Obama’s Third Term

This week, the Wall Street Journal published a poll that, some have said, marked the end of the Obama administration.

According to this poll:

    • 54% of respondents think that Obama “cannot lead and get the job done”
    • 63% believe the nation is “Off on the wrong track”
    • 53% disapprove of the job Obama is doing as president
    • 54% disapprove of how Obama is handling the economy

Given these numbers, it is impossible to be optimistic that – if it were possible for him to run again – Obama could win a third term, even should he want one, which he may not. However, I would argue that his presidency illustrates that it is better for the country that he, or any president, be allowed to run for third terms, or for as many terms as he or she would like.

I would no more support Obama’s third presidential campaign than I supported his first and second. This is not an Obama endorsement. But, personally, I am not a fan of the twenty-second Amendment. In fact, I am offended by it. I think it is un-American. If by some miracle there was a president in office that I believed was a cross between Calvin Coolidge and Sarah Palin, and he or she wanted to continue serving, he or she should be allowed to run, and I should be allowed to support her or him.  Why should I be forced to vote for some candidate I think is inferior?

But the greater problem with presidential term-limits, besides the limitations it places upon me as a citizen, is that a second term president is not accountable to the voters.

Presidents can, for example, reward indicted fugitives with pardons, if that fugitive has donated a sufficient amount to the President’s party, on the last day of his office, as President Clinton did when he pardoned Marc Rich.

In his second term, a president can also reveal the lies of his first term.  Obama did just that with his famous “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.” remark.  Obama knew fully that this was not so, but also knew that if he could pretend that it was so until he got re-elected, there would be little anyone could do about it.

“But the greater problem with presidential term-limits, besides the limitations it places upon me as a citizen, is that a second term president is not accountable to the voters. “

More recently, the Obama administration shared its contempt for the American voter by pretending subpoenaed emails from Lois Lerner and several others were accidentally destroyed, a technical impossibility for a number of reasons.  Not a smidgen of corruption there, folks.

Also, we were similarly thrilled to learn that the “ringmaster of the Benghazi attacks” was captured after two years, until we realized that this ringmaster could have been captured at any time over the past two years, judging by the number of interviews he had given to American journalists. That’s a bit frustrating, but again, what can we do about it?

Presidents can also behave imperially in a second term as, again, there is no consequence to this behavior.  In the first State of the Union speech after being re-elected, Obama spoke frankly, “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will . . . I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take.”

Although other presidents have used executive orders, no one has used them to affect the sort of societal change Obama wants — at least not since FDR. While most executive orders historically have dealt with relatively minor issues (except those that focused on matters of war powers and national security), in the Obama administration they have been, to paraphrase Biden, BFDs.

On immigration, for example, Obama threatens that if Congress does not act in a such a way that meets his approval by July 31st, 2014, he will use an executive order to act on his own, which may mean halting all deportations, effectively making citizens the 11 to 20 million aliens living in the United States illegally.

Days ago, Obama issued an executive order capping student loan payments to 10% of the debtor’s monthly income, potentially lowering the amount a debtor has to repay by hundreds a month, but not lowering the total amount he or she must repay (in fact, increasing it, if one factors in interest), and adding billions to an already $18.2 trillion dollar national debt.

Obama’s imperialism is not limited to executive orders, however.  He also uses his executive power to direct the Department of Justice not to enforce or selectively enforce certain laws, particularly laws related to immigration and civil rights, and to direct the EPA to further regulate “greenhouse gas emissions,” which the Chamber of Commerce argues will cost the taxpayer $50 billion a year, as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs.  It isn’t clear if the Chamber’s projections are absolutely correct, but it is clear that the EPA rules will be so expensive, cost so many jobs, and accomplish little — except to dramatically increase federal powers — that I doubt Obama would have pushed for them if he had to face the voters again in 2016.

And what greater act of imperialism, of disdain for the desires of the American people, could there be than to exchange an American deserter and possible traitor for five Taliban leaders, all of whom considered high risk by the CIA and at least one believed responsible for thousands of deaths? Does anyone doubt that this will likely endanger more Americans in the future?

It is my contention that if Obama was at all concerned with the prospect of re-election, he would be forced to be less disdainful of the will of the American people. Perhaps not to the degree we would hope, but certainly less so than he is today.

“It is my contention that if Obama was at all concerned with the prospect of re-election, he would be forced to be less disdainful of the will of the American people. Perhaps not to the degree we would hope, but certainly less so than he is today.”

Without the prospect of being able to restrain the President by waging a campaign against him, some of the President’s critics are pondering if he can be impeached.  He could be, and in my opinion deserves to be, but as a practical matter, it is senseless. By the time the impeachment process resolved itself, Obama will already be out of office, living in a mansion with the carbon footprint of a small city — all paid for with the fortune he will be earning from books and speeches railing against the 1% and global warming.

Obama may be tempered somewhat by his desire to be succeeded by someone like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren. But it remains to be seen if this is much of a priority for him.

Marie Stroughter raised the issue with Dr. Tom Coburn, a term-limit advocate and Oklahoma senator, when he was a guest on the AACONS radio show, in 2013.  She asked him, basically, if voters should be concerned whether a politician in his or her final term still felt accountable to them. He answered, “Well, who am I really accountable to? I’m not ever running for election again, so I have four years. I’ll never face the voters of Oklahoma again.  What I accountable to is the oath that I took to withhold the constitution.”

In his book, The Debt Bomb, Coburn adds, “Careerism — the philosophy of governing to win the next election above all else — is the root of almost all that ails Washington. Both parties today are putting their short-term political interests ahead of the country. Both present their positions as tough and principled to their respective partisans, but what we often see is posturing and false purity.”

Therefore, according to the doctor,  if a politician did not want to turn pro, so to speak, he or she would focus less on the next election, and more on the national good.

I cannot agree.  When the voters lose their ability to tell a politician, “I will vote for you” or “I will not for vote for you,” or that there will be consequences to your career as a politician for the actions you take in representing us, what, then do the voters have? This is the “increased flexibility” President Obama promised President Medvedev he would have once he won his last campaign and entered into his final term in office.

–DK

Posted in DNC/Democrats, Elections, Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Barack Obama and Things That Make You Go ‘Hmmmm’

Things that make you go 'hmmm . . .'

Things that make you go ‘hmmm . . .’

Twenty-five years ago, The Arsenio Hall Show was the hottest ticket in late-night television. It even spawned the career of a (then) almost unknown politician — one Bill Clinton, who made playing the sax look cool.

The show also spawned a catch-phrase for those indefatigable questions that haunt us, the “things that make you go, ‘hmmmm . . .’”

Fast forward twenty-five years, and a colleague of Mr. Clinton’s, one Barack Obama, has me asking questions . . . indefatigable questions. Questions that make me go ‘hmmm . . .’ Questions like:

  • If you can’t keep track of emails or employ proper protocol to back up government servers, how can we trust you to run something as complex as a country?
  • If you allow federal entities to spy on us without our knowledge, how do you reconcile that with your campaign promise stating your administration would be “the most transparent ever;” a statement reiterated time and again?
  • If you allow a bureaucracy like the IRS to target a segment of our citizenry, how are we supposed to trust the impartiality of that entity with respect to our tax records, equitable auditing, and issuing of returns?
  • If you can’t hire an efficient contractor to build a cost-efficient website that is rolled out on-time and without breaching confidentiality, how are we supposed to trust you with the first & last bastion of human dignity: our health?
  • If there are delays to such a degree that our veterans are dying under government-run facilities such as VA hospitals, how are we to trust that the so-called “Affordable Care Act” won’t yield similar results?
  • If you consistently circumvent Congress and the Constitution when you want something done, how are we supposed to trust you when you swore to uphold that very same Constitution (the one that has served our Republic without problems for over 200 years)?
  • If you allow bus loads of children (and keep our borders so porous that we have adults as well) here illegally, and offer full benefits like tuition, health care, voting rights and the like to those here without the benefit of doing so legally, how can we believe that you have job creation at heart and want to get the unemployment numbers down when these individuals are taking our jobs?
  • If you run guns in Mexico and Libya, (and cover up the resulting deaths, in fact, flat out lie and send talking heads on TV shows time and time again to perpetuate the lies), and then buy up stores of arms and ammo, how are we to understand what would appear to be a hypocritical desire to take constitutionally protected firearms away from our citizens?
  • If you campaign on a promise to post bills for at least five days before voting on them, how do you then reconcile a member of your party, (then) Speaker of the House saying, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it?”

So, I ask those reading this: if, after perusing this list, you still have questions about things that make you go ‘hmmmm . . .’ keep asking! And, should you not receive satisfactory and truthful answers, make your displeasure known at the ballot box this coming November!

–M.

Posted in Corruption, DNC/Democrats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Barack Obama’s Scandalous Alphabet Soup

Alphabet Soup~001As a child, the most pressing question for my generation was, “How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?” The answer, of course, was, “The world may never know…

That’s an apt metaphor for how I’ve been feeling lately about the most corrupt US administration in recent (perhaps all) history. Just how many scandals does it take to bring down this behemoth and return it to our beloved Constitutional Republic?

Here’s a sampling of the scandals and alphabet acronyms cooked up by this administration and served to the American public:

  • IRS targeting
  • NSA spying
  • VA Hospital
  • AP Reporters
  • CGI Obamacare website contractors
  • GSA and IRS frivolous spending on videos, conferences, line dancing, etc.
  • DOJ and Black Panthers
  • Benghazi
  • ATF Fast & Furious
  • Bowe Bergdahl trade
  • Libya without Congressional approval
  • Pigford farmers
  • Solyndra and other green “fronts”

So, just how many scandals does it take to bring down this administration and return it to the people? Unlike the Mr. Owl’s reply, I hope the world does find out . . . and soon!

–M.

Posted in Corruption, Government, US Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Dave Brat’s Win and the Amnesty Debate

President Lyndon B. Johnson was no friend to Blacks.  Reports consistently point out that Johnson referred to them with the most racist ethnic slur that can possibly be directed at an African American, even when he was using the powers of the White House to benefit them.  Even Thurgood Marshall, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Johnson, was referred to in this way. Yet when he realized that the Black call for civil rights was such that it would be to his political advantage to reverse his opposition to these rights, President Johnson led the way in order to  ‘have those n*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years.’

I am reminded of this by the current debate over illegal immigration.  The parallels between recognizing the rights of African Americans and giving rights to illegal immigrants are obviously thin, but there is a similarity in the motivation behind them.  That similarity is that it is motivated by selfish interest of the Elite – the Politicians, and the Unions and Big Business groups that lobby them – rather than their altruism towards others.

Despite their appeals to our Christian values, pro-illegal immigration advocates can scarcely argue that they are acting in the best interest of the illegals themselves. They are directly responsible for the humanitarian crisis on our borders involving thousands of children abandoned by their parents so that they may enter illegally into our country; an “act of love” as Jeb Bush would say, all in the hope that these children can benefit from the DREAM act, free education, free medical care, welfare, and all the other promises they are being promised by our politicians by way of the Spanish language newspapers that spur this hope.

Rape trees – trees where those who smuggle illegals across our border hang the underwear of the women they rape as part of their payment – have long been found in border states, serving as stark reminders of the price many illegals pay to enter our country.

Furthermore, because they are able to effectively ship their poor into our country, foreign governments have less incentive to fight poverty in their own nation, so the poor who are unable to immigrate illegally to the US suffer needlessly. Why would the Mexican government, i.e., do more to find work or provide aid to their unemployed when they can have them come into the United States, not only saving them a fortune in care for their underclass, but allows them to receive over $20 billion dollars a year from the illegals who find jobs in our country?

Just as Mexican politicians who aid illegal immigration do not have the best interest of their citizens in mind, American politicians who promote illegal immigration certainly do not have the best financial interest of the American people in mind. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration costs Virginia $1.7 billion a year, or “about $625 per Virginia household headed by a native-born resident.” It is no wonder why Dave Brat was able to upset House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary.

Doctors Robert Rector and Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation also report staggering cost figures related to illegal immigration. As Dr. Rector wrote, and spoke about on our radio show, “In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household.”

The true cost of illegal immigration cannot be measured simply by adding up how much we must spend on education, medical care, incarceration, and welfare benefits however. Perhaps a greatest cost from illegal immigration comes from how much the addition of illegals to our labor pool depress our wages and employment. Especially in the Black community. Although experts may not  agree on the exact numbers, they seem unanimous in agreeing with  Professor Carol Swain’s statement that “[Illegal immigration] hurts low-skilled, low-wage workers of all races, but Blacks are harmed the most because they’re disproportionately low-skilled.”

Excess labor does not just affect the wages of low-skilled workers however.  It affects even many highly skilled employees.  Politicians – Paul Ryan, for one – often claim that there is a shortage of STEM workers in America, therefore we need “comprehensive immigration reform.” Yet Professor Hal Salzman of Rutgers’ Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy says the STEM worker shortage is a  myth, pointing to the flat wages in many areas where it is claimed employers face a STEM worker shortage as evidence that such a shortage does not truly exist.

The addition of approximately 20 million illegals in the labor market can be illustrated by what we are seeing in North Dakota. Unlike most of the nation, where an employer can post an opening for a minimum wage job and be rewarded with countless applicants, there have been tales that the labor shortage in North Dakota is so severe that even a McDonalds must pay twice the minimum wage, plus give a signing bonus, to attract employees.

Rather than heed their fiscal responsibility to the people they represent, politicians of both parties push for amnesty in hope of ‘having those illegals voting for us for the next 200 years’. But it is more than that. Politicians push for amnesty because of the pressure put upon them by the strange bedfellow partnership of Big Business and Unions.

Big Business wants excess labor to push down wages. Unions – although they were previously very anti-illegal immigration, or simply anti-immigration, in order to protect the salaries of its members – are now illegal immigration advocates. Somewhere along the road they have decided the better approach would be to allow illegal immigration, and to make as many illegals as possible union members. Illegals workers  can potentially cause shrinking union memberships to suddenly soar.

(Interestingly, unions undertook a similar “evolution” when it came to minority workers. Although roughly 40% of union members today are Blacks or Latinos, unions have a history of attempting to protect their White members by the use of racial discrimination against non-Whites.)

Another one of the great falsehoods of the immigration debate is that once we secure the border, a pathway to citizenship could come next.  It will be much easier to claim that the border is secure than to actually secure it (which may be an impossibility).

With both parties facing pressure to enact comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty, it is unlikely that the issue died simply because the 7th district of Virginia choose Dave Brat over Eric Cantor, despite what many pundits claim. But even if this does become one of those rare incidents where politicians fear the voter more than they fear the special interest groups, it seems to me that to think, after over five years of his presidency, that something Obama wants will not happen simply because neither the American people nor Congress wants it to requires a special degree of naiveté.

– dk

Posted in Current events/topics, Elections, GOP/RNC, Immigration, Tea Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Hillary Clinton’s Money

Let’s set aside the stink of Benghazi that still clings to her almost two years later, but can someone tell me, with our debt over $17.5 trillion, how we could even breathe Hillary Clinton’s name in the same sentence as the words “Presidential nominee,” when by her own admission she couldn’t responsibly handle the millions she had upon exiting the White House under her husband’s administration?

According to USA Today:

Clinton’s financial disclosure forms filed in 2000 show the couple had assets worth at least $781,000 and as much as nearly $1.8 million. The form, which Clinton filed as a Senate candidate, show she and her husband owed between $2.3 million and $10.6 million in legal bills at that time, according to the Associated Press. Her advance for Living History, her first memoir, was a reported $8 million.

Yes, her defenders will quickly point out that she had legal bills. But her detractors will equally point out with rapidity: they were legal bills. Bills for their defense in the White Water scandal, Bill Clinton’s sexual harrassment claims via Paula Jones (and others). But not his impeachment legal fees — you and I paid those.

It goes without saying that that kind of money makes Ms. Clinton one of the “dreaded” one-percenters; not to mention how a sum like that makes her “out of touch” (a la the criticism of Mitt Romney’s “I’ll bet you $10,000” to Rick Perry), but do you remember her pleas to donors to help her with her campaign debt after her ill-fated Presidential bid against Barack Obama?

If someone can’t manage “a few million,” pray tell me how she would manage the world’s largest global economy?

Posted in Current events/topics, DNC/Democrats, Economy/Fiscal Issues, Elections | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Race and Roil: The Myth of Race War

As a Conservative reader of Conservative blogs I can tell you that there are many dangers to which Conservatives would like to alert you. There is the danger of the national deficit, which has reached $17 trillion dollars. There is the danger of the federal government ever expanding in power, as we see with the recent developments of Obamacare, Common Core, and an EPA that is developing almost unlimited power over the free market. There is the danger of Radical Islam, of illegal immigration, and of abortion. And there is yet another danger that is frequently mentioned, one that threatens the very fabric of our society, not to mention our very lives – and that is the danger of the upcoming Race War as evident by the sudden escalation of Black-on-White violence.

This is a very prevalent theme. WorldNetDaily (WND), for example, the fringe right-wing site previously mostly known for its incessant questioning President Obama’s birth certificate, posts stories about ‘Black mobs rampaging through out cities and killing Whites’ several times a week – always with the inevitable eye-roller that ‘no one else in the media to report this’. So frequent is their reporting of Black mobs terrorizing White people that one wonders how it is possible that there are any White people left.

WND frequently publishes Doug Giles, a writer who has dedicated countless columns to Black Mobs Terrorizing Whites. Recently Giles wrote a column titled “Another Black on White Beatdown: Why George Zimmerman Carried a Gun and Why You Should.” The “you” here seems to be White people. Giles advises not only concealed carry, but martial arts and traveling in packs as well. What has sparked Giles latest ringing of the racial alarm bell? Three teenagers – no, sorry, let’s quote him accurately , “three, weed-dealing black teenaged thugs” – beat up a White teenager on a school bus.

Another one of WND’s favorite columnists, Colin Flaherty, is ever busily promoting his self-published book, White Girl Bleed A Lot, which is essentially a scrapbook filled with anecdotes of African Americans committing crimes against Whites. Many of these crimes are horrific. Easy to see why this book has become the bible of the “Grab your guns, White America! Race war is coming!” crowd, especially after it received a favorable review from Dr. Thomas Sowell.

David Horowitz’s site, FrontPageMag.com, isn’t quite as alarmist as WND, but it isn’t certainly isn’t hesitant to exploit White fear by showing the pictures of Blacks accused of killing a White person. I emphasize the word “accused” because this site finds it difficult to wait until these accused murderers are actually found guilty of the crimes with which they are accused before they burn the youths in effigy. Perhaps this is because they are too eager to have their readers post their comments on the story – which are invariably along the lines of “these people are animals”, “I wish Zimmerman had killed more of them”, and, of course, “If Obama had a son, this is what he would look like” – to wait for an actual conviction.

Not all of these alarmists are the White right-wing fringe types. Victor Davis Hanson, the brilliant writer often read in National Review and a favored guest for us at AACONS, isn’t, and he wrote how he warned his sons to avoid Black people. Nor is African American American Thinker columnist Taleeb Starkes and he argues against the prospect of a continuing or future race war only because “A race war requires at least two engaging races, whereas the reoccurring black-white intra-racial violence is overwhelmingly one-sided (black).”

Bill O’Reilly recently reported while doing a segment on The Factor (“Killing White People”?) the “unbelievable” statistic that “in 2011 91% of Black Americans who were murdered were murdered by other Black Americans.”

I actually struggle to comprehend why O’Reilly finds this statistic so “astonishing.” But then, racial alarmists do not rely on actual facts as much as they rely on the fear and anger they can invoke from relating horrific yet anecdotal crime stories.

Not all Black-on-White crime is racially motivated. They are not battles in a war against Whites. Nor are they acts of revenge for past sins. Many are simply robberies. 

It has always been true that most murders are intraracial. As Ann Coulter wrote, and discussed with us on our radio show, “looking at the race of the victims is just another way of looking at the race of the murderer.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report that between 1976 and 1997, 94% of African Americans who were murdered, were murdered by African Americans.

This is also not unique to African Americans, of course. Murderers overwhelmingly murder those closest to them; meaning their spouses, family members, friends, associates, and neighbors. According to BJS, during the same 1976 to 1997 time period, 85% of White murder victims were killed by other Whites.

It is also worthwhile to point out that not all Black-on-White crime is racially motivated. They are not battles in a war against Whites. Nor are they acts of revenge for past sins. Many are simply robberies. In fact, according to the FBI, of all the crimes committed against White people in 2010, there were only 575 anti-White incidents.

Furthermore, not only is interracial murder, even Black-on-White murder, a small percentage the overall murder rate, this figure is also skewed by the frequent classification of Hispanics as White. This is significant because Hispanics also live in the same inner cities as Blacks, and are subject to the same outrageous crime rate as Blacks. And in some areas, such as Compton, reports are that racial conflicts and even gang violence have occurred between the two groups, much like when other groups such as the Irish Catholics immigrated in large numbers to inner cities.

Author Tim Wise has an interesting look at interracial crime statistics. He writes in an essay titled “Race, Crime and Statistical Malpractice: How the Right Manipulates White Fear with Bogus Data”:

Given the relative population percentages of whites and blacks, blacks are actually more likely to be interracially murdered by a white person than vice-versa. After all, as for homicides where the race of the offender is known, 447 B-W murders as a share of the white community is 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002) of all whites killed by blacks, which is 1 in every 500,000 white people who will be killed by a black person in a given year; meanwhile, 218 W-B homicides as a share of the black community is 5.5/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.00055).

So although interracial homicide is incredibly rare in either direction, any given black person is more than 2.75 times as likely as any given white person to be interracially murdered, with roughly 1 in every 180,000 black persons being killed by a white person in a given year.

Wise certainly seems to contradict Starkes’ claim about the one-sidedness of interracial violence.

This is not to excuse murder. Every murderer should be punished. There can be little in life more tragic than losing a loved one to the hands of a murderer, regardless of the race of the victim or the murderer. I can barely even imagine it.

But we should not listen to the exaggerated claims of race war by alarmists who do nothing to substantiate their claims. These alarmists do not us safer by roiling, exploiting, and heightening racial tensions between us. They do not make us wiser. Rather, they make us bigots.

–DK

Posted in Cultural, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations | 9 Comments

Allen West RE: AB1266, CA Transgender Bathroom Law

allenFormer Congressman Allen West issued a statement exclusively to AACONS today, regarding CA 1266:

“There are many idiotic legislative actions emanating from the California State legislature and its misguided Governor Brown, drivers licenses to illegal immigrants most recently. However, most disgusting and reprehensible is this insidious idea into law allowing transgender children into opposite sex bathrooms and locker rooms without any verification. The law of unintended consequences abound, what about children who have been sexually abused? How is it that a small minority now threatens the safety and security of the greater number of our children. How did we get to this place where government subjugates the rights of parents? This law takes effect in January 2014 and represents another front for us to fight for our children.”

Note from AACONS: To help repeal this poorly thought out and biased bit of legislation, go to: http://bit.ly/CA1266Ref. CA is a heavily left-leaning state, so please help us by re-tweeting/re-posting! Thank you! –M.

Posted in Activism, Activism/Advocacy, Cultural, Government, Media & Media Bias, Small/Limited Government | 2 Comments

Volitional Human Beings in the Aftermath of Trayvon Martin

This has been a good time to be a conservative. The aftermath of the acquittal of George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin has not only elevated Zimmerman to cult hero status, it has also freed Conservatives to express their fear and contempt of Martin, and of young Black men in general. Anyone who has a conservative Twitter feed, follows the right-leaning blogs, watches Fox, and/or listens to talk radio has been inundated as of late with statistics on Black-on-Black crime. It is an important issue to be sure, and it is an issue AACONs has focused upon in the past as we undoubtedly will do so again. But the timing of this sudden onslaught of concern is suspect. Is it as Kirsten Powers says, “If conservatives are so concerned about black-on-black crime, it is concerning the only time I hear them talking about it is when they want to stick it to the Black community. And that’s what it seems like. Right now that’s the favorite topic. Topic A among conservatives is to talk about Black-on-Black crime. Black-on-Black crime is a year-round problem but now everyone is obsessing about it because they can make Black people feel bad about it”? It seems so. Take a recent National Review column by Victor Davis Hanson for example. In it Hanson writes that he has told his sons to be wary of young Black men, which he did in response to a few incidents where he was victimized by them. This sounded familiar to me. My father, who was a successful business owner for most of his life, once told me when I was a boy that he felt he was cheated in some business dealings with Jews. Like Hanson, he warned me to avoid them whenever possible, because “their word don’t mean nothing”. No disrespect to Pop, but even then I thought that was crazy advice. I wonder how the Hanson boys responded to the advice they received. If it was heeded, what then would be their response if a young Black man was to come to them for friendship, or to shop at one of their stores, or to seek employment? How would the Hanson boys respond if they saw a young Black man walking through their neighborhood with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles? Though Black Conservatives have been silent in responding to Hanson’s warning to avoid young Black men, they have hardly been silent on the response to Zimmerman’s acquittal. In fact, if this has been a good time to be a Conservative, it has been a great time to be a Black Conservative. There is no better time in general to be a Black Conservative than when the Conservative media needs a Black face to give it cover to denouncing the usual targets: Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, and the NAACP. Now that the target is the protests following the jury’s decision that Zimmerman would not be punished for killing Martin, Black Conservatives are in especially high demand.
It is unfortunate that so many prominent Black Conservatives seem unwilling to speak out against racism, because by not doing so they are not only poor representatives for Blacks, but are poor preachers for Conservatism as well, because Conservatism is the antithesis of racism. 
With Black Conservatives, we now have Black-on-Black finger pointing aimed at the many self-inflicted wounds Blacks have been inflicting on its own people in an effort to trivialize the Martin protests. Who has been more widely praised in the Right media than Shelby Steele for his writing in the NY Times, “One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family?” Again, many of Steele’s points are valid, but his argument is clearly along the lines of that made by many others, that with so many African Americans murdered each day, so many with broken families and living in poverty, then what difference does Trayvon Martin’s death make? I call this the Hillary Clinton Defense. Funny though, when abortionist Dr. Gosnell was on trial not too long ago, no one argued that since so many unborn are killed each day, many late term and by the same horrible methods Goswell used, then what difference would jailing Gosnell make? Yet this is the argument they make in regard to the Zimmerman case. Some Black Conservatives have been so eager to praise George Zimmerman that you would think that he had just rescued them from an overturned truck. We have seen them make straw-man arguments defending the right to self-defense, though that is a right no one is challenging, regardless of how we may feel about the Zimmerman acquittal. We have seen even fairly mild and measured criticisms of the verdict attacked. Some even criticized President Obama for making the observation that “There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were in a department store.” One does not have to be Malcolm X to agree with the president’s remark, so why then did Allen West respond by saying, “I don’t recall being followed in malls or shopping centers. I don’t recall car doors clicking locked when I walked across the street, And I definitely have not had women clutching their handbags and purses when I got on the elevator. I believe it comes back to being a respectful young man and maybe that’s something that was missing out of President Obama and Trayvon Martin’s life”? There are maybe five people in politics I respect as much as I do Rep. West, and no one in politics I respect more, but I would bet the Lt. Col. that I could put him in a $2,000 suit and behind the wheel of a new BMW, and have him drive below the speed limit through certain neighborhoods not far from where I live, and he will be stopped by the police – regardless of what a respectful young man he may be.

True, some Black Conservatives legitimately agree with the verdict of the jury that found Zimmerman not guilty. But not all.  I doubt if even most do. So why then the near-unanimous timidity in speaking out against the verdict by Black Conservatives?  To paraphrase Ann Coulter, when did Black Conservatives stop being “volitional beings”?

The reason for this timidity is that Black Conservatives rely on the support of White Conservatives, and they are understandably very hesitant to offend their supporters. With an audience like that of Larry Elder’s or David Webb’s, or even AACONs’, one is simply better rewarded holding Guns-for-George drives than to cry “racism” regardless of how legitimate that cry may be. It is unfortunate that so many prominent Black Conservatives seem unwilling to speak out against racism, because by not doing so they are not only poor representatives for Blacks, but are poor preachers for Conservatism as well, because Conservatism is the antithesis of racism. As Ayn Rand says, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” –dk

Posted in Attacks from the Left, Cultural, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , | 16 Comments

Marie Stroughter Quoted on CNN Live

African-American Conservatives Co-Founder, Marie Stroughter, was quoted on CNN Live today, regarding parenting in the aftermath of the Zimmerman trial verdict.

Posted in Cultural, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman and a Willing Suspension of Disbelief

It is about race.

Without race, there is no explanation for the Martin tragedy, or the reaction to it.

I admit my initial reaction to Martin’s death was based on race – at least in a sense. As an African-American male I am well familiar with the circumstances that led to Martin’s death. Too often was I approached and stopped by George Zimmerman-types for having the audacity for walking into their stores, or through their neighborhoods. Like most Blacks and like Martin, I know what it is to be considered suspicious for no other reason than my skin color.

Whites, too, had a visceral reaction to the Martin tragedy. To many on the Left, it was an example of an all too familiar meme to them, The White Man’s Oppression of the Poor, The Weak, and The Minority, although Zimmerman is not White but a minority himself. It was Kunte Kinte being whipped into saying his name was Toby. It was the reason why so many Blacks are in poverty or in prison. It was the reason why some don’t support Obama.

To Whites on the Right, it was an example of another all too familiar meme, The White Man’s Prosecution by The Poor, The Weak, and The Minority. It was the Duke case. It was Paula Deen being tarred and feathered for calling someone a word 30 years ago that they hear every day on hip hop radio. It was Al Sharpton driving an innocent White man to suicide with false accusations during the Tawana Brawley scheme.

Worse, it was an opportunity for revenge against the Black Thug, who they see – not totally undeservedly, actually – as a threat and a societal cancer.

However, as evidence of the case began to be (honestly) reported, when it became time to put aside our emotional reaction to it, many failed to do so. The case – the crime and the reaction to it would always be about race.

Which makes sense, actually. What other reason could explain why Trayvon Martin was profiled and followed on the last night of his life, when he was simply walking through the neighborhood where his father’s fiancee lived, to be home with his father?

What other reason could explain why anyone would think that Zimmerman had a legitimate reason to believe that his life was in danger, when the medical examiner reported what we should have been able to easily observe from the pictures ourselves, that Zimmerman’s injuries were minor and not life-threatening?

What other reason would explain why anyone would think it was the armed Zimmerman shouting for help on that 911 tape, when the shouts ended the moment the shot was fired?

What other reason could explain why so many still believe Martin jumped out from behind bushes to attack Zimmerman, when those bushes were shown not to exist?

The case – the crime and the reaction to it would always be about race.

What other reason would explain why so many take as gospel Zimmerman’s story that he – despite being ‘grounded and pounded MMA style’ and ‘having his head bashed repeatedly against the cement,’  - managed the almost physical impossibility of being able to pull out a weapon that was holstered on his back and shoot the teen on top of him in the chest? Or why so few notice “Mr. Zimmerman’s claim that Mr. Martin pounded his head on concrete in his final moments did not fit the crime scene, since Mr. Martin’s body was found on the grass a substantial distance from any concrete,” as Attorney Lisa Bloom puts it in the NY Times?

What other reason could explain why anyone, but especially conservatives, and especially by those in the conservative media, would so easily believe that Zimmerman’s story, when Zimmerman’s story was clearly not credible and often found to be dishonest?

What other reason could explain why Zimmerman was in fact canonized by the conservative media? Karin McQuillan for example in The American Thinker wrote how Zimmerman was “an outstanding race-blind man”, despite Zimmerman’s arrest record and that he posted on his MySpace page how every Mexican he ran into had a knife providing evidence that Zimmerman was neither “outstanding” nor “race-blind”. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh both entertained their audiences with their arguments that Zimmerman should not have even been tried. Ann Coulter, on hearing that Zimmerman was found not guilty shouted out “Hallelujah!” as if world peace had just been declared and the Son had returned to lead his flock.

What other reason could explain why Martin was so savagely attacked by conservatives who – when they weren’t too busy filling their social media pages with examples of Blacks attacking Whites and making apocalyptic predictions of Blacks rioting through the streets – portrayed Martin as a threat to civilization, based Martin’s love of pot, rap lyrics, and other examples of thuggishness?

Pat Dollard – a highly respected right-leaning journalist and columnist – has since the verdict gone beyond dancing on Martin’s grave. He has been using his twitter account to spit upon it too. His best-of tweets include such gems as “the racist criminal in this case got his justice the moment he was shot after assaulting George Zimmerman,” “Here’s what the black community needs to learn from the verdict: You will now be held accountable for your rampant violence and crime,” and “It is appalling & disgusting that the black community is so nearly uniformly despicable in its demand for GZ to be lynched because hes white.” His greatest hit however is undoubtedly “how many victims did George Zimmerman save that night” by killing Trayvon Martin?

Fortunately not every conservative favors such blatant racism. David Horowitz, author of many books on the Left, including the ironically titled Hating Whitey and The Race Card: White Guilt, Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth and Justice, recently posted a very insightful column at FrontPage Mag, writing:

It is a fact that many, if not most conservatives have already concluded that George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime in connection with Trayvon Martin’s death and should be acquitted if justice is to be served. Indeed, this opinion was formed long before the trial began as a reaction to the outcry of liberals that Zimmerman was guilty — and guilty of being white – and that the crime was murder, and must be punished. But just because a lynch mob has formed to condemn Zimmerman in advance of the facts, does not mean one must conclude that Zimmerman is innocent of Trayvon Martin’s death.

The political melodrama that surrounds, and often overwhelms the judgments in this case reflects a culture war that has been roiling in this country for decades. It is a war in which the liberal ethos of “political correctness” requires that whites are bad and blacks are victims. Right-thinking individuals are justified in rejecting this poisonous standard. But in the interests of justice, the political melodrama should also not be allowed to obscure the reality of this trial: it is about the death of an unarmed 17-year-old, who was not a felon, who was on a neighborhood run to get Skittles, and whose life has been extinguished. Given that the young man was unarmed and that he inflicted very superficial injuries on his adversary during their scuffle, Zimmerman’s claim that he was in fear for his life has to be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least.

What we have learned through the process of the trial thus far is that the only surviving witness, Zimmerman, is not credible. He has lied on several revealing occasions. First about not having any money to post bail when he had $150,000 in his account. Second, about not being aware of the Stand Your Ground Law, when he had taken a class that discussed the law. Third, and most importantly, about Trayvon jumping out of the bushes to attack him — because those bushes don’t exist. So, one has to ask, did he also lie about returning to his vehicle and that only then was he attacked? Or was he still following Trayvon, provoking the alleged attack?”

Nicholas Wapshott, author of Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics, also provides lucidity on the Martin case, pointing out in a column on Reuters that “Young Martin’s death should cause us to stop and consider the broader principles of policing and justice. The reckless pursuit of an unarmed black boy in a hoodie by a vigilante inspired by suspicions based on race shows how dangerously unjust it is to use racial profiling as a means to detain suspected criminals.”

Wapshott also points out that the Martin case underlines that Stand Your Ground laws are “pernicious.” Given how these grounds were used by many to justify the killing of Martin and others like Martin, it is easy to see why he said this. This article from the Rolling Stone magazine http://tinyurl.com/knocsj2 relates the story of Jordan Davis, another unarmed Black Florida teen, who was shot and murdered by White 45 year old Michael David Dunn after a brief verbal argument when Davis would not turn his “thug music” down. As I write, Dunn is on trial pleading not guilty based on the Stand Your Ground law, saying he felt threatened when he fired upon the teen.

It has all been about race. Martin would not have killed if he was not Black. Zimmerman would not have been made a hero if he was Black. And it is impossible to come to this conclusion without also coming to the conclusion that this world is more racist, and more dangerous, than I had previously thought.

– dk

Posted in Activism, Cultural, Current events/topics, Media & Media Bias, Race/Racism/Race Relations, racism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 42 Comments