NFL Black Liberal: Just Because I Get Paid $10 Million A Year Doesn’t Mean I’m Not A Slave

This appears to be an argument that no amount of sanity or reason can possibly win.  Because it doesn’t matter how fairly you treat a black person, or how much you pay them, you are simply defined in terms of being on the wrong side of slavery.

Adrian Peterson: NFL Like ‘Modern Day Slavery’
First Posted: 03/15/11 02:19 PM Updated: 03/15/11 02:24 PM

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson made some controversial comments about the NFL labor situation in an interview with Doug Farrar of Yahoo’s Shutdown Corner. The interview was conducted just before the NFLPA decertified.

“It’s modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money,” Peterson continued. “The owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money.”

Farrar took out the quote shortly after publishing. He tweeted that he wanted to give Peterson an opportunity to explain. Farrar described the comment as “a real misstep.”

When asked about the owners not showing their financial information, Peterson suggested that they are hiding something.

“Well, show us.’ We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want. If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information,” the 25-year-old said. “Why not? Obviously, there’s a lot to hide — these guys are professionals, and they’re maximizing what they do.”

You can read the entire interview here.

This is a mindset that is so committed to an ideology of victimization that it becomes incapable of any form of personal self-introspection whatsoever.  It is immune to fact, to logic, to criticism or to the fact that it is quintessentially hypocritical.

What you end up with is people with giant chips on their shoulders and chutzpah the size of Jupiter.

I have no idea how many black people think the way Adrian Peterson thinks (i.e., that life is one big entitlement and that they can invoke the ghost of slavery to get what they want whenever they want it).

I have had the honor of knowing a few black people who were very, very elderly (in one case over a hundred years old!).  And I heard them tell their stories.  The thing was, I knew the eras they had lived through; and I knew from their stories where they had lived (e.g., Mississippi).  So I knew as they told their stories that they had without any question suffered real racism. 

The kind of racism that an Adrian Peterson has never begun to experience in his entire self-centered, self-absorbed life.

And the thing that most impressed me as I heard these several stories from these great elderly black men was how sweet they were.  There was no bitterness in their souls, because they had always sought the best in people, and found it often.  Even in white people.  And when (not if) they were abused by one white person, they chose instead to focus on the kindness and graciousness of another white person instead.  And they were the  kind of people who made the best of their world, and enjoyed their lives, and fixated on what was good and kind and decent instead of what was hateful and bigoted and cruel.

Another thing that characterized them was their sense of personal responsibility and drive.  They didn’t wait around for handouts, because they knew there wouldn’t be any handouts.

This crap –

“I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car.  I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.  If I help him, I know he’s gonna help me.”

– and this crap –

ROGULSKI:Why are you here?
Woman: To get some money.
ROGULSKI: What kind of Money?
Woman: Obama money.
ROGULSKI: Where’s it comin’ from?
Woman: Obama.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it from?
WOMAN: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. I don’t know where he got it from, but he’s givin’ it to us. And we love him. That’s why we voted for him. O-ba-ma. O-ba-ma.

– was just alien to their thinking.

It is that perversion, that degeneration of what used to be a proud spirit but which has been corrupted into something pathetic, that Anne Wortham so eloquently denounced.

This is the new black community:

DAYTON — The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.

It’s a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.    

Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees.  The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test. 

Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%.  That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

 “It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane.  “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.”

“The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,” agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward.

That local NAACP president is “old school.”  He was told to shut the hell up by his national leaders, who have since loudly defended flunking police officers, as long as those flunking police officers are black.

Something has happened to the black community at large.  And it isn’t good.

Many black people in America today are the descendants of slaves.  Those slaves were involuntarily forced into their slavery, and dreamed of freedom for themselves and for their children.  And yet today, their descendents have to a shocking degree and extent willingly placed themselves in the relationship of dependents waiting for their handouts.  I quote myself:

Democrats were the party of slavery, and the party of the Klu Klux Klan (and see the link here for a thorough treatment).  They were the party of the Klanbake at the 1924 Democrat National Convention.

But at some point, the Democrat Party began to morph into the party of the immediate post-civil war reconstruction, when elitist whites decided that ignorant, inferior blacks couldn’t do anything for themselves.  They needed whites to lead them.

They went from being the Confederate Party of institutionalized slavery to the Union Party of the white benefactor, as epitomized by the words of the Colonel James Montgomery character in the movie Glory:

“They’re little monkey children, for God’s sake. And you just gotta know how to control them.”

Good little monkey child.  Keep voting for us and we’ll keep handing out bananas.

Charles Payne – a man I genuinely admire and respect – had this to say about his black community in a powerful discussion:

“I believe a lot of this goes back to when black Americans accepted this liberal premiss that we’re not accountable for anything; that because we’re descendants from slaves, that you know, ‘it’s OK, it’s not your fault, you’re a victim’ – and they’ve created this sort of pool… you  know it’s not just a physical ghetto I’m talking about but a mental, sort of barrier.

“Where, you see, OK Michael Vick is a victim of the justice system, not a person who committed a crime. That mentality is pervasive. You see it over and over, and it’s fed to us and it’s fed to us, and it’s fed to us – and we accept it. We take it.

“And at the end of the day what we’re getting for it: we wait for our welfare checks. We wait for it – people wait for it like ‘I wait for my check,’ like it’s something I worked for. And it has taken away everything; everything that God gave us innately – you know, when you put two people on an island they’re going to have certain things innately; they’re going to have the desire to survive, to thrive, to do better – all that is suppressed in our community. And what’s left is this sort of squalor.”

I don’t doubt that I’m going to get called a “racist” for writing this piece.  I’m fine with that, because I know my own heart, and the hateful opinions of bitter, malicious race-bating demagogues doesn’t mean squat to me.  I want to see black people lift themselves up and get respect because they EARNED respect.

The government is running out of other people’s money, which Margaret Thatcher famously said was the singular inevitable problem of socialism.  And there’s a massive reckoning coming. 

We have seen the total abysmal failure of welfare to foster an environment of anything other than more and more generational failure: a permanent dependent class waiting for their government handouts.  Handouts don’t work at creating work; it is simply a fact no matter how you slice it.

Under Obama, we have seen a shocking failure in the ability of government to take care of the poor.  Which means that the poor had damn well better learn to start taking care of themselves.  But I have literally come to believe that black leaders want their people to be totally unprepared to take care of themselves 1) so they continue to be slavishly dependent on these selfsame failed leaders; and 2) so that when their black community begins to suffer the fruits of generations of stupid and immoral decisions from their failed leaders, they can decry how evil “conservative” “whitey” is and demagogue their way to continued power.

Even Jesse Jackson once questioned the abortion-on-demand liberal mindset that he predicted would one day lead to hell on earth.  That was back in 1977 when the man may have had a shred of personal honor and decency.  Today, with the assistance of black leaders like Jesse Jackson, three out of every five black babies are murdered by their mothers in the womb.  Which amounts to a self-genocide of massive and evil proportions.

But instead of trying to do that, we just hear more and more demands from the left for the rich to have their wealth seized by the government and redistributed to the poor.

There’s a massive problem with that – especially for black liberals who decry slavery.  I write about this despicable hypocrisy in an article titled “Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn.”  Basically that problem is that, in order to maintain this belief, one has to believe that the government very literally owns everything that its citizens earn or build, and then allows its citizens to keep some of that wealth and seizes the rest to give it away to others who did not earn it.  Which is to say that you have a shocking number of black people saying today that the government de facto owns people and owns their labor and owns the fruit of that labor.  And ought to be able to take it away from the producers as it wills in order to hand it out to someone else.

And for all that millionaire Adrian Peterson decries the NFL that made him a rich man, THAT is what slavery is.

Too many blacks have joined too many liberals in demanding that rich people pay their fair share.  But these poeple are paying massively more than their fair share, while nearly half of the country pay no federal income taxes at all.  Meanwhile, those who pay nothing demand more and more from those who are already paying everything.  That is not only sick, it is depraved.

About 13% of American citizens are black, according to the census data.  That is a large enough number that this country cannot succeed if African-Americans are anchors weighing us down rather than angels lifting us up.  But they have been anchors for a generation, and seem determined to continue to be anchors.  When 13% of the population is determined that the other 87% owes them something, and when you have one of the two major political parties cynically demagoguing that bitterness – the result is bad for everyone.

I myself am a disabled veteran.  And for a while I had the idea that everyone owed me for my sacrifice.  I was particularly bitter that my disability had significantly worsened due to inadequate treatment.  One day I realized that I could continue to keep thinking that way, and continue to wait for someone else to give me what I thought I deserved, or I could actually take personal responsibility for myself and improve my own lot in life.  Fortunately, I chose the latter path for myself.  But that is a reckoning that the black community will tragically never have as long as they listen to the demagogues in their communities and in the Democrat Party.

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

We keep hearing people who claim that the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070) is “unconstitutional.”  But it keeps turning out that those who are decrying it on the mainstream media haven’t actually bothered to even read the law.

Well, the Arizona law is ever bit as “constitutional” as the federal law – considering it basically IS the federal law with even more limitations added to it.

Oh, you’ve got the crowd that says that a state can’t protect its own citizens.  The fact that the federal government has refused to do its job and protect Arizona from illegal immigrants for the last 25 years means nothing.  Let an out-of-control situation continue for ANOTHER 25 years, such people say.

Well, baloney, say three law professors who did something that AG Eric Holder and most liberals have refused to do – and actually bothered to read the law before demonizing it:

REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
By EDWARD SIFUENTES  May 13, 2010 7:44 pm

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors.

However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.

The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on UC San Diego’s campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.

Arizona’s law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person’s immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.

Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.

Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

“I don’t see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy,” Alexander said.

Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.

Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government’s failure to secure the border.

In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.

“The problem is the application of the law,” said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. “On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race.”

Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally.

The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.

“Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course,” he said. “Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional.”

The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person’s immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person’s status.

Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person’s apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.

Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.

“I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced,” Schwarzschild said. “But it certainly doesn’t, on its face.”

CORRECTION: Law professors incorrectly identified

The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the three law professors who took part taught at UC San Diego. They teach at the University of San Diego School of Law.

We apologize.

In any event, ANY law enforcement officer can abuse ANY law.  If the left wants to abolish this law because a police officer could conceivably abuse it, let’s abolish all laws and have total anarchy instead.

We get to the root of the real issue: the people who are protesting this anti-immigration law are not doing it because it’s “unconstitutional,” but rather because they are opposed to any form of action to deal with the soaring and searing crisis of illegal immigration.  They are open borders fanatics; they are leftwing ideologues who want illegal immigrants from Mexico to be able to undermine the vote of legitimate citizens and impose the next failed socialist Utopia.

They don’t want the United States to do ANYTHING to control our borders.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  If there’s something wrong with it, then cite the relevant passage in your argument.  Don’t give me any of your bogus penumbras and emanations in which you gaze into a crystal ball and find things that aren’t even there simply because you want to see them.

Otherwise, let’s have less complaining, and more shutting the hell up.

Obama Reveals His Porkulus Was Bogus In His Own Bogus Claims

Pardon my language, but the Obama stimulus bill was crap.  It hasn’t produced squat.  It was a gigantic $3.27 trillion socialist spending giveaway that has rightly been called “the Generational Theft Act of 2009.”

First we had Barack Obama, then Joe Biden, falsely claiming that they had the porkulus plan had created or “saved” 150,000 jobs.  There is no proof that any such number of jobs have been created (the figure is actually merely an estimate of what Obama’s own economic advisers say they think the stimulus bill is doing, and not based on any evidence whatsoever of its actual effects).  And for what it’s worth, I can claim that I “saved” 150,000 jobs – and you just try to prove that I didn’t.

Any rational human being has to mock Obama for claiming he “created or saved” jobs.  The national media would NEVER have allowed George Bush to get away with such pinheaded partisan polemics.  By contrast, the mainstream media wouldn’t even allow Bush to claim he kept America safe in spite of the obvious fact that he clearly did.  Even five years after 9/11, fully two-thirds of New Yorkers said they were still “very concerned” about another terrorist attack on the city.  Everybody thought we’d be attacked by terrorists again.  Bush kept the American people safe by carrying the fight to the enemy on foreign soil.  Yet the media that has blithely allowed Obama to claim he “saved” jobs has bitterly resisted allowing Bush to claim he “saved” lives.

Obama’s arguments that the stimulus worked have increasingly come to sound like Hitler’s claims that the invasion of the Soviet Union worked.

Among other problems is the fact that only 3% of the stimulus funds have been actually spent so far, which precludes it as a factor in any discussion of “economic recovery.”  Particularly when the states and regions that were hardest hit by the bad economic conditions didn’t even get any money.  And please don’t forget that conservative predicted that the funds wouldn’t go out fast enough to make any difference in any short-term economic recovery, and complained that the people weren’t given enough time to pass a better bill.  Congressional Democrats didn’t even read the bill that they rushed through the process.

Obama’s own rhetoric proves how terribly flawed his arguments and ideas were.

Obama promised Caterpillar workers in Peoria, Illinois that laid-off workers would be rehired if his “Death to America Act” (aka his stimulus bill) passed.   Not only was that a complete fabrication, but 2,400 additional workers have been laid off since the passage of porkulus.

But now there’s an even BIGGER bogus ‘Bama baloney claim that has been utterly refuted by actual reality.  In a March 7 speech in Columbus, Ohio, Obama said the following:

Now there were those — there were those who argued that our recovery plan was unwise and unnecessary. They opposed the very notion that government has a role in ending the cycle of job loss at the heart of this recession. There are those who believe that all we can do is repeat the very same policies that led us here in the first place. […]

So for those who still doubt the wisdom of our recovery plan, I ask them to talk to the teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan. I ask them to talk to the nurses who are still able to care for our sick, and the firefighters and first responders who will still be able to keep our communities safe. I ask them to come to Ohio and meet the 25 men and women who will soon be protecting the streets of Columbus because we passed this plan. (Applause.) I look at these young men and women, I look into their eyes and I see their badges today and I know we did the right thing.

These jobs and the jobs of so many other police officers and teachers and firefighters all across Ohio will now be saved because of this recovery plan -– a plan that will also create jobs in every corner of this state. Last week, we announced that Ohio would receive $128 million that will put people to work renovating and rebuilding affordable housing. (Applause.) On Tuesday — on Tuesday I announced that we’d be sending another $935 million to Ohio that will create jobs rebuilding our roads, our bridges, and our highways. (Applause.) And yesterday, Vice President Biden announced $180 million for this state that will go towards expanding mass transit and buying fuel-efficient buses -– money that will be putting people to work, getting people to work. (Applause.)

Altogether, this recovery plan will save and create over three and a half million American jobs over the next two years.

Well, what has happened since the applause lines?  What has happened since the Teleprompter of the United States was packed up and hauled away?

The AP article covering the event noted that Obama “suggested that critics talk to 25 police recruits in Ohio’s capital city who owe their jobs to stimulus spending and ‘talk to the teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan.’”  It also described how “Obama touted the 114th police recruit class as proof that the stimulus plan, which drew scant Republican support in Congress, is paying dividends.”

That article also presented the Republican prediction that the stimulus would be a failure, and why it would be a failure.  The very last sentence in the article says:

Breann Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for Rep. Pat Tiberi, one of eight Ohio Republicans who voted against the stimulus, noted that the money that saved the recruits’ jobs will run out next year. [Columbus Mayor] Coleman hasn’t said how he’ll pay the officers’ salaries after that.

Look what has happened since:

Without tax increase, 300 police officers to be laid off
By Robert Vitale  May 26, 2009   THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Nearly 300 Columbus police officers – 17 percent of the force – will be laid off next year if voters don’t approve an income-tax increase on Aug. 4, Columbus Police Chief Walter Distelzweig said this morning.

“If we receive additional revenue, these cuts would not be made,” Distelzweig said.

The 2010 budget plan he unveiled this morning is based on revenue projections without the proposed tax increase. The Police Division would shrink by 324 officers, with 297 layoffs and 27 retirements, according to the chief.

If the cuts happen, the division would have fewer officers than in any year since 1993. Columbus had 91,000 fewer residents then.

Potential layoffs would affect the 25 recruits whose class was saved by federal stimulus money this year. Officers hired during the past four years likely would lose their jobs, Distelzweig said.

And I’d be willing to bet the jobs of all the firefighters and nurses and teachers Obama talked all that smack about are in the same boat.

In other words, Obama created 25 jobs and saved about 300 others – until they were told to expect their pink slips less than 3 months later.  And it only cost $3.27 trillion dollars.  There’s your tax dollars at work.

How is it that jobs that have already been “saved” by Obama’s gargantuan stimulus plan now have to be “saved” again by a massive state tax increase?

About the only jobs that are being created by porkulus seem to be making the road signs that falsely advertise currently nonexistent construction projects.

We’ve also learned the poor are getting poorer under Obama’s “stimulus.”

Obama’s stimulus was based on bogus and failed economic theory that won’t work.  The President of the European Union has called Obama’s plan “the road to hell” and argued that it “will undermine the stability of the global financial market.”  China’s Director General of the Chinese Banking Regulatory Commission has expressed fear that Obama would
“devalue not only your [US] currency but the currencies throughout the world.”  Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned Obama about his country’s own failed experiment with socialism and urged against “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence.” And “analysts are increasingly concerned about the Treasury’s ability to fund costly economic rescue measures that are expected to drive this year’s budget deficit to $1.75 trillion.”

Don’t take my word for it that the stimulus was the gargantuan fraud that Republicans claimed it would be; just look at what Obama promised would happen, versus what actually HAS happened.