JIMMY CARTER SEEKS TO END RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICAN CRIMINALS?
By Jon Christian Ryter
October 23, 2003
Let's face it. Jimmy Carter needs to get a life that does not adversely affect the lives of every other American he touches. As the worst president in the history of the United States, Carter managed in an economy with the highest level of inflation in the history of the United States. He destroyed the democratic nation of Iran and surrendered it to the extremist islamist fundamentalists under the oligarch of the ruthless theocratic dictator, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini by forcing the Shah, Mohammed Riza Pahlavi, out of power.
Carter authorized the CIA to overthrow the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan government of Anastasio Somoza and allowed the Cuban-backed Marxist, Daniel Ortega to assume power. Finally, on the advise of Madeleine Albright, Carter agreed to surrender America's ownership of the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone (which has since been assumed by the People's Republic of China in direct violation to the Monroe Doctrine). All of this was done at a time when Carter had to know that any power vacuum he created would be filled by the Soviet Union--which is precisely what the Council on Foreign Relations wanted to happen to generate enough fear in the minds of Americans that they would be receptive to surrendering their national sovereignty to a world government in order to eliminate what would ultimately have become a hemispheric threat of nuclear missiles aimed at the heartland of America.
Since Carter can't do anymore damage to the nation, or the world, in an "official" capacity, he has decided to open a new front in the battle for civil rights equality for African-Americans. Not hard-working African-Americans who have been denied the right to a level economic playing field as they compete with their white peers for a fair shot at capturing a piece of the great American dream--but rather, Carter decided to wage a new class war for black criminals in Georgia and around the nation. Carter, at the prompting of the NAACP, now sees black criminals as the newest victims of racial discrimination.
They are victims because, in Carter's mind and in the mind of the other liberal elitists who have studied the statistics, there are more blacks than whites in our penal systems--and on death row. This, in their minds, is because poor black criminals can't afford high-priced criminal lawyers like those who defend rich, white criminals. And because poor blacks can't afford to hire high profile, expensive criminal lawyers they are more likely to be convicted of capital felonies than well-to-whites. The solution to this dilemma in the mind of the NAACP is to enact new laws that will force the States to hire the best criminal lawyers (not the lawyers in the public defenders' office) at the expense of the taxpayers, to defend blacks charged with serious felonies and capital crimes.
The logic behind this argument is not to provide a more adequate defense for innocent black men accused of crimes, but simply to get the guilty off on some legal technicality, or by raising doubts abut their guilt with the juries who are contemplating the evidence. The liberals argue that O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" not because he was innocent, but only because he could afford a star-studded defense team that simply overwhelmed the jury.
It just hasn't occurred to the liberals that, in our society, there are far fewer affluent whites (or blacks) committing capital felonies than there are poor blacks (or whites--whom nobody is championing). And, for that reason, there are far more blacks being tried for capital offenses than affluent whites who can afford expensive lawyers. Granted, when a wealthy or well-known white (or black) celebrity is charged with a capital offense, it makes sustained headlines. Jut look at Kobe Bryant. Because the media finds it newsworthy, the story remains in the media spotlight--as the O.J. Simpson trial did, and as the Robert Blake trial will when it commences in February, 2004. And, of course, Kobe Bryant.
It is not likely that Bryant will be bound over for trial on rape charges. If he is, he will be found not guilty not because of his high-priced lawyers, but because the prosecution chose to proceed with a case--and a victim--that was flawed from the start.
The "victim" in the Kobe Bryant case led him on. Her actions suggest that. It now appears when the sexual act was initiated and she cried "stop," Bryant stopped. That's not rape. Not content with the fact that there was no semen in her panties to affirm that the terrible deed did happen, it now appears that the victim may have changed into a pair of panties previously stained with someone else's semen in order to fool the hospital personnel and the police. So, due to a fluke in which the hospital released a report containing the DNA anomaly to the defense (and not expert litigation on the part of Bryant's expensive lawyers), a piece of information the prosecution very likely intended to conceal (since they had already destroyed their copy of the report) will likely preclude the prosecution of Bryant from going forward. Even a public defender could have pulled that rabbit out of a hat.
During the Clinton era, Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to manipulate the federal prosecution and sentencing guidelines by demanding that U.S. attorneys not aggressively seek the death penalty for black offenders who commit capital offenses and that they demand the death penalty any white offender who has committed an offense that can be punishable by death. In Reno's mind, she wanted to "balance the scale" by executing as many whites as black in the federal system. Likewise, a litmus test was applied to federal judge nominees to make certain that they believed in tempering the rule of law with the liberal's concept of social justice when it came to administering justice to minorities.
It hasn't dawned on the liberals yet that there are more blacks on death row than whites not because whites can afford better lawyers, but because blacks commit more murders. Over 73% of all capital murders that are prosecuted in the United States are committed by African-Americans, which means, logically, that blacks should outnumber whites on death row by almost 3 to 1. What bothers the liberals is that African-Americans, who outnumber whites on death row by 2 to 1, make up less than 35% of the population in the United States, not that they commit 73% of all the capital offenses prosecuted in this country.
In the world of political correctness--the system of redefining the administration of justice based not on the rule of law but racial quotas liberals like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who are both still trying to create their historic legacies, are championing the notion that black criminals are victims of discrimination because they can't afford expensive lawyers who can get them off even though they are guilty of the crimes for which they were charged, convicted and sentenced.
Carter, who was governor of Georgia from 1971 to 1975 appeared at a special NAACP-sponsored "racial reconciliation forum" with current Republican Georgia governor Sonny Perdue. Over 400 black leaders from around the State and the nation were in attendance. Carter denounced Georgia's two-strike law, stating that a disproportionate number of blacks were serving life sentences for second offenses. (What Carter did not reiterate was that a life sentence was mandated for a second felony and that Georgia judges have no latitude--or that lawyers cannot play on the sympathy of the court to get lesser sentences for affluent white criminals.) Carter merely noted that since more blacks than white commit repeat felonies, more blacks than whites end up with life sentences in Georgia. For that reason, Carter argued, the two-strike law needed to be repealed because it was "...the most severe [career criminal statute] in the nation."
I guess the people of Georgia feel that parasites who wish to continually feed on society need to be continually incarcerated. Good for them. Every State in the nation should adopt laws that make crime unprofitable. When crime stops being profitable, criminals will stop breaking laws.
And, of course, like any good liberal, Carter is attempting to put the monkey on the back of Sonny Perdue--whom he believes needs "sensitivity" training on punitive penal issues so he can understand how black criminals feel when they are incarcerated.
Frankly, I couldn't care less how criminals feel when they are incarcerated for terrorizing their victims by sticking a gun in their face and taking from them what they earned through the investment of their own sweat equity. Or, that criminals are executed for killing someone. They should be. Always. And not after ten years of fighting in the courts to remain alive after their victims are forgotten by the judicial system but are still anguished by those who loved them. Killers (whose guilt is conclusively and scientifically established) should be executed--immediately. We should not be forced to support them.
Carter used the podium at forum to insist that the governor and the top prison officials in the State needed to meet regularly with black leaders in Georgia to gain a better understanding of how penal issues affect blacks. It's a good thing that Carter is now out of politics and that the American people now know him well enough not to make the mistake of electing him to anything else because I can almost picture our Nobel Peace Prize-winning former president and former governor being re-elected to the governorship and deciding to pardon all of the underprivileged blacks because they couldn't afford top flight lawyers to keep them out of prison.
In fact, Carter urged Perdue to pass a new law to do precisely that--create a taxpayer-financed fund to provide better lawyers to poor blacks who are accused of serious crimes. That way, I guess, the public defenders' office will become the exclusive legal advocates for poor white criminals or poor blacks who commit "junior felonies" since Johnny Cochran will be called in to defend all of the poor blacks who participate in drive-by shootings, turf war executions, or drug deals gone bad.
� 2003 Jon Christian Ryter - All Rights Reserved
Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.
Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website. E-Mail: email@example.com
Jon's latest book "Whatever Happened To America?" is available from NewsWithViews.com for
"Since Carter can't do anymore damage to the nation, or the world, in an "official" capacity, he has decided to open a new front in the battle for civil rights equality for African-Americans."