Rep. Steve Scalise’s Attack: First Casualty of the Left’s Climate of Hate

Scalise-photo-smI am stunned as I write this.

A sitting member of Congress, Rep. Steve Scalise, was shot this morning, based purely upon his political beliefs.

The shooter, James Hodgkinson, posted many anti-Trump rants on his social media feeds. And, it is reported that before unloading approximately 50 shots at a congressional baseball game, he asked if the group was comprised of Democrats or Republicans.

Let me be as blunt and clear as I know how to be:

Whereas the shooter pulled the trigger, and now must answer for his vile deeds before God — since he was shot on the scene and later succumbed to his injuries – he is not the only one to blame.

After a fair election representing the will of the people, we have seen nothing but a culture of hate spewed forth by the Left. Post after post after the election was filled with #NotMyPresident. Riots on Inauguration Day. Silly kitty-hatted women dressed as genitalia – many with kids in tow as political props with sayings far too precocious to have come from them – listening to “celebrities” talk bout blowing up the White House, and spouting ugly prose.

And, then, the piece de #RESISTANCE: Kathy Griffin’s “joke” holding the “severed head” of a sitting president she disagrees with.

Sure, many — even on her side of the aisle — panned the action. But many did not. Jerry Seinfeld didn’t “get what the big deal” was. Anderson Cooper hoped she “bounced back.”

Not long after, a play glorifying the assassination of President Trump came out. The director of which saw nothing wrong with the scene.

Here’s the irony: The folks who idealize gun control 1) ended up shooting up the joint; 2) were saved by gun-toting law enforcement, without whom – according to reports – we would have seen a massacre.

I am calling on every pink hat wearing, dyed in the wool Democrat who has ever said anything about this administration to take a page out of Nancy Pelosi’s playbook today, and denounce this tragedy.

I am calling on every Democrat who has ever said anything about this admin to denounce this tragedy. Click To Tweet

Not only that, check yourself. Check your speech, your actions, your anger, your tone. Remember Hillary’s commercial with kids glued to a TV set watching Trump speeches, captioned “they’re watching you?” Well, they are. We all are.

I co-founded African-American Conservatives based on political dissent. I didn’t dress up as a body part. I didn’t scream “NOT MY PRESIDENT!”

I disagreed with just about everything the previous administration did. For eight whole years. But, never once did I say, “not my president.” I was proud of the historicity of the moment. That a bi-racial man – bi-racial just like me – was elected to the highest office in this nation.

I have ranted about the policies of that administration on these pages and on our radio show. But never once did I say Mr. Obama was “not my president.” In fact, I prayed for him.

I watched him advocate for Planned Parenthood, an organization founded to “eradicate human weeds” by a eugenicist woman who spoke before the Ladies Auxiliary of the KKK, Margaret Sanger. An organization that has achieved the milestone of seeing more Black babies aborted than born alive in New York City. An organization that has spawned a cultural genocide in the Black community. An organization that saw its core mission realized, because in order to survive as a race, Black America needs a 2.1% fertility replacement rate, and we are at 1.8%.

Yet, I denounced every effigy of him – unlike the Left who put up “Hitlerian” effigies of both presidents Bush 43 and Trump – every put down of his children – unlike the left who constantly attacked Bristol Palin – and every racial epithet I ever heard of him.

I was taught that regardless of who sits in the chair, you honor the office. Yet, we’ve seen sports teams “boycott” White House invitations (and rumors of boycotts are circulating at this moment). What an honor to be invited to the White House. As a brown person, to be invited to come in through the front door of our nation’s symbol of freedom and power?

I implore any and every one reading this: Check yourself.

Slow your roll and regard your actions. If “love trumps hate,” folks are not doing a very good job of this. Where is loving your “enemy?”

All this vitriol spewed is contributing to climate change all right: the political climate that has become so frosty, a man shot up a baseball field of politicians this morning. That’s not love. The shooter “persisted” all right. But he did not prevail.

If you remember the old Smokey the Bear commercial, Smokey told us, “only YOU can prevent forest fires!” Well, the Bible tells us that “the tongue is a world of fire (James 3:6).” Proverbs 6:27 asks, “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?”

Don’t be that guy. Be love. “Be the change you wish to see in the world,” as Ghandi encouraged. Dr. King told us, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only love can do that.” If you have contributed to the culture of hate, use this opportunity to take stock “and make that change, sha’mon.” (Michael Jackson, Man in the Mirror).

Our prayers for a speedy recovery for Rep. Scalise.

– Marie Stroughter

** As I write this news is emerging about another shooting, in a San Francisco UPS facility. Motive is unknown, but prayers are requested.

Posted in Abortion, Attacks from the Left, Gun control | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Killing of Sanctuary Cities

inner-city-schoolyard-1453893If you were in the New York area on March 2, 2017, it would have been difficult for you to miss the news of thirteen members of the gang MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) charged by way of federal indictments for the murders of seven people in the Long Island community of Brentwood, NY.

Among the homicide victims were two girls, Nisa Mickens and Kayla Cuevas, who were both around sixteen years of age. According to NBC New York“Mickens’ brutally beaten body was found on a tree-lined street in Brentwood Sept. 13, a day before her 16th birthday. A day later, the beaten body of Cuevas, her lifelong friend, was discovered in the wooded backyard of a nearby home.”

Nisa Mickens reportedly was the sort to “clap back” at MS-13 members, in person and on social media. For that she was bludgeoned with baseball bats and slashed with machetes.  Kayla Cuevas died the same way for being Mickens’ friend.

People interviewed by the local newspaper spoke of their great “relief” after the indictments. And small wonder, for MS-13 has been terrorizing their community for some time now:

“In recent months, an estimated 125 suspected MS-13 members were arrested on Long Island. Law enforcers have linked to the gang to at least 30 other homicides on Long Island since 2010.” 

The MS-13 gang is so dangerous, in fact, that on the very same day these gang members were being arrested on Long Island, two more members were being charged in Houston, TX, for the “the kidnapping and torture of one victim, and the ‘satanic’ killing of a second.” The kidnap victim is a female who was held for about eighteen days by MS-13 and was repeatedly raped by them. She is only 14 years old.

What may have gone missing in the reports about MS-13’s day is that the gang is predominantly composed of illegals. In Brentwood, ten of the thirteen indicted gang members were illegals, as are the two on trial in Houston.

As Judicial Watch reported in 2015, “The MS-13 is a feared street gang of mostly Central American illegal immigrants that’s spread throughout the U.S. and is renowned for drug distribution, murder, rape, robbery, home invasions, kidnappings, vandalism and other violent crimes.” They grew in strength during the influx of unaccompanied children that swarmed our borders from Central America beginning in 2012 — an influx that was encouraged by the Obama administration.

It is also important to mention that both New York City and Houston are essentially sanctuary cities. Houston’s Mayor Sylvester Turner recently drew cheers from supporters by defying President Trump’s executive order to stop funding Sanctuary Cities with his proclamation that Houston is and will remain a “welcoming city” for illegals.

This, despite a Texas Tribune report:

“MS-13 has…evolved into a…sophisticated organization, sustaining itself through drug and human trafficking, extortion and forced recruitment. According to the 2016 Congressional Research Service analysis, some members also freelance and perform contract killings for some of Mexico’s drug cartels.

Only about 800 of the estimated 20,000 gang members in the greater Houston area belong to the MS-13, according to the [Department of Public Safety] . But the group’s notoriety is enough that the agency rates it a Tier 1 threat — the highest possible — in its annual gang threat assessment.” 

New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio similarly stated that “We’re going to defend all of our people regardless of where they come from, regardless of their immigration status.”

New York City has defended illegals so well that city officials defied orders from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to hold Estivan Rafael Marques Velasquez, an illegal who confessed to being a MS-13 member.

The unwillingness of Sanctuary City mayors to cooperate with ICE, and the ability of criminals to exploit this unwillingness is nothing new. A 2014 report by the Center of Immigration Studies uncovered that 8,145 arrested illegals were released after local officials rejected ICE requests that they continue to be held, despite 1,909 (23%) of these illegals having a “prior misdemeanor conviction or charges related to violence, threats, assaults, sexual abuse or exploitation, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, unlawful flight from the scene of an accident, unlawful possession of a firearm or other deadly weapon, distribution or trafficking of a controlled substance, or other significant threat to public safety.”

1,867 of these illegals who were released by officials despite a detention request from ICE were subsequently re-arrested on other charges.

The most infamous example of an illegal alien released in defiance of a detention request by ICE is, of course, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who was in federal prison on March 26, 2015, but was sent to — and soon released in — the sanctuary city of San Francisco, despite the wishes of ICE. On the first of July, 2015, Mr. Lopez-Sanchez murdered Kathryn “Kate” Steinle, a 32 year old woman engaged to be married, on a pier where she was walking arm-in-arm with her father.

Mayors and other politicians who support sanctuary cities do so with righteous zeal, and have no regard for the price the citizens they are sworn to serve must pay for that zeal.

Sometimes that price is solely financial. In New Jersey — arguably already the highest taxed state in the nation — there is even a bill to raise another $15.7 billion in taxes to reimburse the funding that will be lost to the state’s sanctuary cities due to President Trump’s executive order cutting off their funding.

Too often however, that zeal must be paid for with the lives of American citizens. Sanctuary city pols who believe they are doing good should be required to attend the funerals of Nisa Mickens, Kayla Cuevas, Kate Steinle, and so many others victims of the illegals invited to live in and given shelter in communities that by right they did not belong. Perhaps that would dissuade them of that notion.

– DK

Posted in Cultural, Current events/topics, Government, Immigration | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Pro-Black Inaugural Address

Photo credit:

Photo credit:

On January 20, 2017, at 11:51 am ET, Donald Trump delivered his first speech as American president.  With several former presidents — including the first Black president, Barack Obama — reportedly squirming uncomfortably behind him, President Trump spoke to the thousands gathered in attendance with these words, delivered the most pro-African American inaugural address in recent history:

Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.

But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

Although President Trump did not address African Americans specifically in this address, with this speech he addressed three of the great problems that continue to plague the Black community.

One of these great problems is, of course, crime.  In the city of Chicago, for example, a city which is inextricably linked to Barack Obama,  more than 750 people murdered in 2016, giving it more homicides than the more populated cities of Los Angeles and New York combined.

Furthermore, Chicago’s population is only 32.9% Black, according to the 2010 Census, yet 75% of its murder victims are African American.

Incredibly, the murder per capita rate is even higher in Baltimore and St. Louis than Chicago’s, as is the percentage of Blacks in its population, and again the vast majority of those murdered in these cities are African American.

Nationally, Blacks comprise roughly 50% of the murder victims, despite being only around 13% of the population.

Perhaps because 93% of Black homicide victims are killed by other Blacks, President Obama rarely expressed concern about the epic rate of violence in the Black community.

In his inaugural address, President Trump did just that.

President Trump delivered the most pro-African American inaugural address in recent history Click To Tweet

President Trump also addressed another of the great burdens of the Black community: education.  According to the most recent report from the Economic Policy Institute [EPI]

“The chances of ending up in a high-poverty or high-minority school are highly determined by a student’s race/ethnicity and social class. For example, Black and Hispanic students—even if they are not poor—are much more likely than White or Asian students to be in high-poverty schools.”

This is significant for Black and other minority communities because, as the EPI adds, “[a]ttending a high-poverty school lowers math and reading achievement for students in all racial/ethnic groups.”

This results in the cycle of poverty commonplace in many inner cities, in which economically disadvantaged parents send their children to be under-educated at “high-poverty schools,” which contributes to the likelihood  that those children will eventually grow to be economic disadvantaged parents themselves.

Other presidents have referenced the problem of poor schools — President Obama simply mentioned in his 2009 inaugural address, “our schools fail too many,” for example. But only President George W. Bush — who said in his 2001 inaugural, “the ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth” — has referenced the linkage of under-education and poverty before President Trump.

Since, as mentioned, these failing schools are disproportionately Black, African Americans have reason to cheer President Trump’s comment.

African Americans may also cheer President Trump’s inaugural comments on immigration. Several recent presidents have mentioned immigration before President Trump, but in each reference, immigration was presented as a positive for all Americans, with no caveat about the price immigration — especially illegal immigration — inflicts upon certain segments of our communities.

President Obama, for example, in his second inaugural address, told his fellow Americans, “our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity,” with no acknowledgement of the price of this immigration upon many Americans.

But as Harvard professor George J. Borjas points out in Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men, a paper written with Professors Grogger and Hanson, there is a cost to immigration, and that cost is often paid by Black Americans:

“As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, we find a reduction in the wage of Black workers in that group, a reduction in the employment rate, and a corresponding increase in the incarceration rate.”

In contrast to President Obama, President Trump promised in his inaugural that “every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”

President Trump will continue to find his relationship with African Americans to be, in a word, problematic. As during the administration of one of Mr. Trump’s supposed influences, Ronald Reagan, many Blacks will continue to  criticize President Trump for not being inclusive enough. They did during the 2016 RNC convention, as well as when he made his cabinet picks. Others will criticize him when the president does reach out to the African American community, even going so far as to attack Blacks receptive to speaking with him.  Many of these criticisms are valid; some aren’t.

But, despite a very rough start, President Reagan’s presidential tenure actually became a boom time for African Americans. Black unemployment fell, Black home ownership rose, and the Black middle class grew.

We can only hope that if he continues his focus on inner-city crime, poor schools, and illegal immigration, the Trump years will be remembered as a good time for Blacks as well.


Posted in GOP/RNC, Race/Racism/Race Relations | Leave a comment

Mediocre Negroes

Photo credit:

There are likely many who, if told that an award winning Black female singer was inundated with death threats and racist insults until she was finally forced to decline an invitation to perform at a presidential inaugural ball, would assume the story was from a century or so ago, and that her tormentors would be the KKK.

Similarly, if one was told that a group of African Americans — including Jim Brown, football great and long-time advocate for African American civil rights — would be called “a bunch of mediocre Negros” on national television for meeting with a president-elect to discuss ways to help inner-city Blacks,  it would understandable to assume such racial vitriol would be directed to people meeting with Barack Obama in late 2008.

One may not easily assume that the year would be the current one, and the spewers of this vile speech would be Black themselves. Yet here we are, in 2017, listening to Grammy and Tony award winning singer Jennifer Holliday, speaking to The View about the backlash from her initial consideration to perform at Trump’s inauguration:

“I was receiving death threats from Black people, being called the N-word from Black people. They were saying they were going to kill me . . . At first I said, ‘Are these White people just messing with me?’ I would push the button to see who was calling me, cause your face is there, you could look at their thing or whatever, I’m going, ‘Oh my God, these are Black people calling me this.’”

It should be noted that most of these attacked for meeting with Trump, or who have asked to sing at his inauguration, are not Trump supporters.  Jim Brown, for example, said on Fox News,”I was for Hillary, so I’m one of those that Mr. Trump defeated — but he is the president-elect of the United States.”

Therefore, Mr. Trump’s meeting with Jim Brown, Martin Luther King III, Steve Harvey and  others who did not support his candidacy, to discuss such issues as inner city poverty and voting rights, would seem to be laudable to anyone eager to see these issues addressed by the next White House, as well as those eager to see Trump be more politically and racially inclusive. So why then did these meetings offend so many, including many Black Progressives?

Professor Michael Eric Dyson argues that the problem is that Trump did not reach out to ‘the right bunch of Negroes,’ so to speak:

“Steve Harvey is not the point man for discussing policy in black America. I’m saying that there are many people who are practicing that, who are dealing with that every day, who have strategic advantages because they’ve been thinking about this: Steve Harvey is the attempt by Donald Trump to avoid with some serious weight and theological and theoretical and sociological analysis about what’s going on in the community.”

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro however rebutted Professor Dyson’s remark by stating:

“I don’t think it’s intellectually honest for Professor Dyson to be talking about how they were just wanting someone with more expertise, because I really doubt if Donald Trump had invited Thomas Sowell, for example, or Jason Riley of The Wall Street Journal to talk about housing policy they would have been supremely happy either.” 

“What this really is about is that there’s a cadre of people on the left who get very insulted any time a Republican reaches out to a prominent Black person who doesn’t immediately slap that hand away and say, “Listen, you guys are the bad guys,” because too many folks on the left like to racially polarize in order to make hay politically and that is really quite terrible.”

I am more skeptical than even Mr. Shapiro, and I find it unlikely that even a meeting with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the founding members of Black Lives Matters would have been satisfying to many of Mr. Trump’s critics as well.

Having a president willing to be inclusive to those racially and politically different seems to be less important to many than the ability to make the argument that the president is not inclusive to either group, as are the potential benefits to the country and to the African American community of such a president.

– DK

Posted in Attacks from the Left, DNC/Democrats, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Election 2016: Bigger Than Two People

election“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12, ESV)

This election is not a contest between Democrats and Republicans, or even Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump….It’s the age-old struggle between good and evil. And, I’m not referring to the candidates – one as good, and one as evil. I mean universal Good and Evil. White hats and black hats. God and Satan.

“Now, Marie, that’s just crazy talk,” some of you are probably saying. Let me walk you through History, shall I?

The American Revolution was not “Colonies” against “The Crown,” but rather “Freedom” versus “Tyranny.”

What about the Civil War? It wasn’t North and South…It was a fight to advance the principle that people cannot own other people. It’s immoral, inhumane, unethical, unrighteous.

And now, with our nation divided over two people, I, again, adjure you, frame it as about issues larger than two people; its about what these people support, as it relates to God’s ultimate plan for His people.

I was asked by a journalist for a major media outlet – someone for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect – to “chronicle my journey as a ‘reluctant Trump supporter.’” This offer was repeated multiple times – and I dithered over it, dragged my feet, and just couldn’t feel any peace about it. For one – and, this shouldn’t be a newsflash to anyone who knows me or follows me on social media – I am not a Trump supporter! He is not someone I admire, or even truly respect. But, am I going to vote for him? Unfortunately, I have to say I am.

How is that even possible?

Look at this election: After excluding the “no-hopers,” it all comes down to two exceptionally unlikable candidates. One, who — in my estimation — should not even be allowed to run….yea verily, should not even be walking free given the number of crimes she is alleged to have committed. That’s just in addition to General Ugliness and Major Scandal (and, I’m sure, rounding out our military puns, Private Regret).

Hillary Clinton, “Champion of Women” defended a rapist by obliterating a 12-year-old child, saying, “the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.” Even those of us not in the legal profession know, you don’t trash the victim…the victim is not on trial…and a 12-year-old, at that. The then-Ms. Rodham is on tape laughing inappropriately at aspects of this case…Some “Champion.” [1]

This is a woman who was involved in the shady ethics of the Whitewater scandal.

“Stand By Your Man” is not just a song, but an admirable virtue. But, “standing by your man” allegation after allegation after allegation….and trashing the victims, once again? Standing by a man who was impeached after sexual misconduct while in office and lying about it under oath (perjury and obstruction of justice)? And, is even now, reported to be jetting the world with a known pedophile to “Orgy Island?” Are there really people who want him anywhere near the White House again?

A candidate, who as Secretary of State, appears to have engaged in quid pro quo, the granting of favors in return for donations to her “charity” Foundation (only 5.7% of which actually makes it to the intended causes after “administrative fees”). To top it all off, these “donations” are from countries that kill those who are gay, and suppress even basic privileges for women such as the ability to drive or be in public without the presence of a male relative.

And, let’s not forget that while on Secretary Clinton’s watch, four American citizens died in Benghazi. This woman asked, under oath, “what difference–at this point, what difference does it make?” about the circumstances; and, in the days following the incident, repeated the dreaded lie that it was all due to an “internet video.” A woman, who, to this day, has difficulty uttering the phrase “Islamic Jihadist Terrorists.”

And, for all her talk about “Russian espionage” with regard to her hacked e-mails as distributed by Wikileaks, I ask, just who committed a federal crime by putting unsecured high-level documents on servers in somebody’s bathroom? All because she “didn’t want to carry two phones?” Riiiiiight.

Contrast that with a “nasty” man, who has a history of flip-flopped positions, foul language, bankruptcies, and disparaging remarks toward women. So, how can I trust him? I don’t. Then, how can it be that I am voting for him?

Because God has used imperfect people to carry out His will. Donning our “Back to the Future” gear, let’s dive into History’s pool again:

  • The Pharoah “who did not know Joseph” ordered Israel’s exodus from Egypt, thus loosing the bonds of their slavery.
  • King Cyrus was the leader of a nation who conquered God’s people and enslaved them . . . and, under his watch, released them.
  • King David was an adulterer, murderer, violator of God’s commands . . . and “man after God’s own heart.” (Acts 13:22)

God has used imperfect people, enemies of His people, and in some cases, downright evil people to do His ultimate will. Does He “make” them evil? No. Some will point out to “hardening Pharaoh’s heart,” as an example. But, God knew Pharaoh’s heart, and used the inherent evil already therein and predisposed toward His people, to enact His justice.

Like Esther, who knows if we aren’t at a “for such a time as this” moment?

Please hear me when I say, I am not advancing the thought that Donald Trump is “God’s anointed,” by any stretch of the imagination. But, as we have seen, God can — and often does — use unlikely, and unlikable people for His own ends. This may – or may not – be one of those times, but knowing the slate of policies one candidate supports is in opposition to so many of God’s commands moves me to drastic action.

Here’s the deal: You have a woman on record, not once (like, at the second debate), but doubling down (at the third debate) saying that she supports a woman being able to kill her innocent, viable, pain capable child in the last trimester up until birth. Universal evil.

If you want the historical comparison, look no further than the sacrifices to Molech and Baal:

Jeremiah 32:35: They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Leviticus 18:21: You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

Jeremiah 19:5: “ …And have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind—“

And, let’s be real, Mrs. Clinton trots out that old “medical necessity for the life of the mother” routine. Honestly, of the 13,000 annual late-term abortions, how many does that even represent? Very few. And, partial birth? How barbaric are we? Again, back to History, Slavery, Good and Evil: immoral, inhumane, unethical, unrighteous.

Proverbs 6:16-19 says:

16 There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers. (ESV, emphasis mine)

You can almost go down Secretary Clinton’s stated agenda and tick each one of those off, “check, check, check . . .”

Not only that, but Hillary Clinton has accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award. Margaret Sanger. Let that sink in. A woman who, as a known eugenicist, made numerous statements just as outrageous as anything to come out of Donald Trump’s mouth –

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” [2]

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” [3]

Her Pivot of Civilization is peppered with statements about “human weeds” and “undesirables. [4]

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” [5]

The Left paints Donald Trump as a racist, but Margaret Sanger takes the proverbial cake, folks. And, while we are parked here, did you know that Old Maggie’s fondest wish is coming true? The Black population is dying by abortion’s attrition. To remain viable, Black America must achieve a 2.1% replacement fertility rate, and we are only at 1.8%. Pure evil.

And, here’s a shocker: Those who like to point to Donald Trump’s remarks about illegal immigration, Mexico, and rapists should take a gander at this gem from Mags: “control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” [6] And, “The Question of race betterment is one of immediate concern, and I am glad to say that the United States Government has already taken certain steps to control the equality of our population through the drastic immigration laws.” [6a]

If you wanna talk “racist,” Hillary’s icon spoke before the KKK and, by her own admission, received many more offers to do so! [7]

Then, there are those who point out, as Madam Secretary does, that Mr. Trump mocks the disabled – here’s the woman she so admires, on record: “The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.” This, after a discussion of the “feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane.”[8]

Not only that, but Secretary Clinton talked about “marriage equality.” As I have stated before, marriage is “God’s Intellectual Property.” You cannot take God-as-Author out of the equation, and co-opt it (case in point, the rainbow). Create some other ritual, with some other word describing it. I know my Left-leaning theologian friends out there like to quote the Bible, but they do so out of context. God has stated who is an eligible candidate for marriage, and to whom that person can be married (and it’s not just the LGBT community that God directs this to).

The debates aren’t the only place Mrs. Clinton is on record with her plans to march onward in diametrical opposition to just about everything God and His righteous stand for. Now, God may let us wallow in that, as He did the children of Israel, so that they truly understood that He was their Protector, Defender and that life under His wisdom for mankind was better. Or, He may use an imperfect person to “staunch the hemorrhaging” as Allen West recently described it, at the SFGOP Lincoln Reagan Dinner.

If you think it’s about two mere humans, you are wrong. It’s bigger than this. We are battling for the soul of a Nation. My AACONS co-founder, DK, likens it to Custer’s Last Stand. We are on a precipice, about to tip over and be lost not just for 4, or even 8 years, but a generation or more, with the life appointments by the next President of the United States to the Supreme Court.

Now, sure, you can give me the “moral purity” argument, that, as a Christian, I cannot possibly vote for Mr. Trump, because he’s “deplorable.” Going back to History, I can’t think of a “morally pure” candidate for president in the saga of these United States. We had slave owners, wire-tappers, the aforementioned serial adulterer (and there were others of those), and the list goes on. So, if you are gonna go there, be prepared to live by the same standard:

  • Atheists, when are you taking that “In God We Trust” paper out of your wallet? Come December will you be refusing Christmas pay?
  • When was the last time you applied for a transfer because you have a boss who is on his third marriage….and not a one of them Scriptural?
  • Your barista lives with his boyfriend, so are you going to stop getting your coffee at your usual morning spot?
  • Your mortgage company is bilking customers out of millions, according to the latest scandal. Will you sell your house? Move? Re-fi with another (most likely unscrupulous) bank?
  • Still shopping at Target? :: tsk, tsk ::

John 17:14-17 says, “live in the world, but be not of the world . . .” and that to escape the immoral of this world, we would “have to leave this world.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-10, NIV)

Since Romans 13 tells us that God places rulers in their positions, both for good, and for our learning, I am going to cast my (bal)lot as they did in Acts 1, and see what happens, knowing that whoever is President . . . God is King!

–Marie Stroughter 



[2] April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

[3] Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.”

[4] The Pivot of Civilization; Margaret Sanger

[5] Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.

[6] “A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

[6a] The Function of Sterilization; speech before the Institute of Euthenics at Vassar College August 5th

[7] Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography; Dover Publications, pages 366-367

[8] Birth Control Review, page 107-108

Additional Resources:

10-Eye-Opening Quotes From Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

12 Disturbing Quotes from Margaret Sanger: Planned Parenthood’s Foundress

13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Posted in Abortion, Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Corruption, Cultural, Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Elections, GOP/RNC, Government, Immigration, Marriage, Quotes, Spiritual, Supreme Court | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Welcome Mat Freedoms

welcome-here-1354406An interesting moment in the vice-presidential debate occurred when Democrat Tim Kaine said the following:

“So let’s talk about abortion and choice. Let’s talk about them. We support Roe v. Wade. We support the constitutional right of American women to consult their own conscience, their own supportive partner, their own minister, but then make their own decision about pregnancy. That’s something we trust American women to do that.”

Like most pro-life Conservatives, I am always astounded when Progressives boast about allowing women to kill their unborn children, as it is one of the few choices they trust others to make. It is unfortunate that Progressives — well, politicians and government bureaucrats in general, but Progressives more so — trust American people do decide precious little else.

As someone who had a family business I learned this firsthand. My father owned a liquor store in the inner city, which he began himself and managed to keep the business successful for many decades. He sold beer, liquor, and cigarettes, of course; as well as anything else he felt people would buy, which included not just chips and candy, but also bread and canned goods — as no supermarket would open in such a bad neighborhood. Like many small business owners in the inner city, my father essentially lived at the business, in a small apartment he set up in the back of the store.

Sadly, our city elected a young, charismatic, well-educated Progressive mayor; and as is the pattern of this sort, our new mayor came into office with a sweeping change agenda. One major change was deciding that city businesses had to change how they did business to suit the new image he wanted for the city.

Suddenly city officials began harassing my family. Our business was closed repeatedly. Initially because it was deemed inappropriate for him to live in his store apartment, then later for seemingly minor infractions, such as how he was storing stock.

Officials would demand entry into the store then arrogantly decide we shouldn’t be selling bread, or canned soup, or other such goods, and throw such items into the garbage in front of us. Once we were forced to close the store when an inspector decided the store was too grim and demanded that we re-tile the floors, re-paint the walls, and add a welcome mat to the lobby. Each closing lasted a minimum of a week, sometimes months, and cumulatively cost us thousands.

Ultimately, my father, who was a healthy man in his late 60s — who had never drank or smoked despite selling booze and cigarettes for most of his adult life — suffered a stroke which eventually killed him. I have no doubt that had my father been allowed to make his own decisions regarding his life and his business, like whether he wanted a welcome mat in his lobby, rather than being forced to adhere to the vision of an ambitious mayor, my father would be alive today.

Ironically my father supported the candidacy of his mayor. Indeed, all of my family, and nearly all of my city, supported him, except for me of course. It is not uncommon for such figures — who make such promises to improve our dreary lives by unburdening us from the weight of choices — find themselves popular.

Are you struggling with the decision of whether to join a union, for example? Worry no more. Hillary Clinton has won thundering approval by declaring in a speech to the AFL-CIO that Right-To-Work, which allows certain workers to decide whether union membership works best for them, is “wrong for workers and wrong for America!”

Are you a veteran who is tempted to seek medical treatment from a private physician who accepts Medicare and would be willing to provide care to someone with a veteran ID card? Progressives want you freed from such temptations, and have decided that concerned that allowing such privatization is too “risky.” In the VA system you shall remain.

And if you are a parent who is afraid of being slapped with the choice of whether to send your child to a non- government, non-Common Core school, know that the many Democratic politicians and officials calling charter schools ‘taxpayer rapists’ or expressing their concern over the fate of homeschooled students will protect you to the best of their ability.

Even the much-vaunted freedom to choose in regard to abortion is overrated. As I write this, a pregnant woman still is not obligated to abort her child. She still has the right to choose to carry the child to term. But a pharmacist has no right to decide if he or she wants to sell abortifacients, even if she or he owns a private business and feels abortifacients violates his or her pro-life, or even religious, views. Nor does the unborn child have any rights in the matter.

One wonders how Progressives obtained such wisdom. How does someone behind a desk in Washington, DC, for example, know that the appropriate minimum at which an employer must pay his or her employees is $12 an hour, and that wage is appropriate for cities as diverse as Salt Lake City and Detroit? Given the countless variables present it seems an impossible task, as many — including economist Friedrich Hayek — have pointed out. Yet, Progressives express such confidence in their edicts, it is as if they were carrying them down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets.

Take the matter of Social Security, for example. Heard during the vice-presidential debate was Kaine repeating the Democratic mantra, “We will never, ever engage in a risky scheme to privatize Social Security.”

Yet the alternative is a system that demands we pay into it on the promise that we will get it back at a rate of return lower than most free market retirement accounts.

If we should die before the age of 62, or if we should be fortunate enough to retire with assets deemed by the State as “enough” (according to some Social Security proposals being touted), we will never see a cent of the money that was taken from us under force of law during our entire working lives. Nor will our spouses or heirs.

And this assumes that the system that was designed for people to die at the age of 65 can adapt to a populace now living well into their 90s.

So what then is the riskier system: the current one which we are compelled to obey or one that allows us a choice?

The Progressive argument is that allowing us the freedom to make our decisions would inevitably lead some of us to make wrong decisions. This is undoubtedly true. If left to our own devices, many of us would invest our retirement money poorly, or buy Big Gulps, or not put a welcome mat in the lobby of our business.

However, though the free market is largely influenced on both trial and error, it is also based on an incontrovertible truth: We are motivated about our individual self-interests, and the well-being of our families and loved ones. As Milton Friedman once put it, “The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.”

Government does not share our concern for our separate interests. In fact, one argument against the semi-privatization of Social Security is that while it may be in the best interest of those who opt out of the government system in favor of market-based retirement accounts, it is not in the best interest of those who remain with the current system since withdrawals from it would make its default more likely.

We face similar obstacles when we argue that sending our children to non-government schools, or if we desire to take a job below the minimum wage as an alternative to being unemployed with no wage. We hear ‘It may be in your best interest to take this action, but it is not the best interest of The State.’

Judge Janice Rogers Brown stated, ”Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized.” We see this in actions ranging from the more than 20,000 new regulations the Obama administration imposed — at a cost to our economy of more than $100 billion annually — to small business owners being told that they cannot open their doors without first placing a welcome mat down.

Like cancer, government continues to grow unabated, and to the detriment of the health of the body it inhabits.

– DK

Posted in Community, Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Elections, Government, Progressivism | Leave a comment

A Trump Presidency Is The Best Option for African Americans

trumpheadTo the surprise of very many, Donald Trump is actually doing great with African American voters.

Of course “great” is a relative term. Mr. Trump is no threat to win a majority or even a plurality of the Black vote. But according to the LA Times tracking poll, as of September 21st Mr. Trump’s support among Blacks is at 19.6% nationally, very nearly at the 20-25% point where writer Deroy Murdock claimed would be “curtains for the Democrats.”

In certain state polls, Donald Trump has polled even better. In a recent Trafalgar Group poll, as of September 14th, Trump is winning 26% of the Black vote in South Carolina. And on August 24th a Florida Atlantic University saw Trump at 20% popularity among Floridian Blacks, a 400% increase over the percentage of the Black vote Mitt Romney and 67% over the percent Rick Scott won in 2012.

To further underline these numbers, consider that in presidential elections after 1960 Republican candidates have won only 10.15% of the African American vote. Since and including the 2000 election Republican candidates have won only 7.25% of the Black vote. These are disastrous numbers for the GOP even if they won in 2000 and 2004. As Deroy Murdock pointed out after the 2012 election in which Governor Romney only lost by 3.8 percentage points, even a marginal increase in his Black support in certain key states – from 3% to 5% in Ohio, for example – may have won Mitt Romney the presidency, with barely an uptick in support from White voters.

Much credit should be given to the Trump campaign for making an effort to reach the Black voter, as opposed to other GOP presidential candidates who even when they did seek the Black vote – say, give an obligatory NAACP speech for example – gave the impression of ‘getting it out of the way’ reminiscent of a child wolfing down his broccoli so that he can get to his mac and cheese.

But what makes these numbers even more interesting is that they are for a candidate many consider to be racist. True, it would be a challenge to find a living Republican who has not been smeared as a racist at some point – including most Black Republicans – but the charge does seem to have a bit more credibility than usual, particularly because of the early 70s lawsuits in which the Trumps were charged with discriminating against Blacks seeking to rent property from them. (These charges, it should be pointed out, were settled without an admission of guilt, and seemed to reflect business practices from Donald’s father Fred that were very common in NYC in real estate and employment agencies, even when I moved in NYC more than a decade later.)

Yet if Donald Trump is a racist,, or was a racist, it has been the history of African American voting that this may matter very little. If the candidates’ racism was pivotal to African Americans when deciding for whom to vote, Lyndon Johnson – who according to several historians and witnesses used the “n-word” as frequently as Captain Marvel yells “Shazam!” – would not have won 94% of the Black vote against Barry Goldwater, founding member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP.

Rather than race, many 20th century Black voters – sandwiched as they were between the injustices of slavery and Jim Crow laws – sought justice in the form of Leftist economic policies. Progressive redistribution of wealth became in a sense the primary civil right for many Black voters, as the yearning for economic equality surpassed the want for social or political equality.

W.E.B. DuBois joined the Socialist Party in 1911 and the Communist Party in 1961, Paul Robertson became an advocate for the Soviet Union in 1934, and Dr. Martin Luther King said in a 1965 speech “Call it democracy or call it Democratic Socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” All three serve as good examples of the Black mindset that saw 71% of Blacks vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936 and never fail to deliver less than 61% of its vote to the more Progressive presidential candidate in every election since.

Even many of the Black Republicans between the New Deal to the Reagan Revolution proved to be an easy audience for the Left. The most prominent African American elected official during this time for example was Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke. Senator Brooke was indeed a great and popular political figure, but it is telling that the claim that naming him as Gerald Ford’s running mate would guarantee Ford’s victory came not from the Republican Party but from Jesse Jackson.

More telling, the American Conservative Union (ACU), which ranks congressmen on their conservatism on a 0-100 scale, gives Senator Tim Scott a lifetime rating of 96, and gives Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders lifetime ratings of 10, 8, and 6 respectively. In 1976 Senator Brooke’s ACU rating was 3. Only Senators Tim Kaine and Tammy Baldwin are considered more liberal than Senator Brooke in the current Senate.

While many of Republican presidential candidate, and recent speeches from Trump himself sound as though they were written by the Heritage Foundation, very few consider Trump as less than a Progressive-at-heart. Even as a GOP candidate Trump has argued for government controlled universal healthcare, higher taxes for the rich, a higher minimum wage, penalties for companies wishing to relocate to a tax-friendlier nations, continued funding for Planned Parenthood, and so on. Even his mantra “I will fix it” – invoking increased presidential powers – is as rooted in Progressivism as “Yes We Can!”

That Trump is largely a Progressive is to his advantage in courting the Black vote. But ironically it is his Conservative views – assuming that they are heartfelt – that makes him the best candidate for African Americans.

One issue that demonstrates my assertion is abortion, which Trump promises to oppose. Abortion has become so epidemic in the Black community that its effects has become akin to a slow genocide of Black people. As Pastor Walter E. Hoye points out “The Total Fertility Rate for Black American’s is 1.8, which is again below the replacement level fertility rate of 2.1 or the rate at which a generation can replace itself. Clearly, abortion is the biggest single negative force on Black American growth generally.” In other words, as Pastor Hoye demonstrates, Black population is not reproducing at a rate to sustain itself largely because one Black child is being aborted every 74 seconds in the U.S.

Another issue on which Trump takes the conservative (opposing) position is illegal immigration. In their 2009 paper, Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men, scholars George Borjas of Harvard, and Jeffrey Grogger and Gordon Hanson of the University of Chicago, present analysis that suggests that “a 10-percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by about 3 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by about 5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by one percentage point.”

Even open-border advocates routinely concede that their policy would hurt the poor. Professor Bryan Caplan – a former AACONS guest – wrote in his paper, Why Should We Restrict Immigration? that, “Under open borders, low-skilled wages are indeed likely to fall” and “Immigration makes low-skilled natives worse off.” Well, one can argue for or against Caplan’s assertion that the benefits of open-borders would outweigh the damage such a policy would do to “low-skilled natives”, but there can be no argument against the realization that a disproportionate number of these natives will be Black.

Donald Trump has also been what too many politicians attempting to appeal to Black votes have been afraid to be – an advocate for law and order. Here is his answer to the ‘racial divide’ from his first debate with Hillary Clinton:

Secretary Clinton doesn’t want to use a couple of words, and that’s law and order. And we need law and order. If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country.

We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African- Americans, Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.

In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings. And I’m saying, where is this? Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have been killed, thousands over the last number of years, in fact, almost 4,000 have been killed since Barack Obama became president, over — almost 4,000 people in Chicago have been killed. We have to bring back law and order.

Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn’t be having it.

We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they’re illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very strong. And we have to be very vigilant.

Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything. We have to protect our inner cities, because African-American communities are being decimated by crime, decimated.

Quite is quite a contrast with Hillary Clinton, who is so timid in her support of law and order that she refused to seek the endorsement of the National Fraternal Order of Police.

Trump asks in his appeal to Black voters “What do you have to lose?” Perhaps the question should be “How much do you have to gain by supporting me?” It is assumed in many African American political circles that the more Progressive a candidate is, the more pro-Black he or she will surely be. However, I would argue the precise opposite, that the more Conservative a candidate is, the better he or she will be for the African American community. And as Trump is the most conservative candidate in the race, it profits African Americans to support him.

One should pray however that the last 70 days or so of Trump’s espousal of Conservatism offsets the previous 70 or so years of his Progressivism, and that his election would not be the death knell of true Conservatism.

– DK


Posted in Community, Current events/topics, Elections, GOP/RNC | Leave a comment

AACONS Published at American Thinker

at-painterAfrican-American Conservatives (AACONS) did something a little different with our latest article: we published it at American Thinker. The reaction wasn’t quite what we expected, but we were thankful for the opportunity to spread our wings a bit.


Posted in Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Attacks from the Left, Cultural, Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Leave a comment

Will Blacks Be Included in Trump’s GOP?

GOPIn a National Review piece, one of my favorite political writers, Deroy Murdock, once commented that, “Republicans need not win the Black vote, or even a third of it. Securing 15 percent of the Black electorate severely erodes the stalwart-Democrat base. If 20 to 25 percent of Blacks vote GOP, it’s curtains for Democrats.”

This comment has stayed with me since, and I have used it often in my writing for AACONS. I think that if I was a political consultant for the Republican Party, the day I was told that by simply increasing the percentage of the Black vote won from 6% (which Romney got in 2012) to as little as 20% the GOP could guarantee itself victory in every national election, would be a very happy one for me. I would schedule all the candidates under my purview to as many events before a Black audience as possible, then go retire to some nice beach somewhere.

Certainly it can be done. I, like many, but most famously PBS host Tavis Smiley have observed, “Black folk, in the era of Obama, have lost ground in every major economic category.”

In fact, economic conditions for Blacks have regressed so much that if the President’s complexion more closely matched his mother’s rather than his father’s, Kanye West would be on TV saying Obama did not care for Black people.

As economist Peter Morici wrote for

On Mr. Obama’s watch, African-American family incomes are down by about $2,200, while those for Hispanics and Asian-Americans are up $800 and $2,100, respectively. The wealth gap with Whites has widened tremendously, and African-Americans have regained far fewer of the jobs lost in the Great Recession than other Americans. African-Americans are disproportionately saddled with student loans after dropping out of college after a few years or earning a degree that hardly imparts the skills necessary to earn a living. President Obama was elected on the promise to create greater economic justice but for African-Americans conditions have become decidedly worse.

As economic conditions for Blacks regress under Democratic leadership, the audience within the Black community who would be receptive to Republican policies should be expanding. How foolish is it then for Republicans to not attempt to reach them?

In 2014, AACONS’ Co-Founder and radio show moderator, Marie Stroughter, asked Newt Gingrich what advice he had for Republican candidates in 2016 to build upon the inroads into the Black vote some saw by the GOP that year.

Gingrich responded:

I would say that every Republican candidate should look at what Governor John Kasich has done. Kasich from Ohio has gone into the community. I emphasize inclusion rather than outreach. Outreach is sitting on the outside waiting for someone in the meeting to call you. Inclusion is when you’re in the meeting. Kasich was endorsed by the largest African American newspaper in Ohio. He got 26% of the Black vote, probably the high water mark for the last 50 years for Ohio Republicans. He has continued to do it and he does it the old-fashioned way. He goes into the community. He sits down and works with people. He listens to small business owners. He listens to preachers. He listens to mothers and fathers. He is passionate about every American having their God given right to pursue happiness. He actually means it. .… As you well know, if we can get 26 – 40% of the African American vote in 2016 we would win the election decisively and it would be a historic moment. I believe Kasich has begun to figure out an approach that honest, that’s inclusive, that solves problems, and that people would pay attention to and respond to.

Yet, we are now in 2016 and see very little of the approach John Kasich used to such great success in Ohio being emulated at a national level by the GOP, and certainly not by the Trump campaign.

Donald Trump has, for example, turned down invitations to speak at the NAACP annual convention, and has further alienated Black voters by tweeting smears against Blacks, such as the claim that 81 percent of White homicide victims are killed by Blacks. His bizarre refusal to denounce KKK Grand Wizard David Duke on national television also still confuses many would-be Black Trump supporters — especially because he had denounced Duke not long prior. The Progressive media has put “Trump’s Racist Past” stories in such heavy rotation, it’s as if they were disc jockeys and these stories were the latest Adele single.

The recent GOP convention provides another illustrative example of the Republican Party’s increasing disregard for the Black vote. Out of 2,474 delegates, only 18 were Black. One can hardly be serious about obtaining 20% of the vote from 13% of the population when that population only represents 0.7 percent of your party’s delegates.

To put this number in perspective, let’s recall the famous Romney Christmas picture that was mocked on MSNBC because of how the one Black grandchild stood out while surrounded by 22 White grandchildren. A comedian even joked that the picture “really sums up the diversity of the Republican party, the RNC.” Not quite. For this picture to truly represent the diversity of the Republican Party (as evidenced by its delegates) Romney’s Black grandchild would have to be not one out of 23 White grandchildren, but rather one out of nearly 140.

It is worth noting that while the convention did feature several African American speakers such as Dr. Ben Carson, senatorial candidate Darryl Glenn, and Sheriff David Clarke, many others — such as Lt. Col. Allen West, who in my view rivals Dr. Thomas Sowell as the nation’s most prominent Black Conservative — were not invited to speak, or even asked to attend.

Even more infuriating to African American conservatives than the sparsity of Black delegates is the refusal of the Trump campaign to consider an African American vice-presidential pick. According to Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, “that would be viewed as pandering.”

Of course if Trump did “pander” by selecting an African American as his running mate, that person selected would hardly be the first running mate selected to pander to one group or the other. Most picks selected to be a running mate are done so in the hope that he or she would appeal to certain demographic, whether that demographic is determined by age, religion, or locality, or so on, down the list. In fact, Trump picked Governor Pence to be his running mate largely to pander to #NeverTrump conservatives.

Yet, though both parties pander to certain groups in their pick of running mates, when it comes to Blacks, many Republicans behave like a pretty high school girl who is still dateless a week before the prom, yet refuses to flirt with any potential escorts, thinking that everyone should recognize her cuteness, and, if anyone doesn’t, it’s their loss.

Besides, even if it was pandering, it would be a pretty good effort. To return to Allen West for a moment, as popular a ticket as Trump-Pence might be, a Trump-West may be as popular, or even more so.

92% of poll takers at said that Trump-West would be “a fantastic ticket.” In a similar poll 97% said they would support Allen West as Trump’s Vice-President.

Allen West is a brilliant speaker, has over two decades of military experience, two Master’s degrees, is a solid conservative, and was a Congressman from Florida where Trump is currently losing to Hillary Clinton. His selection would have undermined the Democratic strategy of portraying Trump as a racist, and would have likely increased Trump’s popularity among Blacks.

If Allen West was not considered to be Trump’s running mate because of the color of his skin, as I suspect based upon Manafort’s remark, it smacks of the worst kind of discrimination.

Of course no running mate or number of Black delegates is going to increase Donald Trump’s standing in the Black community without effort from Trump himself. Although we have seen very little such effort from him until now, his nomination speech at the GOP convention gave encouraging signs that he is moving in a positive direction.

Said Mr. Trump in his speech, “When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have the same right to live out their dreams as any other child in America?”

Such overtures may exemplify what Gingrich meant by outreach to Blacks rather than inclusion, but it sets a tone that many welcome from the Republican nominee.

– DK


Posted in Current events/topics, Elections, GOP/RNC, Race/Racism/Race Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Allen West Snubbed by #RNCinCLE

Allen.MarieLast night I learned that Conservative firebrand and icon, Allen West, has not been invited to speak at #RNCinCLE. This information comes directly from LTC West himself. He further stated that not only was he not approached about speaking at the 2016 RNC Convention next week in Cleveland, he was not invited to speak in 2012, when 1) he was an elected official, and 2) where the convention was being held in his (then) home state of FL.

Beyond that, LTC West attests that he and his wife, Dr. Angela Graham-West, were not even offered tickets to the Presidential debate in 2012, when held at Lynn University, which is in the District he represented.

This is the Party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves. The Party of Frederick Douglass who stated, “I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress;” and, “I recognize the Republican party as the sheet anchor of the colored man’s political hopes and the ark of his safety.”  This is the Party that had Black Republicans in Congress right after slavery ended, whereas the Democrats did not until 70 years later. This is the Party that toiled to get Civil Rights legislation passed despite Democrat opposition – and yes, I’m aware a Democrat President signed it . . . a Democrat who said, “I’ll have those n*****rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years,” by the way. This is a Party whose values align with the Black community and oppose the genocide of our children, and the extermination of Black lives in the womb. This is the Party that wants to provide more school choice and educational opportunities, when our own President, a Black man, pulled the plug on the successful DC voucher program. Yet, despite the rise of Tim Scott, Mia Love, Allen West, Will Hurd and others . . . it comes to this.

Black staffers are leaving the RNC en masse. There are no solo Black hosts on FOX. And, now, look at the list of speakers at the RNC Convention in Cleveland.

A few years ago, Pat Buchanan told me on the AACONS radio show that RNC money “goes where the votes are,” and that’s not to Black communities. I pointed out how myopic this view is, in not better communicating ideals to a community whose values are so aligned, yet, time has borne out the truth of Mr. Buchanan’s statement.

When you are a political party that many believe to be racist and have two Caucasian men at the top of a ticket, and a speakers list that looks like a snowstorm in New York in January, despite a plethora of qualified Conservatives of color . . . yes, there is a problem.

I do not say this for “quota’s sake.” I say this because until the Party outwardly looks like the people it claims to serve, nothing will change. The first time I saw an interracial ad on TV, I did a double take, because it was so rare to see. Now I don’t bat an eye, because it’s commonplace. The same needs to happen with the GOP. We are diverse, and America needs to see this. Especially now, given the racial tensions in our country. With the behavior America sees playing out on TV screens everywhere – rioting, looting, and the like – the Country needs to see that not every Black man is a “thug,” or every Black woman is a “ghetto fabulous welfare queen.”

Black Conservatives have a hard lot. We are seen as “tokens” by the Left, “house Negroes” by the largely Democrat Black community, and the White Right tends to just trot us out to discuss racial issues, despite the fact that we have so many in our ranks who can address school choice, military affairs, fiscal issues and the like.

The fact that a highly decorated man, who has dedicated most of his life in service to his country would not be invited to speak at his Party’s convention is beyond insulting. Allen West goes viral just about every time he opens his mouth, and not only is he a skilled and sought after speaker . . . he is more than that. This is a man that is qualified to lead our country . . . a man who could (and should) be on the top of a ticket. And, he’s not even asked to speak?

Even though I am an Independent, and not a Republican, I often vote Republican because of the values so closely aligning to my beliefs as a Christian. But, this is my breakup letter. I am done. A group of high level Black Conservatives has put forth a proposal to shake things up and I am all in.

I am boycotting the Convention. I will not watch any of it on television. I am putting my energies into letting them know they blew it (again), and directing my energies into affecting change where it is welcomed, appreciated and necessary.

Many Blacks have been wary of the Republican Party and are #NeverGOP, but I’m saddened to see the GOP is increasingly #NeverBrown

– Marie

Posted in Current events/topics, GOP/RNC, Race/Racism/Race Relations | 12 Comments