August 28, 2014

Media Matters’ David Brock expands empire

David Brock is pictured. | AP Photo
Brock is taking over Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. | AP Photo
In a major power play that aligns liberal muscle more fully behind the Democratic Party — and Hillary Clinton — the self-described right-wing hitman-turned-Clinton enforcer David Brock is taking over a leading watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Brock was elected chairman of the group’s board last week after laying out a multifaceted expansion intended to turn the group into a more muscular — and likely partisan — attack dog, according to sources familiar with the move.

Text Size

  • -
  • +
  • reset
The ambitious plans, which began being implemented this week, also seem to cement Brock’s role as among the leading big money operatives in all of American politics.
Brock confirmed the basics of the shakeup in an interview. The reconfigured CREW, which is searching for a new executive director, will add a more politically oriented arm, expand its focus into state politics and donor targeting and will operate in close coordination with Brock’s growing fleet of aggressive Democrat-backing nonprofits and super PACs — Media Matters, American Bridge and the American Independent Institute.
“CREW gives us some potentially powerful tools in the tool box,” said Brock, who founded his flagship organization Media Matters in 2004. “We have been in the accountability for 10 years very successfully. It is kind of a one-stop-shop now.”
And Brock’s army will be supplemented still further by the formation of a new overtly partisan watchdog group called The American Democracy Legal Fund, which is already preparing complaints against high-profile Republicans, including Michigan GOP Senate candidate Terry Lynn Land. That group will be run by Brad Woodhouse, the president of American Bridge, and will be registered under section 527 of the Tax Code — allowing it to engage in more political activity than CREW’s traditional portfolio. CREW has operated as a nonprofit registered under a section of the Tax Code — 501(c)3 — that prohibits partisan activity; under Brock’s leadership it will add a new more politically oriented arm registered under section 501(c)4.
CREW was founded in 2003 by former federal prosecutor Melanie Sloan and white-collar lawyer Norm Eisen, who went on to serve as President Barack Obama’s chief ethics lawyer and is now his ambassador to the Czech Republic. It carved out a reputation as a leading watchdog by relentlessly pursuing litigation and ethics complaints against primarily — though not exclusively — Republican public officials. It had its heyday during the Bush administration, when its complaints and investigations played major roles in the Jack Abramoff scandal and the downfalls of powerful GOP Reps. Tom Delay and Bob Ney.
But under the stewardship of Sloan, who serves as CREW’s executive director, the group went out of its way to demonstrate that it would not pull punches when it came to Democratic corruption. It boasts in a mission statement on its website, “we work to ensure government officials — regardless of party affiliation — act with honesty and integrity and merit the public trust,” and it also pursued broader good-government initiatives.
CREW wins media attention each year with its annual “Most Corrupt Members of Congress” report, which it started in 2005 and which has included 25 Democrats among its 88 featured members. It called for the resignations of embattled New York Democratic Reps. Anthony Weiner and Charlie Rangel, and has pending requests for investigations into the Obama administration, including its use of private emails to conduct government affairs.
Its unwillingness to toe the party line miffed some Democrats, including, sources say, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, whose members occasionally found themselves in CREW’s cross hairs.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/david-brock-citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington-110003.html#ixzz3BgyOpuAQ
brock

Media Matters’ Brock is taking over ‘nonpartisan’ Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

August 14, 2014 | Joe Schoffstall - No Comments
David Brock, founder of the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America (MMFA), is now taking overCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
“In a major power play that aligns liberal muscle more fully behind the Democratic Party — and Hillary Clinton — the self-described right-wing hitman-turned-Clinton enforcer David Brock is taking over a leading watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,”writes POLITICO.
With references in the media as a “nonpartisan” group, the Brock announcement may come as a shock to some who may not pay close attention to who is actually behind the group– but it shouldn’t. 
CREW’s website states the following of its goals: “At CREW, we believe politicians must be held accountable for their actions. Day in and day out, we work to ensure government officials -regardless of party affiliation- act with honesty and integrity and merit the public trust.”
Despite what the website claims, CREW’s operations have always leaned heavily liberal. While they do take shots at Democrats, it is not nearly as often or as damaging as those directed at Republicans. CREW has launched legal battles against Republicans while mostly issuing verbal or written scoldings against Democrats. They’ve been extremely fortunate to squeak by without having a Democratic stigma tied to their organization. With the hiring of Brock, it just brings it more readily out and into the open.
Founded in 2001, the organization was launched by two Democratic strategists. The first, Norm Eisen, is an attorney and major liberal donor. In 2008, Eisen served as Deputy General Counsel to President Obama’s transition team. After this,  he was appointed special advisor to the president for ethics. In 2011, he became the United States Ambassador to the Czech Republic, a position he currently still holds. The second, Louis Mayberg, is co-founder of mutual fund management firm ProFund Advisors LLC and a major Democratic donor. CREW was founded with the purpose of countering right-leaning groups such as Judicial Watch.
Mark Penn, who was listed as a founding director of CREW, is a former pollster who worked alongside President Bill Clinton for 6 years as an adviser. In 2000, Hillary Clinton  brought Penn aboard to serve as an adviser to her senate campaign. In 2008,  he became chief strategist to Hillary’s campaign as she was making a run for president. Penn’s wife, Nancy Jacobson, is also deeply entrenched in the left’s movement. Jacobson is a Democratic party fundraiser. Previously, she has worked with Bill Clinton, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Leadership Council, and former Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana.
From 2003 up until now, Melanie Sloan served as the organizations executive director and was more or less the face of the organization. In 1993, Sloan worked for the Nominations Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee under then-Sen. Joe Biden, who was chairman at the time. Later, she worked at the Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, then led by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D- N.Y). Additionally, Sloan has worked on criminal justice issues with Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) while  serving as the Minority Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.
Below are a few examples of past and current employees at CREW.
Current employees at CREW include:
  • Deputy Research Director Matt Corley – Former Assistant Editor at the Center for American Progress (Think Progress)
  • Research Associate David Crockett – Former Research Associate for former  Gov. Roy Barnes (D) of Georgia
  • Communications Director Derrick Crowe – Former Political Director at Brave New Foundation which waspreviously funded by the Democracy Alliance

Former Employees include:
  • Naomi Seligman – Former deputy director and communications director with CREW. Before that, sheworked at Media Matters for America as communications director — Brock’s group. After CREW, she went on to a top job at FitzGibbon Media.
  • Lida Masoudpour- Former special projects associate at CREW. In the past, Masoudpour has worked for Media Matters for America, Hillary Clinton,  FitzGibbon Media, and had ties to the Democracy Alliance.

As for the groups’ funding over the years, they have received money from far-left groups such as the Tides Foundation, Democracy Alliance, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and the Arca Foundation. They have been joined on previous campaigns by extreme liberals organizations such as Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Common Cause, Public Campaign, and the Campaign Legal Center.
“CREW gives us some potentially powerful tools in the tool box,” Brock said after it was announced he’d now be leading the group.
For years now, CREW has been run by liberals with deep ties to far-left wing donors. David Brock taking over has just now stripped the “nonpartisan” label the group has tried to maintain since its inception.

August 27, 2014

The Truth about White Privilege


There is no question that African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding, but the primary reason is not skin color, it's education. And not only book learning. Here are the facts: 

The unemployment rate for black Americans is 11.4%. It is just over 5% for whites; 4.5% for Asians. So do we have Asian privilege in America? 


The median income for Asians is close to $69,000 a year, while it's $57,000 for whites and $33,000 for blacks. The question is, why? 


The answer is found in stable homes and the emphasis on education. Also, just 13% of Asian children live in single parent homes compared to a whopping 55% for blacks and 21% for whites. 


Children must learn not only academics, but also civil behavior, as well as how to speak and how to act respectfully. If African-American children do not know those things, they will likely be poor, they will be angry, and often they will be looking for someone to blame. 


One caveat: the Asian-American experience has historically not been nearly as tough as the African-American experience. But in order to succeed, every American has to overcome the obstacles they face. And here is where the African-American leadership is failing. 


The racial hustlers blame white privilege and an unfair society. So the message is it's not the individual's fault if they abandon their children, if they become substance abusers, if they are criminals. No it's not their fault, it's society's fault. That is the big lie that is keeping some African-Americans from reaching their full potential. 


Until personal responsibility and a cultural change takes place, millions of blacks will struggle and their anger, some of it justified, will seethe. The government cannot fix this. Only a powerful message of personal responsibility can turn things around."



Tuesday, August 26, 2014

August 21, 2014

Michael Brown Shooting Key Witness Charged With Filing False Police Report: Dorian Johnson

ferguson
Michael Brown shooting witness Dorian Johnson was charged with filing a false police report. Johnson is the young man reportedly shown with Mike Brown at the QuikTrip allegedly stealing Swisher Sweets cigarellos. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, Brown’s friend talked to the media about what he claims unfolded when the pair were stopped walking in the street.
Dorian Johnson’s false police report charge stem from a 2011 incident and not the Mike Brown shooting. The background check run on Johnson by ABC 17 News first uncovered his police record and initiated the casting of doubt upon his Ferguson shooting statements. At the time Darren Wilson shot the unarmed black teenager, a warrant for theft was still active against Johnson. The arrest warrant, from the same year as the false police report filing charge, was issued in Jefferson City.
Current media reports indicate that Mike Brown’s friend will not be charged for the alleged cigarellos theft at the Ferguson QuikTrip. Dorian Johnson has been interviewed by a series of local and state authorities, along with the FBI, according to statements his attorney made to CNN. When journalist Don Lemon asked Johnson’s attorney if his client neglecting to note that he and Brown had just robbed the store was a “lie of omission” the lawyer replied that it was not.
Freeman Bosley Jr. said that Johnson was under no obligation to share that information with the media and claims Darren Wilson had no way of knowing the teens had conducted a strong-arm robbery when stopping them. Exactly when the Ferguson police officer learned of the dispatch about the QuikTrip robbery remains unclear. Freeman Bosley did say that Johnson informed all the law enforcement officers he spoke with about the robbery. Lemon asked if a deal had been struck to keep his client from being arrested for the Swisher Sweets theft and Bosley said only that his client was told that based on what the police knows now Johnson had not done anything wrong and had not committed any crime. Whether or not the Ferguson shooting witness has been arrested on the outstanding warrant remains unknown.
During interviews after the Michael Brown shooting Johnson told reporters that his friend was “shot like and animal” and was running away with his hands up. Johnson’s comments helped spark the viral hashtag – #HandsUpDontShoot. Two other Ferguson shooting witnesses also later stated that Brown was running away with his hands up. Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw were the Brown shooting witnesses which appeared to back up Dorian Johnson’s accounting of the events. “The second time he says, ‘I’ll shoot,’ a second later the gun went off and he let go. That’s how we were able to run at the same time. The officer pursued Brown and fired another shot, which struck Brown in the back,” Johnson told USA Today.
The preliminary autopsy results conducted at the Brown family request by Dr. Michael Badan, stated that the Ferguson teenager was not shot in the back, all of the bullets hit Mike Brown in the front. It remains unproven if the shooting victim had his hands raised in a surrender position or in another position.
[Image Via: ABC 17 News]

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1423197/michael-brown-shooting-key-witness-charged-with-filing-false-police-report-dorian-johnson/#gJcxS7utdkxHYydD.99

August 14, 2014

 
THUG LIFE…
crips michael brown 2
Michael Brown was pictured several times flashing gang signs.
crips michael brown
michael brown crips 3
One hand gesture means “What’s up blood?”
mike_brown gangs
The two pictures on the left appear to depict two different hand signs that show allegiance to a “Bloods” street gang.

Who's 'Not Doing Anything'?

GOP House Has Passed Five Times As Many Bills as Dem Senate.

9:14 AM, JUL 3, 2014 • BY JERYL BIER
Twice in the past week, President Obama has needled Republicans in the House of Representatives by saying that while he's doing his job, the GOP House is "not doing anything." The first time was when he was in Minneapolis to spend a "day in the life" of Rebekah, a mother concerned about making ends meet:
And, now, some of you may have read -- so we take these actions and then now Republicans are mad at me for taking these actions.  They’re not doing anything, and then they’re mad that I’m doing something. 
The second time the president used the phrase was Monday in Georgetown in Washington, D.C. in a speech on a familiar topic for the president, upgrading roads and bridges:
It’s not crazy, it’s not socialism.  (Laughter.)  It’s not the imperial presidency -- no laws are broken.  We’re just building roads and bridges like we’ve been doing for the last, I don’t know, 50, 100 years.  But so far, House Republicans have refused to act on this idea.  I haven’t heard a good reason why they haven’t acted -- it’s not like they’ve been busy with other stuff.  (Laughter.)  No, seriously.  (Laughter.)  I mean, they’re not doing anything.  Why don’t they do this?
Truman famously did so in the 1950s), the president has directed his ire at the House rather than the Congress as a whole, leaving the Senate unscathed. But an analysis of the numbers shows that his shots may be misdirected.
According to GovTrack.us, a privately run website that tracks congressional activity, so far in the 113th Congress the House has passed 297 bills (280) or resolutions (17) that originated in the House. By contrast, the Senate during the same time has passed only 59. In spite of his words that the House has "done nothing," the president has put his signature on 90 House bills and resolutions and 35 Senate bills and resolutions for a total of 125.
Even compared to prior Congresses, this House does not appear to be as idle as the president suggests. Bills spiked during the 110th and 111th Congresses, but otherwise the 297 passed by the House in the 113th Congress is not far from the historical norm for the past several decades, particularly given that the 113th Congress is still in session (again, from GovTrack.us):
Again in contrast, bills passed by Senate have been down sharply since Harry Reid took over as majority leader, with the Senate in the 113th Congress on track to pass the fewest number of bills of any Senate as far back as 1973 (as far as the records at GovTrack.us go):
While the significance of the bills passed by the House and Senate may be debated, and while the president's frustrations with the House center around legislation (such as comprehensive immigration reform) where wide differences separate the parties, the numbers indicate that it's not so much that the GOP House isn't "doing anything"; the GOP is just not doing what the president wants

August 5, 2014

1980s Dire Warnings Of Acid Rain / Forest Die-Off Prove To Be Pure Fallacy From Hysterical Scientists 



I spent a few days with my wife in Amsterdam, and so blogging was a bit on the light side. Today’s story is a short one about acid rain and forest die-off. Most people over 40 will certainly recall that one.
Whenever scientists are completely wrong, they hope no one will notice years later and that all will be forgotten.
Such is the case of the 1970s forest die-off scare (acid rain). Back then a “consensus” of scientists warned that the Earth’s forests were being wasted away because of acidic rain produced by man’s emissions from the burning fossil fuels. Lots of background info on this here,
The first warnings of an acid rain induced forest die-off in Germany were sounded by scientist Bernhard Ulrich, who warned that polluted rain was causing the soil to become too acidic for trees, which in turn would soon get very ill and die. Moreover by 1983 there was a claimed consensus. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) recently wrote on the forest die-off scare:
In the year 1983, an extremely informative study that recently appeared and maintained that during the course of this alarm debate, that there was not a single forest scientist in Germany who did not agree with this diagnosis.”
The leading German daily then summarizes that the acid rain, forest die scare turned up in the end being just a wave of hysteria that had gripped the scientific community. Today nobody hears about the acid rain; the problem has literally just vanished from existence. FAZ writer Jürgen Kaube even asks in his piece: “What ever happened to forest die-off?”
We suspect the same will be true of global warming in about 20 years time. Maybe sooner – especially when we look at the recent record high sea ice levels, recent cooling weather sweeping across the USA and the dozens of predictions of a coming climate cool-down coming from experts.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-acid-rain-forest-die-off-prove-to-be-pure-fallacy-from-hysterical-scientists-a/#sthash.XBUotXO8.dpuf

July 28, 2014

One Direction’s Zayn Malik tweets #FreePalestine hashtag


Last night, heartthrob Zayn Malik of the popular U.K. boy band One Direction waded into Middle East affairs with this succinct “#FreePalestine” tweet.

Malik’s tweet, posted from his verified account, has more than 134,000 retweets so far (and the count is rising rapidly).

Whereas singer Rihanna and basketball player Dwight Howard deleted their pro-Palestine tweets, Malik has left his up.

July 27, 2014

The Conversation

'The Walking Dead' is loved for both its strengths and its flaws

In response to Phenomenal 'Walking Dead: Season 5' Trailer:

That is a pretty sensational trailer - more alluring than half the big-budget movie trailers I've seen this year.  It always seemed odd that the Biggest Show On Television would suffer from such obvious budget restraints, keeping the action stuck in certain locations much longer than it should have been, but judging from these clips, that's no longer an issue.
It looks as though a certain terrible event from much further along in the comics will be flash-forwarded and carried out at the Terminus compound.  If that's the case, part of this season is going to be very hard to watch.
"The Walking Dead" is a bona fide phenomenon, the next step after "TV show with great ratings."  It's been a while since anything on TV got its hooks so firmly into the broad pop-culture audience, and it's all the more amazing because it's such a grisly program.  The Zombie Moment was surfed with a remarkable combination of lucky timing and skill by the cast and crew.
I think the weaknesses and cliches of a phenomenon contribute to its popularity, in addition to its strengths.  Not only do you pick up the "hate-watchers" who seem to watch the show entirely so they can go into online forums and rant about how much it stinks - their eyeballs count for ratings too! - but the imperfections of a flawed gem make it endearing and approachable to its genuine fans.  All these decades later, jokes about "red shirts" and other tropes from "Star Trek" are part of the pop-culture language.  It's comparably easy to wail "WHERE'S CARL?!?" and watch everyone in earshot grin.  I wonder if part of what makes people love a show like "Walking Dead" is because its flaws inspire their imaginations and make them think about how they'd tell the story differently... an impulse that has kept classic stories alive across history.
And really, nothing silly about this show - primarily the outbreaks of lunkheaded behavior among the survivors, and the rather low-grade menace the slow-moving and easily killed zombies seem to pose - dilutes what it does well.  The survival-horror setting is haunting, the drama caused by people forced to make impossible decisions is intense, and the characters are generally well-drawn and well-acted enough to make you genuinely care about what happens to them.  If one of those scenes glimpsed briefly in the trailer means what I think it means, that sense of audience connection to the characters is going to get a hell of a workout this fall.

July 26, 2014

John Hawkins
Terrible ideas never really die on the Left; they just come back over and over again, like a gas station sandwich after a night of heavy drinking. So it is with reparations for slavery, which liberals would happily embrace en masse if they ever thought they could ram it through Congress. Here's why reparations for slavery are a bad idea.
1) How do you prove that slavery is responsible for problems black Americans are having today? If it were 1866, it would be easy to prove that black Americans who had been enslaved were hurt by the practice. They were mistreated, deprived of their freedom, and were not paid wages for their labor.
On the other hand, if you fast forward to today, it’s extraordinarily difficult to show that anybody’s problems were caused by something that happened almost 150 years ago. Keep in mind that there were white indentured servants forced to work alongside slaves back then. There were white Americans who were kidnapped and enslaved by the Barbary pirates. There were Japanese and Italian Americans who were forced into internment camps during WWII and many of them actually had their property confiscated and sold. The relatives of many Jewish Holocaust survivors live in America as well. So while black Americans have been treated worse than any other group in America, there are a lot of other groups that have seemingly bounced back with little damage from how they’ve been treated in the past.
Additionally, while black Americans are indisputably doing worse than most other groups in America, there are certain subsets of African-Americans that are doing just fine. For example, black female college graduates make 102% of what white female college graduates earn. African immigrants also outperform black Americans who were born here in a number of ways.
A new paper (pdf) from University of Chicago PhD candidate Alison Rauh finds that black immigrants tend to be more successful than black Americans. They out-earn black natives (after accounting for age) and are more likely to be employed. This is not surprising; white immigrant groups outperform their native cohort too. But what’s most intriguing is how their children fare. The children of black immigrants are more likely to go to and complete college than native blacks (and whites) and are less likely to drop out of high school. The children of black immigrants also earn more than native blacks or first generation immigrants.
If there are certain subsets of black Americans who are doing well, that suggests that there is no one universal factor like slavery that can be blamed for the difficulties black Americans face.
2) Who would pay reparations? If John Smith gets drunk, runs a stop light, and hits the car of Susie Jones, we know who's at fault. It's John Smith. We also know that Susie Jones is the injured party. We can look at the damage to the car, injuries to Susie Jones, and costs she had to bear because of the wreck and get a rough idea of damages that she sustained because of John Smith's behavior.
How do you make any of those determinations with reparations?
The Civil War ended in 1865; so all the slaves and slave masters are all long dead. Moreover, even in the South, depending on which numbers you believe, somewhere between 80-95% of white Americans never owned slaves. There were also several thousand BLACK AMERICANS who owned slaves -- yes, really. Certainly they would be more responsible for slavery than a white man who didn't own slaves, right? Getting beyond the South, why would a white northerner from a state that didn't have slaves owe "reparations" for slavery? For example, what wrong would a Republican abolitionist -- who hated slavery, voted for Abe Lincoln, and fought in the Civil War -- have done that would require "reparations?"
We don't hold people responsible for what their ancestors did and even if we did, most white Americans, even in the South, didn't own slaves. So 149 years after the Civil War ended, there simply is no way to hold the people responsible for slavery accountable for what they did. Victimizing people who did nothing wrong today to make up for a wrong that was done 150 years ago wouldn't make anything right.
3) Who would receive reparations? There are no living slaves; so it's impossible to compensate the people who were hurt by the cruel and oppressive practice of slavery. So, would we compensate black Americans in general on the theory that slavery has held them back? Blaming the economic problems someone has today on something that happened to his ancestors almost a century and a half ago seems like one heck of a stretch, but let's say we buy into the argument. What do we do about people like Barack Obama and Tiger Woods who are of mixed heritage? Would Obama pay reparations to himself? Would a black man who immigrated to the United States a decade ago be eligible? What about incredibly wealthy black Americans like Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, and BET's Robert Johnson? Why should some white middle manager in suburbia be asked to kick in money for them?
These are the sort of thorny questions you have to wrestle with when you're talking about "reparations" as opposed to a communistic "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" transfer of wealth from one group of people to another, which is really what most people who support reparations seem to want to see happen.
4) It focuses on the wrong solution: Just giving people money seldom helps to fix their problem. That’s why America’s “war on poverty” has been an utter and complete failure. After doling out more than 21 trillion dollars over the last 50 years, we’ve done nothing to reduce the poverty rate.
Shortly after the War on Poverty got rolling (1967), about 27% of Americans lived in poverty. In 2012, the last year for which data is available, the number was about 29%.’
In fact, it’s entirely possible that the poverty rate would be LOWER today if there had never been a “war on poverty.” You can see this same dynamic with aid to Africa. After handing out more than a trillion dollars, much of the continent has gone BACKWARDS over the last 10-15 years. Even winning the lottery doesn’t tend to make a generational impact.
A paper by economists Hoyt Bleakley and Joseph Ferrie traced the results of the Georgia land lottery down the generations. They found that, “one generation after the distribution of the Georgia land, sons of winners have no better adult outcomes (wealth, income, literacy) than the sons of non-winners, and winners’ grandchildren do not have higher literacy or school attendance than non-winners’ grandchildren.”
Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything. No American should have to live in an area where he’s afraid to let his children play in the yard because drug dealers sell openly on the corner. Terrible inner city schools disproportionately impact black Americans. That’s why school vouchers and charter schools disproportionately benefit them. Slashing tax rates in depressed areas down to almost nothing would encourage businesses to move in and would help black entrepreneurs. Micro-loans could help aspiring small business owners to get on their feet. Helping black Americans to help themselves would do more to create success and prosperity than any giveaway program ever could.
5) The government has already paid out an enormous amount of “reparations:” Just to give you an idea of how common slavery is in human history, keep in mind that the Brits who brought American colonists here kept slaves. The Indians we took the land from kept slaves. Our neighbors to the north and south (Canada and Mexico) kept slaves. We acquired slaves from nations in Africa that kept slaves. Many of the slaves that ended up in America were captured by Middle Eastern slave traders who also kept slaves. Even some white Americans were enslaved by the Barbary pirates.
Still America had a particularly large and thriving slave trade and we’ve already paid an enormous price as a nation for it, starting with the 625,000 Americans who died during the Civil War. Keep in mind that America had a population roughly 1/10 the size we have today; so that would be the rough equivalent of 6.25 million Americans dying today. As a point of comparison, the 2nd term of the Bush Administration was practically destroyed by less than 4,500 military deaths in Iraq.
Additionally, although whites make up the majority of Americans on welfare, percentage wise, roughly twice as many black Americans take government assistance as white Americans. Additionally there are Affirmative Action programs and racial set-asides that discriminate against white and Asian Americans to make it easier for black Americans to get jobs and get into college.
So, when you add it all up, hundreds of thousands of Americans have died, numerous special programs have been created for black Americans, and trillions in government assistance have already been paid out. Other than Great Britain, there’s no other nation on Planet Earth that’s done even a fraction of that much to make up for engaging in slavery. So, if anyone wants reparations, it would be fair to say that they’ve already been paid.