LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Almost Paris-“tine”…and Headed Our Way

Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: November 15, 2015

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjuGqC5kZHs[/youtube]

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”.

Victims lay on the pavement outside a Paris restaurant, Friday, Nov. 13, 2015.  Police officials in France on Friday report multiple terror incidents, leaving many dead.  It was unclear at this stage if the events are linked. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)
Victims lay on the pavement outside a Paris restaurant, Friday, Nov. 13, 2015. Police officials in France on Friday report multiple terror incidents, leaving many dead. It was unclear at this stage if the events are linked. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

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.

Despite ancient military successes, Muslims did not fare well in modern conventional military operations against infidels. Israel mopped them up in 1948, 1967, and 1973 despite being outnumbered.

Israel Rolls Tanks in 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
Israel Rolls Tanks in 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

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.

Iraqi Soldiers Surrender to U.S.-led Coalition Forces
Iraqi Soldiers Surrender to U.S.-led Coalition Forces

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 1: Infiltration – Muslims move to non-Muslim countries in large numbers, and initiate visible, though often subtle, cultural conflicts

    Stage 2: Consolidation of Power – Muslims (immigrants & host country converts) demand employment, educational, social services, and legal accommodations

    Stage 3: Open War with Host CultureEmploy 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:

Charlie Hebdo

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 “Nigg-mo-cans”

What if I told you there was a single political affiliation:

    • Whose adherents represent every U.S. political party as well as independents,
    • Which successfully courts conservatives, liberals/progressives, and moderates,
    • That overcomes all color and ethnicity barriers,
    • That bridges social and economic divides,
    • That ignores differences in education and intellect,
    • That has operated since the 1960’s, with its origins in the nation’s earliest governance, and,
    • Though it impacts all U.S. politics, most Americans have neither name nor label for it…

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:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    — 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:

    What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?”

    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:

    “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

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:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx8BMnteNfw[/youtube]

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 the “benevolence” of unearned money; enough to quiet them down (in subsistence), not enough to make a(n economic achievement) difference. White Nigg-mo-cans seem to vote for dispensing these funds so they can either level, or avoid, a racism accusation. Dancing around the “racist” label allows whites, of all political stripes, to unite under the Nigg-mo-cans banner. For their part, black Nigg-mo-cans support nearly every conceivable government program for blacks as “payment for the struggle”. No Nigg-mo-cans, black or white, confront the black family devastation wrought by government programs, though they recognized the damaging links as early as 1965.

    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.

Did We Trade a Positive Negro Week for a Negative Black Month?

In 1926, historian Dr. Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History he co-founded declared the second week of February – which included the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass – Negro History Week, with a straightforward purpose: encourage the coordinated teaching of American Negro history in America’s public schools. Woodson stated why the endeavor mattered:

    “If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated. The American Indian left no continuous record. He did not appreciate the value of tradition; and where is he today? The Hebrew keenly appreciated the value of tradition, as is attested by the Bible itself. In spite of worldwide persecution, therefore, he is a great factor in our civilization.”

The inaugural observance garnered limited support – the states of Delaware, North Carolina, and West Virginia, and the cities of Baltimore and Washington, D.C. However, by 1929, Dr. Woodson reported that all but two states “with considerable Negro population had made the event known to that state’s teachers and distributed official literature associated with the event.” The black church and press worked to help Negro History Week grow in popularity over the following decades. The annual rehearsing of positive black contributions to American history gave a factual foundation for black “radicals” and white “progressives” (then a more constructive force for black interests) pursuing the remarkable black civil rights gains of the twentieth century.

In 1969, black students at Kent State University proposed expanding Negro – now Black – History Week to all of February, and celebrated the first Black History Month on their campus a year later. In 1976, Black History Month “went national” as part of America’s bicentennial celebration. Yet Black History Month was not was not a government concession to black people. Instead, the Black History Movement was a gift from blacks – though politically “weak” and largely disenfranchised – to America.

Yet blacks now seem to trade the pride their gift provided in favor of petty concerns about when or how others remember it.

Negro History Week’s launch was not to create a special time of black remembrance, but to accurately present the accomplishments of America’s blacks for inclusion into the national pantheon of remembered deeds. Indeed, when Dr. Woodson said:

    “Those who have no record of what their forebears have accomplished lose the inspiration which comes from the teaching of biography and history.”

the statement crossed color lines, as blacks are no less American than other U.S. citizens. However, instead of continuing the Black History Movement to further wed the Black Experience to the American Experiment, many now use that the annual focus on black history to drive wedges between Americans, on the basis of race.

One wedge is that of negative information. Every February, instead of extolling the contributions of Frederick Douglass, Harriett Tubman, John Hanson, or others to promote American black achievements, many blacks choose to rehearse the ugly past, with images:

Picture2

or accounts of Tulsa, 1921, Thibodaux, 1887, Chicago, 1919, Emmett Till, or George Stinney and admonish other blacks to “Never Forget”.

Dr. Woodson knew blacks suffered atrocities; they preceded the launch of Negro History Week, and continued as it grew. Woodson also knew those events neither represented black accomplishment nor elevated black people. For blacks to overcome the atrocities, Woodson understood that stressing what the Negro had done for America, mattered more than focusing on what some, even many, in America had done to him.

Another wedge is that of inaccuracy. Some black “accomplishments” are more mythological than historical. Two such myths involve Dr. Charles Richard Drew. First, many credit Drew with discovering that plasma could be separated from whole blood and stored; he did not, and neither Drew, nor his colleagues, ever made such claims. Drew’s accomplishments, which include supervising programs to ship plasma to British and American soldiers, establishing uniform procedures for mass blood collection and plasma processing, and being the first American black to earn a Doctor of Science in Medicine degree, are impressive without embellishment; they simply do not include those medical science breakthroughs.

The second Drew myth says that he died, following a traffic accident, because a white hospital refused him a blood transfusion. However, a passenger reported that everyone in the car, including Drew, were treated immediately and, due to the severity of Drew’s injuries, a blood transfusion might have killed him sooner.

Another set of myths surround the Tuskegee Airmen, of World War II fame, including:

    • They never lost a bomber under escort,
    • They were the first to shoot down a German jet fighter, and
    • That Tuskegee Airmen units were all black

these, and other assertions, though featured in the 2012 movie “Red Tails” are simply not true, according to documents maintained by Tuskegee University.

Other statements of black accomplishments are simply false, including claims that blacks invented the traffic signal, the gas mask, the air conditioner, etc.

Dr. Woodson worked to address the “lack of accurate written history about the experiences and contributions of Americans of African descent”; America’s historical record, being incomplete, was also inaccurate. A capable historian understands the importance of accuracy; inaccuracy destroys an historian’s credibility, and lessens interest in the subjects of his study. Had Woodson attempted to foist embellished or false stories about blacks upon the American nation, Negro History Week would have “died in the womb”, taking national regard for blacks – not high at the time – to even lower levels.

Negro History Week owed its launch and success to dual loves – of black Americans and of the American nation – which elevated both of those beloveds. That love is increasingly replaced with open animosity toward the nation and her white people. Positive images and accounts of past black contributions are replaced with images and accounts of an horrific past that the nation shed both tears and blood to put behind her. Exaggerations and falsehoods diminish the witness of truthful recollections of heroic black accomplishments.

What a learned man of color gave to unite and elevate his people and nation, others, primarily of the same color, now pervert to the detriment of the same. Black History Month needs to return to its origins when it was celebrated as Negro History Week or, soon, it may not be worth celebrating at all.

Before an “Intervention” is Needed, We Should Act

Before harming oneself, mental instability or hopelessness compromises a person’s judgment. Before a person so compromised seeks to harm someone else, he links that someone else, rightly or wrongly, with the fact, or reason, that his mind or hope is gone. Such a person is “off”, both in his outlook and demeanor…and ripe for an “intervention”.

Black Americans increasingly have the outlook and demeanor of someone who is “off” (note the person seated second from the right):

BlackBrunch

The black female pictured is part of the “Black Brunch Civil Rights movement”, which confronts white restaurant patrons over the issue of police brutality, chanting and disrupting the patrons’ dining experience. Organizers claim inspiration from the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1950’s and 1960’s:

Woolworth

However, the pictures show differences between the movement of today and the one a half century ago, which include:

• The 1963 protesters confronted people who infringed their liberty; The 2015 protesters infringe the liberty of people they confront,
• The 1963 protesters knew someone would harm them; the 2015 protesters have no such concerns, and
• The 2015 protesters exclude whites from their ranks; as for the 1963 protesters…look at the picture.

Both protester groups acted on behalf of all blacks, going on the offensive against overwhelming odds. The 1963 protesters confronted unjust people, with a noble grace that attracted others to their cause; the 2015 protesters confront only white people, with an abrasive disrespect that calls their cause into question. While the 1963 lunch counter sit-in made blacks look principled, the 2015 “Black Brunch” makes blacks look mentally unstable, like someone staring blankly at strangers in a restaurant.

Adding to the mentally unstable look is the questionable premise of the “Black Brunch”, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”, and the “I Can’t Breathe” protests, across the U.S. and elsewhere: increasing U.S. police brutality.

The U.S. Attorney General says there is inadequate facts to show an increase in police use of force. Indeed, the federal government:

    • In 2011, reported 62.9 million police contacts with the public. Of the 26.4 million traffic stops included among those contacts, 1.5% involved threat or use of force,
    • In 2008, reported that about 1.4% of the 40 million police contacts with the public involved threat or use of force,
    • In 2005, reported that less than 1.6% of the 43.5 million police contacts with the public involved threat or use of force,
    • In 2002, reported that about 1.5% of the 45.3 million police contacts with the public involved threat or use of force, and
    • In 1999, reported that 1% of the 43.8 million police contacts with the public involved threat or use of force.

Interestingly, one group claimed 313 extrajudicial killings of blacks in 2012, or “one black every 28 hours”, by the police…and by security guards…and by vigilantes…and by whomever else came to mind. They later acknowledged 136 unarmed blacks killed that year, a number in line with the government’s reported average of 133 blacks killed annually by police between 2003 and 2009.

So, police use of force is neither rising nor statistically problematic; anecdotes, not data, drive the narrative of (white) cops hunting black people.

Nevertheless, disruptive protests occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, Boston, Oakland, Durham, San Francisco, New York, and elsewhere, all under the hashtag of: “#BlackLivesMatter”.

People who found movements on false assertions are dishonest, unstable, or both. Using an unobjectionable hashtag to cover their dishonesty is their attempt to infect people an ideology, not to inform them with truth. And it is working, as many have embraced the hashtag and ignore the real message, which is “Blacks (don’t believe their) Lives Matter (enough)”.

Consider crime and population data. Whites outnumber blacks nearly 6 to 1 in America. Nevertheless, in 2013:

    Blacks committed 2,698 single victim/offender murders, just 57 fewer than committed by all those white people,
    More homicide victims were black than white,
    • Blacks killed more than 90% of black murder victims, and
    • Blacks murdered more than twice as many whites as whites murdered blacks.

These data suggest that not only #BlackLivesMatter, but #AllLivesMatter…more to whites than blacks. If only the harm stopped with crimes…

A people who treats its next generation as optional or disposable is dying, willing neither to sacrifice nor prepare for the future; they seek today’s pleasure, and see tomorrow as without hope. Such was the Russian people’s outlook from 1991 to 2005, when they annually killed more children in the womb than they bore alive. America’s blacks display a similar outlook.

In 2010, black women, only 14% of U.S. females, accounted for 41% of America’s 1.15 million abortions, transferring more than 470,000 black children directly from the womb to the tomb. Black women have the highest abortion rates in America and, in some places, more black children die in the womb than emerge from it. Unfortunately, there is more…

Blacks have legitimate concerns about “Mass Incarceration”. The U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration rate, blacks were 36% of inmates in 2013, and some estimate 1 in 3 black men will go to prison in their lifetime.

However, concern over black “Mass Incarceration” ignores who actually puts blacks behind bars. Many fault a “racist judicial system”; this is mostly anecdotal griping, subject to rebuttal. The statistics on crime and victimization, taken together, do not support a racial bias. The data suggest, not that whites commit crimes for which blacks “take the fall”, not that “phantom crimes” result in blacks going to jail – but that black crime victims turn black criminal perpetrators over to the “racist” judicial system, in numbers that align with black-on-black crime. The resultant prosecutions, convictions, and incarcerations are (and should be) the normal consequences of blacks “dropping a dime” on those who harm them. Yet the complaints continue.

When people complain about what occurs – when it is what should occur – even though they make it occur…someone might question whether those are rational people.

And non-blacks are taking note. Not very long ago, a white man commented on his observations of black people:

    “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

    “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Cliven Bundy is hardly anyone’s perfect sociologist, but if what is amiss with blacks is obvious enough that he can spot it, then it should be obvious enough for blacks to address.

Blacks…we…protest harm brought upon us, then challenge those who’ve done no harm…
Blacks…we…decry violence done to us by others, though we do more to others, and to ourselves…
Blacks…we…say our lives matter, but relentlessly murder ourselves, inside and outside the womb…
Blacks…we…complain about our incarcerated young men, even as we turn them over to their jailors…

and blacks…we…will suffer no one to speak truth to us, and are loathe to speak it to ourselves…

These are the actions of the mentally unstable, of the hopeless…and they should not be the actions of American black people. Therefore blacks…we…need an intervention, while there are still enough among us, and who care for us, that we might return to the senses we once had.

Brownian Black Movement

In 1827, Scottish botanist Robert Brown, looking through a microscope at pollen grains suspended in water, observed small particles that moved about irregularly, similar to the red dots in the “water” of blue dots below:

Translational_motion

The phenomenon Brown observed bears his name: “Brownian Movement” – the random motion of particles suspended in a fluid. The particles neither move on their own, nor move with any purpose. Instead, they get knocked around by the fluid.

Brownian Movement seems to describe many American blacks: particles suspended in the fluid of American culture and current events. Blacks neither create the events nor control the impacts. Instead, they get knocked around by them, often according to someone else’s agenda. For example:

The Rise of Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Obama’s historic election elated blacks. From the 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address that brought him national prominence, to his improbable triumph over Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democrat Party Presidential Nomination, blacks supported Obama, so strongly that he could take their vote for granted, in the primaries and in the general election.

But where were the blacks directing the Obama “event”? They were generally not part of Obama’s inner circle, in either his first or second administration. Instead of embracing the black church, Obama distanced himself from his black pastor of more than 2 decades – a controversial man who performed his wedding and baptized his children – before securing the 2008 nomination. Some questioned his black “bona fides”.

Unsurprisingly, white acceptance led to Obama’s success. During the 2008 campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “praised” Obama as “a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.'” Joe Biden (D-DE), who also sought the Democrat nomination, called Obama “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Of the nearly 69.5 million votes Obama received in the General Election:

    • Less than 22% came from blacks,
    • Less than 10% came from hispanics, and
    • Less than 3% came from asians….

…and more than 60% came from whites. By providing fewer than one of every four Obama votes, blacks resembled the girl who could not keep her grandmother’s fried chicken “secret”:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7j3sUWohE[/youtube]

Only this time, “Shake N Bake” was, “Who elected Obama?” The black voter response: “Those white folks…and I helped”.

Six years, and one re-election, later, blacks: have lost economic ground, absolutely, and relative to whites; feel less empowered; saw latino and homosexual concerns receive higher priority than theirs; became America’s most racist group; and felt disrespect from the president.

Blacks did not create Obama; he was thrust upon them…and knocked them around.

The Trayvon Martin Shooting

Trayvon Martin’s death, on February 26, 2012, sparked outrage over a white man shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager.

But Martin’s killer is not white. That small detail did not prevent Trayvon-inspired “revenge attacks” on whites, both before and after the trial; the “popular” narrative was impervious to fact.

Sympathy for Sybrina Fulton, Martin’s biological mother, was sincere, and nationwide, even though Trayvon did not live with her when he died. Alicia Stanley,Trayvon’s stepmother, actually raised him…from the age of 3. Blacks generally ignored this (step-) mother’s pain – Stanley was displaced at Martin’s funeral and at Zimmerman’s trial. Sybrina Fulton’s exploitation of the son she did not raise, copyrighting protest slogans, less than a month after his death, also seemed to go unnoticed.

However, Fulton’s opposition to “Stand Your Ground” laws, in Florida and in Washington, D.C., did draw attention…even though police found “Stand Your Ground” irrelevant to her son’s case, and even though “Stand Your Ground” was not part of Zimmerman’s defense.

That legal experts called Zimmerman’s arrest affidavit “irresponsible and unethical”, and considered Zimmerman “overcharged”, angered more blacks than it informed. News that a grand jury indicted the prosecutor who charged Zimmerman for falsifying his arrest warrant made more blacks question the system than question the prosecution’s case.

Somehow, Sharpton’s rhetoric, NBC’s editing “errors”, and a non-threatening image of Trayvon Martin, which differed from the unarmed teen Zimmerman met:

young trayvonthreatening trayvon

masked these inconsistencies, and blacks got knocked around by a false narrative which put them at odds with the facts, the legal system…and other Americans.

Donald Sterling’ Clippers

Audiotape of Donald Sterling’s private conversation with a mistress became public on April 25, 2014; the fallout came quickly.

The next day, current and former NBA players offered their opinions, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver called the recording “offensive and disturbing”, other NBA owners weighed in, and Clippers’ players protested…before losing their playoff game.

The following day, a second recording surfaced, and president Obama commented. By April 28th, just 3 days after the first tape leaked, sponsors severed ties with the Clippers.

Then, Commissioner Silver dropped the hammer, on April 29th:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHCgmVikntw[/youtube]

banning Sterling, for life, from the NBA. After more drama, Sterling’s estranged wife sold the Clippers, on May 30, 2014.

And so, the word went forth: major sports franchise owners cannot make racist remarks….even if in private…

Even if their bigotry is common knowledge since last century

Even if they pay 7- and 8-figure annual salaries to black men who play and coach a game…

Even if they are generous philanthropists, with multiple NAACP Lifetime Achievement Awards

Apparently, what a man does, publicly, to benefit blacks is less important than what he says, privately.

Blacks did not create the Sterling tapes; they simply bought into the politically correct doctrine that only those with “approved thinking” can supply entertainment in the U.S., and that violating someone’s privacy, or even the law, to enforce that doctrine is acceptable. The NBA needed “cover” for its income-stream-preserving exorcism of Donald Sterling, something it has wanted for 3 decades, and blacks unwittingly obliged…gaining nothing in return, apart from sound bites.

NFL Domestic Violence

NFL players behave better than those they entertain yet, from media reports, one might believe the league is full of wife-beaters and child abusers.

Ray Rice’s one-hitter-quitter episode with then-fiancee, now wife, not only cost the running back his job, it also threatened Roger Goodell’s tenure as NFL Commissioner. The ensuing desire for “justice” was so strong that other things apparently did not matter.

It didn’t matter that Mrs. Rice did not want her husband on trial (after all, it was their private altercation, not a prize-fight). Instead of praise for acknowledging her role in the incident, or standing by her husband, some labeled her a gold digger.

It didn’t matter that New Jersey dropped charges against Rice, or that a female arbitrator overturned his suspension from the NFL.

All that mattered, to many, was calling the NFL soft on domestic violence…and blacks boarded the bandwagon.

Adrian Peterson’s child abuse case, took political correctness to a different level. Not because it involved a child, not because it damaged Peterson’s Father of the Year candidacy, but because of reactions like this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_w9aeTeKY4[/youtube]

Cris Carter’s rant, against his mother’s child-rearing and values, garnered wide praise. Yet, watching successful black men question the judgment of those who raised them, and the biblical values that sustained blacks in America for centuries and through difficult times, is disturbing.

Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are now events by which the politically correct knock around what remains of traditional black family connections and cultural values, at a time when blacks desperately need both.

Bill Cosby “Sexcapades”

If Cosby’s troubles were about exposing a powerful man’s past sexual misdeeds, either to validate victimized women or to “educate” the public about his character, then another “Bill”, Mr. Clinton, would answer for sexual allegations, dating back to 1969 (plus a recent lawsuit involving sex with minors); especially since:

    ● Many Cosby “accusers” waited decades to speak out, with no independent verification; Clinton victims reported incidents when they occurred, often with 3rd party attestation,
    ● Cosby “accusers” claim he drugged them, without bodily harm; Clinton victims often reported physical abuse, and
    ● Clinton wielded more power, as a governor and president, than Cosby ever could as a comedian.

The lack of timely reporting or corroboration make proving the allegations against Cosby improbable, even if they are true. Consequently, the anti-Cosby argument is not, “Look at all the evidence against him,” but rather, “All those women cannot be lying!”

Brian Banks, who lost a football scholarship and 5 years of his life, might disagree. So might members of the Duke Lacrosse team, whose accuser now serves time for murder. Indeed, false rape allegations are not uncommon, and the women who make them rarely face negative consequences. Cosby’s accusers will likely speak with impunity.

And many blacks are hearing their message, meaning Cosby’s message, critical of failed black behavior:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gh3_e3mDQ8[/youtube]

…is heard, and regarded, less.

Blacks did not create the Cosby rape allegation “event”…but it knocks them around, so that many no longer receive a needed word, for the messenger has been (falsely) tarnished.

Michael Brown, Eric Garner Demonstrations

Michael Brown was an unarmed black teenager whom a cop shot and killed. Some remember Brown as a “good kid”, college bound with a bright future.

Apparently, they did not know the Michael Brown who had gang affiliations, who had an arrest record, who committed strong-armed robbery the day he died, or who assaulted a cop, tried to take his gun, and then made a run at him.

Those who entertained the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” story accepted a false Michael Brown narrative. Though disproved, it fueled riots and looting that still scar Ferguson, and many still cling to it.

Eric Garner, who died when NYPD used a choke hold while arresting him, is a more sympathetic figure than either Michael Brown or even Trayvon Martin. Instead of attacking police officers, Garner asked them to leave him alone; instead of fighting a man with a gun, Garner broke up a fight. Instead of a violent man, the video of his last moments show a man in distress.

What the video does not show is Garner’s history with NYPD of 30 arrests, or that he was out on bail, on multiple charges, when he died.

There was no reason for Garner to die that day, the police are at fault for his death. However, how does Garner, a veteran of 30 prior NYPD arrests, not know how to avoid a police takedown…especially when other men face arrest and stay unharmed, despite extreme emotional upset:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHm7Tujca4[/youtube]

Yet, people “demonstrate” throughout New York, chanting, “I can’t breathe” and other sayings. They also take their message to restaurants, as though white diners either caused or support the lack of a grand jury indictment in Garner’s death.

Which leaves blacks knocked around by protesters who “peacefully” advocate violence, deteriorating relations between the mayor and police force of a leading American city, and calls for “change” that will neither happen nor help.

The Obama event marginalizes blacks politically and maintains their issues at a low national priority; The Martin event showed blacks as more emotional than factual; The Sterling event showed blacks as willing to harm those who’d done them more good than harm; the NFL Domestic Violence event saw black men attacking traditional black values; the Cosby event punishes black men who unabashedly speak to traditional black values; and the Brown and Garner events work to remove black confidence in police and in the justice system.

Blacks created none of these events, yet they buffet the black community, affecting their political, economic, social, and cultural standing. Currently, it is hard to identify a true black voice or direction, one more attentive to what blacks value more than to what excites them. And the events that knock them around make constructive voices and directions harder to identify. However, until blacks, as they did before, find those voices and directions, and navigate American culture and events, instead of getting knocked around by them, they will continue to resemble the red dots you see here…

Translational_motion

The Missing Microscope on Black Females

The American experiment in limited government, combining people from many lands and cultures into a common citizenship, is: the most powerful; the most admired; and the most desired destination, for those seeking higher education or a new home, among the world’s nations.

And America is yet a young country, at 238 years of age, compared to other traditional powers, i.e., other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council:

    China: 2,235 years of age (from beginning of Qin dynasty)
    France: 2,490 years of age (from fall of Roman Empire)
    Russia: 1,152 years of age (from Viking founding)
    United Kingdom: 1,604 years of age (from the Anglo-Saxon invasions)

Not surprisingly, America receives scrutiny, from her unique governmental structure to her patchwork culture constructed by her “melting pot” of people.

Two races dominate America’s melting pot – Caucasian and Negro. Emphasis on this distinction often causes people to overlook America’s rich ethnic diversity. For some, there are no Italians, Germans, Poles, Swedes, Russians, etc. These ethnic identities are irrelevant; all are simply Caucasian, or “White”. Similarly, there are no Ethiopians, Nigerians, Ghanaians, Liberians, Somalis, etc.; all are simply Negro, or “Black”. Other races are either counted as one of these two, i.e. latinos are often considered “White”, or are not yet part of the mainstream conversation.

Paradoxically, this “uniting” of Americans, away from their diverse ethnic groups, and into two races, is destructive, divisive, and something Americans do to themselves.

With another, natural, division added to the mix – that of gender – the primary roster of American people for scrutiny becomes: white male; white female; black male; and black female.

America’s white male is the de facto national standard. The status of nearly all Americans is determined by their standing in relation to the income levels, employment viability, political and business leadership of America’s white male.

Consequently, America’s white male endures scrutiny. Everything he thinks and feels, the what and how of all he does, is dissected, so others might better understand, emulate, or criticize him. Critics consider him the primary oppressor of all women and all non-whites, often calling him “the system” or “society”, and describe him as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, among other intolerant adjectives.

America’s white female also endures scrutiny, but different from that of her male counterpart; it focuses on what independence she has gained from, and gender equality she has achieved with, white males. Waving a feminist banner, white females continuously endeavor to: work in the same jobs, command the same salaries, and have the same political and business influence as white males. Additionally, she scrutinizes herself, trying to balance removing male-female boundaries with the natural demands of being female (“Am I a real woman if I do not bear children?” Am I a bad mother if I work outside the home or work too much?” “Do I need a man?” “What is a woman’s role in a relationship/marriage?”). White females portray themselves as promoting themselves to the benefit of everyone. Those who think otherwise, say so to their own peril.

However, that white females eagerly benefit more from “Affirmative Action” than those whose plight brought it about, calls her “concern for all” into question. Also, some white females now condemn feminism for its negative impacts on women, and on the country.

Then there is America’s black male. Largely due to governmental efforts to “help” him over the last fifty years, he is:

    • Both the leading perpetrator, and leading victim, of violent crimes,
    Undereducated,
    underemployed, and
    Most likely to be absent from his children and family.

Historically, non-blacks scrutinized America’s black male to determine how to help him, or how to destroy him. Interestingly, nearly every attempt at the former resembled what Frederick Douglass called “positive injury”; they generally did more harm than good. As for efforts to destroy him, well, the nonviolent ones look similar to efforts to help him; the primary difference between the two efforts is the political ideology of those making them.

Consequently, scrutiny of the black male, though intense, has produced little that helped him. In fact, it is hard to identify any effort, that did not originate with the black male, that has.

Finally, there is the black female, the least scrutinized of the four. Unlike her male counterpart, she is a sympathetic figure; her life decisions receive scant, if any, criticism, and many consider her the “backbone of the black family”. However, that backbone apparently has a slipped disk; the black family lost ground to white families over the last half century, which may validate this challenge to the notion that black females support black males, or strengthen the black family:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvukHcsRpMs[/youtube]

There is ample information regarding a concerted effort to establish feminism among black females, and a form especially hostile toward black males, in the late 1970’s. Interestingly, black feminism among likely influences decisions among black females that are more detrimental to blacks than white feminism has been to whites, and statistical results demonstrate the impacts of these decisions:

    Only 26% of black females are married, compared to 51% of white females. As an aside, 32% of black males are married,
    • The illegitimate birth rate for black females is 72.3%; for white females, it is 29.1%,
    • Although whites outnumber blacks more than 5 to 1, and poor whites outnumber poor blacks more than 2 to 1 (some math required), more blacks receive federal welfare than whites…and most welfare benefits go to women. As one worker with 24 years of experience stated flatly: “We don’t involve fathers. The system is mother focused”. Translation: more black females receive federal welfare benefits than do white females, and
    • The genital herpes infection rate among black females is 49.9%, compared to 15.3% for white females. To contrast, the infection rate for black males is 24%.

It is difficult to imagine that any objective person would see the above and determine that the females, whose personal decisions produce these outcomes, are the “backbone” of their communities. Neither would an objective person likely look beyond these outcomes to find reasons for why those females’ families did not thrive, or for why that their men show interest in building relationships and families with other women. If other females achieve better outcomes, have stronger families, and their males receive greater respect, then…?

Yet, anything more than an “inside baseball” discussion, regarding black female behavior, seldom occurs. That seems due to the animosity black females have toward anyone who questions their “struggle”. To conclude that the black female’s behavior and choices are a detriment to herself and to other blacks is sacrilege, at least among most black females. Consequently, the black female does not come under the same microscope of scrutiny used to examine white males, white females, or even black males.

A simple truth, touching all human problems is this: “You cannot correct what you will not confront.” Blacks must be both over and under the microscope on their issues, to finds ways to better themselves and their condition in this country. They also must spend more time looking at themselves than they spend looking at whites, if they want solutions to fit them.

However, unless and until black females allow themselves under the microscope, to accept the same level of scrutiny, from black males, they and others, apply to black males…until that occurs, then all those ethnic groups, joined together as America’s blacks, will continue in a united, racial, decline.

Ferguson, MO: Cue the Doobie Brothers for Too Many Blacks

There are two primary lies about events in Ferguson, MO, since August 9, 2014:

    1. That Michael Brown’s death was an injustice, part of the increase in police brutality in the U.S., and

    2. That the protests which have followed have anything to do with a search for justice.

To gain clarity regarding the first primary lie, it is useful to summarize events related to Brown’s death.

Sometime before 11:51AM on August 9th, surveillance cameras captured the following footage of a strong-arm robbery at a Ferguson, MO, convenience store:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHxXGvXQrno[/youtube]

Strong-Arm Robbery is 2nd Degree Robbery, and a felony, in the state of Missouri. Another man in the video, Dorian Johnson, confirmed, through his attorney, that he was present with Brown when the incident occurred, while attorneys for Brown’s family left-handedly acknowledged the incident while calling the video an irrelevant sideshow.

Officer Darren Wilson did not know of Brown’s robbery, nor was that why he happened upon Brown; however, the video, and the attorney admissions, demonstrate Michael Brown committed at least one felony on the day he died.

Brown family attorneys also acknowledged an altercation between Brown and Officer Wilson before the shooting.

That altercation involved Michael Brown assaulting Officer Wilson and seeking to gain control of the officer’s weapon. That is either first- or second-degree assault in Missouri; both of which are felonies. Trying to take Wilson’s gun put deadly force on the table as an appropriate response, at Officer Wilson’s discretion.

So, Brown committed two felonies before Wilson shot him; the second made his death a defensible outcome, not an injustice. Therefore, characterizing Michael Brown’s death as police brutality mocks legitimate instances of excessive force by law enforcement against blacks….which we are told is out of control

However, on that matter, a review of Justice Department data on police contact with, and police violence against, citizens shows:

    • Police contacts with the public declined, more than 11%, from 2002 to 2008 (pg. 2, Table 1),
    • Whites had at least 7 times more face-to-face police contacts than blacks; hispanics also had more contacts than blacks (pg. 5, Table 6), and
    • More than twice as many whites either endured, or were threatened with, police force as blacks (pg. 12, Table 18).

Additionally, the incomplete data that indicates police kill 96 blacks annually also shows that number to be less than 1/4 of those killed by police. Does that correlate to police hunting blacks? Compared to the more than 2,400 blacks killed by blacks annually, the number who die at the hands of police definitely appears a lesser problem.

Which differs from saying it is no problem: consider the case of Eric Garner, killed by an illegal NYPD chokehold:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo[/youtube]

There are no meaningful similarities between the Brown and Garner cases?

    • Michael Brown committed crimes the day he died; Eric Garner did not,
    • Police encountered Brown because he blocked traffic; police encountered Garner because he broke up a fight,
    • Brown had a criminal juvenile record; Garner had police run-ins over untaxed cigarette sales,
    • Brown assaulted a cop; several cops assaulted Garner, and
    • Brown died in the role of attacker: Garner died, futilely telling his attackers he could not breathe.

Further, while it took 108 days and 3 autopsies to get a straight story on Brown’s death, it took only 7 days to rule Garner’s death a homicide, directly attributable to police. And while a St. Louis County grand jury has already decided in the complex and emotionally-charged Brown case, a New York City grand jury has yet to decide on charges in a case where the crime is on tape, and the medical examiner has ruled.

So, where was the demand for that officer’s arrest? For releasing his identity and address? Why the days of racial outrage and riots for a guy who attacked a cop, but only a leisurely stroll for a guy whom cops attacked?

There was no injustice in the case of Michael Brown; rather a lack of acceptance of a grand jury determination. In the case of Eric Garner, there is neither justice nor much of a reaction.

Unless blacks cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, the unequal response to cases that occur at roughly the same time is odd, especially when the more clear-cut excessive force case gets a relative ho-hum response…and especially when the numbers do not support that there is a massive rise in the number of blacks killed by police, but decrease in the number of face-to-face contacts instead.

Regarding the second lie…why are so many arrested protesters not even from Ferguson, MO, whether back in August, or more recently in November?

If the idea of the protests is to better things for blacks in Ferguson, then why did protesters ignore Natalie DuBose’s, “Just don’t burn my shop down, don’t destroy it,” pleas, regarding the storefront that was her sole income source? Did putting her out of business “set things right with Mike”? Or were they psychic, knowing that their destruction would result in more than $200,000 in donations to offset her losses?

Are they expecting something similar for the dozens of other businesses destroyed after the grand jury made its determination? Or for the dozen or more that were looted the day after Brown died? Somehow, it is doubtful that the “out-of-towners”, responsible for most of the damage in Ferguson, are really concerned about what is left.

The only ones likely to get any “justice” from this debacle will be the same ones who benefited after a similar incident – the decedent’s parents. When Sybrina Fulton copyrighted t-shirt slogans, regarding her slain son, Trayvon Martin, less than a month after his death attorney Benjamin Crump was already on the case. When Lesley McSpadden, Michael Brown’s mother, confronted Brown’s paternal grandmother, over the sale of t-shirts, and a comment over whether McSpadden had a copyright on her son’s name precipitated a violent attack, Benjamin Crump was on that case as well.

All other blacks are to accept that:

    • Only sympathy for parents of dead blacks is justice,
    • Destroying your community shows you care for it,
    • Cops, who kill 1 black person for every 25 blacks kill, are the ones hunting young black men.

Of course, the problem is not that these outlandish things are said to black people; the problem is the number of blacks willing to accept them as true…

Somebody cue the Doobie Brothers…
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJe1iUuAW4M[/youtube]

The 180⁰ Turn Against His People – Whether American or Black

These comments, delivered on July 25th, 2011 before the National Council of La Raza, are chilling:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wD5Y88UWno[/youtube]

As are these, delivered to a Univision audience on March 28th, 2011:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw[/youtube]

and these, spoken during a February 14th, 2013 Google Hangout:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSV9n-v_0KI[/youtube]

As well as any of these other comments, uttered by the current president:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehH8KMIxntQ[/youtube]

They are chilling because now the president said this on November 19th, 2014:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeT_vu31eaw[/youtube]

Obama has now effectively exercised power he said he had not, behaved as the emperor he claimed he was not, and bypassed Congress as he pledged he would not:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBsS6kGXaYU[/youtube]

The obvious question is, “Why?” To begin to answer, one needs to determine how important immigration reform is…and to whom.

Though not on any ballots, Obama pushed immigration reform ahead of Nov 2014 midterm elections, while on-ballot Democrats simply threw everything against the wall, looking to see what might stick against Republicans; immigration reform was in the mix, but far from a main ingredient. As Democrats sought to distance themselves from a politically toxic president, Obama reminded voters that, while he was not running, every one of his policies, including immigration reform, were.

However, immigration reform was not a voter priority; even Hispanic voters seemed ambivalent.

For the record, during Obama’s presidency, immigration reform has yet to energize (legal) voters. It did not excite them in 2008, or in 2010, or 2012. The Democrat “electoral extinction event”, ongoing since 2008, would suggest that it still fails to excite the electorate.

Simply put, the American electorate is not interested in immigration reform; the majority believe the government is not doing enough to remove illegal aliens from the U.S.

Therefore, it is not surprising no immigration reform legislation has passed during the Obama presidency; not from January 2009 through January 2011, when his fellow Democrats held majorities in the House and the Senate, or since. Not surprising, either, is that the lack of an immigration reform bill has not halted Republican electoral gains, federal or state, in the last 6 years.

Nevertheless, the president disregards the people’s will, bypassing their duly elected representatives, to do as he pleases; effectively turning government “of the people, by the people, for the people” into something resembling how the colonists viewed England under George III.

So, if not the voters, to whom is the president catering? Quite frankly, it is two classes of non-voters. The day after the election, Obama gave a curious nod to registered non-participants:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4mBVL6Qz0Y[/youtube]

which inspired one reporter to ask if the president led the “Non-Voters of America” coalition, the presidential equivalent of a ventriloquist’s dummy, whose whispers can only be heard by Obama, and whose silent “voice” is subject, solely, to the president’s interpretation.

The second class of non-voters…are actually non-citizens. The Hispanic advocacy group, La Raza, which many believe supports illegal immigration, is also quite cozy with the Obama administration. The president, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/23/remarks-first-lady-national-council-la-raza, and the Vice President and the outgoing Attorney General, have all attended La Raza events. By way of contrast, Obama skipped the 2012 NAACP Convention, sending Joe Biden instead.

Also, the Obama administration hired a former La Raza Vice President in 2009, and nearly tripled federal funding to the organization. Again, by way of contrast, the former NAACP member hired by the Obama administration led to Obama establishing a Gulf Oil Spill Claims facility for which the NAACP lobbied.

So, the first elected black president seems more inclined to represent the interests of America’s illegal immigrants than those of America’s blacks. He seems more sympathetic to the plight of those who would steal the right to the franchise and the American Dream than to those who bled and died to earn their rights to the same…and some of the folks are waking up to the fact:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ixOsjut3E[/youtube]

And, make no mistake, America’s blacks will be disproportionately harmed by actions that make it easier for illegal immigrants to come or stay in the country. Interestingly, while acknowledging the coming harm to blacks, some “black leaders” actually lauded the president’s executive action.

Therefore, the president betrayed America’s blacks who overwhelmingly supported him twice, and those who should appeal on their behalf for moderation from the president have instead co-signed his treachery.

And blacks are not the only ones who will suffer; all American lower wage workers will be hard-pressed to find higher wages or more job opportunities, or even the same level of government services as the number of illegal immigrants increase…just as the president indicated…when he was a Senator.

So, the president’s about-face on immigration helps those who do not vote and those who should not be voting; it hurts all of America’s citizens, and especially those who, as a voting bloc, showed him the most support and loyalty.

What may be worse about this is that those in the federal government who oppose the president’s actions, though they soon will possess superior numbers, still likely posses an inferior level of resolve. Despite their governmental, and constitutional, being relatively clear, Republicans can’t figure out how to respond. Which is odd, since they knew, some time ago, that the president would take this action.

The situation is as follows, regarding illegal immigration:

    • The American people oppose the president’s action,
    Portrayals of Obama as worthy of impeachment have gained traction among voters,
    • Republicans won majorities in both House of Congress, meaning they control the agenda, and
    • The Constitution provides them multiple, effective, responses to carry out the will of the people…

Yet the GOP is both hesitant and far less decisive than the electoral victory they just achieved.

Because, within D.C., the GOP are not interested in the welfare of Americans; their concern is the acquisition and exercise of power. Therefore, the interests of the party will trump the interests of the country in the fashioning of their response…as it has with Obamacare…as it has with reducing government spending.

They would rather keep the federal government running, at any cost, so they might have someone in 2016 who can wield power as Obama has, than see federal influence in the affairs of citizens decrease one iota.

And as long as the electorate believes that voting alone is enough to protect their interests and their liberty, the federal beast will continue to devour both.

Election Analysis: National Direction and Choices Not What Many Might Believe

In October 2013, a Democrat versus Republican standoff over Obamacare funding created a budget impasse which partially shut down the federal government for 16 days. Republicans eventually gave in to Democrat demands: Obamacare received funding, and the debt ceiling rose. In exchange, Republicans received humiliation.

Rubbing salt in the political wound, a smug President Barack Obama advised his vanquished adversaries:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W_M1bNBs88[/youtube]

What a difference a year makes…

Obama’s opposition heeded his advice. As a result, the electoral disembowelment of progressives, begun in 2010, paused in 2012, and seemingly improbable in 2013, resumed with a vengeance on November 4th, 2014. The carnage was undeniable:

    U.S. Senate: Democrats lost at least 7 seats in the 2014 midterm elections, probably 8, and possibly 9. After entering the Obama era with 57 seats in 2009, only 45, or less, will survive into 2015.

    U.S. House: Democrats lost 12 seats, minimum. So, while 257 Democrat Congressmen marched in with the current president in 2009; a maximum of 191 will limp with him into the final two years of his administration, their lowest total since the 1920’s.

Expressed geographically, a person in Texas could travel north to Canada, or east to the Atlantic Ocean, without setting foot in a state where a Democrat won a Senate seat; that same person, starting in central California could travel East to the Atlantic ocean without visiting a Democrat’s congressional district. Democrats in federal elected office are, increasingly, a critically endangered species, except on portions of America’s coasts.

2014 Midterm Election Results Map

Not only did the polls, and the U.S map, look less blue, but the vaunted Democrat Party diversity also took on a GOP reddish hue. Even if, as Geraldo Rivera tweeted, Democrats were defeated by “angry old white folk”, those cantankerous Caucasians voted to elect the very people Rivera said deserted Obama and the Democrats: latinos, blacks and millennials.

As for the president, prior to the election, he was emphatic that his policies, if not his name, were on the ballot:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkYnghIrQrA[/youtube]

After the vote, the president downplayed the rebuff from those who cast ballots, making special mention of the majority who passed on this election…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4mBVL6Qz0Y[/youtube]

which prompted one reporter to ask if the president was some kind of election non-participant “whisperer”, the leader of America’s non-voting bloc.

Obama’s Chief of Staff joined the spin cycle, shrugging off the electoral destruction to say Washington, D.C. would “work better” if Obama has his way:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-unITq3gQE[/youtube]

Unfortunately, the “Bleeding within the Beltway” is not the worst of Democrats’ problems, for if, over the last 6 years, federal elections shoved a dagger into the flesh of Democrats, then state elections twisted it:

    • Governors: In 2009, there were 28 Democrat Governors in the U.S.; in 2015, there will be fewer than 20.

    • State Legislatures: In 2009, Democrats controlled 60 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers; in 2015, Republicans will control 67 chambers, gaining another 11 on November 4th, 2014.

Despite these prohibitive Democrat Party losses over the last six years, it is not hard to find “sages” who predict the GOP’s 2016 demiseas other wise men had predicted in 2012…as still others had predicted after the 2008 election.

Those crystal balls may need cleaning…

So, is this simply another pendulum swing from donkey to elephant? Won’t the Democrats likely prevail again in 2016, at least for the presidency? Well, perhaps…and perhaps not. Since the 1951 ratification of the 22nd Amendment, only once has a political party won 3 consecutive presidential elections; the GOP accomplished that in 1980, 1984, and 1988. The current president’s low popularity, and the steep decline in his party’s Congressional numbers during his tenure, make it unlikely that Democrats will achieve that trifecta.

Eventually, the Senate electoral map will favor the Democrats, meaning the GOP will have more seats to defend. That could result in another change of majority. As for the House, the most recent election is the eighth, of the last ten, to produce a Republican majority, and the third in a row. There is little to suggest large national sentiment moving in the Democrats’ direction.

The Democrat description of Republicans as anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-homosexual, and anti-science is electorally ignored; the myth that the Republican Party is anti-youth now lies under a billowing mushroom cloud. The mantra that the GOP ain’t for everybody is chanted less loudly, and by fewer people, as elections go by.

Nevertheless, there is a growing disconnect between federal elected leadership and that found in the states, more according to ideology than party. It is clear the Washington, D.C., with its continued deficits and entitlement largesse, is ideologically to the left of a nation in which 2/3 of state elected legislatures govern according to a different view. Washington, D.C., is to the left of Wisconsin, a state that elected a “union-busting”, tax-cutting Republican governor 3 times in the last 4 years. Washington, D.C., is to the left of 30 other states having Republican governors, including the four (Arkansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland) that just traded in Democrats for a GOP model.

Washington, D.C., is ideologically to the left of the now 50 individual “laboratories of democracy”, as Associate Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described the states in 1932. The primary difference between state and federal governments: state governments see theirs as an obligation to solve problems, with limited resources, so their citizens may thrive; the federal government believe their obligation is to take on problems they cannot solve so they may grow and a political party might thrive.

Consequently, this past election was more about the direction of the country than about control of the Senate. The states work to solve the problems of their people; Washington, D.C., works to solve the problems of the political parties. States see election results as a license to get busy fixing, while Washington sees them as a license to get busy campaigning…throwing money and words at problems it has either bungled…or caused. These are two irreconcilable views of government.

So long as deficit spending, and the direct election of Senators, continues, it is unlikely that the ideology of the federal government and that of the majority of states will ever consistently align. Therefore, eventually, each state may have to decide, as increasing federal spending and power limits what it can do for its citizens, whether to continue to act as the sovereign for its people’s interests, or to relinquish that sovereignty to those who live outside of its borders.

There will be a referendum on whether the U.S. shall remain a nation of states, or become a national state, and that quite soon, depending on what the states, and their citizens, decide.

For What Will Liberals Be Hobby Lobby-ing Next?

Those interested in the Hobby Lobby decision (U.S. Supreme Court Case Number 12-6294, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., Applicants v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.), announced 30 June 2014, should know of these:

    1. Sterilization Surgery for Women,
    2. Surgical Sterilization Implant for Women,
    3. Sterilization Surgery for Men,
    4. Implantable Rod,
    5. IUD Copper,
    6. IUD w/ Progestin,
    7. Shot/Injection,
    8. Oral Contraceptives (Combined Pill) “The Pill”,
    9. Oral Contraceptives (Progestin only) “The MiniPill”,
    10. Oral Contraceptives Extended/Continuous Use “The Pill”,
    11. Patch,
    12. Vaginal Contraceptive Ring,
    13. Diaphragm with Spermicide,
    14. Sponge with Spermicide,
    15. Cervical Cap with Spermicide,
    16. Male Condom,
    17. Female Condom,
    18. Spermicide Alone,
    19. Plan B, Plan B One Step, Next Choice, and
    20. Ella

which are the 20 FDA-approved birth control methods for women. Why? First, because Hobby Lobby always covered 16 of them in its health insurance plan for female employees…and still does. Next, because the methods to which Hobby Lobby objected:

    5. IUD Copper,
    6. IUD w/ Progestin,
    19. Plan B, Plan B One Step, Next Choice, and
    20. Ella

are abortifacients, or methods that do, or can, end a pregnancy rather than prevent it. Further, Plan B and Ella are “emergency contraception”, not intended for use as primary birth control, and IUDs are an unpopular method with minor to serious side effects.

Hobby Lobby’s owners opposed neither the safest, nor most popular, methods of birth control approved for women; they opposed ones that could kill an unborn child, because paying for that violated their religious beliefs.

In advocating for their religious liberty, Hobby Lobby’s owners:

• Kept costs low for female employees by continuing to pay for the safest and most popular birth control methods,
• Maintained basic health care for women by covering 80% of FDA-approved methods, with the others available or “make-able”, for little to no cost,
• Opposed no law (the mandate was not part of Obamacare, but an HHS-issued regulation, neither reviewed nor approved by Congress), and
• Stayed out of women’s health decisions. Hobby Lobby only cares about which contraception methods it funds, not which methods women choose.

Nevertheless, when Hobby Lobby prevailed, leading Liberals made fantastic claims:

    “It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who need contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception” — Hillary Clinton, former U.S. Secretary of State

    “Apartheid in South Africa was justified on religious grounds. The Southern Baptist Convention justified slavery and later Jim Crow and segregation on religious grounds. We don’t accept that as a society anymore and we should not accept plain out gender bigotry. Withholding basic health care from women is bigotry plain and simple. We should not accept it.” — Terry O’Neill, President, National Organization for Women

    “Today, the Supreme Court took an outrageous step against the rights of America’s women, setting a dangerous precedent that could permit for-profit corporations to pick and choose which laws to obey.” — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

    “Employers have no business intruding in the private health care decisions women make with their doctors. … If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Not surprisingly, the Obama White House joined in the fantasy chorus, saying the “…decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies”, and others fanned the flames of a “War on Women” resulting from the decision. Simply put, these statements and assertions have no basis in fact.

The real problem is not that Liberals are lying; it is that the lies are so overt and blatant. The Court was clear that Affordable Care Act did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), but that HHS regulations, made law by no one, did, as stated on page 2 of the decision:

    Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.

Consequently, Hobby Lobby was not picking which laws it would or would not follow. Then there was this from page 8:

    Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

Meaning the government had other ways to implement this policy. So why attempt to do so by attacking religious liberties, while hiding behind women’s skirts? And not only did the administration lose this decision, the defeat was quickly followed by stays of mandate granted to the Catholic broadcaster EWTN, Wheaton College, and 6 other Catholic Groups.

Again, why the overt attack on the rights of religious groups and others that are anti-abortion, when their positions do not oppose Obamacare? And why the wildly inaccurate statements later, as though the rights of anyone, apart from those with religious convictions, were ever at risk?

If one walks into a Hobby Lobby Store and asks a female employee, “How did this case impact your contraception care in your health plan?”, the answer will likely be, “It didn’t, and I never thought it would as long as my employers won.”

Yet the internet, and social media, are rife with screams of how women are wronged…..

Though 80% of FDA birth control methods were always available…

Though the four methods opposed were either the least popular among women, or not considered primary birth control for anyone…

Though no law was challenged, just a regulation with which the people’s representatives (Congress) had no involvement…

There is an agenda afoot, one unfriendly to freedoms which are the bedrock of liberty in the U.S. So, it can now be well said, regarding their pursuit of policy, that Liberals will lie blatantly. The only question is, “About what will they lie about next?”

«page 2 of 7»

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Thursday, November 21, 2024