Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Michael Brown's Tragic Proof

In light of the chaos ongoing in Ferguson, MO, I have to ask myself why, given the choice and responsibility to choose between an angry lynch mob and the justice system, alleged leaders in America sided first with the lynch mob.

Those alleged leaders fostered an environment in which justice could no longer survive under any circumstances.

Had the grand jury indicted Officer Wilson, the lynch mob would have been thus reinforced, believing its lawless, violent actions the key to newly won “justice.” What if that indictment did not yield a conviction? Likely the same outcome as when the grand jury "failed" to yield an indictment, the previously condoned and now inevitable lawless violence.

This is no longer about the death of Michael Brown, but about the death of American leadership.

Talking heads continue to lament how the justice system mishandled the situation, ignoring the fact that the justice system was prematurely judged “guilty” by not only the lynch mob, but also the alleged leaders of the community and even alleged leaders of the nation. Perfection itself would have been insufficient under the circumstances, had it failed to render the lynch mob’s demands.

What was to be lost by first calling the lynch mob to task for violence and lawlessness? Why was it necessary to reinforce unfounded accusations of a civil rights violation, before allowing the justice system to even try?

Alleged leaders effectively ruled out any chance the justice system might prevail. Why?

In destroying any chance the justice system could prevail, those same alleged leaders ensured their followers would never rely on the justice system and would never feel justice. This is most puzzling and horrifying when those same leaders parade a slogan of “no justice, no peace.”

These alleged leaders have made justice unrecognizable, unpalatable, and ultimately impossible, and by their own slogan’s admission, they have done the same for peace.

Michael Brown is dead, and while the situation is indeed tragic, that does not automatically imply that it was murder, or even criminal. Nor does his tragic death absolve him of the potential role he played in his own death. It is possible and plausible Officer Wilson’s actions were warranted.

Why are alleged leaders unable or unwilling to recognize and acknowledge these facts?

Unfortunately, the answer to both of our pertinent “whys” is closely related to why Michael Brown robbed the store, why Michael Brown disrespected the police officer and disobeyed lawful authority and direction, and why Michael Brown might have felt justified in all this to physically contest and assault an officer of the law and ignore that officer’s order to stand fast.

The alleged leaders in this entire situation have, as a rule among black communities, sewn distrust of the American system. Conveniently, that philosophy has reined in black support to anyone outside those same alleged leaders, but at what cost to the Michael Browns of America? The Michael Browns of America have been convinced that law and order in America is a conspiracy of oppression to be resisted and railed against.

Before Michael Brown’s blood was spilled, his alleged leaders had convinced him the justice system was corrupted beyond measure and should hold no sway in his life. Hence, Michael Brown would so vehemently reject an officer’s simple and rational instruction not to walk down the middle of the street; something a parent might naturally teach their child for safety’s sake.

Alleged leaders mislead Michael Brown to his death.

Rather than instructing Michael Brown on how the system works, they fed him lies and conspiracies and imprisoned him in ignorance. Had those alleged leaders truly led Michael Brown, he might have known how to interact with an officer of the law. He might have prevented his own death, rather than contributing to it. He might have denied the system at least this one opportunity to prove itself; and what tragic proof.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Black Interests

Since when do most black Americans prefer taxation, unions, and abortion?

Apparently Professor Adolph L. Reed, Jr. doesn’t just drink the Kool-Aid; he’s gone and drowned himself in it. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times Reed dismissed black conservatives as tokens. He went on to say that Republicans won’t gain any support from the black community until they take policy positions that advance black interests.

Exactly which interests are specifically black interests? Would it be the economy? Wait; is it the unemployment rate? Oh, I know, the national debt?

These are the issues surveyed Americans said were the most important. These were the issues Americans agreed Obama is weak on. These are the issues Republicans continue to try to address, and Americans felt Republicans were more strongly capable of addressing than Barack Obama. Yet, Obama won the election largely due to the unwavering support of the minority vote.

Once again, exactly which interests are specifically black interests?

Step back, professor, and let a black conservative give this a shot.

When was the last time black America actually communicated their interests? Take a close look. Usually when you hear about black America’s interests it’s guys like Reed speaking for them, and amazingly black America seems to be regurgitating the Liberal Democratic party line. When you go directly to black America, you often get something akin to an angry cry for help, an incoherent mixture of confusion and desperation that scarcely resembles Reed’s vision.

Of course, there is the conservative voice of black America, but that voice is ignored, drowned out, and marginalized by black leaders and liberal media. While black America obviously doesn’t actually identify with the Democratic Party, they will not be allowed to identify with the Republican Party.

Black America is completely deprived of their voice, but by whom.

If I were a political cartoonist, I’d draw a gathering inside a room with a sign above the door “Republican Party.” Outside the room, a guy wearing a Democratic Party pin would be nailing up a “No blacks allowed” sign as a large crowd of poor, dejected black Americans looked on in confusion and desperation.

In the crowd, a media representative turns to a confused onlooker and says, “Those guys are so racist.”

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Gun Control

I fear my government far more than I fear my neighbor.

My neighbor and I are on even footing. Even if my neighbor gets the drop on me, it’s still “mono y mono,” but the state…the government…has clout, manpower, and firepower that I can’t match.

If my neighbor comes for me, he’s going to have his hands full. When the government comes for me, I don’t stand a chance…unless I am armed (preferably to the teeth).

The fact that we are even debating inhibiting law-abiding citizens' constitutional right to bear arms highlights the real problem: only the law-abiding citizens would be detrimentally affected by such a law.

Criminals will always plan and prepare to resist authorities, while law-abiding citizens resist criminals and will only resist authorities if/when those authorities become oppressive. So, by inhibiting law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms, we not only inhibit law-abiding citizens’ ability to resist criminals (increasing dependence on the state…wow, common Liberal/Democrat theme), but we also inhibit citizens' ability to resist the oppression of the state.

Logically, why then would the government want to deprive law-abiding citizens of their arms? Um, let’s see…1 + 1…

Of course, two things tend to contradict the notion that the solution to gun violence is to inhibit law-abiding citizens' constitutional right to bear arms. History tells us that man kills his fellow man by whatever means is available. History also tells us that governments have killed far more unarmed/disarmed citizens than any single man ever has or ever will. So, when/if the government takes your guns, while death will not decrease, at least we’ll be able to say fewer people died at the end of a citizen’s gun.

Ya know, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside…my internment camp…where I wish I could smuggle a weapon…any weapon.

It is ridiculous to focus on a heinous act such as the shootings in Connecticut and suggest that somehow the method makes a difference. I wonder if any of the parents would be comforted to find their child wasn’t actually shot, but was instead stabbed, beaten, strangled, or simply died of shock? Somehow, I think not.

Also, the tool that facilitated the act should not be the focus. If that was sound reasoning, after 9/11 we should have waged some sort of war on box cutters. If only Home Depot hadn’t had a sale on box cutters, thousands of Americans might still be alive today.

What about cars? How many people die every year in vehicle accidents compared to gun deaths? Are privately owned vehicles next on the list?

My brother was shot in the face by some low-life thug. It wasn’t the gunshot, the bullet, or the gun that killed him, it was the idiot that pulled the trigger because he lived in a culture that had distorted all appreciation of law, order, justice, humanity, and life itself. Take away the tool, and I can guarantee that same idiot, values unchanged, would have ended my brother’s life.

The gun is an inanimate scapegoat, unable to defend itself, but it is unfortunately and obstructively misaligned with the political ideology/agenda of many of the political elite and their media proxies. For many, guns are true empowerment, true freedom. When the government comes for me, and history confirms that they eventually will, I don’t want to be dragged away kicking and screaming, I want to go down with guns blazing.

They’d love to subdue and ultimately oppress us with laws, but I intend to make certain they have to do it by force.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Self Respect vs Being Liked, A Tale of Two Parties

According to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

“If we want people to like us, we have to like them first.”

I’m embarrassed. I must admit…this entire time I thought the goal was to lead responsibly. What a forehead-slapper. I suddenly feel so stupid. Forget balancing the budget or reining in spending. Open up a Twitter account and go on Late Night with David Letterman (sound familiar), and while the world’s problems won’t get solved…or even better…at least people like you.

Ah, that’s better. “They like me. They really, really like me.”

Exactly who is Jindal trying to make like him, and why would that require that he affirm Democratic propaganda that “Republicans are racist and hateful?” Way to go, Bobby, I think I’ll stick with the politically incorrect, yet painfully honest Mitt Romney, thank you. At least with him I can lose telling the truth and standing proud rather than lying (hint, play on words) on my back with no dignity left.

Former Commerce Secretary CarlosGutierrez has a more viable plan: direct appeasement. Since the Libs and their media cohort are going to corner (read as demonize) Republicans on illegal immigration anyway, if Republicans make it seem like acquiescence was voluntary, they might win some votes. Three cheers for “comprehensive immigration failur…reform” which includes amnesty. Hip-hip, hooray! Hip-hip, hooray! (Imagine the third one in Spanish.)

Pardon me if I don’t share Gutierrez’s confidence that all those entitlement-eligible voters are going to flock to the Republican ranks, but at least they will like Republicans

So, I get the making-people-like-you angle. After all, Barack Obama was an utter failure but because folks liked him (thank you mainstream media), they just overlooked his many, many, many shortcomings..for four years…wait, eight years. But why does “liking” people mean we have to lie to them or accept the lies they tell or believe about us? I’m pretty sure that’s a sign of low self-esteem.

While Jindal actually played right into Democratic propaganda (in his defense, it’s kind of hard not to, there’s a lot of it out there), he was actually stating a very basic and unfortunate truth: in our country, the liberal media will turn every Republican word to hatred, so you have to watch everything you say….even if it is the truth.

What’s that? Obama’s platform relies on anger? RACISM!

What’s that? We want to uphold the integrity of our system by verifying voter eligibility? RACISM!

What’s that? We didn’t know about the economy or Benghazi? FOUR MORE YEARS (...of someone else's fault)!

If you’re Barack Obama, the very words from your mouth and their intended meaning can be forgiven or just conveniently overlooked, because the media likes you. If you’re Barack Obama, you can campaign to be given a job, and then hold someone else responsible for failing to do your job…four years later, because the media likes you. If you’re Barack Obama, you can buy votes with divisive vitriol and be called a unifier, you can sell out another nation and be called its ally, you can surrender on two wars and be called commander-in-chief, you can sway in the direction of the wind and be called a leader, and you can have only Liberal accomplishments and causes under your belt and still be called “moderate”… because the media likes you.

Heck if you’re Barack Obam you can be born in another cou….um….let’s just leave that one alone. (For anyone reading, that’s not called conspiracy….it’s called humor…and freedom of speech; and there’s plenty more where that came from, so stick around.)

Seriously, Jindal makes a great point: if the media likes you, the public likes you. Then, nothing else matters. Get liked, and get elected. If the media doesn’t like you…aw crap.

Republicans lost because they weren’t liked by the media, and the media was willing and able to support Obama by steering the vote away from issues, accountability, international policy, and other pesky presidential stuff and make it about who the media…I mean, voters personally liked more…and…who could bring in the largest number of unconcerned voters. “Since you’re not using your vote, can I use it?” (congrats Obama).

So, the real question isn’t how do you get voters to like you; but if you can’t get the media to like you, how do you get voters to step outside the popularity contest, consider the merits of your position, and vote independently on issues regardless of party or media?

Great question, if I don’t say so myself. Romney and Ryan tried it and were doing well at it when Obama and his media supporters made a full court press to inject the emotional social issues and distract from things like the economy, Benghazi, and all four years of Obama’s presidency. And whaddayaknow, it worked. Yay!


If focusing on the issues won’t get the job done, I hear trading vodka or cigarettes for votes works really well…ahem…or Republicans could try loading their policy up with entitlements that the voters won’t immediately have to pay for (at least not the targeted voters). Of course that won’t work unless it’s used in concert with a “they hate you” message, but you’ll need the mainstream media to back you. I think we’re onto something. This could fundamentally change the face of politics in Amer…wait….so true, and so ironically not funny.

Here’s an angle, Bobby. Don’t make popularity your goal; aim for respect…self-respect. Stop apologizing, shoot straight, and sleep soundly knowing you stood your ground and told it how it is. Compromise on opinions not principles, and stand firm until the end if need be.

You don’t have to agree with Romney’s decision to make the statement of fact, but if the only way you can stay in power is if the facts are colored or denied...’re Obama, and the media likes you.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Who needs what change?

In a USA Today article titled "Black vote up for grabs in 2016 if GOP adapts," DeWayne Wickham quotes NAACP President Ben Jealous:
“The status quo, minus Obama, could be a disaster for Democrats in 2016.”
 Well, that’s refreshing.

Wickham goes on to interpret Jealous’s statement:
“In other words, without Obama at the head of the ticket, Republicans will have an opening to get a larger share of the black vote if they commit to a targeted effort to solve the problems that disproportionately afflict blacks.”

Of course, that’s not what Jealous’s statement says. Jealous implies that black voters recognize that the status quo is unsatisfactory, but voted in favor of “unsatisfactory” on behalf of Obama; however, they will allegedly draw the line once Obama is gone.

Furthermore, what problems are Wickham referring to: the rash of single mothers and fatherless children, violence in black communities and black on black crime, lack of proactive effort and reliance on outside forces (Democratic leaders) for internal problems, what? How are Republicans going to solve those issues for the black community?

Jealous has also been quoted saying the Democratic party 
“must quickly figure out how to motivate [black] voters who – if Obama is not at the top of the ticket – simply go away.”

“Republicans…must find a way to appeal to a significant number of black voters…”
“When it comes to issues such as civil rights and equality, 87 percent of African-Americans polled declared that GOP concern was either “just talk,” or simply didn’t exist.”

Mr. Galloway, like Mr. Wickham, attempts to legitimize the position, and he similarly fails to recognize that Jealous is plainly indicating that the black Democrats that mustered to put Obama in the White House voted along racial and party lines, as Obama and his party knew they would, and once Obama is gone those voters are likely to just go home rather than entertain voting again, period.

It is an ugly reality, but reality nonetheless.

Wickham’s re-interpretation, like Galloway’s, reveals the propaganda message used to put black voters beyond Republican reach: only Democrats care and strive on behalf of blacks in the U.S. Of course, black voters don’t ask, and Democratic leaders don't tell how or why the two most revered, iconic political and historical champions of the black community (President Lincoln and Reverend King) were both Republican; or why Malcolm X loathed the Democratic party; or why the values of the Democratic party are wreaking havoc on black communities; or why the Democratic policies have yet to provide promised prosperity and the perception of equality they so vehemently deny their black constituents.

Allow me to reiterate that the President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People admitted that black voters were solicited and mustered by their leaders to purposefully vote along racial and party lines for a recognized unsatisfactory status quo.

So, recap:

Democratic and black leaders point black voters in the direction of failure. Black voters pursue failure at the behest of Democratic and black leaders. Failure impacts black voters while entrenching Democratic and black leaders. Republicans get blamed for failure, further ingratiating black voters to Democratic and black leaders. Democratic and black leaders continue to “lead” black voters, and black voters continue to follow.

Yet, according to Wickham, Galloway, and black communities across the nation, it’s the Republicans that need to change.

It explains why black Americans voted so heavily for “change we can believe in”…twice (and it wasn't change at all).

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Fair & Square?

Commenting about Barack Obama’s illogical upset victory, Paul Ryan said, "He won fair and square."

So, to have the main stream media firmly seated far left of center and campaigning for their preferred left-wing candidate is “fair and square?”

To buy votes through political payment policy is “fair and square?”

To depend on and strive for the masses to be misinformed is “fair and square?”

To undermine and sellout the integrity of the voting process for partisan gain is “fair and square?”

To shuffle hundreds of thousands of uninformed, ill-equipped voters willing to vote shamelessly along racial lines is “fair and square?”

To side-step accountability for four years and then use a biased media cohort to influence a government dependent electorate is “fair and square?”

To have little to no oversight of the impact of your own international policy and skirt the consequences for partisan political reasons is “fair and square?”

To fail in almost every respect and have your mainstream media backers distract voters with smoke and mirrors is “fair and square?”

For millions of people who do not contribute in the slightest to actually steer the ship while those who carry the lion’s share of the load are demonized is “fair and square?”

For the government to institutionally discriminate against a specific demographic of American citizenry on prejudicial grounds is “fair and square?”

To prioritize ideological beliefs above the national interests you swore to pursue is “fair and square?”


There is no candidate in history so ill-recommended as Barack Obama, and four years of national decline proved it. There is no precedent to explain how such rank and obvious failure could be viewed so favorably as to induce allegedly informed voters to elect for more of the same. While inexplicable in almost every sense, Obama’s victory explains how free societies have been wooed to their own demise.

A professor once told me there are two sides to the political competition, and the media is the playing field, as well as the alleged referees. So, when the media is actually pulling for one candidate over another, who do you think will win?

I agree with Paul Ryan that, "[Obama] got more votes, and that’s the way our system works,” but let’s not kid ourselves.

There was nothing fair or square about it.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Twice Bitten

The most unsettling realization of the 2012 election is that Democratic political leaders knowingly used a complicit, biased media cohort to manipulate an uninformed, government dependent electorate to successfully put an inferior candidate in the highest office in the land as their ideological proxy…


Many people will blame Republicans for not coming up with some sort of super candidate whose platform and persona are so commanding that no amount of propaganda can possibly convince any voter to choose another candidate. This is the equivalent of the Democratic voter base believing their elected leaders are serving the masses and will bring prosperity into the peoples’ perceived bleak lives…by simply taxing those greedy rich people. It’s exactly what the Democratic leaders want us to believe, because it will keep us from throwing back the veil and holding them accountable. Hence, after decades of undeterred party loyalty, many Democrats have yet to alter their situation in life, and the ones who have escaped their perceived “station” don’t have the slightest idea how they did it, or how to help others do it.

In case you logically suppose Democratic voters believe electing Democratic leaders is the key to success, I tested that one. I queried several Obama supporters about what they voted for: “Barack Obama.”

“No, that’s who you voted for. What was the central merit of his platform that motivated you to choose him?”


On one hand, I am relieved by the fact that many of Obama’s supporters are also unaware of any merits recommending him to the office of the President. It makes me realize I wasn’t blinded by bias, but I have logically and correctly concluded Obama was ineffective and undeserving of the office. On the other hand, it makes me want to pull my hair out in disgust because when Americans aren’t sitting at home too apathetic and complacent to exercise their right to vote, these imbeciles are casting their precious lot in the absence of rational thought or consideration beyond the immediate outcome.

As if they were watching some benign reality show, they emerge to get in on the latest trend, cast their vote based on hair styles, familiar fads, that cool one-liner, or some rumored injustice, simply to turn off their television and recede back into their materially and intellectually impoverished existence; unaffected by things like taxes, financial regulation, international policy, or national security.

(Forgive me, but has anyone ever supposed that this is the reason why so many of these folks have little opportunity or accomplishment in life, and it has nothing to do with Republicans?)

Then, like a bully sharing your lunch with you, drawing smiles from the teacher for his generosity and consideration, Obama graciously pledges to reach across the aisle to “work with both parties.” Oh, you mean like on Obamacare when you had the super majority and stuffed it down our throats? Pardon us, Mr. President (I think I just threw up in my mouth), but we’ve heard this one before, and unlike your constituents we aren’t falling for the same line twice.