We are excited to announce THREE new WDFP – Restoring America Radio APPS for Android, iPhone and Blackberry!
Here are the links:
Enjoy! And thanks so much for your support of WDFP – Restoring America Radio…
We are excited to announce THREE new WDFP – Restoring America Radio APPS for Android, iPhone and Blackberry!
Here are the links:
Enjoy! And thanks so much for your support of WDFP – Restoring America Radio…
Oh, you thought those were representations of Donald Trump? You poor soul.
Virtually every event, good or bad, of Trump’s adult life appeared in one or more sections of the New York Times; in that more than four decades, the Times and other media outlets put no nasty labels on Trump. It wasn’t until this, his second presidential run – after multiple fits and starts, that the press determined to supplement his name with colorful adjectives, and it did not take long…
When the press and his opponents believed Trump unserious, he was merely an entertainer out of his depth. When he got off to an underwhelming start in the primaries, he was a joke, a flash in the pan. But when it became apparent that his popularity was durable, that it was not based on political party or ideology, and that the press did not control him, that’s when the nasty names came out.
Trump did not carry the press’ and political elites’ well-massaged messages – biased special interest concerns, backed by deceptive opinion polling – to Americans; he brought an uncompromising and politically incorrect American message to them. He spoke to the despised press and the detested political elites the way many Americans speak of them in their homes or with friends. Consequently, their response to Trump’s open abuse of them – the condescension, the name-calling – was not directed at Trump; it came through Trump…aimed at the American people.
They were dissin’ Trump, but they were gunnin’ for you.
The press’ and the political establishment’s prolonged thermonuclear attack on Donald Trump was enough to make Hiroshima look like a bottle-rocket, yet it was not enough to separate the American people – you – from supporting someone who spoke, not as a Democrat or a Republican, not as a liberal or a conservative, and neither as a special interest group advocate, but as an American man giving voice to what Americans have consistently throughout the Obama years, and even longer: “the country is on the wrong track – and you guys in the press and in D.C. won’t tell the truth about why and, more importantly, won’t do a thing about what we know is wrong.”
Americans knew sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants were wrong-headed since Los Angeles implemented Special Order 40 in 1979, forbidding its police department from seeking to determine anyone’s immigration status, or arresting or booking anyone for violations of U.S. immigration law. Despite that knowledge, the number of U.S. sanctuary cities grew to more than 300, illegal immigrants became more and disproportionately criminal, press reporting sympathized with the “plight” of alien criminals than with their citizen victims, and the American government refused to act on behalf of the American people.
Americans knew the “giant sucking sound” of which Ross Perot spoke, during the 1992 presidential campaign, became a painful reality after Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law the following year. They knew of the manufacturing jobs that had left the country. And they knew the Trans Pacific Partnership would make matters worse. Despite this, the mainstream press said little about the deal, and Barack Obama praised the agreement, despite strong trade union opposition.
Americans knew race relations were not how the black and brown race-baiters portrayed them; after all, a racist country could not elect, and then RE-ELECT, elect Barack Obama. In fact, Obama received most of his votes – both times – from whites. Despite that, America learned that Obama and his wife harbor racial animosity. They learned that only #BlackLivesMatter, and that to say otherwise, was a societal and political sin. In spite of this emotional bullying, Americans also recognized that black self-genocide – in U.S. streets and at abortion “clinics” – occurs at rates that make the efforts Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis – COMBINED – almost forgettable.
Americans know the U.S. financial and economic outlook is horrific. They know the national debt has doubled since Obama took office, but some in the press deceitfully say Obama has cut the national debt. Americans know that more than 100 million working-age Americans do not have jobs, but some in the press parrot the administration’s deceptive messages on unemployment without scrutinizing the numbers. They know that the economy has not grown even 3% per year in the last decade, an unprecedented occurrence in American history, yet members of the press repeated Obama’s claims of a strong economy and record growth. Americans know the record stock market levels do not indicate economic strength. Nevertheless, media members were all too pleased to tout market price levels to the millions receiving no benefit from rising financial markets.
Americans know that Obamacare is a trainwreck within a grease fire. They know Obama lied about the ability to keeping your current doctor and health insurance plan, about family health insurance cost savings. They know claims that Obamacare helps the economy are false. Yet, the press continues to tout the benefits for the few, at the expense of the many.
Political elites and the press spent the 2016 campaign, and the entire Obama administration, telling Americans that opposing the progressive agenda of Obama and the left was “deplorable” behavior, then offering a left-handed apology for a right-handed pimp slap. They told Americans that any unwillingness to accept (illegal) immigrants is hateful; that reluctance to embrace North African refugees is Islamophobia, even though Muslim terrorists travel with them, wreaking havoc throughout Western Europe; that rejecting black hypocrisy was racist, and wanting a sealed southern border was xenophobic; that a doubled national debt and record joblessness was not a problem…
In response, Americans lied to pollsters, voted with their feet at political rallies – despite being attacked for their candidate preference – and gave themselves a decisive Electoral College victory for Donald Trump to claim on their behalf.
Trump’s election astounded House Speaker Paul Ryan:
And Paul Ryan was wrong. Donald Trump did not hear a voice in the country that no one else heard; after all, more than 60 million people voted for Trump. He chose to hear and voice the American people’s concerns, rather than share D.C. Republican values:
…the same values which betrayed the will of the electorate in both 2010 and 2014.
Obama even mocked the idea that the poeple’s choice would occupy the office they desired for him:
Nevertheless, after getting lying lips in 1988, an impeached president in 1996, Supreme Court confusion in 2000, and the no contests of 2008 & 2012, the America nation won a general election, and did so in the person of Donald J. Trump…
Mr. Obama might want to pick up that smartphone.
It is possible that the “No Christian should vote” movement, regarding either major party candidate in 2016 is primarily a social media phenomenon However, I have reviewed enough articles and had enough personal conversations to doubt that.
It is almost certain that anyone with even a remote church affiliation has heard the “ain’t neither of ’em godly” refrain, or the “I was supporting Cruz, but now that y’all rejected him…” mantra, or the “We don’t need to worry; God is in control” chant to justify not voting for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump next month.
Frankly, this is silly and one has to wonder, since very few who so speak are likely to do anything, between now and Thanksgiving, that is more significant about improving the state of the nation than step into a voting booth: what are these “faithful” folks thinking? While they may believe they are preparing the nation for a Holy Ghost “told you so”, after November 8th, they look more like the “sorry” kid no one picked for the sandlot game, who now wants to take his ball and bat and go home.
In other words, it seems like a power play…waged by those who in fact have no power. It is time for Christians to face facts.
The church in America is impotent in the nation’s public square, has been for more than a half century, supplanted by those who believe God should be absent from public policy discourse, those seeking “acceptable” homosexuality and other perversions, those who believe American compassion requires the surrender of American sovereignty, and those who desire unfettered slaughter of the nation’s next generation when they are most vulnerable. The American church is a marginal actor in American public life.
That the church should find itself so marginalized is odd for a few reasons, including:
Despite this, instead of reasserting the Christian perspective and leading the national narratives, the church stands on the national sidelines, wringing its hands over policies it will not uniformly nor effectively oppose, and railing against electoral choices that it doesn’t support, while rallying to no viable alternatives. So, America’s Christian church, instead of casting doctrine to all from the national stage, lobs rotten tomatoes from the nation’s peanut gallery at policies that offend its sensitivities and its God; the church has ceded its power to change anything, with little sign that it seeks to reclaim its leadership mantle.
If the church will not vote, and it is apparent that it lacks the temerity to take up arms, as it once did against an English king, as it did against slavery, as it did against segregation (though those weapons were not carnal), then what good is it? It is become the salt that has lost its savor, lacking the courage or power to protect the unborn from wanton slaughter, or its own ability to worship as it sees fit. Yet American Christians are unwilling to stand united against Hillary Clinton?
There is simply no courage, and therefore no spiritual power, in the American Christian church at large.
Had the 18th century church been dominated by the toothless, yapping chihuahua spirit of the modern American church, then the national anthem might yet be, ‘God Save the Queen’. Had the 19th century church been the same hand-wringing chatterboxes we see today, then chattel slavery would have ended via some man’s reversible whim, rather than by the cleansing and compelling dictate of shed blood. Had the 20th century church not overcome the double-minded among its ranks, then ‘separate but equal’ would still prevail in the land as a legal construct; however, church weakness, during that same century, resulted in the dismissal of God from the nation’s schools, and in the American womb being the place in which the overwhelming majority of the nation’s homicides occur. Yet, from that time to this, Christians in America yet claim access, both to God’s power and to His favor. However, such a claim by today’s church lacks the credibility to which the church of earlier times might be given.
For the church would NEVER sacrifice the American nation on an altar of ineffectual dictates and sanctimony, any more than it would withhold the gospel from a whoremonger or a corrupt financier. Yet this modern collection of the “faithful”, that claims relationship with God and His Christ in THIS country, often makes water seem like strong drink.
If the church today does not comprehend why the American nation, as described by its 240-year-old founding document, should be maintained, at virtually all cost, then it doesn’t…
If it cannot understand that Clinton should not, by any means, occupy the nation’s highest elected office, then it can’t…
But if it is now so lost in its understanding, to go along with its inability to shape the national conversation – when it was that very conversation regarding Christ which led to the nation’s founding – it has lost touch with the importance of this nation in the world and of the deep ties between America and the Christian God. Its members should renounce their U.S. citizenship and remove the ‘reserved’ sign from their seats in the pews: it is a waste that they should have either.
Fortunately, there is always room at the Cross, for new member of the faithful – those bolder in their Christianity, as well as in their Americanism.
A picture of America’s modern presidential campaign model. Candidates seek to:
Call it a “Divide, Destroy, then Cobble Together” strategy, a key feature of which is, no matter the general election result, the nominee has a reasonable answer for those offended by his campaign positions: “Compromise”.
Winners laud compromise positions, even dishonest ones, as a key to victory, reminding tweaked supporters that winning is more important than “getting everything our way”. Victory soothes wounded supporters with ignored interests, and winning serves to keep all party supporters in line for the next run.
Losers curse compromise positions for their defeat. Instead of cooling supporter anger, they flagellate themselves for not listening to their “base”, and pledge greater ideological purity in future campaigns if supporters will “hang in there” with them.
And, no matter which “compromise” justification they receive, voters return to their places and further segment themselves, with each group seeking golden tickets – which do not exist – for their political concerns at the next quadrennial kabuki dance.
Rinse and repeat…every four years.
“Divide, Destroy, then Cobble Together” trails only the National Football League in popularity, and is now so lucrative that partisan “journalists” enjoy a celebrity that eluded the Walter Cronkites and David Brinkleys, who earned respect by their unbiased – or at least less biased – reporting. It created television networks of highly paid talking heads, possessed of little to no journalistic ability or integrity, building their following and influence through with bias and air time. They, along with officeholders, candidates, and party officials work together to keep the nation divided and controlled by “conventional political wisdom”.
Consequently, parties and voters never quite align, making for increasingly dysfunctional federal governance. This creates greater political volatility, giving the talking heads more items about which to craft and apply their (in-) famous “talking points”. Government grows, individual liberties shrink, and almost everyone who helps Divide the nation, Destroy the nation, and then Cobble Together enough of the nation for an another round of division and destruction, manages to get paid.
Then the ground shifted. It began after the 2008 election.
A nation at war saw too little return on more than 7 years of blood and treasure invested abroad. Fiscal responsibility gave way to deficits, the resumption of unsustainable debt growth, and an economy in acute distress. Jobs were lost, homes foreclosed upon, and moneyed institutions that mismanaged funds received billions from the federal treasury. The nation needed a change.
And “Change” was promised, using the “Divide, Destroy, then Cobble Together” strategy. An unknown candidate told voters what they wanted to hear and, protectively cloaked in the historical significance of skin color, rode into the White House. Yet, this time, this president could not Cobble Together enough goodwill to compensate for the lies he did, and would, tell an already divided nation.
In its first midterm electoral opportunity, voters removed the president’s party from the majority in the House of Representatives, seeking balance. But the new majority were no more truthful than the president voters elected them to oppose; they failed to do the voters’ will. Then, in the next presidential election, “Divide, Destroy, then Cobble Together” gave voters a presidential challenger who varied from the distrusted president in little more than complexion; it failed to produce a distinction between presidential candidates that voters saw as a difference.
In the 2014 midterm election, despite the president successfully blaming his opposition for a government shutdown a year earlier, voters gave his opposition its largest House majority since the 1920’s and a Senate majority. Still, federal governance did not change. In fact, the more numerous the voters made the president’s opposition, the less they actually opposed the president. Another “change” was needed; GOP voters had exposed, and begun to reject, the “Divide, Destroy, then Cobble Together” strategy.
So, enter a man who fancied himself presidential material for decades and who, in 2011, polled ahead of the eventual 2012 GOP nominee, to seek a major party nomination. The practitioners and protectors of “Divide, Destroy, then Cobble Together” were incredulous. Among their assertions:
They were incorrect, and not just about the GOP race.
Before the Democrat primaries started, most gave socialist Bernie Sanders no chance to win Democrat nomination. Yet he’s won 19 of 45 primary contests, including 9 of the last 14. Now, the pundits appear befuddled about Sanders, as many Democrats reject Hillary Clinton; Democrat voters also exposed and rejected the “Divide, Destroy, then Cobble Together” strategy.
So, what took the finger of parties and pundits off the electorate’s pulse? Simply put, voters have a different heartbeat now, and stopped accepting the candidates that parties and pundits pushed upon them. So, a longtime Democrat party member cannot easily defeat a non-Democrat, and GOP voters reject GOP 8 governors (3 current), and GOP 5 Senators (4 current) to favor a real estate developer who’s never held public office. And the change impacts more than the current nominating campaign.
Since 2009, Democrats have hemorrhaged officeholders, at the federal (net 69 House, and 13 Senate, seats lost) and state (net 9 governor’s mansions lost, net 900+ state legislative seats, and 28 legislative majorities lost) levels. The nation is purging Democrats from power, and the party’s national footprint is shrinking.
Republicans undergo a different purge – a forced leadership change. Eric Cantor became the first sitting House Majority leader to lose a primary election; John Boehner the first House Speaker to resign because his party preferred him gone. Now Boehner’s successor wears the “sellout” label for his stances on immigration, trade, and the recent budget. He opposes voters, and an increasing number of party officeholders, by not supporting Trump, even as he faces a primary challenge at home. Ryan could go the way of Cantor.
Voter rejection of “Divide, Destroy, then Cobble Together” challenges both parties. Democrats face an existential threat; they must stop the bleeding. In addition to the Obama era losses, Democrats are switching parties during the primaries: 20,000 in Massachusetts, 60,000 in Virginia, smaller numbers in other states, and 1 in 5 Democrats say they would vote Trump in November. If they cannot revise their message, and especially if they fail in November, they risk marginalization and political insignificance.
The Republican challenge is simpler: they must either find the courage to complete their ideological purge, or yield to being a right-leaning national party with left-leaning D.C. leaders. If the leadership purge fails, the party will splinter, with each faction having less influence during the turmoil of transition.
However, should voters recognize how supportive the current major political parties are of the corruption that is the current federal government, they may decide not to take on party challenges, and instead #AlterOrAbolish the monster that resides on the Potomac River.
My “pen” is largely silent during the 2016 presidential campaign and I would prefer it remain so; few things distract more from, while doing less to meet, this nation’s challenges than the two-year kabuki dance of those seeking the presidency. However, something so brazenly foul now occurs that it compels me to comment.
Donald Trump’s tour de force, seeking a major presidential party nomination, is shocking…to everyone except Trump. When he opted out of the 2012 campaign, Trump declared:
I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and, ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half-heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.
Five years later, Trump looks prophetic, as he closes on the Republican Party Presidential Nomination. He also looks every bit the target, as the number, and intensity, of his critics mount, even as he succeeds.
This is no reference to Trump’s critics within the electorate; every presidential candidate has “enemy” voters. But Trump’s most ardent enemies are neither Republican voters nor Democrat…anyone. Rather, they are Republican elected officials and operatives who attack him publicly, personally, relentlessly, and almost as a matter of party honor. Some declare that a Trump presidency would destroy the party, and one of Trump’s rivals (at least temporarily) abandoned his effort either to win the nomination or to have a national political future by transforming his campaign into a kamikaze mission against the Donald.
However, even as some GOP’ers call for “All Hands on Deck” against Trump”, he is likely not their target at all…
For this differs from earlier “stop the outsider” efforts. Democrats acquiesced and welcomed “outsider” Jimmy Carter into their national fold – after determining no one could beat him – in 1976; Republicans similarly warmed to Ronald Reagan’s “inevitability”, four years later. However, resistance to Trump increases the closer he comes to the nomination, with major players openly declaring non-support of the party should Trump prevail.
The GOP has used their vaunted “deep bench” of “establishment-friendly” candidates, not as attackers of the opposition party, but as damsels tied to the tracks, hoping to derail the Trump Train. One should wonder why the GOP spends more time trying to change the mind of its base, than it spends countering the Democrat message.
And wonder also whose drug-induced state concocted this…
Romney’s curious “address” – neither to announce his own candidacy nor supporting another’s – is part of an anti-Trump effort that includes plans to block any Trump nomination at the party’s convention. Interestingly, John McCain is in on the plot, declaring Trump unfit for the presidency… And those who doubt the GOP establishment’s hand in this likely still believe they can keep their preferred health plan and doctor. Again, one should wonder why.
Those willing to consider more than the current election cycle may recognize that these recent antics are part of Republican Party behavior that, for (at least) the last 7 years, demonstrates, strikingly, the party’s disdainful view of, and resultant estrangement from, those who support its stated principles. Consider the following:
Romney’s Trump attack echoes Democrat Party attacks on Romney from four years ago, and Romney’s 2016 Trump condemnation is a 180° departure from his praise of the Donald in 2012:
Though the nation rejected these men, who kept the GOP from occupying the White House, the GOP welcomes, even encourages, their denigration of their current front-runner. Curious indeed.
• Marco Rubio’s only primary win occurred in liberal Minnesota; he appears unlikely to win the March 15 primary in his home state of Florida. Yet, the party supports him, though voters snubbed him in 24 of 25 contests. Again, curious indeed.
• And when Super Tuesday exit polling showed Trump the victor but not the desired nominee, the party did not challenge that cognitive dissonance by reminding the press, and others, that 9 of the 11 Super Tuesday states held open primaries in which non-Republicans could vote, that Democrats encouraged their members to take part in Republican primaries?
The party did not challenge characterizations of those exit polls as voter discontent, even as Republican voter turnout hit record levels, with high enthusiasm, as even more disrespectful of their voters than of their candidate field…because they are not willing to defend their voters…
Because the party is unhappy with them.
They are unhappy that voters, beginning with the 2010 election and in response to the Obama agenda, sent conservatives to Congress; that these conservatives are not “go along to get along” people and proved so unwilling to put party before principle that it drove John Boehner into retirement. They are unhappy that Virginia voters made Eric Cantor the first sitting House Majority Leader to ever lose a primary election. Unhappy that Kevin McCarthy’s tacit admission that establishment Republicans valued the Benghazi hearings more as a way to damage Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers than to show the truth about why four Americans died, ostensibly cost him the Speakership.
Washington, D.C. establishment Republicans are losing control of their voters, and they are unhappy about that. Unhappy about a trend, since the 2010 midterm elections, that sees voters increasingly imposing their will upon the politicians’ best-laid plans. Against this backdrop, Trump is not a problem for the GOP as much as he is symptomatic of the voter problem they already have.
Consequently, stopping Trump is not about Trump at all; it is about regaining control of their constituency – YOU. A constituency at odds with them over Obamacare, joblessness, illegal immigration, the homosexual agenda, taxes, and deficits/debt; a constituency that is close to recalling that D.C. has no power save that which they authorize. A constituency that has already felled trees within the establishment, and which must be corralled before they clear more dead wood from the nation’s capitol.
D.C. Republicans cannot regain voter control without a presidential candidate that the party establishment can control (this is why they find Rubio appealing). Trump owes them nothing and needs nothing from them; he is, inarguably, not a man given to another’s control. Should he partner with an increasingly uncontrolled voter base, then everything establishment Republicans have built for themselves, via the federal government, is at risk.
By the way, Democrats do not rest easy about the GOP turmoil. Non D.C. Republicans currently occupy 31 of the nation’s 50 governor’s mansions, and control 67 of its 99 state legislative bodies, both significant increases since Obama’s 2009 inauguration. If the D.C. Republicans cannot get their constituents back in line, and Democrat voters tire of seeing neither their party nor their views represented, then the elephants trumpeting against left-leaning D.C. Republicans will seem mild, compared to the mule kick the left could receive from disgruntled Democrats.
My late father was born and raised in New York City…
Over the course of 79 years, he became a military man, the husband of one woman for more than half a century, a baptized Catholic, the father of 3 and grandfather of 5, a decorated war veteran, a Southerner…and someone who, by choice, never again dwelled in New York City.
That is not to say that New York ever stopped being “home” to him. During my childhood, my parents would take us on alternating summer vacations; one year we would drive to New York and visit with my father’s family, and the next year we would drive to Oklahoma City for the Overton Family Reunion with my mother’s people.
I was always more excited to go to New York, and not because I liked my father’s family more. I could feel something different “in the air” every time we arrived, crossing the George Washington Bridge and traveling through the Lincoln Tunnel. The energy of that place is different, palpably so.
As I grew older, I adopted my father’s view; I remain fond of New York City, but I’ve not set foot there in nearly three decades. My father had New York values, for good or ill, and I imagine he might have been somewhat conflicted by this exchange from the last Republican presidential debate:
The conflict would not have been whether my father knew what those values were, as Senator Cruz indicated to a current New Yorker that she may not. Nor would it have involved Donald Trump’s defense of New Yorkers; my father would have concurred. The conflict would be between the values his hometown gave him, and the values it now makes most apparent to the world.
For Senator Cruz is correct: New York City is a “haven” for liberal elitists, who support abortion and homosexuality, who oppose individual gun ownership and the open practice of Christianity any place other than in churches, and anytime other than Sundays…and who see their values differently than other Americans see them. New York City conservatives, those that remain, hardly rule that roost and, judging by the 1999 interview Trump gave to Tim Russert, are more than a little bit influenced by the city’s predominant liberalism:
Stauncher conservatives may conclude that New York City is simply a nice place to be FROM.
Cruz is also correct in saying the Empire State has many good people who do not share liberal political values, but are no less governed by the liberals in Lower Manhattan, and in Albany. Unsurprisingly, those representing the city felt it appropriate to hit back at Senator Cruz, either indicating how its residents unite in taking offense at his remarks, or responding in more typical New York fashion…
For his part, Trump said some things that were true, and some things that only seem true, when speaking of New York’s response to the World Trade Center’s destruction.
Without controversy, they city’s response was amazing for its valor, its compassion, its demonstration of an indomitable spirit. It was indeed unique because of the city’s makeup, including the fact that only New York City HAD the World Trade Center, and the other resources that it could bring to bear because of its wealth, the size of its population, the fact it is a port city, etc. However, the basis of that response has nothing to do with the CITY’s values…
On a small island in Upper New York Bay in the Port of New York and New Jersey, a plaque, whose image appears below, resides on the inner wall of the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal:
Lady Liberty’s worldwide welcome, is to those coming to America, not simply to New York City. Given that an estimated 40% of Americans can trace their ancestry to someone who came through Ellis Island, neither all of the “huddled masses” nor all of their values remained in the Five Boroughs. The same bravery and resolve in the face of danger and uncertainty, the same compassion for the endangered neighbor and stranger alike, the same readiness to rebuild what others destroyed resides in every corner of the nation.
Consequently, those were not New York values shown on and after 9/11; those were AMERICAN values, albeit with a New York City accent. The same values were simultaneously on display at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and even more brilliantly displayed by those on Flight 93, who forced their hijacked airliner down in a field in Pennsylvania rather than allow themselves to be passengers on a death ride for other Americans.
I daresay that no matter what location in America had been attacked that day, the response would have been the same, according to American values in times of duress:
So far, those with a disdain for liberty have managed only to thinly cover those values with a politically correct veneer. When anyone cuts through that veneer, and especially when that cut draws blood from their fellow citizens, Americans remain willing to address the situation, those affected, and also those who caused harm, according to American values. But those values are being undermined…by the influence of government that is increasingly liberal/progressive…and that works to repair and thicken the veneer, so future cuts are less likely to yield an American values response.
When an illegal alien – with seven felony convictions and who had been deported five times previously – killed Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, using a gun (indirectly) supplied by the federal government, both the federal government and the criminal justice system acted contrary to American values. American values would do more to keep a foreign felon off the streets in this country. American values, upon discovering such a man, would act against him sooner, even dismantling the “sanctuary city” laws that allow American citizens to become prey. But American government values differ from those of the American people, whether through incompetence or through intent.
It is similar for the inner cities, where people of color die violently at rates normally reserved for combat zones. The same government “involvement” that frustrated American values by protecting and enabling Steinle’s killer, does more to maintain deadly environments in American cities than allow what is necessary to create more tolerable communities. Again, the government’s values differ from those of the people, and cover the people’s values so that only extreme and acute adversity might bring those values to the fore. Strangely, the carnage in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere fail to move the American people to action. While some consider it a race issue, it likely has more to do with elected officials telling everyone that they will – and that only they can – address it, and convincing killer and victim alike that their help should come from one or more government programs…
My father lived by his New York values – or rather the American values he learned growing up in New York City. He knew who he was, knew what his values were; no one could redefine them for him, tell him he did not understand them, or offer a defense of them to benefit a political agenda.
Unfortunately, there are a decreasing number of New Yorkers, or Americans, like my father…and an increasing number prepared to line up and vote for a government whose values increasingly differ from their own, no matter from where they hail, and who is very much interested in telling Americans what their values are.
The only surprise is…that anyone would be surprised.
A current Islamic objective is for Muslims to dwell throughout the world. The goal of Islam, from its founding, is Muslim supremacy wherever any follower of Mohammed may dwell. And quite a few Muslims dwell in France.
In 1967, France’s Muslim population reached 1,000,000 people. By 1994, the number had increased 200%, to 3 million, with accompanying assimilation “issues”. By 2010, that number had increased, by more than half, to 4.7 million, about 7.5% of France’s population; in Paris, Muslims were 15% of the city’s residents. This SHOULD not be a problem. Usually, it WOULD not be a problem. But Islam is most unusual.
By 2011, Muslims had established 751 “no-go zones” in France, that the French, especially women, were wise to avoid. The government knew of their existence, locations, and boundaries, yet would not alter its “diversity” policies to make those areas safe for all of France’s people. By 2013, other clashes between France’s secularism and Muslim tradition were apparent.
While France’s multiculturalism worked for Muslims, it became disastrous for France’s Jews. Though less than one percent of the French population, Jews were targets in 40% of French race crimes; in 2013, France led the world in the number of anti-Semitic attacks, with a number that had increased seven-fold since the 1990’s. The children of Israel got the message: by the time of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Jews were getting out of France.
Nevertheless, in September, French President Francois Hollande, acting in concert with Germany, proposed a “permanent and compulsory home mechanism in Europe” for Syrian refugees. Apparently, one of those for whom Hollande proposed a new home helped kill the more than 120 who already called France home. By the way, the Islamic State claims responsibility for the November 13 carnage. Between taking out Russian aircraft and attacking major cities, it seems Obama’s JV squad has broken “containment”.
Perhaps now is a good time for some reminders about this “religion of peace”.
Unlike the other major monotheistic world faiths, Islam has a thirst for conquest. While it is now unpopular to recall, the fact remains that the Christian Crusades were not preemptive attacks upon Islam, but rather responses to more than four centuries of Muslim violence against Christianity and Judaism in North Africa and Europe. Spain’s history with Islam is likely part of why it is not a preferred destination for today’s Syrian Muslim refugees, even as other Western European nations opened their arms.
More recently, they have been soundly defeated by Western forces, led by the United States, so long as America’s political leaders maintained their resolve. The Islamic State’s current apparent military prowess is less due to their ability and more to the unwillingness of Western powers, who are much stronger, to kill them.
Nevertheless, and likely in response to the lack of military success, Islam – which has in no way renounced its goal – developed an alternative attack plan, one that requires no conventional armies, but is no less lethal and humiliating to Islam’s enemies. The attack comes in stages:
• Stage 2: Consolidation of Power – Muslims (immigrants & host country converts) demand employment, educational, social services, and legal accommodations
• Stage 3: Open War with Host Culture – Employ violence to impose Sharia law, reject the host government, subjugate other religions and customs
• Stage 4: Totalitarian Islamic Theocracy – Islam assumes role as the sole religious-political-judicial-cultural ideology
Muslim conquest of France now seems well into Stage 3, with other Western European nations being just an explosion and/or shooting away from a similar circumstance. As for the United States, the current presidential administration seems intent on accelerating Islam’s attack stages in America. In parts of Michigan, only a lawsuit has kept cities like Dearborn from Stage 3.
Interestingly, the secularism that France has championed since 1905 is the very reason they now respond ineffectively to attacks upon its capital city twice this calendar year; it renders French society unable to defend itself, even more than other Western European nations. God’s removal from France removed the will to defend their sovereignty; instead of being a country of French people who welcome others to their culture, they are a people Muslims believe will bend to Islam.
Simply put, when a society has no God, even those whose beliefs are radical and wrong can infiltrate, overwhelm, and defeat them. Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Joann Sfar, in his reaction to the worldwide outpouring of prayers in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Paris, gives insight into how close France may be to total defeat:
It can be no more clear. There is no small number of French people who see no need for God at this, or any other, time. Faith has turned away from the immortal and eternal, and to things that can defend neither their lives nor their values against a determined adversary.
Therefore, the terrorist violence in France is likely not over. What is more, without God, the “merciless” response, promised by the French president, can only coarsen the French people, even as it emboldens their Islamic attackers.
…and, keep in mind, prominent “leaders”, whether in or seeking the Oval office, wish to remove American reliance upon God, even as they welcome, to this country, the same people who wreak havoc throughout Europe and elsewhere.
France is already at Stage 3. How long Americans will wait until they transform the fight, against their government, to worship God into a fight, against a sworn enemy, that they can only win with God.
The sixth time’s the charm…
Donald Trump, after threatening to do so five times previously, has finally stepped into American electoral politics, and at the game’s highest level. For the time being, he IS the show, the most popular man seeking the presidency, some 14 months before the election.
Those most severely “Trump-ed”, to date, are political pundits and the media. First, they scoffed at the idea that he WOULD run – understandable, given the previous five false starts…but then he did. They then went to openly predicting that he would pull out of the race, before one voter has opportunity to indicate their preference…well, he still could, but shows no signs of doing so. Recently, they have simply stated that Trump will not win.
Of course, at this juncture, that is a safe bet to make against any candidate – Democrat, Republican, or other – making it against Trump is no more authoritative than making it against Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton; everybody has their own campaign struggles. However, instead of trying to get the press to hedge their bets against him, Trump seems intent on making them double down.
Ironically, while others seek to gain allies in the press so they might get more attention – and a few more polling percentage points – Trump openly makes enemies of press members and laps the field, defying their conventional wisdom.
Conventional wisdom says Trump’s unrepentant criticism of illegal immigration and opposition to “birthright citizenship” will kill support among Hispanic voters. But Trump leads his Spanish-speaking and Hispanic-surnamed rivals; in at least one state, it’s not close.
Conventional wisdom says Trump is too misogynistic to draw female support; sources even surfaced an allegation that Trump raped his former wife. Besides, isn’t Hillary Clinton a shoo-in with women? However, Trump’s ex-wife publicly called the rape allegation merit-less, and women are taking a hard, and apparently more favorable, look at “The Donald”, while Clinton now falters among those who look most like her.
Conventional wisdom, in 2011, said that Trump’s myriad business failures undermined his “successful businessman” claim, thereby nullifying his only qualification for the nation’s highest elected office. However, four years of “Trump doin’ Trump” later, even his critics acknowledge Trump’s business successes along with his failures.
So, conventional wisdom says a rich, bombastic blowhard, with no political experience, like Donald Trump, should fade under campaign scrutiny, especially given his considerable baggage…
But he hasn’t…so far…despite the predictions, and to the horror, of the conventionally wise, who see many of his comments as falling outside the bounds of the “usual political discourse”, and many of his actions as running counter to the “normal political process”.
The press and the pundits just can’t seem to figure out the Trump phenomenon, though part of the reason should be intuitively obvious to the “establishment” GOP observer…
Simply put, Donald Trump is an American man:
In the last 55 years, only two such American men sought the Oval Office. One was John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who said during a 1962 speech at Rice University:
But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal?
And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic?
Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
The other was Ronald Wilson Reagan, who in 1961, said the following:
These are the themes and the words that Americans long to hear: of their ability, of their opportunity, to challenge them to exceptionalism. That is what they hear when Trump says he intends to “Make America Great Again”. To be sure, Trump does not deliver the message with the same power and urgency. But it is the same spirit – of seeing a problem, issuing a challenge, and saying America and her people can rise to it – that appears in Trump’s words, that peaks out from behind his arrogance, that shines through despite the bluster.
Trump tells America that it can take on the world and win. He does so with brashness, without apology, and without concern for naysayers. He is as the Quarterback who swaggers onto the field – down 6 points, 90 seconds left in the game, on his own 1-yard line, no timeout to call – and tells everyone in the huddle, “Let’s go win this thing”.
By comparison, Trump’s rivals, the press, and the political pundits are as trainers on the sideline, who simply hope the team leaves the field “healthy”, having already accepted the likelihood of defeat. They do not understand that the American spirit and ethic:
Trump’s appeal is not that he is uniquely qualified to quarterback the American team; he may not be. He is not the best speaker. He is not the most politically skilled. He is far from the most diplomatic. However, he seems the only one in the race who recognizes that no one is playing the quarterback position; Trumo is willing to step into the huddle, and call plays. For that reason, he is, so far, almost bulletproof: when you remind a great people that they are great, then they will hear and support your message.
And, as long as Trump continues in that vein, every little thing he does will be magic to the American people.
Arthur Robert Ashe, Jr., was a black man, of the 1960’s and 1970’s, who excelled in athletics and had a mind for other important pursuits. Like Curt Flood, who challenged Major League Baseball’s Reserve Clause as unfair to players; like Jim Brown, who retired from the NFL – at his peak – rather than allow the Cleveland Browns to dictate to him. Others included Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Bill Russell. These were passionate sportsmen, but each knew where sports ended and dignity began.
A little more about Arthur Ashe…
Born July 10, 1943 in Richmond, Virginia, to married parents. His mother died in 1950. His father raised his children with strict discipline. Ashe and his younger brother attended church every Sunday. Their father timed the walk from school, and Ashe had 12 minutes to get home after the last bell. Mindful of his son’s slight build, the elder Ashe forbade his son to play football.
Ashe began playing tennis at age 7, first mentored by Richmond’s best black tennis player, then by another black man who coached Althea Gibson. When segregation in Richmond limited his competitive options, he spent his senior year of high school living with the family of another black man in St. Louis, who coached him as well. In response, Ashe became the first black to win the National Junior Indoor Championship in 1962.
Arthur Ashe received a tennis scholarship to UCLA, and was the first black ever selected for the U.S. Davis Cup Team, in 1963. He won the U.S. Amateur and U.S. Open Championships in 1968 (ranked Number 1 in the world during that year), the Australian Open in 1970, and Wimbledon in 1975 – also black American firsts.
Ashe, with Charlie Pasarell and Sheridan Snyder, founded the National Junior Tennis League in 1969, a program offering tennis opportunities to economically disadvantaged youngsters. It was the first organized tennis program in which Venus and Serena Williams participated.
A heart attack, and quadruple heart bypass surgery, in 1979 forced his retirement the next year; he had another bypass procedure in 1983. In 1988, Ashe had an emergency brain surgical procedure and published a three-volume history of black American athletes, A Hard Road to Glory. A blood transfusion, during the second heart procedure, infected Ashe with HIV; he died of AIDS-related pneumonia in 1993, spending the last year of his life raising awareness, and funding, to combat the disease.
Arthur Robert Ashe, Jr., the product of a black nuclear family, was building his own when he died. He was a great athlete who never caught a break. Rather, helped by other black men in his early years (including his father), he created them. He was an honorable man, made great by doing good, including excellence in his chosen field. And he responded to the misfortune of a fatal infection by fighting for others. He was, and remains, a legacy in which blacks can take pride…and one which they should defend.
Watching Abby Wambach and Bruce Jenner make that legacy a blank canvas onto which they painted the homosexual agenda – describing their “community” in sympathetic terms, and grabbing attention to help “mainstream” their “choices” – as “courageous” was distressing, and not just to Brett Favre (see video below, at @ 2:15 in)…
The ESPN/Wambach/Jenner performance was not racist; it was worse than that. In just over 13 minutes, and on an international stage:
• It gave U.S. combat troops the side-eye, overlooking a veteran who had lost limbs but not his passion for sport, and
• It dismissed the fearlessness of a female college athlete, whose terminal cancer claimed her life, but not her competitive spirit.
Instead of acknowledging sports relevant example of courage, ESPN gave the award to someone whose last sports involvement precedes the birthdates of their target audience. All while standing on the grave of a black man whose courage, character content – and myriad accomplishments – made his skin color an asset, at a time when it was a liability for many others. The black response to this blatant legacy hijacking…
Despite Wambach’s assertions to the contrary, the award was all about Jenner. He actively campaigned for this award. His team approached ESPN about it to promote his upcoming TV show and, when negotiations faltered, threatened canceling an interview with Diane Sawyer (see video, at @ 2:10). The result was a “win-win-win”: Jenner “won” publicity for his media efforts, ABC “won” a major news story, and ESPN “won” another political correctness opportunity.
(By the way, the Walt Disney Company, itself increasingly sympathetic to the homosexual agenda, owns ESPN and ABC.)
The only losers were America’s blacks, who ESPN publicly pimped and, apparently, are too focused on irrelevant flags and monuments, churches burned by phantom racists (like lightning and poor electrical wiring), and seeking “justice” FOR every questionable (or worse) character the police encounter – while requiring no justice FROM them – to care what the presentation sought to take from them.
Blacks resisted efforts to use Rosa Parks’ legacy to promote the homosexual agenda, and Martin Luther King’s daughter is on record declaring that her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage”. At least for now, those legacies remain valuable to blacks.
But Arthur Ashe, a black man who rose to the pinnacle into an internationally white-dominated sport, winning the hearts and minds of people the world over, by dint of effort and class, his legacy – as black as black excellence CAN be – is abandoned to a re-definition of courage shown in, or through, sports to mean standing up for one’s bedfellow choice or being openly confused about one’s gender?
That every black athlete did not stand up and walk out of the ESPY’s speaks volumes about today’s black American athletes. That not one of them did speaks even more loudly. To be fair, had Jenner worn a Confederate flag, and received the award atop Georgia’s Stone Mountain, then black NBA players might have reacted like this:
As it was, they clapped politely at the public denigration of a legacy that helped make them both prosperous and popular.
This lack of black pride and principle is astonishing. Peter Berg, no one’s black man, at least attempted outrage, before the PC police got to the Friday Night Lights producer. But black athletes today seem more willing to make acceptable “protests” than principled statements, more concerned with being PC than with legacy. That attitude seems shared by many, if not most, blacks.
So, what are blacks about?
Is it taboo to disrespect black criminals, but acceptable to piss on the legacy of a black sports legend? Are we more committed to attacking symbols that we say we hate, be they flags, rocks, or 150-year-old military corpses, than to protecting the legacy of those who deserve love for what they showed of “blackness”?
Disney challenged American black self-respect and, so far, that challenge goes unanswered; perhaps all accept that homosexuals are more politically relevant than blacks today. After all:
• So say the schools, which promote homosexuality with a fervor not shown for black concerns,
• So says the president, who violated his oath of office by not defending traditional marriage, as law requires (though blacks support traditional marriage), and further disregarded the views of blacks by “re-lighting” the White House after the recent Supreme Court Decision on homosexual marriage:
So, the “black” president disregards blacks; now a major corporation follows suit. Both have done so on an international stage. A relevant people does not take such treatment lightly. So, the question is, “Are blacks yet relevant, or has Political Correctness finally claimed its first ethnic group victim in the U.S.?
The U.S. and Iran – along with China, France, Russia, the U.K., and Germany – reached an “agreement” regarding the Iranian Nuclear Program. For Iran, the agreement is as historic as it is beneficial. By simply signing the document, Iran receives:
• Relief – with Russian and Chinese support, and over the objections of the outgoing Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff – from the arms embargo that currently keeps Iran from being even more powerful in the region, and
• Virtually no restrictions on its nuclear program after 15 years.
More money, more weapons and, in just a little while, no hindrances. In addition, Iran has already taken over four governments, while negotiating the nuclear treaty with Obama; their imperial intentions in the region are widely known. Since Obama took no strong action opposing Tehran’s ambitions, while negotiating a weak nuclear agreement with them, the U.S. also cedes control of the Middle East to Iran.
As Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, said in a televised address, after the agreement’s announcement, “the prayers of Iranians had ‘come true'”.
For their part, the U.S. and its allies receive…well, that is hard to say.
How weak is the agreement that the U.S. president insists be implemented? Let’s talk assurances… Obama insists that the limiting aspects, on Iran, of the agreement are not matters of trust, but matters of verification:
So, why did no one first verify that Iran yet complied with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) it signed in 1968? Iran is currently nuclear weapon capable, an NPT violation so obvious that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wrote an Op-Ed piece to say how important a new agreement would be to ensuring Iran had not violated, or would not continue to violate, the old NPT.
(When you need a new agreement simply to verify compliance with an earlier agreement…odds are there will never be either compliance or agreement.)
And the president chose not to mention that, under this new agreement, Iran can challenge inspection access requests – for as long as 24 days – and deny inspectors access to any military facilities inside the country. So, Iran can delay any U.N. inspection, long enough for them to move anything suspicious to a facility where inspections are not allowed. So, unless you can trust Iran to allow the U.N. and Western powers to verify their compliance, there will be no verification…and who trusts Iran?
The U.S. did not gain international prestige with the deal. Arab commentators supported Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s position when he addressed a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress in March 2015; Netanyahu has called the agreement an “historic mistake”. The Arab heads of state who snubbed Obama back in May 2015 in response to the Iran deal framework, are not praising today’s “done deal”. Even the Europeans, who generally laud the deal have reservations; Marietje Schaake, a Dutch MEP from the ALDE group, warned that Iran had largely contributed to the current civil war in Syria by strengthening the government in Damascus and militia on the ground, and “must now choose to be part of the solution and the end of the war instead.”
Neither did the U.S. gain any credible deterrent to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, should Tehran not wish to wait 15 years for an all-clear. Neither the sanctions that continue to lift, nor the arms embargo now set to fade, prevented Iran from pursuing its nuclear program or destabilizing one government after another in the region before…what is different now?
Nor did the U.S. gain the freedom of its four citizens being held or tortured by the Iranian government. So, Obama missed a chance to change his image from being the American president who leaves American citizens behind – whether in Iran, in Benghazi, in Yemen, in Mexico…
Again, what did anyone, not named Iran, receive from this agreement?
The president indicates that alternatives to this deal are either continuing Iran’s nuclear program, or war. Those are disingenuous alternatives. Regarding Iran’s nuclear program, it continues unabated since its 1982 post-Islamic Revolution restart, and this agreement lets Iran hide any portion of it that they wish to conceal. War is an option manufactured by this president, to garner support for talks with Iran: Obama undermined what could have forced Iran to capitulate by consistently relieving sanctions on Iran, since June 2013. Iran was not forced to the table; Obama removed viable alternative paths for the U.S.
So, the president dismantled what could have, without negotiation, ended Iran’s nuclear program, thereby ensuring negotiations with Iran on how to continue their nuclear program. How does that scenario benefit the U.S.? Why would anyone believe a deal, emerging from that scenario, is good for the United States of America? Now Congress has 60 days to review what took nearly two years to craft, under threat of veto if they do not rubber-stamp it.
Obama says, “no agreement means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.” But there are numerous wars in the region and this agreement impacts none of them. To say it keeps the U.S. out of new Middle East wars is specious; will the U.S. defend Israel or another ally only if they suffer nuclear attack? How many nuclear weapons did Iran use to co-opt Yemen, Syria, or Iraq? The agreement does nothing to reduce the likelihood of future U.S. military involvement in that area of the world; it does not impact even our current military presence, else the troops recently deployed to fight Islamic State would come home, now that the Iranian nuclear deal is complete.
America is not war-weary, as you suppose; she is weary of “leaders” who spend the precious capital of her sons’ blood pursuing questionable goals. For those who consider Bush guilty of this sin, they should note nearly 4 times as many military members died in Afghanistan under Obama than under his predecessor.
This agreement does not prevent war as much as it sets a future date for it, giving the enemy time to grow stronger, both militarily and financially – increasing the likelihood of an American defeat.
The America that was a great nation, seeing that threat, might already bear a bloodied sword. If she remained “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people”, then Iran would know her displeasure, likely by direct means. As it is, the “fundamental transformation” of America is almost complete, and “a people of the government, by the government, and for the government” have lost, not only the will to fight, but also the ability to know a bad deal when it’s about to kill them.
What if I told you there was a single political affiliation:
Is that conceivable, seeing that Americans seem more “divided” now than at any time since the Civil Rights Era, or World War I, or even the Civil War? Not only is it conceivable, it has dominated U.S. politics over the last half-century, and promises to stay influential for generations to come. What is this affiliation?
This writer calls it, “Nigg-mo-can”, a political ideology and affiliation based on the current answer to a nation-old question: “What shall we do with the Negro?” Interestingly, its varied adherents – black, white, Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. rarely agree, on anything; however, since 1964, they are united in their response to that ancient query.
The young nation’s first response to that question came while determining how best to divide influence in the National Legislature among the States:
— United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3
By the Constitution’s drafting in 1787, American slavery had a decidedly black face. So, why did the Founders not simply end the above passage, “three fifths of all Negros”? Because there were also white (especially Irish), partly white, and Indian slaves. The word “Persons” accounted for the mix of people in bondage at that time. The Constitution addressed slavery as a class problem – which it was; the race angle was not a primary governance issue.
Nevertheless, when the Civil War ended slavery in the U.S., a leading question of the day was what to do with those newly freed. Regarding blacks, Frederick Douglass, himself a former slave, offered this compelling response in 1865:
I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!
If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone, your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks’ “preparation” is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. Let him live or die by that.
Not surprisingly, a beaten, but unbowed, South chose not to “do nothing” with its former black chattel. After readmission to the Union, white Democrats not only overturned black political advances in South Carolina and elsewhere; they worked to disenfranchise blacks and, by the early 20th century, virtually eliminated their electoral possibilities.
Yet, blacks demonstrated that the vote is not the “be-all and end-all” of political power. By 1900, some 30,000 trained black teachers were working in the South, and most blacks were literate. In 1909, the National Negro Committee, the precursor to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, formed. In 1926, Carter G. Woodson launched Negro History Week, the forerunner to Black History Month. The Army formed the Tuskegee Airmen in 1941. 1955 launched the 386-day Montgomery Bus Boycott. These are a few of the significant accomplishments blacks made in pursuit of their rights as citizens, despite strong opposition…and without the vote. Those successes did not go unnoticed by Lyndon Baines Johnson, who came to Washington, D.C., in 1937 as a Congressman from Texas and, in 1955, began his second Senate term.
Johnson spent his first 20 years in Washington, D. C., opposing all federal civil rights legislation…then, as president, morphed into a Civil Rights champion…
Politicians who make 180⁰ position changes rarely do so for reasons they give the public. So, while it is possible Lyndon Johnson repented of his segregationist stance, it is also (more) likely Johnson, watching the building black momentum, changed, not his position, but his tactics, deciding, “If you can’t beat ’em, cheat ’em”. In his 2013 book, Inside the White House, Ronald Kessler quotes then-president Johnson:
In 1964, Johnson announced his intent to visit, upon blacks, the very “mischief” and “positive injury” Frederick Douglass implored the nation to avoid, during the State of the Union address:
Johnson followed the War on Poverty declaration with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson also issued Executive Order 11246 in 1965, establishing “Affirmative Action” throughout the federal government’s Executive Branch. These are hailed among the greatest civil rights accomplishments in U.S. History…and it was a political master stroke.
In the space of four years, Johnson gave blacks Civil Rights “victories” that killed the momentum of their Civil Rights movement; by the end of the 1960’s, black civil rights was less about the societal changes which lifted all blacks, and more about the individual accomplishments of a few, of which all blacks could be proud…while changing nothing. So, Lyndon Johnson gave those “uppity” Negroes “a little something”, that proved “not enough to make a difference”.
Some dispute that, pointing out the benefit of securing the vote. Yes, but whom did the black vote benefit? Kessler offers this Lyndon Johnson quote, spoken to two governors aboard Air Force One, “I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Fifty years later, Johnson’s words have Bible-prophet accuracy; blacks have given at least 74% of their votes to the Democrat Party since 1964, and are not 50 years better served for that loyalty.
Lyndon Johnson implemented the policies which make up the Nigg-mo-can response to the question, “What shall we do with the Negro?” By those policies, one can ascertain their beliefs:
• Nigg-mo-cans believe blacks deserve “a little something”, like voting laws, which quiet them down by duping blacks into believing political power comes from ballot boxes – that others count – instead of united communities, accountable among themselves, actively pursuing their interests. They persist in telling blacks that the vote matters, despite a failed Detroit, an impotent and irrelevant Congressional Black Caucus, and an unhelpful Barack Obama.
• Nigg-mo-cans believe blacks deserve “a little something”, like civil rights and Affirmative Action laws, which quiet them down with assurances that others will not receive greater consideration than do they. Yet what difference do civil rights make, when that for which America’s blacks suffered are easily claimed by hispanics, homosexuals, and others, who neither waited as long, nor shed as much blood, to secure them? What difference Affirmative Action, the greatest beneficiary of which is white women, and which has actually worked against minorities in important situations.
Nigg-mo-cans believe, as did Lyndon Johnson, in giving blacks “a little something”. Unfortunately, few of them acknowledge it was never intended to make a difference. Seduced by the “compassion” of giving (what belongs to others), and of setting things right for blacks (by inflicting the wrongs done to blacks upon others), they intentionally blind themselves to the mischief they play with blacks, and the positive injury they cause. At their core, they either do not wish for blacks to stand unaided…or fear what blacks might accomplish without “help”. This perspective will guide their response to the question, “What shall we do with the Negro?”, until blacks either confront them, or the positive injuries become fatal.
In either case, the Nigg-mo-cans will then take their ideology and focus it on their next target people, re-branding themselves as the Hisp-mo-cans.