Racial Profiling is Rational and Necessary, Based on Crime Statistics - #Zimmerman

There is a great editorial today in the Wall Street Journal, posted on Jason Riley: Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial.  (Hat tip:  American Power)

Riley's editorial, whether he intended it or not, makes a sound case for racial profiling of blacks. He writes:

Any candid debate on race and criminality in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. African-Americans constitute about 13% of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population.

And he quotes a Harvard Law professor:

"High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination," wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz in "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice." "The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments."

And finally, Martin Luther King:

"Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."

So let's see...13% of the population is responsible for over half of all murders, and commits other violent crimes at a rate 2 to 3 times their representation in the population. 

So black people, tell me again why profiling is bad?  Tell me again why people shouldn't fear or be suspicious of black strangers?

The Job-Killing Obama Democrats and the "Occupy Wall Street" Protestors

There was an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (hat tip View From the Right).  It's called What's Occupying Wall Street, and posits that the protestors have a point, but the wrong target.  The WSJ writes:

In the matter of Occupy Wall Street, the allegedly anticapitalist movement that's been camped out in lower Manhattan for the past few weeks and has inspired copycat protests from Boston to Los Angeles, we have some sympathy. Really? Well, yeah.

OK, not for the half-naked demonstrators, the ranting anti-Semites, Kanye West or anyone else who has helped make Occupy Wall Street a target for easy ridicule. But to the extent that the mainly young demonstrators have a valid complaint, it's that they are trying to bust their way into an economy where there is one job for every five job-seekers, and where youth unemployment runs north of 18%. That is a cause for frustration, if not outrage.

The question is, outrage at whom?

The article then goes on to describe the massive job loss in the financial services sector and how more layoffs there are expected, and how the economy was ruined, not by Wall Street, but by the federal government:

...if anyone in the Occupy Wall Street movement wants an intellectually honest explanation for why they can't find a job, they might start by considering what happens to an economy when the White House decides to make pinatas out of the financial-services industry (roughly 6%, or $828 billion, of U.S. GDP), the energy industry (about 7.5% of GDP, or $1 trillion), and millionaires and billionaires (who paid 20.4% of all federal income taxes in 2009). And don't forget the Administration's rhetorical volleys against individual companies like Anthem Blue Cross, AIG and Bank of America, or against Chrysler's bondholders, or various other alleged malefactors of wealth.

 That's right, hippie and commie morons.  If you want to continue your parasitical existence, i.e. taking more out of the economy than you put into it, you need to keep your host healthy.  Human mosquitoes [i.e. you]  can be tolerated when they suck only a few drops of blood out of the host, but when the drops of blood become buckets, the host dies.  When the host dies, the parasites die with it.

The problem for the have-nots of society is not that the haves took away their fair share of the goodies, but that the have-nots didn't earn a fair share in the first place.  If they want a job and the opportunity to advance in society, they need to get their heads out of their nether regions and accept the immutable truth:  the government destroyed the economy, not the private sector.  To make things better and to heal our sick economy, the first thing you can do is to vote Obama and the Democrats out of office in 2012.  As the Journal puts it:

Three years into the current Administration, most Americans are getting wise to the source of their economic woes. It's a couple hundred miles south of Wall Street.

Read the article here.

Glenn Reynolds: Democrats Call Republicans "Accomplices to Murder"

The extremist rhetoric being disseminated by the Democrats following the Arizona murders is almost unprecedented.  However, Glenn Reynolds in the Wall Street Journal deflates the Left's hot air balloon in his article today:  The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel.  He writes:

Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

However, who has created the climate of hate, and who are its targets, is clearly open to debate. Reynolds concludes:

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

If you read nothing else today, do read this article here.