African-American Conservatives the soul of the conservative movement Sat, 18 Sep 2021 01:21:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 African-American Conservatives 32 32 83255634 A House Divided Fri, 17 Sep 2021 18:17:30 +0000 A House Divided
African-American Conservatives

Our double standards foster resentment and division. They will eventually shatter what unites us as a country.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

A House Divided
African-American Conservatives

If a president pressures a world leader to aid in his deception of the American people, the president should face impeachment.

If a general conspires to undermine a US president, especially if he conspires to do so on behalf of an enemy, the general should be charged with treason.

These should be considered basic truths regardless of the political affiliation of the president.

Instead, we have a system so marked with double standards that it has become too common to mention.

We could say “Wow, if Trump had done that” several times a day, every day, such as when Biden referred to his African American Secretary of Defense as “boy,” but why hammer the obvious?

Recently, many of us saw a white woman throw an egg at Larry Elder for his having the temerity to attempt to be the first Black California governor.

Less than two years prior to this a white college student was charged with “civil rights intimidation” for attending a Black Lives Matters rally in a gorilla mask.

The woman who attempted to assault Elder was not even charged with littering, and the story itself was covered by the LA Times with a picture that gave an initial impression that Elder had slapped her.

Double standards may seem too routine to be harmful but they are deeply pernicious. No one wants to be treated unfairly.

Few want to be required to be vaccinated when others such as illegal aliens are not.

Not everyone wants to see people treated like terrorists and rapists for protesting election certification inside the Capitol Building when those who protested the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh inside the same building are treated as heroes.

Who among us wants to be treated disparagingly because of our gender, ethnicity, faith, or how we vote?

Our double standards foster resentment and division. They will eventually shatter what unites us as a country.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1749
The Lives of Black Babies Matter, Too Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:25:40 +0000 The Lives of Black Babies Matter, Too
African-American Conservatives

I urge you to consider this woman's ties to the eugenics movement; thus I have said that abortion in the Black community is a racist construct.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

The Lives of Black Babies Matter, Too
African-American Conservatives

Over the last few weeks, in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, and its catalyst as the breaking point after many such incidents, humans are actually having some of the many difficult conversations I have said for over a decade that America needs to have.

I have often spoken of the woman who told me I needed to “get over” talking about slavery and its effects, because “some good things came out of slavery, like the food and the hymns.”

I have also talked about how the abortion movement is steeped in racism and eugenics. Now, it appears, in having these needful discussions, people are beginning to at least give credence to this notion.

Planned Parenhood, in past, has mentioned their racist past, but not until now, have they truly had to reckon with it. Do I believe they will give up the abortion business? Not by a longshot. It is far too lucrative for them. However, in making their discussions more open as they confront their origins, it caused me to, once again, put forth an effort to explain why my passion, as a Black woman, around this topic has me politically aligned with those who would protect life, and puts me at odds with many other African-Americans.

Here is what I posted today on Facebook:
“This is something I have said for over a decade. I’ve quoted her words extensively and my work to make her legacy known has branded me as racist because I am unashamedly pro-life. If Black lives do matter — and they do — they must matter in the womb.

Many of you know I am an avid Nestlé boycotter. In addition to many egregious and entitled actions, part of the charge laid at their feet is how they have told poor women in third world countries how they should “want to be like Western women.” 

The same seduction is true in our communities of color with respect to life. The argument Sanger made to induce Black women into killing their children was how “merciful” it is.Finally, folks are becoming “woke,” on this issue. I urge you to consider this woman’s ties to the eugenics movement, her singling out of poor and, in particular, Black women, and the fact that she spoke to the Women’s Auxiliary of the KKK, all as supporting facts as to why I have said that abortion in the Black community is a racist construct.

It is hurtful to know that our people are experiencing attrition. Basic Fertility Replacement Theory states the Black community needs 2.1 births to remain viable as a people long-term. We are at 1.8.

Her colleague was Ernst Rudin. In fact, the parent company of the firm that produces our “morning after” pill, is a subsidiary of the company that produced the gas for the chambers in Germany. What stronger proof do people need for at least legitimately discussing these concerns, as we have these honest, painful, and necessary discussions about race?

Give a little grace to those of us who have continued to advocate for the destruction of this woman’s legacy. You may not agree with my politics, but I will continue to get this message out and support those who are truly dedicated to life, and those who will affirm the worth of Black lives, including those in the womb.”

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1741
Open Rebuttal to Harvard’s Elizabeth Bartholet (or When Homeschoolers Met Permit Patty) Tue, 21 Apr 2020 03:06:47 +0000 Open Rebuttal to Harvard’s Elizabeth Bartholet (or When Homeschoolers Met Permit Patty)
African-American Conservatives

Veteran homeschooler Marie Stroughter takes on the recent controversy around a Harvard Journal article by Professor Elizabeth Bartholet that posits homeschooling fosters White supremacy. Oh, yeah, Marie is Black.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

Open Rebuttal to Harvard’s Elizabeth Bartholet (or When Homeschoolers Met Permit Patty)
African-American Conservatives

This rant has been years in the making so bear with me. I need to set the stage for you, and then get to the main thrust of what finally tipped the scale for me.

I co-founded AACONS 12 years ago because I grew tired of people — mainly non-Blacks — congratulating me on the election of “my” president, Barack Obama. The underlying unspoken insinuation was, because we shared similar pigmentation, we must have a shared ideology.

Not too long after that, when discussing the debate about the terms “Black” v. “African-American,” a woman — again, not Black — on a page for conservatives of color, mind you — said, in essence, that “you all” need to “get over” slavery because “some good things came out of it, like the food and the hymns.”

Let me just park that for a moment and let that sink in.

Four hundred years of forced servitude, torture, rape, back-breaking, bone-wearying work, separating us from lands, children, mates, and you want me to focus on leftover food no one else wanted and the heartbreaking cries set to the music of our enslavement as “good things?” For whom?

I am not one for reparations, not by a long shot. As many people as we currently have in America with lineage back to slavery, even if I were a reparations kinda gal, it would be tantamount to a .30 credit from a bank or cable company that had to settle up with customers. It’s a gazillion dollars to the company, but little-to-nothing for the end-user wronged. Frankly, it would be an insulting pittance.

Further, I hear, “why talk about color at all . . . aren’t we all Americans?” Well, yes, we are. But, that doesn’t mean we have experienced life in the same way. That doesn’t mean I cannot be proud of my heritage (and, by the way, I am bi-racial). That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced things that color my perception, or talk with others in my community that have similar experiences to mine that warrant discussion. Nor, does it mean, based on pigment alone, I think as others do, as in my illustration regarding President Obama above.

I’ve been called everything — from the left and the right – and, I’ve had it, so I am just going to let it all out here.

To the right: As I said in my podcast about the Black v. African-American debate, there is so much “White guilt,” that it makes a great number of people incapable of having rational conversation about the topic. For people who are not Black, people with no experience as to what African-Americans do, or do not, go through on a daily basis, the sheer optics of telling me, on my own page, how I should feel, seem to escape these folks.

“Be free thinkers,” they say. However, when I am, yet, don’t say what they think I should say, I am told I should not say it, feel it, think it, or, worst of all, I should “get over it.” This is wrong.

If I feel comfortable enough with you to let you into my private thoughts, to better educate you so that we can work together to effect change, then listen. Just listen. I’m certainly not asking for your opinion (unless I use phrases ending in question marks like “What do you think?”), nor am I asking you to “fix” anything.

I do not like the term “ally,” because – and, this may just be me — it still implies I need you to come alongside me — an educated, competent Black woman — to fix things for me so I can be heard.

Most of those who would use the phrase “ally” would fall on the political left, and now we come to what set me off today.

A White woman – and, believe me, I don’t normally use racial descriptors as I have on these pages, but to make this point, I must — at Harvard is accusing homeschoolers of fostering “White supremacy,” thus, society should ban the practice.

Again, I will just let that sit and percolate a bit. Do you honestly think, as a Black family, we are “White supremacists?”

In the whole 20+ years that we have homeschooled, we have encountered a handful of Black homeschoolers. This is in the very diverse, and very politically liberal area in which I live. A handful.

Did it occur to anyone that we might homeschool for reasons such as:

• People get our history wrong. Routinely. As above, if I can’t even have a conversation about slavery because folks feel guilty or need to “prove” they are not racist, what do you think their version of “Black History” looks like?

• God has been taken out of our schools. As a Christian family, God is central. That right there sets a lot of people off with “patriarchy” comments and “uneducated flat-earther” pejoratives. These are people who quote the Bible out of context, and, similar to those described above, appear to be tone-deaf to discussions about those not from the culture lecturing those from the culture, with ideas and thoughts that are not even accurately informed by the source material, the Bible.

• Not all socialization is good. I have heard that in this period of “social distancing” there were no school shootings during the month of March. Even before some of the school closures, this was the case. Why are there school task forces on bullying and cyberbullying? Because kids can be very cruel and no one knows this better than I, because, for three long and horrible years of my life, I was the kid bloodied, beaten, and bullied.

Of course, there are the oft-quoted “socialization” concerns (“socially awkward” is a term I’ve heard used against the homeschooling community many a time) cited by those against homeschooling. When my kids were smaller, we couldn’t go out to restaurants or in public without people stopping to tell us how amazing our kids were in politely ordering their own food, exhibiting good table manners, and interacting with the adults like servers, cashiers, other patrons that we came into contact with.

• I’ve never noticed anyone else raise this point online, but have you ever noticed in literature that if a protagonist is White, it’s never mentioned? Sometimes hair color or eye-color is discussed — think “titian-haired” Nancy Drew — however, the loud, sassy sidekick friend (never the protagonist themselves) is identified by skin color or even by race. “Her best friend, a gum-smacking African-American girl, with caramel-colored skin . . .” Or the “staff,” as in “the rotund, grandmotherly, Hispanic cook . . .” Black folks see this and we feel it. Why would we entrust the education of our children to a culture that truly does not see it?

Progressives will ban iconic “Little House on the Prairie” for a discussion about “Indians” (as they were called on the prairie), and continue to “whitewash” history by erasing monuments and other historical items. Where can the — yes, painful, but needed — conversations about race occur if everything is Kumbaya? Have we really solved the problem? Not if we are having the discussion I am having today.

I’m not a fan of having the Confederate flag flying in front of a building, but I do believe all of our history needs to be preserved — as it occurred – good, bad, and ugly, in a museum or similar setting. That includes leaving monuments intact.

• One size does not fit all. I have a kinesthetic learner with special challenges, a voracious reader, and one kid who is a hybrid of both styles. Thirty-plus kids in one room with one teacher espousing one style would not work for all of my children.

• Homeschooling works with their body clocks. I have one up at the crack of dawn and two who prefer the “crack of noon.” Traditional schools will not cater to their peak performance time.

• Three words: child-centered learning! My oldest got his Bachelor’s degree at the ripe old age of 20. He fell in love with robots at the age of six and pursued robotics from first grade all the way through high school. He taught Lego Robotics and stop-motion animation for 4-H. He was dual-enrolled (college classes while homeschooling), and got an A at 16 in Intro to C, a college-level course . . . all because these subjects interested him and motivated him to learn on his own.

My daughter has loved animals her whole life. She wanted to pursue veterinary medicine, but for a while thought perhaps she wanted to go into computer programming. She spent a summer at IBM and loved it. It finally gave her the confidence to speak in public, and though she ultimately chose veterinary medicine, she still holds that summer in her heart with fond memories and still chats with good friends she made. And, she was the only Black girl . . . not that it matters, but this is what we are discussing: a world-class education not often seen by those of us in the Black community. Who would begrudge us that?

My daughter now? She just entered her third quarter in college, after having made the Dean’s List in both of the first two.

My youngest, as mentioned, has special challenges. We adopted him — along with his sister — later in life, not as babies.

In a traditional setting, he would have been slapped in a Special Ed classroom, with someone who does not know him as I do. This child is thoughtful and can write well-developed essays that could make you weep if you knew what he had come through. He’s delivered sermons at church services and is the kid everyone loves. Oh, and he interns two full days a week at a wildlife rehabilitation facility . . . and, is well-loved there, too.

All three of my kids will spend time with babies just as easily as they do with the elderly, and do so with genuine enjoyment.

Yep. Sounds like a bunch of “White supremacists” to me. Not.

Since Professor Bartholet has let us all in on her opinions – for that’s what they are — about homeschoolers, let me lob a few “home truths” back at her:

The research shows that by every conceivable measure, homeschoolers outperform their traditionally-schooled peers. Black homeschooling has been the fastest segment of the homeschooling movement in recent years.

Dr. Brian Ray of NHERI says:

“Black homeschooled children scored, on average, 42 percentile points higher in reading, 26 percentile points higher in language, and 23 percentile points higher in math, than did their Black public-school counterparts.” 

Those on the left talk about equality, yet our schools are the most segregated in cities controlled – for decades — by “progressives” yet our kids still cannot read or pass basic exit exams. I was supposed to stand by and let this happen? If you think that, you don’t know me.

The kind of “progressive” education espoused in the article have raised children who no longer engage in critical thinking. Everything is “offensive,” “racist,” or a “microaggression.”

The Harvard article posits that homeschooling parents have “24/7 authoritarian control” over their children, thus, setting the stage for rampant White supremacy. Perhaps Professor Bartholet can then explain why, in a traditional school setting, teachers “have authoritarian control” over children far more hours of the day than the parents who send them to these schools do, and that’s okay? That “teaching to the test” inextricably linked to funding isn’t a conflict of interest? Surely there’s no motivation there, right?

In fact, while researching our local Regional Occupation Program, I was told homeschoolers no longer qualified for fee-waivers because the district did not get the “per pupil” funding for my children. I countered that perhaps I should stop paying the taxes that funded them since I got no benefit from their programs.

I digress, however.

The argument put forth by Professor Bartholet is not a new one. It is eerily reminiscent of an argument made several years ago by President Barack Obama, ironically, during a time that his daughters attended the toney and expensive private school, Sidwell Friends:

“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together.” [1]

Yet, Dr. Ron Paul says:

“A free society acknowledges that authority over education begins with the family. I am not saying that a free society grants that authority. I do not believe that such authority is delegated by society. But a free society acknowledges that families have that authority. To the extent that any society substitutes a source of authority over education to other than the family, it departs from liberty.” [2]

In a traditional educational model, math is racist, milk is racist, and “African-American Vernacular English” is a thing. Do these “educational snobs” not see the inherent “soft bigotry of low expectations?” You are saying lower the standards because, for the decades you have controlled inner-city public schools, you have failed our children.

When my daughter was 14, she was furious to hear that a New England fire department lowered the testing standards for advancement to get more people of color in higher positions. She said, “I don’t need anyone to dumb down a test for me. I can pass any test you throw at me.”

The Black-White achievement gap is not closing. When there is a choice between supporting children of color and teacher’s unions, educational elites choose the unions. Need proof? Look no further than the DC Economic Opportunity Scholarship Program. Established by a GOP-led Congress, minority children not only out-performed their traditionally-school counterparts, they out-performed the non-minority kids, too (let me translate into “liberal-ese” for you: these would be the “poor kids” Joe Biden said “are just as bright” as “White kids.” And, let me mention, he also said Barack Obama was the first Black person he’d met who was “clean” and “articulate.” Sorry, CornPop.)

According to The Heritage Foundation:

• The children with scholarships for the DC voucher program graduated at a rate of 21 percentage points higher than their counterparts without scholarships.

• The return on investment was $2.62 per dollar spent.

• Researchers stated, “In scientific terms, we are more than 99% confident that access to school choice through the Opportunity Scholarship Program was the reason students in the program graduated at these much higher rates.”

• 75 percent of Milwaukee Public School students graduated high school, compared to 94 percent of Milwaukee voucher students.

• Voucher students were more likely to graduate, had higher levels of college enrollment, were less likely to drop out of school, and overall, had greater levels of academic achievement than their public-school counterparts.

• Charter school students also had greater levels of academic attainment than students in traditional schools.

• Researchers stated, “Attending a charter high school is associated with statistically significant and substantial increases in the probability of graduating and of enrolling in college.”

Cato says:

• 11 of 12 random assignment studies found “statistically significant positive outcomes for students who won a spot in school voucher programs,“ including higher reading and math scores

• Competition seemed to improve public schools. In 22 of 23 empirical studies, public schools students improved performance after school choice began

Need more proof? What about the lawsuit in Los Angeles that alleged teacher’s unions’ tenure policies hurt minority children most?

In traditional school environments, parents have absolutely no rights and no say . . . but teachers and counselors do (hmmm, “authoritarian control”). Teachers and counselors who cannot possibly know – or love — my children as I do. Parents cannot “opt-out” of anything, nor are they needed to provide consent for invasive or life-altering decisions.

As hard-fought a victory as it was to get our schools desegregated, the very folks who spout the sort of rhetoric seen in this Harvard article have our Black children so confused, they actually want to segregate themselves again  . .  . on campus . . . away from the very people perpetuating these fallacies!

Now with COVID-19 and social distancing, all parents are teaching children at home (not necessarily “homeschooling,” but that’s a dissection for another day, perhaps). These are the parents posting memes all day about “day drinking” and going nuts. It’s so bad that these parents are being told they will “set their children back a generation” (while taking swipes at homeschoolers . . le sigh).

There are so many reasons we homeschool that have nothing to do with politics, and yet, many reasons that do, but not the politics people like Elizabeth Bartholet think.

I have raised my children to be free-thinkers. Sure, every parent has a worldview they pass along to their kids. My kids hold a mix of views. But, the very idea that they are free-thinkers is what I believe Professor Bartholet fears. She, and those like her, cannot control my thoughts, so she wants our children to be under the control of those who think as she does. For more on this, see The Borg from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

So, before another “well-meaning” person from outside of our community tells me — yet again — what I should think, feel, or do, maybe talk to some actual Black homeschoolers outside of your echo chamber.

Oh . . . and maybe talk to your own admissions department, Professor Bartholet. Harvard seems to recruit homeschoolers like crazy.


[1] Speech by President Barack Obama, Georgetown University, May 12, 2015

[2] Paul, Ron. The School Revolution: A New Answer for Our Broken Education System. New York: Grand Central,  2013. 5-6. Print.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

Larry O’Connor Show: Black Voices For Trump Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:11:42 +0000 Larry O’Connor Show: Black Voices For Trump
African-American Conservatives

Larry O'Connor interviewed Marie Stroughter, Advisory Board Member, Black Voices For Trump.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

Larry O’Connor Show: Black Voices For Trump
African-American Conservatives

Larry O’Connor interviewed Marie Stroughter, Advisory Board Member, Black Voices For Trump:

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1710
Motive Behind the Left’s Impeachment Attempts Thu, 26 Sep 2019 17:54:30 +0000 Motive Behind the Left’s Impeachment Attempts
African-American Conservatives

I am not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard, generally speaking. However, I find her reaction to the release of the transcript to the call President Trump made to Ukrainian President Zelensky to be spot-on

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

Motive Behind the Left’s Impeachment Attempts
African-American Conservatives

I am not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard, generally speaking. However, I find her reaction to the release of the transcript to the call President Trump made to Ukrainian President Zelensky to be spot-on:

“I think when you step outside of the bubble here in Washington and you get to where most folks are … I think most people reading through that transcript are not going to find that extremely compelling cause to throw out a president that won an election in 2016.

“And instead what I think most people will see is, ‘Hey, this is another move by Democrats to get rid of Donald Trump,’ further deepening the already hyperpartisan divides that we have in this country.”

Ms. Gabbard, of course, is an extremely liberal congresswoman who referred to the president in the same interview as “corrupt” and “unfit to serve our country as president” She is also attempting to persuade Democratic voters to allow her to replace President Trump. It is unlikely she is politically motivated to defend Donald Trump.

Nor is Charlie Cook, publisher of [i] The Cook Political Report [/i], who tweeted “I don’t Tweet very much but reading transcript has moved me to comment.  I was totally underwhelmed by the transcript. After the build-up, it was not much more inappropriate said than we hear from him in a typical week.  This will not move malleable voters.”

Yet, Democrats would have one believe that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense by asking President Zelensky for “a favor” by looking into possible corruption involving Hillary Clinton’s server and Joe Biden’s demand that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was investigating Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

As Congresswoman Gabbard pointed out, it strains belief to think that most Americans would find anything President Trump has done in this regard as impeachable. Nor, I would add, does it seem credible to believe that every Democrat see anything here or in past impeachment attempts that rise to the level of “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors”, despite what they say to the contrary.

The reason for my speculation is that these attempts to impeach the president have so far been nothing but a steady stream of BS.

There was, for example, an attempt to impeach President Trump for firing James Comey in May of 2017. However, only months earlier both Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer expressed a lack of confidence in Mr. Comey’s ability to continue to lead the FBI.

There was the attempt to impeach President Trump for obstructing the Mueller Report. This effort continued even after Robert Mueller testified before Congress that his investigation was not “curtailed, stopped, or hindered.”  In other words, there was no obstruction.

There is this current attempt to impeach President Trump for pushing President Zelensky into investigating Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden although President Zelensky himself says he was not pushed into anything.

There was even an argument that the president, whose net worth is reportedly about $3B, should be impeached for violating the Emolument Clause and profiting from his office by having Vice-President Pence stayed at a Trump golf resort.

I do not take seriously the notion that so many Democrats — many of whom possess enviable academic and legal credentials, so they can’t all be considered dunces — actually ever believed they had a legitimate case for impeachment against President Trump any more so than they ever thought that Brett Kavanaugh was a serial rapist.

The reasons given most often for why Democrats continue to put forth charges that they themselves do not believe are that they want to appease their increasingly Stalinistic base who want socialism now at all costs, or that they want to disrupt Trump’s reelection efforts.

Both are true. As Representative Al Green, a Democrat, said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”

But perhaps there is another motivating factor behind these efforts to impeach the president.  It is likely, in my opinion, that these efforts are part of a larger pattern we are witnessing — to an increasingly alarming degree — an effort to intimidate political opposition.

Recently Debra Katz, who represented Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh debacle, stated:

“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important. It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

We have also seen attempts to blacklist those in the entertainment industry for attending a Trump fundraiser, a conservative student was punched on a Berkley campus for “encouraging violence,’ and Facebook joining forces with Twitter and Pinterest in their campaign against pro-life group Live Action.

Not far from where I live, an 81-year old man was beaten in a supermarket for wearing a MAGA cap. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd declared that those who are “climate change deniers” will not be allowed to express their views on his show “Meet The Press.” And, various college groups are still voting to ban conservative speakers, conservative groups, and Chick-fil-A restaurants from campus.

One final example: Joaquin Castro, brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro, recently tweeted the names and business addresses of Trump donors, for no other apparent reason other than to have these donors harassed or otherwise punished for not supporting the Progressive agenda.

I could list enough examples of the left’s assault (often physical assault) on conservatives to fill several more pages, but, hopefully, I’ve provided enough that the reader gets the gist.

There is a pattern to repress conservatism that goes beyond winning debates and winning elections. This pattern includes expelling conservatives from academia, entertainment, and certain social circles. At the very least it is a pattern to make Republican supporters feel wary about expressing their ideology, for this expression could easily lead to negative consequences for them.

This pattern reaches all the way to the top with the harassment of President Trump in the form of impeachment attempts, but it affects our lives as well.

— DK

Photo credit: Mike Fritcher on Visual Hunt / CC BY-NC

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1702
MSDNCNN and the New Racism Mon, 05 Aug 2019 11:24:53 +0000 MSDNCNN and the New Racism
African-American Conservatives

To a conservative, racism is prejudice against or the hatred of another race, or the belief that one’s own race is superior to other races. To a liberal, racism is simply the expression of opposition to a progressive person of color by a white conservative.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

MSDNCNN and the New Racism
African-American Conservatives

In June of 2019 in Portland, a hostile white mob — calling itself Antifa — threateningly surrounded a man who is a person of color.

Unlike another incident allegedly involving a hostile white mob, in which a person of color claimed to be assaulted by the smile of a skinny 15-year old kid near the Lincoln Memorial, the gentleman in Portland (Andy Ngo) was assaulted with kicks, punches, and vegan vanilla milkshakes. So beaten was he that he required hospitalization for his injuries, which included brain bleed.

Yet while the Lincoln Memorial incident dominated social media for days with accusations of racism and white supremacy, the Portland incident barely elicited a whisper of outrage.

It may be a struggle for some to see why the Lincoln Memorial incident was deemed racist while the Portland incident was not. After all, both contained a similar key element: a white mob against a lone person of color.

Yet clearly the reactions to the incidents differed wildly. While a group of Catholic high school teens were so demonized that their school received hundreds of threats, the media sanitized Antifa. Newsweek columnist Tae Phoenix even wrote of Antifa, “I’ve met golden retrievers who scared me more.”

While Ngo’s plight is sickening, it is not unique. Many incidents against people of color occur yet oddly are not generally considered to be racist or racially motivated.

In Washington, D.C., for example, a Hispanic senator was chased out of a restaurant by a hostile white mob. An Asian author who occasionally posts some of the hate mail she receives included one that suggested she commit “hari-kari.”   The one black member of the Supreme Court is regularly singled out by liberals for being  “the absolute worst” and even for being “fat” and “lazy.”

Again, one has to wonder how can these things happen without being called “racist” at a time when MSDNCNN — the name I’ve given to this alliance between the Democratic Party and MSNBC, CNN, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and numerous other media outlets — froths at the mouth for weeks in moral outrage over the “racism” of President Trump calling Representative Elijah Cummings “a bully” or Don Lemon “dumb.”

The conclusion is inescapable.

Columnist Ramesh Ponnuru wrote, “Nearly everyone agrees that racism is evil. But liberals and conservatives have different thresholds for what constitutes it.”

This is not completely accurate. It is not that liberals and conservatives have a different threshold for racism but rather that they define it very differently.

To a conservative, racism is prejudice against or the hatred of another race, or the belief that one’s own race is superior to other races. To a liberal, racism is simply the expression of opposition to a progressive person of color by a white conservative.

Therefore, consistent with this definition, neither the attack against Andy Ngo, nor any of the other examples I listed above, involving Ted Cruz, Ying Ma, and Clarence Thomas, are racist because in each case none of the subjects are progressives.

Imagine a group of white conservatives — a group of Tea Partiers perhaps — chasing Kamala Harris out of a restaurant, or suggesting that Senator Hirono commit hari-kari. Imagine white conservatives assaulting a liberal Asian reporter the way Antifa assaulted Andy Ngo. Had that happened, the reaction would have been extremely different. It would have been loud, constant, and would have been discussed from dusk to dawn on cable television for months. We would have been called upon to reexamine our own soul as a nation. The reaction would have made the Mueller investigation seem like something mentioned in passing.

It is also interesting to note that when an African American conservative is attacked by a white liberal in a way that would outrage if the African American was progressive, the conservative will find no defense forthcoming from their fellow progressive African Americans. Black liberals, in my experience with them, put their party before their people, not just in terms of policy but in practice as well. And, they do it in a very shameful way.

When white congressman Steve Cohen suggested that African American pro-life activist Star Parker’s testimony before Congress ‘showed her ignorance,’ The Root, which claims to be “Black News, Opinions, Politics and Culture,”  did not defend this black woman. Instead, they wrote:

“People were shocked to hear him go after a black woman publicly like this, but here is the thing:

She is kinda ignorant, though.”

Allen West, a former congressman and possible candidate for Texas Republican Party Chair, and an African American, recently provided an example of how black liberals slavishly grin in support of white liberals who attack black conservatives on his blog, The Old School Patriot:

“I have shared with y’all my 2012 congressional reelection campaign experience with an ad run by my opponent that depicted me with a gold tooth punching white women. What was the response from the left . . . crickets. The NAACP Director of the Washington Bureau and SVP for Advocacy and Policy, Hillary O. Shelton, laughed on TV and said the ad had me dressed in a nice suit . . . butthole. Who are the “sellouts” again?”

Again, imagine the reaction if a white congressman spoke as rudely to a liberal black woman testifying before the House as Rep. Cohen did to Star Parker, or if a white Republican running against an African American Democrat ran an ad similar to the one that denigrated Allen West.

The left’s re-defining the word “racism” to suit their needs has had a significant impact on our politics.

According to a Quinnipiac poll, 51 percent of voters believe that President Trump is a racist. Quinnipiac also found that only 6 percent of black voters support him.

Trump’s support among African Americans deserves to be much higher for a variety of reasons, including his presiding over record low unemployment in the black community.

However, in an era in which MSDNCNN relentlessly hammers that such things like calling West Baltimore rat-infested, an accurate assessment that echoes the view previously expressed by many Democrats, including Baltimore’s own mayor, is somehow racist, then not only has the word been cheapened and redefined, but now is more clearly than ever a propaganda tool of the progressive left.


Photo credit: stevebott on VisualHunt / CC BY 2.0

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1695
Green New Deal: Great New Deal for Illegals Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:48:45 +0000 Green New Deal: Great New Deal for Illegals
African-American Conservatives

In all, the phrase “all people of the United States” is repeated seven times in the official Green New Deal resolution. The word “citizen” is not mentioned once. 

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

Green New Deal: Great New Deal for Illegals
African-American Conservatives

In the days following the unveiling of the Green New Deal, Democrats have been scrambling to make their proposal seem less than the socialist manifesto that it clearly is. Rather than admitting that the Green New Deal [GND] is a dictate, the Democrats pretend that the proposal is merely a list of suggestions that  — maybe, if we are in the mood and aren’t too busy; no pressure — we can perhaps achieve.

Despite the most common descriptors from the left to describe the GND, it is neither “affordable” nor “realistic” but rather “aspirational.” To paraphrase Senator Cory Booker, the Green New Deal is “bold . . . like saving the world from the Nazis or flying to the moon.”

It is rather odd how the same Democrats who were “too fiscally responsible” to allow the one-time expenditure of $5.7 billion dollars for “Trump’s border wall dream” would support spending more than $400 billion a year on a program for which “aspirational” is the kindest descriptor.

Perhaps the most prominent current defender of the Green New Deal is Cornell University Law School Professor Robert Hockett, an adviser to the resolution’s co-author Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Professor Hockett has achieved some recent notoriety for “fact-checking” Tucker Carlson on air by falsely saying Congresswoman Osasio-Cortez would “never” propose providing economic security for those unwilling to work, which she clearly did.

According to Professor Hockett, the GND does not issue requirements but rather merely gives the consumers additional options.

He says:

We’re really talking about expanding optionality here. We’re not talking about getting rid of anything. We’re talking about basically making it cost-effective to move into more modern forms of technology, more modern forms of production, which would then enable people to actually cost-effectively to transit to that stuff. We’re not talking about requiring anything or prohibiting anything.  

In other words, according to Professor Hockett, the purpose of the Green New Deal is to merely do what the free market has always done, which is to seek to give the consumer better options. However, under the GND resolution, the government will use its force to make one of the options as undesirable as possible. This is all very reminiscent of the option Senator Obama once promised the coal industry, “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Unfortunately, it appears Professor Hockett may not have not read the actual Green New Deal document, which states that “the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1)  . . . should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization . . . that will require the following goals and projects.“ (Emphasis added.)

One of the listed goals required by the GND is “(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

So clearly the GND both “requires” — not “suggests” or “encourages” — and prohibits the consumer from getting that big, white, gas guzzling Jaguar SUV with the panoramic sunroof he hopes to buy as soon as AACONS pays him enough money to do so. If it did, the Green New Deal would be derelict in meeting its requirement for 100% zero-emissions.

This unwillingness to be honest and forthcoming about the demands of the Green New Deal by supporters is troublesome. Despite being the one who tweeted a document that contained a promise for “Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.” for example, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez subsequently accused Republicans of “circulating false versions” of the plan. This accusation was then followed by the claim from the Ocasio-Cortez office that the document tweeted by her that contained the “unwilling to work” language was an “unauthorized draft” leaked by a rogue staffer.

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez also said that the Green New Deal requires “massive government intervention” yet only hours later said that “one way the Right does try to mischaracterize what we’re doing as though it is some kind of massive government takeover.”

Clarity is clearly not a priority here. As Vox admits, “The appeal of the Green New Deal is in part how vague it is.”

In all, the phrase “all people of the United States” is repeated seven times in the official Green New Deal resolution. The word “citizen” is not mentioned once. 

Along these lines of deliberate vagueness, it is interesting to note that the Green New Deal lists a series of benefits for “all people of the United States.”

It says, for example, that it will provide “(i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security and (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature” to “all people of the United States.”

It adds that it will “provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States” and “create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”

It will also require — not “make available” but “require” — “resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization.”

In all, the phrase “all people of the United States” is repeated seven times in the official Green New Deal resolution. The word “citizen” is not mentioned once.

It would be foolish to assume that phrase “all people of the United States” is not meant to mean everyone who happens to be in the country — even those who happen to be here in violation of our immigration laws — rather than the people who are actual citizens of this country.

In fact, the Democrats have been subtly arguing that “all people of the United States” includes illegals for some time now; therefore, they conclude, those here illegally are entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.

Although President Obama said in a 2009 joint address of Congress that the Obamacare “reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” for example, Obamacare has nonetheless been used to cover healthcare for illegals.

New York’s socialist mayor Bill de Blasio recently declared that “Everyone is guaranteed the right to health care, everyone” while pledging that “New York City will spend at least $100 million to ensure that undocumented immigrants and others who cannot qualify for insurance can receive medical treatment.”

In fact, according to Rep. Ocasio Cortez, anyone who is of Latino heritage is, in effect, an American regardless of their place of birth: “Because we are standing on Native land, and Latino people are descendants of Native people. And we cannot be . . . criminalized simply for our identity or our status.”

If anyone who is Latino is by definition among those considered to be included as “all people of the United States” and entitled to all the great benefits of the Green New Deal, then the approximately 600 million Latinos who currently live outside America in places like Honduras, Mexico, and Brazil are deserving of “high-quality health care; housing; economic security and clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature” courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

If all people of the United States is to mean all legal and illegal residents of the United States, as well perhaps as all Latinos worldwide, who exactly won’t be eligible for Green New Deal goodies?

Democrats should be pressed to answer if their Green New Deal would include an expensive array of new benefits for Americans only, or will anyone who manages to sneak over our border or overstay their visa would be guaranteed housing, health care, and income regardless of their willingness to work.

The Democrats should not be allowed to continue their deliberate vagueness on this issue. The answer may very will determine the long-term survival of this nation, much more so than climate change.


African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1690
Dems Speak Honestly About Abortion Fri, 01 Feb 2019 14:20:27 +0000 Dems Speak Honestly About Abortion
African-American Conservatives

We must ask ourselves: how comfortable should we be in allowing those who would defend cankerworms, but call for allowing the killing of a child -- even as this child is emerging from the birth canal -- to care for us?

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

Dems Speak Honestly About Abortion
African-American Conservatives

I shall be long grateful to Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran for her part in exposing “the unfruitful works of darkness” that is abortion.

For decades we have been told a lie about abortion. We were told that those who supported it were not actually in favor of killing babies — no one would ever support such a horrid thing, of course — instead, they merely supported the right of women to remove an unwanted mass of tissue from their bodies.  Rather than killing an unborn child, they say, think of it as “a crappy dentist appointment or something.”

Politifact, a supposedly nonpartisan “fact-checking website,” even labeled the comments of a Texas state representative that abortion “kills as many as 1,000 black children every day” as “mostly false,” largely because of his “characterization of abortions as killing babies is disputed.”
However, most of those who put forth this argument were lying the entire time.

How can they pretend to believe that the baby isn’t a baby when they are introducing “legislation [that] would allow a woman to receive an abortion even while she was going into labor”?

Are we to believe that even when a mother is dilating and the baby is crowning in the vaginal opening that the child still isn’t a living being?

It was a lie all along, and not one held by all of those in favor of abortion. For example, Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed a bill that would have essentially criminalized the killing of children who have been delivered and who are living independently of their mother’s body.

As FactCheck put it:

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term ‘born-alive infant’ as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Barack Obama was able to successfully lie about his opposition to protections for born alive children.  However, few can lie as frequently and as successfully as the future 44th President.

Some even see no need to lie. Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams is such a  person. In her infamous essay “So what if abortion ends life?”   she admits that life begins at conception and that abortion is the taking of that life, but those admissions do not matter to her:

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late-term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb? 

Yet most on the left are as hesitant (albeit increasingly less so) to admit they favor infanticide as they are to admit that they favor open borders or socialism.

Take Governor Northam of Virginia remarkably callus recent remarks. As described by ABC News:

The Democratic governor and pediatric neurologist was defending efforts to loosen abortion restrictions during a radio interview on WTOP-FM Wednesday when described a hypothetical situation where a severely deformed newborn infant could be left to die.

Northam said that if a woman were to desire an abortion as she’s going into labor, the baby would be “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue” between doctors and the mother. 

Yet the next day Governor Northam claimed, incredibly, that “Republicans were mischaracterizing his statement for political gain.”

Perhaps it is science that is forcing abortion supporters to increasingly abandon the premise that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child.  It becomes harder to dismiss the notion that life exists inside of a pregnant womb as the fantasy of a bunch of MAGA-hat wearing Bible-clingers who prefer watching football to MSNBC.

According to Emma Green of The Atlantic:

New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause.

They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives.

New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” [pro-life activist Ashley] McGuire said. “We didn’t know any of this.” 

However, regardless of the reason, it is important to be grateful to Ms. Tran for introducing legislation that would, by her own admission, allow abortion to occur even as the woman is in labor, even as she almost simultaneously introduced a bill to protect the “fall cankerworm.”

It is important because many of the proponents of abortion — even of what I call “fourth-trimester abortions” —  tend to be the same who want to be part of the federal government as it grabs control of our healthcare.

Not all of us will ever be pregnant, but we are all getting older. Many of us are or will become senior citizens, requiring a great deal of healthcare. We must ask ourselves: how comfortable should we be in allowing those who would defend cankerworms, but call for allowing the killing of a child — even as this child is emerging from the birth canal — to care for us?


African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1684
Marie Stroughter on School Choice Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:15:48 +0000 Marie Stroughter on School Choice
African-American Conservatives

Recently, I was honored with the opportunity to speak with Dr. Carol Swain on the topic of school choice, on her podcast, Be the People.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

Marie Stroughter on School Choice
African-American Conservatives

Recently, I was honored with the opportunity to speak with Dr. Carol Swain on the topic of school choice, on her podcast, Be the People.

From the episode notes:

“America’s educational system is broken and mired in politics. Black and Hispanic children are among the ones hurt the most, especially those in urban centers. Homeschooling and school choice should be viable options for the urban poor. Under President Bush, the District of Columbia had an opportunity scholarship program that gave urban parents choice. Although students achieved considerable success, President Obama who was beholden to teachers’ unions ended the program to the detriment of the students. Marie Stroughter, a conservative black activist and homeschooling mom, shares her views about what can be done to restore choice to black families and others who suffer from limited educational opportunities.”

What are your experiences with school choice? Shouldn’t parents have a say in their children’s education?

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1680
Border Wall: GOP Must Stand with Trump Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:13:23 +0000 Border Wall: GOP Must Stand with Trump
African-American Conservatives

Those who invite illegals into their communities with promises of free "stuff" are not going to support the sort of border security necessary to prevent illegals into the country.

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

Border Wall: GOP Must Stand with Trump
African-American Conservatives

On January 24, 2019, the U.S. Senate voted on two competing bills — one from each party —  introduced to end the partial government shutdown.

While both bills roughly received the same number of votes, far short of the 60 votes required for the measure to pass, it is the Democrat bill that I would argue came dangerously close to passing. This is because the Senate Republicans are in the majority, so for the Democrat bill to get as many votes as the Republican bill indicates that Republicans are wavering on border security more so than the other side of the aisle.

This is distressing, for had the Democrat bill passed it would very likely have resulted in the end of hope for security at our borders.

As unfortunate as the shutdown is for the workers who are temporarily without pay, without it the Democrats would have no incentive to provide for any funds — not one dollar, as Speaker Pelosi says — for a border wall; and without such a physical barrier border security is impossible.

The Democrats’ argument, to the contrary, is transparently farcical. They claim that they are border security hawks; that the first thing they do when they wake up in the morning and the last thing they do before they go to sleep at night, is think about how they can best secure the border. But they argue that the best way to do so is with what they call a “Smart Wall” —  drones, x-ray machines, cameras, and so forth — that would provide such great border security that a physical border wall would be a waste of money (and far be it for Congressmen to waste money).

As Representative Hakeem Jeffries — along with many other Democrats who were apparently told to recite from the same script — recently said, “What Donald Trump and the Republicans want to do is waste $5 billion in taxpayer money on an ineffective, medieval border wall that is a 5th-century solution to a 21st-century problem.”

It seems reasonable to include these high tech measures as part of a border security package, since such tech would allow us to x-ray trucks going through legal points of entry, thereby slowing the flow of drugs into our communities. But this does not explain why Democrats demand that we fund a technological Smart Wall instead of — rather than along with — a physical wall.

The reason isn’t financial. Even if the final cost of a physical wall was, say, $100 billion dollars, after all the various expenses such as buying private property from landowners and so on, are factored in, this cost pales in comparison to what illegal immigration costs us.

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

“At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend.”

So, as much as one may be appreciative of the Democrats sudden desire to squeeze every taxpayer penny until George Washington turns blue in the face, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that if the physical wall were to only partially reduce the cost of illegal immigration it would pay for itself very shortly.

The reason the Democrats have taken this position is simple: the Democrats demand a Smart Wall rather than a physical wall, or a Smart Wall and a physical wall, because a Smart Wall would not impede the flow of illegals across our southern border.

As columnist Byron York points out:

“. . . the problem is, a smart wall would not actually wall off intrusions. Indeed, the main feature of a smart wall — in past debates, it was often referred to as a virtual fence — is that it will not stop anyone from crossing the border into the United States. It can detect illegal crossers and alert authorities to their presence. But it does nothing to keep them from entering the country. ‘

Republicans should quickly abandon the vain hope that there is some sort of compromise to be made with the Democrats. The open borders credo has become an intricate part of their platform; as essential to their DNA as abortion, climate alarmism, or the government takeover of our healthcare system.

This is evident by how Democrats at the state and local levels are responding to illegal immigration.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently demanded that the citizens of his state, already one of the highest taxed states in the nation, as well as a state that pays more than $5 billion a year on expenses related to its high number of Illegal alien residents, now pay for financial aid and scholarships for illegals who wish to go to college.

The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, wants New Yorkers to provide free healthcare for illegals.

New York’s most famous congresswoman, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, has become a leading voice in the Democrat for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to be abolished.

Phil Murphy, governor of another overtaxed state overflowing with illegals, wants millions set aside to fight illegal immigrant deportations.

On the other coast, Oakland mayor, Libby Schaaf, made headlines recently by warning illegals of ICE raids.

There are approximately 500 sanctuary cities in the U.S., all of which are likely to be governed by Democrats, and at least one state, California, has officially declared itself to be a sanctuary state.

The examples that could be provided to illustrate their philosophy are numerous, but here is the bottom line: those who invite illegals into their communities with promises of free education, free healthcare, and freedom from deportation are not going to support the sort of border security necessary to prevent illegals into the country.

Democrats are, therefore, not likely to be steered away from their support for open borders with bargaining or concessions. President Trump has announced a three-week deal (until February 15th) to reopen the government while a border wall deal is being negotiated. At best, this will be a mere stutter step until President Trump declares a national emergency to essentially see if the courts will allow him to build the wall without Congressional approval. It will not be a pathway to a border wall. It does not matter how long the government stayed shut or how long President Trump negotiates with them, today’s Democrat Party will not bend on open borders. It is part of their DNA now.

Only one year ago, for example, Minority Leader Schumer was offered a sweetheart deal that would have given full legal status to millions of DACA dreamers (illegals who were brought to the U.S. as children). One would think Senator Schumer would have agreed to that deal as quickly as I would agree to a date with Halle Berry, given how long and often they promise to protect the DACA dreamers. Yet the most Senator Schumer would concede in return to secure immediate guaranteed amnesty of millions of illegals was a promise that he would talk about border wall funding at some later, unspecified, date.

If President Trump had agreed to this deal, the promised discussion about border wall funding would have gone as follows, “Thanks for helping so many get permanent legal residence here. So now let’s talk about your request for border wall funding. Our answer is ‘no.’ Not one dollar. Nice chat.”

As mentioned, it is worrisome that some Republicans do not seem to fully understand the Democrat position on immigration. Yet some — including the six Senate Republicans who voted for the Democrat funding bill — evidently do not.

If they did, and do not share the Democrats’ open border philosophy, then they would be as unwavering in their support of the president as the Democrats are in opposition to him.


Photo credit: Gage Skidmore on / CC BY-SA

African-American Conservatives - the soul of the conservative movement

]]> 0 1677