User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by Walter E. Williams

        I doubt whether any American would defend the police treatment of George Floyd that led to his death. But many Americans are supporting some of the responses to Floyd's death -- rioting, looting, wanton property destruction, assaults on police and other kinds of mayhem by both whites and blacks.
        The pretense is that police conduct stands as the root of black problems. According to the NAACP, from 1882-1968, there were 3,446 black people lynched at the hands of whites. Today, being murdered by whites or policemen should be the least of black worries. In recent times, there is an average of 9,252 black-on-black murders every year. Over the past 35 years, that translates into nearly 324,000 blacks murdered at the hands of other blacks. Only a tiny percentage of blacks are killed by police. For example, in Chicago this year, there were 414 homicides, with a total of 2,078 people shot. So far in 2020, three people have been killed by police and four were shot. Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald reports that "a police officer is 181/2 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer." Crime is a major problem for many black communities, but how much of it can be attributed to causes such as institut!
 ional racism, systemic racism and white privilege?
        The most devastating problem is the very weak black family structure. Less than a third of black children live in two-parent households and illegitimacy stands at 75%. The "legacy of slavery" is often blamed. Such an explanation turns out to be sheer nonsense when one examines black history. Even during slavery, where marriage was forbidden, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. Professor Herbert G. Gutman's research in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom 1750-1925" found that in three-fourths of 19th-century slave families, all the children had the same mother and father. In New York City, in 1925, 85% of black households were two-parent. In fact, "Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents." During slavery and as late as 1920, a black teenage girl raising a child without a man present was a rarity.
        An 1880 study of family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of all black families were nuclear families. There were only slight differences in family structure between racial groups. The percentages of nuclear families were: black (75.2%), Irish (82.2%), German (84.5%) and native white Americans (73.1%). Only one-quarter of black families were female-headed. Female-headed families among Irish, German and native white Americans averaged 11%. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, only 11% of black children and 3% of white children were born to unwed mothers. As Thomas Sowell reported: "Going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, we find that census data of that era showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940."
        The absence of a father in the home predisposes children, especially boys, to academic failure, criminal behavior and economic hardship, not to mention an intergenerational repeating of handicaps. If today's weak family structure is a legacy of slavery, then the people who make such a claim must tell us how it has managed to skip nearly five generations to have an effect.
        There are problems such as grossly poor education, economic stagnation and poverty that impact the black community heavily. I would like someone to explain how tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson and Confederate generals help the black cause. Destruction of symbols of American history might help relieve the frustrations of all those white college students and their professors frustrated by the 2016 election of President Donald Trump. Problems that black people face give white leftists cover for their anti-American agenda.
        Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by John Stossel

        I laughed when I saw The Washington Post headline: "Minneapolis had progressive policies, but its economy still left black families behind."
        The media are so clueless. Instead of "but," the headline should have said, "therefore," or "so, obviously."
        Of course, progressive policies failed! They almost always do.
        "If you wanted a poster child for the progressive movement, it would be Minneapolis," says Republican Minnesota Senate candidate Jason Lewis in my new video. "This is the same city council that voted to abolish the police department."
        The council, which has no Republicans, spends taxpayer money on most every progressive idea.
        They brag that they recycle most everything. They have a plan to stop climate change. They tell landlords to whom they must rent. They will force employers to pay every worker $15 an hour. They even tell supermarkets what cereal they must sell.
        Despite such policies, meant to improve life for minorities and the poor, the Minneapolis income gap between whites and Blacks is the second highest in the country.
        While that surprises the media, it's no surprise to Lewis, who points out, "When you take away the incentive for work and savings and investment, you get less of it!"
        Exactly. When government sends checks to people who don't work, more people don't work. Guarantees like a high minimum wage raise the cost of potential workers, so some never get hired. High taxes to fund progressives' programs make it difficult for businesses to open in the first place.
        Lewis says; " I've been touring businesses that were burned. They did not mention global warming, recycling or the environment one single time. You know what they say? Give me low taxes and give me public order."
        Lewis says Minnesota is now a "command and control economy. ... They're not even shy about it. (Congresswoman) Ilhan Omar said we need to abolish capitalism!"
        Not exactly. But Omar did call for "dismantling the whole system of oppression," including America's economic systems that, "prioritize profit."
        Lewis says she wants to create "equal poverty for everybody."
        No, I push back, "She thinks her ideas will lift everybody up."
        "Show us, Ilhan," he responds. "Where has it worked? Everything that you're proposing hasn't worked!"
        He's right.
        But Cam Gordon, a current Minneapolis councilman, tells me the city's economic "disparities were caused by a long trail of historic racism."
        He tweeted: "Time to end capitalism as we know it."
        He says that would be good because "We could have more democratic control of our resources." Cam Gordon is the kind of guy who gets elected in Minneapolis.
        "Every alternative to capitalism brings stagnation and poverty," I say to him.
        Gordon answers, "I think we can take care of each other better."
        Lewis points out that before COVID-19, "the people gaining the most were at the bottom end of the wage scale. Women, Hispanics, African Americans were gaining the most. A rising tide truly lifts all boats."
        He's right again. In the past 50 years, while progressives attacked profits, capitalism -- the pursuit of profit -- lifted more than a (SET ITAL)billion(END ITAL) people out of extreme poverty.
        When I point that out to Gordon, he simply ignores my point about fabulous progress around the world and says: "The problem with capitalism as we know it is this idea that we have to have constant growth. ... Capitalism got us the housing crisis right now and ... climate change. It's actually going to destroy the planet."
        Sigh.
        His Green Party's "community-based economics" would give the community control over private property. Seems to me like community-based economics is just another way to say socialism. That's brought poverty and tyranny every time it's been tried.
        "When socialism fails," says Lewis, "the apologists always say, 'We just didn't do it enough, just didn't do it the right way.' (But) it's always failed."
        Sadly, today in America, the progressives are winning.
        John Stossel is author of "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media." For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by Walter E. Williams

    The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."
    There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald, on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."
    Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
    During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
    Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
    Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
    Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.
    Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by Walter E. Williams

    The Michigan State University administration pressured professor Stephen Hsu to resign from his position as vice president of research and innovation because he touted research that found police are not more likely to shoot black Americans. The study found: "The race of a police officer did not predict the race of the citizen shot. In other words, black officers were just as likely to shoot black citizens as white officers were." For political reasons, the authors of the study sought its retraction.
    The U.S. Department of Education warned UCLA that it may impose fines for improperly and abusively targeting white professor Lt. Col. W. Ajax Peris for disciplinary action over his use of the n-word while reading to his class Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that contained the expressions "when your first name becomes "n----r," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are). Referring to white civil rights activists King wrote, "They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as 'dirty n----r-lovers.'"
    Boston University is considering changing the name of its mascot Rhett because of his link to "Gone with the Wind." Almost 4,000 Rutgers University students signed a petition to rename campus buildings Hardenbergh Hall, Frelinghuysen Hall and Milledoler Hall because these men were slave owners. University of Arkansas students petitioned to remove a statue of J. William Fulbright because he was a segregationist who opposed the Brown v. Board of Education that ruled against school segregation.
    The suppression of free speech and ideas by the elite is nothing new. It has a long ugly history. Galileo Galilei was a 17th-century Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer, sometimes called "father of modern physics." The Catholic Church and other scientists of his day believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo offered evidence that the Earth traveled around the sun -- heliocentrism. That made him "vehemently suspect of heresy" and was forced to recant and sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition and was later commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.
    Much of today's totalitarianism, promotion of hate and not to mention outright stupidity, has its roots on college campuses. Sources that report on some of the more egregious forms of the abandonment of free inquiry, hate and stupidity at our colleges are: College Reform and College Fix.
    Prof. William S. Penn, who was a Distinguished Faculty Award recipient at Michigan State University in 2003, and a two-time winner of the prestigious Stephen Crane Prize for Fiction, explained to his students, "This country still is full of closet racists." He said: "Republicans are not a majority in this country anymore. They are a bunch of dead white people. Or dying white people."
    The public has recently been treated to the term -- white privilege. Colleges have long held courses and seminars on "whiteness." One college even has a course titled "Abolition of Whiteness." According to some academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that nonwhites do not. They earn higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better schools and achieve more. Based on that idea, Asian Americans have more white privilege than white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has more white privilege than probably 95% of white Americans.
    Evidence of how stupid college ideas find their way into the public arena can be seen on our daily news. Don Lemon, a CNN anchorman, said, "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." Steven Clifford, former King Broadcasting CEO, said, "I will be leading a great movement to prohibit straight white males, who I believe supported Donald Trump by about 85 percent, from exercising the franchise (to vote), and I think that will save our democracy."
    As George Orwell said, "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." If the stupid ideas of academic intellectuals remained on college campuses and did not infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment -- much like a circus.
    Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by John Stossel

        Between 2 million and 3 million Americans will die!
        That was the prediction from "experts" at London's Imperial College when COVID-19 began. They did also say if there was "social distancing of the whole population," the death toll could be cut in half, but 1.1 million to 1.46 million Americans would still die by this summer.
        Our actual death toll has been about one-tenth of that.
        Nevertheless, Imperial College's model was extremely influential.
        Politicians issued stay-at-home orders. They said we must trust the "experts."
        "Follow the science. Listen to the experts. Do what they tell you," said Joe Biden, laughing at what he considered an obvious truth.
        But "there is no such thing as "the science!" replies science reporter Matt Ridley in my new video about "expert" predictions. "Science consists of people disagreeing with each other!"
        The lockdowns, he adds, were "quite dangerously wrong."
        Because Imperial's model predicted that COVID-19 would overwhelm hospitals, patients were moved to nursing homes. The coronavirus then spread in nursing homes.
        Ordering almost every worker to stay home led to an economic collapse that may have killed people, too.
        "The main interventions that helped prevent people dying were stopping large gatherings, people washing their hands and wearing face masks, general social distancing -- not forcing people to stay home," says Ridley.
        Even New York Governor Andrew Cuomo now admits: "We all failed at that business. All the early national experts: 'Here's my projection model.' They were all wrong."
        If he and other politicians had just done just a little research, then they would have known that Imperial College researchers repeatedly predict great disasters that don't happen. Their model predicted 65,000 deaths from swine flu, 136,000 from mad cow disease and 200 million from bird flu.
        The real numbers were in the hundreds.
        After such predictions were repeatedly wrong, why did politicians boss us around based on those same "experts" models?
        "If you say something really pessimistic about how many people are going to die," explains Ridley, "the media want to believe you. The politicians daren't not believe you."
        This bias towards pessimism applies to fear of climate change, too.
        Thirty-two years ago, climate "experts" said rising seas would "completely cover" the islands of the Maldives "in the next 30 years." But now, 32 years later, the islands are not only still there, they're doing better than ever. They're even building new airports.
        "Climate change is real," says Ridley, "but it's not happening nearly as fast as models predicted."
        Models repeatedly overpredict disaster because that's "a very good way of attracting attention to your science and getting rewarded for it," says Ridley.
        One more example: For years, "experts" predicted an oil shortage. President Jimmy Carter warned, "The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75% of our energy are simply running out." All the "experts" agreed.
        But as the demand for oil grew, oil prices rose. That inspired entrepreneurs to invent new ways of getting more oil and gas out of the same rocks. They succeeded so well that America now has so much oil and gas that we sell some to other countries.
        Ridley's new book, "How Innovation Works," shows how innovators prove "experts" wrong all the time.
        He points out that the founder of Digital Equipment Corporation once said: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
        Microsoft's CEO confidently said: "There's no chance the iPhone is going to get significant market share."
        New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that because "most people have nothing to say to each other... the Internet's impact on the economy (will be) no greater than the fax machine's."
        Of course, not all experts are wrong. Useful experts do exist. I want a trained civil engineer to design any bridge I cross.
        But Ridley points out: "There is no such thing as expertise on the future. It's dangerous to rely too much on models (which lead politicians to) lock down society and destroy people's livelihood. Danger lies both ways."
        John Stossel is author of "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media." For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM