Connect with us

News

Acknowledgment of Black-On-White Crime Is Long Overdue (Opinion)

Powerful opinion…

Published

on

The unfortunate implication of the George Floyd incident is that blacks are overwhelmingly victimized by whites and, especially, by white police. This is an inversion of reality. The vast majority of racially motivated crimes are committed by blacks against whites. All too often, the black criminals are supported by local law enforcement. If you try to bring attention to this perversion of the justice system, you are automatically called out as racist. The result is that everyone—black and white—is afraid to deal with it.

An example happened last week in St. Louis where a white couple attempted to defend their home against a Black Lives Matter mob that trespassed on private property and threatened to kill the white family as they were eating dinner. A video taken by one of the mobsters makes it patently clear that this was a case of self-defense. I watched the video and it was obvious to me. The St. Louis prosecutor apparently has not seen the video. In a travesty of justice, she threatens to bring assault charges against the white couple.

An even better example just occurred in Orion Township, Michigan. A white couple is being charged with assaulting a black woman and her 15-year-old daughter. According to Takelia Hill, who is black, her 15-year-old daughter Makayla Green was “bumped” by Jillian Wuestenberg, a pregnant white woman, at the entrance to a Chipotle restaurant. Green demanded an apology. Wuestenberg refused. Hill and Green then played the race card, falsely accusing Wuestenberg of racism.

As in the St. Louis case, the incident was filmed—presumably by Green. I watched the video. It is without doubt exhibit A in support of the white couple. As the video begins, the black women are screaming obscenities at Mrs. Wuestenberg, who tries to remain calm. Hill demands an apology as she blocks Wuestenberg from getting into her car. Wuestenberg replies that she did nothing that she need apologize for, then politely asks Hill to get out of her way.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

When Mr. Wuestenberg helps his wife get into the front passenger seat, Hill screams at Mrs. Wuestenberg, “You’re a white ass bitch.” Then Hill turns on Mr. Wuestenberg, screaming, “You say somethin’ I’ll beat your white ass too.” Then she challenges him. “Please do something. Do something. Please put your mother-fucking hands on me.” He responds with, “Who the fuck do you think you guys are? She did nothing to you.” The black women continue to scream and gesticulate. “You’re very racist and ignorant,” they tell him as he ignores them, turns away, and gets into the driver’s side. At no time does he threaten the black women. The white couple weren’t arguing back at all, except to deny they were racists and that anything happened.

Hill continues screaming, calling the white woman a racist. “This is not that type of world,” Mrs. Wuestenberg replies. “White people are not racist. I care about you and I’m sorry if you had an incident that has made you feel like that.” Then she closes the window. At this point, Hill gets behind the car, blocking its exit, and begins pounding on the trunk. The Wuestenbergs get out of the car to defend their property. Hill tries to grab Mrs. Wuestenberg, who pulls a handgun and points it at Hill in an attempt to defend herself from Hill’s assault. “Get away,” she screams at Hill. When Hill retreats, Wuestenberg puts the gun down, gets in the car, and they pull away.

The white couple were minding their own business when they were accosted and threatened by two angry black women. There is no doubt this was a case of black-on-white violence. Yet Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper has charged the Wuestenbergs with one count of felonious assault each, a four-year felony. Neither Hill nor Green were charged. In view of the facts, it appears that the prosecutor has been seduced by the Black Lives Matter playbook. The presumption is that the white couple is guilty by virtue of their skin color and nothing else. Adding insult to injury, Mr. Wuestenberg was fired from his job at Oakland University, which has convicted him in a disgraceful piece of virtue signaling: “We have seen the video and we deem his behavior unacceptable.” What did he do that was unacceptable? I thought he kept his cool. Ignoring the facts in the case is unacceptable.

It is time for us to acknowledge the assault on white people. The prevalence of black-on-white crime has been chronicled by Colin Flaherty in Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The Hoax of Black Victimization and Those Who Enable It. “A new generation of black leaders and white enablers want to remove black violence from the table,” Flaherty says, “and instead focus on the Big Lie: the war on black people and how racist white people are waging it. That is the biggest lie of our generation. Because just the opposite is true. Black crime and violence against whites, gays, women, seniors, young people and lots of others is astronomically out of proportion.”

“Whites are the overwhelming target of interracial violence,” Heather Mac Donald wrote in City Journal. “Between 2012 and 2015, blacks committed 85.5 percent of all black-white interracial violent victimizations. That works out to 540,360 felonious assaults on whites. Blacks are less than 13 percent of the national population.” And yet when innocent white people like the Wuestenbergs are assaulted by blacks, the legal system bends over backwards to coddle black perpetrators. This insidious version of racism has to stop.

Ed Brodow is a conservative political commentator, negotiation expert, and regular contributor to Newsmax, Daily Caller, American Thinker, Townhall, LifeZette, Media Equalizer, Reactionary Times, and other online news magazines. He is the author of eight books including his latest blockbuster, Trump’s Turn: Winning the New Civil War.

News

SHADOW WAR: Judge Refuses to Reveal Info About FBI’s Raid on Project Veritas

The First Amendment itself is at stake here.

Published

on

You know that things are heading downhill fast for the Biden administration when the FBI is forced to raid home and offices connected to investigative journalists.

In this latest affront to the First Amendment, the Bureau took aim at Project Veritas – a provocative news outlet that just happens to lean to the right – and it’s founder, James O’Keefe, with both suffering raids of their homes after a story emerged regarding their potential possession of a “diary” that once belonged to one of the Biden children.

Now, in what appears to be an attempt to keep this whole debacle as quiet as possible, a federal judge is refusing to let materials related to the case be seen by the public.

A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden.

The use of a search warrant to seize O’Keefe’s records raised the hackles of some First Amendment advocates, who said O’Keefe’s activities likely qualify for protection for members of the news media under federal law and Justice Department regulations. O’Keefe’s critics say his deceptive tactics and evident partisan bias disqualify him from any claim to being a journalist.

The entire fiasco appears to be turning muddy in recent weeks.

In the 19-page ruling, the magistrate judge referred to O’Keefe as one of the “subjects” of the investigation. Federal prosecutors use that term to describe someone whose activities are being actively examined by the investigation but who is not currently seen as likely to be charged.

If Cave intended to use the term in that sense, it would raise further questions about the raid on O’Keefe’s home, since prosecutors are not typically permitted to use search or seizure warrants to get unpublished media materials about crimes allegedly committed by others.

O’Keefe’s attorney has said that the conservative provocateur bought the “rights” to publish the diary from two individuals who claimed to have obtained it legally. O’Keefe said the people who turned over the diary found it abandoned in a room where Ashley Biden had been staying.

Project Veritas’ First Amendment rights are very much a central issue in this case, and allowing the US government to decide which journalists qualify for these protections is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

You know that things are heading downhill fast for the Biden administration when the FBI is forced to raid home and offices connected to investigative journalists. In this latest affront to the First Amendment, the Bureau took aim at Project Veritas – a provocative news outlet that just happens to lean to the right – and it’s founder, James O’Keefe, with both suffering raids of their homes after a story emerged regarding their potential possession of a “diary” that once belonged to one of the Biden children. Now, in what appears to be an attempt to keep this whole debacle as quiet as possible, a federal judge is refusing to let materials related to the case be seen by the public. A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer. The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden. The use of a search warrant to seize O’Keefe’s records raised the hackles of some First Amendment advocates, who said O’Keefe’s activities likely qualify for protection for members of the news media under federal law and Justice Department regulations. O’Keefe’s critics say his deceptive tactics and evident partisan bias disqualify him from any claim to being a journalist. The entire fiasco appears to be turning muddy in recent weeks. In the 19-page ruling, the magistrate judge referred to O’Keefe as one of the “subjects” of the investigation. Federal prosecutors use that term…

Continue Reading

News

Vaccine Manufacturer Now Says Three Shots Required to Fend Off Omicron

At what point will this all end?

Published

on

Our third COVID-19 winter is now arriving, and there appear to be varying ideas about just what the world should expect.

Winter time has long brought about fears of an increased spread of the illness, thanks to the fact that many more folks will the gathering indoors, where the virus will have an opportunity to spread with less resistance.

But the newest variant of the virus has been described as “mild” by the doctors most familiar with it, and even the normally-glum Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to have backed off of his earlier concerns a bit.

Pfizer this week released a statement suggesting that their vaccine, originally administered in two doses, will require a third shot to be effective against omicron.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Preliminary lab studies show two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron coronavirus variant, but three doses are able to neutralize it, the companies said in a news release on Wednesday.

Samples from people who had two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine saw, on average, a more than 25-fold reduction in neutralization ability against the Omicron variant than the earlier virus, “indicating that two doses of BNT162b2 may not be sufficient to protect against infection with the Omicron variant,” the companies said.

The companies said two doses may still provide protection against severe disease.

“Although two doses of the vaccine may still offer protection against severe disease caused by the Omicron strain, it’s clear from these preliminary data that protection is improved with a third dose of our vaccine,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

The news is sure to elicit some grumbling from the masses, who are very much over the continued hysteria regarding COVID-19.

Our third COVID-19 winter is now arriving, and there appear to be varying ideas about just what the world should expect. Winter time has long brought about fears of an increased spread of the illness, thanks to the fact that many more folks will the gathering indoors, where the virus will have an opportunity to spread with less resistance. But the newest variant of the virus has been described as “mild” by the doctors most familiar with it, and even the normally-glum Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to have backed off of his earlier concerns a bit. Pfizer this week released a statement suggesting that their vaccine, originally administered in two doses, will require a third shot to be effective against omicron. Preliminary lab studies show two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron coronavirus variant, but three doses are able to neutralize it, the companies said in a news release on Wednesday. Samples from people who had two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine saw, on average, a more than 25-fold reduction in neutralization ability against the Omicron variant than the earlier virus, “indicating that two doses of BNT162b2 may not be sufficient to protect against infection with the Omicron variant,” the companies said. The companies said two doses may still provide protection against severe disease. “Although two doses of the vaccine may still offer protection against severe disease caused by the Omicron strain, it’s clear from these preliminary data that protection is improved with a third dose of our vaccine,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.” The news is sure…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week