Planned Parenthood Says #BlackLivesMatter

On Tuesday night’s African American Conservatives’ radio show, our #MarieRants segment was a doozy. I took on Planned Parenthood’s co-opting of the #BlackLivesMatter meme post-Ferguson in an epic smackdown of the largest threat to unborn Black lives.

Posted in Abortion, Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Attacks from the Left, Cultural, Current events/topics, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Feet To The Fire

senatecontrolNow that Republicans have achieved what Conservatives have waited six long drought-filled years for, will they capitalize on this golden opportunity, or will they squander it and make it business as usual in Washington?

The President himself alluded to the fact that this election was a referendum on his policies. The American people resoundingly concurred, with a number of polls showing dissatisfaction with the direction the country is going in. Thus, those unhappy voted with their feet. This begs the question: now what?

Several politicians stumping this cycle have stated a number of ideas as to what this new GOP majority might accomplish as their initial priority. Many have called for the repeal of Obamacare, and/or defunding or replacing it. Others have mentioned economic reforms. Some have mentioned educational reforms regarding school choice and reversing Common Core. There are some who would like to do away with the complexity of our tax code. Still others have discussed initiating investigations and/or charges related to a number of scandals plaguing this administration: Benghazi, the IRS targeting, Fast and Furious, to name a few.

One thing is certain: though some of the American people may have voted GOP in a fit of pique because they are fed up with the status quo, Republicans have an opportunity here to educate the populace as to how conservative policies and free market principles benefit us all.

Though the time frame is short, and there is still a Democrat in the highest office that must still be worked with, Republicans can make some inroads. Additionally, they can prevent additional policy failures by this administration. They can block ultra-liberal appointments during the confirmation process. They can defund unpopular bills and programs to mitigate fiscal damage for unpopular programs. The most important thing they can do, however, is gain the trust of the American people for 2016. They must be accountable; they must be honorable and not “career politicians;” they must not seem to be “out for revenge,” since we know most Americans hate attack campaign ads (effective though they may be); and they must be transparent, something this administration promised, yet did not deliver. Additionally, they cannot be involved in the same sorts of administrative “hanky panky” that this administration has been. We must set the stage for the next election cycle while mitigating the damage done by this administration.

These are tall orders in a short time frame. However, given the fact that the GOP was bolstered by unlikely voters (more on that next time), and that there is an infusion of diverse new lawmakers on the scene, this is the beginning of a new era for the Republican party. People will be watching from Day One, and they won’t tolerate missteps, as fair or unfair as that may be. The GOP has had to sit back for six years. Surely, in that time, they’ve developed some sort of game plan. If not, they’ve got two months to come up with a cohesive one now. America, and especially Conservatives who have been waiting for this opportunity, will be holding this new majority’s feet to the fire.


Posted in Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Elections, GOP/RNC, Government | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Why Is Income Inequality So Important?

No economic issue means as much to the Left as income equality. As President Obama said in the 2012 State of the Union address, “No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” 

Other issues, such as unemployment, the deficit, revenue collection, or even economic growth, are of relatively minor import to the Left. In 2008, for example, when a moderator asked Senator Obama about his support for raising the capital gains tax, pointing out that “history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up,” Obama shrugged: “Well, that might happen, or it might not.” It was more important, said Obama, to raise the capital gains tax “for purposes of fairness.”

Robert Reich, one of the Left’s favorite economists, has made such a reputation attacking income inequality that he is now earning $242,000 to teach a single class at the University of California, Berkley – a taxpayer funded school that could cost close to $30,000 a year for in-state students and over $50,000 a year for students who are out-of-state. 

Many others are making a lot of money, or advancing politically, by complaining about income inequality as well. Bookshelves are filled with books decrying it, including the now-maligned best-seller “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by economist Thomas Piketty, which makes the hysterical claim that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is a threat to democracy. This is a notion with which Hillary Clinton, our presumptive 45th president, says she agrees.  (Of course, Hillary, if she is to be our next president, has to agree with such claims, or she will not win her party’s nomination over her two most likely challengers, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.)

According to this week’s Census Bureau report, income inequality has increased 4.9% since 1993.  This is the result of the rich getting richer. According to the CBO, after-tax income between 1979 and 2007 for the 275% for the top 1% of households. And as if to rub it in,  the number of global billionaires have increased 7% this year, up 155 to a record 2,325.

According to this week’s Census Bureau report, income inequality has increased 4.9% since 1993.  This is the result of the rich getting richer. According to the CBO, after-tax income between 1979 and 2007 for the 275% for the top 1% of households. And as if to rub it in,  the number of global billionaires have increased 7% this year, up 155 to a record 2,325.

I was not one of these new billionaires, unfortunately.

The same CBO report also shows that the income for the bottom 20% (holla!) also grew, by 18%. In fact, income for all quintiles grew during this period. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that while the top 1% really began pulling away from the rest of us beginning in the mid to late 70s, the US poverty rate has remained flat during this period, pegged at about 14-15%, as it has for nearly 50 years now.

Globally, in fact, according to the World Bank, “The number of people living on less than $1.25 per day has decreased dramatically in the past three decades, from half the citizens in the developing world in 1981 to 21 percent in 2010, despite a 59 percent increase in the developing world population.” Much of this progress has been made in Africa and Latin America, the two regions with the highest income inequality in the world. The World Bank reports that  “the extreme poverty rate fell 10 percentage points in [Sub-Saharan Africa] between 1999 and 2010 and is now at 48 percent—an impressive 17 percent decline in one decade. In [Latin America and the Caribbean], after remaining stable at approximately 12 percent for the last two decades of the 20th century, extreme poverty was cut in half between 1999 and 2010 and is now at 6 percent.”

This is not to argue that poverty here or internationally is acceptable, but rather to suggest that a proper focus on poverty reduction would center on job creation primarily by way of economic growth. Although as I referenced earlier President Obama sees inequality, “fairness,” as more worthy of his attention than growth, it is primarily with growth that we would create the jobs to lift the poor out of poverty. In the US (according to this White House, ironically) the rough rule of thumb is that 1% of GDP growth equals 1 million jobs created. 

The focus should not be on income inequality and its specious link to poverty. What link is there, after all, of the deleterious effect of income inequality on the poor if inequality hasn’t increased US poverty levels, and in the global regions where income inequality is at its greatest, poverty is actually being reduced?


Posted in Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Economy/Fiscal Issues, Progressivism | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

9/11: We Remember

Terrorist AttackLike all Americans alive on that fateful day in 2001, we woke up this morning full of the images of that day — images that will forever be in our hearts and minds. Today will forever be a day of remembrance. Let us never forget.


Posted in Current events/topics | Tagged | 1 Comment

The Irony of the #FightFor15

15hrI remember how difficult it is to work in the fast food industry. One of the toughest jobs I’ve had was when I had to work an overnight shift at a McDonalds, where I was greeted at each shift with an abusive boss, rude co-workers, and a demanding workload that increased regularly, along with the pressure to accomplish more in less time, essentially so that my employers could justify giving me fewer hours. All for barely $200 a week.  

So with my memories of sitting in my car in a McDonalds parking lot, dreading the time when I would have to clock in, it is easy for me to sympathize with those fast food workers I saw on strike today.  Most will go on to bigger and better things in their financial lives, either at the fast food places they are currently working or elsewhere, of course, but many will not.  And not many, in fact very few, will benefit from these “#FightFor15” strikes.

Wages for salaried employees are generally the product of the size of the labor pool available to do a particularly job. This is not Nobel-prize winning economics. This is Barnes & Noble economics. If I’m selling widgets, and widget-building requires rare talents and skills, and competent widget-workers are few, I would pay my widget-builders much more than I would if good widget-workers were a dime a dozen.  

This very simple formulation gets skewered occasionally but basically that’s how it works. So it should follow that those who wish to increase the wages of a certain set of workers would want to do so by decreasing the size of that labor pool, thus making each worker remaining in that pool a rarer, and thereby more valuable, commodity.

That is how it has worked in North Dakota. Thanks in part to an unemployment rate as low as 1.5% in some areas, the labor pool available for fast food employees is so small that employees began getting paid $15 an hour at least three years ago, plus many have received signing bonuses. This is all without the benefit of strikes or a government mandate.  

One would think that those who pontificate endlessly about employee wages would want to replicate North Dakota’s success, and they would, if they truly cared about employee wages. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. 

Those on the Right oppose higher wages, at least the higher wages that don’t result from economic growth. Lower pay for low-skilled worker means more profit for their employers, more hiring by employers, and lower priced goods for the consumer. It is for this reason that so many support guest workers – to prevent the sort of labor shortages that would otherwise necessitate wage increases. As the famed libertarian Bryan Caplan, economics professor at George Mason University, admits, under the open border system he proposes “low-skilled wages are indeed likely to fall.”


If there aren’t enough native-born or legal immigrant Americans willing to make widgets for $10 an hour, then instead of increasing the pay to a more attractive rate, simply expand the labor pool with illegal immigrants/guest workers.  

Unfortunately,  low-skilled workers searching for employment may find their unemployment extended by the increased competition from illegal immigrants, resulting in situations as one sees in NJ, which has a 6.6% unemployment rate with illegals accounting for nearly 9% of the labor force, or California, which has a 7.4% unemployment rate with illegals accounting for 10% of the labor force.

Once the SEIU succeeds in unionizing fast food workers, their membership numbers will grow from 1.7m to 5.6m, and a proportional growth in dues would supersize the amount of money the SEIU collects to $922M a year.


To me it seems obvious that the ease at which native-born and legal immigrant Americans could find work would be greater, and the likelihood that they could find higher wages would be greater if 10% of jobs were not being held by illegals.

Those on the Left do support higher wages for the low-skilled worker. Unfortunately they also support policies that increases unemployment. Liberals typically support both open border immigration which increases the size of the labor pool and policies that raise of cost of hiring;  such as Obamacare and a higher minimum wage. 


This makes the lower-skilled worker not just less valuable to the employer but more expensive to the employer as well.  Much like consumers who typically spend are less willing to buy a good when its price is raised, employers typically are less willing to hire when the cost of hiring is increased.

Furthermore, this increase in wages dampens hiring because many employers, especially employers in the fast food industry, have a limited capability to raise prices.  Recent stories indicate that many McDonalds franchise owners are suffering from increased rent (12% of store sales), remodeling costs, higher fees for training and software, and declining same store sales.  Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would compound their troubles: 

The higher labor costs would initially force fast-food restaurants to raise their prices by 15 percent, which would drive down sales by 14 percent. This would force restaurants to raise prices again, pushing sales down further. In equilibrium the average fast-food restaurant would have to raise prices 38 percent. Prices would rise roughly twice as much as the initial increase in labor costs.Total sales and hours worked would both fall by 36 percent. Fast-food restaurant owners would also have to accept a 77 percent reduction in profits in order to stay in business—leaving them with an average profit of just $6,100 a year per store. Otherwise they would have to raise prices to an extent that would drive away their customer base. James Sherk, Heritage Foundation 

Increased unemployment and the increased price for goods are a small matter for Progressives relative to the benefits to them of their end goal: increased unionization.  Once the SEIU succeeds in unionizing fast food workers, their membership numbers will grow from 1.7m to 5.6m, and a proportional growth in dues would supersize the amount of money the SEIU collects to $922M a year. Imagine the degree of influence on policy and elections this will give the SEIU, especially during the immigration-amnesty debate,  which they will give them the opportunity to add this nation’s 10 to 20 million illegals to their roles.


According to various sources, nationwide, approximately 15% of people employed by fast food restaurants are illegals, a number much greater in states with greater concentrations of illegals. It is ironic then that fast food workers are striking for higher wages. These strikes are driven by an union that is promoting the amnesty that has prevented so many of these workers from achieving the higher wages that they seek.


Posted in Community, Current events/topics, Economy/Fiscal Issues, Immigration | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Should People of Color Support Palestine?

As always, as goeth the Progressives, so goes the African American leadership.

It is not unusual these days to find some prominent African American academic, politician, or pundit condemning Israel for her recent actions against Hamas in Gaza.

CNN commentator and Morehouse professor Marc Lamont Hill decries the strategic advantage Israel’s Iron Dome (which is a defensive system used to shoot down rockets fired by Hamas into israeli terrority) gives her, saying “It allows Israel to essentially assault and siege Gaza without any retribution or response on the other side. So again, to some extent, they are not just funding defense, they are funding an offensive war and ultimately an occupation. That for me, is the problem.” Princeton Professor Cornel West gives as one of the reasons he believes President Obama is a “war criminal” is “because he facilitates the killing of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank”. MSNBC host Joy Reid who recently compared deaths in Gaza to “one hundred 9/11s”, also argued recently that Democrats should not support Israel because “people of color, minorities” support the Palestinians.

This is not surprising. The “African American intelligensia” is as ever in lockstep with the Progressive movement, and Progressives have opposed Israel for nearly 50 years.

As Joshua Maravchik writes in his book “Making David Into Goliath: How The World Turned Against Israel”:

“Israel would never again enjoy the degree of sympathy it experienced in 1967. The simplest reason was that Israel would never again seem so endangered. The devastating prowess demonstrated by Israel’s fighting forces gave it an aura of invulnerability…No longer did Israel enjoy the public relations gift of opponents who were collaborators of Hitler and Goebbels. Now they faced the comrades of such chic, romanticized figures as Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara. Not only did David become Goliath, but on the other side the frog had become a prince.”

Prior to 1967’s Progressive abandonment of Israel, the African American leadership expressed great support for her.  This is not to say that there was never friction between the two groups – such things are common when two or more groups are crowded into the same ghettos – but expressions of Jewish racism and Black anti-Semitism aside, there would many examples of a great kinship between the two, and support for Israel often seem as strong on the Black side as it was on the Jewish side.

In 1948 for example the NAACP, which was founded with the help of Jews, stated “The valiant struggle of the people of Israel for independence serves an inspiration to all persecuted people throughout the world. We hail the establishment of the new State of Israel and welcome it in the family of nations.” Dr. Martin Luther King showed his support for Israel when he stated unequivocally that ”Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

Israel in defending themselves defend all of us. No American, no Christian, and especially no African American, should lose sight of this. 

W.E.B. DuBois much earlier linked – as many Black leaders did during his time – Zionism with Pan Africanism.  In 1950 he is quoted as saying in a speech before the Jewish People’s Fraternal Order that “The Negro people have an obligation to support the fight for a free Israel as the Jewish people have an obligation to support the fight for a free Africa.” Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey said similar things as well.

Yet  post 1967 African Americans followed the Progressives in expressing contempt for Israel. In his famous book 1993 “Race Matters”, Professor Cornel West mentioned “the inhumane policies of Begin and Shamir” and the “Israeli denigration of Palestinians”.  He also condemned “the military status of Israel in the Middle East (especially in its enforcement of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza).”

This characterization of Israel as an occupier, or, as some call it, a colonizer, continues to resonate today, especially in the Black community, and is eagerly fomented by the Palestinians. One such Palestinian, Ali Jarbawi of Birzeit University, wrote in the New York Times that “The Israeli occupation of Palestine is one of the only remaining settler-colonial occupations in the world today.”

And since Israel is a colonial power, many argue, then it is incumbent upon Blacks to reject it. Kristian Davis Bailey, research assistant at Stanford University’s the MLK Institute, says this in an interview with Dr. Hill: “Israel is a colonial project, and as Black people we have a tradition and a right and an obligation to oppose colonial projects.”  Dr. Hill eagerly agreed.

Yet if Israel is a colonial power, it is certainly not a very good one. No good colonial power would be so willing to allow the people it is colonizing to live in peace as a separate and sovereign nation, as Israel has demonstrated its willingness to do time and time again. Palestine, not Israel, has rejected a two state solution, something I doubt any other “colony” has ever done. Imagine if King George III had told the American colonies “Hey, you guys can be free, if you want, you know, as long as you promise not to bomb London and kill British citizens.”

Israel’s depiction as a racist state, a depiction that has created so much animus towards it from the Black community, is also common, and opponents of Israel attempt to justify this claim by pointing to its controversial Law of Return, which gives any Jew the right to be an Israeli citizen without undergoing the naturalization process non-Jews must undergo.

Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard puts this depiction of Israel and its law of return in context in his book The Case for Israel:

The most primitive apartheid against non-Muslims is still openly practiced in some Arab countries. Moreover, Jordan has a law of return that explicitly denies citizenship to all Jews, even those who lived there for generations. Its laws provide that citizenship is open ‘to any person who was not Jewish’ and who meet certain other criteria. Saudi Arabia similarly bases eligibility or religious affiliation. Germany long had a law of return, as do China and many other countries. Yet only Israel which as citizens of virtually every religion, ethnicity, race, and national origin, is characterized by its enemies as racist or apartheid.

Perhaps the most prevalent, though largely unspoken, argument from Black Progressives as to why African Americans should reject Israel in favor of the Palestinians is one alluded to earlier here by Joy Reid, that Palestinians, like us, are “people of color”, therefore their should be an alliance between us and them.

However, although there may be little evidence that Palestinians are racist against Blacks, indeed some reports indicate that there are 10,000 Arab Africans in Gaza,  there are other forms of prejudice beyond racial prejudice.  There is also religious prejudice.

Being a person of color did not spare Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese woman , from being imprisoned and sentenced to death for being Christian. Even more recently ISIS, an Islamist terrorist group much like Hamas in Palestine and people of color, captured Iraqi’s largest Christian town, sending those Christian people of color who managed to survive that fall fleeing for their lives. Boko Harem, people of color, famously kidnapped 300 or so school girls who were also of color, and recent reports indicate that Boko Harem is now forcing those girls to become suicide bombers.

African Americans are overwhelmingly Christian, and in Palestine, being Christian makes one vulnerable to many forms of discrimination. Michael Curtis, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University, writes “In the voluminous commentaries on the Middle East today very little attention has been given to the sad fate of Christians in the Arab and Muslim countries. Even less attention has been paid to the contrast between the treatment of Christians in Israel and their treatment in Arab countries. In Israel Christians have religious freedom and their numbers have increased. In Arab countries the religious freedom of Christians is restricted and their number has been reduced because of harassment, fear, and persecution..” According to Dr. Curtis, Christians in Palestine “have been intimidated and maltreated; money has been extorted, land and property confiscated, and Christian women have been abused, raped, abducted and been subjected to forced marriages.”

Even this treatment of Christian seems mild in comparison to the persecution of Christians by the Sunni Islamist groups that is rapidly emerging throughout the Middle East and Africa, groups many say with whom Hamas – the group the Palestinians have elected to govern them – have aligned themselves.  (The Palestinian mourning of the death of Osama bin Laden and celebration of the 9/11 attacks do nothing to assuage this belief).

Included in this list of groups are the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, and al Qaeda. These groups may call for the death of Jews most loudly, but they few can doubt that they see the death or subjugation of Christians and others as a necessary part of building their global caliphate as well.

Marcus Garvey is quoted as saying, “if Hitler hates the Jews, he also hates Blacks.”  it can also be said that those who hates the Jews also hates Christians. We saw this throughout world history, including the Holocaust, during which some put the number of Christians killed by the Nazis at 3 million. And those who hate Christians, also hate African Americans Christians. As a Yakidi spokeswoman passionately cried a few days ago that her people “are being butchered under the banner of ‘There Is No God But Allah’”, and no one unwilling to live under such a banner will be spared simply because he or she is Black.

Israel in defending themselves defend all of us. No American, no Christian, and especially no African American, should lose sight of this.



Posted in Activism, Attacks from the Left, Cultural, Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Media & Media Bias, Progressivism, Race/Racism/Race Relations | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

QOTD: 7.28.14

Today’s Quote of the Day (QOTD) comes from Dr. Benjamin Carson, regarding education:



Posted in Education, QOTD, Quotes | Tagged | 8 Comments

Christianity and Illegal Immigration

I have to confess to being surprised that God has been allowed a return to political discourse.

It was only days ago when displaying one’s faith, seeking to uphold His word as law, was to invite scorn from the Progressives.  At their 2012 convention they actually sought to remove any mention of Him from their party platform. Hobby Lobby was excoriated when they declared that their faith prevented them from funding abortifacient, while Chick-fil-A was boycotted when their CEO mentioned he preferred the Biblical definition of marriage. The Little Sisters of the Poor was recently named to the National Organization of Women’s “Dirty 100” list.

Yet the party of “Keep Your Rosaries Out Of My Ovaries” has suddenly stopped arguing that we remove In God We Trust from our currency to start quoting scripture like the Pope at Mass. It is a spectacular display of shameless manipulation, remarkable even for the world of politics, that the Left has turned to appeals to our Christianity to support their desire for amnesty, and their desire that we not deport anyone – not even the thousands of illegal teenagers who have stampeded our borders recently.

Repatriating of these illegals “not the American way and it’s not the Christian way,” says Univision anchor and longtime open border advocate Jorge Ramos. Kirsten Powers, another advocate for open borders, says it is “a Christian thing.” Stephen King, whose work often mocks conservative Christians (remember Carrie?) tweeted “Revised Tea Party Gospel: ‘Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they’re undocumented kids from Central America.’”

But does Christianity obligate us to be open border advocates, to accept as citizens any and all foreigners, simply because they have entered our country? How does the Bible instruct us in this current illegal immigration crisis?

It clearly compels us to love even those who are foreign to us. Leviticus 19:34 reads, “The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” And as Matthew 25:40 reads, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

However, the Bible does not suggest the the world should exist as if we were all one nation. In fact  multitude of nations are mentioned in the Bible.  And Act17:26 references national borders, or the “bounds” of man’s “habitation.”

The Bible also makes clear that each of these nations is entitled to make its own laws, as long as they do not supersede God’s Law. The example of this most often quoted is probably Luke 20:25: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s,” but there are many others.

So we can take from this that man is justified in both creating laws and maintaining borders, though we would not be justified in transgressions against the will of God.  “Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.”  The key is distinguishing what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.

The laws of God are clear. They are conveniently compiled in a tidy list of 10. Similarly, Jesus, when asked which is the greatest commandment of law, gives an profound yet simple answer: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 22:37-39

Yet the party of “Keep Your Rosaries Out Of My Ovaries” has suddenly stopped arguing that we remove In God We Trust from our currency to start quoting scripture like the Pope at Mass.

I would argue that there is a distinction against prosecution and persecution, that we may punish those who do wrong, as Jesus did to those who had turned His house into a den of thieves, but our punishment should not be an act of evil itself.  We are justified in prosecuting (i.e. imprisoning or levying a fine against) a man who enters our home uninvited, who steals from us, or otherwise does us harm.  But we are not justified in treating that man with cruelty, or without compassion or forgiveness: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” Ephesians 4:32

To relate this to the current immigration crisis, it is evident that it is “a Christian thing” to have a border and to punish those who violate that border. If not, then what country has ever been Christian? What would be unchristian however would be to persecute the illegals – denying them medicine, food, and shelter.

If we are treating illegals humanely, are we not meeting the requirement of Christ’s commandment that we love our neighbor as ourselves, or are we obligated to do further? Are parents whose home is full of the children they’ve adopted, and whose budgets are strained with the care of those children, not being true Christians if they say “no more” when another child comes to their door?

If we were such a prosperous nation that we had no poverty among us, it would be unchristian to turn away others who are in poverty, but no one would say that is the case.  It may be arguable that a child living in Tegucigalpa faces greater poverty and crime than a child living in Newark, it is not arguable that a child in Newark faces poverty and crime. Nor is it arguable that the greater responsibility for an American government is to that Newark child.

Furthermore, what is the Christian obligation in the face of the evil actions of others? In Corinthians, Paul chastises a church, not for any sin they committed directly and collectively themselves, but for not shunning one of their members for his sin, and delivering him for punishment: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 5:3-5

Like the Corinthian church,  we are often “puffed up” when we tolerate the misdeeds of others instead of shunning or punishing them for those misdeeds because we believe that tolerance makes us good Christians.  And we show the same pride when we tolerate the misdeeds of other nations.

To not repatriate the illegals, these “undocumented kids from Central America,” would be to not only tolerate their misdeeds, It would be to reward those misdeeds, and to encourage more misdeeds in the future. These governments by sending their most disadvantaged to our nation seek to absolve themselves of their responsibilities to them. Not only does this allow them to not care for them, they are rewarded in the form of remittances. Illegals who find employment in America send a significant amount of their earnings back to the families they left behind, and the amount of that money becomes significant. Mexico received over $22 billion in such payments in 2012 alone from emigrants, many of whom are working illegally in the US.

Therefore the conservative position on illegal immigration, that they be treated humanely, even if we must imprison them, but that they must be returned to their nation of origin, is not only the most sensible position, but it is the most Christian position as well.


Posted in Abortion, Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Attacks from the Left, Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Government, Immigration, National Security, Progressivism, Religion, Tea Party | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

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. 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.


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!


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