Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, January 5, 2009
{snip}
A new study of homicide among young black males prompted this latest editorial. James Alan Fox and Marc Swatt of Northeastern University found that the number of homicides committed by black males under the age of 18 rose 43 percent between 2002 and 2007, while the number of gun homicides by this same group rose 47 percent. Homicides by white youth during that period decreased slightly. But more significant were the different homicide rates that the report calculated, which no news story dared to divulge. Whereas the report’s graph for white homicides over the last 30 years plots the rate in increments of 10, the black rate is demarcated at intervals of 100. The highest homicide rate for whites over the last three decades was 32 homicides committed per 100,000 males between the ages of 18 and 24 (reached in 1991), whereas the highest homicide rate for blacks was approximately 320 homicides per 100,000 males between the ages of 18 and 24 (reached in 1993).
Even this apparent ten-to-one disparity between black and white homicide rates doesn’t tell the full story. Fox and Swatt include Hispanic homicides in the white rate, though they do not disclose that they are doing so (both the inclusion and the silence about it follow FBI practice). Hispanic crime rates are between three and four times that of whites—meaning that if one excluded the Hispanic homicides from the white rate, the black-white differential would be even larger than ten to one.
The Times responds to the report with the key strategies of liberal apologetics. Strategy Number One: strip moral agency from favored victim groups. Bad things happen to favored victim groups because of forces outside their control; good things also happen to favored victim groups because of outside forces—above all, wise government programs. Any expectation that members of a favored victim group can take responsibility for their lives must be expunged. Strategy Number Two: Never let the following controversial and dangerous word enter a discussion of the underclass—”marriage.”
The editorial initially conceals the Northeastern study’s findings. The report, it writes, suggests that “violent crime among young people may be rising”; then, as if in a stray afterthought, the editorial adds that the “study also shows that the murder rate for black teenagers has climbed noticeably since 2000 while the rate for young whites has scarcely changed on the whole and, in some places, has actually declined.” That finding—the rising juvenile black homicide rate—is the study’s actual import, of course. But the Times would rather contradict itself than lead with the politically incorrect truth.
Such evasions are trivial, however, compared with the misleading information that the Times pumps out about the causes of, and effective responses to, crime. “If the country has learned anything about street gangs, it is that police dragnets—hauling large numbers of nonviolent young people off to jail, along with the troublemakers—tend to make the problem worse, not better,” the editorial observes. But “dragnets” to haul “large numbers of nonviolent young people off to jail” aren’t official policy anywhere. {snip}
Having conveyed the impression of widespread heavy-handed police tactics, the Times then issues its preferred anticrime policies: “Public policy should discourage young people from joining gangs in the first place by keeping them in school, getting them jobs and giving them community-based counseling and social service programs.” Note the transferred moral agency. “Policy” should “keep” young people in school. How, exactly, is “policy” to do that? Young people keep themselves in school by not dropping out or by not engaging in the behaviors that, in rare cases, get them expelled. {snip}
The Times’s next antigang prescription—”getting them jobs”—is in theory more within the capacity of “policy.” Government can “get” intending or actual gangbangers jobs, but they don’t necessarily take or keep them. Few teenagers from any background possess the self-discipline and reliability that employers seek; teens growing up in chaotic home environments are even less likely to have developed a work ethic (which isn’t to say that many inner-city teens aren’t courteous and enthusiastic workers). {snip}
As for the editorial’s final prescription: there is not a single violence-plagued city that has not been administering “community-based counseling and social service programs” for decades, to virtually no effect. {snip}
The Times’s explanation for crime is as fanciful as its proposed solutions. It sees gang violence as driven in significant measure by the economy: “The economic crisis has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs—among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities.” The claim that crime results from a bad economy has limited empirical backing in general, but it is particularly ludicrous applied to juvenile violence. It is not the collapse of consumer lending that induces a 16-year-old to shoot a rival who “disses” his girlfriend; it is a failure of self-control and a distorted understanding of self-worth. The pathologies of gang culture have persisted throughout economic booms and recessions. The black youth homicide rate rose 79 percent in San Francisco, 87 percent in Phoenix, and 139 percent in Houston from 2000 and 2001 to 2006 and 2007, while those cities were experiencing the economic surge of the early 2000s. The gangbangers in inner cities may be “hopeless” and “jobless,” as the Times puts it, but the reason is the same lack of moral capital that produces their violence in the first place.
In the Times’s view, prison is something that just happens to black males in our society. {snip}
Liberal policymakers and pundits have spilled buckets of ink over the years promoting social-service programs as the solution to crime, yet—like the Times’s recent editorial—those opinion-setters cannot squeeze out one word about the most effective anticrime (and antipoverty) strategy: marriage. The marriage imperative civilizes boys. By contrast, in a world where it is unusual for a man to marry the mother of his children, boys fail to learn the most basic lesson of personal responsibility: you are responsible for your children. Freed of the social expectation that they will have to provide a stable home for their offspring, boys have little incentive to restrain their impulses and develop bourgeois habits. In 2005, the national black illegitimacy rate was 70 percent, and it approached 90 percent in many inner cities (compared with a white illegitimacy rate of 25 percent, and as low as 6 percent in some urban areas, like the District of Columbia). The disappearance of marriage from the black community is a social cataclysm.
Some highly structured, values-based youth programs, like the Boy Scouts, can provide boys a surrogate for the paternal authority that they lack at home; society is right to support these lifelines. But they cannot possibly bring crime down significantly among blacks in the absence of a cultural shift toward marriage. {snip}
Policing is nearly as taboo a solution to crime as marriage. The Times editorial makes a desultory reference to “more financing for local police,” but argues—against all evidence—that “programs aimed at providing jobs and social services are far more important.” {snip}
{snip}
[Editor’s Note: The editorial Heather Mac Donald is drawing on—”A Job or a Gang?,” of December 29—can be read here.
[Editor’s Note: The Northwestern University study she refers to—”Report on Surge in Homicides among Young Black Males,” by James Alan Fox and Marc Swatt—can be downloaded as a PDF file here.
Original article
(Posted on January 6, 2009)
Comments
Maybe they are committing more murders because the more murders they commit, the more society declares them not murderers but victims, something this story does not entirely clear up. To do that would be to acknowledge that white Americans are dying at the hand of black murderers. To make this clear this story would also need to have a far more radical/aberrant perspective than it does now (considering the past and current stories about these same facts and the mindset people already have about this issue).
Wasn’t George Gilder called a ‘Nazi’ 30 years ago when he did the same thing, comparing the rate of crime to the marriage rate?
“Policy” should “keep” young people in school. How, exactly, is “policy” to do that?
Raising the minimum dropout age up from 16, but since of course it’s so well obeyed anyway (sarcasm), raising it will be that much more effective. Also, the odds are that, even if they “stayed” in school, they won’t learn much, and pester the few students that are trying to learn something.
The Times’s next antigang prescription—”getting them jobs”—is in theory more within the capacity of “policy.” Government can “get” intending or actual gangbangers jobs, but they don’t necessarily take or keep them.
They already have a “job.” Gang banging is essentially a protective front for the illicit drug trade. It may be illicit, and illegal, and unconscionable, and perhaps immoral, but it’s a job nonetheless.
The Times editorial makes a desultory reference to “more financing for local police,”
What that means is more Federal subsidies for big city affirmative action police departments. Where there is Federal money, there is Federal control. And that control usually involves treating criminal blacks and Hispanics with kid gloves for the sake of “civil rights.”
A regular poster here at AR disagrees with the notion that the solution is for black men to have a greater role in the rearing of their children ceteris paribus, because as s/he points out, that would only bring the thug/gang deathstyle closer to their children.
Also, there was an article today that a CT legislator wants the state to pass a law to denote the disparate racial impact on crime bills it passes, because too many blacks and Hispanics are in prison. Apply this logic to what the New York Times wants, and you’ll see that the disparate impact is racial pandering and mollycoddling and patronizing.
I guess white mainstream urbanite NYC policy wonks, analysts, and commentators like MacDonald can speak now that Pastor J.D. Manning has spoken.
Yeah, gangbangers are going to jump at the chance to take off their colors and put on a McDonald’s uniform. This “get them jobs/stay in school” mentality is incredibly naive. Watch any documentary that interviews gangbangers on the street and they say the same thing. If I were a gangbanger and I had a choice between feeling empowered while hanging out with my friends all day, doing whatever I want and making easy money, why would I trade all that for some lame-*ss minimum wage job or boring classroom? I joined the gang because I WANTED to be in the gang.
There is one thing to add besides marriage as an antidote: end welfare for offspring that are not brought into the world by married people, and make that, for life - even if the parents divorce. In other words, no parents, no tax money.
What the government potentates refuse to grasp, besides the inherent psychopathology of most black youths, is that black girls produce children for the tax money. For at least 18 years, a check will come in from Uncle Sugar.
Having worked in the judicial system and corrections for decades, I have witnessed “communication” between married blacks. In short, black women are verbally castrating to their spouses, and they yell at the top of their lungs when speaking. Actually, they’re screamers.
Who on planet earth could stay married to one of these emotionally adolescent, hysterical females? Then they complain about the availability of employed black men.
Crime is a preferred lifestyle, and a regular job is too boring for most black males. As soon as those in power grasp this construct, they can start with reality based policies.
“none are so blind as those who will not see”
In writing my weekly opinion column for a website in my hometown, I discussed this week two episodes of black urban violent crime which were shown on Tru-TV via surveillance videos. I pointed out the existence of major social pathologies which have become a part of inner city black communities and which cannot be reversed until they are acknowledged — along with an acknowledgement of the hugely disproportionate role blacks play in crime in this country.
For my troubles I was branded a “racist” by several posters on the website, while another suggested, “I can’t imagine how he was raised,” thereby uttering a slur against my late parents. When you can’t even speak the truth on a website in a small conservative town in the Midwest, you know this country is in major trouble.
Heather Mac Donald is doing yeoman work here, and following her tradition in doing so. She previously contributed to deconstructing feminist fables about the plight of American women, and the nefarious role of men in it.
Stories like this and the recent LGB backlash against blacks and Hispanics, after they voted heavily for prop 8 (the gay marriage ban), has given me hope that even the MSM can no longer halt the tide of truth about race and correlated social pathologies.
The fact that the MSM is too corrupt with leftist ideology to be fixed means that the only relief we could ever possible get is if the printed and television media collapses.
And the only way they’ll collapse is if the country’s economy collapses.
A case for complete deterioration is being strengthed every day.
Factual reporting by mainline sources can no longer be relied upon, and it gets worse every year, making our society one that has transformed into an ideological puppet every bit as much as Pravda was at the height of the Soviet Union.
Our country has lost its watchdogs. We are now a dysfunctional group of tribes that no longer has a unified core.
Numbers are still skewed…Arabs, Indian Indians, American Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, even Yellows and all sorts of mixes/half castes are off times classified as White to desperately bolster our killer rate percentage.
There has been more ink, money, and convoluted thinking expended on rationalizing the black African propensity for criminal behavior and relative lack of achievement than perhaps on any other topic in human history.
This has been going on for at least fifty years and shows no sign of abating. Indeed, one can go back five decades and find the same shopworn arguments, practically verbatim, explaining black behavior, as are being being circulated and published today, and which, of course, are still part of the core curricula of all Western sociology.
Just how long can this denial of the obvious go on?
If liberals do admit the reality of black crime, they’ll blame it on racism.
I have a website that is conservative in style and was linked and quoted in the liberal Village Voice on the very same report. The Village Voice writer blamed the increase in black teen murders to Bush. Of course.
Here’s the link: http://angrywhitedude.com/?p=865
Excellent article. The truth behind black criminal behavior could be easily discovered if the media wanted, but they are in the business of propoganda - not information. The claim that poverty causes black crime has always driven me crazy. Sure, increased levels of poverty generally lead to increased levels of crime, but how come the media can’t explain the fact that poor whites commit crime at a much lower rate than poor blacks?
Even with the wisest, firmest, anti-crime public policy on crime and the most growth and jobs-oriented economic policy, blacks would still be far violent and lazy than the rest of us, an enormous net negative on our society. All we can do is minimize the damage, dampen the headache and burden of their presence. But they will never catch up and be as fully civilized as we. With their smaller brains, lower IQs, and higher testosterone levels, that’s hard-coded in their DNA and all the liberal verbiage won’t change that one jot.
Heather,
One would expect that in 1949, evil White racism would be much more evident than in 2009, the year of President Obama, yet in that year something like 85% percent of Black children in Harlem were born into two parent homes.
There is no solution to black criminality, it is inherent in their genes. Africn-Americans are some of the richest people on earth and yet their crime rates are far higher than any non-black poor country on the globe. More jobs, money, or ‘counseling’ will not change their genetic predilection for violence. Marriage is a ridiculous solution, blacks are genetically anti-marriage as well. Blacks in Africa have always been polygamous and black males have never raised their children or been responsible for their children. A 90% illegitimacy rate is simply blacks being blacks.
The answer to black misbehavior is simple, don’t live near them. Japan doesn’t spend every day wringing its hands over what to do with all their black felons and illegitimate children. This is because Japan has no blacks in their country. When will we choose the same for ourselves and our children?
Another generation of young hoods, no family and a few good killings under their belts, are going to be the horror of the next 20 or 30 years. The clearance rate for murders, the rate at which they are solved, has fallen from 90% to 61%, reflecting the inability of Police to solve urban “driveby’s”. With a few killings under his belt, Jamal makes sure that no one disses him and gains experience that boosts him up the crime ziggurat.
By the time we face him, he may be really GOOD at shooting people!
As to the article, sigh…. How many times have we heard the Liberals wail for more money for yet another crime prevention program, yet another tried excuse covering up the indisputable truth of racial differences.
I’ve been making many of the same points in Amren comments over the past few years, but it is refreshing to see a truly gifted writer do such an eloquent job.
(Refreshing . . . and a bit humbling.)
This is hardly news to anyone here at Amren. Blacks have higher crime rates whether in times of prosperity or recession. Nothing is going to sugarcoat that.
-Ex NBA player Calvin Murphy made millions of dollars in his playting career. He also fathered 13 children by nine different women. You tell me how “poverty” was responsible for his lifestyle choices.
- Michael Vick was paid millions of dollar by the Atlanta Falcons. Yet, he still ran an illegal dogfighting operation. He also gave women the herpes virus, under his alias “Ron Mexico”. You tell me how poverty was responsible for his lifestyle choices.
- Boxer Evander Holyfield earned some $ 240 million in his career. He fathered 11 children by nine different women. He is also an ordained minister. You tell me how poverty was responsible for his lifestyle choices.
- O.J. Simpson.. well I’m not going to rehash his saga, but you get the impression.
A good article by Ms. McDonald.
Excellent piece! I live in San Francisco, which suffers from all the same delusions and more.
The article points out a very important thing: the condescending attitude white liberals have towards blacks.
I may not hang out with many black people, and I certainly don’t choose to associate with any blacks (or whites for that matter) who subscribe to the rap/hip-hop/thug culture, but I have known enough good black people in my time to know that, with effort and morals, black people can rise up beyond their circumstances and make good lives for themselves and their families.
Can liberals say the same? It doesn’t seem like it. It seems to be that liberals fully believe that black people are simply INCAPABLE of making good choices, and therefore must be “helped” with massive government programs to reinforce their permanent victim status.
In San Francisco, there are even calls to “save the black community” - blacks are now down to under 7% in the city - as if the city were a damned zoo and we’d lose our accreditation if we don’t have a big enough “black people exhibit.” Many middle-class blacks are leaving for the same reasons whites are… a) because they CAN, and b) they’re tired of living in a third world country and would like to live in America again.
There is little one can add to this critique. However, perhaps the City Journal’s faith in marriage as a cure to the anti-social behaviour it describes is also unrealistically optimistic.
To the liberal mindset the solution to every problem in the black community is more money and government programs. Since the 1960’s and the Great Society, we have spent several trillion dollars and what good has it done? Nothing. Black illegitimacy, crime and pathology have gotten worse. Liberals never talk about personal responsibility, discipline, self control, morals or values. Until they do, nothing will improve.
To the liberal mindset the solution to every problem in the black community is more money and government programs. Since the 1960’s and the Great Society, we have spent several trillion dollars and what good has it done? Nothing. Black illegitimacy, crime and pathology have gotten worse. Liberals never talk about personal responsibility, discipline, self control, morals or values. Until they do, nothing will improve.
This article is a step in the right direction, but once again it makes the basic error of presuming that blacks and White have an equal capacity for moral and social responsibility. Marriage isn’t going to make black gangbangers into Ozzie and Harriet any more than Midnight Basketball.
Heather MacDonald is right in calling out the Times’ head-in-the-sand liberalism, but she’s wearing her own set of blinders. Trying to put wedding rings on black fingers won’t solve our elephant-in-the-ghetto problem or civilize the uncivilizable. The issue is genetic, not social or behavioral, and by denying the obvious Mac Donald is only substituting one variety of feel-good wishful thinking for another.
Such, I’m afraid, is what passes for “conservatism” today.
The forces DRIVING crimes by Blacks are not the issue… the REALITY is Blacks and Hispanics commit roughly 85% to 90% OF ALL DOMESTIC CRIME IN AMERICA! Regardless of how the feds try to skew crime statistics or cover up this truth.
Maybe it is genetic. Blaming it on poverty as liberals just LOVE to do is not the answer. Were poverty driving minority perpetrated crime, our White European ancestors would have had to be the vilest criminals this country ever saw… given that most White European immigrants arrived with little more than lint in their pockets.
Call it genetic, call it a mentality or mindset… BUT CALL IT WHAT IT IS! The near-automatic predisposition of Blacks (and Hispanics) to a cycle of crime, drug and alcohol abuse, and senseless, brainless violence!
If Hispanics commit homicide at 4 times the rate as whites then a little algebra indicates that the true black/white ratio for homicide is 50 to 1. Face it, black culture is mainly a culture of crime perpetrated by fatherless black youths who are fatherless out of sheer irresponsibility of most black males. It is a degenerate culture that brings down any community where the black population is significant.
Best way to counter this culture is to bash it - i.e., there should be more criticism of black anti-societal behavior in academia and the media, which media should be mindful that shame is great deterrence to shameful behavior and that shameful behavior is only reinforced by patronizing, pandering & excuse making - such as done by fortune seeking race hustlers posing as black leaders.
”getting them jobs”
“If Hispanics commit homicide at 4 times the rate as whites then a little algebra indicates that the true black/white ratio for homicide is 50 to 1”.
The color of crime lists the rate as 11 times higher than the white rate in actuality. On their own brief ‘findings’ page they only say blacks murder at a rate 9 times higher than the national average, a bit of an understatement. The rate for interracial murder, murdering whites as compared to the other way around, is considerable higher than 11 to 1, something even AmRen rarely discusses.
Unfortunately, it’s going to take a cataclysmic atrocity against white liberals for them to be able to recognize the truth about blacks. Let’s just hope our culture and cities aren’t further destroyed in the process.
“The Times’s next antigang prescription—”getting them jobs”—is in theory more within the capacity of “policy.””
As far as a gangmember is concerned, being in a gang IS his job.
This was a good article by Ms. MacDonald, however, as many here have pointed out, marriage is not the solution she imagines it is. The black illegitamacy rate, like their crime rate, is itself a sympton and not a cause of their civilizational deficienies. But of course, she could never say this and remain accepted in polite company.
The best place for Blacks is in Africa; BHO should announce a policy of reparations upon landing in Africa and renounciation of US citizenship. Expensive? Si! But well worth it in the long run based upon the fact that the spawn of these Blacks will be inevitably a drain on tax funds.
“Maybe it is genetic”
FED UP, still fighting the genetic issue.
Sorry, there is no maybe here. The only quibbles are over the details.
If mexican homicides are counted as White, then do the stats show a zero homicide rate for mexicans?
Regardless of color, most criminals do not enjoy working hard. Thus, one step in the right direction to reduce crime would be the reintroduction of hard labor in prison. Most gang-bangers see a prison term as a badge of honor. But, they might not be so willing to return to the big house if it meant hard work for them.
These stories that debate the “mystery” behind the rise in black crime are akin to walking in circles and wondering why you’re not getting anywhere.
It’s very easy. NEVER underestimate the primary and most influential part of one’s life that will most likely determine success in life; your upbringing. It starts at home. Children with stable families and loving parents tend to have the best lives, regardless of income at home.
The African American family unit is going the way of the dinosaur, unless that changes, expect more and more of the same.
As a previous poster wrote:
“black girls produce children for the tax money. For at least 18 years, a check will come in from Uncle Sugar. “
This is right on. If we stopped paying girls (black and white) to have illegitimate children there’d be a tremendous change in behavior.
As it is, girls can get financial security, the prestige of motherhood, and independence from Mom (or Grandma) for a few minutes “work.” Also the media will praise them as “heroic single Moms.”
“What the government potentates refuse to grasp, besides the inherent psychopathology of most black youths, is that black girls produce children for the tax money. For at least 18 years, a check will come in from Uncle Sugar. “
> To assist in establishing a real appreciation for how long and how deeply seated these problems are I would like to tell a short, true story;
I was three years old in 1955. I recall being verbally harassed by some Black kids from an apartment balcony, but my mother much later in my adult life told me the entire story. The kids weren’t just screaming racial epithets at my sisters and I, they were attempting to urinate on us from their second story veranda. My mother went to the apartment to speak to the parents and found a lone black woman, who not only verbally abused her, but bragged that the State paid her to have her kids. ……1955, folks.
To my mother’s credit, she strove to raise us to be polite and never call anyone names, especially racial slurs. I had to learn the truth about race relations on my own as an adolescent and later as an adult.
“In short, black women are verbally castrating to their spouses, and they yell at the top of their lungs when speaking. Actually, they’re screamers. Who on planet earth could stay married to one of these emotionally adolescent, hysterical females? Then they complain about the availability of employed black men. “
Everyone blames black men for the lack of marriage and parenting in the black community. I work with black women. I deal with black government clerks occasionally. When I retire I hope to never see or worse yet, hear another black woman in my life.
I can well understand why black men don’t want to live with black women. I have to work with them. But no one has to live with them or marry them. Black men have made a sensible choice that any person would make when they choose to stay away from black women.
But how anyone could allow their children to be raised by the typical black woman.
It’s a vicious circle. Black boys are raised by black women who scream and screech verbal abuse non stop. They are also physically beaten and abused. So they grow up hating black women. Black women react hatefully to the hatred black men have for them. It will never end.
Parenting classes won’t help. Black Motherhood is genetic.
To the liberal mindset the solution to every problem in the black community is more money and government programs. Since the 1960’s and the Great Society, we have spent several trillion dollars and what good has it done? Nothing.
One suspects the real reason for liberal advocacy of these social programs is that they enhance the power of the liberal sector, especially among the bureaucracy, university think factories, and talking heads.
There’s also the ideological component in which liberalism blinds its believers from the reality of the situation. The fact that liberalism has failed to reverse any social pathology goes by the boards. In any event, “policy” is not about stopping crime but about enhancing the lock that liberalism has on America.
Conservatives, for the most part, seem to not have a clue. We have had a couple of decades of Reagan-Bush and they have done little to stop the liberal juggernaut. Indeed, PC has become the national ideology during the years of GOP supremacy in DC. Ironically enough, it was the Democrat Bill Clinton who pushed through welfare reform.
Still, crime has been beaten down in some areas by massive applications of law enforcement resources. Despite the article denying “dragnets”, there has been a massive increase in arrests for drug possession, curfew violations, gang attire and assorted “broken window” offenses in the inner cities. These measures worked for a few years in reducing crime rate while multiplying the number of Americans in prison several fold, and trashing much of the Bill of Rights. But now we see a return to the same old patterns of rising crime.
As for marriage being a solution, how does the article’s author plan to make this work in reality? Require people by law to get hitched up? More government policies, funded at taxpayer expense, to tell us how we are to live our lives? And even so, given the social pathologies out there, what kind of marriages would we end up with?
The US does in fact have a massive bureaucracy for child support enforcement. This includes a nationwide tracking system and draconian penalties such as pulling of driver’s and professional licenses by bureaucratic fiat. This has not made any single parent any more responsible, though it has enhanced the power of the bureaucracy. QED.
The article rightly criticizes liberals for applying utopian solutions. Yet the author can come up with no realistic alternative. Of course, discussion of racial factors is out of the question.
“Factual reporting by mainline sources can no longer be relied upon, and it gets worse every year, making our society one that has transformed into an ideological puppet every bit as much as Pravda was at the height of the Soviet Union.”
Well, speaking in defense of Pravda, at least some people believed them, which is more than can be said for our own media cultural destroyers.
Ronald
No. The stats are deliberately skewed by the feds. To MINIMIZE homicides giving Mexicans as the perps. But listing the MAJORITY of killers as “White.” The lying officials are smart enough to show some Mexicans for what they are. But to HIDE the true extent of crime by Mexicans. Not just for rapists, killers, child molesters, etc., but for ALL Mexican criminals!
It’s not unlike our media doing its best to conceal the huge amount of crime by Blacks… by hiding, as much as possible, the racial ID of the perps. (Not showing pictures if the perp is a Black.)
Proactive, you’re right about black females. As a police officer, I have dealt with many of them and their mouth and emotions would upset Mother Theresa. It’s no wonder so many black men beat on them and cheat on them. There have been times that I have had to use all my self control to keep from slapping them myself.
Californian wrote:
Ironically enough, it was the Democrat Bill Clinton who pushed through welfare reform.
And it was a sham. SSI was the fastest growing line item in the Federal budget between the 1996 “welfare reform” and 9/11. What happened is that welfare clients switched from AFDC/TANF to SSI, based on the pretense that their kids are “retarded,” even as liberal talking heads say there’s no such thing as racial differences in IQ.
Fed Up:
It’s worse than that. I have seen at least one official government “wanted” poster classifying a wanted blackish man with a Spanish name, of either Dominican or Cuban descent, as white.
