The Republicans in Congress are eagerly intent in participating in their own demise. Since November, when the Republicans lost an election that was theirs for the taking, the so-called Grand Old Party has been listening to- and taking advice from- their political adversaries on how to make themselves more appealing to Hispanics.
I’ve said and written elsewhere before that the Republican party needs to employ a new generation of messengers to deliver their message if they’re to be successful in expanding the political influence of their party. These messengers are preferably admitted conservatives and under the age of 50; they don’t wear check pants or wingtips, they’re not members of country clubs and aren’t pasty white fellows who reek condescension.
And though the Republican party has a number of people who fit that exact description, they purposely neglect to use them.
Instead, they’ve chosen- beyond comprehension- to listen to Democrats to formulate their strategy in expanding their appeal and influence to minorities (specifically Hispanics) and young people. What sense does it make to listen to one’s political opposition when creating and implementing a plan to expand political influence? Only a party that lacks common sense, credible leadership, and who would rather play ‘not to lose’ than to actually win does something as noticeably and embarrassingly stupid as this.
Motivated by a combination of Democrat deception and the lack of testicular fortitude to practically engage this serious issue, Republicans in both houses are intent on passing a so-called comprehensive immigration bill that would have the effect of normalizing more than eleven million illegal immigrants. Though the devil lay in the details- in tandem with Democrat party credibility- the bill amounts to what many consider to be nothing short of amnesty prior to closing the borders, which would thwart more would-be illegals from taking advantage of congressional stupidity.
And increasing the numbers of Democrat voters.
In other words, Republicans- led by the Gang of Eight- foolishly believe that offering a relaxed path toward legality or citizenship to a group of people who willingly and knowingly broke the law will endear them to Hispanics, increasing Hispanic support come midterm elections in ’14 and in the presidential election in 2016.
How breathtakingly naive is the GOP in their foolish attempt at courting Hispanics? According to Census Bureau data, Hispanics only accounted for 8.4 percent of the electorate in the 2012 election. 8.4 percent.
As a parenthetical, blacks accounted for 13.4 percent of the electorate. The fact that Republicans are willing to fall on their political swords for Hispanic amor when blacks represent a greater percentage of the electorate is indicative of the lack of political capital blacks have as a result of their unquestioning loyalty to Democrats (even at the expense of their own self-interest). It’s a major reason why Republicans won’t take the time to create a credible strategy to improve their messaging among black Americans. They’ll simply continue their half-assed attempts in appealing to blacks, which many will argue is justified course of action, considering.
Returning to the incompetency of congressional Republicans. They are willing to commit political suicide for 8.4 percent of the electorate.
One of the captains of the sinking ship Republicans refuse to abandon is Marco Rubio. At one point, Rubio was seen by many as the potential (conservative) savior of the Republican party. He’s bright, articulate, he’s an effective communicator and seemed to possess the necessary qualities of leadership.
Rubio, either through political naivete’ or an inflated sense of importance from reading his own press, has allowed himself to be irrevocably attached to- and politically cornered by- this sham of an immigration bill. As information began to leak regarding how bad this bill was becoming, Rubio chose to double down on his support for the bill rather than take a stand against the detrimental changes.
When more information became known regarding the infinitely flawed bill, rather than admitting the error of his was and dropping his support for the bill- potentially salvaging his political future, he’s confusingly maintained his support for the bill further souring his name in the mouths of many of his previous supporters.
Whatever the case, Republicans are engaging in their party’s self-destruction by attempting to legitimize this bill. I’m not sure if they’re bright enough or care enough to know that this bill isn’t meant to pass. It’s simply a political tactic used by Democrats to expose their vulnerability (toward Hispanics) and politically neutralize them in the upcoming elections.
Since Republicans are complicit in their own self-destruction, I created a video to celebrate their achievement.
Last month in Arizona, the Maricopa chapter of the NAACP- in tandem with the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) and represented by the ACLU- filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona to rescind a state law that criminalizes race and sex-based abortions.
The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 makes illegal any and all abortions that are based on the race or sex of the mother or preborn child. It also criminalizes anyone who knowingly performs an abortion that is the result of race or gender. Lastly it criminalizes anyone who engages in physical or verbal coercion that leads to a race or sex-based abortion.
Further, the law stipulates that those who engage in or perform an abortion must sign an affidavit stating that the abortion being performed isn’t the result of the race or the sex of the preborn child.
We’re actually witnessing a black, so-called civil rights organization suing to allow more black babies to be aborted and a so-called women’s group suing to increase the numbers of preborn baby girls aborted.
Ah, the virtue of “choice.”
Daniel Pochoda, the legal director of the ACLU in Arizona claims that the law is “motivated by racist and discriminatory beliefs.” He adds that the law encourages discrimination against Asian American women because of the cultural ideal that prefers boys to girls. In Pochoda’s opinion, he also believes that doctors would racially profile women of color who sought abortions simply because of their ethnic makeup.
Miriam Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, in defending the lawsuit adds that the law potentially “perpetuates ugly stereotypes about the Asian American community and contributes to anti-immigrant perceptions,” adding “we care about gender inequity and we care about women… The thing is, if these politicians really wanted to truly address the issue—and sex-selection is really a symptom of gender inequity—there are more effective ways of doing that. This bill is not that.”
Only on planet Democrat does a black organization sue to increase the deaths of preborn black babies. Only on planet Democrat does an Asian American “women’s” group sue to increase the deaths of preborn Asian girls, claiming it’s a “symptom of gender inequity.”
And on planet Democrat, logic need not apply.
In the morally-absurd, upside-down world of progressive leftism do so-called civil rights groups sue to effectively preserve a “right” to kill babies based on race and sex.
The NAACP, the NAPAWF and the ACLU, claim that a state law in Arizona which criminalizes abortions based on race and sex is “discriminatory.” They further claim the law violates “women’s rights” under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by “stigmatizing their decision” to kill their babies.
First, the claim that the law singles out black and Asian women in regards to abortion, thereby making the law “unconstitutional” has no merit. The law as it is written criminalizes anyone who seeks to have a race/sex-based abortion. Had the law specified ethnicities or racial makeup of the mother seeking an abortion, or prohibited specific ethnicities from having abortions, the claim of unconstitutionality would have some merit.
But as it exists, the law is applicable to everyone. In other words, it treats everybody equally under the law. No one, regardless of race or ethnic makeup, can have an abortion if that abortion is predicated on race or gender.
This lawsuit — if successful — will ensure that more Asian baby girls in particular and black babies in general are easier to kill by the parents who don’t want them. But it’s much more than that. This law wasn’t written to single out Asians or blacks — but to save all babies that may be at risk because a couple wants a girl instead of a boy or when family pressures are exerted upon an expectant mother to abort her mixed-race baby for vanity or racism’s sake.
So quickly after the gruesome trial of late-term abortion doctor and infanticide practitioner Kermit Gosnell — who preyed on poor black and Asian women and of whom the NAACP appeared all too silent — the NAACP is now actively suing a state for seeking to prevent race and sex-based abortions. The NAACP is effectively encouraging more abortions among blacks— a genocide that represents close to forty percent of all abortions performed and which claims more than 1,450 babies per day. Margret Sanger’s dream of exterminating the Negro population seems ever-closer to reality.
What other euphemism has been responsible for so many deaths, regardless of race?
Just as the Arizona law is clearly meant to save lives, the NAACP and the NAPAWF are essentially trying to end them by seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional. These groups are the ones guilty of injecting the stigma of alleged discrimination into the debate.
More to the point, if a white person or a (predominately) white organization (especially if that organization had the word “Tea” or “party” in its designation) endeavored to sue a state in an attempt to rescind a law that prohibits race and sex-based abortions because they indeed wanted more black babies aborted, it would rightly be called racist and you can believe that the NAACP would waste no time in letting America know what was happening.
That the NAACP is itself engaged in the very same practice demonstrates their reprehensible hypocrisy because it is actively supporting a position through word and deed that will increase the genocidal numbers of abortion in the black community. Doing so effectively undermines the association’s credibility when it comes to being an advocate against racism. Who will take seriously any organization that protests and demonstrates against racism while at the same time advocating a form of racism itself?
Nathan Bedford Forest would be proud of what the NAACP has managed to accomplish.
It’s obvious that the NAACP no longer represents the best interests of black Americans and hasn’t for some time.
The significance of the NAACP taking part in this lawsuit against Arizona’s attempt to prevent race and sex-based abortions is the further tarnishing of the legacy of a once-respectable institution that fought for the rights and protections of those whose rights had been legally denied.
And by advocating the position that abortions should be allowed on the basis of race, the NAACP is publicly indicating their comfortability with black women killing more black children. It’s also, as I said earlier, engaging in a position that would be condemned if held by a “white” organization. This association is dishonorably contributing to the plague of self-destruction that has afflicted black Americans since the sixties.
I urge the NAACP to courageously drop the pretense that it’s a civil rights organization. Because of its position in favor of race-based abortions, in addition to many others, it should effectively reclassify their organization to reflect their progressive political disposition in their attempt to maintain relevancy.
And blacks should wake to the realization that the racism they seek to thwart isn’t an external but an internal reality.
The calls for Eric Holder’s resignation are not only increasing, they’re growing louder- and for good reason. Holder has been an extremely divisive individual since his 2009 “nation of cowards” speech at a Justice Department event marking Black History Month.
Since then Eric Holder has-
-made a race-based decision and refused to prosecute Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of the New Black Panther Party for its role in intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 elections;
-sued the state of Arizona in 2010 (and to a certain extent, was successful) to prevent the state from enforcing SB 1070, an anti-illegal immigration law that attempted to do at the state level with the federal government refuses to do at a national level;
-pressured the Defense Department to charge “soldier of Allah” Major Nidal Malik Hasan as a terrorist after he murdered 14 and wounded more than 30 at Fort Hood, while screaming “Allahu Akbar.” Holder (and the Obama administration) characterized the massacre as an episode of “workplace violence” rather than one of domestic terrorism;
-announced that the DOJ would no longer defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in court cases brought against the act, claiming that to do so was “unconstitutional”;
-implicated himself in the “Fast and Furious” gun walking scandal that led to the deaths of border patrol agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata (not including the lives of Mexican citizens lost due to this program). As a result, Holder was held in contempt of Congress for obstruction- refusing to release information regarding the Fast and Furious operation which eventually led president Obama to invoke Executive Privilege regarding said documentation (and in the minds of many, implicated himself in the knowledge of such operation);
-possibly perjured himself by lying under oath during his testimony before the congressional committee investigating his involvement in acquiring a search warrant that allowed his department to search the email and phone records of a FOX News reporter. Holder told the committee, under oath, that he wasn’t in any way involved only to have evidence surface shortly after that contradicted his sworn statement and confirmed his active involvement in obtaining that warrant.
That Eric Holder has steadfastly refused to resign considering these blatant infractions, or that the president hasn’t “accepted Holder’s resignation” (meaning forced him out) speaks tremendous volumes regarding the moral character of both men.
To be blunt, AG Holder is a rigid ideologue who is a prevaricator who purposely peddles deception; that his dishonesty is saturated in arrogance is particularly unpalatable.
But, as it pertains to president Obama, his silence and lack of public condemnation of Holder’s actions- up to and including the fact he hasn’t dismissed Eric Holder (or for starters, Lois Lerner and Doug Shulman [Steven Miller’s resignation was pre-planned] regarding the IRS’ specific targeting of conservatives and conservative organizations) may be indicative that Obama knew exactly what’s been ongoing at DOJ and the IRS. Meaning, people in both departments were demonstrating ideological and personal loyalty to the president by following his orders- which is a glaring reason why Obama hasn’t fired them.
Or, it may imply that he didn’t know what was going on with the DOJ and IRS but doesn’t see much wrong in what Holder, Lerner, Shulman et.al have done and thus, his silence equates to passively supporting or condoning the actions and activities of those involved.
Either way, it’s an extremely poor but accurate reflection of the president’s character, personally, but also further discredits his administration when it comes to what they say and do.
This entire embarrassing episode of the IRS’ political intimidation and manipulation through false audits and stalling the certification of applications for the creation of non-profits, demonstrates the sad reality that political activism that’s grounded in extreme devotion (religious?) or allegiance to political ideology has replaced Christianity as America’s civil religion.
That the IRS (which is supposed to be apolitical) would purposely and specifically target groups and individuals who shared differing ideological and religious worldviews from their own- or the president’s- is an example of how far our culture has degenerated from a common civility. People could at one time, disagree without being disagreeable; now we’ve slouched toward a justified incivility where the ends- regardless of how wrong- always justifies the means (lying, character assassination intimidation, public embarrassment, etc.).
Equally as disconcerting is the fact that the IRS employees who’re guilty of such actions- be it through direct knowledge and participation or being passively involved by not alerting authorities/bringing this to the public’s attention sooner, will walk away with little condemnation or punishment. Or, as in Lois Lerner’s case, plead the 5th with no serious repercussion.
This lack of moral character and leadership that is sadly all too prevalent among many folks today is a product of the culture in which we created. Our culture has for far too long, excused questionable ethics and the behavior that flows from it. Rather than personalizing ethical morality, we’ve privatized it. Worse still, we’ve relativized it and condemned those who would judge it. Thus the lack of character displayed by many civic and religious leaders, teachers, parents and the children they raise shouldn’t shock us. It’s the logical conclusion of the lack of shame that a non-judgmental society creates. We’ve set this pattern in motion and as a result, we have ourselves to blame.
The interesting thing is that we know how to rectify this glaring problem, but we may not have the scruples to say it, let alone initiate it.
As a side note, it would seem to me that all audits conducted by the IRS during the past several years have now been called into question. Who’s to say that those who’ve been subjected to the anxiety and inconvenience that audits produce weren’t specifically targeted for religious, political or ideological reasons? For example, if a person who examines DNA taints one test sample- intentionally or by accident, aren’t all test samples performed by that examiner then called into question? It should apply here as well.
* Update. For purposes of clarification, when I say “civic religion,” I’m referring to religion or religious practices in a cultural sense, not something instituted by government, which should be recognized as implied within my statement.
Yesterday Chicago’s School Board decided to close 50 public schools due to “declining enrollment” as well as failing to meet a certain level of academic success. The closures were also enacted to close the city’s $1 billion dollar deficit. This school closure is the largest by one district in the nation.
Keep in mind this is the same city who several months ago, gave a considerable raise to the city’s teachers during contract negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union. The city’s teachers- who make on average $76,000 per year- received a double-digit pay increase spread over the next three years, which doesn’t include other salary increases and benefits such as cost-of-living wage increases and more.
As a result of the negotiations the teachers were able to overcome merit-pay accountability, a lack of increased teacher evaluation and safeguarded a recall policy for those teachers who had been laid off (prior to yesterday) due to school closures.
The renegotiated contract between the CTU and the city will cost Chicago an additional $74 million per year, contributing to the billion-dollar deficit.
Must be nice getting paid with no accountability relating to job performance.
So Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, negotiated with the CTU for an increase in teacher pay and benefits knowing the city was deeply in debt. This would be laughable if it didn’t affect so many disadvantaged children. So would the fact that the CTU “marched” protesting the school closures, as if their renegotiated and inflated contract had no impact on the decision.
And by the way, the only reason this despicable union “marched” in “protest” of the school closings wasn’t because of the many poor children affected. The CTU “marched” because the teachers they represent lost their jobs- nothing more, nothing less. Teachers unions are called that for a very explicit reason- they represent teachers, not students.
It’s disgusting that these leeches (CTU) would use the very children affected by the school closures as political shields to deflect their complicity in this fiasco.
If that weren’t enough, Emanuel has plans to contribute $70 million of public money to help finance a new stadium for DePaul University.
And here I thought elected Democrats cared about the poor, blacks, and education- even poor blacks getting an education- until they have to choose between them and an opportunity to collect (more) tax revenue.
And unfortunately, these same poor and disenfranchised folks will re-elect the same charlatans again and again.
Again, it would laughable if this pathetic situation weren’t affecting children.
There has been quite a bit of reaction to the president’s commencement speech this past weekend at the historically-black Morehouse College, and it seems as if there were as many people who disliked it as there were those who loved it. As usual, the president had some blatant and gratuitous moments of self-congratulation and campaign untruths. And as he’s known to do when speaking to black audiences, he again appropriated the preacher cadence and black dialect, which I think is as unneeded as it is condescending. The speech did contain several moments of honest transparency regarding his upbringing as well as some tough truths regarding black America.
I credit the president for highlighting such notions as personal responsibility, integrity and dignity, hard work and the importance of manhood; I also appreciated the fact- especially and ironically, considering the source- that he condemned racial excuse making for the lack of achievement. Lord knows that black America needs to hear and imbibe these realities now more than ever before.
The president is right when he asserts that blacks need to stop using racism as an excuse for their lack of achievement. The time when that particular excuse held validity has come and gone. No one suggests that racial discrimination doesn’t exist; it’s a manifestation of sin that will continue to exist on this side of heaven. But racial discrimination isn’t the all-encompassing impediment that prevents blacks from personal and professional achievement as it once was. Blacks would do well in acknowledging this reality and being accountable for their decision and actions. The president’s admonition is correct.
In addition the president noted that the hardships blacks encountered in previous generations were more extreme than most of the hardships faced by blacks today. To drive home this point, the president noted that the graduates’ contemporaries in China, India and Brazil are facing and overcoming hardships much greater than the hardships currently experienced by blacks here in America. (this is in addition to the black Africans and black Islanders who are also overcoming great hardship to achieve success whom the president didn’t mention.)
Again, the president is absolutely correct.
That said, many blacks were vociferously disappointed with the tone of the President’s speech with Dr. Boyce Watkins (the people’s scholar) presumably leading the way. Though Dr. Watkins applauded the president for his somewhat conservative message, he was offended by the president’s attempt to “morally berate” black America. He also lamented black America’s role as the battered housewife in its relationship with the president and the party he represents.
I couldn’t agree more with Watkins’ assessment. I’ve long made the same analogy regarding the undying loyalty that blacks give Democrats who receive nothing in return. And I don’t necessarily blame Democrats. Just like the wife beater, Democrat politicians will get away with as much as blacks allow them to.
But I disagree with Watkins’ assertion that the president was “morally berating” the audience at Morehouse and I’m not necessarily sure about the president’s “lack of moral authority” when saying it. Truth is truth no matter who delivers it. Much of what the president said is what most blacks need to hear, and on a continuous basis, not simply during a graduation speech.
Watkins suggests that “[t]elling black Americans to stop using racism as an excuse allows President Obama to create a set of excuses for his own significant, even embarrassing, lack of action to help alleviate the clearly documented, undeniable, legislatively-enforced poison of racial inequality that continues to impact our society. As he tells the Morehouse men to take more responsibility for their own lives, the mirror of personal responsibility should also be turned on the most powerful black man in the history of the world to use his massive platform to help confront systematic racism that affects us all.”
I partially agree. I think the president has missed several opportunities during his presidency to significantly impact segments of black America considering the historicity of his presidency and the overwhelming influence and popularity he once had.
However, I disagree with Watkins’ argument that blacks are suffering from systemic racism. It echoes the president’s assertion that “if we’re honest with ourselves, we know that too few of our brothers have the opportunities that you’ve had here at Morehouse. In troubled neighborhoods all across this country — many of them heavily African American… they’re places where jobs are still too scarce and wages are still too low; where schools are underfunded and violence is pervasive; where too many of our men spend their youth not behind a desk in a classroom, but hanging out on the streets or brooding behind a jail cell.”
This perpetuates the “black-as-victim” narrative that has hamstrung much of black America- at least since the sixties. This narrative claims that the majority of the problems that blacks face- especially as it pertains to violence and imprisonment- are inflicted upon them as a result of evil and nefarious societal forces bent on black destruction.
In other words, the problems blacks face are seen as external rather than a result of personal decision-making and the behaviors that result from them. This narrative infantilizes and objectifies blacks. It says that blacks lack the capacity of ingenuity and pragmatism to take care of themselves and as such, are perpetually in need of help.
I reject that notion as it’s condescending and debilitating, and I would argue that black victimhood has done more to inhibit black progress than racism ever could.
When Dr. Watkins suggests that “black people are the only group of people who are severely punished for being average. If a young black male grows up in a neighborhood where he might get shot everyday on the way to school, the educational system is dilapidated, he is being racially-profiled on every corner and there’s no food in the house, we expect him to be able to rise to extraordinary levels of focus and capability to overcome all of this…[t]he point is that the “Super Negro” theory may apply to that rare kid who can leap systematic oppression in a single bound, but you can’t expect that same degree of personal power and focus to apply to 40 million people,” he’s way off base.
First, this is a straw man argument. No one says that blacks are the only people punished for mediocrity or that they have to embrace the ‘super negro’ theory. If someone did, who said it? When? Dr. Watkins is passively excusing the ills that afflict black America- which again, is embracing victimhood.
Second, Dr. Watkins discounts the many people of various racial and ethnic origins who were born into less than stellar environments and overcame problems much more grievous than those of the inner cities.
Many of those who aren’t in school and hanging out or behind bars are victims of choice and a sub-par value system. Many of these “youth” choose crime. It may sound shocking to say, but go back and look at generations past in American history. Many of them were poor- much poorer than today’s ‘poor’ yet they didn’t engage in crime or frequent penitentiaries anywhere near the level of today’s youth. Why? Because though poor, they maintained an intact value system which was largely predicated on biblical values, which meant that despite poverty, they still married; though poor, they at least attempted education; though poor they found work; though poor they still believed in God. In actuality, the problems that Watkins- and the president- lament are what results when moral values are inverted in the communities where these problems arise.
Prime examples of this are the heroes that Obama cited in his speech- specifically Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver all of whom were born slaves and yet they learned how to read when it was against the law to teach slaves; they all sought some form of education after slavery ended; none of them died from starvation which means they all found food. In other words, these men all rose to ‘extraordinary levels of focus and capability to overcome all of [these obstacles].’
Surely Watkins isn’t suggesting that blacks born into harshness of slavery could overcome- SLAVERY- to reach the heights of meritorious success but blacks born into the most prosperous and promising time in history, can’t?
There’s quite a bit in this speech that is very much a concern for disagreement and dislike- for example foolishly celebrating the passage and implementation of Obamacare- a policy that not only continues to bleed support from the American people, it’s directly contributing to the increased cost of premiums, difficulties of state exchanges and increased doctor shortages; claiming schools are underfunded (they’re not), and giving credibility to the narrative of black victimhood as I mentioned above.
But stating the obvious- encouraging blacks, especially black men (who were the prime audience for the speech) to take manhood and fatherhood seriously; to recognize the importance of limiting excuses by taking personal responsibility for one’s actions as well as being socially accountable is difficult to disagree with and in my opinion needs to be commended and repeated.