Posted by Tina
The Zimmerman trial continues this week with a number of witnesses whose testimony only adds to the case the defense is constructing that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. I found the testimony of one expert witness a pathologists very interesting:
Vincent Di Maio, a pathologist testifying on Tuesday in the trial of George Zimmerman for the 2012 murder of Trayvon Martin, asserted that the police were wrong to take Zimmerman from the scene of the incident directly to the police station and not the hospital. He said that the injuries Zimmerman sustained were serious enough to merit a hospital visit. Di Maio added that, if Zimmerman had succumbed to his wounds, his family could have sued the Sanford police department and won. …
…”Even, you know, looking at them outside – someone looking at them can say, ‘oh, they’re all right,'” he added. “It happens all the time. People think they are all right and then they die a few hours later.”
“That’s why police in this case should have taken Mr. Zimmerman to a hospital, not to the police station,” Di Maio continued. “Because if he had died in the police station they would have been sued and the family would have won the lawsuit because he had head injuries that means you take him to the hospital.”
The first thing that came to mind for me was the big flap about head injuries in professional football. It isn’t just the blow to the skull that’s dangerous…it’s the brain rattling around inside. Repeated blows to the head can result in more than concussion.
This testimony pushed the issue of self defense up a notch for me…how about you?
It was much more convenient for authorieies to bow to the race-baiters and charge Zim with a crime than to allow him to be treated for his injuries. And remember that photos of his injuries were not released until just before the trial.
No matter which way the verdict goes, the race-baiters will continue to spew their filth. Sharpton, Jackson, Lee & Foxx spring to mind, and those with intelligence will continue to ignore them. Wonder if anyone has checked to see if their rabies shots are up to date?
This trial is becoming so ridiculous the rioters are going out and buying their sneakers and big screens.
I think it’s clear by now that Zimmerman most likely acted in self-defense when he shot Martin. I still think he acted idiotically by tailing someone with a gun. That was a recipe for disaster. But, it appears to be legal and it did not give Martin the right to attack him, if he did in fact start the altercation. I think he will be found not guilty, and I think he should be. There is way too much “reasonable doubt” in this case to convict.
Chris I am pleased that you chose to be objective, impartial and fair minded in reviewing the evidence. In hindsight, how do you feel about the lynch mobs that went after Zimmerman and how they were helped along by the sympathetic comments of the President?
Welcome to the dark side Chris, you racist cracker! Better late than never. Good on you.
Toby…lol!
First, I don’t think it’s appropriate to characterize them as “lynch mobs.” That term has a serious historical meaning and I feel like using it to define a group that has, so far, committed no violence toward Zimmerman makes a mockery of the term and devalues real instances where blacks were killed by mob violence.
Second, I think the reaction from the left on this issue was overblown and, in hindsight, clearly wrong. We didn’t have all the facts, and we acted as if we did. If you go back and read my comments at the time this first became a national news story, I was livid, and I was certain Zimmerman should go to prison and that Martin was completely innocent.
To be fair, at the time no one was reporting that Martin initiated the violence and I’m not sure why that was. Certainly that was in the police report? There were several witnesses who say this is what they saw, where were they when this first became a national news story?
I think many on the left, myself included, projected our own biases onto this case as a response to a pattern we see where black lives are treated as less important. I still think this pattern obviously exists, but Zimmerman shouldn’t be punished as some sort of attempt to balance the scales.
Like I said before, I still think Zimmerman acted stupidly and I might understand a criminal negligence charge or even a manslaughter charge, but the prosecution doesn’t seem to be going for that and their murder case is laughably bad. This wasn’t a black-and-white murder case. This was a sad, complex situation where both parties acted irresponsibly, and the result was that one life was tragically snuffed out for no good reason, and another life will never, ever be the same.
I was wrong, and I’m sorry.
Fair enough Chris. I don’t know why the media wasn’t making more out of Trayvon being the aggressor either? But you’re right, the media played this down and I can only guess why.
As for the lynch mob remark, yes, that ould have been said more diplomatically. You should understand I was trying to show the hypocrisy that was in play. Mainly by these rabid groups of haters like the New Black Panther Party. They didn’t actually say “lynch” Zimmerman, nah, they just put out “wanted dead or alive” posters on this guy! Why didn’t they get indicted? They incouraged his kidnapping and murder, what’s up with that?
This is why I think they could careless about justice, for them it’s all about revenge on whitey. It’s never been about right or wrong, it’s about… if you touch a black man or you will die! Doesn’t matter what the reason was, self defense or whatever…you need to die! I don’t see a lot of difference between these race-baiters and trouble makers in the KKK.
Right now there are black mobs and a few white liberals forming up outside a Florida courthouse working themselves up for a fight. They are getting ready for a “not guilty” verdict and when it happens they have a strong desire to riot and break things. It all depends on the force they face and the force they have.
They see this trial going the way of the Rodney King verdict. I hope not. But, it’s pretty clear this mob doesn’t want to hear the facts! They don’t care about what the jury verdict or what the evidence was! This is really about getting whitey, even though Zim is Hispanic.
Ironically these radicals have become just like the racist radicals of old. They have become exactly what they said they hated. For the majority of decent people, both black and white, well, they couldn’t be less helpful to creating a productive and harmonious society. If they cause trouble like they want to do, then I hope they get punished to fullest extent of the law.
Well, of course the New Black Panther party only wants revenge on whitey, but I hardly think their stance is representative of the majority of Trayvon Martin supporters.
I pray to God there aren’t any riots. This isn’t like the Rodney King case, where the verdict was clearly unjust and unsupported by the evidence. This is a more complex matter. There isn’t enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of murder, period. The justice system is supposed to let people go when there is reasonable doubt, even if individuals think those people are guilty.
As one of my favorite bloggers said, supporters of Martin should take it as a victory that a trial was held at all in this case:
http://amptoons.com/blog/2013/07/09/some-thoughts-on-the-george-zimmerman-trial/
Chris I suppose some people could consider it a victory for trying Zimmerman, but what message are they trying to send by having a show trial? Why should anyone be happy the President and his imaginary son who looks just like Trayvon felt it was necessary. I just read Tina’s comments, hmmmm, we do think alike don’t we? lol
Well…it ain’t over yet. He could still get convicted of something by a jury that might be afraid not to.
How would/could anyone define this railroad job as a victory, Chris? I don’t get it.
The only explanation that occurs to me is that some very shallow thinking people are more interested in an emotionally gratifying result than they are in seeing justice done. None seem to be the least bit concerned about the state of our Justice Department or the injustice done to Martin and his family. (Please review the latest post)
It bothers me greatly that racial division and revenge was being exploited and promoted. It bothers me greatly that the media was used to stir up interest in a trumped up case for what looks a lot like revenge. It bothers me that it appears Eric Holders office is not there to serve the American people but those of a single race and would go so far as to help provide the stage for this orchestrated, trumped up drama. The entire debacle from beginning to end is a horrible travesty of justice.
Unfortunately this trial looks to be the perfect portrait of the Obama administration. The entire world is watching this unfold. As an American I couldn’t be more embarrassed and ashamed.
I am sick of this trial and sick that it ever got to this stage. It’s on EVERY channel and news cast almost 24-7 after the original recommendation was to not charge him.
I’d rather be hearing about the Chicago killings and the woman who tortured that poor kid with a blow torch until he died. Oh, you haven’t heard about that case? Kids are dying every day, but where’s the media and DOJ for them?
Godmother Charged in 3-Year-Old’s Death:
Police say Nadera Batson and her boyfriend abused Jaquinn Brewton on a daily basis, sometimes using a blowtorch.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/breaking/3-Year-Old-Boy-Abused-Daily-By-Godmother-Boyfriend-125660958.html
Jack and Tina, are you really saying that this case shouldn’t have made it to trial at all? Why? A man was killed and it wasn’t immediately clear that it was self-defense. Zimmerman contradicted himself multiple times and lied to a judge about his finances and his passport. I still think he should be found not guilty due to lack of evidence, but this was not an open-and-shut case that a judge should have thrown out immediately, without giving a jury a shot at weighing the evidence.
I agree that the media reaction has been overblown and I take responsibility for adding to the racially charged atmosphere that fueled that reaction when this case first became a story. Many of my assumptions were wrong. I still think that Martin’s race probably had a lot to do with why Zimmerman followed him, though. Racial profiling is a common thing. But Zimmerman isn’t on trial for systemic racism, thank God, even though some on the left seem to want him to be.
I say that the fact there was a trial is a “victory” because often, when black men are killed, whether by police or civilians, there often is no trial. And indeed, at the beginning it didn’t seem like a trial would take place in this case. That’s all most on the left said they wanted at the time–a better investigation and a trial. Now it turns out many of them won’t be happy unless Zimmerman is found guilty. That is completely wrong. And the treatment of Zimmerman by the media and some extremists who have posted his personal information has been awful. But holding a trial before a jury was the right thing to do.
Re: Peggy, “Oh, you haven’t heard about that case? Kids are dying every day, but where’s the media and DOJ for them? …and…
Chris, “I think many on the left, myself included, projected our own biases onto this case as a response to a pattern we see where black lives are treated as less important.”
Nowhere else in America are black lives ignored and treated as less important than in the black communities around the country where black on black violence and crime, as well as gang related (Predominantly, Mexican/Black) crime is rampant. Chicago is a hell hole of violence.
There are no liberal cries for help or justice for these families and children. There are no protest rallies or calls for vengeful justice or retribution violence. What is the reason?
In 2010 blacks were 13.6 percent of the population in America. In 2009, 38.4% of black households were in the middle class and 8.1% were in the upper middle class. Of the upper class (all races), blacks made up 1.4% of the top 1% of all groups making over $650K. These stats concern income not wealth but they demonstrate a fairly good chunk of the black population has (had before the crash) been able to better their circumstances in America. The stats should be much higher and I think would be had we maintained traditional American values over the last fifty-sixty years.
Education that includes economics and wealth building would help blacks move up the ladder faster. Being able to pass wealth to family is also key. The point being that success in America is the way to eliminate violence and gangs and offer a better life. It can be had by anyone who is willing to reach, strive, save, and invest.
The people with the most power to assist black people are other black people that have been successful. Liberal blacks support redistribution as as the answer, even after witnessing and living the failure of it.
Appeasement and redistribution policies just don’t make individuals strong. The political stronghold that race-baiting blacks like Jackson and Sharpton wand the Democrat Party have over the black community is tragic and has kept too many blacks in a state of bare subsistence.
There are a number of black conservatives that are beginning to speak out strongly for a different approach. With support they will lead the way toward a better future for the black children of America.
Holding a trial when there is no evidence to support the charges is a travesty! This is not justice!
This phony trial will contribute to division in America. Division holds blacks back.
The black cause is more important than individual success…that’s a tragedy. Teaching young black kids they are hated and to hate is holding them back and also a tragedy!
Respect and manners matter no matter one’s color. So do intact families and good education. Earning what you get matters…these are the true self-esteem builders that give an individual, regardless their race a sense of place in the world.
Chris: “A man was killed and it wasn’t immediately clear that it was self-defense.”
Not so. The local investigation found that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. 44 days later the need for trial was contrived. The evidence today points to state and federal prosecutors that wanted a show trial…and the evidence and testimony back up the original finding by locals…self defense.
Investors.com:
The trial testimony and evidence has vindicated the original finding by local police.
“Racial profiling is a common thing.”
Duh! Do you honestly believe this would be a problem if blacks were not committing so much violent crime?
According to a study done by the New Century foundation, Color of Crime, “Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely
than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.”
If blacks want to keep profiling from happening they need to clean up the black community and give their kids a better chance in life.
“Martin’s race probably had a lot to do with why Zimmerman followed him…”
Especially if the robberies that had taken place in the neighborhood had been committed by blacks.
I live in a neighborhood watch neighborhood. We were instructed to notify our neighbors, and particularly the watch captain if someone came to visit…obviously Martins father didn’t notify Zimmerman that his son was visiting and that too might have made a difference.
Thanks Tina for driving home my point. Not to take away from the lose of this one young man’s life I believe more outrage is warranted for all of the lives lost in Chicago and across the nation. Instead we have a system that has not only consisted for decades we have individuals like Sharpton and Jackson who are demanding it continue for decades to come.
Where is the outrage and demand for change when more people are killed in Chicago than in the Afghanistan war? Where is the outrage and media coverage when black against black killings are equal or more worthy than a “white-Hispanic” against a black?
After seeing George Zimmerman’s parents I’m asking myself if their pictures had been made public would this trial be taking place since they are both darker skinned than their son? Or would charges have even been filed if Martin’s skin had been lighter than Zimmerman’s? The local authorities are the ones who didn’t want to file charges. They were filed only after political pressure was applied. Now that should be outrageous to everyone. Our justice system is no longer based on facts, but on a political agenda that uses the emotions of people for their benefit.
Jackson and Sharpton were recruited by the Democrat leadership in power after Martin Luther King was killed to promote the Democrat’s agenda. (Don’t believe me, look it up like I did.) And just look at the job they’ve done. Here we are 40 years later judging people by the color of their skin still instead of the content of their character. Large numbers of blacks and other minorities are living in ghettos off of government handouts instead of in homes integrated through out the whole community as MLK had believed was possible if given an equal opportunity. How sad. How very, very sad.
Our justice system has been high jacked under this administration with Holder’s agenda and his repeated disregard for the oath he took.
Hopefully, more will hear the words of Pastor Hutcherson and others, who was also with MLK, instead of Sharpton and Jackson and the dream will be fulfilled and our country will become one instead of divided 40 years from now.
From Breitbart – One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened
A 16 year old black boy was gunned down in Buffalo NY last weekend over a pair of sneakers. A PAIR OF SNEAKERS…..
I just felt the need to point this out, as Rev’s Al & Jesse did not come to Buffalo to call for disruption and civil unrest. Apparently, Rev’s Al & Jesse have no use for innocent teenagers deaths if they are the result of black-on-black violence. This tragedy does not fit their agenda or the agenda of the Obama administration.
Maybe, Obama will make a statement from the 4th tee at Congressional “If I had a son, he would look like Kelmyne Jones Jr”.
But I doubt it…..the alleged shooters skin is too dark for any of that.
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20130711%2FCITYANDREGION%2F130719864%2F1002
Tina, it literally took me 10 seconds to find out that the New Century Foundation is an anti-semitic, white supremacist organization that espouses segregation of the races. The study you cite, “Color of Crime,” concludes that the reason blacks are statistically more likely to commit crime is because they are genetically inferior.
The SPLC has criticized the methodology of that study here.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2000/summer/coloring-crime
You have linked to racist hate groups to support your position before, and defended yourself by essentially saying there’s nothing wrong with doing so. But I think you know this damages the credibility of your arguments. Do you really not care where you get your information? Why can’t you bother to do ten seconds of research, as I did, to see if your source is credible before linking to it? Don’t you think that would be helpful to you and your readers?
“obviously Martins father didn’t notify Zimmerman that his son was visiting and that too might have made a difference.”
What? You can’t be serious. Do you notify every one of your neighbors every time one of your relatives comes to visit? Is that something we should have to do now to make sure no one gets shot?
What would have made the most difference in this case is if Zimmerman had acted with common sense and not closely followed a stranger while carrying a gun, after the 911 operator suggested he not do so. Now yes, I know the 911 operator had no legal authority, but I am talking about common sense and reason, not the law.
Had Zimmerman not had a gun, both he and Martin would be alive today. Yay guns!
“There are no liberal cries for help or justice for these families and children.”
You’re simply wrong about that. Discussion of how to improve inner city black communities is very common among liberal circles. But you don’t participate in any liberal circles, so how would you know? All of your judgments about what liberals do and believe is based on what you hear second-hand from conservatives.
Peggy, if you think black conservatives are continuing MLK’s message than you really need to look at MLK’s view of economics. He was pro-redistribution, all the way.
As for the need for a trial, Tina, Zimmerman’s injuries were minor. There was not enough evidence at the beginning for the police to conclude that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin to protect his life. That evidence was for a jury to decide. Had the police made the right call to begin with, it’s likely the whole media circus would never have started; remember, the main point of outrage at the beginning was that Zimmerman was never charged with anything. That added legitimacy to the Martin supporters’ charge that justice had not been properly carried out.
Chris says: As for the need for a trial, Tina, Zimmerman’s injuries were minor. There was not enough evidence at the beginning for the police to conclude that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin to protect his life.”
The law and common sense says: You do not measure the extent of a person’s injury to determine at what point self defense becomes justifiable! The law clearly says, whenever a person has a reasonable cause to believe that his/her life is in imminent danger or in danger of great bodily harm, then the use of deadly force is justified.
Chris says: “That evidence was for a jury to decide. Had the police made the right call to begin with, it’s likely the whole media circus would never have started; remember, the main point of outrage at the beginning was that Zimmerman was never charged with anything. That added legitimacy to the Martin supporters’ charge that justice had not been properly carried out.”
The law says: No Chris…it’s not automatically for the jury to decide! First, the police department shall decide if probable cause exists before filing a complaint with the DA. Every day police departments across America exercise their discretion whether or not to file charges.
#2. When the charges are filed with the DA it is their duty to decide if probable cause exists to believe they really have a crime and if they agree with the police they file a complaint and this results in charges and then the defendant is brought to trial. It’s a long and careful process. But, ther’s still one more… before a trial the Superior Court holds a preliminary hearing (PX) to determine if the charges, as filed by the DA with the court meet the test of probable cause to believe a crime has been committed to the courts satisfaction and the court must also review the elements of said crime to be sure they have been satisfied. Then and only then can the case go to trial!
At any one of these levels a complaint, even for homicide, may be legally and ethically halted if the elements are not proven! A jury only confirms what these other agencies have already determined. None of the agencies should be put under any pressure to file a complaint simply because the public demands it. That has never been an element of our justice system and it’s coercion. Justice is not in the hands of the public, if it were it would be mob rule. Justice belongs to the Executive branch of government. We’re a nation of laws and we honor the rule of law and again, that means…justice is solely in the hands of law enforcement, the DA and the Court….period! Anything else should be considered dangerous.
Martin’s supporters have absolutely no legitimate role to play in the outcome of a complaint or in trial…NONE! Any sort of coercive mob meddling ought to be seen as offensive and repugnant. Therefore, the correct view is we shouldn’t care what Martin’s supporters think…only what the police, DA and courts think.
There is no wiggle room here Chris. The law is quite clear and we have a very long and remarkable history that says this is the way it ought to be too!
Chris: “The study you cite, “Color of Crime,” concludes that the reason blacks are statistically more likely to commit crime is because they are genetically inferior.”
The dirty B-Tards. What about their statistics?
“You have linked to racist hate groups to support your position before…blah, blah, blah…Don’t you think that would be helpful to you and your readers?
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a Marxist based group of left wing radicals with a growing reputation for extreme intolerance, exaggeration, and hatred toward Christians that happen to hold to different views on abortion and the gay lifestyle. They label them not for denying basic rights but for having or sharing religious opinions. See article in Human Events.
They have been equally nasty toward the Tea Party and veterans. From TownHall:
The SPCA also defends known violent Marxist gang members:
See example of above described ARA activities here.
While I do not personally hold white supremacist views and would not support policies designed to discriminate I defend their right to exist and share their views. On one level I can also understand the concern that they and many people many people now share for the violence and revenge mentality being promulgated and supported by the extreme left and groups like the SPLC.
The SPLC claims in the article you linked to that poverty is to blame for the condition of black crime in America. They completely ignore the fact that black families before 1965 may have been poor but they were also moral and raised their children to have respect for themselves and for others in much greater numbers. Blaming poverty for black crime, particularly after fifty years of generous programs and assistance, is just an excuse and excuses will not lift blacks from their criminal activity or from poverty.
If we cannot tell the truth about what has happened…if we continue to make white racism the excuse for bad black behavior…neither the black community nor America will survive.
My advice to you, since you insist on playing teacher, or dictator, is to look in the mirror. Your opinions are welcome. Your sanctimonious notion that your links and sources are main stream and therefore stellar and other sources are crap just doesn’t fly. You support and defend far left wing extremist supported groups funded by George Soros and organizations like the extremist SPLC. So? As I’ve told you before…you are in the adult world now, Chris. Our readers don’t need your help. They are capable of determining things for themselves. I am happy to let them decide about credibility…both mine and yours!
Perhaps you have not matured as an American Citizen to the point that you understand fully that people have a right to think. Current leftist opinion is that thinking has to be expunged unless it is in agreement with them. Sorry, freedom doesn’t work that way.
Racists and bigots of every color exist and extremists groups naturally follow. There are a number of very angry, violent black and brown extremist groups that are hell bent on destroying whitey not just here but around the world. The natural counter to that would be an equal and opposite view. Push will come to shove unless the majority of people cling to values such as truth, justice, honor, personal responsibility, and yes the rights we all enjoy. It is natural to want to defend against hatred. I suggest it is natural for whites as well as black and for those who agree with the LGBT lifestyle and those who don’t. I don’t fault them for wanting to defend themselves. I take exception to campaigns designed to silence and destroy…and I am deeply offended by the arrogance that drives leftist toward that kind of control. Tyranny just doesn’t go down well with me.
How concerned are you about the state of the black community? The statistics are both frightening and terrible! I would think rather than engaging in a petty discussion about sources you would lend at least a tiny portion of your brain to the task of noticing that left wing policies are HURTING blacks and creating a lot of unnecessary division, crime, and violence in America.
Thanks Jack It’s always great to here from a professional with experience, besides you saved me from another long-winded comment 😉
Can I just add that the “minor” state of the injuries sustained by Zimmerman were questioned by the pathologist, the subject of this post, who said he believed the police should have taken Zimmerman to the hospital right away (probably for an MRI).
On a personal level, I don’t know that I would feel like my injuries were going to be “minor” if a guy had me pinned with his knees and was smashing my head on the pavement after pummeling me with his fists. I think I’d feel like I was in a pretty frightening circumstance that could lead to serious injury or death.
Zimmerman’s mental state at the time is what is important from my perspective, especially if it is true that Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun which is apparently what he told the police as they interrogated him.
It is also relevant that Zimmerman’s story never changed. I’m sure as an ex-police officer you can attest to the fact that a couple of hours of interrogation by experienced law enforcement will lead to discrepancies in the story when a suspect is lying or fabricating in any way.
Chris: Peggy, if you think black conservatives are continuing MLK’s message than you really need to look at MLK’s view of economics. He was pro-redistribution, all the way.”
Good suggestion Chris. Here’s what I found. He wasn’t “pro-redistribution,” he was pro-jobs, which is why he held the, “… March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. [T]he march called for a ‘massive Federal Public Works program to provide jobs for all the unemployed.”
He knew jobs would bring everyone out of poverty and since Woodrow Wilson removed blacks from all Federal employment in 1912 was just demanding the rights to those jobs again. Sounds more like “equal rights” and not “redistribution.”
Dr. Martin Luther King’s Economics: Through Jobs, Freedom:
Martin Luther King Jr. was working hard to get people to Washington, DC. But when he told an audience, “We are going to bring the tired, the poor, the huddled masses. We are going to bring those who have known long years of hurt and neglect…. We are coming to ask America to be true to the huge promissory note that it signed years ago,” the year was not 1963, and his issue was not segregation. Instead, it was 1968, five years after his “I Have a Dream” speech, and now the issue was joblessness and economic deprivation. King was publicizing a new mass mobilization led by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a drive known as the Poor People’s Campaign.
In King’s vision of the campaign, thousands of Americans who had been abandoned by the economy would create a tent city on the National Mall, demand action from Congress, and engage in nonviolent civil disobedience until their voices were heard. King argued in one of his last sermons, “If a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists.”
The solution, he believed, was to “confront the power structure massively.”
Four decades later, as our country struggles with disappearing jobs and growing desperation, much of the critique of the U.S. economy offered in the Poor People’s Campaign is newly resonant. As the country celebrates Dr. King’s life and legacy, it is an opportune time to ask: How did the reverend approach issues like poverty, unemployment, and economic hardship? And–given that he offered his criticisms amid one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in our country’s history–how might he respond to today’s crises of foreclosure and recession?
Historian Maurice Isserman notes that many Americans who listen annually to excerpts of the 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech are not aware that “the occasion for that speech was officially known as the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom ]emphasis added]… [T]he march called for a ‘massive Federal Public Works program to provide jobs for all the unemployed,’ and spoke of the ‘twin evils of discrimination and economic deprivation.'”
King’s focus on economic justice became even sharper in the last years of his life. A noteworthy part of his critique of the Vietnam War was the idea that aggressive foreign interventionism exacted not only a moral cost but also an economic one: spending on the war was undermining President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. In his famous April 1967 speech at Riverside Church in New York City, King made a damning indictment of a budgetary imbalance that continues to this day: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift,” he said, “is approaching spiritual death.”
Read more: Dr. Martin Luther King’s Economics: Through Jobs, Freedom | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/article/dr-martin-luther-kings-economics-through-jobs-freedom#ixzz2YtPEwawA
And this.
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican:
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Read more: http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/
Tina: “The dirty B-Tards. What about their statistics?”
I linked to an SPLC article which specifically criticized their statistics. It quotes actual sociologists who argue that poverty is the true predictor of crime, not race.
“The Southern Poverty Law Center is a Marxist based group of left wing radicals with a growing reputation for extreme intolerance, exaggeration, and hatred toward Christians that happen to hold to different views on abortion and the gay lifestyle. They label them not for denying basic rights but for having or sharing religious opinions. See article in Human Events.”
As usual, you and Human Events are simply wrong. The SPLC does not label organizations as hate groups simply for expressing religious opinions disapproving of homosexuality. It only labels those organizations that have led campaigns to deprive gays of civil rights, and have used lies and defamation to do so. The Human Events article is unable to cite a single organization that has been labeled a hate group simply for disagreeing with homosexuality, because none exist. If the SPLC went after every organization that disagreed with homosexuality, their list would be a lot longer, and would include most religious organizations.
The Human Events article you cite even undermines its own case. The writer acknowledges that the SPLC “claims that the groups in question (which include the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America) knowingly disseminate false information and demonizing propaganda about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people…”
These organizations HAVE done this, as the SPLC has documented (and as I have shown you myself).
The writer then goes on to misrepresent the report by the SPLC titled “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked,” writing:
“It should first be recalled that the actual SPLC report was terribly flawed, as I and a number of others pointed out. For example, based on the report, if you state that kids do best when raised by a mom and dad (as opposed to two moms or two dads), you are propagating a known falsehood.”
That’s not an accurate reading of the report, and you can see that if you follow the writer’s own link to an earlier piece he wrote, where he quotes some of the anti-gay myths debunked by the SPLC, including:
–Same-sex parents harm children.
–People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.
–Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.
–Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces.
Nowhere on the SPLC’s list does it include the statement that “kids do best when raised by a mom and dad (as opposed to two moms or two dads).” The writer seems to be conflating that with the claim that “Same sex parents harm children,” which makes him either a) very stupid or b) lying in order to fool very stupid people. There is obviously a world of difference between the claim “kids do better with a mother and father,” which is not hateful and may be accurate, and the claim “Same sex parents harm children,” which is hateful and inaccurate.
He goes on to write:
“Or if you agree with the many therapists and psychologists who argue that a child’s upbringing and early-life experiences (including being sexually abused) play a major role in the development of his or her sexual orientation, you are propagating a known falsehood.”
Again, he is misrepresenting what the SPLC said. The anti-gay myth pointed out by the SPLC says that “People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.” That is a completely different claim from the one the writer just highlighted! There’s a world of difference between saying that early environmental factors may contribute to sexual orientation, and making a blanket statement that people are only gay if they have been sexually traumatized or their parents have failed in some way. The writer is soft-peddling what groups like the FRC have said in order to make the SPLC appear irrational. Nowhere does he address the actual statements by the FRC and other organizations which have landed them on the list of hate groups.
“The same is true if you claim that hate crime laws could lead to the arresting of pastors who criticize homosexuality (this has already happened in Sweden, England and Canada),”
The writer gives no evidence for this claim. And even if it has happened in those countries, we have stronger free speech laws here. Hate crime laws in the U.S. do not punish speech. The writer also fails to address the ridiculous claim by the FRC and others that hate crime laws will lead to the legalization of pedophilia and necrophilia.
“or if you argue that it would be detrimental to the military to have gays serving openly.”
Since there’s no evidence for this proposition whatsoever, yes, I think this is a hateful position. It’s based on nothing but animus toward gays; there’s no logical, real-world-based reason to believe allowing gays in the military will damage the armed forces.
“They have been equally nasty toward the Tea Party and veterans. From TownHall:”
Nowhere in the portion you cited does it show that the SPLC has been “nasty” toward the Tea Party or veterans. They warned of potential violence by some members, and used valid predictors to do so; they did not tar the Tea Party movement as a whole, nor veterans as a group.
“The SPCA also defends known violent Marxist gang members:”
For this claim you *once again* cite an anti-semitic, white supremacist outlet, the Council of Conservative Citizens, for your information, even though I just asked you to check your sources more carefully. And you did this while criticizing my source, the SPLC. In other words, you’re essentially arguing that an ACTUAL white supremacist organization should be taken more seriously than an organization that has spent its entire existence fighting white supremacy. How does this not embarass you? Most people would be embarassed citing ONE white supremacist organization to support their point, but you not only have no shame in doing so, you cite ANOTHER one in your very next comment in order to justify your original point. And by having a problem with this, I’m being a “dictator” who is trying to silence their and your right to free speech. Amazing!
The SPLC has directly acknowledged the violence of the ARA and has argued that violence is not the answer. This article, titled “A Better Way,” shows the nuances of the SPLC’s position:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2013/summer/a-better-way
“On one level I can also understand the concern that they and many people many people now share for the violence and revenge mentality being promulgated and supported by the extreme left and groups like the SPLC.”
Wow. So you actually ARE saying that the SPLC is more of threat than white supremacist organizations. Good lord, that is INSANE.
“The SPLC claims in the article you linked to that poverty is to blame for the condition of black crime in America.”
That’s not just the SPLC’s claim, that’s the consensus among pretty much every respectable sociologist who has studied the issue.
If you genuinely want to understand the reasons for the high levels of black crime, why don’t you do some actual research on the issue from peer-reviewed studies, done by people without a clear political bias? You know the Internet does contain more than just political bloggers. But I’m not sure you really are interested in the core reasons; you seem more interested in using the issue as a political football.
“There are a number of very angry, violent black and brown extremist groups that are hell bent on destroying whitey not just here but around the world.”
Yeah, but the difference is, I don’t cite them as sources. When I start citing statistics from the New Black Panther Party, then you can draw an equivalence.
Tina: “It is also relevant that Zimmerman’s story never changed.”
Yes, it did, several times.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/01/5538641/zimmermans-story-shifted-police.html
Given that, and the changes in stories from various witnesses, I believe a trial was necessary.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-shooting-witnesses-change-stories-ahead-zimmerman-133743219.html
Peggy: “Good suggestion Chris. Here’s what I found. He wasn’t “pro-redistribution,” he was pro-jobs,”
He was clearly pro-both. MLK Jr. called for a “radical redistribution of economic and political power.” He also said this:
“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism. There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”
MLK also preached that America needed a “synthesis” of capitalism and socialism.
You’re right that he believed the best way to fight poverty was to provide jobs, but he also believed those had to be *well-paying* jobs. He fought to raise the minimum wage and increase the power of labor unions literally until the day he died. Today the minimum wage is effectively lower than it was the year MLK Jr. was assassinated, and union membership is at all time lows. And yet, at the same time, conservatives argue that we need to abolish the minimum wage completely and reduce the power of unions even further.
There is little evidence that MLK Jr. was a Republican in his time, but it’s ABSURD to say he would support the current Republican party, with it’s obsessive focus on protecting the wealthy while eliminating what few protections the poor have. He would in no way support the attack on unions, the false theory that raising the minimum wage costs jobs, or the dismantling of social programs.
Chris: “I linked to an SPLC article which specifically criticized their statistics. It quotes actual sociologists who argue that poverty is the true predictor of crime, not race.”
Criticizes their statistics? How? Like, “We don’t like the percentages you use?”
Chris, in the first place I was not focusing on race as a predictor. I pulled statistics from a site that sounded reasonable to me given others I have seen in order to decry the alarming statistics. and wrote:
I don’t think that is too far off from this:
FBI:
Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black, 45.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,077 offenders.
US Census:
Black or African American alone, percent, 2012 13.1% (another 2.4% are mixed, some would be mixed black)
Blacks are about 13% of the population but commit 52% of murders. I’d call that a crisis. If you add the number of black children that are aborted every year you have extreme crisis.
I’m sorry you have wasted so much time addressing unrelated things. Perhaps if you could, for once, set aside your need to control the narrative and teach PC lessons, if you could set aside your obsession with racism you might actually get what I am saying.
“It only labels those organizations that have led campaigns to deprive gays of civil rights, and have used lies and defamation to do so.”
You are welcome to your opinion.
“There is obviously a world of difference between the claim “kids do better with a mother and father,” which is not hateful and may be accurate, and the claim “Same sex parents harm children,” which is hateful and inaccurate.”
Sometimes things that are true can be experienced as hurtful; it does not make the true thing less true. If you agree that the ideal situation for children is a two parent family of mother and father, then you also must agree that in some ways children raised in other situations are deprived of whatever benefit the ideal would have given them. (Exceptions to the rule gladly acknowledged)
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&zid=a9764475de34e422c34761f9631ce865&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010014234&userGroupName=viva2_tcc&jsid=d04d591dd6a4ce083f01f30163846491″>View Points:
Chris that is a clinical finding. It is neither meant to be hurtful nor is it inaccurate…it is simply the truth. “Same sex parents harm children,” may not be as eloquent but it reflects the same sentiment.
“They warned of potential violence by some members, and used valid predictors to do so.
Predictors? Come on Chris. there is zero evidence that TP groups are violent or have violent tendencies. They are passionate and loud but no more so than groups on the left that have gone beyond passionate and loud. This is so typical of the left and groups like the SPLC…guilt by insinuation and decree is nothing more than pure politics, and dirty politics at that.
“The SPLC has directly acknowledged the violence of the ARA and has argued that violence is not the answer.”
Wow. So you’re saying it’s okay with you that the SPLC defends and actively promotes ARA on their website because “violence is not the answer” but if I pull a couple of stats from a questionable site and ignore everything else they say it’s not okay with you? I believe that is a double standard…it is also quite predictable. This is why I think “my sources are good and yours bad” arguments are useless.
“So you actually ARE saying that the SPLC is more of threat than white supremacist organizations.”
Dramatic response but inane. I said no such thing.
I wrote: ““On one level I can also understand the concern…”
The concern, Chris. I understand it; idf you don’t you are in for a big surprise in that Kumbaya reality of yours.
“That’s not just the SPLC’s claim, that’s the consensus among pretty much every respectable sociologist who has studied the issue.”
Of course…the typical liberal bulls*^t response. You don’t recognize any nopinions that disagree and so those who disagree are “not respectable”.
I wrote: “They completely ignore the fact that black families before 1965 may have been poor but they were also moral and raised their children to have respect for themselves and for others in much greater numbers. Blaming poverty for black crime, particularly after fifty years of generous programs and assistance, is just an excuse and excuses will not lift blacks from their criminal activity or from poverty.”
Do you think it is smart for experts, or ordinary citizens, to ignore the fact that black families were intact, church going, hard working, and less likely to see their children commit crimes, even though they lived in poverty, before the government redistribution intervention and the so-called sexual revolution of 1965? I don’t! I think it could be germaine. It could suggest that poverty isn’t the cause as much as the break up of the family, fatherless homes, and leaving the church where values are taught and reinforced. I think blaming poverty is the excuse to continue redistribution policies and part of the package to keep blacks beholding to the Democrat Party.
“If you genuinely want to understand the reasons for the high levels of black crime, why don’t you do some actual research on the issue from peer-reviewed studies, done by people without a clear political bias? You know the Internet does contain more than just political bloggers. But I’m not sure you really are interested in the core reasons; you seem more interested in using the issue as a political football.”
Okay.
Once again you have not addressed a single point relevant to the cause of black crime.
You have engaged almost exclusively in attempting to discredit me. Are you a coward or have you just been brainwashed that extensively?
“Yeah, but the difference is, I don’t cite them as sources”
No, you cite those who promote and defend them!
You align with those who use intimidation, coercion, blackmail, cheating, bribery, and schemes to get what they want even when it goes against the will of the people. I just don’t see the moral high ground.
And I’m done.
I wrote: Tina: “It is also relevant that Zimmerman’s story never changed.”
Chris wrote: “Yes, it did, several times.”
How about we ask the man who did the interrogation!
The blog Conservative Byte recounts the testimony of the lead detective:
Additional information that suggests a corrupt system in Florida, with influence from DC:
Mediaite:
More on the CRS from The Conservative Treehouse quoting Judicial Watch’s released information:
That’s how community organizing is done…by the Saul Alinsky method, derived in part, from his associations with the Mob and union leaders in Chicago in the thirties and forties.
IT director who raised questions about Zimmerman case is fired:
Sanford, Florida (CNN) — An employee of the Florida State Attorney’s Office who testified that prosecutors withheld evidence from George Zimmerman’s defense team has been fired.
Ben Kruidbos had been on paid administrative leave since May 28 from his job as director of information technology for the State Attorney’s Office.
A spokeswoman for Fourth Judicial Circuit State Attorney Angela Corey said Kruidbos was no longer an employee of the office.
He received the termination letter, dated July 11, on Friday, the same day jurors began deliberating Zimmerman’s case. The letter states: “It has come to our attention that you violated numerous State Attorney’s Office (SAO) policies and procedures and have engaged in deliberate misconduct that is especially egregious in light of your position.”
Kruidbos said that, when he printed a 900-page Florida Department of Law Enforcement report from Martin’s cell phone in late 2012 or early 2013, he noticed information was missing.
Concerned that attorneys did not have all the information they needed to prepare the case, he said, he reported his concerns to a State Attorney’s Office investigator and later to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.
Kruidbos said he generated a report that was more than three times the size of the one that had been handed over.
For example, Kruidbos said that 2,958 photos were in the report given to the defense but that his report contained 4,275 photos.
Kruidbos also said that he has been told to not put specific case-identifying information into internal e-mails.
Through his attorney, Wesley White, Kruidbos informed Zimmerman’s defense team that the information existed.
Read More: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html
Tina: “Criticizes their statistics? How? Like, “We don’t like the percentages you use?””
Why don’t you read the article and find out?
“Sometimes things that are true can be experienced as hurtful; it does not make the true thing less true.”
Right. Like if I said, “Tina couldn’t form a logical argument if she was forced to under threat of waterboarding,” you may experience that as hurtful. But that wouldn’t make the statement any less true.
However, the statement “same-sex parents harm children” is not true. It isn’t wrong just because it’s hurtful, or politically incorrect. It’s wrong because it is factually inaccurate.
“If you agree that the ideal situation for children is a two parent family of mother and father, then you also must agree that in some ways children raised in other situations are deprived of whatever benefit the ideal would have given them.”
Yes, and that’s obviously STILL a very different claim from the claim that same-sex parents harm children.
Same-sex parents who have taken in adopted children are not responsible for the child being “deprived” of anything. Their biological opposite-sex parents are usually the ones responsible for the deprivation. By giving the children up for adoption, they are the ones who have deprived their own children. Would it then be accurate to jump to the generalized claim, “opposite-sex parents harm children?”
True, some same-sex couples use artificial reproductive technologies to concieve children, and you could argue that that is a deprivation. But a lot more opposite-sex couples use such technologies. If you’re going to use ART to argue that same-sex parents harm children and shouldn’t be allowed to marry, you’d have to make the same argument about opposite-sex couples.
Single mothers fall short of the ideal. And research shows that blended families tend to have less positive outcomes for children as well. Would it be accurate to make generalized claims such as “Single mothers harm children” or “step-parents harm children,” and then use those claims to ban single motherhood and second marriages?
And you know what? “Harming children” has never, ever been used as a reason to deny anyone the right to marriage in this country, until the gay marriage debate. You know who really harms children? Child molesters. Child abusers. Drug addicts. Convicted felons. People on death row. And yet, the religious right hasn’t made any effort to stop any of these groups from marrying; as of now, every single one of them can legally marry in the United States.
And we’re expected to believe that not only do same-sex couples harm children (even though there’s no evidence of this), but that this is a reason to deny same-sex couples (many of whom won’t even raise children together) the right to marry, even though we let all of these other people marry who cause far more demonstrable harm to children?
That. Makes. No. Sense.
Neither a person’s child-bearing nor child-rearing ability is at all relevant to their right to marry. The “what’s best for the children” argument is an excuse. It’s designed to cover up the anti-gays’ real motives for opposing same-sex marriage. It’s lipstick on a pig.
You go on to cite a psychologist, Trayce Hansen, who basically makes the same argument. What are Hansen’s credentials? She has no experience in child psychology and her anti-gay testimony was rejected in a court case involving gay parental rights because she lacked the proper credentials to be considered an expert witness. She is a member of the far-right fringe group American College of Pediatricians, which was formed for the sole purpose of rejecting the research-based, consensus view among pediatricians that same-sex couples can be fit parents. It is not a legitimate medical organization, it is a political advocacy group that uses junk science to advance its anti-gay agenda and deny people their civil rights. Hansen, like many of her ACP colleagues, has written extensivle about alleged “harms” that gay marriage will cause to children, despite the fact that she has no child psychology background.
It took me ten minutes to find this information. Why didn’t you find it first?
Now on to her argument. (Never let it be said that I stop at attacking sources! I will almost always explain why the sources’ arguments are wrong.) Since I’ve already explained above why child-rearing ability has nothing to do with who we allow to marry, I will be brief:
“Supporters of same-sex marriage think that children really just need love, but this is not the case. Research shows that the ideal family structure for children is to be raised by both a mother and a father.”
Even if this is true, it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
“Only this traditional type of family gives children the chance to relate to both a same-sex parent and a parent of the opposite sex. Although the research on same-sex parenting is very limited, some of it suggests that children raised in same-sex households will be more likely to be sexually confused and to experiment with sex.”
There is no scientific evidence to support this, and even if there was, it would not be a valid reason to oppose same-sex marriage. We don’t deny marriage licenses to people because we think their children might turn out to be gay. The suggestion that we should is monstrous.
“Also if same-sex marriage is allowed, it opens the door for other types of non-traditional marriage, such as polygamous relationships.”
Fuck this. The slippery slope fallacy? Seriously? This is your expert witness? That’s pathetic.
“As mental health professionals, it’s our ethical and moral obligation to support policies that are in the best interest of those we serve, particularly those who are most vulnerable—namely, children.”
Dr. Trayce Hansen does not serve children. She is making a dishonest implication here.
“Chris that is a clinical finding.”
No, it’s not, you silly rube. It’s a fringe minority view that is not based on science or even logic, but on how Trayce Hansen wishes the world to be. Do you think having a PhD makes someone immune from believing bullshit? Obviously you don’t–you are always willing to critique liberal intellectuals–but somehow you seem to think if someone has a PhD and identifies a conservative, then anything they say must be true. Anyone can find some doctor, somewhere, to advance any idiotic political position they want. That’s why it’s important to evaluate their credibility, their standing in their professional community. Hansen and the American College of Pediatricians have a poor reputation in the medical field. That is simply a fact.
““Same sex parents harm children,” may not be as eloquent but it reflects the same sentiment.”
Again, no. It is an entirely different sentiment.
“Predictors? Come on Chris. there is zero evidence that TP groups are violent or have violent tendencies.”
The SPLC did not accuse Tea Party “groups” of anything. But right-wing extremists do exist, and the SPLC took note of them. It has documented how white supremacists have tried to infiltrate and influence the Tea Party (and given your way-too-often unknowingly citing white supremacist orgs, it seems they have succeeded):
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/04/14/hate-groups-and-nativist-extremists-crashing-tea-parties/
And at least a few Tea Party members HAVE committed or attempted violence. There was the Glenn Beck fan who plotted an attack on the Tides Foundation. The murderer of George Tiller. Anders Breivik was a fan of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who have ties to the Tea Party movement. Are you really saying right-wing extremism is something the SPLC shouldn’t even talk about? You know they do list leftist extremists too, such as the New Black Panther Party, as hate groups.
“Wow. So you’re saying it’s okay with you that the SPLC defends and actively promotes ARA on their website”
Let’s back up: neither you nor the white supremacist website you got this accusation from have even demonstrated that the SPLC “defends and promotes” the ARA on their website. You’ve merely asserted it.
I posted an actual article by the SPLC which discusses the ARA. It doesn’t look like a defense or promotion to me, it looks like a thoughtful, balanced profile. I know you haven’t read it, but when you do let me know what you think of it.
sociologist who has studied the issue.”
“Of course…the typical liberal bulls*^t response. You don’t recognize any nopinions that disagree and so those who disagree are “not respectable”.”
Tina, the fact is you have no idea how your sources or your opinions are regarded in their respective professional fields. You refuse to do any research on your sources before you cite them, and you let them routinely lie to you because you don’t like to step outside of your right-wing bubble for information. When I say that something you have written or someone you have cited is not representative of the consensus view in their field, I am telling you the truth. Don’t get mad at me for that.
“Do you think it is smart for experts, or ordinary citizens, to ignore the fact that black families were intact, church going, hard working, and less likely to see their children commit crimes, even though they lived in poverty, before the government redistribution intervention and the so-called sexual revolution of 1965?”
I don’t think they have ignored it. I think there are expanatory factors that you haven’t considered. You’ve said you don’t like it when I act like your teacher; find this information on your own. I suggest looking at actual peer-reviewed research, not activist bloggers.
Here are some responses to Hansen’s organization by medical experts whose findings have been distorted by the ACP:
“Gary Remafedi, a pediatrician at the University of Minnesota, found his research being cited by ACPeds to argue that schools should deny support to gay teenagers. Remafedi complained that ACPeds had fundamentally mischaracterized his work, saying: “It’s obvious that they didn’t even read my research. I mean, they spelled my name wrong every time they cited it.” Remafedi complained to ACPeds that his work was being misrepresented, but the organization refused to correct or retract its assertions, leading Remafedi to state that ACPeds had “deliberately distorted my research for malicious purposes.”[1]
Responding to claims by ACPeds that same-sex attraction could be “cured”, Francis Collins, geneticist and director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, denounced ACPeds’ use of his work, noting it was “disturbing” to see ACPeds use his scientific work in a “misleading and incorrect” way by taking work from one of his books out of context to “support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encouraged prejudice” against school children.[9]
Warren Throckmorton, a therapist who specializes in sexual orientation issues, similarly complained that his research had been misused, saying of ACPeds: “They say they’re impartial and not motivated by political or religious concerns, but if you look at who they’re affiliated with and how they’re using the research, that’s just obviously not true.”[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians
You can follow the citations provided by Wikipedia for the full articles.
Response in no particular order.
Chris: “Would it be accurate to make generalized claims such as “Single mothers harm children” or “step-parents harm children…”
Yes.
“…and then use those claims to ban single motherhood and second marriages?”
It would be inaccurate to make the claim that any group has attempted to “ban” motherhood, second marriages, or gay marriage.
The groups you love to hate, Chris, are doing nothing more than are pro gay marriage groups groups…they are expressing their opinions on the issue and they are doing battle in court, which are their right. I have to say, I believe they exercise their constitutional rights with better manners and good taste. Pro gay marriage folk do much more than express opinion:
Brown University:
More examples here. WARNING some photos may be very offensive…the final example being the worst.
Our readers can find out more about the organization TFP here.
“When I say that something you have written or someone you have cited is not representative of the consensus view in their field…”
I am well aware of leftist “consensus” in this field. It is proscribed by the liberal agenda and peer reviewed by those who share the same ideological opinion. That’s how liberals do things, and as narcissists, which they often are, they applaud themselves believing they can actually think. In other words Chris the consensus opinion is made up largely of psychobabble!
Acceptance of the experts you rely on is acceptance of those who agree with you…that doesn’t make them right or more “expert” or more respectable!
It isn’t just psychological harm that is being discussed and considered and it isn’t just gay marriage:
The Heritage Foundation reports on the social and economic advantages children have when their parents form a traditional family unit. The articles author, Peter H. Fagan is a PhD and is considered an expert on crime, marriage and family.
The American College of Pediatricians advises traditional marriage is best for children.
Sciencedirect.com posts a study by Mark Regnerus, Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas that suggests current studies have been limited or narrow in focus and more studies need to be done. He concludes:
psychcentral.com post an opinion by Rick Nauert PhD Senior News Editor:
The Age out of Australia cites a report and concludes:
The focus for these opinions and studies is children.
My own personal focus is children. I have watched what has happened in our society and to individual lives with the onset of easy divorce, sexual “liberation”, and alternative lifestyles of all kinds. I see a lot of lost people, broken people, and people who can barely function much less take their place in the adult world of contribution and participation.
I think that people who share my opinion, including researchers, sociologists, and psychologists, have the right to express our opinions and seek influence in our society. It may come as a surporise to you Chris but you don’t have a monopoly on experts in the field. It is, in fact, telling that you would like to silence, malign and dismiss me and others like me…and yes, Chris, that does make you more like a dictator than someone who can participate in an atmosphere of freedom.
My opinion is that the children of America have gotten a raw deal because their parents have been selfish, self-serving and irresponsible with little respect or regard for their biological obligations and responsibilities. Much more important than sex education, gay rights, or the opinions of free love proponents, in my opinion, would be classes that teach responsibility regarding the act of procreation and greater respect for the human beings that we now so casually produce and just as casually discard or abandon.
I’d like these discussion to be about what is best for America’s future generations but with you discussion always seems to devolve into a virtual pecker match about whose experts are acceptable.
Your continued arrogance is ass-tounding! (That started out as a typo and I thought, “Oh, what the hell.”
My apologies to our readers for indulging off topic rants. I’ll let Chris rant on…I am once again done.
“Chris: “Would it be accurate to make generalized claims such as “Single mothers harm children” or “step-parents harm children…”
Yes.”
Wow. I really couldn’t disagree more. My mother has never harmed me. My father has never harmed any of his step-children. My stepmother has never harmed me. The suggestion that simply by being a single mother or a step-parent, you are harming children, is fucking appalling and monstrous. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying it.
You say that it’s OK to say hurtful things as long as they’re true, but you don’t really care about hurting people OR the truth. You care about being right, and refusing to ever admit you’re wrong, no matter what. What you are saying is both a) hurtful to people, and b) ridiculously false. But you don’t care, as long as it supports your idiotic point.
“It would be inaccurate to make the claim that any group has attempted to “ban” motherhood, second marriages, or gay marriage.”
You know, you’re actually right about this. Conservatives haven’t banned gay marriage. Gay marriage still exists, conservatives just don’t want the government to recognize it as a civil marriage. Thank you for acknowledging that.
I should have said, “Would it fair to use the claim that step-parents harm children to argue that the government shouldn’t legally recognize second marriages in which one partner has children?” That would be an equivalent to what your side has done regarding same-sex marriage.
There is a LOT more evidence that children raised by step-families have worse than average outcomes, than there is of children raised by same-sex couples having worse than average outcomes. And yet, the anti-gays’ apparent “concern for children” has not led them to try and stop people from getting legally re-married, presumably because that’s something many of the anti-gays see themselves as capable of doing some day, while they see no chance that they will ever feel the need to enter into a same-sex marriage. In fact, many prominent SSM opponents, such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, have been married multiple times.
The only explanation for this double standard is animus toward gays. The “concern for children” argument, just like the “procreation” argument, is not applied consistently to all people. It is only applied to gays.
“The groups you love to hate, Chris, are doing nothing more than are pro gay marriage groups groups…”
False. Pro-gay marriage groups have not tried to stop anyone from getting legally married. When they do this, then you can draw an equivalence.
“I have to say, I believe they exercise their constitutional rights with better manners and good taste.”
So voting to legally annull the marriages of total strangers now qualifies as “manners and good taste?” If that’s your definition, I want no part of it.
“Our readers can find out more about the organization TFP here.”
Tina, in case the military-looking black uniforms with red sashes didn’t tip you off (I mean, really? That DIDN’T tip you off?!) the TFP is a NEO-FASCIST movement which was “banned for its paramilitary activities in Venezuela, where it was implicated in 1984 in a plot to assassinate the Pope, a charge that the group denied.”
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=publisher&publisher=IRBC&type=&coi=VEN&docid=3ae6abee60&skip=0
It has been accused of being a cult by former members and Catholics:
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php?/content/comments/who_is_the_tfp/
And it rejects both the Protestant Pseudo-Reformation and the Enlightenment, believing in strict hierarchy and obedience to nobility over any forms of equality. (Yeah, the founders would have loved these guys!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_the_Defense_of_Tradition,_Family_and_Property
Their views are about as anti-American as you can get. And you’re going to cite them as if they know what they are credible witnesses? The video they posted doesn’t even show any “violence.” Ripping down a banner, while uncivil, is not violence. And these are college students, not an official protest group.
Furthermore, the TFP is aggressively preaching the denial of civil rights to some of these people. In that very article, they admit to comparing homosexuals to pedophiles at the protest in question, then complain about someone spitting in their face (which isn’t shown on the video). I don’t know about you, but if someone compared me to a pedophile to my face, I would respond with justifiable anger.
“I am well aware of leftist “consensus” in this field. It is proscribed by the liberal agenda and peer reviewed by those who share the same ideological opinion.”
Of course. You’re losing, so you have to accuse the other side of cheating.
This is classic projection. The institute you cited for what you adorably thought was a “clinical finding”–even though the woman in question had never done a clinical study of the subject she was talking out of her ass about–was formed for an expressly POLITICAL purpose. The ACP doesn’t even allow anyone in who is not a pro-life, anti-gay conservative. I know of no mainstream or left-leaning medical organization that has a similar ideological test for entry, or was formed for similarly political purposes. The American Academy of Pediatricians, which the ACP broke off from, does not have any such test; you can be a member and oppose same-sex marriage. The organization does not exist solely to promote same-sex marriage, the way the ACP exists solely to fight it. The American Psychological Association does not exist for that purpose either, nor does it turn away psychologists for disagreeing with same-sex marriage.
The experts I cited who have accused the ACP of distorting their research can not be easily identified as liberal. Throckmorton is a former advocate of ex-gay therapy who has since rejected the practice. Collins is an evangelical who believes Christianity can be reconciled with evolution. I can’t find anything on Remafedi’s politics. The only thing they all have in common is that they all accuse the ACP of misreporting their research.
You are literally only accusing my cited experts of being liberally biased because you want that to be the case; you didn’t do any research on them before making the accusation. How could I expect you to? You don’t even do any research on your OWN sources before you cite them!
It’s just amazing that you would cite one of the most egregious examples of a politically biased “medical” organization, and then when I point out their bias, you ignore it and accuse mainstream scientists of being politically motivated with absolutely no evidence to support your charge. You are incapable of recognizing a valid source or making a logical argument.
You reject the consensus view in virtually every field–psychology, economics, history, climate science, sociology–in favor of the minority fringe view, simply because that view aligns with conservative political interests. Then you falsely accuse the mainstream of being politically motivated. You misunderstand how these people work. Most of them did not join their field for political reasons. They do not come to a conclusion based on faith or political interests and then work backwards to prove that conclusion, as the ACP does. They follow the scientific method and go where the data takes them. That’s why they are highly respected in their field, and your sources aren’t. Their data is simply better. That’s it.
“Acceptance of the experts you rely on is acceptance of those who agree with you…that doesn’t make them right or more “expert” or more respectable!”
Tina, the experts I rely on are considered more respectable in their field. That is a fact which you can easily verifiable. That doesn’t change just because you don’t like it.
Of course, that doesn’t mean they are right. They are right because their data is better. Show me the data from any of your experts and I will point out the flaws and patiently explain why the data of my cited experts is better. But that would be a waste of time, since you still wouldn’t accept it, because you ignore every fact you don’t want to hear.
“The Heritage Foundation”
No.
“The American College of Pediatricians”
As previously demonstrated, no.
“Sciencedirect.com posts a study by Mark Regnerus…
“I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent; rather, my point is more modest: the groups display numerous, notable distinctions, especially when compared with young adults whose biological mother and father remain married. …””
It should be noted that Regnerus has gone back and forth in his “conclusions” and misrepresented his own research, according to both conservative and liberal critics, including David Blankenhorn, who was a major supporter of Prop 8:
http://familyscholars.org/2012/06/12/the-regnerus-study-cont/
Blankenhorn’s chief problem with the study is that it claims to be about “new family structures,” but does not actually study family structures; it asks children if either of their parents have ever had a same-sex relationship, not if they were raised by a same-sex couple. Almost none of the children studied by Regnerus were actually raised by a same-sex couple, so his study tells us nothing about children raised by same-sex couples, let alone gay marriage. And yet he refers to some of his subjects as “gay families” even in situations where the child was never raised by two gay parents. Despite these serious flaws, his study has already been used by opponents of gay rights in court, and there is evidence that that is exactly what Regnerus intended from the beginning. Simply put, the guy didn’t study what he claimed to be studying.
He is right that the existing research on same-sex couples and their children is flawed, but his study is hardly an improvement. He is comparing children raised in stable families to children whose parents had same-sex affairs or got divorced. Of course those children had worse outcomes. That tells us nothing about children raised by stable same-sex couples.
You can read more about the problems with the Regnerus study at the Family Scholars Blog linked above.
“My own personal focus is children. I have watched what has happened in our society and to individual lives with the onset of easy divorce, sexual “liberation”, and alternative lifestyles of all kinds. I see a lot of lost people, broken people, and people who can barely function much less take their place in the adult world of contribution and participation.”
That’s all very nice, and it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
“It is, in fact, telling that you would like to silence, malign and dismiss me and others like me…and yes, Chris, that does make you more like a dictator than someone who can participate in an atmosphere of freedom.”
No. Dismissing bad science as bad science is not “dictatorship,” and it’s incredibly whiny of you to call it that. The people you cite are considered outside the mainstream because their findings cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. They are clearly, obviously wrong, and are thus rejected. That is fair, and that is a result of free speech. They are not being “oppressed.” They are being criticized.
“My opinion is that the children of America have gotten a raw deal because their parents have been selfish, self-serving and irresponsible with little respect or regard for their biological obligations and responsibilities. Much more important than sex education, gay rights, or the opinions of free love proponents, in my opinion, would be classes that teach responsibility regarding the act of procreation and greater respect for the human beings that we now so casually produce and just as casually discard or abandon.”
I agree with you. I think sex education should deal a lot more with the responsibilities of not only child-bearing, but sex itself. More emphasis should be put on recognizing true consent and respect for one’s partner.
But that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.