Hate Crimes and Race

The news of late has had several instances of whites being assaulted by groups of blacks in what are being called "hate crimes". Some of them have ended in death, others less severely.

I submit to you that the entire idea of "hate crime" needs to be abolished. Either that, or extended to every crime of one human against another, for at its core, anytime you try to take the life or assault another human, hate is usually involved. Regardless of race, isn't any assault or murder on another human being, by default, a hate crime?

There are many, many other instances of black on white crime that are not reported and not charged as hate crime. A simple search on YouTube will fill your afternoon and empty your stomach in disgust.

So the question is, why are there not more black on white crimes charged as racially motivated hate crimes?

The Oldtimer believes it's partially because white people don't have groups like NAACP to vehemently disapprove of these hate crimes.

In this era of everyone playing to political correctness, and respecting everyones ethnicity at the complete disregard for their own, perhaps it's time for those kinds of groups to be formed for whites.

We can start with:
White American Male Empowerment Summit
100 White Men of America
American Association of Whites in Energy
White Women's Network
Whites In Government
Congress of National White Churches
Congressional White Caucus
United White College Fund
Harvard White Law Students Association
International White Women's Congress
International Org. of White Security Execs
National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People
Nat'l. Alliance of White School Educators
Nat'l. Assn. of White Accountants
Nat'l. Assn. of White College Broadcasters
Nat'l. Assn. of White Social Workers
Nat'l. Assn. of White Journalists
Nat'l. Assn. of White Telecomm. Professionals
Nat'l. Assn. of White-Owned Broadcasters
Nat'l. Assn. of White Women Entrepreneurs
Nat'l. Assn. of Whites in Criminal Justice
Nat'l. White Caucus of State Legislators
Nat'l. White Nurses Association
Nat'l. White Police Association
Nat'l. White Caucus of Legislators
White Congressional Caucus
Nat'l. Conference of White Mayors
Nat'l. Forum for White Public Administrators
Nat'l. Org. of White Law Enforcement Execs
The Organization of White Airline Pilots
White American Planning Commission
National Association of White Hotel Owners, Operators and Developers
National Association of White Accountants

But wait....  You're probably thinking there's a whole bunch of people that are about to be real upset about those groups.

That there are a whole lot of people who would think that organizations with names like that are inappropriate, or unacceptable, or racist.

Well, maybe we could find some better names here:
http://blacknews.com/directory/black...izations.shtml
or here:
http://www.littleafrica.com/resources/organizations.htm
or here:
http://www2.lib.udel.edu/subj/blks/i...t/afamnato.htm
or here:
http://www.aawc.com/aao.html

Because you see, folks, every single one of those organizations exists today if you just substitute the word "black" for "white".

People of the Liberal persuasion will probably argue something along the lines of:
"White people don't need such groups because, in part, white people were never slaves on this continent. Or systematically prevented from voting, owning property, being educated, etc. for another 100 years after emancipation. They also don't continue to show statistical disadvantages from centuries of such treatment."

In fact, in a recent discussion on this subject, one person used exactly that argument.

But I don't think that's a valid position, supported by the facts.

My understanding of the Constitution of this country is that it provides for equality of opportunity. Within the worlds white community (and other ethnic groups) since before this country was a nation, there have been similar conditions of one or more privileged groups of whites benefiting from the efforts and oppression of other white groups, as world history clearly demonstrates.

The black experience is certainly heavily influenced as it pertains to slavery. And, for the record, I find slavery of any human unacceptable. But slavery is not unique to blacks. Long before blacks were slaves in America, Native Americans were used thus.

In any discussion of slavery, there should also be some consideration as to how that slavery came about. The Western Europeans and North Americans who went to Africa to purchase slaves were not buying them from white men in the main, they were buying black Africans from other black Africans. Just as was the case with the Native American slaves, and later, the Orientals in some areas, the black slaves were sold by enemy tribes, war conquerors, and other dominant groups within the black race, extremely rarely by white men in Africa.

Slavery is defined as the ownership of a human being against his will by another human being. By that definition, slavery was abolished over 150 years ago. However, unlike other enslaved peoples, the blacks have used slavery as the cornerstone of a new and powerful economic engine called 'discrimination'. And discrimination has become a primary driver of disproportionate influence in the black community.

Slavery is a specific and unique condition. It does not, and never has equated to discrimination.

Discrimination is exhibited throughout history against all manner of religious, economic, ethnic and even political groups. The blacks are far from the only groups in American who have faced significant discrimination, but they are largely the only group that continues to claim to be victimized by it on a significant scale.

The Italians, Irish, Scottish, Portuguese, Catholics, Jews, Orientals, Vietnamese and scores of other groups were initially discriminated against when they came to this country in numbers. But virtually all have moved beyond it, largely by assimilating into the melting pot culture of America and taking advantage of the equal opportunities available to them.

Is there discrimination in America, Europe, Asia, and all over the world? Yes there is (and again, I abhor it). But I will submit to you that it is nowhere as wide spread as is represented, and, most importantly, is able to be corrected (and quickly) by existing state and Federal legislation here in America. As has been shown by the disabled, the gays, and other minority communities, it is also not unique to blacks.

If you are denied a job only because of the color of your skin (as the sole reason), that is absolutely discrimination, and unacceptable. But that's only true if it's only because of the color of your skin. If you're denied a job because you choose to speak Ebonics rather than English, or because you never graduated high school and can't count change, or because you refuse to conform to dress codes, health standards, work hours, or work rules, that's not discrimination. That is choice. And you don't deserve discrimination lawsuits or special compensation (reparations) for stupidity.

Discrimination is historically best overcome through education and familiarity with the minority by the majority. It has been said by numerous civil rights leaders in the '60's that what was needed was assimilation, not discrimination, integration, not segregation.

By creating a Black Congressional Caucus, or a United Negro College fund, Blacks have chosen to separate, not integrate, discriminate. not assimilate.

And it's not because the white population has prevented them from becoming integrated. It is because their racial and discrimination agenda disappears when they take full advantage of the equal opportunity that has been made available to them.

Since 1960, the proportion of black children living with a single parent more than doubled, from 22% to 53% in 2000. Since 1980, more black children have lived with a single parent than with two parents (45%), and since 1983, the majority of black children (53.6%) have lived with only a single parent.

In terms of high school graduation rates, the Black-White gap narrowed during the 1980s, with no measurable change between 1990 and 2008, but there still remains almost a 100% difference in the number of black high school drop outs than of whites (19.9% vs. 10%).

In the case of these two examples (and numerous others), slavery and discrimination had absolutely nothing to do with the choices.

Both Blacks and whites have equal opportunity for two parent homes. And the fact that we are talking high school drop outs demonstrates that there was equal opportunity for high school educations.

These are endemic problems within the black population that are without cause by whites, without cause by slavery, without cause by discrimination, without cause by other external factors, and must be addressed by that black community if they are to change.

Bright, articulate, successful, educated benefactors of United Negro College Fund educations get out of college, and move away from black neighborhoods. Highly successful black entrepreneurs (those selling legal products) amass fortunes from revenues generated without regard to customers ethnicity. And they too choose to more closely assimilate with the white community.

But rather than viewing them as pillars of the community, shining examples and role models, the majority of young blacks (men, especially) view them with disgust and as Uncle Tom's... as  if by demonstrating it's possible they have somehow damaged the victimhood of the rest.
This is not my opinion alone, and I believe this is the fundamental reason for many of the prevailing white attitudes toward the black populace. It is an opinion of a number of influential African Americans such as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Bill Cosby, Tim Scott, Armstrong Williams, William Owens, Walter Williams, J.C. Watts, Clarence Thomas, and even Alveda King who have chosen to embrace the equal opportunities of American rather than choosing to submerge themselves in history that has been overcome with effective remedies.

From the best of my research, there are no white recipients of scholarships from the united Negro College Fund, no grants to whites from the NAACP, no white members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

This oldtimer wants to know:

Who's discriminating against who?     Who's truly racist?

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  Martin Luther King, Jr

“In the end antiblack, antifemale, and all forms of discrimination are equivalent to the same thing - antihumanism.”  Shirley Chisholm

“I have no race prejudice. I think I have no color prejudices or caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. Indeed, I know it. I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being -- that is enough for me; he can't be any worse.”  Mark Twain

It's Taken Some Time, But....

The Oldtimer has finally sorted through as much stuff as he can stomach about the O-man's Birth Certificate and his resulting citizenship... or lack thereof.

After a bunch of research, and trying to get my head around the Constitutional issues of "Natural Born",  I've come to some conclusions, and they are not necessarily what everybody else has come up with, as you would expect from The Oldtimer.

The Internet has a lot of info available on a lot of different subjects. Some of it is factual, some of it is not, but you can generally tell which is and which isn't by the sources, citations, and attributions. I've tried to use the good stuff, and provided sources where appropriate, but as always, do your own research.

Obama's grandfather said during the campaign that Obama was born in Kenya and that he was there when it happened. Michelle on many occasions has referred to Kenya as Obama's "home country". Yet Obama claims to be a "natural born US citizen" as required to be president.

To meet the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen, the parents both have to be citizens and Obama has to be able to prove he was born in this country . No one has disputed Obama's father was a foreign national. Under British law, Obama is a natural born subject of Great Britain through his father, but he is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.

The big issue now is if Obama has committed fraud through the presentation of a doctored or completely fabricated certification of live birth. The failure of the state of Hawaii to legally corroborate the alleged document suggests that fraud has been committed. The issue of him having multiple Social Security Cards, and the considerations of his Foreign Student Aid also suggest fraud.

However, seeing the Obama Birth Certificate is and has always been entirely irrelevant. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen by at least 3 other requirements than US birth.

In his own books Obama explains the heritage and citizenship of his parents, which, assuming he told the truth, means he does not qualify to be President regardless of his being a citizen at birth. His father was not a US citizen, but a foreign national. His mother, while possibly a US citizen, did not meet the US residency requirements for Obama to be a US citizen at the time he was born. These are much the same reason anchor babies can’t become President.

There are three essential components to being eligible to be President, according to the Constitution:

1. The candidate has to have been born in the US as an American citizen. Up until 1983, under the Federal Naturalization and Citizenship Act, you were deemed to be the citizen of the country of your father’s Passport and nationality. (Obama says his father was Kenyan with a British Passport. So Obama was born in the US, but under Kenyan/British citizenship).

2. The candidate has to be born to parents who were both American Citizens at the time of his birth (The same issue haunted VP then President Chester A. Arthur, and Congress had to do some fast corrections to allow him to remain President.)

3. The mother had to be a resident in the US for at least the previous consecutive 5 years (versus the 15 years requirement at the time of Chester A Arthur, which is where his problem lay).

4. There are also numerous requirements of residency for citizens and for the President, if living abroad at the time of his 18th birthday, i.e., an official notification of country selection of citizenship, Selective Service registration, Social Security number, etc., which in Obama’s case are unavailable or very irregular.

In the case of Obama, his father was a Kenyan with a British Passport (i.e., NOT an American) and his mother had only been residing in the country for 4 years. So, regardless of what’s in his birth certificate, he is not and cannot be a natural born citizen.

As per Presidential requirements, he is disqualified on all 3 counts, and is not a Constitutionally elected President. In short, he is not really the President, because he never qualified as a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of the circumstances of where he was born. It might be the reason he is on record for saying the Constitution is outdated for these times of globalization.

A note of historical precedence: This situation occurred with President Chester A. Arthur as well, where his father (born in the UK) was claimed to have still been a British Citizen at the time of Arthur's birth. Arthur ran as Vice president in 1880 under Garfield, who won and became President in 1881. Garfield was later assassinated by a fanatical Arthur supporter, rendering Arthur President.

However, when queries were made of Arthur as to his father’s citizenship at the time of his birth, Arthur claimed conveniently that his father's records were lost in a fire, just prior to his candidacy. Arthur’s father became a naturalized citizen in 1843; Arthur was born in 1829.

However at the time, the law was that to be natural born, besides both parents having to be American Citizens at the time of birth, the Mother had to reside for at least the previous consecutive 15 years in the US as an American Citizen. However Garfield's mother was only in the country for 9 years at the time of Arthur's birth, which disqualified Arthur as a Natural Born Citizen to be eligible as president.

To prevent Arthur 's entire Presidency and signing of Executive Orders and Legislation into Law from becoming void, Congress changed the requirement of the Mother to be residing in the US as an American from 15 years back to 5 years, retroactive to a date prior to the Arthur presidency. It is that 5 year requirement, still in effect, that gives Obama problems.

Some say that Obama was really born to the person who became his mentor from 1971-1979, Frank Marshall Davis, which, if true, would mean that he did have a US born father, but in that case he still doesn't qualify, because his mother was not a resident for at least the previous consecutive 5 years.

(The left's response to this is that Congress, as it did with Chester A. Arthur can retroactively change the regulation for a Natural Born Citizen back to 4 years residency from 5 years, which would then retroactively re-qualify Obama to be President. However, anything executed prior to that being done by Congress would need to also be exempted by Congress, creating a Constitutional crisis, as it would be basically a Constitutional amendment, something Congress cannot (yet) do by fiat.)

But unless and until a different father is proved and Congress retroactively changes the residency requirement of Obama’s mother from 5 years to 4 years, as was done regarding the residency of Chester A. Arthur’s mother (15 years to 5 years retroactively), Obama does not qualify to be President under the Constitution, meaning that everything he’s signed into law would be void, and have to be re-enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President named to replace Obama, namely Joe Biden or someone else that may become President, after 2012.

Obama's mother Anna supposedly was in Hawaii when he was born. However, documents from the University of Hawaii has her starting class in Sept 26, 1960. She then enrolled at the University of Washington in the autumn of 1961, just after Obama was born. Obama Sr. was still at the University of Hawaii, and graduated in 1962 while Ann was at University of Washington.

Following is a copy of an email from the University of Washington confirming Ann's dates of enrollment. (From the Internet, verified by Snopes)

From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008
Subject: Re: Stanley “Anna” Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration

Ms. Stanley Anna Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for:
Autumn 1961
Winter 1962
Spring 1962

The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Madolyne Lawson
Office of Public Records
206-543-9180

(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html )

Here's a link to Anna's University of Washington transcripts that confirm the dates in which she was enrolled. (these are public record):
http://theobamafile.com/_images/AnnaObamaUnivofWashingtonTranscript.jpg
See also: http://theobamafile.com/_images/AnnaUWashington.jpg

Here's a link to a letter from the University of Hawaii confirming the dates that Anna was enrolled at the University. She was initially a student, for single semester, in the fall of 1960. She returned to the University of Hawaii for the spring semester of 1963.
http://theobamafile.com/_images/DunhamUnivHawaii.jpg

See also: http://theobamafile.com/_images/AnnaUnivHawaiiRecord.gif

What Obama has decided to spend millions in legal fees to conceal is far more than just the real birth certificate.

Beyond the long form birth certificate, there is the passport he reportedly traveled on while a teen (reportedly not a US passport), his non-citizen scholarship aid paperwork from Occidental College, his academic records from Columbia and Harvard (including reported foreign student aid), his medical records, and the paperwork for his social security number(s) from Connecticut, Washington, and Hawaii (how does he have three Social Security numbers?), just like the media has required from every other presidential candidate.

Remember the media spending day and night for a year trying to "expose" Bush's National Guard record? Remember the media furor over whether John McCain was really eligible after being born in Panama?

As Donald Trump has been saying of late, this may be one of the greatest con jobs in history.
 
The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold. ~Aristotle
 
A lie has speed, but truth has endurance. ~Edgar J. Mohn