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.