Sowell on ‘favors’ to blacks

Another “must read” from Thomas Sowell.

A big “favor” the Obama administration is offering blacks today is exemption from school behavior rules that have led to a rate of disciplining of black male students that is greater than the rate of disciplining of other categories of students.

Is it impossible that black males misbehave in school more often than Asian females? Or Jewish students? Or others?

Is the only possible reason for the disparities in disciplining rates that the teachers and principals are discriminating against black males? Even when many of these teachers and principals in black neighborhoods are themselves black?

But Washington politicians are on the case. It strengthens the political vision that blacks are besieged by racist enemies, from which Democrats are their only protection. They give black youngsters exemptions from behavioral standards, just as the Ivy League chemistry professor gave them exemption from academic standards.

For information on racial disparities in student discipline in North Carolina, read this.  For a discussion of the academic performance of African American boys in North Carolina, read this.

Even promoting niceness out of love is politically incorrect, it seems

Someone please find the actual fault in this. Because it seems like human decency to me, the kind of human decency we’d rather see a lot more of:

Raleigh Raw, which has been using specialized equipment to make cold-pressed juice for about three years, opened its Hargett Street location in April. The shop sells juice, as well as items such as smoothies, matcha beverages (ground green tea), grab-and-go salads and snacks.

On Friday, the store’s social media account posted about people from a local group that came in to buy drinks for other customers and to pass out flowers. The post suggested that other people

— brace yourselves —

“don’t protest against what you hate … instead promote what you love.”

People did nice things, and a proud owner said nice things about people doing nice things in his store, drawing a lesson for people to do nice things everywhere.

Fortunately, there are hair-trigger social activists out there who can, as Delbert Grady might put it, correct them. If you still don’t see the grave social offense in “promote what you love,” read on.

Some took the post, which was later deleted, as criticism of last week’s protests in Charlotte that started after a police officer shot and killed Keith Lamont Scott. On social media, some commenters said they thought Fouad did not support the protests in Charlotte as a way to make change in the community.

Doing nice things for other people out of love can be offensive, you see. A proper social justice warrior has to know when setting a good example for others is counterproductive to the common good, such as when the political message of the day is acting as if rioting, looting, and destroying property at random are good things. An improper sentiment needs correcting.

Well, Raleigh Raw was corrected, sir:

A downtown juice bar and cafe that was the subject of a social media firestorm last week was broken into on Sunday morning.

Thieves took more than $5,000 worth of electronics, cash and merchandise from Raleigh Raw on Hargett Street.

One hopes that treating others with unlooked-for kindness because that’s what you’d like to see more of in society becomes correct again sometime soon.

Clinton charitable giving that benefited … the Clintons

Joe Schoffstall of the Washington Free Beacon dives into the details of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s record of giving money to charity.

Nearly 60 percent of the charitable giving last year by Hillary Clinton’s family charity wound up at the Clinton Foundation, according to tax returns obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Clinton Family Foundation is the charitable vehicle used by the Clintons. It is a separate entity than that of the much larger Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation (the Clinton Foundation). Once the Clintons’ charitable money is placed in the Clinton Family Foundation, they then cut checks to numerous charities.

According to a review of the Clinton Family Foundation’s 2015 Form 990 provided to the Free Beacon by the assistant of Clinton’s tax lawyer, the Clintons disbursed $2,630,500 to charities last year from the family foundation. These donations include $30,000 to Yale University, $50,000 to Georgetown University, $20,000 to the Wildlife Conservation Society, and $25,000 to Hippy USA, among others.

However, a majority of the funds from the Clinton Family Foundation ended up at the Clinton Foundation. Of the $2.6 million in charitable giving the Clintons made last year, $1.5 million, or 57 percent of all of the Clinton’s charitable donations, was funneled to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clintons gave $1,042,000 to charity in 2015, Hillary Clinton’s most recent income tax return shows. Of this amount, $1 million—or 96 percent—went to the Clinton Family Foundation.

The Clintons gave $3.7 million in charitable contributions in 2014 with $1.8 million (48 percent) of that amount being kicked to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton initially wrote off millions of dollars on her income tax returns that ultimately ended up at the Clinton Foundation after being passed through the smaller Clinton Family Foundation.

The largest contribution every year since 2007 from the Clinton Family Foundation has gone to the Clinton Foundation, the Free Beacon previously reported.

Between 2007 and 2015, the Clintons have dished out $16,001,450 in total to charity. Of that amount, $15,769,000 went to the Clinton Family Foundation. From the family foundation, $5,812,000 was then funneled to the Clinton Foundation as of 2015—or 36 percent of all the total charitable giving since 2007 marked by the Clintons on their income tax returns.

Leading mainstream media outlets playing up race-based narratives

Amber Randall of the Daily Caller publicizes a particular pernicious element of national media coverage of recent shootings involving police.

The New York Times and The Washington Post bury police officers’ race when they are black, but rush to highlight race when the officer happens to be white, an analysis of two similar cases by The Daily Caller News Foundation shows.

White Tulsa officer Betty Shelby, a five-year veteran on the force, shot Terence Crutcher, who is black, when police came across his car stopped in the middle of the road. Dash cam video appears to show that police tased and shot Crutcher as he walked back to his car with his hands up.

Black Charlotte officer Brentley Vinson shot Keith Lamont Scott, who was also black and who allegedly carried a gun. According to police, Scott ignore multiple warnings to drop his handgun.

In a random sampling of 11 articles from The New York Times on the Tulsa shooting, TheDCNF found that 63 percent of articles mentioned Shelby’s white race and Crutcher’s black race in the same sentence. Thirty-six percent of the articles did not mention the officer’s race, but emphasized that the victim was a black man shot by a police officer.

TheDCNF examined 10 random articles from The New York Times’ coverage of the Charlotte shooting. Only 40 percent of the articles mentioned that the officer involved was black. The rest of the articles sampled referred to the shooting as a black man being shot by an officer.

An analysis of statistics for randomly selected articles from The Washington Post reveals less evidence of bias than the Times, but could point to a slant. Out of 17 articles on the Tulsa white-on-black shooting, 17 percent mention both the race of the officer and man involved. Eighty-two percent of articles just mentioned the race of the victim.

On the Charlotte shooting, TheDCNF examined 14 random articles from The Washington Post. Only 14 percent of the articles sampled mentioned that the officer involved was black. The other 86 percent of articles ignored the officer’s race, but mentioned that the victim was black.

When reporting the Tulsa shooting, The Washington Post emphasized that Shelby, a white police officer, killed Crutcher, an unarmed black man. Alternatively, when reporting the Charlotte shooting, the Post buried that Vinson, a black officer, shot Keith Lamont Scott, a black man.

President as crisis manager

Tevi Troy explains in a Wall Street Journal column why Americans are electing the ultimate crisis manager when the cast their presidential ballot.

The cam­paign has been un­usu­ally focused on ex­actly the char­ac­ter­istics that are es­sen­tial in a time of cri­sis: hon­esty, calm­ness, re­solve. Un­for­tu­nately, the two ma­jor-party can­di­dates are lack­ing in im­por­tant ways. Mrs. Clin­ton’s email scan­dal and re­cent ob­fus­ca­tions about her health un­der­mine her cred­i­bil­ity with the Amer­i­can peo­ple, which is the ba­sis for ef­fec­tive lead­er­ship in a dis­as­ter. With­out it, lead­ers can­not count on get­ting peo­ple to fol­low dif­fi­cult di­rec­tives dur­ing a cri­sis.

In 1976, for ex­am­ple, Pres­i­dent Ger­ald Ford em­barked on an am­bi­tious plan to vac­ci­nate “every man, woman, and child in the United States” against a wor­ri­some strain of swine flu. Ford made sure to be photographed re­ceiv­ing the vac­ci­nation him­self, but most Amer­i­cans did not fol­low suit. Only about a quar­ter of the pop­u­la­tion went along with the pres­i­den­tial di­rec­tive, which was canceled a few months later when the vac­cine was linked to cases of Guil­lain-Barre syn­drome.

Why did so many Amer­i­cans buck Ford’s in­oc­u­la­tion pro­gram? One reason may have been the loss of pres­i­den­tial cred­i­bil­ity fol­low­ing Richard Nixon’s res­ig­na­tion, which pro­pelled Ford into the of­fice. Luck­ily, that swine-flu strain was not as deadly as feared. But if a more vir­u­lent pathogen re­quir­ing mass vac­ci­na­tion were to emerge, would Mrs. Clin­ton or Mr. Trump have trou­ble per­suad­ing most Amer­i­cans to fol­low instructions?

An­other vi­tal as­pect of cri­sis lead­ership is ob­tain­ing the facts be­fore speak­ing and choos­ing words carefully—both ar­eas where Mr. Trump strug­gles. Dur­ing a dis­as­ter words that are in­suf­ficiently mea­sured could cause panic or con­fu­sion. During an­other swine-flu out­break in 2009, Vice Pres­i­dent Joe Biden said on the “To­day” show that he “would tell mem­bers of my fam­ily, and I have, I wouldn’t go any­where in con­fined places now.” It was a care­less statement that threat­ened to drive peo­ple away from air travel and pub­lic transporta­tion. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had to walk back the re­marks.

In the early stages of a cri­sis, the wis­est ap­proach might be to say noth­ing. Im­me­di­ately af­ter the 9/11 at­tacks, Pres­i­dent George W. Bush was con­fronted with a press corps ea­ger for de­tails on what had oc­curred and what would hap­pen next. But con­flict­ing sto­ries were ram­pant and con­fu­sion still reigned. Press Sec­re­tary Ari Fleis­cher held up a makeshift sign for the pres­i­dent, not vis­i­ble to re­porters, with the words “DON’T SAY ANY­THING YET.”

Democrats and democracy

Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru explain at National Review Online why Democrat Hillary Clinton’s brand of politics is bad for democracy.

Many liberals, and even some non-liberals, have suggested that Donald Trump is a threat to democratic, constitutional government in America — what the Founders and Lincoln called “republicanism.”

They have a point. …

… But the observers who raise these concerns tend to perceive such dangers only with regard to Trump, whom they consider a singular menace. Hillary Clinton, they say, is by contrast a run-of-the-mill liberal politician. As the libertarian writer and humorist P. J. O’Rourke put it this spring in endorsing Clinton, she may be “wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”

It’s true that Hillary Clinton is a mainstream contemporary liberal, albeit a disturbingly unethical one. She stands out for decades of brazen and unscrupulous dishonesty wielded to advance her and her husband’s political and financial interests — for curiously lucrative investments explainable only by files that have conveniently gone missing, for vicious character assassination against victims of Bill Clinton’s misogynistic abuses of power, for recklessness with national secrets in the service of protecting personal secrets. These would be alarming traits in a president. But the constitutional order could likely withstand, as it has withstood in the past, presidents with similar traits.

Instead, it is precisely in the way in which Clinton seems normal that she poses a serious danger to American democracy. The mainstream contemporary liberalism she represents so well is itself a threat to constitutional government in America. And it is a more concrete and specific threat than Trump — with his bizarre inclinations, his ignorance and carelessness, and his sheer unpredictability — can pose.

Mainstream liberals now advance a vision of American government that is increasingly contemptuous of our system’s democratic character and that seeks to break through the restraints of the constitutional system in pursuit of their policy ends.

An interesting excuse for urban riots

John Fund of National Review Online explores one particularly bizarre excuse for urban riots.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, you can bet that in the wake of the Charlotte riots, her Justice Department will ratchet up the micromanaging of local police departments. But the Black Lives Matter movement that Clinton embraces doesn’t stop with allegations that the police are killing innocent blacks.

Look for an Environmental Protection Agency controlled by Hillary to fully embrace the movement’s theory of “environmental racism,” which holds that minority communities are disproportionately exposed, either intentionally or unintentionally, to hazardous materials and waste facilities. That in turn is said to be a contributing factor to riots and urban unrest. Is my prediction implausible? In 2014, after the Ferguson riots, Deirdre Smith, an environmental activist, said, “To me, the connection between militarized state violence, racism, and climate change was common-sense and intuitive.”

Smith is a law professor at the University of Maine and a strategic-partnership coordinator for, an environmental organization whose goal is to “reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere from >400 parts per million to below 350.” At 350’s website, Smith wrote: “Oppression and extreme weather combine to ‘incite’ militarized violence.” Not only are minority communities less able to cope with the effects of climate change, but “people of color also disproportionately live in climate-vulnerable areas,” she claims, which makes climate change, yes, a race issue. Smith failed to note that the weeks surrounding the Ferguson riots were only the seventh-warmest in the last 20 years.

In the 1960s, people who blew off the importance of riots as a result of “just the temperature” were thought to be Neanderthals. Gordon Lightfoot even had a song, “Black Day in July,” about the Detroit riots. The song included these lyrics: “And It wasn’t just the temperature / It wasn’t just the season.” Now leftists such as Deirdre Smith are resurrecting this idea.

And Smith is far from alone, Van Jones, who was President Obama’s “green energy czar” until he was forced to resign in 2009 after his past ties to the Communist party surfaced, has long blamed some of the problems in minority communities on “environmental racism.”

New Carolina Journal Online features

Barry Smith reports for Carolina Journal Online on the conflict between the Durham Rescue Mission and new local historic district restrictions.

Andy Taylor’s Daily Journal highlights the political left’s misuse of science.