"We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue . .."
So said Barack Obama in rejecting just that option he raised in his 'landmark' speech on race, which some of us predicted at the time would implode his campaign, since it's absence of unequivocal denunciation gave a blank check to racists, cranks, and demagogues.
And the wages that speech earned are now clear: the public is learning that the NAACP hosts a speaker who insists that we have different brain chemistry based on race, the D.C. press corps after caricaturing talk radio and cable news for taking Wright "snippets" out of "context" is lectured by Wright that the government down the street created AIDS and deserved 9/11 and that Farrakhan is "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century."
Last week's careful script was shredded by Wright. Obama gave an inspired and entirely professional performance in an interview with Chris Wallace. Then ever reliable Bill Moyers did his progressive best to sanctify a carefully coached and calm, soft-spoken Wright; then despite his brain remarks, the media gushed over Wright's NAACP speech and then all that careful work was destroyed in spectacular fashion by Wright's Press Club rants.
Note that when any candidate makes a Faustian bargain with extremists, nemesis eventually catches up with them. Obama chose to go the race route, first to start a political career in Chicago by enlisting Rev. Wright, and later a presidential bid predicated on winning an overwhelming black vote in the key primaries and now the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. He was half-right a few weeks ago: while he might well have disowned his own grandmother by apprising the nation of her racism, he surely now cannot disown Rev. Wright.
There are no second-takes, no "National Landmark Speech on RacePart II". Ask Hillary if she can cry again. Right now Obama needs a Sophocles to teach him what this modern Oedipus has done to himself.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/29/2008 15:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
oh. saw the title and assumed VDH was talking about Peanut
#2
too little too late for the empty suit methinx...damage already done...couple weeks back empty suit talked about the press misusing 10 second sound bites to tar his pastor and now empty suit obama does same to disown same crazy-ass pastor....how clinton of him. Actually, I take that back - it would have been clinton of him for wright to end up dead in an Ill state park or something.
Posted by: Snash Oppressor of the Mohammatans aka Broadhead6 ||
04/29/2008 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
The entire tone of the race changed the moment we saw the first fiery Wright sermon. The sight of those sermons triggered a question in a lot of voters' minds: How do you get the moderate-sounding, pleasant, agreeable student Barack Obama from an angry, divisive, radical, way-out-of-the-mainstream teacher like Jeremiah Wright? The sermons weren't quite a deal-breaker, but many Obama supporters, leaners, and undecideds were asking... how did Obama choose this man as a mentor? How could he possibly not know that his mentor had these attitudes? And does Obama agree with any of Wright's inflammatory statements?
In response, Obama gave a very eloquent speech about race relations in America. But it never quite answered the question, and in fact tried to blur the distinction between family we are born into and those we choose to turn to for guidance. Hillary jabbed at this in the debate, and Obama never quite had an appropriate response. He even said he disowned Wright, then backtracked and said he disowned his controversial statements.
And since then, it's gotten worse, even with a Bill Moyers interview that wasn't softball so much as it was Nerf Tee-Ball. We've heard Wright compare the Roman Legions who punished Jesus to the U.S. Marines, we've heard him argue that the U.S. and al-Qaeda are doing the same acts under different flags, etc.
Now we hear Wright analyzing the differences between white and black brains (!) and that the criticism of him for his comments was "an attack on the black church." He didn't retract his assertion that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus. He didn't retract his accusation that the United States had committed terrorism. He raved about Louis Farrakhan.
And again, we're left with that question... presuming Obama strongly disagrees with all of Wright's statements in these areas... how did he end up selecting this pastor? This church? (I know we get the story in Obama's autobiography. But did Obama once agree with all of the crazy conspiracy theories? Does he still agree, late at night, when the microphones and television cameras are far away?)
Obama is saying he should be president, instead of two much more experienced rivals, because of his superior judgment. But what kind of judgment is needed to select Wright as a surrogate father figure?
Anyone raised amid the wisdom of mothers knows well the dictum that "some people just talk too much." Meet the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
At the moment, Rev. Wright is out in public saying whatever happens to be on his mind. It is not a coincidence that at least some of what is on Rev. Wright's mind and tongue may be pushing Barack Obama's presidential candidacy into a ditch. . . .
The last time around this track, Barack Obama responded with a long speech meditating on the status of race in America. It was both an interesting speech and an attempt to get the Wright mess behind him. Now just yesterday Rev. Wright said that Senator Obama has neither denounced him nor distanced himself from the pastor but instead "did what politicians do."
Meanwhile, more inflammatory remarks by Rev. Wright from past sermons are coming to light, and he has taken to explaining away everything as "soundbites" taken out of context. Past some point that doesn't fly, and we are past that point. On Sunday, John McCain said Rev. Wright's commentary is likely to be "a political issue." The Obama campaign cracked back that Mr. McCain had broken his word to run a "respectful campaign."
This won't wash. The one fact that Senator Obama can't undo is that he was a member of Rev. Wright's church for 20 years. Jeremiah Wright is insisting on making this long relationship an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, and many voters understandably want clarity on the subject from candidate Obama.
Early in his campaign, Senator Obama earned support from many voters with the notion that he wanted to transcend racial politics. Rev. Wright is exacerbating them in a way not seen in recent years. Barack Obama cannot remain on both sides of this. He has to make a decision. He is not running for national Mediator. He is running for President. In time, that job brings tough decisions. He's there now.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/29/2008 06:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can disown the black community." - guess who?
#2
Look for the Battered wife Syndrome meets The Student becomes the Teacher subterfuge. You know the drill. Wright cant possibly be as close to Obama, as some would suggest if he is willing to risk damage to Obamas presidential aspirations to further his own selfish aggrandizement. Next step is to weave the Obama the Harvard cum laude altruistically becomes community organizer turned public servant to lead the next generation of the disadvantaged masses out of the old divisive dogma and into a new era of healing.
Of course, the down-shot is that many will then correctly recognize that Obama attended a church more as a political calculation rather then any spiritual enlightenment. And the real risk is to expose his narrative of Hope and Change as being grounded in the amalgamation of New left/Neo-Marxism philosophy and Chicago-style grievance politics.
#4
Back around Super Tuesday, I noted that something politically fatal would befall Obama, and you would KNOW it came from the Clintons because it "couldn't have anything to do with the Clintons".
Now that potentially fatal blow has arrived, and it can't be traced back to the Clintons.
My question- did Hillery "get to" the good reverand, like the mob used to "get to" the judge?
Could it be possible? I wish Vince Foster were here to comment.
#5
Capsu: I attribute much of this to Wright's ego. Wright was retiring this year, remember? He was about to go from center of attention to something less than the center of attention--a transition which the large-egoed often have trouble making. (See also, e.g., Clinton, William J.) Just as he's about to enter that long twilight of relative obscurity, his more controversial sermons escaped into the wild (with a helpful nudge from the Clinton war room, I have no doubt), and now all of a sudden he's the center of attention again! And don't think he's not enjoying it!
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by lesser vices.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/29/2008 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mike,
My whole theory is that lack of evidence is what I have come to believe from the Clintons.
"They are not involved here" is strike one for me.
I share your point that those DVD's from TUCC were most likely in HRC's opposition research arsenal. A slight nudge to a friendly reporter to go and buy the "boxed set", and Hillary doesn't even need to pay the expense report.
The second evidence of "lack of evidence" is that HRC didn't have an effective bomb to toss, even though she faced "inevitable" political irrelevance from the formerly adoring MSM more than once since then.
lack of "1" + lack of "1" = 2 Clintons IMHO
#7
The ace, Obama can always drop out after a demand and failure of the Super-Delegates to push him over the top (ala Mitt Romney, or Rudy)! Being that Bill Clinton reportedly doesn't like Obama 'personally', and now the DNC wouldn't have a problem of either dropping out in June, I don't think Queen Hillary would even pick him for VP for his endorsement. The egg on the face of Iowa, New Hampshire and other 'white' states would be so embarrassing, another black wouldn't be promoted to run for another 1000 years!!
#8
I have voted for lots of Republicans, but it is the Democrat party that has let down America this go around. The choices the democrats brought forth this Spring should make us all sick to our stomachs.
And who cares who Bill Clinton dislikes personally. If Bill does not like him, perhaps he will not be groped. And I do not want to see pictures of Bill groping Obama.
Reports that a high-powered committee appointed by the Planning Commission has recommended that the government hold peace talks with Naxalites are a cause for concern.
While some of the measures prescribed by the committee to counter the Naxal movement look like good advice, the idea that the state should confer legitimacy on what is essentially a bunch of terrorists by negotiating with them, is ridiculous.
Salwa Judum should be called off, yes. It amounts to vigilantism and only deepens the law and order problem in areas affected by Naxalite violence.
It is also true that the Naxalite movement has managed to gain a foothold in tribal and hilly areas where the state has failed. But this does not mean that the government should compound its errors by agreeing to engage the Naxalites in talks.
A democratic government should attempt to resolve a conflict via diplomacy and negotiation. But not when the other party is a violent political movement that is opposed to the very existence of the state.
There are no calls to negotiate with Lashkar-e-Taiba or engage with Jaish-e-Mohammed. The Naxals are every bit as bad as those two organisations.
They want the destruction of the Indian state. There is nothing to gain from even trying to conduct a dialogue with them.
Contrary to what the committee has said, the Naxalite problem is a law and order issue. To sit across the negotiating table with the Naxal leadership will send a signal to the people in those areas that it is acceptable to resort to violence to make a point.
It would also legitimise the Naxal movement itself. Negotiation works only when all involved parties agree on certain basic principles and want an end to a conflict.
With the Naxalites, who don't believe that the state is a legitimate entity, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a mutual point of agreement.
By talking to the Naxal leadership, the government would give stature to a terrorist organisation that has no intention of allowing Indians to ever live in peace.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/29/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
A few days ago, there were two suspiciously coordinated statements emerging from Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr made open-war threats followed immediately by a similar threat from al-Qaeda.
As they say, there is usually no smoke without fire.
Respected Iraqi writer and lawyer Suleiman Hakim (a prominent writer regularly published on the leading Iraqi politics and culture website Kitabat ) reported on April 11 more than a week before Sadr and Abu Ayyub made their threats about serious negotiations taking place between Sadrs movement and a leader of the Islamic army group.
The meetings, Hakim believes, are taking place in Syria and Lebanon and are sponsored by a special Syrian security apparatus specialized in Iraqi affairs.
Sheik Zergani [Sadrs representative in Lebanon] and Sadrs representative in Syria met in the Lebanese capital last March with Mr. Khalil Jumeily [a leader of the Islamic army] and after preliminary discussions in which they exchanged their views about the situation in Iraq and their plans for overthrowing the existing order and reviewing the positions of domestic and regional allies, they decided to resume the discussions in Damascus so that once they reach specific agreements, one certain Syrian security apparatus in charge of Iraqi issues would witness and sponsor those agreements the relationships between Sadr movement and the Islamic army are not outside the frame of the Iran-Syria alliance. And so these relationships are being restored after being severed in the aftermath of the holy shrines bombings in 2006 and the massacres committed by Mahdi army indiscriminately against Sunni Iraqis. The main requirement of the new agreement is that the Islamic army launch wide operations against American and government targets and to take control of cities and towns near the armys strongholds, in addition to the provision of assistance and backup to the Mahdi army once Muqtada unfreezes the army and gives the green light for starting the battle against the authority of the Shia coalition. [The objective is] to create a new situation on the ground that forces the American forces to negotiate a new formula for power and authority in Iraq
The fact that this story was written almost days before both al-Qaeda leaders sent in a wave of audio recordings and Muqtada threatened open war gives them increased credibility.
True, the idea of the Islamic army cooperating with Mahdi army sounds as peculiar as it always has. Not because of the sectarian difference, because the two groups did cooperate and sent reinforcements to each other back in 2004 during the battles of Fallujah and Najaf.
Its because by considering a new joint venture with Sadr the Islamic army is making two huge mistakes. Its true that the leaders of the group are likely not politically savvy and driven by emotion, but it still should be easy for them to understand that this would be a blunder.
Why?
First, by siding with Sadr theyd be obviously choosing a losing partner in the long run, and the bet on quick gains through a nationwide shock offensive is too much of a longshot stretch, with highly unpredictable outcome.
Second, and most important, is that former Sunni insurgent groups (the Islamic army being one of the most prominent), by turning against al-Qaeda, have already created for themselves better bargaining positions when it comes to negotiating the future distribution of power in the country with the government or the U.S.
It is close to impossible to truly gauge what the leaders of these groups are thinking because we still dont have enough knowledge about the subtleties that underlie the relationships between the different factions within the Sunni insurgency in general, and the Islamic army in particular.
But we Iraqis need to stay alert, for something nasty might be brewing for us in Damascus.
Omar Fadhil is PJM Baghdad editor. His own blog is Iraq The Model.
#2
Much as I hate to admit it, being counter to my normal mores, I would have little, if any, hesitation putting a gun to Soros head and splattering his brains across a room, for all the evil he has done.
But that's not for me to do - he is in for a surprise when he faces the ultimate judge.
#3
There are now perhaps 10 governments in the world that Soros has tried to undermine or overthrow by puppets loyal to Soros. Eventually, somebody is going to tire of his efforts and smite him.
#4
Let's leave it to the Ultimate Judge, shall we? Advocating his death, since he's an American citizen (an odious little twerp of an American citizen) crosses a line we've established for the Burg in the past. AoS.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/29/2008 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
The race industry and its elite enablers take it as self-evident that high black incarceration rates result from discrimination.
At a presidential primary debate this Martin Luther King Day, for instance, Sen. Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites "are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, (and) receive very different sentences . . . for the same crime."
Not to be outdone, Sen. Hillary Clinton promptly denounced the "disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites."
Continued on Page 49
#1
The continuing search for the chimera of criminal-justice bigotry is a useless distraction that diverts energy and attention from the crucial imperative of helping more inner-city boys stay in school � and out of trouble.
Unlikely to happen while the education establishment continues to discriminate against and demonize males. Look at the ratio of male to female teachers in the elementary level of education. Using the genderists own arguments, it's massive institutionalized discrimination.
#5
already happening out here in WA: sentencing guidelines are being 'revisited' for cocaine as majority of crack cocaine users are black, while whites enjoy the other varieties.......
silly me i thought a crime was a crime, and the scales of justice babe wore that blindfold for a reason.
#6
Thing is I'm libertarian enough to think let everyone do the drugs they want, but some drugs are more dangerous than others and lead to crimes that influence others. Even if legalized.
They should have tougher laws against crack for exactly that reason. Crime is a huge reason the poor are poor. Crime leads to increased prices at stores, lack of insurance and jobs. A number of other things. And well intentioned but misguided attitudes to help the criminals hurts the blacks in general.
Unfortunately few blacks see it that way so I'm not sure a solution will ever be found.
#7
The majority of crimes in the US are committed by young males 16 25 of age. The majority of that demographic come from single-parent households primarily no father in the house. The Race hustlers will cry systemic racism. The PC liberals will cry classicism. The uncomfortable truth is that crime is tied empirically to Culture.
#11
During the early part of Clinton's second term I got into it with a former friend (a committed leftist) who made a similar tired argument about the fact that welfare was primarily used by whites - that a much higher number, as well as a much higher percentage, of whites were likely to be on public assistance.
I dug deep into all the pertinent government sites that had statisics published on the web at the time, and found out that not only were a much higher percentage of blacks on welfare, but that the overall number of blacks was larger than the overall number of whites, or indeed of any ethnic group. Furthermore, this occurred for the first time in history not under the ketchup-is-a-vegetable evil Reagan regime, but during Clinton's.
When presented with this conclusive evidence, well-sourced with links to the government websites and their data, my former friend claimed that none of these sites were real and that I had made it all up. He refused to even check the sites out. It just couldn't be true, and leave him with his philosophy and worldview intact, after all.
You have to understand - so attached are the postmodern left to the "narrative", and so intellectually lazy and unwilling to reassess their world view and its underpinnings, that they will actively deny any experience or fact or information which might cause them to have to alter their view or admit that they were wrong, ever, about anything.
In much the same way, this same former friend (and the overwhelming majority of those whose politics are left of center) was a rabid advocate of the notion that the only reason more blacks were prosecuted for crimes than whites was racism.
While the leftists guilty of this denial claim to be interested in "fairness" and "justice" they really do it because they want to feel like they are superior to us little people and our inconvenient statistics.
Said denial is as damaging as that of the alcoholic who won't admit that there is a problem. The result of this denial is that it prevents solving one of the very real problems that face America today - the damage to the black family.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/29/2008 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Every closed eye is not sleeping, and every open eye is not seeing. Bill Cosby A voice in the wilderness.
Jesse "Where's the Camera" Jackson and his ilk want the black population right where they are. Like Tater he derives his power from their misery.
#13
Moynihan saw it coming in the 60's. Anyone besides me remember "The Coming Black Underclass?" Johnson's "Great Society" programs vastly strengthened the already powerful centrifugal forces affecting the black family. Why should some young black woman wait for marriage and a probably demanding husband when she could get independence--free money and housing RIGHT NOW--just for becoming pregnant?
Lots of them didn't see any reason, so they did.
In economic effect, they married Uncle Sam--or at least his wallet.
The catch, of course, was that the money and housing kept being subsidized only as long as the woman remained unmarried. As Baldilocks once wrote about the prevalence of young black male criminals, "no fathers around means young males out of control."
Since the women didn't need the fathers around, indeed would suffer economically if they were around, the black father became unnecessary for anything other than donating sperm. So now we've had two generations of young blacks where the women have grabbed for the brass ring only to find it was a pair of handcuffs and the men have been reduced to irrelevance or worse. We have welfare families in this nation who have, in three generations, NEVER had anyone hold a real job. Those are the people you saw after Katrina saying "Why isn't the Government here to help me?" Hell, why wouldn't they think that? That's all they, and the vast majority of people they know or associate with, have ever known--waiting for Government help.
Johnson did not intend to destroy the black family, but in effect he did by creating conditions where it was economically advantageous for it to dissolve or simply never form at all. Politicians of every stripe have since continued the same destructive courses.
The cycle can be broken; we could start by making Norplant mandatory for female welfare recipients. It would take guts to do that though, and in our present system there is not sufficient political will to force such a change. Until we break this cycle of welfare mothers, absent fathers, undisciplined children and societal accommodation of the above, we'll continue to have blacks fill our jails in numbers far exceeding their proportion of the society.
I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, black criminality will continue to alienate everyone else and give an unspoken, but very real, boost to anti-black racism. The defense/justification/excuse of that criminality by race hustlers like Jackson, Sharpton and Wright will simply increase the effect. Witness the visceral response by non-blacks to the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom atrocity as a case in point.
I see lots of parallels between this problem and the problem with Muslims in Europe. Neither is likely to end well.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
04/29/2008 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Thaimble's onto something.
I forget who first said it but the old Western model of family was husband, wife, and children, whereas the new postmodern socialist model is state, woman, and child.
This model obviates the need to make the choice that women had to make throughout the ages, which was between 1) dangerous but exciting men who gave them immediate gratification but wouldn't help much in raising progeny and b)boring but reliable men who were way less thrilling but would do the decent thing and stick around to support wife and kids.
Nowadays, at minimum a plurality of women have gamed the new way and can have the excitement (from the no-good but exciting guys), and still get the material support (from the apparatus of state, or the divorce laws), and so have jettisoned the decent but unexciting male utterly. This is the genesis of the saying "chicks dig jerks" (female 'burgers excluded, of course).
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/29/2008 18:47 Comments ||
Top||
#15
chicks dig jerks?
how have I not capitalized??
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/29/2008 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#16
how have I not capitalized??
'cause way deep down Frank you are a such a nice marshmallow!
#20
;-) thx, but nobody's indispensable. I thought that was so, but before Lucky and Paco/.com left us....
we are the poorer for their absence, but RB marches on!
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/29/2008 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#21
In the big pic, I contribute: $ for Fred, snark and occasional article posts. Indispensable... I think not. RB is, however my firstest, bestest because of the content and comment. Chewtoys are a plus, when they amuse or intrigue based on complexity. Lately? No, smn doesn't. We rarely (except LH) get someone that intellectually challenges on an honest level. I like when they do
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/29/2008 21:32 Comments ||
Top||
#22
NS, from your link:
The very essence of the male animal, from the bantam rooster to the four star general, is to strut.
Interesting how we thought that Romneys candidacy would lead to a discussion of religion and politics, eh? Turns out that was just the warm-up act. I heard the entire Rev. Wright speech today, so Im not talking anything out of context unless there was some peculiar non-verbal aspect, like an aura or a thick cloud overhead that formed instructive and helpful shapes, the endorsement of Farrakhan, the attacks on Zionism in the context of UN resolutions, and the explanations of the effect on racially-distinctive brain structure on marching-band styles was pretty hard to misconstrue.
The most amusing response, aside from the sort of obdurate denial you might find in someone who just created a fantastic beach sculpture and sees a tsunami on the horizon, is the Conspiracy Theory. Who? Jews! Of course! On the radio today I heard someone who managed to combine the far trailing tips of leftist and right-wing nuttery, and tie them into a neat bow. The JEWS were doing this to shake Obama loose from Rev. Wright; the JEWS were the ones who had devised this non-issue and pushed it to the front through their tentacular media control. Apparently a team of crack Jewish Ninja Hypnotists got Rev. Wright to make these recent appearances, too.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/29/2008 09:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Re: the dismay over events at the Journal, let me say this: There comes a moment in the life of every filthy hack when he finally realizes what business he's actually in -- not the glamorous, rollicking newsman's life depicted in movies like The Front Page and His Girl Friday; not the grandiose investigative heroics of All the President's Men and The Insider; but rather the grubby business of attracting an audience to whom advertising messages can be shown, and performing this task for a tiny fraction of the money your organization intends to generate from those advertisements. In other words, you are a whore. And not even a well-paid one.
Better yet, you are duped into not realizing your whoredom by being flattered and pandered to and spoonfed lies about the importance of what you do. You believe these lies and fill yourself with the notion that you are central to the business at hand -- essential, key, vital, necessary. But then one day, for whatever reason, you see the real nature of your job. You realize that far from being central to the business of journalism you are in fact the piece that could most easily be dispensed with.
Much to your chagrin and dismay you realize that the true heart of your corporation beats not in the newsroom, where you sit, but on the other side of the wall, in that storied realm you've never actually visited but where you are told various dirty people do various dirty things and are paid, you've heard, a great deal more than you are. You've always dismissed those people, thought of them as a pack of glad-handing graspers who were kept on board to keep the ad machine running so that you, Mr. Hack, could carry on the grand important work of Journalism with a capital J.
Then one day you realize you've had it backwards. The beast doesn't exist to support you. You exist to support the beast. They, not you, are running this business, and they laugh at you behind your back and not-so-secretly despise you for being so easily tricked into lining their pockets for them. The truth is right there in front of you! It has been all along! This is all even more hilarious because you make such a big deal about how shrewd and cynical you are; you're the tough guy who cuts through the bullshit and spots the truth. Except when it comes to your own situation, that is.
Suddenly you feel like a puffed-up, pious fool. Which is good, because that is exactly what you are.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/29/2008 00:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It always baffled me that journalists considered themselves superior. I mean, where the hell did that idea come from? Journalists are an embarassment, not some sort of hero.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Jim Geraghty, National Review's "Campaign Spot"
The race industry and its elite enablers take it as self-evident that high black incarceration rates result from discrimination. 
