of the law. What happens instead is the ugly specter of justice turned upside-down when the alleged “wrong-doer” is either freed outright or is otherwise treated more like a victim of crime than as a criminal suspect.  

On the other hand, when white people are involved in confrontations with black criminal suspects - and somehow survive those encounters by defending themselves appropriately - the underlying crime is marginalized and the injury or death of the alleged black criminal suspect is accentuated.

Let’s recall an incident that occurred a few years ago in Ferguson MO. (a suburb of St Louis).  A young black male named Michael Brown was involved in a strong-armed robbery of a convenience store.  A description of the suspect went out over the police radio and he was observed by a white police officer named Darren Wilson in a clearly marked police vehicle.  Before the officer could exit his patrol car a violent encounter began when Michael Brown reached into the driver’s door of the police car and attempted to grab the officer’s handgun.  Brown was subsequently shot by Off. Wilson while Brown was still attempting to take his handgun,  and then again while he stood outside the police car.  This version of events has been borne out by several eye-witness statements including some black witnesses. 

In the days following the shooting, the entire matter of the black suspect’s criminal behavior was minimized - the video evidence of the “gentle giant” man-handling the store clerk at the convenience store robbery was sidelined (if mentioned at all).  

The false narrative of “hands-up - don’t shoot!” was inserted by the group – “Black Lives Matter” so that the appropriate defensive actions taken by Officer Wilson were put on trial before the court of “public opinion” by a clearly tilted local and national mainstream media.  It’s my opinion that “Black Lives Matter” has proven itself to be an anti-police movement whose apparent purpose is to persecute white police officers (and their employing agencies) whenever incidents of violent encounters with black criminal suspects take place.

The mainstream media served-up the false narrative to the exclusion of the real facts of the case - if for no other reason than to turn the criminality of a black suspect into a case of alleged “wrongful death” by an “over-reacting white police officer”.  Riots then resulted until the Governor sent in the Missouri state police and the National Guard to forcefully restore order.

Many similar incidents could also be cited…  Whenever racial factors combine with heavy media attention and racially-driven black activism - black criminal suspects are too often elevated to “high profile” individuals and subsequently given extraordinarily applied “discretion”.  

By the way, Officer Darren Wilson was subsequently fired by the Ferguson Police Department in an effort to calm the stirred-up black community…  How and where he earns a living these days is undisclosed (perhaps as it needs to be)…

And so there it is...  INVERTED JUSTICE!

Because whether it’s a matter of “jury nullification” by a mostly black jury (as in the O.J Simpson murder trial” or the discretionary decision to drop all charges in the Jussie Smollett case  - something very wrong has taken place.

When President Obama’s former Attorney General Eric Holder complained that America was a “nation of cowards” who lacked the courage to have an honest open discussion about race relations.  He never followed-up to bring about that discussion - even though he could have easily done so in his capacity as the Attorney General – partnering with a patronizing mainstream media.

A reasonable conclusion can be drawn that Mr. Holder was either unwilling or unable to present a compelling case on his hypothesis.  So much for his criticism of a phenomenon where “color-blind justice” is so clearly called for.  Or perhaps Mr. Holder holds a latent belief that black people are disproportionately accused and prosecuted and that this justifies the handling of cases like Smollett’s.  This fails to address the obvious factor of disproportionate criminality by black offenders (when compared to the general population) – or the fact that these suspects were subsequently convicted of their crimes.  

At this point, it certainly bears mentioning that while Holder was the Attorney General - an incident occurred involving Black Panthers during the 2008 elections.  Two “New Black Panthers” - Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged with intimidating white voters at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.   Eric Holder’s Department of Justice subsequently refused to bring charges and no explanation was ever offered…  However, Holder later insisted that the DOJ doesn’t consider the race of an alleged victim when deciding which cases to pursue.   

The Smollett case clearly demonstrates an element of “reverse racism” - because Smollett FALSELY accused non-existent whites in an allegation of racial assault and homophobic conduct as well as a FALSE allegation that these imaginary attackers wore MAGA hats (FALSELY tying them to President Trump) – and by extension to Trump’s supporters as well.

The case was professionally investigated by the Chicago Police Dept. and charges were brought by the District Attorney against Smollett alleging that his entire “victimhood” was completely fabricated in every aspect!  

I hold these and other similar cases up as examples of “Inverted Justice” - especially when alleged criminality is so clearly apparent.  What’s more, the element of FALSE claims of racist, homophobic and white-nationalist behavior by imaginary white attackers can have no other purpose than to inflame the black and homosexual communities against President Trump and any white person who supports him.  

So Eric Holder and Kim Foxx deserve to be challenged whenever their claims of color blindness in the application of the law are contrary to the true facts.  Groups like the “New Black Panthers” or “Black Lives Matter” should never be given credibility when they make false and incendiary claims which harden the hearts of blacks and whites and other minorities toward one another.  Doing otherwise damages the cause of JUSTICE itself.   The notion that “racism” is only present in white people – while immunizing blacks and other minorities is ridiculous on its face and insults all human reason, logic, and objectivity.

Justice is never found at the extremes of the legal spectrum - but is best found in the center – where facts and evidence are weighed to prove guilt or innocence.  

Finally, “reverse racism” is still RACISM… Rather than Smollett being nominated by the NAACP for an “Image Award” later this evening - SHAME should drive him from the popular culture and public consciousness... 

Because ultimately – rejection and hatred of the American system of justice will not unite us – but it certainly divides us.

Debunking Two Electoral College Myths

Debunking Two Electoral College Myths

Col Mike Walker, USMC (Ret)

#1. The Electoral College system is all about gaining the broad support of the states.

We formed the United States of America not America.

The union was never envisioned in another way. The key was and remains to keep the states united

To form the union the small states demanded that they be treated equally. 

That led to compromise – the heart and soul of our country.

In the Senate, every state has the same power.

In the House, size matters and big states have more power.

That, in turn, led to the Electoral College (number of representatives + senators).

The country is vast and different and complex and interdependent. To define power entirely by head counts is both narrow-minded and dangerous.

If the only thing that matters is having a large population then divisions are going to rip the nation apart.

#2. The Electoral College did not strengthen the power of the major slave states – it weakened their power both in the Electoral College and in Congress

The key constitutional issue for the major slave states was Article 1.2.3 (the 3/5 count).

The Electoral College system favored the free states because they outnumbered the major slave states giving them more power in the Senate where 2 senators per state nullified the pro-slavery 3/5 rule.

The small states ensured the major slave states gained no unjust advantage in the Senate.

The slaveholding states lost power when the Senate and Electoral College were established.

DEMOCRAT GROUP THINK

Thanks, Mark...

DEMOCRAT GROUP THINK
Joseph Sullivan 

Not so long ago, I received a text from someone I know who can fairly be called a “a rabid Anti-Trumper”.  He is also a lifelong liberal Democrat.  We know one another very well so he clearly knows that I am a Conservative Trump supporter...

And yet - in spite of all that - his text wanted to give me a “heads-up” that some huge decisions were about to be revealed about the “Trump Collusion” case and that some of the Trump team were in very serious legal jeopardy...

I remember thinking how the text conveyed a gleeful expectation that something BIG was coming down within a very short time...

I waited and watched and I’m still waiting...  The text turned out to be a big juicy “nothing burger”...

Now, I’m watching and waiting for another text from him acknowledging his gullibility in buying-into the whole “Russia Collusion” myth...

It isn’t going to happen...  I know it and I know that he does too...

But - like I said - he’s a Liberal Democrat and therefore lacks the ability to face his own shortcomings which he buries beneath his hate for President Trump and - by extension - all of Trump’s supporters as well...

Well... I will gladly serve him up a feast of crow anytime he decides to bring up the subject again...  I can even find him some left-over Koolaid to wash it all down...

Funny how all of the Democrats have turned on Robert Mueller - the guy who was their expected objective “champion” until he published his findings...  Now they want him called before Nadler's committee of political hacks to answer questions about how he must have swept Trump’s “crimes” under the rug...

These people are very sick puppies...  In real time, they are showing us that Liberalism is truly a mental disease.

But we’ve known that all along, haven’t we?...  Stay tuned and stay informed!

Journalism Dies in Self-Importance

Journalism Dies in Self-Importance
As Ted Koppel has recognized, today’s media embrace the darkness of their own biases.
Lance Morrow, City-Journal. 

I suppose it’s true that “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” as the Washington Post’s slogan says. But journalism may also die, by morphing into forms that can no longer be described as journalism. Journalism may come to mean a crooked scandal sheet, or high-minded propaganda. Sometimes squalor and self-righteousness are equally disreputable.

The Post’s apothegm, somehow off-kilter, with its alliteration and self-importance, was a purposeful bit of branding, designed to claim high ground and to poke a thumb in President Trump’s eye every morning. Such partisan intent detracts from the slogan’s claim to universality. The self-serving implication—the notion that, against the Darkness, the Washington Post represents the Light—invites the reader to respond (as readers have always responded to the Chicago Tribune’s slogan, “The World’s Greatest Newspaper”) by muttering, “I’ll be the judge of that, pal.”

The other day, Ted Koppel, a voice from the late-twentieth-century practice of journalism, spoke about what has become of his old business in the age of Trump. “We are not the reservoir of objectivity that I think we were,” Koppel said, in an understatement. The Left always cites Fox News in this regard. He singled out the Washington Post and the New York Times, saying that they have gone overboard in their bias, transforming themselves into anti-Trump advocates. “We are not talking about the Washington Post [or New York Times] of 50 years ago,” Koppel said. “We’re talking about organizations that . . . have decided, as organizations, that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States.”

Both papers have in effect declared a state of emergency because of Trump and have granted themselves the editorial equivalent of dictatorial powers. Doing so may be as ill-advised with newspapers as with elected officials. When journalists don’t consider themselves bound to old norms of objectivity, there comes an absence of restraint that is inherently corrupting. The morning story conference takes on the atmosphere of a rally of zealots. The newspaper becomes the Pequod: President Trump is the white whale.

Koppel made clear that he does not disagree with the verdict that Trump is “bad for the United States.” He means only that the Post and Times abandon their journalistic responsibility when they take sides so blatantly. For one thing, they dismiss the possibility that Trump (who is the elected president, after all) and his followers (who, “deplorable” or not, amount to approximately half of the country) are worth either considering as citizens or understanding as human beings. For progressives, it’s impossible to imagine that Trump and his supporters may actually be right in wanting to save the country from some of the perfections threatened by the left.

The line separating Koppel’s idea of fair journalism and the super-partisan variety practiced now may have been drawn on 9/11, when a certain absolutist and all-is-permitted atmosphere began to coalesce in the American public mind, a sense that old rules could no longer apply. When I started as a reporter years ago—we were known as “reporters,” never by the more pretentious “journalist”—I tried to use an adjective or an adverb now and then, in the wistful hope of making a story, well, colorful. The city editor, with a look of scorn, would ask, “Who do you think you are?” It was not for the reporter to characterize the facts of the story. He was to report them. Facts were sacrosanct—they had a hard-won integrity, an objective existence in the universe. They were to be approached with a certain scruffy reverence. Who was I to attach to them any adverb and adjective that happened to bubble up in my post-adolescent brain?

Today, opinion and dogmatic speculation are the currency of politics and journalism. Facts have become elusive or even unnecessary, except for, say, the body counts at mass shootings. Otherwise, the world is fluid and angry and ideological. Among other things, the new journalism—more theater than journalism, a slugfest of memes—is a lot easier to practice. Much of it, on either side, is little more than noise. 

Lance Morrow, the Henry Grunwald Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was an essayist at Time for many years.

Free Speech Rights

Free Speech Rights
Joe Sullivan

The Socialist Democrats in the freshman class of Congress are stirring the cauldron of Democrat party politics...

Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer are essentially herding cats and they seem to have adopted a posture of “I have to follow them - I’m their leader!”

Typical of Democrats - they are reticent to criticize one of their own - even when “their own” consists of growing numbers and radicals and avowed Socialists.  Omar’s blunt criticism of the long (and strong) ties between the US and Israel is simply “one woman’s opinion”!

Pelosi is conflicted in wanting to support a resolution criticizing a “bigot” in the ranks.  She’s now having to “pay the piper” because she is beholden to the freshman mob whose votes pushed over the line into the job as Speaker.  

So, she is alienating the long-time Congressional Democrats who had to pinch their noses and allow her to be reelected yet again.  Obviously, there are other Dems who could do the job...

But Omar has the right to disapprove of US policy re: Israel.  Her background and personal beliefs would hardly suggest otherwise...  She is certainly not the first member of Congress to “criticize US foreign policy”... hardly!

So, Conservatives should reflect on the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association.  Omar was elected from her largely Muslim district.

Her remarks are therefore reflective of her ideology...  So What?

Strong disagreement with her statements is obviously in-bounds.  But any effort to stifle her free speech rights and/or remove her from the Foreign Relations Committee is simply “un-American”.

The media is turning a spotlight on the Democrat freshmen radicals and reasonable Americans can form their own conclusions...

Because either we have a Bill of Rights or we don’t.

I say - Let ‘em talk!  Put them in the media spotlight!  

That’s how I see it... 

VDH: THE CASE FOR TRUMP

VDH: THE CASE FOR TRUMP

Scott Johnson, Powerline

I invited our friend Victor Davis Hanson to write something for Power Line readers about his book The Case for Trump, out officially today. He has obliged us with this synopsis:

I have never met Trump. I don’t know his close friends and aides. In lieu of any insider information, I wanted to offer a sort of Thucydidean account, neither rah-rah in support or unhinged in hatred, of why the country by 2016 was ready for an unlikely Manhattan billionaire populist candidate without either prior military or political experience. 

More specially, I explore in the book how Trump crafted a brilliant but unorthodox political-geographic agenda to win the Electoral College—concentrating on restoring manufacturing, demanding trade symmetries with allies and rivals, curtailing optional overseas interventions, advocating legal only immigration, and no longer playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules toward the Democrats and the media. 

So Trump’s message defied the conventional political wisdom of both the Republican and Democratic establishments in his faith that the so-called deplorables were neither yet a spent force electorally nor entirely responsible for often being left behind by the bicoastal, globalization-fed new affluence. Sixteen rival Republican primary candidates—the most impressive field the GOP had fielded in years—along with Hillary Clinton missed those truths.

In response to Trump’s message and his role as a tough and occasionally crass messenger, we have seen an unprecedented effort — often unethical and illegal — by the proverbial deep state, political opposition, and media to abort a campaign and later a presidency. Much of the intense opposition was fueled by politics, but not all of it, given the cultural unease our elites feel toward Trump’s personal history and comportment. 

The ongoing Mueller inquisition, the tragicomical McCabe-Rosenstein palace coup, and the Michael Cohen circus were only the most recent episodes intended to remove or destroy Trump. These follow lawsuits over the voting machines, the early introduction of articles of impeachment, the Logan Act gambit, the Emoluments Clause nonsense and a celebrity cult of assassination chic, in which there was fierce competition among celebrities to voice the most creative and often grotesque way of killing Trump.

And yet, despite the negative mainstream narrative, the president’s lack of prior political experience and the usual pool of Washington revolving-door experts, the Trump economy is soaring. The US is renegotiating more equitable relationships with the EU, NATO, NAFTA, and the Chinese. We are now the world’s largest oil and gas producer. Conservative judges and justices are being confirmed in near record numbers. Minority unemployment is down, working class wages are up, and interest rates and inflation are moderate. Only the crushing national debt and out of control annual deficits loom as existential economic threats and must be addressed.

Abroad, the flawed Iran Deal is gone as is the empty Paris Climate Accord. Trump has made progress in stopping the nuclear and missile testing by North Korea, while China finally has been put on notice that its trajectory to world dominance is not foreordained and is now actively contested.

Trump’s transparent Art of the Deal negotiating is often as successful as it is mocked. NATO allies are committed to investing more in defense and our Asian allies are gaining comfort that a loose resistance to Chinese bullying is forming.

In some sense, Trump is playing the role of the tragic hero, reminiscent of the Western hired gun like Shane or Ethan Edwards in The Searchers. He recalls the Sophoclean Ajax, whose unorthodox means are temporarily put to the good ends of solving intractable problems, but who suffers the paradox, like all tragic heroes (and they are not always modest or predictable), that successful problem-solving allows his once beleaguered beneficiaries the luxury of setting aside the crude style and means of the man who has just saved the day. 

And finally I point out that Trump does not exist in a vacuum. In 2016 he was the Never Hillary candidate for millions, and in 2020 he may be seen by even independents and former Never Trumpers as the only thing between them and socialism.