Sellouts: Black Progressive Leadership

It is an historical irony that African American conservatives have become such a minority within the Black community today. Modern American Conservatives is arguably as rooted in the antebellum African American community as it is in the Coolidge 1920s or the 1950s, which saw the emergence of such figures as Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, and Senator Barry Goldwater.

That Conservatism, with its focus on self-reliance and the rights of the individual, should be embraced so passionately by a people that saw so many enslaved and oppressed because of the color of their skin is hardly surprisingly.  Who yearns for freedom more than a former slave? And with this embrace of Conservatism came a loyalty to the Republican Party,  not simply because it was the party of Lincoln, as historians typically suggest, but because it was the party of liberty, or as Frederick Douglass called it, “the party of freedom and progress.”

In 1865, 58 years before Vice President Coolidge famously said in a speech that “Self-government means self-reliance,”  Douglass also said “Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, ‘What should we do with the Negro?’. I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall….And, if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!”

The sort of ideals found in the work of Frederick Douglass are the very ideals which have made African American conservatives outliers in the Black community today, and were once not very long ago commonly held by many in the Black community. They were principles that sometimes seemed as familiar at our barber shops on Saturdays as they were at our churches on Sunday.  These were the principles embraced by our community leaders; our leaders in academia, business, civil rights, law, and Christianity. They were taught to us in our schools, at our jobs, and, most importantly, we learned learned these principles in our homes.

Not long ago, for example, African American leaders argued against abortion. Jesse Jackson called it “Black genocide” in 1977, asking “What happens to the mind of a person and the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?”

Now of course it is difficult to mention this “Black genocide” without being called racist. In 2011 a billboard featuring an African American child with a caption “The most dangerous place for African Americans is in the womb” – words that echo Jackson’s – was removed after Sharpton (and Bill de Blasio, who is now NYC mayor) led protests against it because they found it “offensive.”  Much less offensive to them, I suppose, since they are not leading protests against it as they did that billboard, is the fact that in NYC more Black children are murdered in the wombs than are allowed to be born. Wombs are indeed a dangerous place for African Americans.

Similarly, not long ago, African American leaders argued against illegal immigration. Dr. King ally Reverend Ralph Abernathy joined Cesar Chavez on the Mexican border as part of a protest against the illegal immigration that was suppressing wages and employment for Americans, particularly for Hispanics and Blacks. Coretta Scott King as part of the Black Leadership Forum similarly argued that “America does not have a labor shortage. With roughly 7 million people unemployed, and double that number discouraged from seeking work, the removal of employer sanctions [on hiring illegals] threatens to add additional U.S. workers to the rolls and drive down wages. Moreover, the repeal of employer sanctions will inevitably add to our social problems and place an unfair burden on the poor in the cities in which most new immigrants cluster.” In fact, according to another King ally, Clarence B. Jones, Dr. King would compare the illegal immigrant to a common thief.

“. . . Not long ago, African American leaders argued against illegal immigration. Dr. King ally Reverend Ralph Abernathy joined Cesar Chavez on the Mexican border as part of a protest against the illegal immigration that was suppressing wages and employment for Americans, particularly for Hispanics and Blacks.”

Unfortunately, on these issues and on others, Black leadership has “evolved” away from Conservative principles in favor of a sycophantic relationship with Progressivism. Incredibly, to argue against abortion now is to be called anti-women, and to argue against illegal immigration is to be called anti-Hispanic.  And those who argue against either will incur the wrath of the Black leadership.

Much like President Obama’s view on *** marriage, this evolution was not purely ideological. In fact, in return for the usual political rewards such as campaign donations and voter support, and faced with the various intimidation tactics of the Left, many Black leaders have effectively abandoned the people they have promised to represent, and have become, essentially, a sales staff for Progressivism.

Progressivism has long made infiltrating the African American community a priority, and the primary entry point has been through the Black leadership. And the deleterious effect of Progressivism on the Blacks these Black leaders supposedly represent are not always taken into consideration.  It is often the role of these Black leaders to hide, or to lie about, these deleterious effects.

Why else would the Congressional Black Caucus boast on its website that its members “unanimously support” a “path of citizenship” for millions of illegals, despite warnings from everyone from Reverend Abernathy in 1969 to Coretta Scott King in 1991 to the Congressional Budget Office today that this sort of path to citizenship would hurt the Black community?

Why else would they ignore Congressional testimony that as much as 40% of the 18 point decline in African American employment from 1960 to 2000 was due to immigration, much of it illegal immigration?

Why else would John Lewis, a man still physically scarred from marching with men like King and Abernathy to improve conditions for Black Americans, and who now represents Georgia’s 5th congressional district, tweet “We can’t just build a wall or a fence and say no more. This is America. Our doors are open”? Rep. Lewis represents a district that has a 60% Black population, a median household income 28% lower than the national average, and an unemployment rate a staggering 154% higher than the national average.

Margaret Sanger, a founder of American Progressivism,  who favored eugenics and abortion, announced how Progressives should influence African Americans in a letter she wrote in 1939: “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.”

Progressives have since been successful in ‘hiring coloreds’ to do their bidding and to further the Progressive agenda. And, although the days of actual cross burning on the lawns of African Americans who do not further the Progressive agenda has long passed, other intimidation tactics continue.

Glo Smith was a victim of these intimidation tactics not long ago when someone painted white paint over her face on her campaign posters. Ms. Smith is a Black woman running as a Conservative Republican to represent Florida’s 5th district in the House, and the message the person or people who vandalized her posters — that she and her Black supporters who stand with her against Progressivism are not welcome in the Black community — is clear.

Just recently AFSCME, a major union with 1.6 million members, publicly cut ties with the United Negro College Fund to punish it for accepting $25 million dollars from the decidedly anti-Progressive Koch Brothers, instead of shunning the Kochs, as the Progressives want. The primary justification of this severing of ties is that the Koch Brothers are racist, as evidenced by their support of voter ID laws, though the argument that voter ID laws are racist is a specious one, since they do not discriminate against Blacks, nor has there been any evidence that they suppress Black voting participation.  Furthermore, if the Kochs wanted to be racist, donating to the UNCF is a terrible way of doing so, since it hurts no African American, except of course for those who were hoping to benefit from the AFSCME/UNCF Union Scholar program, which will be no more.

RebelPundit.com recently posted a startling video of Chicago African Americans asking Obama to “do something for our children. Have the same love for these young people that you have for those across the border.” Another equally compelling recent video featured another African American woman, Bernadette Lancelin of Houston, asking, regarding the current wave of illegal children flooding our borders, “Why can’t they go back?  I’m sorry that the parents are in poor living conditions or surroundings or whatever is going out there. I don’t care. I care about what’s going on right here.” The message of both videos is clear: What about us?

African American leaders such as Obama, the CBC, and others believe that as the leaders of the Black community they will be able to continue to guide Blacks like a flock of sheep into Progressive pastures. But as Ms. Lancelin (and Mr. Orwell) make clear, the flock won’t be lead by the shepherd indefinitely, not when it is being led to slaughter.

–DK

Posted in Community, Cultural, DNC/Democrats, Education, Immigration, Progressivism, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism, VoterID | Tagged , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Sticker Shock

empty bankI remember back-to-school shopping before I got my first job. When my mom purchased my clothing for me, I never blinked an eye at the price tags. If it was cute, I just pleaded with my mom to buy it for me. Then, when I got a job and had to begin kicking in money for my own clothing, I eyed price tags and “cute” suddenly correlated with price! Talk about sticker shock! “$35 for a shirt?” I’d say (back in 1980), and throw the item disgustedly back on the rack and move on.

I wish this is how our government had to shop for goods and services — as if it were with their own money — not with ours. Because, if it were with their own money, I don’t think we’d see such ineptitude, carelessness, waste and excessive largess.

It seems like every week, I read article after article about government overpayments, fake make work contracts (instead of real job contracts), how some government agency is wasting money making line dance videos, making costly errors with taxpayer money, overpaying bureaucrats, or awarding contracts to undeserving cronies.

Instead of mea culpa, the government form of, “oopsie,” why not make our government eat it when they cause these costly errors? Make it where setting it to rights has to come out of these bonuses, perks, and other “goodies” that our government “friends” get? It’s still taxpayer money, but it hits a little closer to home, the offender’s own wallet . . . and strikes at the heart of the matter: accountability.

In the latest kerfuffle — the border crisis in Texas — if these children are ever sent back to their countries of origin, why must it be at the taxpayer’s expense? I would suggest that either the countries the children hail from be billed for their housing and transportation, or the lawmakers who are in favor of this surge have it deducted from their pension packages, etc. Perhaps then, like Teenage Marie, some of these higher ticket items will stay on the rack!

–MS

Posted in Corruption, Current events/topics, Economy/Fiscal Issues, Government, Immigration, Small/Limited Government, Taxes | 1 Comment

Is The Left Really Pro-Choice?

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Unlike those of us on the Right who are staunchly pro-life (as I am), those on the Left who consider themselves pro-choice argue that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she brings a pregnancy to term. They believe that a woman should control whether she should be “burdened” with giving birth and bearing the responsibility of raising a child, if this is not her desire. And so, many Americans, especially on the Left, support the right of a woman to choose whether “the fetus” lives or dies. And, most Democrats in our government, including our Commander-in-Chief, support this idea.

Yet, recently, tens of thousands of children have crossed over into our country illegally, and I am expected to take responsibility for them. They have been abandoned here by their birth parents and my tax money is expected to be used to care for them. I would argue that this is a burden that I do not want, nor have I planned for it. This is an infringement on my right to choose whether or not to raise or support these children.  But, lately, the only “choice” we are given from Democrats, is the “choice” to support the President in handing over our hard earned tax dollars in the form of a $3.5 billion aid package. I do not hear them supporting my right — nor the rights of any American citizens — to choose to decline in this case. These children have become not only my burden but the burden of the American people.

If the point is that a person should have the right to determine whether or not they bear the burden of raising children, then where are the pro-choice advocates in this case? We need you at the border now!
- SS

Posted in Abortion, Activism, Attacks from the Left, Current events/topics, Immigration | 12 Comments

Quote of the Day: July 9, 2014

Today’s quote of the day comes from Frédéric Bastiat:

Bastiat

 

Posted in QOTD, Quotes | Tagged | Leave a comment

Zogby Poll: 76%

The recent Zogby Analytics poll has reported that President Obama’s approval rating has dropped to 44%. A quick glimpse at some of the latest headlines should show why this is not a surprise:

  • A 2.9% contraction of GDP
  • A loss of 533,000 full-time jobs in June as employers continue to hire only part-time workers, a third of which are illegals
  • A labor force participation rate of 62.8%, meaning 92 million Americans over 16 not working
  • ISIS declaring a caliphate in parts of Iraq, mocking Biden’s 2010 prediction of a “stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government” as one of the administration’s “greatest achievements.”
  • A White House orchestrated tsunami of illegal children crashing our southern border and creating an crisis of rapes, murders, child trafficking, and disease.

But as unsurprising as Obama’s lack of popularity is, there was one surprise in that Zogby poll. His approval numbers among African-Americans has dropped 10 points, to 76%

To put this number in context, Barack Obama won 95% of the Black vote in 2008 and 93% of the Black vote in 2012. John Kerry won 88% of the Black vote. Gore won 90% of the Black vote in 2000. Clinton’s percentages were 83% in 1992 and 85% in 1996. In fact, except for Adlai Stevenson winning 61% in 1956, no Democratic presidential candidate since Al Smith of 1928 earned less than 70% of the African-American vote.

Another way to illustrate the significance of a Black president having an approval rating 17 points than the percent he won from Blacks in his last election two years ago and lower than any Democratic presidential candidate in over 80 years is to point out that a 76% approval rating among Blacks makes a Democrat unelectable. As National Review writer Deroy Murdock says, “Securing 15 percent of the Black electorate severely erodes the stalwart Democratic base. If 20 to 25 percent of Blacks vote GOP, it’s curtains for Democrats.”

It would be too much to assume from this Zogby poll that the next Republican presidential candidate will win this 20 to 25 percent of the Black vote, but it does give me reason to be optimistic that this magic number may be in the GOP’s future.

Another reason for optimism is that many African-Americans are aware that the Obama administration has been a failure for African-Americans. Consider Tavis Smiley’s oft-quoted answer to Sean Hannity asking him if Blacks are better off under Obama: “No, they are not. The data is going to indicate, sadly, that when the Obama administration is over, Black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category.”

But as unsurprising as Obama’s lack of popularity is, there was one surprise in that Zogby poll. His approval numbers among African-Americans has dropped 10 points, to 76%.

This is not arguable. For African-Americans, the labor force participation rate, home ownership rate and real median household income are all lower under Obama, while the percentage of African-Americans below the poverty line is higher. Though some still argue that “you have to fish where the fish are biting”, it seems foolish for Republicans to not start expending more energy to reach out to the Black voter.

To a degree we are seeing this happen more often. Although some Blacks may disagree with Rand Paul’s view on drug sentencing reform, or disagree that it should be his primary issue in front of a Black audiences, at least Paul is speaking to them. And as Jason L. Riley of the Wall Street Journal pointed out during African-American Conservative’s interview with him as reprehensible as Thad Cochran’s courting of the Black vote may have been during his recent primary battle, at least he courted the Black vote. His opponent, Chris McDaniel, did not.

Conservatives should not be timid in competing for the African-American vote. They are in a good position to do so. One reason: though recently taunted by the Left as the party of the male, pale, and stale; the GOP (thanks to its “racist wing”, the Tea Party) has had great success in diversifying its ranks, particularly with Black candidates, such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Tim Scott, and Mia Love. Not only are these Black Republicans extraordinary individuals and well qualified for elective office, all are Conservatives who speak to issues that resonate within the Black community; such as Christian values, pro-life, traditional family, jobs, and school choice.

Conversely the Democrats continue to field candidates so aligned with Progressivism that they are often dismissive of the views and the best interest of the people they were elected to represent. No clearer example of this can be found than on the issue of illegal immigration. Despite the negative effect illegal immigration has on the employment and wages of Blacks – including those who live in Texas’ 18th Congressional District – their congressional representative, Sheila Jackson Lee, not only boasted of giving the illegal children currently overwhelming our southern borders lollipops, but has argued that deporting illegals “meets the standard of the Eighth Amendment inhumane and cruel treatment” as well. Oy!

Republicans should not be intimidated by the likes of Representative Lee, or even President Obama, from competing for the Black vote. Instead they should find guidance in the words of Reagan:

The time has come for Republicans to say to Black voters: “Look, we offer principles that Black Americans can, and do, support.” We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs — and we believe that the long-range interest of Black Americans lies in looking at what each major party has to offer, and then deciding on the merits.

–DK

Posted in Current events/topics | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Legal and Illegal Immigration: An Analogy

10422482_564777550316066_9095863348351738714_nWhat would you do if your local theater had this policy?

Option A) All patrons who pay to enter the theater can also purchase snacks at our candy counter at an increased fee.

Option B) All patrons who sneak into the theater for free will be given free snacks at the candy counter, paid for by the increased fees collected by the patrons who paid to get in.

Which patron would you rather be? Option B has the most incentive.

What would you do if you were an immigrant and the government had this policy?

Option A) All immigrants who enter the country legally can pay taxes and purchase benefits.

Option B) All immigrants who enter the country illegally will be provided benefits without charge, partially paid for by the taxes from the immigrants who entered legally.

Which immigrant would you rather be? Option B has the most incentive.

If we can see the difference so clearly, why can’t our government?

–SS

Posted in Current events/topics, Immigration | 10 Comments

SCOTUS Ruling: Big Wins For God, Faith and First Amendment

Photo credit: Andreí P. Kissel, AP

Photo credit: Andreí P. Kissel, AP

Today the Supreme Court ruled that corporations with strongly held religious beliefs would not have to violate conscience by offering birth control and abortifacients.

In this victory for First Amendment rights, we are sure to see those in the pro-choice community decry this ruling as a “stunning” and “devastating” blow to women. However, as is often the case with the Left, they completely ignore how taxpayer funding already supports Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion services provider in the country, and the organization where Sandra Fluke, Julia and a host of other women can go to get free contraception.

That separation of church and state “thing-y” the Left likes to invoke like a mantra? It’s actually to protect people from the government, not the other way around. It was put into place because our country was founded by those who sought to escape they tyranny of their rulers, who established a government-sponsored religion that dictated only one religious entity, and a compulsory one at that.

Further, detractors of today’s landmark decision will certainly fling around the well-worn “war against women” argument. As noted above, there are already free services in place, however, what the Left misses, yet again, is how killing off half of the female population in utero is the ultimate war against women!

SCOTUS got this one right! Today is a true victory for God, faith, and the First Amendment!

–M.

Posted in Abortion, Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Attacks from the Left, Current events/topics, Spiritual, Supreme Court | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Quote of the Day: June 28, 2014

Today’s Quote of the Day (#QOTD) is a timeless truth from Ronald Reagan:

QOTD62814

Posted in QOTD | 1 Comment

Obama’s Shield

shieldA politician could be caught standing over a dead hooker with a bloody knife in one hand and a bag of cocaine in the other and his defense would be, “I think it is time for us to put this behind us and focus on creating jobs for the American people.” 

To the Left, “job creation” has always been one of the major selling points for its agenda, as if it were the inevitable consequence of everything they do.  This is especially so during the Obama administration.  Obamacare, according to Nancy Pelosi, would create “4 million jobs in the life of the bill.” Candidate Obama promised that his Greenist programs would create 5 million jobs, shovel-ready. Amnesty, or ‘comprehensive immigration reform,’ as those who don’t want to admit its amnesty call it, will supposedly create 3 million jobs, once Obama imposes it upon us.  Caps on CEO salaries, according to economist Robert Reich, will “create more buying power among people who will buy and therefore more jobs.” Raising taxes on the wealthy so that the U.S. resembles “European-style welfare states” would, according to economist Paul Krugman, create jobs. Obama’s stimulus was to have “save[d] or created” 3.5 million jobs.

It is a wonder how there are any Americans left unemployed, considering all of these great job creating ideas.

In fact, the only thing that government does, apparently, that doesn’t lead to job creation is to investigate their own scandals.  Politicians use the term “job creation” whenever their nefarious deeds come to light and demand investigation. It is a shield that would make Captain America jealous. They are awfully busy creating jobs for the American people, don’t you see? Why must they be put upon by having attention drawn to their scandals?

A politician could be caught standing over a dead hooker with a bloody knife in one hand and a bag of cocaine in the other and his defense would be, “I think it is time for us to put this behind us and focus on creating jobs for the American people.”

President Obama and his allies are masters of this ploy, and it is especially evident when the Obama administration is knee-deep in a scandal, as it often is. Recently political strategist Donna Brazile repeated this familiar talking point, by arguing that with regard to the IRS scandal,  “Republicans are hell-bent on finding a conspiracy or identifying a scandal so that they have something to talk about other than jobs and the economy.”

This brow-beating is not new. A year ago, when IRS-gate first broke, Al Sharpton said much the same when he accused Republicans of “creating so-called scandals instead of jobs. Republicans are on a mission to make a scandal out of anything.”

And when the  House Republicans held Attorney General Eric Holder for not cooperating in the Fast and Furious investigation, Nancy Pelosi responded with both speed and fury, telling reporters that the GOP were engaged in voter suppression in going after Holder “instead of bringing job-creating legislation to the floor.”

President Obama, of course, contributes to this narrative. Referring to IRS critics in Congress,  the President says while, “others may get distracted by chasing every fleeting issue that passes by,” he would be focused on creating middle-class jobs.

While others may chase trivialities like violations of the Constitution, Obama is above the fray. “Keeping the economy growing and making sure jobs are available is the first thing I think about when I wake up every morning. It’s the last thing I think about when I go to bed each night,” he says.

Nearly 70% of Democrats think the IRS illegally, immorally, and deliberately destroyed emails that may have shown that they deliberately targeted and suppressed groups that opposed their party’s nominee.

That nearly 70% of Democrats think the IRS illegally, immorally, and deliberately destroyed emails that may have shown that they deliberately targeted and suppressed groups that opposed their party’s nominee — a suppression, by the way, that likely gave Obama his victory — is not important, because Obama is such a job-creator.

Obama probably took a cue from the Clinton administration.  No one was ever more put upon by scandals than Bill Clinton. Much of his testimony during the Lewinsky scandal was comprised of impatient bluster, with him hoping to get it over with as quickly as possible, so that he could “get back to the work of the country.” Clinton at least had a pretty good economy, thanks largely to the Internet stock bubble. People were not interested in scandal when every dot-com stock they owned was making them a fortune.

One glimpse at recent polls – including the CNN poll that showed that 61% of respondents disapprove of his handling of the economy — Obama is not so fortunate. The sock puppet from the pets.com ads is a distant memory. Workers today are facing a variety of pressures — including some like illegal immigration, and Obamacare — that Obama himself has created or exacerbated — that suppress hiring.

We have the worst labor force participation rate since the Carter administration.  There are over 10 million Americans unemployed, which does not count the millions whose jobs have gone from wearing a suit-and-tie to serving burgers and fries.  When GDP growth hits 2%, we do cartwheels, although that’s half of where we by now should be. The last quarter it contracted. And despite promises that they would have a laser-like focus on one three-letter word: J-O-B-S: no one, not even Obama’s staunchest supporters, can say what he is doing to actually lessen these pressures, rather than increasing them.

Obama’s shield does not seem sturdy enough to hold.

–DK

 

Posted in Corruption, Government, Healthcare, Immigration | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Election 2016: Meet The New Boss

To quote The Who, “meet the new boss…same as the old boss.”

Isn’t it odd that we seem to be seeing the same faces over and over again, running for office in our government? Especially when it comes to the office of Commander-in-Chief. Don’t we have hundreds — if not thousands — of politicians out there who would make fairly decent candidates for President? But what we have looks more like the prom king and queen in high school. The popular kids getting thrust in front of us over and over. And we, the American people, seem more and more like the losers, sitting at the cafeteria table having our lunch money repeatedly stolen — taken by the bullies, and being powerless to stop it.

Hillary Clinton has a past plagued by scandal, and, yet, she seems to be the only candidate that either side is talking about. Is she just the prom queen who is guaranteed to take over from our current prom king? Do both sides need her to step in so that they can keep their era of corruption going? Think about it. Though there have been countless scandals that have cropped up under this administration, no concrete action has been taken to serve justice in any of the matters. Maybe it’s not in the interest of either side of the aisle to do anything about it. The Ponzi scheme only works if all of the parties stay in line and do their part. Meanwhile, the day will come when this country can no longer stand under the corruption and mismanagement. The sad part is that, just like the prom king and queen, the vote for the presidency will be based on popularity without any regard for content of character.

The fix is in. The die is cast. Pray for America.

– SS

Posted in Corruption, Elections | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments