BLM’s Kaepernick joins Nike to sell a company built on modern slavery

Colin Kaepernick – the man who made “taking a knee at football games” fashionable and who became an icon for the Black Lives Matter movement – has agreed to shill for human trafficker Nike sportswear.  How is this for a mixed message?   

For at least twenty years, Nike has been criticized for its labor practices – including the offshoring of jobs to sub-contractors who use child labor and who practice human trafficking or modern day slavery to help Nike turn a very handsome profit.

Yes, Nike has been caught…

Kaepernick will be the face of Nike’s “Just Do It” 30th anniversary ad campaign.  The initial image is a close up of Kaepernick’s face with the caption: “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”  Yeah, believe in something… slavery. 

According to Wikipedia and numerous sources, “Nike has been criticized for contracting with factories (known as Nike sweatshops) in countries such as China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mexico… The company has been subject to much critical coverage of the often poor working conditions and exploitation of cheap overseas labor employed in the free trade zones where their goods are typically manufactured.” 

“Nike has faced criticism for the use of child labor in Cambodia and Pakistan… Nike continues to contract their production to companies that operate in areas where inadequate regulation and monitoring make it hard to ensure that child labor is not being used.  A BBC documentary uncovered occurrences of child labor and poor working conditions in a Cambodian factory used by Nike.  The documentary focused on six girls, who all worked seven days a week, often 16 hours a day.”

“As of July 2011, Nike stated that two-thirds of its factories producing Converse products still do not meet the company's standards for worker treatment. A July 2011 Associated Press article stated that employees at the company's plants in Indonesia reported constant abuse from supervisors.” 

Sources for this criticism include Naomi Klein's book No Logo and Michael Moore documentaries… including the clips from the one below…

This brings us to Tom Malinowski, a candidate for Congress in New Jersey’s 7^th District.  Tom used to be one of the good guys… or maybe it was just a stepping stone, a career move?  Back in 2007, when Tom was a lobbyist for a human rights organization, he chastised the Bush administration for its “double-standard” on issues like Human Trafficking – putting foreign policy before principle and allowing regimes viewed as “allies” to get away with murder.

Fast forward to 2015, with Tom Malinowski now a member of the Obama administration and the top State Department appointee concerned with human rights.  The Obama administration decides to put business interests before principle and in an effort to broaden the markets included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, reclassifies Malaysia’s human trafficking problem.  The downgrade of the human trafficking crisis in that country comes just as hundreds of bodies of trafficking victims are discovered, buried in the forest.

160 members of Congress – a bi-partisan outpouring – condemn the Obama administration and its State Department for ignoring the plight of victims of modern day slavery.  Here are some headlines… 

State Department Watered Down Human Trafficking Report 

Senators: State Department ‘Heartless,’ Lacks ‘Integrity’ After Politicized Human Trafficking Report 

Lawmakers threaten to subpoena all information about inflated grades for countries that have failed to crack down on forced labor, prostitution 

Earlier in May, 139 graves in camps for human trafficking victims were found near Malaysia’s northern border with Thailand.

160 Members of Congress Call on State Department to Not Upgrade Malaysia Ranking in 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report 

These headlines are from May 2015.  In June 2015, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Tom Malinowski testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and claims that it is all about the trade and passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Malinowski argues: 

“I am convinced that, on balance, TPP will greatly aid the effort to advance human rights in the Asia-Pacific region.”

 Apparently the double-standards that he decried in 2007, under the Bush administration, were okay in 2015, under the Obama administration.  See how the cookie crumbles? 

In July 2015, Ranking Democrat Congressman Lloyd Doggett sent a letter to the State Department chastising Tom Malinowski and others responsible for the Obama administration’s policies.  Congressman Doggett wrote:

“Once again trade is being prioritized over trafficking enforcement.  Bending the standards to reward a country that accepts trade in women, children and forced laborers is wrong.  Malaysia adopting some new provision that will not be consistently enforced is no substitute for effective prosecution… It is easier to lower the standard than to insist that Malaysia protect trafficking victims… this (is) another indication that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not being used to bring about meaningful change on critical issues.”

We couldn’t agree more.

Matteson's absurd attacks on Parker Space

Far Left candidate Kate Matteson will attack her opponent, Assemblyman Parker Space, for almost anything.  We are surprised that she hasn't claimed yet that he had something to do with inconveniently scheduling the solar eclipse.

Matteson is a wealthy one-percenter (a real limousine liberal) who couldn't be bothered to vote in the past.  Now she's a big voice around the county telling everyone how things should be.  Don't you know?  Well according to Matteson, Sussex County is too rural, too backwoods, and we need to become more cosmopolitan and politically correct -- more like her -- and she's here to tell us how to make those changes.

Last week she was at the Newton Green arm-in-arm with someone protesting, carrying a "Black Lives Matter" sign.  Why?  Has there been an incident in Sussex County that we are not aware of?  She even posted it on her campaign website.

And Matteson has refused to comment on the position, taken by several groups she supports, to honor convicted cop-killer Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur), a terrorist on the FBI's "most-wanted" list.  The Women' March organization issued a statement "celebrating" Ms. Chesimard's birthday, praising her as a "revolutionary" and stating that Chesimard -- who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper in cold blood -- "inspire us to keep resisting." 

But instead of telling us where she stands on this cop-killer, Matteson is attacking Parker Space on her campaign website.  They even posted a year-old photograph of some nut in a swastika tee-shirt and claimed that it was Parker Space's fault that the guy was wearing the shirt.

Did they ever check with Parker to ask if he even knew about it?  Was he supposed to know that some guy in "Newton Shop Rite" was wearing a Nazi shirt?  Should he make it his business from now on to stalk the aisles of the "Newton Shop Rite" to make sure nobody is wearing an inappropriate shirt?  Maybe he should hand out tickets?

Will these leftists never end?  Now they want a wardrobe police!  And they want Parker Space to be Chief Constable of Clothing for Sussex County.  Absurd!

In the same week that these fools were trolling to find something -- anything, even something absurdly unconnected -- to attack Parker Space with, he was putting out three fires -- saving the lives and property of others.  Because that is what volunteer firefighters do -- and that is what Parker and the Space family have been doing for generations.

But Kate Matteson wouldn't know any of that because, until very recently, she couldn't even be bothered to vote.

Gas-tax repealers pass Black-Lives Matter bill

Last week, the New Jersey Senate passed legislation that will throw EVERY police officer who has to make the decision to use deadly force in front of a state-appointed special prosecutor.  Under this legislation, a police officer who arrives at a school shooting incident in the nick of time and uses his firearm to stop a would-be mass murderer of children will be presumed to have done something wrong and then tossed in front of a persecutory special prosecutor. 

This legislation -- S2469 -- could not become law without the support of two Republicans, Jennifer Beck and Gerald Cardinale.  Without their votes, the bill would not have passed the Senate.

 

The premise behind this legislation is that county prosecutors -- just by existing within the borders of a particular county -- have too close a relationship with the police officers of that county and therefore cannot objectively investigate an incident when a police officer makes a mistake or oversteps his or her authority. 

While this might be argued for states that elect their prosecutors, such as Pennsylvania, where police unions are active in that political process; in New Jersey all prosecutors are appointed by the same person -- the Governor.  So whether you are a county prosecutor, appointed by the Governor, or the Attorney General, also appointed by the Governor, you do not run for election and there is no potential for that kind of conflict.

If a county prosecutor is too conflicted to investigate a matter within his jurisdiction simply because he or she lives and works there, then the whole idea of county prosecutors needs to be scrapped and replaced with something like the United Kingdom's Crown Prosecution Service, where attorneys are appointed to prosecute on a case-by-case basis.  But the idea of dragging a police officer in front of a special prosecutor, simply because that officer did precisely what he or she was supposed to do in a deadly situation, is preposterous. 

All this legislation will do is to create a species of state prosecutor whose worth will be determined by the number of police officers' scalps collected and careers destroyed.  It will deteriorate the quality of police organizations  and with that, the safety of every community in New Jersey.

The Assembly might consider a "sensitivity training" amendment for special prosecutor designees.  It would include eight weeks of putting on a police officer's uniform, strapping on a sidearm, and engaging in day-to-day police work like traffic stops and domestic calls.  Call it prosecutors' boot camp.   

Just why two Republican Senators -- Beck and Cardinale -- would cross party lines to vote for this misguided legislation is open to question.  We suggest that it is because they find the contemplation of labor unions and working people disagreeable.  Senator Beck is a career  politician and lobbyist, while Senator Cardinale is a politician with a profession, as well as the owner of a luxury property in the Caribbean. 

According to a press release put out by the ACLU, Beck and Cardinale casts their votes on behalf of that organization as well as Black Lives Matter Morristown, Black Lives Matter Paterson, Black Lives Matter New Jersey, the Drug Policy Alliance, Garden State Equality, New Jersey Citizen Action, and the New Jersey Policy Perspective.  Beck and Cardinale stood with the far-left to screw working police officers and their families.

Black Lives Matter not supported by facts?

Here is a very interesting column by writer John Hinderaker, followed by links to two other related stories.  Is the violence that we are seeing being manufactured by the media or is the problem as disproportionate as some claim?  Read for yourself and decide.  We will provide more data as we find it or it becomes available.

ARE BLACKS DISPROPORTIONATELY INVOLVED IN POLICE SHOOTINGS?

Listening to liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, you would think that enormous numbers of black men are being gunned down by police officers. When the issue is debated, many take it for granted that a vastly disproportionate number of blacks are involved in police shootings–in fact, if you didn’t know better, you might think that only blacks are ever shot by policemen.

The numbers tell a different story. Like all statistics, they bounce around from year to year, but let’s go with the Washington Post’s study of police shootings in 2015. The Post found that 990 people, almost all of them men, were shot and killed by law enforcement last year. Before you start calling them victims, however, note that the Post also found that in three-quarters of these incidents, police were defending either themselves or someone else who was, at that moment, under attack. That leaves around 250 cases that were not obvious self-defense or defense of a third person. That doesn’t mean, of course, that those shootings were unjustified.

What was the racial breakdown of those who were shot by police in 2015? The largest number, 494, almost exactly half, were white. 258 were black, 172 were Hispanic, and the remaining 66 were either “other” or unknown. (Interestingly, Asians are rarely shot by police officers.)

The 258 blacks represent 26% of the total. That is about double the percentage of blacks in the American population. Is that prima facie evidence of racism on the part of law enforcement? Of course not. It is common knowledge that blacks have an unusually high rate of contact with the police, both as victims and as perpetrators. In 2012-2013, the Department of Justice found that blacks were the perpetrators of 24% of all violent crimes where the race of the perpetrator was known (in 7.8% of violent crimes, it was unknown).

So the percentage of blacks fatally shot by police officers (26%) is almost exactly equal to the percentage of blacks committing violent crimes (24%). Indeed, given that the black homicide rate is around eight times the white rate, it is surprising that the portion of blacks fatally shot by policemen is not higher.

Liberals might argue that blacks are disproportionately the victims of unjustified shootings by law enforcement, but I have not seen anyone try seriously to make that case. The Post took a pass at supporting the liberal narrative by arguing that “unarmed” blacks are shot at a higher rate than whites. But the Post failed to note that, according to its own data, blacks are much more likely to attack police officers while unarmed. I don’t know why this is, but in general, I think that unarmed people who assault police officers are likely to be high on drugs. The Post also failed to point out that blacks are much more likely to assault police officers with motor vehicles. That counts as “unarmed.” We had a case like that recently in Minnesota, where a black perpetrator tried to run down a police officer and the officer shot him in self-defense.

One can slice the Post’s 2015 data in various ways. One question is whether there is a racial disparity with regard to whether the policeman or someone else is under direct attack by a perpetrator–i.e., an obvious case of self-defense. I did the math, and it turns out that, for whatever reason, the percentages are a little different for each ethnic group. (You can measure anything by ethnic group, and in all likelihood the numbers won’t be exactly the same. If it is to your political advantage, you can call that difference a “disparity” or a “gap.”)

According to the Post’s numbers–and you should bear in mind that a subjective process of classification lies behind each instance–80% of whites who were fatally shot by police officers in 2015 were in the midst of an attack on the policeman or someone else. According to the Post, 71% of blacks were shot while attacking someone, while 66% of “others” and 62% of Hispanics were shot while attacking the policeman or someone else. If you take these differences seriously, which you probably shouldn’t since re-classifying a small number of instances would dramatically change the results, they might be an argument for discrimination against Hispanics and Asians. Blacks turn out to be a relatively favored group, by this measure.

In short, the data on police shootings show that blacks are involved in such incidents just about exactly as often as one would expect, given their violent crime rate. Slicing and dicing the numbers is interesting, but doesn’t generate any obviously relevant correlations that would change that finding. Which means that, unless someone can make a compelling argument based on the data, which we have not yet seen, the Black Lives Matter movement is founded on a lie

Two related articles: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0