O.J. Simpson died on Thursday at the age of 76, and the media didn&#8217;t quite know what to do.
They didn&#8217;t know what to do because O.J. Simpson was a murderer, and everyone knows he was a murderer. But he spent the last half of his life being treated by some in the media as though he was a sort of controversial figure.
A headline from the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/how-will-oj-simpson-be-remembered/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Washington Post</a> summed this up: “How will O.J. Simpson be remembered?”
The answer for everyone who remembers the O.J. Simpson murder trial is that he will be remembered as a person who very obviously murdered his ex-wife and a person named Ron Goldman, and then proceeded to be alleviated of the criminal responsibility for that double murder by a jury of people who were politically motivated, to the celebration of a wide swath of the American population.
He&#8217;ll be remembered as a person who dramatically widened the gap between the races in the United States, which, in some ways, has never truly closed. It seemed as though that between the trial of O.J. Simpson and the election of Barack Obama, America was becoming more racially reconciliatory. 
But Barack Obama opened those gaps wide again in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1946-oj-simpson-killed-by-cancer-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
The O.J. Simpson trial was the moment when Americans realized that the attempts of the 1960s and 1970s to move beyond America&#8217;s terrible history of racism had some pretty impactful consequences, and that there were two sides to the racial conflict in the United States because up until the Civil Rights movement, there really was only one side.
That side had been American white supremacists treating black people as chattel and as trash. After the Civil Rights movement, the idea was that we would put all of that behind us. We were going to move forward in a country that tries to actually meet the guarantees of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.
But then, in the O.J. Simpson trial, it became very clear to a lot of Americans that the standard of equal justice for all was not only a matter of if that could be reached, but it was also a matter of if everyone wanted that standard to be reached.
That&#8217;s what the O.J. Simpson trial meant for a lot of people. And that&#8217;s why he will be remembered as a double murderer who got away with it for racial political reasons.
Simpson left the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown in his wake. Not just that; he still owed more than $100 million to their families because they won civil trials against him after losing the criminal trial in favor of convicting him.
The evidence against O.J. was overwhelming. Everyone knew he was guilty. No one legitimately believed he was innocent. It was just a question of whether you wanted to see him acquitted because of racial reasons.
Those racial reasons were explained at the time and are being explained even now by people who believe that somehow, some sort of revenge was deserved for America&#8217;s terrible racial history.
After he killed two white people, suddenly his cause became a “racial cause.” And that racial logic has kept up even until today.
Marc Lamont Hill, a true believer in the perverse ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and critical race theory, <a href="https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/1778461905268412472" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a> yesterday, 
<blockquote>O.J. Simpson was an abusive liar who abandoned his community long before he killed two people in cold blood. His acquittal for murder was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal system. But he&#8217;s still a monster, not a martyr.</blockquote>
So he acknowledges O.J. Simpson murdered two people in cold blood and was a monster, but he still deserved to be acquitted.
No country obviously can survive for very long on the basis that, as long as you are a member of a particular race, you deserve to be acquitted for murdering somebody else of another race in that sort of pure, unbridled hatred and racism. It wrecks societies.
The more faith you show in the political narrative, the more you&#8217;re willing to pick a bad example and say even it applies to your narrative. And O.J. is the worst example of all.
At the time of the trial, some black people and white people responded incredibly differently to the verdict.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Even today, there are people who are trying to make excuses for why O.J. was acquitted because the real question is not really why O.J. did what he did. He was a sociopathic murderer who murdered two people in cold blood. The real question is why the legal system did what it did and why Americans reacted the way they did.
O.J. Simpson died a free man. The idea that there is some underlying question of justice with regard to O.J. Simpson that would have allowed for the moral imprimatur to be placed upon his acquittal is morally unrighteous foolishness.
O.J. Simpson was a double murderer. He should have gone to jail. And if you believe that questions of race should take precedence over questions of actual blood guilt, that makes you a bad person. That is not how justice works.
When social justice, which is what this is, trumps individual justice, when the idea is that a racial narrative — a true racial narrative about black victimhood in America —  is supposed to trump the fact that a black man killed two white people, you have lost the thread of decency and morality.
Justice cannot work under these circumstances.

O.J. Simpson shows the jury a new pair of Aris ext

O.J. Simpson Killed By Cancer

Blacks

Critical Race Theory

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Los Angeles

Murder

O.J. Simpson

Opinion

Race

In 1995, there were two very different versions of the O.J. Simpson trial playing out. For most of the country, the trial was a spectacle. A lot of crazy stuff happened — so much that most people don&#8217;t remember all of it.
Overnight, for example, the National Enquirer tabloid <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/24/us/the-enquirer-required-reading-in-simpson-case.html">morphed</a> into a crack legal publication that broke several exclusive stories about the proceedings. They had 20 reporters working on the case, coming up with transcripts and scoops that everyone else missed. And of course, Norm Macdonald made so many jokes about the case that he was fired from SNL because of it. In the decades since, there hasn&#8217;t been any trial remotely like it — covered wall-to-wall, for months, by pretty much every channel in America. It was entertainment.
At the same time, in black areas of Los Angeles, and in major cities all over the country, the O.J. Simpson trial wasn&#8217;t just a spectacle. It was also about revenge for the Rodney King acquittals and police corruption more generally. That&#8217;s been discussed quite a bit over the last 30 years.
What&#8217;s gotten less attention is that, with the O.J. trial, for the first time, it became widely acceptable to think about the deaths of white people as necessary collateral damage to exact this kind of political revenge.
There was no social media at the time, and cable news was pretty sanitized. So no one with a major television platform came right out and directly said this. But they didn&#8217;t need to. It was obvious, especially if you looked at how little concern there was among O.J. supporters for Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and their families.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1346-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
Nicole Brown, as you might remember, was repeatedly beaten by O.J. before she divorced him. And then he hunted her down and nearly cut her head off. Everyone knew this, but not everyone cared. It was apparent from the reactions when O.J. was acquitted. It was euphoria, and it broke down along racial lines. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Videos of people celebrating verdict" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UZCTIAPknPk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
It&#8217;s pretty disturbing footage, especially since at the time it didn&#8217;t cause a lot of outrage. Thousands of people all over the country, most of them black, celebrated the acquittal of someone who obviously just murdered two people. At the time, serious people understood that this was jury nullification. But no one really explored the implications. What does a country look like, over the long term, when murdering white people is seen as acceptable, for any reason? What happens when the media and major political figures endorse this barbarism?
No one seemed to care, even after a juror from the O.J. trial came right out and admitted, many years after the fact, that 90% of the jurors knew that O.J. was guilty. But the jurors acquitted him anyway, because they were driven by a desire for &#8220;payback.&#8221; Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Why Acquit OJ" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qDjbVQR04Bk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
She knows it&#8217;s wrong to let a killer go free, but she did it anyway. So did the rest of the jury.
This has all been known for a while now. What&#8217;s less widely known is that the Los Angeles DA at the time, a Democrat named Gil Garcetti, engineered this acquittal. An attorney named Dilan Esper has <a href="https://x.com/dilanesper/status/1297642386340712448" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cataloged</a> all the ways that Garcetti rigged the trial in favor of O.J. The big one is that he didn&#8217;t try the case in Brentwood, which is in West Los Angeles. That would have been the logical place to hold the trial because Simpson had lived in Brentwood for two decades. But Brentwood is almost exclusively white. And Garcetti recognized that, for O.J. to have the best chance of acquittal, given the racial politics of the case, he needed to pick a new venue. So he chose downtown Los Angeles — where he was able to secure an overwhelmingly black jury with just a couple of white people on it.
Garcetti made several other decisions to swing the case for O.J. For example, he declined to pursue the death penalty after publicly meeting with Johnnie Cochran — who was just about to join O.J.&#8217;s defense team. That was a significant decision because a death penalty jury has to answer &#8220;yes&#8221; to the question of whether they&#8217;d be OK with sentencing someone to death. That weeds out a lot of Left-wing jurors immediately. So Garcetti chose not to do it.
Additionally, Garcetti chose to present the prosecution&#8217;s entire case during pretrial hearings, giving the defense a chance to scope out all of the witnesses well in advance of trial. As Esper points out, this ultimately worked to the defense&#8217;s advantage in a major way. O.J.&#8217;s lawyers picked up on one inconsistency in the pretrial testimony — relating to the amount of blood collected by police investigators — and made it a major part of their defense.
These were not errors, or sloppy work by the prosecutors. These were intentional efforts by Garcetti to avoid convicting O.J. Simpson, which would have ended his political career. Pretty much every black voter in Los Angeles would have voted to remove Garcetti if O.J. was found guilty. Indeed, even after O.J. Simpson was found not guilty, Garcetti refused to prosecute him for perjury in the civil trial, even though it was clear O.J. Simpson lied several times. That&#8217;s how committed Garcetti was to keeping O.J. Simpson out of jail.
Again, anyone paying attention during this whole saga understood everything that was going on at the time. This is not new information. What is new is that, now that O.J. Simpson is dead — he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/o-j-simpson-dead-at-76-following-battle-with-cancer" target="_blank" rel="noopener">died yesterday</a> of cancer —  mainstream news outlets are just coming right out and admitting it. They&#8217;re acknowledging that O.J. Simpson was guilty, but that he simply couldn&#8217;t be convicted because of race politics. 
Here for example is a CNN journalist explaining on-camera yesterday that in 1995, a lot of black people loved to see a black man get away with murdering two white people. She catches herself mid-way through, but it&#8217;s clear what she&#8217;s saying. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 CNN celebrates verdict" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hL_t3wgdT6Y?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
We&#8217;d have a much better understanding of today&#8217;s race politics, and how to put an end to it, if we could have admitted this back in 1995. A lot of people wanted to see a black man get away with murder. The two white people were simply collateral damage.
A professor named Marc Lamont Hill spelled this out <a href="https://x.com/marclamonthill/status/1778461905268412472" target="_blank" rel="noopener">very clearly</a> yesterday:
<blockquote>O.J. Simpson was an abusive liar who abandoned his community long before he killed two people in cold blood. His acquittal for murder was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal system. But he’s still a monster, not a martyr.</blockquote>
In other words, you can kill white people without penalty. As long as the criminal legal system is racist — and people like Marc Lamont Hill believe it&#8217;s irredeemably, irreparably racist forever — then it&#8217;s fine to basically decapitate white people. That&#8217;s according to someone who collects a paycheck paid by the government of New York to teach the next generation.
Yesterday, Hill elaborated on his reasoning, essentially saying that O.J. had every right to kill his victims because a police officer involved in the case used a racial slur at some point in the past. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 Mark Lamont Hill" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jkc3uYKGUKs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You&#8217;ll notice there&#8217;s no regard whatsoever in Marc Lamont Hill&#8217;s mind for the two victims. Their families aren&#8217;t entitled to justice, all because a detective on their murder case used a racial slur. If you use the n-word, then any white person who&#8217;s tangentially related to you deserves to die. That&#8217;s basically what he&#8217;s saying. A lot of people thought this in 1995, but they didn&#8217;t say it in public. That&#8217;s changing.
The reason several mainstream outlets spent yesterday eulogizing O.J. Simpson as some kind of victim is that they approve of what he did. There&#8217;s no other way to spin it.
The New York Times, for example, <a href="https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1778446276440264921" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> that quote, &#8220;A jury in the murder trial &#8230;. cleared Mr. Simpson, but the case ruined his world.&#8221; They quickly edited that out of the piece when people pointed out that he stabbed two people to death and therefore &#8220;ruined&#8221; their worlds, too. 
For its part, NPR wrote the following <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/o-j-simpson-coverage-york-230410329.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headline</a> on something called &#8220;Threads:&#8221; &#8220;BREAKING NEWS: The football great Orenthal James Simpson, known as O.J., has died.&#8221;
The Associated Press, meanwhile, <a href="https://x.com/AP/status/1778583977718165987" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Legendary athlete, actor and millionaire: O.J. Simpson&#8217;s murder trial lost him the American dream.&#8221;
Those are all real headlines. Everyone knows exactly what&#8217;s going on here. The only way to get glowing headlines like this from the corporate media is if you kill people they don&#8217;t like. It&#8217;s the same reason The Washington Post <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50205592" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> that ISIS leader as an &#8220;austere religious scholar.&#8221; O.J. Simpson killed members of a disfavored demographic, so they&#8217;re mourning him as a victim, not the people he killed.
This kind of attitude was everywhere yesterday. There was no focus on the victims whatsoever. CBS News interviewed one of O.J.&#8217;s lawyers from the 1995 trial, named Carl Douglas. In the interview, he comes out and declares what he saw as a main benefit of the trial. Again, it had nothing to do with justice or finding the truth or the &#8220;real killers.&#8221;
Instead, it was about showing to the world that black lawyers can get defendants off, too. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 The Era of The Time" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZuocpqCpKXU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;And whatever you think of this verdict, for Black Americans, it was not speaking about O.J. Simpson per se.&#8221;
That about sums it up, straight from one of O.J.&#8217;s lawyers. The O.J. trial was not about O.J. Simpson. The trial was arguably the beginning, or at least a landmark moment on the way towards, our current era of racial insanity. The race hustlers of the time rallied around O.J. not because they thought he was innocent but because they saw him as an agent of revenge. And Democratic Party elites in Los Angeles like Gil Garcetti did everything they could to ensure O.J.&#8217;s acquittal so that he could serve that function.
But nobody was more explicit than CNN contributor Ashely Allison, a former senior advisor in the Obama White House. Listen to what she chose to say out loud on national television yesterday:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="014 CNN OJ Relatable To Black" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xTO8tcq_o00?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“He represented something for black Americans because it was two white people who’d been killed.” That’s what black Americans connected with, according to this woman. They felt affinity with O.J. because he brutally slaughtered white people. Talk about saying the quiet part out loud. Although, as we’ve seen, it’s hardly the quiet part anymore.
This mentality has metastasized over time, helped along by Barack Obama, leading to the rise of BLM, and culminating in Floyd and the 2020 riots, and then the post-Floyd era of DEI. Now, 30 years later, so-called &#8220;race relations&#8221; have deteriorated to the point that the race hustlers finally feel comfortable coming out and telling us what their motives were all along.
Yes, O.J. Simpson is dead. But the legacy of that trial, particularly the racial violence and distrust that it normalized, is still very much alive.

O. J. Simpson sits in Superior Court in Los Angele

The Media Says The Quiet Part Out Loud: O.J. Was Their Hero Because He Killed White People

Legacy Media

Matt Walsh

Readers Pass

We never quite know who the Biden administration is going to host at an event, but this year, Kamala Harris invited students from HBCU schools to the White House for a day of HBCU Triumph. At this “black excellence event,” the White House welcomed people they think embody black excellence. Apparently, they are of the belief that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/this-is-trash-who-is-pushing-this-on-black-culture-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sexyy Red</a> is one of those people since they played her song “SkeeYee” during the event for all the guests.
But is it black excellence to gather a number of students from HBCU schools and basically cater to them to let them know that you know the kind of music they listen to by playing Sexyy Red? Is that actually black excellence? Or, is that government excellence? I believe it is the latter. This is a prime example of the government playing an almost perfect hand when it comes to black America, as it has destroyed our families over the last half century.
Black Americans were outpacing white Americans in the 1950s under Jim Crow in terms of economic growth, and then, the government got involved. Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act — even though he was an avowed racist — because he was forced to. With all the unrest and rioting that was going on in the nation following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, he had to sign the Civil Rights Act to calm America. Then, as soon as the Act was signed, he implemented the welfare system with the Great Society Act, saying he knew he would have black Americans voting Democrat for the next 200 years. He has basically been right.
Black Americans continue to think Democrats are their friends and saviors, as witnessed by their visit to the White House when they put on music — trash music — that is the intentional disintegration of the black soul. They are convincing black Americans that this is their culture, when, actually, it is the corrosion of black culture. In today’s society, Sexyy Red is “success” for Democrats — with all the twerking that comes with that music. Just a short time ago, we were listening to bands like The Temptations and singers like Lauryn Hill. Perhaps there is an operation spinning in Hollywood from the people who brought us gangster rap and this sort of trash.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-298-i-m-done-being-threatened-the-michael-jackson-diddy-connection-exposed-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: Candace Owens</a></h4>
It’s no secret that some black Americans don’t like me because I talk about these issues. However, I want to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/are-you-black-pilled" target="_blank" rel="noopener">make black Americans aware</a> of the fact that we have been targeted <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mass-psychosis-how-villains-become-heroes-in-the-media" target="_blank" rel="noopener">and brainwashed</a> against our better interests. The media inevitably have much to say about anyone who has conversations with me on, basically, any matter, but especially those concerning black America.
I exposed the fraudulence surrounding the George Floyd case in my documentary “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/the-greatest-lie-ever-sold" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Greatest Lie Ever Sold</a>.” But black Americans said, “How dare you?” Yes, how dare I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-am-sick-and-tired-of-media-deception" target="_blank" rel="noopener">expose</a> that Black Lives Matter not only used George Floyd’s unfortunate death to steal millions of dollars, but also laundered those dollars to organizations that have absolutely nothing to do with black America. How dare I expose that BLM convinced black Americans to riot and loot their own communities so that business leaders would be forced to move out. And they weren’t the only ones who were forced out.
Thanks to BLM efforts, police were forced out of neighborhoods and locations where looting was occurring, so, obviously, no one wanted to live in those neighborhoods. Why would anyone volunteer to live in an unsafe neighborhood or set up a business in a looting zone? This then caused black people in these communities to end up even more impoverished in those circumstances. So, I refuse to kowtow to the Democratic world order that has effectively destroyed black Americans.
I refused to cover up the fact that George Floyd died with enough fentanyl in his system to kill a horse, nor was I willing to act as though the full video of Floyd’s arrest showed that Floyd complied with police — when he did not. Floyd was safely put in the back of a cruiser, proclaimed he could not breathe while he was sitting in the backseat, and then asked to be put on the ground. I went on a fact-searching mission and exposed all the lies and the media propaganda arm that routinely convinces black America — and, quite honestly, all Americans now — that they are a part of a victim group.
The only victim group we are a part of is the group that is, at least to some extent, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lifes-tough-get-a-helmet-man" target="_blank" rel="noopener">being victimized</a> by the media. Without question, we are constantly being lied to so that we never look at or question who the people are who are actually controlling us.

Vice President Kamala Harris Attends Get Out The Vote HBCU Event In South Carolina

What Is Black Excellence?

Black Lives Matter

Candace Owens

Greatest Lie Ever Sold

Kamala Harris

Rap Music

One pattern that has emerged over the past four presidential elections — ever since Barack Obama — is that the national conversation, as directed by the media, shifts back to race right around the time that the primaries are wrapping up. 
Of course, the primaries are technically still happening on the GOP side if you count Nikki Haley as a real presidential candidate. When you realize that she is, at this point, simply running to be the next overpaid CNN contributor, you understand the primaries ended weeks ago, which means it is now time for the race cycle to begin anew.
Right on cue, MSNBC released a new special this month called “Black Men In America: The Road to 2024.” Now, based on the title, based on the timing, based on the fact that it’s MSNBC, you might assume that the show automatically is going to consist of a bunch of mindless race-baiting. You might make that presumption without seeing a single second of it. You might write it off, without giving it a chance, under the assumption that it’s going to be nothing but idiotic, dim-witted racial grievance mongering. You might assume all of that. And you would of course be entirely correct.
Yet, as you’ll see in the clip I’m about to show you, it still manages to limbo its way under the incredibly low bar that you have set for it in your mind. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Change The Definition Of Crime" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rpft5IEThD4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
As you could see, that’s Ben Crump pretending to shoot pool with Al Sharpton. In other words, it’s neo-Al Sharpton with old Al Sharpton. It’s broadband Al Sharpton with Dial-Up Al Sharpton. Ben Crump is what happens if you clone Al Sharpton but you remove his hair and his three brain cells. Because that’s the thing you notice about Crump. He is, objectively speaking — and I say this in a medical sense, and not as an insult — a moron. In fact, his very existence single-handedly, and ironically, disproves systemic racism. There is simply no way that a black guy this aggressively mediocre, this consistently unimpressive, this simple-minded and ridiculous, could ever achieve the success he has achieved in a country that was systemically racist against black guys.
Sure, even in a country with systemic racism you could still end up with brilliant and innovative people who manage to succeed in spite of it. The existence of successful black people doesn’t in and of itself disprove systemic racism. A million other things disprove it, but not that. But Ben Crump, specifically? This guy? You want to tell me this guy rose to the top despite having the entire system arrayed against him?
No, the truth is obviously quite the opposite. The system favors guys like Crump, which is the only reason anyone knows his name. By all rights the pinnacle of this dude’s career should be a position no higher than shift manager at Wendy’s — with no disrespect intended to shift managers at Wendy’s. The point is that his wealth and success is entirely a product of a system designed to move mediocre half-wits like himself to the front.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1315-we-need-to-respect-black-culture-by-getting-rid-of-laws-says-msnbc-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
As if to prove my point, what does he say? What’s the great insight he offers the world? Well, he says that we can get rid of all the crime in America overnight by changing the definition of crime. He’s right, of course. “Crime” is a legal designation. If you stop applying that legal designation to things, then it will not be applied to thing, and therefore you have gotten rid of the designation. Stop calling murder, robbery, and rape “crimes,” and — just like that, presto chango — the crimes of murder, robbery, and rape have disappeared. This is evidently what Crump, a guy who somehow earned a law degree, wants to see happen.
Of course, the problem is that by getting rid of the crimes of murder, robbery, and rape, you have not gotten rid of the actions of murder, robbery and rape. People are still being murdered, robbed, and raped — at what seems to be an even higher rate now — but it doesn’t count in the books. The assailants aren’t being brought to justice. The victims have nowhere to turn for redress. All the bad things are still happening, but the law is covering its eyes and plugging its ears and pretending that it’s not. That’s what happens when you “get rid of crime,” as Crump suggests.
In fact every major city in America has adopted a strategy like this, to one degree or another. Every major city, thanks in large part to Soros-funded Marxist DAs, has decided to reduce crime by not fighting it. They’ve decided to create fewer criminals by not calling the criminals “criminals.” As a result, most of these places are unlivable hellscapes. Which is not a problem for Crump, whose firm rakes in tens of millions of dollars a year. He’s not living in these crime-infested sewers that ambulance-chasing con artists like himself have helped to create.
Crump then goes on to claim that laws have the effect of “criminalizing black culture.” He gives the example of Eric Garner, who died while police attempted to take him into custody for selling loose cigarettes. Now, the law against loose cigarettes isn’t as important or essential as laws against murder and robbery, but the policy does make perfect sense. You aren’t allowed to buy a pack of cigarettes from the convenience store and then stand outside the convenience store selling each individual cigarette to people walking by on the street. Why? Well, that’s not very fair to the convenience store, for one thing. For another, there are all kinds of additional laws governing the sale of tobacco products — laws that cannot be enforced if people are allowed to walk around hawking individual cigarettes on the street corner.
It’s not the most important law, but it is a law, and it’s one that makes plenty of sense. The question in this case is why Eric Garner couldn’t just follow the law. Is it “black culture” to simply disregard whatever law you personally find inconvenient? That seems to be the claim Crump is making. But all of that is irrelevant anyway. Garner didn’t die because he sold loose cigarettes. Cops didn’t show up and stage a public execution as a penalty for selling loosies, as they’re called. No, they tried to arrest him, he resisted, and in the struggle he lost his life. Why resist? What is that going to achieve? What possible good can come from it? Even if you disagree with the law you broke. Even if you didn’t break a law at all. Even if you’re being falsely accused. Even if you’re innocent. No matter the situation, how does resisting arrest help your case at all? What good will it do you? What is the plan? Walk me through the steps: Step 1) Resist arrest. Step 2) Unknown. Step 3) You get to go home and have a pleasant day.
What happens in that second step? What did Eric Garner, or any of these BLM martyrs, think that second step would be? Did he think that if he declined to be arrested, the cops would just say, “Oh, you don’t want to be arrested? You’d prefer not to be arrested this particular afternoon? Well, never mind then, good sir. Please be on your way. Our apologies.” Was that the idea?
Well, we know the answer. There was no thought process behind it. He didn’t have any ideas at all. He was acting in a totally thoughtless, self-destructive manner, and responding to a situation in a way that was guaranteed to make the situation worse, no matter what. Is that black culture, according to Crump?
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Crump also mentions George Floyd. He says Floyd was another man arrested for participating in black culture. What was the culture in that case? Floyd was trying to pass off a forged $20 bill. Is that black culture? He was overdosing on fentanyl. Is that black culture? I’m not asking these questions rhetorically. I would really like to hear Crump answer. I would like to know what he considers “black culture” to be. I would not personally call any of that black culture, but I will say that if it was black culture, then the culture needs to change. If your culture — as Crump seems to think — involves disregarding the law, being self-destructive, making decisions that are guaranteed to introduce more chaos and violence into your life and your community, then your culture is deeply flawed, terminally sick, and needs to change. 
The law doesn’t need to accommodate your culture. Your culture needs to accommodate the fact that it exists in a civilized society with laws.
Naturally, Crump only talks about the laws against loose cigarettes and milk cartons and baggy pants — as if anyone is actually being arrested for having baggy pants. He completely ignores the obvious fact that black men are arrested every day, in every city in America, for committing actual violent crimes. Young black men aren’t landing in prison because of their milk cartons and ill-fitting pants. But Crump, of course, doesn’t want to acknowledge that. Because he is a liar, and he’s evil, and he doesn’t care how many people die, or how many black men get themselves killed by making the worst possible decisions, as long as he can personally profit off of it.
I began this by saying that Crump is stupid. And he certainly is. You can’t listen to him for more than five seconds without arriving at that conclusion. But like any other race baiter, he also knows exactly what he’s doing. He pretends to speak up for “black culture” — whatever he thinks that is — while at the same time doing everything he can to make black communities more dangerous, poorer, bleaker, more miserable. 
It’s not the white man keeping black communities down. It’s men like Ben Crump. And he deserves to be held accountable for it.

US-politics-RACISM-LAWSUIT

We Need To Respect Black Culture By Getting Rid Of Laws, Says MSNBC

Al Sharpton

Benjamin Crump

Crime

Criminal Justice

George Floyd

“Stamped From The Beginning” Toronto International Film Festival World Premiere | Netflix

The Reparations Grift Is Finally Collapsing 

Anti-Racism

California

Ibram X. Kendi

Racism

Reparations

We have now reached the point in American life where in our racially divided society, there is a quick get-out-of-jail-free card, so long as you are a member of an intersectional group.
If you&#8217;ve done something wrong, if you are accused of corruption, or if you are accused of some sort of malfeasance, your get-out-of-jail-free card is, “You&#8217;re attacking me because I&#8217;m black.”
This has significant ramifications for American public life. The simple fact of the matter is that in a meritocracy, we should be able to point out when you are corrupt or when you have failed. If every defense to failure is that the system itself is biased against you, that means failure will continue.
This is true system-wide, everywhere — from politics to administration, from the business world to the educational world. When Claudine Gay gets fired from Harvard University, the basic idea is that it must be a racist system that got her fired. 
There is now no way to hold people accountable if they are from a minority race. If, for example, you&#8217;re a politician and it turns out you&#8217;re deeply corrupt, and your first move is to claim America is racist because that&#8217;s why you&#8217;re being targeted — if that&#8217;s believed — there is no way to get rid of corrupt officials so long as they are of minority status.
Once that standard is created and the basic idea becomes that certain people in our society have a get-out-of-jail-free card and others do not, then all standards collapse because a double standard is no standard at all.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1901-when-in-trouble-cry-racism-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
The latest iteration of this particular foolish, divisive defense comes courtesy of a person named Tiffany Henyard. You might not have heard of Tiffany Henyard, but this is a burgeoning story about a small town mayor in Dolton, Illinois — a town of 20,000 people —  who&#8217;s been alleged to have engaged in significant corruption on a vast scale. 
This story was reported in <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12931847/mayor-tiffany-henyard-dolton-illinois-slammed-salary-expenses.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the UK Daily Mail</a>: 
<blockquote>The first female mayor of a tiny Illinois village slammed her critics at a public meeting after she caused outrage by taking a $300,000 salary. Glamorous Tiffany Henyard was elected leader of Dolton, a village of 20,000, in 2021, but has since come under fire for what many see as her excessive spending. … She regularly engages the services of a professional hair and makeup team and stylist before public appearances and photo shoots for the county&#8217;s taxpayer-funded billboards, which often feature the 40-year-old in what some see as shameless self-promotion.</blockquote>
Henyard has proposed a new law that would cap the next mayor&#8217;s salary at $25,000, unless she herself is the new mayor, a proposal many have deemed illegal.
“The scandal is just the latest to hit the beleaguered mayor, after she was slammed for hiring her former campaign worker as the town&#8217;s code enforcement officer despite the fact he is a convicted child rapist,” the Daily Mail continued.
Now she is now being investigated for all of this. Her defense is a defense that has become the all-purpose defense for an enormous number of people in our post-George Floyd society.
She <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13058511/Tiffany-Henyard-mayor-Dolton-Illinois-corruption.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spoke</a> about her alleged corruption and the reasons why she&#8217;s being targeted, saying, “You all should be ashamed of yourselves because you are all black. You are all black! And you all sitting up here beating and attacking a black woman that&#8217;s in power. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Now again, the basic idea here is that even if a black person is asking this particular mayor about her corruption, it must be because they&#8217;re a race traitor of some sort.
If basic standards of meritocracy and decency are to be put aside in favor of claims that any critique is rooted in race, that means there can&#8217;t be any meritocracy anymore — which, of course, is the basic idea that social justice can only be established by getting rid of baseline standards of competency.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
We see this across the board in the United States in a wide variety of places. Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago was questioned over his handling of the huge migrant crisis that has hit the city of Chicago, along with the crime crisis, along with the issues of economic problems in the city. His answer was, I&#8217;m a black man with a black wife and black kids. How dare you attack me?
This mentality is horrifyingly bad for the country. What does the race of his wife and his children have to do with anything? The reasoning is: You can&#8217;t critique me because I am citing my race.
He&#8217;s following in the footsteps of Lori Lightfoot, who was recently ousted as mayor of Chicago after one short term because she was a terrible mayor. But she also happened to be a black lesbian. She claimed that she had been ousted, not because she was terrible at her job, but because she was black. When asked after the election if she lost because of her race in a city like Chicago, which is heavily minority, she said, “I&#8217;m a black woman in America.”
In 2023, Lightfoot said in an interview with <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/lori-lightfoot-makes-her-case-to-chicago?_sp=f46b50f6-2ff9-490d-87df-820a50fb74b1.1707424977366" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the New Yorker</a> prior to the election, “And, look, also, I am a Black woman — let’s not forget … Certain folks, frankly, don’t support us in leadership roles. … The same forces that didn&#8217;t want Harold Washington to succeed, they&#8217;re still here.”
She was referring to Chicago’s first black mayor.
This sort of excuse-making is a way of lowering standards of performance for everyone.
Again, we see it across the board. Fani Willis, who&#8217;s the D.A. currently going after Donald Trump in Georgia, has spoken of how racism was behind all the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fani-willis-goes-to-church-tells-congregation-shes-being-targeted-for-skin-color" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accusations</a> targeting her.
The answer to every question about impropriety is now race in America. So long as you are able to play that card — and it&#8217;s a dangerous card to play — it undermines standards of stability, decency, and performance in literally every industry.

US-NEWS-CHICAGO-MAYOR-CHALLENGES-TB

The Racial Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card. It’s Only Going To Lead To More Failure.

Ben Shapiro

Brandon Johnson

Claudine Gay

Fani Willis

U.S. Politics

The other day, I briefly talked about a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/boston-mayor-faces-backlash-over-christmas-party-excluding-white-officials" target="_blank" rel="noopener">racially segregated holiday party</a> that was just thrown by the mayor of Boston, Michelle Wu. In case you missed it, the mayor&#8217;s office only wanted to invite the non-white members of the Boston city council to the event. They wanted to exclude all the white people.
To that end, the mayor&#8217;s staff sent out a bunch of emails addressed to &#8220;electeds of color,&#8221; which is yet another example of the fact that Leftists are simply incapable of speaking English. They&#8217;re well on their way to creating their own language at this point.
But there was a problem with this party. By mistake, the mayor&#8217;s office sent out invitations to all of Boston&#8217;s city council members, including the white devils. It wasn&#8217;t just &#8220;Electeds of Color&#8221; who got an invite, seven white people got one, too. In an administration that cared about the Constitution, or basic morality, this would be a highly embarrassing episode. The mayor would apologize for discriminating on the basis of race and resign. But that&#8217;s not what happened in this case.
Instead, Wu apologized — not for the discrimination, but for accidentally sending the invitation to white people. She says that was the only error she made. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Mayor Wu addresses controversy around holiday party invitation" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ANTk8QMJ_oc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The mayor also clarified that this &#8220;Electeds of Color&#8221; party has been going on for several years, and it&#8217;s only now been discovered because of the mistake that her staff made. So rest easy, the racial discrimination is nothing new. That&#8217;s the position of the mayor&#8217;s office.
Whatever you make of that, there are a few legal experts who have suggested it might violate Massachusetts law, which doesn&#8217;t allow government officials to use city resources to enforce racial segregation. The Massachusetts Public Accommodations Act bars officials from, &#8220;making any distinction, discrimination, or restriction in admission to or treatment in a place of public accommodation based on race.&#8221; This event was held at the Parkman House, which is owned by the city, although it&#8217;s not open to the public.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1279-racial-segregation-is-making-a-big-comeback-thanks-to-the-left" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
Maybe that&#8217;s the &#8220;out&#8221; here. Maybe the mayor can say that it&#8217;s legal to discriminate on the basis of race, as long as it&#8217;s in a city building that isn&#8217;t a &#8220;public accommodation.&#8221; That still doesn&#8217;t address the question of why Wu was so intent on keeping white people away from this event. 
It&#8217;s especially strange given that Wu has a white husband. You might be tempted to think that Wu just wanted to attend a holiday party without her husband around. Maybe that&#8217;s what&#8217;s going on here. She also has two half-white children — are they allowed to be at the party for half the time? Is that how that works?
But this is not a completely satisfying explanation, mainly because it does seem that the mayor has a deep-seated disdain for white people, at least in general. 
For one thing, just a year ago, Wu cracked a joke about how many &#8220;white&#8221; problems she&#8217;s had to deal with in the city. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“I’m getting used to dealing w problems that are expensive, disruptive &amp; White”. -Boston Mayor Michelle Wu
 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Boston?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Boston</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/MayorWu?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MayorWu</a> has finally shown her true colors. 
This isn’t funny. This is disgusting. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ShameOnWu?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ShameOnWu</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CotterReporter?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CotterReporter</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TuckerCarlson</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/HowieCarrShow?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HowieCarrShow</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/DoctorTurtleboy?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DoctorTurtleboy</a> <a href="https://t.co/eFTWomIH3O">pic.twitter.com/eFTWomIH3O</a>
&mdash; Boston First Responders United (BFRU) (@BostonFRU) <a href="https://twitter.com/BostonFRU/status/1505676783475122182?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is the point where you have to wonder how someone like Michelle Wu became the mayor of a city like Boston, given that she clearly hates most of the city&#8217;s residents based on their skin color. In fact, even though the white population in Boston is declining, it’s still one of the whitest major cities in the country. And yet it has, arguably, the most anti-white mayor in the country.
How does that happen? Well, not a lot of people are asking that question right now, even in Boston. As I mentioned yesterday, even white members of the city council — the very people that Wu excluded from the holiday party because of their skin color — are mostly shrugging this whole episode off. They&#8217;re suggesting it&#8217;s an isolated incident, as if that would somehow make racial segregation acceptable.
But it&#8217;s not an isolated incident, not even close. You don&#8217;t hear a lot about it, but explicit anti-white discrimination is no longer unusual in this country. I&#8217;m not talking about racial bias, or affirmative action admissions, or racial preferences in hiring and promotions. Everyone knows that&#8217;s been going on. I&#8217;m talking about policies — in government, universities, and school systems — that overtly ban white people from participating.
This is a real problem. It&#8217;s not just happening at the mayor&#8217;s holiday party in Boston. Racial segregation has made a comeback in this country in a big way. You just don’t hear very much about it.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Right now, for example, a school district in Illinois is <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/12/04/news/illinois-schools-segregated-classes-blasted-as-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">segregating</a> its English and math classes by race. At Evanston Township High School, black and Latino students go into one classroom when it&#8217;s time to learn English, calculus, and algebra. Whites and Asians go into a different room. This is the kind of program that legal experts say is clearly unconstitutional. If anyone sued, it would be struck down immediately. But people aren&#8217;t interested in suing, at least not yet. So the program will continue. They even have a name for this whole system of racial discrimination. The school board calls it &#8220;AXLE&#8221; — for &#8220;Advancing Excellence, Lifting Everyone.&#8221;
As shocking as this sounds, it&#8217;s nothing new for Chicago. A couple of years ago, Chicago&#8217;s mayor at the time, Lori Lightfoot, announced that for one day, she wouldn&#8217;t talk to white reporters. She just straight-up said that she didn&#8217;t want to deal with them. Again, there was mostly a collective shrug from reporters in the city. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Mayor Lightfoot defends granting interviews to only Black and Brown journalists" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WXsUUK2un9o?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Lightfoot never apologized for that. And why would she? She understands that in Chicago — the third biggest city in the United States — open anti-white race hate isn&#8217;t just tolerated, it&#8217;s popular.
Again there are many more examples. In the wake of George Floyd&#8217;s overdose, Rice University students <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/rice-university-black-house-statue-demolition-demands" target="_blank" rel="noopener">demanded</a> the construction of a literal &#8220;Black House&#8221; on campus, along with segregated housing. And last year, the New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/off-campus-uc-berkeley-housing-bans-white-people-from-common-areas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that an off-campus housing co-op at U.C. Berkeley had banned white people from the common areas. This is a five-story building called the &#8220;Person of Color Theme House.&#8221;
Here&#8217;s an excerpt from the house rules: 
<blockquote>Many POC moved here to be able to avoid white violence and presence, so respect their decision of avoidance if you bring white guests. &#8230; White guests are not allowed in common spaces.</blockquote>
In fact, some white guests weren&#8217;t allowed at all. As one student reported, &#8220;‘[I] was not allowed to let my dad enter the house because he’s white.&#8221;
If you&#8217;re wondering where Berkeley&#8217;s administration stood on all of this, the answer is that they support it. Anti-white hatred is endemic at the university. Three years ago, in the summer of George Floyd, a third-year student named Seth Smith was shot in the back of the head, execution-style, while he was out for a walk. Smith&#8217;s killer was a black career criminal who mocked Smith for being white when he was arrested.
How did Berkeley administrators respond to this incident? The chancellor released this statement: &#8220;Many of you may have had a close relationship with Seth and are feeling a sense of loss and disbelief. Others, like many of us, are experiencing stress, grief and anxiety related to the coronavirus pandemic and the recent murders of George Floyd, Riah Milton, and other Black Americans.&#8221;
In other words, sorry about the white kid who just got murdered. But isn&#8217;t the death of George Floyd — a felon with no connection whatsoever to Berkeley — also really upsetting? That&#8217;s what they said. Imagine being one of Seth Smith&#8217;s friends or family members and seeing that email. You&#8217;d understand the message immediately, which is that white people don&#8217;t matter.
This is a message that Berkeley has communicated a lot recently, in various ways. For example, the university recently held a blacks-only graduation ceremony. They&#8217;ve been doing this every year for a while now, but earlier this year one clip went viral. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="The University of California Berkeley proudly hosts a black only graduation ceremony" width="500" height="375" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RJVsUEEpBNg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is state-funded segregation. And there are many more examples of it, outside of the Bay Area. As of 2019, more than 75 universities in this country <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/more-than-75-colleges-host-blacks-only-graduation-ceremonies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offer</a> black-only graduation ceremonies. The actual number by now is probably much higher. Harvard still hosts &#8220;affinity celebrations&#8221; for graduates, which are subdivided by skin color. White people, of course, are the only racial group that doesn&#8217;t get one.
What&#8217;s important to keep in mind is that none of these incidents were national scandals, although they obviously should have been. In many cases, the people being discriminated against don&#8217;t seem to mind that much. Those impacted by these policies could file lawsuits and, even in our court system, easily win them. A lot of this stuff just isn’t remotely legal. But nobody challenges it. Nobody sues. Nobody even objects, most of the time. And because of that ambivalence, &#8220;racial equity&#8221; is rapidly becoming what it was always going to become, which is the return of racial segregation.

Senator Elizabeth Warren Holds Town Hall

Racial Segregation Is Making A Big Comeback, Thanks To The Left

BIPOC

Boston

Segregation

University of California Berkeley

Whites

One of the many remarkable things about activists who want to remake society, and invert every hierarchy that civilization has ever had in the name of &#8220;equity,&#8221; is how aggressive and totally unflinching they are. They don&#8217;t ask permission, they just do it. And they do it in such great numbers, in so many different areas, that it&#8217;s impossible to even keep track of them. Even if you object to their project, as most people do, there&#8217;s no way to keep yourself fully informed about what&#8217;s happening, simply because of the scale of the whole operation.
Here&#8217;s a recap, which is nowhere near exhaustive. In just the last couple of months, we&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2023/06/22/lapd-officers-claim-dept-is-lowering-standards-for-diversity-numbers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">learned</a> that the LAPD is relaxing its standards for new officers in order to recruit fewer white males. 
We&#8217;ve heard that the San Francisco school board will <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-considers-lowering-admission-standards-prestigious-schools-improve-student-outcomes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lower</a> entrance requirements, and that the Regents Exam in New York will soon be optional for high school graduates. (As the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/nyregion/regents-exams-new-york.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">put it</a>, &#8220;The test had once been seen as a hallmark of academic rigor, but high-stakes graduation tests have fallen out of favor nationally.&#8221;) 
We&#8217;ve also been informed that the law school admission test, the LSAT, will <a href="https://dailynous.com/2023/10/23/lsat-drops-logic-games-section/#:~:text=The%20elimination%20of%20logic%20games,that%20portion%20of%20the%20test." target="_blank" rel="noopener">drop</a> its challenging &#8220;logic games&#8221; section, supposedly to help blind applicants. 
Meanwhile, some medical schools — like U.C. Davis — have started <a href="https://x.com/nytimes/status/1675510893860335616?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ranking</a> applicants not based on merit, but on the supposed &#8220;hardships&#8221; they&#8217;ve faced. Pretty much everywhere you look — whether it&#8217;s <a href="https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-launches-be-atc-campaign-recruit-next-diverse-generation-air-traffic-controllers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">air traffic control</a>, or <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html#:~:text=United%20Aviate%20Academy%20expects%20to,said%20United%20CEO%20Scott%20Kirby." target="_blank" rel="noopener">airline piloting</a>, or Silicon Valley, or even the National Association of <a href="https://www.aza.org/connect-stories/stories/importance-of-diversity-equity-access-inclusion-zoos-aquariums?locale=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Zoos and Aquariums</a> — standards are dropping in order to increase &#8220;diversity,&#8221; meaning to make everything less white, less male, and less Asian.
So you might think, with all that in mind, that it&#8217;d be impossible to be shocked anymore by any industry that decides to lower its standards in the name of diversity. After all, if everyone&#8217;s doing it, how surprising can any of these initiatives really be? 
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1263-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
That&#8217;s what I thought, until a couple of days ago, when I learned about a new plan to &#8220;diversify&#8221; what is, frankly, one of the least rigorous and least demanding professional fields of all. This is a field that I genuinely didn&#8217;t think could possibly lower its standards, given how low they already are. 
Here&#8217;s NBC News Washington to explain:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Social Work Exams" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DdrgDa1POOY?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
They&#8217;re now lowering the standards for social workers because not enough people with “darker skin” are passing the test, apparently. It&#8217;s important to stop the clip there for a second to underscore how insane this segment is, already. This black woman, Sarah, is saying that she desperately needed to find a black therapist for treatment because she needed a therapist with the same &#8220;views&#8221; that she has. And for that reason, she couldn&#8217;t tolerate having a white therapist, or a Hispanic therapist, or an Asian therapist. NBC News never challenges this reasoning, or the implications of it. 
So let&#8217;s consider those implications. The first assumption, of course, is that you can only benefit from having a therapist who sees the world exactly like you do. That&#8217;s just a given in this segment because indeed, the vast majority of &#8220;therapy&#8221; is really just paying someone to agree with you. That&#8217;s all it is. There&#8217;s no science behind it. Patients self-select doctors who tell them what they want to hear, and doctors know that. In fact they have a word for this, it’s called “affirmative care.” That&#8217;s why the doctors tell children they&#8217;re &#8220;transgender,&#8221; or have &#8220;ADHD.&#8221; Their job is not to offer pushback or conduct any kind of independent diagnosis of symptoms. If they tried anything like that, they&#8217;d probably get fired for transphobia on the spot. This is how therapy and counseling works these days. But it’s not how it’s supposed to work. 
In theory, the person counseling you should be someone who quite specifically does not see the world the way you do. The whole reason you are in counseling is that there is a problem with the way you see yourself and the world. You want — or should want — someone from the outside, someone who sees it differently, to offer guidance. 
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-friday-gift-guide" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPING GUIDE</a></h4>
But the more interesting part of that clip is how Sarah asserts that the only way to find a therapist who thinks the way she does, is to get a therapist with the same skin color. The term &#8220;racism&#8221; gets thrown around a lot, so I won&#8217;t use that term. A better (or at least mildly more creative) term for this is &#8220;race essentialism.&#8221; At its most extreme, race essentialism is the belief that your race determines your abilities, your personality, and all of your other characteristics. 
This is a perspective that, if it&#8217;s endorsed by a white person, will result in Merrick Garland sending a SWAT team to that person&#8217;s door at 6 AM. That person will be branded a domestic terrorist and banned from school board meetings. But if a black person endorses race essentialism, live on NBC News, then nothing will happen. In fact, NBC News will endorse what she&#8217;s saying.
But let&#8217;s continue with the clip, so we can get to the argument from these activists — these racists, these race essentialists, whatever you want to call them — for why the social worker exam needs to change. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 Black Students Failing Social Work" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Iw0b8WWwlPA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Let&#8217;s go over those statistics one more time. Between 2018 and 2021, roughly 76% of whites passed the bachelor&#8217;s level test the first time. Sixty percent of Asians passed, followed by 53% of Hispanics and 33% of blacks.  
For the most part, those rankings mirror the normal <a href="https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/average-sat-score-full-statistics/">distribution of SAT scores</a>, with one very notable exception. This social worker exam is one of the few tests you&#8217;ll find in which Asian test takers perform so poorly, relative to the overall pool. Normally, as with SATs, Asians are in the lead. But in this case, they&#8217;re in a distant second place.
There could be a number of reasons for that. Most likely, all the talented Asian test takers are busy with the MCAT or the LSAT or the GRE or some other test, which can get you a better job than being a social worker. But in any event, the point is that no one at NBC News even pretends to care about the relatively poor Asian performance on this test. Instead, they&#8217;re laser-focused on the low number of black students who pass. That&#8217;s really their only focus. 
For my part, I will admit that I take some pride in the fact that white people are beating Asians in at least one category. We have to take our wins where we can get them. 
Now, we’re led to believe that the 33%pass rate among black test takers is de facto evidence that the test is the problem. Somehow, these tests are racist. But how? I decided to look into this test by going on YouTube and checking out some study sessions, to see if I could identify any racist social worker questions. I was looking for dog whistles, microaggressions, slut shaming — everything you can think of. I didn&#8217;t find any of that. Instead, as I predicted, I was bored to tears. 
I won&#8217;t subject you to all of it, small sample will suffice:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="ASWB Practice Exam Questions (BSW, LSW, LMSW, LCSW)_Pt1" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ltD0jYiLXsw?start=1382&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Spoiler alert: the answer to that particular question is &#8220;regression.&#8221; The video goes on like that for an hour. Incidentally, the training session you just saw was run by a black woman. At no point does she say the test is invalid because it&#8217;s racist, nor is there any way a reasonable person would find the test to be racist. All of the questions are like this one. They&#8217;re anodyne to the point of inducing death by boredom.
After looking into the questions that social workers are asked, I have to admit, I didn&#8217;t detect any racism. But maybe that&#8217;s just because I have a very untrained eye. NBC News, as you saw, quotes an expert, a college professor named Michael Massey, who tells us that the test isn&#8217;t capturing cultural nuances, and is making the profession less diverse: “We have great social workers of color who came to social work schools to serve their communities, and they&#8217;re not being allowed to do it despite rigorous preparation at school,” he says.
Of course, it&#8217;s not clear why &#8220;preparation in school&#8221; should matter more than a standardized test, especially in a field like social work, where there&#8217;s a glut of for-profit diploma mills that specifically advertise to black and Hispanic populations. At major institutions, like Tulane&#8217;s School of Social Work, the <a href="https://tssw.tulane.edu/about/aswb-licensure-pass-rates" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pass rates</a> are much higher, for every demographic group. But putting that aside for a second, the implication is that the test is somehow flawed. But nowhere in this NBC report does anyone — including Michael Massey — explain specifically what&#8217;s wrong with the test.
Let&#8217;s take stock of where we are. On the basis of no evidence whatsoever activists and elected officials in D.C. are now trying to pass a law eliminating the testing requirement for social workers — entirely. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 Social Work Test Is Broken" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l5wu9Zx6ULo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It&#8217;s a pretty funny clip. This woman, with the &#8220;Consortium for Child Welfare,&#8221; has to tell the reporter that the whole purpose of licensing requirements — whether it&#8217;s in medicine, or law, or any other profession — is to ensure that you have competent people in the profession. That&#8217;s how you protect the public and maintain standards. You don&#8217;t admit everyone, and then when an incompetent person gets someone killed, decide to start culling the herd. 
But now the script is completely flipped. We&#8217;re deliberately hiring morons in every conceivable profession. This is a terrible idea regardless of the profession, of course, but in the field of social work, it&#8217;s particularly ironic. The Left is lowering the bar for social workers after they spent the last few years insisting that social workers should replace law enforcement in a wide array of situations. So they are trying to expand the power and scope of social work while at the same time lowering the standards.
The only good news here, if you can call it that, is that for the most part, social workers are functionally useless anyway. Therefore, it&#8217;s not clear what the practical implications of lowering the bar will be, given how low it is already. But as a symbol for a much larger problem — for the regression we&#8217;re seeing in virtually every major industry — what&#8217;s happening in the field of social work is actually notable. What they&#8217;re doing makes it very clear that they&#8217;re trying to remake all of society, from the most important and demanding professions, to the jobs that are neither important nor demanding. Yesterday it was the police, today it&#8217;s social workers, tomorrow it will be dog walkers. They will not stop until they have eliminated the legitimacy of every conceivable job in this country.
Well, maybe that&#8217;s not true. The Left won&#8217;t implement any kind of &#8220;diversity initiative&#8221; for the NBA or the NFL or any other major sports league, because their preferred demographics are already dominant there. But in every other field, this is what they&#8217;re planning. This is an effort to reduce standards across the board, to the point that they&#8217;re nonexistent. If even social workers don&#8217;t have to endure the indignity of taking a simple, straightforward test, then that proves they truly can eliminate the standards for everything else. We can either have a functioning society, or we can allow them to succeed.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Screenshot 2023-11-15 at 2.02.45 PM copy

Lowering The Standards In Every Industry In The Name Of Diversity

Asian American

social worker

Testing

Washington D.C.

Let&#8217;s say you&#8217;re a 25-year-old adult male living in Compton, California, and you flip burgers for a living. Then one day, after a fight with your parents or your siblings, you decide you&#8217;ve had enough of the day-to-day. You get high and no-show at work. You go on a road trip with your friends to Las Vegas for a long weekend. It&#8217;s all very fun and irresponsible behavior, and as it happens, it&#8217;s not exactly unheard of in places like Compton.
Then let&#8217;s say your boss at the burger shop notices you didn&#8217;t show up for work. And he reports you missing. Following company protocol, he calls the police, and tells them that you&#8217;re AWOL. He says he has no idea why this is happening, or what&#8217;s going on. 
How should law enforcement respond in that situation? 
Starting next summer, in the biggest state in the country, the answer to that question will depend on one thing: your skin color. If you&#8217;re black, the cops will respond to your boss&#8217; call by buzzing every cell phone in the state, telling millions of people to be on the lookout for you. State authorities will plaster your name and description all over billboards on the interstate. They&#8217;ll even put you on television, in the ticker at the bottom of all the college football games. That&#8217;s if you&#8217;re black, to be clear. If you happen to be white, on the other hand, well, it’s a different story. If you&#8217;re white, the authorities will do precisely none of that. Instead, they&#8217;ll hang up the phone and tell the burger guy he&#8217;s wasting their time.
If that sounds far-fetched, you should know that it&#8217;s not. It is, in fact, what&#8217;s coming very soon in the state of California. It&#8217;s the result of a new law that was just signed by California&#8217;s governor and future presidential candidate, Gavin Newsom. Under this law, if black people age 25 and under go missing for any reason, then law enforcement has the authority to issue something called — and I’m not making this name up — an &#8220;Ebony alert.&#8221; This is kind of like an Amber alert, but in several key respects, it&#8217;s very different. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Ebony Alert is California&#039;s new tool to help find missing youth of color" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i0_Oq2Ln56s?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
There&#8217;s a lot going on here, starting with the fact that California already has something called &#8220;Feather alerts&#8221; for Indians. And now they&#8217;re adding &#8220;Ebony alerts&#8221; to the mix, because naturally, when you think of black people, you think of the word &#8220;ebony,&#8221; just like feathers come to mind when you&#8217;re talking about native Americans. I suppose there are more stereotypical and insulting names they could have come up with. But these are still pretty bad.
For the record, I had to double-check that news clip to make sure it wasn&#8217;t satire. But it&#8217;s real. They really have &#8220;Feather alerts&#8221; out west. People in California will be sleeping, or watching a football game, or drinking some zesty craft beer, and then they&#8217;ll get a &#8220;Feather alert&#8221; on their phones. And they&#8217;re expected to drop everything they&#8217;re doing and scramble to find some missing &#8220;indigenous person&#8221; once they see a Feather alert pop up. That&#8217;s a real thing that happens in California, at least since last year, when &#8220;Feather alerts&#8221; were implemented.
This, however, didn&#8217;t strike anyone in California as being completely and totally absurd. We can speculate as to why that might be. Maybe a lot of Berkeley grads honestly believe that white supremacist cowboys are still out there, tormenting the indigenous peoples at every turn. Whatever the case, they do indeed have &#8220;Feather alerts&#8221; in California, and they&#8217;re not joking about it. This is serious business.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1241-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
Given that simple, if incredible fact, you have to wonder why California authorities haven&#8217;t deployed a whole assortment of other stereotypical alerts for every conceivable ethnicity under the sun. They have an alert that&#8217;s tailor-made for Indians, but why stop there? The possibilities are endless. They could have a &#8220;General Tso&#8217;s alert&#8221; for missing Asians, for example. They could implement a &#8220;Sombrero alert&#8221; for Hispanics, or a &#8220;Leprechaun alert&#8221; for missing Irish Americans. Of course the Left doesn&#8217;t care about two of those three groups, so this probably wouldn&#8217;t happen. But given that they&#8217;re now embracing every stereotype imaginable, in their quest to be &#8220;anti-racist,&#8221; it&#8217;s not hard to picture something like this down the line.
On second thought, by the way, I think “Kung Pao” alert has a better ring to it. And if they don’t implement this for missing Asian people, then at least this would be a good system to put in place for when the Uber Eats driver doesn’t show up with your Chinese food order. 
At the same time, if you paid close attention to that news clip, you probably have more pressing concerns. For example, you might wonder why black people need a separate system of emergency alerts at all. For one thing, Amber alerts don&#8217;t do much, no matter what your skin color might be. As a recent USA Today <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2023/02/23/amber-alert-missing-children-usa-today-data-analysis-finds-kids-rarely-helped/11089397002/">analysis</a> found, &#8220;Amber Alerts are extremely rare and, even when they are used, it’s unclear how much they help bring children home safely.&#8221;
On top of that, the data we have suggests that the Amber alert system isn&#8217;t discriminating against anyone. According to that same analysis, &#8220;From 2017 through the end of 2021, Black children made up 37% of missing-child reports and nearly 37% of Amber Alerts &#8230; indicating the alerts are issued proportionately.&#8221;
So what&#8217;s the problem exactly? What conceivable reason could there be to implement yet another iteration of a useless system that clearly isn&#8217;t discriminatory in any way? Here&#8217;s an NAACP flack and California state Senator Steven Bradford to explain:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="&#039;Ebony Alert&#039;: CA bill aims to create notification system to help find missing Black youth, women" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bTHc7shhgqA?start=18&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
First of all, note how they frame this. They say these Ebony alerts are for &#8220;Black youth and young black women.&#8221; But these new Ebony alerts in California, by law, will also sound for 25-year-old black males. Let&#8217;s just be clear about that.
Moving on — what they&#8217;re saying is that a lot of black people who vanish aren&#8217;t being counted as &#8220;missing persons&#8221; and therefore aren&#8217;t eligible for Amber alerts. And they&#8217;re saying that&#8217;s racist. To understand their argument, you need to know that, in order for authorities to issue an Amber Alert, by law, authorities need some evidence that a child was abducted, or disappeared for some reason against their will. If there&#8217;s no evidence of that, then that child is not classified as &#8220;missing.&#8221; They&#8217;re classified, instead, as &#8220;runaways.&#8221;
What the proponents of Ebony alerts are saying is that the police are deliberately misclassifying black people as &#8220;runaways&#8221; just to cook the missing persons data, because of course, the police are racist. In fact, that&#8217;s exactly what California legislators state in the text of their legislation on Ebony alerts. We don&#8217;t have to guess about this. Here&#8217;s what California lawmakers put in the bill:
<blockquote>Being identified as a runaway can also be a legal loophole for law enforcement, because when a child is listed as a runaway, the police are allowed to delay response and investigation time. In cases where the child is mislabeled as a runaway, this delay is crucial time that could be spent locating a child in danger.</blockquote>
So, they&#8217;re just coming out and saying that the police are lying about the large number of black runaways. The cops are taking advantage of a &#8220;loophole&#8221; in the law, so that black youth can be abducted without any investigation. That&#8217;s the claim, which is spelled out in legislation from the California State Assembly. They can&#8217;t think of another conceivable explanation for why a lot of black people might be unaccounted for. Their theory is that all these young black people are being abducted, and all the racist cops have decided to conspire to hide that fact. They know that all these missing black people definitely can&#8217;t have anything to do with the fact that 70% of black children are born to unmarried mothers. They also know it can&#8217;t possibly be related to the fact that more than 64% of black children grow up in single-parent homes. None of that is relevant, in their view.
Instead, California&#8217;s legislature is convinced that the problem is racist cops, who have apparently decided, in unison, not to investigate missing persons cases involving black people. And the California government&#8217;s solution to that invented problem is to implement the same solution that South Africa implemented long ago, which is race-based policing, where people with preferred skin colors are entitled to a police response, while people of disfavored skin colors are ignored. They&#8217;re codifying this into law.
Here&#8217;s the key part of this new Ebony alert legislation in California:
<blockquote>A law enforcement agency may request that an Ebony Alert be activated if that agency determines that an Ebony Alert would be an effective tool in the investigation of missing Black youth, including a young woman or girl.</blockquote>
That&#8217;s it. That&#8217;s all that&#8217;s necessary. There&#8217;s no requirement that authorities suspect an abduction, or some kind of kidnapping. That&#8217;s the standard for issuing a statewide alert for non-black people when they go missing, under the Amber alert system. The text of this new legislation in California admits that. Here&#8217;s what it says: 
<blockquote>The Amber Alert system must fulfill strict criteria for the message to be broadcast. If these criteria are not met, an AMBER Alert cannot be issued, and the child is labeled as a runaway.</blockquote>
But the Ebony alert system does not have to obey any such restrictions. It&#8217;s enough, according to this new legislation, for authorities to determine that an Ebony alert would be an &#8220;effective tool&#8221; for finding a young black person who&#8217;s missing. There are no other standards outlined in the law. There&#8217;s just a bunch of suggestions. The bill goes on to state, for example, that if a black youth disappears under &#8220;unexplained&#8221; circumstances, then that could be sufficient to trigger the statewide alert. By contrast, non-black victims essentially have to show they&#8217;ve been kidnapped.
Let&#8217;s take stock of what&#8217;s happening here. The state of California is taking a system that doesn&#8217;t appear to work, which is the Amber alert system, and they &#8216;re duplicating it — only this time, they&#8217;re baking in a policy of explicit racial segregation. It&#8217;s not even clear how this will work, by the way. Let&#8217;s say a 17-year-old black teenager goes missing. Does that teenager get an Amber alert, in addition to an Ebony alert? And for that matter, what happens if an elderly native American disappears? Do they get a Feather alert, along with a Silver alert? Is there some way to combine all these categories, and have an Ebony Silver Feather alert? All it would take is a black guy who identifies as a native American, and we can do it. We can achieve the singularity. The possibilities are truly endless.
Or maybe, in that scenario, the 17-year-old black teenager wouldn&#8217;t get an Amber alert. Maybe he&#8217;d just get an Ebony alert. In that case, California will have established a truly segregated emergency alert system, with a separate alert for whites and blacks. At that point they might as well go all the way, and change &#8220;Amber alert&#8221; to &#8220;Ivory alert.&#8221;
Of course, either scenario is insane and counterproductive. It defies logic, really. Think about it. If you&#8217;re really worried about racist cops and MAGA Republicans who supposedly aren&#8217;t trying to find missing black people, why would your solution be to categorize all future missing persons alerts by race? Now the racist cops and MAGA Republicans can simply ignore the alerts for whatever race they don&#8217;t like. You&#8217;re making it easier for them.
Again, we can mock this all day. But all of these contradictions and inconsistencies aren&#8217;t simply the inevitable result of top-down, state-driven social engineering. They&#8217;re also the inevitable result of the worldview of California politicians, and liberals more generally, who refuse to recognize reality even when it hits them in the face. The truth is that a lot of young black people do run away from their homes. They do it voluntarily. And the reason they do it is that, when they were young, their fathers may have run away from them. That is a tragedy that repeats itself, generation after generation. It&#8217;s one of the reasons every urban center in this country is getting more dangerous every year.
But predictably, instead of doing something about that problem — instead of addressing the crisis of single-parent homes in the state of California — Democrats have once again decided to blame their political opponents. They&#8217;re saying the cops are responsible. They&#8217;re claiming MAGA Republicans are behind it. That&#8217;s the explanation they&#8217;ve settled on.
As a result, a lot of Californians are about to wake up at 3:00 am to random, blaring alerts on their cell phones, along with all the earthquake notifications and the push alerts about newly deposited poop on the sidewalk. Of course, many Californians will decide to opt out of these alerts indefinitely, because they&#8217;re too constant and too annoying. A lot of police resources will be wasted pursuing &#8220;runaways&#8221; who left home voluntarily. And in the end, black people will continue to disappear. 
Unless something extraordinary occurs, this cycle will continue — unburdened, as Kamala Harris might say, by what has been. For California liberals like Gavin Newsom, that&#8217;s good enough. For everyone else — and especially for every non-Ebony person who goes missing in the state of California — this sends a very clear message. It is an explicit betrayal of the race-neutral system of laws that this country has upheld for generations.
This new law in California needs to be struck down, as quickly as possible. It must be condemned by every Republican politician and conservative power center in this country. If that doesn&#8217;t happen — if your race can somehow dictate how you&#8217;re treated by the police — then nothing else matters, really. All of the debates about Ukraine and the debt ceiling and the speaker of the House pale in comparison. When they come for you, whatever the charge may be, you will be judged on the basis of characteristics you cannot control. If you&#8217;re not &#8220;indigenous&#8221; or a &#8220;person of color,&#8221; then no cell phone alert will sound when you disappear. There will be no signs on the highway telling motorists to be on the lookout for someone matching your description. You will be isolated and demonized and condemned. You will be classified as a &#8220;runaway&#8221; and forgotten immediately. That&#8217;s a depressing realization, in some respects. It may seem demoralizing. But in reality, it&#8217;s clarifying. It tells you something important.
It communicates, loud and clear, the intent of the people who hate you more than anything else in the world. It tells you that everything they pretend is an injustice is, in reality, a punishment that they desperately want to inflict on you.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

US-ECONOMY-MILKEN

California Passes An ‘Anti-Racist’ Law So Insane That It Seems Like A Joke

California Passes An 'Anti-Racist' Law So Insane That It Seems Like A Joke

Amber Alert

Law Enforcement

The idea of jury nullification has been around since this country had juries. The idea is pretty simple: juries can vote to acquit defendants, even when the government proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If you serve on a jury, and you listen to all the evidence, then you can still vote &#8220;not guilty.&#8221; And you can walk right out of the courthouse, and tell everyone that the guy did it, but you didn&#8217;t care. Maybe you didn&#8217;t like the law. Maybe you didn&#8217;t like the prosecutor. Whatever it is, it&#8217;s your right to vote to acquit. The defendant will walk. The judge and the government can&#8217;t do anything about it.
In the history of this country, jury nullification has been especially prominent in periods of open race hatred. During the 19th century, juries often refused to convict people who were accused of helping escaped slaves, in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, in the civil rights era, some all-white juries would acquit people who clearly committed acts of violence against blacks. So there are clearly good uses of jury nullification, and bad instances of it, as you&#8217;d expect. But on balance, this is a feature, not a bug, of our judicial system. That&#8217;s the conventional wisdom.
What&#8217;s not conventional wisdom — because no one is talking about it, even on the Right — is that jury nullification is making a major comeback right now. And this is not the jury nullification that Supreme Court justices like John Jay endorsed back in the day. I&#8217;m talking about a return of the civil rights era of jury nullification, where juries — egged on by prosecutors, in some cases — refuse to punish racist criminals who are obviously guilty. Only this time, the criminals are not white, they&#8217;re black. This is widespread at the moment in this country. It is impossible to deny. We have fully imported South African-style juries, where race and caste matters more than the facts of the case.
I&#8217;m going to start with one of the most egregious recent examples of jury nullification I&#8217;m talking about. This is a case involving the brutal killing of a 17-year-old white high school student in Akron, Ohio, named Ethan Liming. Last summer, Ethan Liming and his friends decided to do some stupid TikTok challenge, where they took a toy gel gun and fired it at random people. 
Here&#8217;s the police chief in Akron explaining what the gun looks like and what it does:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Akron police provide update on Ethan Liming&#039;s death" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_mNMvUJDNsk?start=434&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So Ethan Liming and his friends, armed with this toy water gun, drove around and then they came across several young black men, ages 19 to 21, who were playing basketball in a parking lot near LeBron James&#8217; &#8220;I Promise&#8221; school. And Liming&#8217;s friends made the very dumb decision to shoot at these black men with the toy gun. Evidence at trial, which includes surveillance footage, shows that the black men initially ran away, thinking they were under attack. But then, they turned back and charged at the car Liming was in. There was testimony that Liming fired some water pellets at the men who were now running at him. The key point here is that this was not a split-second thing where the black men attacked in self-defense, thinking the gun was real. They pursued Liming to get back at him for his prank.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/230926me" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a>
What happened next is that Ethan Liming died a horrible death. When police arrived, they found blood coming from Liming&#8217;s mouth, ears, and nose. He hadn&#8217;t simply been punched in the face and given a black eye, although that&#8217;s true as well. He had been stomped. He had a broken collarbone. He had multiple blunt-force injuries all over his body. The coroner noted that there was a shoe print on his chest. Think about the amount of force that&#8217;s required to leave a shoe print on someone like that. Think about the savagery involved in this. At trial, the defense argued that Ethan Liming&#8217;s killers were in fear for their lives. They weren&#8217;t mad they had been pranked. Instead, they were deathly afraid of the water gun, so they went to town.
Is that plausible? Initially, prosecutors didn&#8217;t think so. That&#8217;s why they brought murder charges against the men responsible for this killing, which seems obviously appropriate given that the facts of the case simply don’t support a self-defense claim. Again, they pursued him, assaulted him, and stomped on him while he was on the ground. It was three against one, and after killing him they stole his car. Even if we were to accept the outlandish idea that they ran after this guy still thinking that he was a crazed shooter with a real gun, by the time they were stomping him to death on the ground it would have been exceedingly clear to everyone involved that he was not a threat. Also, keep in mind that at least one of the three assailants had been hit in the face with the water pellet. That couldn’t have felt very good, but it does mean that they obviously knew that it was a toy gun. Their lives were not in danger. They stomped him to death and stole his car because they were angry. This was murder, obviously. But the murder charges didn&#8217;t last long. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" style="border: 1px solid #e6e6e6;" src="https://www.wkyc.com/embeds/video/responsive/95-5585d6df-8752-4dfb-99af-264dfed38ad6/iframe" width="640" height="360" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
A couple of things about this. First of all, if the prosecutors had wanted the grand jury to indict on murder charges, they could&#8217;ve done that. That&#8217;s not really in dispute. Especially after the Trump prosecutions, where the grand jury wanted to indict everyone who&#8217;s ever talked to Trump, everyone knows how grand juries work in this country. There&#8217;s no defense counsel present. Prosecutors can basically say whatever they want to grand juries. And they can indict anyone for any crime. 
So why didn&#8217;t prosecutors want murder charges here? Why did they effectively downgrade to a much less serious offense — involuntary manslaughter? Liming&#8217;s father spoke to local media about the prosecutors&#8217; decision. He says that at least one prosecutor said that his son got what he deserved, in the form of &#8220;hood justice.&#8221; Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Witnesses to beating death of Ethan Liming testify in high-profile trial" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/syW7KI7eqjM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You can believe what Liming&#8217;s father says, or you can choose not to believe it. Whatever the case, it&#8217;s objectively true that &#8220;involuntary manslaughter&#8221; is an absurdly lenient charge when you pummel someone on the ground after he fired a water gun at you. Involuntary manslaughter makes sense when you&#8217;re speeding and you hit someone in a crosswalk. When you&#8217;re standing over someone with a child&#8217;s toy, causing blood to come out of every orifice of his body, you&#8217;re probably committing a voluntary act called murder. At the very least, you&#8217;d think it would be up to a jury to decide that question.
But prosecutors in Akron didn&#8217;t see it that way. So the murder charge was off the table. And just by doing that — just by removing the prospect of murder from the case — prosecutors sent a very clear signal to jurors. That signal is that this was all an accident, at worst. No one really intended anyone to die. And just to reiterate that point, the prosecutors offered jurors another option. They could also convict the thugs of &#8220;assault.&#8221; 
And lo and behold, that&#8217;s exactly what happened. This week Ethan Liming&#8217;s killers got off with a conviction for assault. They were acquitted of involuntary manslaughter. It&#8217;s as if they just got into a nasty bar fight. They&#8217;ll almost certainly be out of jail within two years, if not sooner. This is jury nullification, encouraged by prosecutors. There&#8217;s no other term you can use to describe this. And it&#8217;s not just happening in Akron.
Consider that just a few weeks ago, a jury found that a member of a black nationalist militia named Othal Wallace had committed manslaughter, instead of murder, after he shot a police officer to death on camera. Wallace shot this officer, named Jason Raynor, in the head. This was an unprovoked murder. Raynor was responding to a call of suspicious activity in an apartment complex, and Wallace killed him. Again, there&#8217;s no doubt about it. The murder was caught on body camera. Othal Wallace is not simply a member of a black nationalist group. After executing Jason Raynor, Wallace boasted on Instagram about putting &#8220;pigs&#8221; in their place. He fled to Georgia, where his black nationalist group — called NFAC, for the &#8220;Not F—ing Around Coalition&#8221; — helped him hide. Wallace also cut his dreadlocks to hide his appearance. This all came out in trial. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NFAC (Not F&#39;ing around coalition) member Othal Wallace testified in his own defense today <a href="https://t.co/6Whma3OAxC">https://t.co/6Whma3OAxC</a>
Probably didn&#39;t help him much &amp; could definitely hurt him in a death penalty phase. Prosecution grilled him over social media posts about &#39;crackers&#39; &amp; &#39;killing pigs&#39; <a href="https://t.co/STkA85Pbf8">https://t.co/STkA85Pbf8</a> <a href="https://t.co/8trjMQ2FaM">pic.twitter.com/8trjMQ2FaM</a>
&mdash; AntifaWatch (@AntifaWatch2) <a href="https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1702388085273796821?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
After that testimony — after shooting a police officer in the face, and killing him — Othal Wallace was convicted of manslaughter. Not murder, which carries a possible death sentence, but manslaughter. The local sheriff said he has, &#8220;never been more disgusted by a verdict&#8221; in his entire career. You can see why.
Again, this is not simply jury nullification. This is race-based jury nullification that prosecutors are encouraging. In some cases, they&#8217;re not even leaving it to juries. They&#8217;re offering murderers really attractive plea deals, to short-circuit the whole trial process altogether. Remember the 41-year-old guy in North Dakota named Shannon Brandt? He confessed to killing Cayler Ellingson, who was a teenager. Why? Brandt was drunk, and he assumed that when Ellingson was on the phone with his mom, that he was really communicating with some MAGA Republican militia. So Brandt ran Ellingson over with his Ford Explorer and fled the scene. That&#8217;s murder, but Shannon Brandt wasn&#8217;t charged with murder. He was hit with manslaughter charges instead. Prosecutors offered him those charges as part of a plea deal, which of course he accepted.
There are many more examples like this. There&#8217;s the case of James McGee, who used a metal pipe to bludgeon a 62-year-old cab driver named Arif Mohammed Qasim to death back in 2019. He literally beat his brains out. San Francisco&#8217;s DA at the time let McGee plead to involuntary manslaughter, in the name of equity. 
The same thing happened to the killer of Seth Smith, a Berkeley student who was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range by a lifelong criminal named Tony Walker. The moment homicide detectives reached out to Walker, he explained how frustrated he was that they cared about Smith&#8217;s death: “A white kid gets killed and the damn whole world stops… F—- that white motherf——-,&#8221; he said.
How did prosecutors respond? They offered Tony Walker a plea of manslaughter. That&#8217;s despite the fact that a probation officer determined that, &#8220;The defendant has demonstrated that he is a danger to the community and needs to be separated for the community’s protection … the defendant has established an entrenched pattern of criminal conduct that probation, prison and parole have been unable to eradicate.” Nevertheless, Tony Walker was not brought up on hate crimes charges, or thrown in prison for life, as he would be if he were white. This was not a repeat of the Ahmaud Arbery case with the races reversed. Instead, prosecutors let Tony Walker take a manslaughter plea. And for good measure, lawmakers in Berkeley later prevented police from running most parolee searches, like the one that led cops to apprehend Walker in the first place.
We could go on and on listing examples, but there’s one more very recent one we need to fit in here. A man named Calvin Ushery brutally assaulted, pistol-whipped, and robbed a jewelry store owner. The whole thing was caught on camera, plain as day. But guess what happened at trial? Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trial for man seen on video attacking jewelry store owner ends in hung jury" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zkanallKAmU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
The jury couldn’t reach a verdict. Ushery is on video walking into a jewelry store, grabbing the store owner, pistol-whipping him, stomping on his head, and beating him with a hammer before walking off with $100 thousand worth of stolen merchandise, He was charged with assault and robbery — because you can see him on camera assaulting and robbing. But the jury was deadlocked. We all know why it was deadlocked. There were members of that jury who didn’t want to convict a black man, no matter how obviously guilty he was. 
This is what&#8217;s been happening in courtrooms all over the country, without any fanfare whatsoever. The Left has targeted conservatives, whether they&#8217;re politicians or pro-lifers or random people posting memes that offend Hillary Clinton. Everyone knows that. But at the same time, all over the country, the primary voting blocs of the Democratic Party are committing the most heinous crimes imaginable — including murder — only for prosecutors and juries to let them off the hook. They&#8217;re doing it deliberately. And in the process, they have established a true two-tiered justice system. A hierarchy where the severity of a crime is judged based on the demographics of those involved. And the lives of victims are ranked based on their race and their politics. Sadly for the family of Ethan Liming, he falls at the bottom of that totem pole, which means that there will be no justice for him. Because we are no longer a country that believes in justice.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Matt Walsh 2

Courts Across The Country Are Letting Murderers Off The Hook In The Name Of Racial Equity

Courts

Robbery

Violent Crime

On Friday, September 1, the California assembly’s appropriations committee held a <a href="http://cferfoundation.org/posts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hearing</a> in which they <a href="http://billtrack50.com/billdetail/1576426" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted</a> to move forward with a bill that would strip California’s Constitution of its protections against racial discrimination. 
Currently, California’s Constitution asserts:
<blockquote>“The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” </blockquote>
The  bill, called ACA-7, seeks to amend this section of the State Constitution by adding: 
<blockquote>“The State may use state money to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs in any industry, including, but not limited to, public employment, public education, and public contracting, if those programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations.” </blockquote>
In short, California Democratic lawmakers don’t like the simple yet unequivocal ban on discrimination in the State’s Constitution. They want to replace it with a system where all the California government has to do is find an academic paper or professor claiming that their race-based programs and affirmative action initiatives do, in fact, “improve educational outcomes” or “lift out of poverty” certain minorities, and they can go on discriminating based on race, forcing Californians’ tax dollars to support race-based preferential treatment in perpetuity.
It is quite ironic and very sad that California Democrats have gotten to a point where they are so convinced that they are the ones fighting for justice and individual rights while openly championing a bill that would destroy the protections that grant every American the same rights and opportunities, the protections that allow every American to be assessed based on their own merit and character, regardless of the color of their skin. Of course, the supporters of ACA-7 believe that certain groups — blacks, for example — have been so marginalized by past discrimination and by current institutional racism, that treating everyone the same and providing everyone with the same opportunities regardless of race is actually a form of injustice. Yes, there are real income and achievement gaps for blacks and Hispanics in this country. But racial discrimination will not solve those problems. Racial discrimination should never be the answer in any context. It will create a country divided into groups constantly fighting over which group gets to be raised up and which group has to be pushed down. ACA-7 is a morally abhorrent bill because it would enshrine that kind of division.
California Democrats likely won’t find my arguments above convincing, but they should still drop ACA-7. Why? Because it’s a losing issue for them. First and foremost, it’s unpopular with voters. According to the Wall Street Journal, ACA-7 is deeply unpopular with <a href="http://wsj.com/articles/california-racial-discrimination-state-constitution-amendment-aca7-d1577878" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Asian Americans</a>, who have been waking up to the fact that race-based preferential treatment that throws merit out the window seriously hurts them and their futures. If Democrats go forward with this bill, they will alienate even more of their Asian American voters, who have already begun to shift away because of Democrat policies on crime.
And it’s not just Asian Americans who dislike affirmative action. The same Wall Street Journal op/ed cites a Pew Research survey conducted back in June which found that the majority of Americans believe that considering race and ethnicity in college admissions makes college admissions less fair than more fair. If ACA-7 manages to pass in the state Senate, it will still have to be voted on by Californians in a referendum. The people of California don’t want state-sponsored racial discrimination. That’s why they enshrined anti-discrimination into California’s Constitution in the first place. In all likelihood, ACA-7 will fail in the referendum, and California Democrats will have wasted millions of dollars campaigning for it and gained nothing except disdain from their constituents.
And if somehow Democrats do convince enough Californians to pass this amendment, all that work will eventually come to nothing anyway, because the Supreme Court, which ruled decisively against affirmative action back in June, will strike it down.
California Democrats should abandon ACA-7 immediately. Not only is it racist and unjust, but it is political poison.
Emmie Lo is a Latin teacher and staff writer for <a href="http://colorusunited.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://colorusunited.org&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1689870524844000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1swFnvQLYWXgsaX1kKg1Tc">Color Us United</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Sacramento

California Assembly Pushes New Amendment In Favor Of Racial Discrimination

Democrats

Gender Equality

Leftists

Racial Discrimination

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis attended a prayer vigil in Jacksonville on Sunday after an assailant murdered three black people at a Dollar General store in what authorities have said was an act that was racially motivated.
&#8220;Councilwoman, I gotcha, don&#8217;t worry about it,&#8221; DeSantis said to Democrat Councilmember Ju’Coby Pittman. &#8220;We&#8217;ve already been looking to identify funds to be able to help one, make sure there&#8217;s adequate security for Edward Waters College. We are not going to allow these institutions to be targeted by people.&#8221;
A lot of people clapped for DeSantis while a small number in the audience booed and protested the governor as he spoke.
Pittman then took the microphone and addressed the agitators head-on.
&#8220;Let me tell, we putting parties aside, because it ain&#8217;t about parties today,&#8221; she said. &#8220;A bullet don&#8217;t know a party. So, don&#8217;t get me started.&#8221;
&#8220;If the governor wanted to come here, and he bringing gifts to my community, y&#8217;all know I&#8217;m taking the gifts, because we&#8217;ve been through enough already,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;And I don&#8217;t want to go through no more. Now y&#8217;all be quiet just a minute and let the governor say what he gonna say.&#8221;
DeSantis then took back control of the event, saying that his office has already identified funds from the state of Florida to beef up security in the area and help the families of the victims.
&#8220;We are not going to let people be targeted based on their race,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We are going to stand up and we are going to do what we need to do to make sure that evil does not triumph in the state of Florida.&#8221;
DeSantis noted that his administration has worked to protect Jewish schools from anti-Semitic violence and that he will be working equally to provide the same protection to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Gov. DeSantis booed at Jacksonville prayer vigil for victims of mass shooting" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y8AANOENA7g?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DeSantis

Leftists Protest DeSantis At Jacksonville Prayer Vigil, Black Democrat Councilmember Slaps Back: ‘A Bullet Don’t Know A Party’

Florida

Ron DeSantis

Shooting

Menu