In “Rejecting the Wrongs of Yesterday: A Multifaceted Approach to Eliminating Racial Disparities in the Arkansas Criminal Justice System,” Adjoa Aiyetoro and Tara DeJohn recount the creation of the Racial Disparities in the Arkansas Criminal Justice System Project at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and describe the group’s research, community collaboration and education, and policy development. The group sought to pass racial impact legislation during the 2013, 2015, and 2017 legislative sessions—to identify any disparate racial impact of proposed legislation—but could not overcome opponents who stated that they “did not believe in systemic racism.” This article, published in the Tennessee Journal of Race, Gender, & Social Justice, presents the group’s research on prosecutorial decisions in homicide and robbery cases, as well as sentencing outcomes for homicide.
The analysis of charging reductions and dispositions in four Arkansas counties between 2007 and 2013 reveals that black Arkansans tend to be charged with more severe homicide crimes (e.g., capital murder) than whites, “leading to possible plea agreements on harsher charges and therefore longer sentences.” In robbery cases, whites were initially charged with a less serious offense (i.e., simple versus aggravated robbery), potentially giving them the benefit of lower bails.
The group’s analysis of 2013 data from the Arkansas Department of Corrections revealed that among 538 individuals convicted of homicide and serving a sentence of life, life without parole, or death, blacks were more likely than whites to have been convicted of capital murder (versus first-degree murder) and to be sentenced to death or life without parole (versus life with the possibility of parole). “This research serves as a basis for a call to action on ending systemic institutional racism in the Arkansas criminal punishment system,” the authors conclude.
A recent analysis by Protect Our Defenders found that black military service members face higher rates of military justice or disciplinary proceedings than their white counterparts, report Newsweek and USA Today. Using data received through Freedom of Information Act requests, the report reveals disparate rates at which white and black service members were court martialed or received non-judicial punishment between 2006 and 2015, with disparities increasing in the Air Force and Marine Corps. In the Army, black soldiers were 61% more likely to face court martial than whites and in the Navy, black sailors were 40% more likely to be court martialed. “The greatest disparities were generally seen for the most serious disciplinary proceedings,” the authors note, with black Marines being 2.6 times more likely than whites to receive a guilty finding at a general court-martial during this period.
These disparities exist despite what the report notes are the “equalizing factors” in the military, such as requiring recruits to have a certain level of education, administering drug tests, and providing service members with a steady income. In response to the findings, a Pentagon spokesperson said, “It is longstanding Department of Defense policy that service members must be afforded the opportunity to serve in an environment free from unlawful racial discrimination. The department will review any new information concerning implementation of and compliance with this policy.”
From [HERE] The scariest thing about Donald Trump’s presidency isn’t the steady stream of outrageous lies cascading from his White House or the cavalcade of offensive and ill-informed tweets, or even the clear nepotism and suggestions of corruption. His campaign’s possible collusion with Russia isn’t the most frightening thing. Nor is his reckless bluster toward North Korea and Iran.
The scariest thing about Trump’s presidency is that millions of voters continue to support him no matter what he does, continue to believe him no matter what lies he tells, continue to pardon his every transgression, no matter how dangerous or treasonous. (A June Associated Press-NORC poll shows that 75 percent of Republicans still approve of the job he’s doing.) If this great democracy is lost, history will show that the seeds of its demise were embedded in the troubling appeal of its 45th president.
Pundits and political scientists have already expended countless joules of intellectual energy to explain Trump’s election, with economic insecurity among the more popular answers. But several researchers who have pored over the data have concluded that anxiety over lost jobs and closed factories didn’t propel Trump into office.
An analysis of data from the American National Election Studies confirms what some of us have long suspected: Trump’s appeal lies in his implicit promise to restore white hegemony, to put black and brown people in their place, to return America to a bygone era of racial repression.
Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College, has studied the ANES data and concluded that “whether it’s good politics to say so or not, the evidence from the 2016 election is very clear that attitudes about blacks, immigrants and Muslims were a key component of Trump’s appeal,” as he told reporter Medhi Hasan of The Intercept. “In 2016,” Klinkner noted, “Trump did worse than Mitt Romney among voters with low and moderate levels of racial resentment, but much better among those with high levels of resentment.”
That hardly means that every person who voted for Trump harbors racist views. In this hyper-partisan era, many rank-and-file Republicans held their noses and voted for the GOP nominee, even if that meant supporting a celebrity TV host with no clue about how to run a country.
But those garden-variety Republicans are still culpable, not just for Trump’s election, but also for the racial animosity that fueled it. For decades, the GOP has pandered to the fears and resentments of those whites who are uncomfortable with a country growing more racially diverse.
Neuropeans -- neurotic, stupid and self-deluded, poor white trash [MORE]
From [HERE] Racist St. Petersburg mayoral candidate Paul Congemi went on a racial tirade Tuesday when he told members of the Uhuru Solidarity Movement and backers of rival candidate Jesse Nevel’s campaign to “go back to Africa.”
Nevel, 27, the national chair of the movement, announced his candidacy in March saying he would run on a platform of reparations to the African community.
Congemi unleashed on Nevel during a mayoral debate Wednesday.
“Mr. Nevel, you and your people you talk about reparations. The reparations that you talk about, Mr. Nevel, your people already got your reparations. Your reparations came in the form of a man named Barack Obama,” the Republican said.
From [ACLU] and [HERE] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Wednesday affirmed in part [order, PDF] a ruling by the US District Court for the District of Hawaii [official website] concerning the scope of the Trump administration's travel ban. The state of Hawaii filed a brief [PDF] on Tuesday in response to the government's request that the US Supreme Court clarify who can enter the US while the order in is place. Earlier this month, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Hawaii expanded [JURIST report] the exemptions permitted under the temporary travel bar on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries. Although he refused to define the Supreme Court's ruling, Judge Derrick Watson agreed to review the government's interpretation and after doing so widened the definition of "close family members" to include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and brothers-and-sisters-in-law. Additionally, Watson stated that refugees with an assurance from a US resettlement agency meets the Supreme Court's requirements because it is a formal, documented contract that places obligations upon a specific individual who has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security [official website]. The government responded by petitioning the Supreme Court for emergency relief and sought to obtain an expansion of the stay the Court ordered [JURIST report] on the grounds that the District Court's modification "eviscerated" the ruling. Hawaii stated that the government's claim is "nonsense" and that
the District Court faithfully applied this Court’s opinion, holding that “close relatives” like grandparents and nieces are permitted to enter, and recognizing that the charities, non-profits, and churches that have made a formal, contractual commitment to shelter and clothe refugees would suffer “concrete hardship” if those refugees are excluded.
The government responded [SCOTUSBlog post] with the assertion that the Supreme Court is the only court that can properly interpret its own order. The Supreme Court lifted [CNN report] the exemption judge Watson ordered for refugees but allowed the application to exclude grandparents and other relatives from the ban. The Court also directed that further review of the issue should be directed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit[MORE]
A federal judge in Hawaii stepped in on last Thursday night to stop the Trump administration from enforcing its irrational interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order that allowed a limited part of the ban on individuals from six Muslim-majority countries to go into effect.
Judge Derrick Watson rejected the government’s effort to prevent grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and other close relatives of people in the United States from entering the country, describing the administration’s cramped view as the “antithesis of common sense.” He also directed the government to honor what has been clear from the day the Supreme Court issued its order: that thousands of refugees already have a bona fide relationship with U.S.-based resettlement organizations. This ruling will make an enormous practical difference for tens of thousands of families.
Who's her daddy is the real question. Looking for villains - like the Superfriends did. [MORE] Don't these dumb motherfuckers know that Farrakhan supports Omarosa, Trump's step & fetchit coordinator.
Neuropeans - (Neurotic Europeans) - neurotic, ignorant, narcissistic and self-deluded white supremacist Caucasians operating at the mythic and rational levels of consciousness only. 2) Fascists.
From [HERE] Fox News will provide live coverage of O.J. Simpson’s parole hearing Thursday featuring as an analyst the former Los Angeles police detective famous for lying during Simpson’s trial about his repeated use of racist language.
Fox News told numerous media outlets, including USA Today and Hollywood Reporter, that Mark Fuhrman, who was a chief witness against Simpson and later pleaded no contest to committing perjury during the trial, will be on hand to provide commentary on the parole proceedings.
In 1995, Fuhrman was called to testify regarding his discovery of evidence in the Simpson case, including a bloody glove recovered at Simpson's estate. Fuhrman was known to have used a racist epithet toward African-Americans during the early 1980s but claimed on the stand that he had not used that term in the last ten years. Simpson's defense team produced recorded interviews with Fuhrman and witnesses showing that he had repeatedly used racist language during this period.Later (with the jury absent), when asked under oath whether he had planted or manufactured evidence in the case, Fuhrman invoked his Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer. According to the defense, this raised the possibility that Fuhrman had planted key evidence as part of a racially motivated plot against Simpson. The audiotape proving that Fuhrman perjured himself—thereby undermining the credibility of the prosecution—has been cited as one reason why Simpson was acquitted.
Fuhrman was fired from the LAPD in 1995. In 1996, he pleaded no contest to perjury for his false testimony related to his use of racial epithets, although his plea was later changed to not guilty and felony complaint dropped. [MORE]
Simpson has served nine years of a nine-to-33 year sentence for his armed confrontation with and subsequent robbery of memorabilia dealers Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley in a Las Vegas hotel room in 2007. He was arrested and later found guilty of kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary and conspiracy charges.
Fuhrman was one of the first officers to investigate the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson, Simpson’s ex-wife, and Ron Goldman, for which Simpson was arrested and charged. [MORE]
From [HERE] Civilian casualties from the U.S.-led war against the so-called Islamic State are on pace to double under President Donald Trump, according to an Airwars investigation for The Daily Beast.
Airwars researchers estimate that at least 2,300 civilians likely died from Coalition strikes overseen by the Obama White House—roughly 80 each month in Iraq and Syria. As of July 13, more than 2,200 additional civilians appear to have been killed by Coalition raids since Trump was inaugurated—upwards of 360 per month, or 12 or more civilians killed for every single day of his administration.
The Coalition’s own confirmed casualty numbers—while much lower than other estimates—also show the same trend. Forty percent of the 603 civilians so far admitted killed by the alliance died in just the first four months of Trump’s presidency, the Coalition’s own data show.
The high civilian toll in part reflects the brutal final stages of the war, with the densely populated cities of Mosul and Raqqa under heavy assault by air and land. But there are also indications that under President Trump, protections for civilians on the battlefield may have been lessened—with immediate and disastrous results. Coalition officials insist they have taken great care to avoid civilian deaths, blaming the rise instead on the shifting geography of battles in both Iraq and Syria and Islamic State tactics, and not on a change in strategy.
Whatever the explanation, more civilians are dying. Airwars estimates that the minimum approximate number of civilian deaths from Coalition attacks will have doubled under Trump’s leadership within his first six months in office. Britain, France, Australia, and Belgium all remain active within the campaign, though unlike the U.S. they each deny civilian casualties.
In one well-publicized incident in Mosul, the U.S. admits it was responsible for killing more than 100 civilians in a single strike during March. But hundreds more have died from Coalition attacks in the chaos of fighting there. [MORE]
The bill has a base $621.5 billion funding, nad $75 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, which includes at least $10 billion that are earmarked as part of the OCO but intended to be spent on domestic military spending.
The bill was supported by a majority of Democrats, and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. Indeed, only eight Republicans voted against the bill, with three other abstentions. The bill still has to be reconciled with its Senate alternative before becoming law.
President Trump had proposed a very large increase in military spending, compared to those sought in recent years, with an eye on a bigger Navy. Congressional hawks were deeply critical of even this large proposed increase as insufficient, and sought to outdo it with a bigger, pricier version.
There still hasn’t been a proper resolution to the 2011 sequestration rules, which Congress has ignored every year since at any rate, but on paper, the legal cap on the pre-OCO budget is supposed to be $549 billion, which will obviously be far exceeded.
Obviously this is by far the biggest military spending bill on the planet, many times what the second largest military, China, spends in a year.
From [NPR] Instead of sentencing a woman to jail time for laughing during Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing, a D.C. judge threw out the woman's conviction and called for a new trial.
Desiree Fairooz [in photo] says her laughter during the attorney general's confirmation hearing in January was involuntary. (She was reacting to an assertion that Sessions treats all Americans equally.) Fairooz, who is an activist with the Code Pink organization, then protested as she was physically removed from the hearing. In May, she was convicted by a jury of disorderly, disruptive conduct and obstructing passage on U.S. Capitol grounds.
The charges carried up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $2,000. Two other protesters at Sessions' hearing faced similar charges.
But on Friday, the D.C. Superior Court judge overseeing Fairooz's sentencing called for a new trial instead.
Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post reports that Chief Judge Robert Morin decided that the government improperly argued that Fairooz's laugh alone — not her reaction to being removed from the courtroom — would be enough to find her guilty. Reilly reports:
"Morin said it was 'disconcerting' that the government made the case in closing arguments that the laughter in and of itself was sufficient.
" 'The court is concerned about the government's theory,' Morin said. He said the laughter 'would not be sufficient' to submit the case to the jury, and said the government hadn't made clear before the trial that it intended to make that argument."
According to D.C. court records, a hearing date has been set for Sept. 1.
"While speaking in support of Sessions, Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said that his Senate colleague's 'extensive record of treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented.'
"At that line, Fairooz let out two snorts of laughter.
"Fairooz, a retired Arlington County children's librarian, was sitting in the audience with five other activists, all dressed in pink Lady Liberty costumes. They were from Code Pink, a left-wing social justice organization. Before the hearing began, a Capitol Police officer had warned the group to stay quiet and keep their protest signs down. Fairooz said she complied with the order.
" 'I let out an involuntary laugh, or more of a chortle of disdain,' in response to Shelby's statement, Fairooz told WAMU. 'We were not warned not to laugh.'
From [HERE] The Washington Post’s journalistic decline over the past several years has been remarkable, especially following the newspaper’s 2013 purchase by Amazon founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos, the world’s second-richest man after Bill Gates.
In the face of controversies concerning the use of anonymous and often inaccurate sources and the publication of false news in order to foment anti-Russia hysteria, the Post is now set for another scandal thanks to a new Bezos-approved company-wide policy that seeks to prevent employee criticism of the newspaper’s corporate backers and advertisers.
The policy, which took effect in May, now prohibits Post employees from using social media in such a way that “adversely affects The Post’s customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers or partners.” According to the policy, the paper’s management team reserves the right to take disciplinary action against violators “up to and including termination of employment.”
A clause of the policy cited by the Washingtonian also encourages employees to rat out other employees for potentially violating the policy: “If you have any reason to believe that an employee may be in violation of The Post’s Social Media Policy […] you should contact the Post’s Human Resources Department.” [MORE]
From [NY Times] New York City was scaling back its stop-and-frisk program even before a federal judge ruled in 2013 that the tactics underlying it violated the constitutional rights of minority citizens. It’s hard not to look at marijuana arrests today without thinking of that saga. Although the city has reduced the number of arrests for low-level marijuana possession, black and Latino New Yorkers are far more likely to be arrested for smoking in public than whites, who are just as likely to use marijuana.
These arrests have virtually no public safety benefit and can cause lasting damage to people who often have had no other contact with the criminal justice system. Charges are typically dismissed if people stay out of trouble for a year, but in that period, they can be denied jobs, housing and entry into the armed services.
The city needs to do more to minimize arrests. District attorneys can take the lead by refusing to prosecute most, if not all, of these cases.
Mo' Tea Sir? Roland Martin invited Dr. Umar Johnson on his show to have a meaningless argument about nothing with kneegrows afraid to even just say the word "white supremacy/racism." [the word is not the actual thing -boo!]
Racial Shadow Boxingoccurs when victims of racism (non-white people) are directly or indirectly, "assigned", bribed, coerced, and/or otherwise influenced, by the racists (white Supremacist), to speak or act to do harm to other victims of racism. White Supremacists oftentimes hide behind others whom they use as shadows of themselves. [MORE]
Kneegrows who shadowbox in service of their racist masters most likely are from the Moteasuh Tribe. Dr. Blynd explains in FUNKTIONARY about such folk:
The Moteasuh Tribe - the miseducated coin-operated buck dancing, sole-shuffling, politically dis-appointed kneegrows who pander to Massah's agenda - Mo' Tea Sir? This tribe of sorry ass kneegrows follow the dictates and even orchestrates the marching bandits of racism white supremacy as spewed forth from the mouthpieces of political power within the borders of the Witches Castle. It's the Condi-Clarence-Powell complex - that is, those who do Massah's bidding as if you weren't kidding yourself that you were doing otherwise. Keep your eyes on the lies, the liars, and the disguise. (see McNegro).
Niggativity - self destructive thought forms programmed as looped subroutines into the minds and subconscious of descendants of enslaved Africans by descendants of former slavemasters- source coded to induce thought patterns and resulting reactions that perpetuate the sense of self-hatred, self-ignorance, and self denial ultimately and effectively aborting, sabotaging and annihilating any concrete attempts of people of people of African descent to become a self determined people.
Many in the Moteasuh tribe can be found in the so-called "Black media." Unfortunately much of the Black-controlled media are not fully supportive of Afrocentrism and are terrified about confronting reality [white supremacy]. Here, Roland Martin and his panel were angry with Dr. Umar and his alternative Afrocentric ideologies. Dr. Umar was met with pure niggativity. How dare he challenge the legitimacy of their masters?
"One can safely describe the popular Black-controlled and -oriented media, dependent as it is on White ruling-elite licensing and largesse, as essentially integrationist, assimilationist, and accommodationist in orientation. As a media they are tied to and promote Americanism as much as the White media, even when they permit a harmless amount of Black radical political dialogue.
The Black Media: White Media in Black Face
The most popular Black media productions, e.g., Ebony, Emerge, Black Enterprise, Essence, Upscale, and other similar magazines; the Black radio stations and television programs which feature Black-oriented formats, have in large measure been victimized by their very success. For such success, dependent on White elite financing and underwritten by White elite advertising revenues, has made "successful Black media" extremely sensitive to Afrocentric ideology and even circumspect about "radical chic" Black-oriented ideology, i.e., ideology emphasizing Black identity and culture that is a bit critical of Eurocentrism, a bit left-of-center in its social and economic value orientations, but still within acceptable White liberal conversational domains. On the whole, the Black media are essentially a parochial establishment lacking vision and courage, craving White media acceptance and recognition. Specializing in racial ego massage, commiseration, complaints and victimization, they are of relatively low-educational value and provide little worthwhile leadership for the Afrikan American community. They are dark imitations of their white counterparts which set their reactionary agendas, news stories, editorials and features. Even though Afrocentrism is phenomenally increasing in the Afrikan American community and popular culture viz., rap music, the popularity of Afrocentic T-shirt art, Afrocentric personal dress and adornments, the demand for Afrocentric and Afrocentric-oriented multicultural education in the Afrikan American community, etc., one would be very hard-pressed to find any popular Afrikan American magazines, such as Ebony, or radio or television series which have produced in-depth, thoroughly descriptive explanations of the ideology and goals of Afrocentrism. Nor would one readily find a clear indication of an Afrocentric scholar, spokesperson, columnist or editor consistently or unrestrictedly published in their pages or hosting their programs. For, essentially, the current Black media establishment is still one with what it was when it received its most severe criticism by sociologist E. Franklin Frazier in his much-acclaimed book Black Bourgeoisie published in 1962.
The Negro press is not only one of the most successful business enterprises owned and controlled by Negroes; it is the chief medium of communication which creates and perpetuates the world of make-believe for the black bourgeoisie. Although the Negro press declares itself to be the spokesman for the Negro group as a whole, it represents essentially the interests and outlook of the black bourgeoisie. Its demand for equality for the Negro in American life is concerned primarily with opportunities which will benefit the black bourgeoisie economically and enhance the social status of the Negro. The Negro press reveals the inferiority complex of the black bourgeoisie and provides a documentation of the attempts of this class to seek compensations for its hurt self-esteem and exclusion from American life. Its exaggerations concerning the economic well-being and cultural achievements of Negroes, its emphasis upon Negro "society" all tend to create a world of make-believe into which the black bourgeoisie can escape from its inferiority and inconsequence in American society. [Emphasis added]
He then argued that "In reporting any recognition which the Negro may receive, the Negro press is not concerned with principles or values except where status, in a narrow sense, is concerned . . . the Negro press is not concerned with broader social and economic values." The contemporary Afrikan American press, except for its marked increase in size and composition, which now includes a much larger electronic, i.e., radio and television sector, maintains the essential character and purpose attributed to it by E. Franklin Frazier. The Afrikan American media establishment still "represents essentially the interests and outlook of the black bourgeoisie." In a number of ways it is even more bourgeois in outlook and interest than in the past. Until the decade of the '60s and '70s the major Black media, particularly some newspapers and magazines like Ebony, still expressed the character of the original Black press, that of organs of "Negro protest." Many publications following the traditions of the first Black papers in America, Freedom's Journal, North Star (later renamed Frederick Douglass'Paper), New York Age, and the Chicago Defender, were staunch defenders of the rights of Black Americans, exposed and fulminated against racial oppression and discrimination. The editorials of Ebony magazine regarding the civil rights struggles of the late '50s and '60s were outstanding. Their emphasis on the historical and contemporary achievements of Afrikan Americans served to enhance Black self-esteem and encourage continuing struggle against American apartheid.
From [HERE] Before he was accused of beating a handcuffed African-American woman, a Chicago Police sergeant registered a racist URL: n**gadown.com.
George Granias, a sergeant at the heart of a recently settled police brutality lawsuit, purchased at least two websites with racial slurs in their titles, his alleged victim’s lawyer says. The domain names include URLs like n**gaguns.com, the legal team first told CBS Chicago.
An investigation by The Daily Beast revealed a series of other domains registered to Granias’ name and address, including “murdertech.com,” “necroarmy.com,” and in a jab to Illinois’ former governor, “patquinnsucks.com”.
In December 2013, Granias registered n**gadown.com, internet records show. Three months later, police arrested Patasa Johnson, a Chicago woman, at a traffic stop. Johnson’s arresting officer accused her of driving drunk, a charge she denied, and which was later dropped. The officer cuffed her in the back of a squad car and drove her to a police station, where “Granias grabbed [Johnson] from the back of the car,” and roughly escorted her into the station, according to a lawsuit Johnson filed against the city in 2015. “Inside the station, Defendant Granias beat [Johnson] while [Johnson] was in hand-cuffs.”
Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 11:58PM 
