Saturday, October 29, 2016


     Anyone familiar with 20th century Chinese history knows about the notorious "Gang of Four," the insidious cabal who made bad things even worse during the last years of Mao Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) in the mid-1970's.  Led by Mao's wife, Jiang Qing, these political miscreants stood out even among the rampant villainy of that dark era in China. 

     Jiang Qing, more easily referred to as Madame Mao, was a former actress who joined up with Mao and first established her Maoist credentials during the dark years in the Caves of Yenan in the mid-1930's.

     When Mao later unleashed the madness of the Cultural Revolution, Madame Mao and her three powerful collaborators -- Wang Hongwen, Yao Wenyuan, and Zhang Chunqiao -- played a key role in fomenting and sustaining the extremism of the Red Guard cadres who roamed and ransacked the nation at will. The substantial power they wielded toward the end of the GPCR (it pretty much had lost its steam at the time of Mao's death in 1976) was derived primarily from their ability to manipulate the mass media, the arts, and the education system.


 Madame Mao and her Gang of 4 could set a creepy precedent

     Madame Mao was the undisputed head of the Gang.  With her background in the arts and as Head of the Film Section of the CCP's Propaganda Department, and as a member of the Politburo, she was especially well positioned and equipped to mold and manipulate the turbulent political currents of the times. 

     More importantly, as the Wife of Chairman Mao himself, Jiang could wield the derivative prestige of the First Lady of the People's Republic of China.  She and her fellow Gang members used that prestige to incite and direct some of the worst excesses of the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards.
     Suffice to say, any country that falls into the clutches of something resembling the Cultural Revolution's Gang of Four is in for grim times indeed.  When a political clique grounded on nepotism, manipulation and control of the media and political culture, and the blind support of millions of rampaging young thugs establishes paramount political power, national disaster is apt to follow.

     However dismal America's current political condition, it obviously differs in kind and severity from the murderous madness that prevailed in China during the GPCR.  Nonetheless, there are certain ominous parallels that could find America facing the nightmare of a 21st Century Dynastic Gang of Four in the event Hillary Clinton, a latter-day Madame Mao, seizes power in the upcoming presidential election. 

     Perhaps the most ominous parallel is a leftist First Lady exploiting that position to achieve paramount political power to be shared only with a nepotistic clique of like-minded authoritarians.  Additionally, the prospective American clique suggested below would be able to exercise influence and control over a captive media and culture comparable to that wielded by Madame Mao and her nefarious clique.


     Could a new and nightmarish Gang of 4 be in store here?

     This ghastly prospect first occurred to SR upon noting the appalling spectacle of Mrs. Clinton and the insufferable Michelle Obama appearing together at a recent campaign rally.  The shamelessly hypocritical fawning of these nasty left-wing viragoes reached its nadir when Mrs. Obama condescendingly endorsed the former Secretary of State and First Lady as "my girl."

     The alert observer will understandably wonder exactly what Mrs. Obama meant when she possessively described Clinton as "my girl."  Did she mean that Mrs. Clinton, once a political rival of the Obamas, was now safely in the fold and would effectively extend the policies of the Obama administration?  Or that she and Clinton had forged an alliance as political BFF's?  Or that "my girl" Hillary was in the Obamas' pocket, like a New York City mayoral candidate would have been in the pocket of Tammany Hall?  What Mrs. Obama meant, if nothing else, was that Hillary needs the Obamas' patronage, and she better not forget it.

     If Mrs. Clinton is elected, we know for certain that husband and Ex-President Bill (who made Hillary's political career just as Mao made Jiang Qing's) will be lurking around the West Wing like a latter day American Regent.  Anyone who knows anything about Bill Clinton  knows he will never "go gently into that good night."  That makes at least a Gang of Two.   

     Then there are the Obamas.  Rarely has America seen a presidential couple (other than the Clintons, of course) that so enthusiastically and shamelessly exploited every perquisite and prerogative of the presidency as these two classless arrivistes.  They will not lightly depart into anything resembling political or cultural obscurity, least of all if the Democrats retain the presidency.

     We now know, after all, that Michelle Obama considers Hillary Clinton "my girl."  And Mrs. Clinton has made it quite clear that she regards Mrs. Obama's enthusiastic support as an especially inspiring element of her otherwise lackluster and listless campaign.  Meanwhile, President Obama has abandoned any pretext of "presidential" distance and dignity -- in sharp contrast from the politically apathetic George W. Bush -- and has campaigned with fierce partisan intensity in support of Mrs. Clinton. 

     In short, Hillary Clinton will be deeply indebted and beholden to both Obamas if she is elected.  And depend upon it, the Obamas will not be shy about "calling in" their political chips.   Both are still relatively young, energetic, and intensely political, and they will retain enormous prestige and influence among the Democratic faithful even if Mrs. Clinton becomes president.  Moreover, Mrs. Clinton will be a deeply compromised and insecure president due to the legal problems that will linger even if she is elected, thus rendering her even more dependent upon the good will and support of the Obamas.

     The Obamas continuing political influence in a putative Clinton presidency would be amplified by their political primacy with the Democratic Party's most critical and cohesive constituency -- the Afro-American community.  One word from the Obamas indicating that a President Hillary has not been sufficiently deferential to black demands -- including the radical, afro-racist demands of the Black Lives Matter movement -- would severely undercut Clinton's prestige and popularity with black Democrats (which means the vast majority of blacks). 

     All these factors indicate that the Obamas will be able to wield enormous influence with a potential Clinton presidency, even if it is an entirely unofficial capacity.  The same goes, only more so, for the restless political animal who would hold the unprecedented dual role of Former President and First Spouse, the politically irrepressible Bill Clinton.

     So consider the prospect and gag upon it:  Hillary Clinton.  Michelle Obama.  Barack Obama.  And Bill Clinton.  All sitting around a table in the West Wing, forging the Nation's policies and prospects.  A Gang of Four from Hell that could be America's worst nightmare.


Wednesday, October 19, 2016


     What could prove to be a disastrous presidential election looms ominously on the November horizon. 

    After eight years of insidious leftist rule by the Obama regime, a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Dark-side Democrats would bring down the curtain on what is left of a once decent and democratic America.  Four, and more likely eight, years of Clintonian rule would impose a pall of leftist totalitarianism that would obliterate the last vestiges of the constitutional republic passed down to us by the brilliant Founding Fathers who are so deeply despised by Obama, Clinton, and their mindless minions.

     Looking ahead, the prospects for averting this calamity are either fairly feasible or illusory, depending upon which prognostications and polls one believes.

     The patently tilted polls flaunted by the establishment media outlets (like CNN, NBC, and CBS) show Clinton with a comfortable lead that seems to leave little prospect of a Trump victory. 

     These polls are a perfect illustration of the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy.  They are skewed to include a disproportionate  share of Democratic respondents, which assures that Clinton will always have a substantial lead.  The aim is to create and reinforce the impression that a Clinton victory is a foregone conclusion, thereby discouraging prospective Trump supporters from contributing to his campaign and, ultimately, from voting. 

     Like Star Trek's insidious Borg Collective -- which it closely resembles, though without the gothic charm  -- the Democrat/Leftist Establishment aims to persuade Republicans that "resistance is futile."

                            Resistance is not always futile

     On the other hand, a different class of polls -- the daily tracking polls run by the LA Times, Rasmussen, PPD, and IBD -- tell a different story.  These polls indicate an evenly divided electorate, with some of them indicating a very slight Trump advantage.  These polls contemplate a neck-and-neck election in which turnout and voter enthusiasm could be decisive.

     In either case, the prospect of the perfidious Hillary Rodham Clinton's election to the presidency is depressingly real and revolting. 

     The 18th century British sage, Dr. Samuel Johnson, famously observed that "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."  In the same vein, when decent Americans realize that a deeply deranged, dishonest, and vindictive virago may be elected President in a fortnight, it should concentrate their minds wonderfully upon the following harrowing consequences that would follow, and move them to rally and vote in massive support of Trump's election. 

     In brief, Clinton's election would expand and consolidate the leftist totalitarian control of this nation initiated by the Obama regime in at least the following particulars:

  • Clinton's appointment of at least three or four more left-wing justices to the Supreme Court would complete and consolidate the Court's destruction of constitutional government initiated by the current Court.  An ideologically and politically corrupt Supreme Court would be guaranteed for about 25 years.
  • This Clinton Court would abolish capital punishment, consolidate and expand reverse race discrimination in perpetuity, obliterate all remnants of traditional marriage and sexual morality, distort separation of powers doctrine in whichever direction favors the Democrats, and eviscerate what remains of states' rights and constitutional federalism.  The text of the Constitution would have no more force than a fallen and withered leaf in the wind.
  • The Clinton regime would "double-down" on Obama's policy of immunizing criminal violence by black urban vandals and felons by perpetuating and reinforcing the canard that police bias against blacks justifies such riotous violence.  The current epidemic of inner-city lawlessness will seem relatively benign compared to the carnage that awaits under a Clinton regime's pandering to the most radical elements of the Black Lives Matter movement and similar hate groups.
  • Second Amendment rights will be severely undermined, if not nullified altogether.  The Clinton Supreme Court would restore the false doctrine that the right to keep and bear arms pertains only to the "militia," thereby clearing the way for federal and state laws and regulations to criminalize the possession of most firearms.  Clinton's election would thus effectively nullify the citizens' fundamental right to defend themselves.  How justifiably angered armed citizens would react to this is unclear, but it would not be pretty.
  • As has already occurred in Europe and Canada, free speech will be restricted at both the federal and state levels under the guise of prohibiting what is fraudulently labeled as "hate speech."  The expression of personal opposition to media- and government-induced "norms" of sexual license and racial reparations will be ruthlessly suppressed and sanctioned.
  • The evisceration and emasculation of the U.S military begun under the Obama Regime will be consolidated and expanded, leaving a military force devoted more to the indoctrination of its personnel in politically correct attitudes and policies than to training warriors how to ruthlessly destroy the enemy.  The disciplined military machines of China and Russia will miss none of this deterioration and will quickly prepare to exploit their resultant advantage.
  • Worst of all, the U.S. will increasingly assume the status of a dystopian totalitarian state.  Government at both federal and state levels, news and entertainment media, public schools, universities, professional and collegiate sports institutions, medical and hospital services, the legal profession, and even religious organizations and institutions will continue and accelerate their merger into an ideological and cultural leviathan that imposes leftist political values and standards upon the entire society.  We are seeing this even now in the government/media/Democrat monolithic alliance to guarantee Clinton's election by any means necessary.
     This and much more is what is at stake in this election.  Those who purport to oppose these dire national consequences, and yet decline to vote for Mr. Trump because of his admittedly exasperating personal flaws, will have much to answer for if the appallingly corrupt Mrs. Clinton (in alliance with her indisputably degenerate husband) is elected and seizes the reins of power. 

     Even from the standpoint of personal character and decency, Clinton is far and away the more repulsive candidate.  She is a proven national security criminal, willing to compromise sensitive classified information in order to shield her own corrupt communications from public disclosure, while brazenly subverting the Freedom of Information Act.  She and her family have exploited the fa├žade of a "charitable" foundation in order to enrich themselves and advance their personal agendas.  Her sneering and scornful mistreatment of Secret Service protectors and other persons forced to serve her is well-documented, and demonstrates the basic nastiness and pettiness of her termagant personality.  And, in utter disregard for truth or justice, she endorses and exploits the most extreme racial libels leveled against honorable police officers and, indeed, against white Americans in general, in order to appease the radical demands of Black Lives Matter and other afro-racist groups.

     By comparison, Donald Trump's ribald remarks and misbehaviors of decades past shrink into insignificance when measured against the dismal consequences of the policies and programs Clinton would impose on the nation -- let alone against the proven corruption and nastiness of Clinton's character.

     Given all this, rarely have American voters had more reason to "concentrate their minds" upon the prospect they face in the next fortnight or so.  It might not be the gallows, but if decent Americans do not "hang together" and reject a Clinton presidency they may suffer separately under a demoralizing regime of leftist totalitarianism.

Thursday, August 25, 2016


               Most Americans are familiar with Vice President Joseph Biden's tendency to stumble in public with gaffes and misstatements that induce either embarrassment or hilarity, depending upon one's attitude towards the man and his party.  Whether he is insulting Indian-Americans with awkward 7-Eleven jokes, inviting wheelchair-bound people to stand for a bow, blurting obscenities into an open microphone (. . . this is a big f****** deal"), or losing track of what state he is speaking in, Biden continues to provide proof that even a loopy third-rate political hack can reach the heights of power in this confused and ill-informed country.

                 Fortunately, much of Biden's verbal buffoonery is relatively harmless, so that the joke is generally on him rather than on the appalled or amused public.  But one recent example of Biden's verbal and mental ineptitude was far from an innocuous gaffe.  On the contrary, it was a reckless insult of one of America's most important allies and its people.  Moreover, it did not arise from mere geriatric forgetfulness or confusion, but rather from profound historical and legal ignorance, exacerbated by political malice.

                 The pernicious remarks arose from Biden's attempt to mock Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump's observations regarding aspects of U.S. policy towards Japan.  A bit of background is necessary to appreciate the episode in question.

                 Ever since the U.S. occupation of Japan following World War II, the U.S. has effectively guaranteed Japan's national security with the presence of American military forces and bases and with the so-called "nuclear umbrella" that serves as a formidable deterrent against aggression by truculent neighbors like China and North Korea.  At the same time, the pacifist provisions of Article 9 of Japan's constitution -- which the U.S. Occupation authorities largely drafted -- prevented the country from establishing a conventional national military force. 

                 With half a century having passed since the end of the Occupation, Japan has gradually developed a so-called Self Defense Force (JSDF) that actually compares quite favorably with the regular armed forces of most world powers.  Even so, because the JSDF is constitutionally confined to only defensive capabilities, and because even now extensive U.S. forces remain stationed in and around Japan (mostly on the southern island of Okinawa), it is fair to say that Japan enjoys what approximates a "free ride" from the U.S. in terms of its national and nuclear security.  In short, the U.S. continues to bear a disproportionate share of Japan's defense burden.

 Japan's Prime Minister Abe's (here with F-35) Views on Art. 9 Differ from Biden's 

                 In light of Japan's enormous financial and technological capacities, Donald Trump has joined many national security experts in suggesting that the time has come for Japan to relieve the U.S. of at least part of this inordinate strain on its limited and overtaxed capacities.  Indeed, Trump has argued that both Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) could both expand their military strength and expenditures, allowing the U.S. to reduce both its financial and military burdens and contract the sphere of its vastly over-extended global responsibilities.

                 It was in this context that Mr. Trump has observed that both Japan and Korea at some point may need to consider obtaining nuclear weapons.  Trump has further noted that Pakistan, China, and most ominously North Korea all possess nuclear weapons in the East Asian theater.  Consequently, the prospect that Japan and South Korea may feel compelled to develop their own nuclear programs for self-defense and deterrence hardly seems ridiculous.  Japan may well consider that perpetual reliance upon nuclear protection from a country led by the likes of Obama or Hillary Clinton is a bad bet, especially in an environment that is bristling with hostile and unpredictable nuclear powers.  Indeed, irrational North Korea's looming potential to hit Japan with nuclear-warhead missiles is being reported in the Japanese press even as we write.

                 In short, Mr. Trump has merely suggested the obvious.  Since the U.S. cannot and should not disproportionately bear Japan's national security burdens indefinitely, Japan must either underwrite  a much greater portion of U.S. costs for its defense, or get ready to assume its own defense by expanding its own military power and capacities.  And in today's world, that would include nuclear capability.

                 It was in response to these entirely plausible suggestions that Mr. Biden felt compelled to blunder into the discussion with his usual boorish ineptitude.

                 With the galling arrogance of the ill-informed, Biden waxed indignant at Mr. Trump's reasonable consideration of the prospects for Japanese military expansion.  Biden sputtered that “he [Trump] talks cavalierly about encouraging other nations … to develop nuclear weapons.”  Then the man who famously lied in a failed presidential campaign to conceal his ineptitude as a law student (he graduated near the bottom of his law school class at Syracuse, a woeful No. 76 out of 85) had the audacity to lash out at Mr. Trump of the elite Wharton School as follows:

                 “Where was he when in school? . . . . Someone who lacks this judgment cannot be trusted . . . . He’s not qualified to know the [nuclear] codes. . . . Does he not understand we wrote Japan’s constitution to say they couldn’t be a nuclear power?” [emphasis added]

                 Biden's remarks were ignorant, inept, and diplomatically offensive  on many levels.

                 First, there is the sneering contempt for the Japanese in the statement "we wrote Japan's constitution to say they couldn't be a nuclear power."  Biden's implication is that, because the U.S. played a dominant role in drafting Japan's constitution -- of which Trump is well aware -- the provisions of that constitution are somehow forever binding on the Japanese people. 

                 His offensively blunt statement ignores the fact that, while Occupation lawyers were the primary drafters, Japanese lawyers and politicians contributed to the drafting as well.  Moreover, the draft document ultimately had to be approved and adopted by the Japanese Diet, which amended it in some respects before final adoption. 

                 But more importantly, Art. 96 of Japan's constitution provides that amendments can be made if approved by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of the Japanese Diet, and then by simple majority of the Japanese people in a referendum.  Biden's claim that the U.S. role in the creation of the Japanese constitution entails some form of permanent restraint on Japan's sovereignty is not only a gross violation of diplomatic protocol, but is insulting to the Japanese people and their leaders.

                 Thus, it was Biden, not Trump, who demonstrated historical, political, and legal ignorance in this public discussion of the Japanese rearmament issue. 

                 To borrow Biden's own rhetoric, "Does he not understand" that Japan's leaders and voters are currently in the process of considering whether, and to what extent, modifications of Art. 9's restrictions on Japanese military capabilities and missions may be needed in today's world?  Does he not know that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe strongly supports reinterpretation, revision or repeal of Art. 9 and that his Party's (the LDP) success in recent Upper House elections significantly enhances the prospects for some form of Art. 9 reform?  Or that the vastly expanding strength and mission of the JSDF (now with a defense budget of about $41.6 billion annually) shows that Art. 9 can be circumvented without repeal in any event? See  Apparently not.   

                 Biden's intemperate statements reveal his archaic and jingoistic view that the U.S. role in drafting Art. 9 forecloses consideration, let alone action, that would allow Japan to develop nuclear capacity under any future circumstances.  Although Japanese political sentiment remains deeply reluctant to take the "game-changing" move towards developing nuclear weapons (which Japan's technology could likely accomplish in a New York minute), that is a matter for the Japanese people and their leaders to decide; it is not foreclosed, as Biden seems to think, by constitutional restrictions that the U.S. helped draft sixty years ago.

                 Biden's crass and patronizing assertion that the U.S. had effectively dictated perpetual non-nuclear status for Japan triggered an understandably appalled response in the Japanese press (the LDP government was too diplomatic to respond in kind to Biden's undiplomatic blunder).  For example, the Asahi Shimbun declared that Biden's statement on this issue "was unprecedented in its insensitivity." 

                 Indeed, the Asahi Shimbun was too kind and diplomatic in its comment.  Biden's remarks went beyond insensitivity, and reflected not only ignorance and misunderstanding of the constitutional restraints on Japan's ability to expand its military missions and capacities, but a chauvinistic disdain for the Japanese nation's sovereign right to provide for its survival in an increasingly dangerous region and world.

Monday, August 22, 2016


            Recent statements by Democrat vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine confirm beyond question what alert observers already knew about the twisted racial views and policies of the Clinton-Kaine ticket and its media and political minions.

             The Obama-Clinton Democrats have moved beyond slavish pandering to the radical demands of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and other afro-racist elements and are now openly advocating the subordination of White Americans – including white behavior and attitudes – to what the Democrats view as the superior claims of blacks.

            In a shamelessly pandering speech to Black Baptists in New Orleans, Kaine made statements that should infuriate and provoke any White American with the slightest regard for the interests of themselves, their children, and the principles of genuine racial equality in America.     

                 Kaine stated (among other obsequious canards) as follows:  "I've never been treated badly in my life because of my skin color or my gender. . . .  I think the burden is on those of us who are in the majority – Caucasians.  We have to put ourselves in situations where we are the minority."

            The first statement is almost certainly false -- unless Kaine has never applied for a job subject to EEOC regulation, sought admission to a university, bid for a government contract, or sought any other benefit subject to federal or state EEO regulations.  In these areas, two whole generations of White Americans (and sometimes Asian Americans as well) have been subject to a lifetime of government-approved racial discrimination under the guise of so-called "affirmative action" requirements – which are nothing more than a euphemism for racial preferences favoring blacks and, later, Hispanics.  Splashing Rocks has previously outlined the history of what is now over 45 years of anti-white racial preferences in Two Generations of Racial Preference – and America Still Sleeps (2013).  Indeed, serious reverse discrimination favoring blacks over whites was already in force as early as 1972, and before.  See N. Glazer,  Affirmative Discrimination pp. 34-35 (Basic Books 1975).

             In short, multi-millions of White Americans have been "treated badly because of their skin color" over the past four decades, and there is a wealth of case law and other official documentation to confirm it. 

             Kaine should just ask the host of white discrimination victims who have valiantly pursued their cases in the face of rampant hostility and intimidation – e.g., Mark DeFunis,  Allan Bakke, Barbara Grutter, Jennifer Gratz, Cheryl Hopwood, and many others – if he really believes that White Americans never face discrimination.  Of course they do, and Kaine proves himself both a blatant liar and a racial Quisling in suggesting otherwise.

            And if Kaine still believes whites are never "treated badly" because of their race, he should try walking unarmed through certain black precincts of Milwaukee, New Orleans, Memphis, Baltimore, or Chicago, and he'll soon find out what being "treated badly" really means.

             Even more disturbing than Kaine's fraudulent denial of anti-white discrimination  was his ominous insistence that the "burden" is on White Americans to embrace the subordinate status of a racial minority – a status that is projected to become a demographic reality in about 30 years.  Making whites a permanent minority will assure the Democrat Party a permanent political majority, which helps explain why white Democrats are willing to betray their own racial and ethnic heritage so enthusiastically. 

             When Kaine and his fellow Democrats admonish White Americans to acknowledge their so-called "white privilege" and meekly endorse every outrageous demand of the radical black activists they are advocating a policy of self-imposed racial subordination unprecedented in human history.

            Among other things, the radical Democrats not only insist that White Americans meekly accept perpetual racial preference for blacks in education and employment but also acquiesce in criminal violence and rioting by urban black hoodlums because – well, because they are an oppressed "minority" and we should therefore empathize with them and their criminal behavior. 

             In the minds of the Clinton-Kaine-Obama Democrats, white failure to embrace the rabid anti-police, anti-white agenda of the Black Lives Matter movement is merely another manifestation of the ubiquitous racism they see in every aspect of American life – except in the endemic black-on-white crime where it is vented in its most tangible form.

             The Democrats' position on these issues is utter nonsense, and any White American who accepts it by voting for the race-baiting Clinton-Kaine ticket is a traitor to their own heritage and to the future of their children and grandchildren.

             An especially galling falsehood in Kaine's New Orleans harangue was the claim that American whites know nothing of what it is like to be in the racial minority, and are therefore incapable of grasping the difficulties of minority status – unless they accept the "burden" of somehow placing themselves in that "situation."

             On this point, Kaine is either deliberately deceptive or woefully ignorant of what is common knowledge.  Whites are already the racial minority in many, if not most, of the major cities of America, including  Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, D.C., Newark, Richmond, and St. Louis.  They are also in the minority in the Nation's largest state, California, as well as in New Mexico and Hawaii.  Not only are whites a demographic minority in many of these cities, but they are a distinctly subordinate and powerless political minority as well.

                  In other words, the Clinton-Kaine mantra that whites cruise through American life on a supporting wave of "white privilege" tied to their dominant majority status is another insidious canard in the Democrats' handbook of divisive falsehoods.

                    Mr. Kaine's racial demagoguery, of course, reflects the equally repugnant positions of his Red Queen, the utterly amoral and deeply dishonest Hillary Clinton.  Clinton has demonstrated that she will not only continue but actually expand Barrack Obama's black-preferential policies in civil rights, law enforcement, personnel appointments, and other areas subject to federal government control or influence.

             Mrs. Clinton is not content merely to pander to the worst elements of afro-racist extremism – like Al Sharpton and the BLM movement – but she is now expanding her immoderate racial rhetoric to the point of insulting ordinary White Americans and the nation's law enforcement community.

             This insufferable virago has curtly admonished White Americans "to recognize our privilege and practice humility."  Millions of unemployed and under-employed whites in Appalachia and elsewhere will be surprised to learn that they are racially "privileged" -- especially when many of them have actually been discriminated against under federal and state affirmative action regulations that officially favor blacks over whites. 

            Similarly, legions of white students denied admission to their chosen college in order to assure admission of minority affirmative action applicants with inferior qualifications may be understandably reluctant to "recognize their privilege."  They might even be inclined to think that a form of "black privilege" has become a permanent feature of the nation's college admissions regime.  If so, they would be right. 

             But Mrs. Clinton carried her distorted racial views to even more insulting extremes when she threw the nation's embattled police under the bus in order to curry favor with the destructive BLM movement and other black radicals.  In one of the Democratic Presidential debates, she firmly agreed that it is a "reality" that law enforcement officers view black lives as "cheap."  One wonders how she could possibly know this.  She then expanded her insidious slander of the law enforcement community by declaring that there is "systemic racism in our criminal justice system." 

             These and other statements confirm an appalling reality:  Hillary Clinton, like Obama, is willing to inflame the passions of black hostility towards the law enforcement community in order to curry favor with the BLM movement and similar extremists.

             If elected President, Hillary Clinton will continue the divisive racial policies which, under the direction of Barrack Obama, have brought the nation to the brink of outright racial hostilities – in Ferguson, Baltimore, Milwaukee, and many other urban geysers.  Now the Clinton-Kaine Democrats prescribe a regime of de facto white subordination as the necessary means of avoiding that calamity.  Solid citizens of all races should reject any candidate or party that would take us down such a divisive and debasing path.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016


              Splashing Rocks strives to set the record straight on many of the insidious falsehoods propagated by the Democratic left, particularly in those areas (such as race discrimination law and racial criminal justice issues) where we have particular expertise.  But in an age when the Obama Administration's tireless propaganda machine spreads monstrous falsehoods with brain-numbing regularity, and when the Democrat-controlled media unquestioningly broadcasts those falsehoods with lockstep uniformity, it is all but impossible for the defenders of truth keep up with the relentless repetition of falsehood.

                 But a particularly egregious lie uttered by Obama in his disgraceful speech at the memorial for the recently murdered Dallas police officers was so glaringly and provably false as to demand exposure and denunciation.  As always, moreover, the Big Media's abject subjugation to Obama's politics and policies foreclosed any possibility that this easily refutable falsehood would be identified, let alone corrected.  So Splashing Rocks will do both.

              Earlier, we accurately predicted that Obama would exploit the murder of the Dallas officers by defending the cause of the very afro-racists (like the Black Lives Matter street mobs) who nurtured the climate of anti-police/anti-white animosity that fueled those murders.   True to malicious form, Obama effectively spat in the face of the bereaved Dallas Police community by shifting the focus of the memorial from the fallen officers to his fraudulent theory that blacks are constantly victimized by discriminatory law enforcement.  When he should have confined himself to consoling and encouraging the deeply aggrieved police community and the citizens of Dallas, Obama instead engaged in more of the afro-racist agitprop that has been the sorry hallmark of his tenure.  His shameful speech included this polemic:

                "And so when African-Americans from all walks of life, from different communities across the country, voice a growing despair over what they perceive to be unequal treatment, when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently. So that if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested; more likely to get longer sentences; more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime. When mothers and fathers raised their kids right, and have the talk about how to respond if stopped by a police officer — yes, sir; no, sir — but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door; still fear that kids being stupid and not quite doing things right might end in tragedy. [emphasis added]"

                 This is nothing more nor less than a litany of inflammatory falsehood.

                 As has been repeatedly demonstrated before, the mantra that blacks are "pulled over or searched or arrested" with greater likelihood than whites is a grossly misleading canard.  The comparative frequency of such episodes is only meaningful in the context of the behavior and probabilities giving rise to them.  Blacks commit a vastly greater number of crimes per capita than whites.  So it is only logical and legitimate that they are stopped, searched, and arrested with greater frequency.  What Obama falsely portrays as anti-black discrimination is merely the logical consequence of law enforcement following the facts and the evidence.  The police simply take their perpetrators as they find them.

                 But the most glaringly false of Obama's poisonous remarks was his assertion that "if you're black, you're . . . more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime."  He has reiterated this same incendiary falsehood in speech after speech.

                 As confirmed by FBI and Justice Department data, blacks have consistently committed just over 50% of U.S. murders over roughly the past 30 years (52.5% during the period 1980-2008).  Yet blacks constitute only 13% of the U.S. population.  Blacks thus commit about four times as many murders as their share of the population would suggest.

                 Yet, as shown year-in, year-out by government statistics reported here and elsewhere, blacks receive the death penalty in far smaller proportions than their dominant share of murders committed would indicate.

                 Since 1977, about 34% of U.S. executions were carried out on black murderers, even though blacks commit over 50% of U.S. murders (it should be noted here that murders are the only crimes for which the death penalty is imposed in the U.S. under governing constitutional standards).  In sharp contrast, about 57% of U.S. executions were performed on white murderers, although only 45% of murders were committed by whites.

                 In other words, almost two times as many white murderers are executed than black murderers, even though blacks commit far more murders.

                 Remarkably, the most recent data confirm that the disparity in executions reflecting greater leniency for blacks has become even more extreme in 2016 – at the very time when Obama is deceptively claiming the opposite.  So far in 2016, eleven white murderers have been executed compared to only two blacks!

                 It is now even more clear than ever that what Obama claimed in his disgraceful Dallas harangue was the opposite of the truth.  The hard statistics now confirm that "if you're white, you're more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime [i.e., murder]."

                 Something strange indeed,is going on in the overall imposition of the death penalty, but it appears to be something like the opposite of what Obama would have gullible Americans believe.  Most Americans can't seem to come to grips with the disturbing fact that their president constantly deceives them on this and other sensitive issues.  The most likely explanation for the apparent tendency to enforce the death penalty more readily against whites than blacks is the almost obsessive compulsion of many white jurors, prosecutors, and judges to go to extreme lengths of overcompensation to avoid any claim that they discriminate against blacks.  What one might describe as a peculiar form of the notorious "Ferguson Effect" in the death penalty forum. 

                Whatever the explanation, at least one thing is clear:  Obama lies into the very teeth of the truth when he asserts that blacks are discriminated against in imposition of the death penalty, not to mention many other areas of criminal law enforcement.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016


                In the wake of the appalling Dallas massacre of five white policemen by a black terrorist, more heretofore lethargic Americans are realizing that the festering threat of anti-police and anti-white violence can no longer be ignored.

                A notable indicator of this emergent resolve is the rapid response to a citizens' petition calling on the White House to designate the obnoxious Black Lives Matter movement as a terrorist organization.  The petition was submitted to the White House by someone identified as Y.S. on July 6 – one day before a monster named Micah Johnson perpetrated his anti-white police assault in Dallas.  The assault occurred in the context of a Black Lives Matter (BLM) anti-police demonstration, and Johnson invoked the cause of BLM in his exchange with the police before he was taken out.

                Y.S.'s petition was rather inartfully worded, and it is probably more accurate to describe BLM as a hate group rather than a "terrorist organization" within the meaning of the governing statutes and laws.  Further, few signers of the petition (SR was an early signer) actually expected President Obama – who is firmly on the side of the BLM movement and their virulent campaign – to respond to it with anything more than a curt rejection.  But unrealistic presidential action is not the genuine objective of most who sign the petition.  Rather, it is to make an unequivocal public condemnation of the malicious anti-police objectives and the outrageous civic disturbances (such as illegally blocking major highway arteries) of the BLM movement and its supporters.

                When SR signed the petition, there were only about 10,000 signers on board.  Remarkably, however, the number of signers expanded with startling speed – motivated, no doubt, by their fury at the Dallas atrocity and still other anti-police and anti-white violence and disruption that soon followed.

                Only five days after its initiation, and only four days after Dallas, the petition had exceeded the goal of 100,000 signers required to force a formal White House response under the rules governing the petition process.  At this writing, the petition is approaching 120,000 signers, although the numbers can now be expected to tail-off since the main goal has been reached.

                Although the petition's success is only a tentative indicator that people are finally coming to grips with the reality of the violent anti-white temper of the BLM movement and its mobs, the nature and requirements of the petition process show that this episode has more significance than may first seem apparent.  Unlike the typical on-line poll or survey, one could not support the petition under the safe cloak of anonynmity.  Rather, signers are required to submit their name, home address, and e-mail address – to the White House office that administers the petition process!  Signers are advised that "President Obama and the White House may send e-mails about this and other issues."

                Consequently, the 120,000 odd citizens who have signed the petition were willing to make a very public declaration of their condemnation of the BLM movement – and thus expose themselves to being classified as racists or worse by a White House that has openly declared its support for BLM and its goals.  In short, those signing the petition were truly standing up to be counted on an issue that most of their fellow citizens would rather ignore.  The BLM petition therefore may represent an early sign that the sleeping giant of justifiable citizen resentment against anti-white and anti-police agitation by BLM and similar afro-racist elements is finally awakening.

               Addendum:  Once again proving Putin's amazing audacity and keen understanding of America's political and moral decadence, Russia has announced its plans to put Black Lives Matter on Russia's "Unified List" of organizations that have been "recognized as terrorist groups by Russian Law."  In other words, Putin promptly and vigorously recognizes the destructive and dangerous nature of the racist BLM organization that Obama continues to embrace and encourage in its racist, anti-law enforcement program.  The Russian report underlying the proposed action also points out that tens of millions of dollars age being contributed to this "racial hatred group" by billionaire supporters of Obama.

Monday, July 11, 2016


              The deeply dishonest  and divisive President Obama is scheduled to speak this Tuesday at a memorial for the five murdered Dallas Policemen.  This is a grotesque insult to the fallen officers and their law enforcement comrades nationwide, but is typical of the twisted presumption that the nation somehow requires the guidance of a discredited president whenever a major tragedy attracts widespread media attention. 

                The Nation should turn its back on what will certainly be a fraudulent political speech.  After mouthing the standard bromides and formalities necessitated by such an occasion, Obama can be expected to draw a false equivalence between the genuine tragedy of race-based anti-police violence and the insidious fiction that there is widespread law enforcement discrimination against blacks. 

              The Dallas police should give Obama the same treatment the NYPD officers gave the hypocrite NYC Mayor de Blasio when he had the audacity to show up at the funeral of a policeman who was killed in the very climate of anti-police/anti-white hatred that de Blasio and his ilk have incited.  The NYC officers turned their backs on de Blasio, and the Dallas officers should do the same to Obama.

                Those who share responsibility for the Dallas officers' murders should not be allowed anywhere near their memorial service, let alone be invited to speak as chief eulogist.  Yet the very man whose divisive rhetoric helped establish the atmosphere of anti-police animosity in which attacks on police became inevitable will be allowed to use the officers' service as a platform to reiterate the fallacies that fueled these murders – i.e., the anti-white police gospel of the insidious Black Lives Matters (BLM) movement whose malicious demonstration provided the stage and environment  for Micah "X" Johnson's murder of the white officers.

                There can be no doubt about this:  Obama and his fellow racial agitators in government, politics, media, and the black community do bear grave responsibility for the poisonous climate of anti-police/anti-white malice that they have persistently cultivated.  And it is that sulfurous climate which provided a false sense of legitimacy for the racist anger that motivated Micah Johnson to commit his murderous atrocities.  In case after case, Obama and his political and media allies have instantly pounced on any police action that injures black hoodlums to parrot false and inflammatory claims of discriminatory treatment -- only to be proven horribly wrong when the facts reveal it was the black miscreant (e.g., Michael Brown), not the officer, who was at fault.  But the Black Lives Matter mobs are utterly oblivious to any facts that contradict their anti-police malice, and Obama and his minions have persistently reinforced their defiance of the facts that undermine their implacable hostility.

                SR acknowledges there are those who deny that Obama and his fellow racial agitators bear any responsibility for the Dallas murders.  These apologists lamely invoke the premise that only the actual perpetrator bears full responsibility and that placing any responsibility on others somehow diminishes the killer's guilt. 

                This is a bogus "straw man" argument, asserted in order to absolve those who feed the flames of any responsibility for the conflagration that follows.  No one is denying or diminishing  the perpetrator's individual guilt; rather, they are only making the obvious point that nurturing a pervasive atmosphere of intense anti-police animosity tends to breed anti-police violence.

                An atrocity like the Dallas police murders may have many "but for" causes, even though the actual perpetrator bears direct and primary responsibility, and only he is chargeable with the murder itself.  Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Al Sharpton, and countless celebrity leftists have all fomented anti-police and anti-white malice by constantly repeating the gross falsehood that there is a nationwide pattern of discriminatory law enforcement against blacks.  But for the poisonous narrative portraying police as racist dragoons out to persecute innocent black "youths" nurtured by Obama and his leftist minions, it is unlikely that Micah Johnson would have reached the fever pitch of malice against white policemen that possessed him.  And it is unlikely that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement would have achieved the prominence and power that enabled it to stage massive anti-police demonstrations of the type that provided the stage and setting chosen by Johnson for his murderous assaults.

                There are many reasons to be furious about the Dallas atrocity and other violent disruptions fueled by the BLM movement and its political and media cheerleaders, but the utterly fraudulent  premise and foundation for the entire campaign is the most infuriating aspect of the whole ugly charade.

                Obama, his successive black Attorneys General, and their allies and echo chambers in the media have relentlessly repeated the canard that black anger and resentment against police is perfectly understandable, and even justified, because police engage in consistently discriminatory enforcement of the laws against blacks, especially young black males. 

                The contention is not only false, it is wildly false, and, indeed, the opposite of the truth.  Far from going out of their way to invite predictably contentious or even violent response by confronting truculent black males with unfounded criminal charges, police are understandably reticent to press criminal charges against urban black males except in the most clear-cut and serious circumstances. 

                This is now so well understood that we even have a recognized name for it:  The Ferguson Effect.  Police officers nationwide are keenly aware that any enforcement confrontation with blacks in an inner-city environment poses a grave risk that they will be video-recorded, charged with discriminatory practices, or even physically threatened or attacked by surrounding crowds.

                The most common form of the "discriminatory enforcement" charge is simply to make it as a sweeping generalization that presumably no one would pesume to question – especially in mainstream media discussions, where the leftist moderators and commentators are only too willing to accept as gospel anything and everything asserted by advocates of the blacks-as-victims gospel.  The generalizations are then often followed by invocation of such popular maxims as the bogus "driving while black" slogan, which falsely assumes the premise that black drivers are stopped by police more often because they are black, rather than because they commit more violations; and the equally bogus "racial profiling" canard, which is based on the incoherent and illogical premise that evidence of criminal suspects' race must be disregarded in criminal investigations.  Then the advocates' glibly assert their own alleged (and likely fictional) experiences in being singled out by police in their youth because of their race – a clever technique indeed, because unwitnessed fabrications of long past incidents are  impossible to refute. 

                Fortunately, the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) have been maintaining official data on race and crime for many decades.  Extensive, longstanding, and consistent, the data demonstrate that blacks commit a vastly disproportionate share of violent crimes. 

                Thus, the fact that blacks constitute a disproportionate percentage of those arrested and incarcerated for violent crime is plainly not because our police and law enforcement authorities are engaged in racist discrimination.  Given that our highest law enforcement positions at both federal and state levels are heavily occupied by blacks – like our last two Attorney Generals, and the current Secretary of Homeland Security, to name only a few – this would be rather remarkable and counterintuitive.  No, the reason for this disproportion is because blacks commit an extremely high percentage of total violent crimes – a total that far exceeds their percentage of the overall U.S. population.

                Murder is perhaps the best example.  Going back at least three decades, the government data demonstrates that blacks commit about  52% of U.S. murders, year after year (for the period 1980-2008, 52.5% of homicides were committed by blacks, whereas 45.3% were committed by whites).  Yet blacks constitute only 13% of the U.S. population.  This being the case, one would expect that Blacks would constitute about 50% of those sentenced and executed to capital punishment for murder.  But one would be wrong.  In fact, white murderers are both sentenced to death and actually executed  in consistently greater numbers than blacks (for a full analysis of this subject, see my 2014 post, The Capital Canard of Death Penalty Discrimination) .  Since 1976, 55.5% of those executed for murder in the U.S. were white, while only 34.6% were black.  In other words, a white murderer is far more likely to be convicted and executed for murder than a black. 

                So much for Obama's contention that the criminal law is applied to blacks with disproportionate severity.  On the contrary.

                The data on other violent crimes similarly confirms the hard fact that blacks consistently commit violent crimes at a vastly higher rate than whites or other races in America.  The studies and reports vary somewhat in the detail, but the findings are consistent on the basic point.  They show that blacks are roughly eight times more likely to commit robbery than whites; commit violent crimes in general at a rate four to eight times greater than whites; and are 39 times more likely to commit inter-racial crimes against whites than vice versa.  On the local level, disproportionate crime by blacks is sometimes even more striking.  One study showed that for the period January-June, 2008, 83% of gun assaults in New York City were committed by blacks, even though they represented only 24% of the city population.

                Thus, when Obama and his minions glibly repeat the canard that black anti-police animosity is the understandable consequence of discriminatory enforcement against innocent young black youths, know that they are perpetrating a dangerous falsehood of Goebels-like proportions.  Blacks, and young black males in particular, are more likely to experience stops, arrests, and other coercive interactions with police because they commit vastly more of the crimes that necessitate such confrontations.  The whole edifice of the Black Lives Matter campaign is built upon a demonstrably fraudulent foundation of lies and calumnies. 

                Outrageously, however, Obama is apt to subtly re-insinuate this dangerous  fallacy when he delivers his supposedly "healing" message at the memorial for the murdered Dallas policemen.  If he does, let us hope that his deeply dishonest message is treated with the contempt it deserves.