Monday, September 02, 2013

Spokane Police Chief Really DOES Blame (White) (Octogenarian) (WW II Vet) Murder Victim

This week’s broadcast revisits the August 21st  killing of 88-year-old Delbert Belton in Spokane, Washington. Mr. Belton was a combat veteran of the Battle of Okinawa, back in WW2. He was beaten to death by two black teenagers in the parking lot of his pool club.

And who was at fault in this dreadful incident?  Well, first of all, we were:  you, me, and everybody else, though I guess mostly the inhabitants of Spokane.  That is according to Spokane Police Chief Frank Straub, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, August 26th. They quote Chief Straub as follows:

“One of these individuals was pretty much a standout basketball player—and because nobody wrapped their arms around him, nobody cared enough about him, he's now going to face murder and robbery charges.  And, probably, he's looking at the rest of his life being significantly affected—if not destroyed—by this.”

End quote.  Poor little chap!  Doesn’t your heart go out?  And it’s our fault for not having wrapped our arms around him!  As the great Dr. Heinz Kiosk used to say: “We are all guilty!”

Some of us are more guilty than others, though.  Chief Straub singles out one person for particular blame: Delbert Belton.  Quote from the Chief:

“Our information is that the individual fought back—and that may have made this a worse situation.”

I wonder if Mr. Belton having fought back against the Imperial Japanese forces on Okinawa made that a worse situation?  Whaddya think, Chief Straub, over there on the West Coast?  Or would you prefer the question in Japanese?
Just reading over that again, my eye stopped on the phrase “significantly affected.”  I can’t quite pin down why, but somehow the entire current state of Western Civilization is encapsulated in that weasel phrase “significantly affected.”

I only wish the lives of these two perps could be as significantly affected by the criminal justice system as Mr. Belton’s life was by his encounter with them.

And shame, shame, shame on the people of Spokane for having themselves a sniveling invertebrate like Frank Straub in charge of their city’s law enforcement. 


British Council locked park gates to keep out gypsies ... then let them in anyway because of elf 'n' safety

After problems with travellers trying to set themselves up in a public park over the summer, a council took the step of locking the main gates to keep them out.

But, as a fresh convoy of 30 caravans arrived, such common sense was clearly no match for the warped logic of health and safety.

Astonishingly, officials decided to unlock the vehicle access gate – because they were worried the intruders might hurt themselves during their efforts to get in.

The travellers duly made themselves at home – and because the council voluntarily let them in, police have lost all powers to evict them.

Taxpayers will instead now have to fund a lengthy civil court battle to throw out the intruders from Wild Park, on the outskirts of Brighton.

The farce emerged in a leaked confidential email by Brighton and Hove Council to councillors. It said: ‘After the initial trespass was reported, Sussex Police highlighted the dangerous nature with which the group were accessing the field.

‘As such a decision was taken to open the access gate to reduce the risk to road users and to stop the occupants from crossing the pavement to access the road.’

Local residents say they are now unable to use the park, Brighton and Hove’s largest local nature reserve, and fear it could become ‘a new Dale Farm’, the illegal Essex camp of 1,000 travellers which cost millions of pounds to break up.

At the start of the summer, the council padlocked the gates to Wild Park after itinerants had to be removed. About 30 caravans arrived and the travellers, determined to gain access, repeatedly drove over pavements and mounds designed as obstructions.

It was then, last week, that the Green Party-led council decided to open the gates to reduce risk to the public and the travellers themselves. More than 30 caravans are now camped on the land, with more feared over the weekend.

Inspector Bill Whitehead of Sussex Police said if the gates had remained locked, any travellers could have been evicted immediately because they would have been committing an offence under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. But because the council had let them in, the section no longer applies.

Tory councillor Dawn Barnett said last night: ‘The council is mad. They have opened the flood gates. The kids who live nearby can’t play in the park any more because it’s not safe. I am terrified it may turn into another Dale Farm.’

One traveller, 60-year-old Mary Long, said: ‘We have been to this site before. They haven’t opened the gate for us before but they did on Tuesday. The council here are helpful.’

A council spokesman said: ‘The council has initiated legal proceedings to evict the travellers.’



A Discussion On Race, Crime And The Inconvenient Facts

What of that larger race relations issue? It took zero lag-time after the original Trayvon Martin incident for race baiters such as Al Sharpton to accuse our country of engendering a climate of racist danger for black citizens.

This qualifies as anti-American slander of the first magnitude because the facts are to the contrary — if anyone still cares to know them.

But is there not an established tendency for blacks to be victims of interracial violence in the United States? Hasn't that been the recent media message? Message, yes; truth, no. Here are the suppressed and inconvenient facts:

About 90% of interracial violent crime in our nation is committed by blacks against whites. The black-on-white murder rate in the U.S. exceeds the white-on-black rate by about 2.5-to-1.  The black-on-white assault and battery rate exceeds the corresponding white-on-black rate in this country by at least 10-to-1.

I would rather not report what is known about U.S. interracial rape statistics because it could be taken as incendiary, but the previous numbers in terms of black/white proclivity are dwarfed. (See Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the United States, "Victims and Offenders.")

OK, here's a hint: Because the number of white-on-black rapes is so low nationally in any given year, the ratio ranges from 100-to-1 to infinity. Liberal, politically correct feminists need to reflect on that one.

If these interracial crime ratios were randomly based, they would be uniform — that is, 1-to-1 — for the two racial groups. In other words, the population with six times as many potential victims also has six times the pool of perpetrators, so the effect of that disproportion should be perfectly offsetting arithmetically.

Yes, the relative crime stats would be moderated if adjusted for socioeconomic status (from astronomical to merely stratospheric), but by no means inverted.

The baseline conclusion is straightforward, even if surprising to readers who are victims themselves — victims of racial and racist propaganda. The hysterical public mantra of epidemic white-on-black violence is thus exposed as fraud.

One must ask why more observers have not noticed all this. Instead, we see Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, the New Black Panthers and even Barack Obama rushing to judgment in the Martin—Zimmerman matter and forming their own rabid mob, almost literally, to impose vigilante vengeance upon Zimmerman.

Ironic? Worse than that: By applying a false racial stereotype to Zimmerman and the nation, this gallery of demagogues has committed an objective act of racism, revealing themselves to be the real bigots. Care to guess why they did not react the same way to the O. J. Simpson acquittal?

Let the record show that for the past 40 years or so, the only legally sanctioned racial discrimination in the U.S. has been in favor of blacks (and some other minorities), against whites.

When codified as so-called affirmative action, this was the first time in world history that an ethnic majority group intentionally disadvantaged itself to benefit another, purely out of a sense of justice (sometimes derided as “liberal guilt"). Some gratitude, indeed, on the part of the beneficiaries.

To those who complain that less value is attached to black lives in this country, as the post-Martin demagogy alleged, please ponder the national outcry over one fatality in that incident — even though Martin was hardly an innocent bystander.

Compare that fervid reaction with the lack of attention given the multitude of white citizens murdered by blacks year after year. Get real. How decent of Jesse Jackson, though, to “frown upon" the interracial hate murder of an Australian college kid in Oklahoma.

Among the pernicious aspects of our unnecessarily racialized atmosphere, one looms conspicuously: Why have the New Black Panther leaders not been arrested and prosecuted for their publicly announced bounty on Zimmerman — "dead or alive"?

Such incitement is a federal crime. Curiously, the Black Panthers have been very sanguine about this potential legal jeopardy. Why? Might they know that they have a patron in the administration?

Or perhaps they have heard that the Obama Justice Department has an official policy of prosecuting white-on-black offenses but not black-on-white. That its application is limited so far to voter suppression cases may be a nuance lost on the Panthers.

In fact, it may have been lost, period. Nonprosecution of the Black Panther bounty seems to reveal that the Obama administration's overtly racist policy does now apply more generally.

Obama could have been a racial healer, but instead chose to be a crude, petty agitator — true to form. What he has been doing, transparently, is fomenting racial division in order to stoke his racial base in a way that has already turned violent in some instances.

It is a new low in American politics that a presidential candidate, let alone a sitting president, even has a racial base.

Attorney General Holder has demanded that Americans have the courage to address the subject of race. I'm an American and the issue here, regrettably, is race. Is this enough courage for you, attorney general?

I trust you appreciate my commentary. It embodies the true anti-racist spirit of fundamental indifference to race — the way it should be a la the M.L. King ideal, which you and your boss seem to have misplaced. In fact, it grows tedious to even use the words "white," "black" and "race" so often.

My purpose, if not already obvious: Many in our country are troubled by a propaganda-induced misperception about white-on-black violence. I hope this revelation of the real record provides them relief. Perhaps broader awareness of the contrary facts I report will contribute to national healing.

Yes, isn't it great news that the true condition in the U.S. is epidemic black-on-white racial violence? Not quite, but recognition of the truth can at least serve as a starting point for understanding.


Australia: The enemy within NSW child protection

Social workers ideologically opposed to adoption are the real problem

The NSW Minister for Community Services, Pru Goward, is under pressure to resign for allegedly misleading the parliament, the public and the media about the number of child protection caseworker in the state.

The Minister's office had said that 'more than 2000' caseworkers were employed by the Family and Community Services Department when in fact 300 less than budgeted (around 1800) were employed.

This followed reports that only a quarter of children reported to be at significant risk of harm were seen by a caseworker to check on their welfare.

Departmental workers took industrial action last week in protest and to demand that vacancies be filled. There is more to this than the standard public sector union attempt to boost membership numbers.

The strike – together with the confected outrage over staffing levels – is part of a political campaign designed to discredit a Minister determined to change the NSW child protection system.

The shortage of caseworkers (a perennial problem under both Labor and Liberal administrations) is superficially significant. Even 300 more staff is unlikely to significantly dent the number of children who caseworkers never see.

The opposition is calling for the minister's head even though the 2008 Wood Commission established that under the previous Labor government just 13% of reports that warranted further assessment received a detailed investigation involving a home visit and sighting of the child.

None of this stopped the ABC's Quentin Dempster from spending most of Friday night's Stateline interview focusing on the relative minutiae of caseworker numbers and 'transparency'. The bigger picture, involving departmental opposition to planned changes to child protection practice in the state, was only briefly mentioned in passing towards the end of segment.

Minister Goward will soon introduce a reform package designed to increase the number of abused and neglected children who are adopted.

There are many arguments in favor of increasing adoptions to better protect children (detailed here). One is that adoption will make it easier to ensure that risk reports are properly investigated.

The huffing and puffing about caseworkers shortages endangering children, which all sides of politics engage in, needs to be viewed in the proper context. The real and systemic problem with child protection in Australia concerns the large number of children who are re-reported because of unresolved safety concerns.

Approximately half of all reports of child harm in NSW concern a hard core of around seven or eight-thousand frequently-reported, highly dysfunctional families. Many of these children have a long history of risk of harm reports stretching over many years, and end up being damaged by prolonged exposure to parental abuse and neglect.

Too little is done to rescue these children because child protection authorities in NSW (as in all Australian jurisdictions) believe in 'family preservation' at nearly all costs.

Many of these children would be much better off if they were removed earlier and permanently, preferably by means of adoption. This would significantly reduce the number of reports and, by making the caseload more manageable and alleviating staff shortages, would ensure a higher percentage of reported children (ideally 100%) could be seen.

It would also significantly reduce the amount of often catastrophic abuse and neglect experienced by the most vulnerable Australian children.

Despite this, adoption is 'taboo' in child protection circles, and most caseworkers (due mainly to what social workers are taught during their university training) are ideological hostile to any moves to increase adoptions for child welfare purposes.

The institutionalised opposition to adoption inside the agencies responsible for child protection is the reason that in 2010–11, fewer than 200 children were adopted in Australia. This was despite more than 37,000 children being in government-funded out of home care placements, and more than 25,000 of these children having been in care continuously for more than two years.

Stopping Goward's push to turn these figures around is the real objective of the 'caseworker shortage strike'. It is a pre-emptive public relations hit job on a minister who it is hoped will have diminished credibility in arguing the case for adoption when the memory of her 'lies' and alleged failure to ensure there are sufficient staff to see abused children is fresh in the public's mind.

Doubling or even tripling the number of caseworkers won't keep more children safe if family preservation remains the orthodox practice . The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog and subvert the democratic process. Politicians are elected to make the policies that public servants are obliged to implement.

This episode will be instructive for the new Family and Community Services director-general, Michael Coutts-Trotter, who has taken charge of a rogue department. The enemy of better protecting the children of NSW lies within.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



No comments: