Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Andrew Klavan: Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats?

Andrew Klavan, a well-established fiction writer, takes on the question of why Blacks continue to vote for Democrats. Is socialist dogma and perpetual class and race warfare really all that appealing?

Several years ago, I posted the following video on my Facebook page, leading several of my left-leaning friends to unfriend me and to disavow all knowledge of my existence. I was called every name in the book.

Apparently Klavan's humor and the irony of his presentation escaped them. Rather than understanding the underlying truth behind the video, they chose, instead, to allow their dogmas to rule their lives.

I knew that if I received such a response from my liberal friends, that Andrew Klavan must be on the right track with his comments. What do you think?


Tuesday, August 19, 2014

After Ferguson: Black Man Goes on Epic Rant Against Riots in Ferguson

In connection with writing about the riots in Ferguson, Missouri yesterday, many of you have seen this video where a Black man rants against the riots and rioters in Ferguson. I thought I'd repost it here, precisely because he speaks truth in the face of progressive lies.


Monday, August 18, 2014

Some Thoughts on the Ferguson "Riots" and the 1992 LA Riots

In 1992, I lived in LA when rioting and looting took over the city after the trial of four police officers who were acquitted of beating Rodney King. The destruction and mayhem started small, with a few, enraged Blacks piling garbage in the middle of an intersection, then burning it, while throwing rocks and bottles at passersby.

While the police were engaged in trying to contain the local rioting in the streets, every news channel and every radio station fixed its attention on the rioters. The media fanned the flames of discontent by showing the rioter, then by implying that justice had not been served. White police had gotten away with an atrocity, and Black America was once again left powerless, except to take to the streets in rage.

The message was constantly repeated in the news until others took to the streets to begin a rampage of looting and burning that overtook the city and overwhelmed the police's ability to respond. I watched Blacks, Latinos, and even Whites take the opportunity to break into stores to steal whatever they could (mostly TVs and electronics) in "protest" against the acquittal of those four police officers.

The city burned. People died.

In between covering the riots, news stations played and replayed the infamous video scene of the police beating Rodney King. We saw that 30 second scene over and over again. Blacks raged in the streets. Everyone looted. Stores were picked clean then burned to the ground.

I watched several stores get broken into. At one shoe store on Venice Boulevard, near where I lived, several cars with young Blacks drove up to the closed store. They threw bricks at the front window, breaking it, then with the speed and precision of professionals, they entered the store and filled up their car with boxes and boxes of shoes. Just as quickly, they drove away.

That picture, the looting of a shoe store ten miles from the epicenter of the "riots," is really the epitome of what happened over those few days in LA. While the riots may have started in rage, they continued because, hey, free shoes.

What we never saw on TV, what the news media never showed or reported, was the high speed car chase and the minutes of video footage that led up to the point when Rodney King got beaten by the police. Those leading minutes are crucial to understanding what happened that evening as the officers beat Rodney King.

On the night of March 3, 1991, Rodney King and two other passengers in his car led police on a drunken, high speed chase through the streets of LA. When police finally succeeded in pulling King over, the other two (Black) passengers got out of the car and were taken into custody without incident. King, once induced from the car, behaved erratically, and acted as though he were reaching for a weapon. A woman officer drew her gun on King, but was ordered to holster her weapon, mostly as a precaution against King taking it and using it against her.

Five officers were ordered in to swarm, subdue, and arrest King. In turn, he resisted, standing and throwing two officers off of his back. The entire video footage which captured this, was shown just once by the news media. After the initial viewing, only the last 30 seconds were ever shown - the minutes that showed police beating Rodney King.

You see, the beginning of the video didn't fit into the narrative at the time, that white police officers beat poor, defenseless, and Black, Rodney King. That part of the video was shown in court and helped acquit the police officers of any wrongdoing. Outside of court, the news reported an entirely different story.


The story from Ferguson, Missouri holds a lot of parallels to the riots in LA. While not exactly the same situation, I see the news media once again fanning the flames of racial tension and bias merely because it fits into the narrative of most newspeople. I see race activists using the death of Michael Brown as a means to further the narrative that racism is the reason for all Black poverty and crime.

Such a narrative happens again and again. If the narrative doesn't fit, like Rodney King, or Trayvon Martin, or Michael Brown, the story is rearranged and truncated to make it fit. And if the narrative doesn't fit, like the 29 shootings in Chicago over the weekend, the story is mostly ignored.

The narrative goes forward, even when the facts of the case are muddled and corrupted by the very news media promoting the progressive narrative. Such a narrative feeds into the dogma that Blacks are powerless against Whites and must be coddled and fed by the federal government.

The progressive dogmas are as destructive to Blacks and the Black community as the riots in LA and Ferguson. The dogmas of progressivist oppression never let up. Instead the dogmas rage and tear at the very foundations that would allow individuals to rise and people to be free..

There is a way out of the cycle of destruction and progressive dogmas. The path is not easy and it takes time and energy. The cycle can be ended first, by understanding that our success is up to us, as long as the government stays out of our way. We must understand that government cannot "fix" anything. Government can only attempt to regulate the peace or burden our lives further with real oppression.

Self-determination and self-reliance remain the best and surest way out of the riots and looting, not adhering to the dogmas of oppression.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky: Fanning the Fires of Resentment Isn't Enough to Run a Country

I am currently rereading Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radcials. While reading the book, I've compared President Barack Obama's actions and governing style with Alinsky's explanations of the role of the community organizer. Obama's "style" and, especially, his mismanagement of the office of the President of the United States can be understood completely when compared with Alinsky's socialist philosophy.

One example of how Obama operates struck me this morning:
[The organizer] has taken a group;...he has fanned their resentments and hostilities by a number of means, including challenging contrasts of better conditions....And so the... organizer simultaneously breeds conflict and builds a power structure.
Consider Obama's campaign and the way he has subsequently ignored the common American problems of the still floundering economy, the failed foreign and domestic policies, the porous border with Mexico, the deficit spending, the abuse of executive power, and on and on and on.

For everything Obama does wrong, he blames others. For everything bad that happens that Obama cannot, or will not, respond to, he blames others.

First it was Bush's fault. (And now it's Bush's fault again that Iraq has imploded with ISIS.) Obama initially blamed Bush in order to "fan resentment and hostility" Obama sailed into office as the Great Community Organizer.

We have to admit, that Alinsky's tactics worked for Obama. He has certainly built resentment and hostility against George W. Bush, against Republicans, and now against conservatives (blaming the nebulous "Tea Party" for example).

Yet, now that we have the resentment, we have to ask ourselves, has the Obama administration brought the "better conditions" that Americans sought during the 2008 and 2012 elections? Consider the following:
  • A spending package that increased deficit spending and a federal debt that dwarfs anything any other president did
  • A spending package full of waste and payouts to big business (like GM)
  • A "stimulus" concept that failed to promote private sector jobs
  • A health care deal guaranteed to increase taxes, raise medical costs, and hurt middle class Americans
  • Running guns into Mexico, then blaming private businesses for it
  • Refusing to enforce federal law again and again when the administration  disagreed with the law
  • Blaming the Fort Hood shooting as a "domestic" problem and not a problem with Militant Islamism
  • A "military action" in Libya with no Congressional oversight
  • Ignoring and denying any responsibility for Benghazi deaths
  • Foreign policy blunders that fed the overthrow of Egypt, the massacre of Iranian citizens, and utter impotence in Syria
  • Supporting terrorists against the State of Israel
  • An economy still floundering and befuddling the mainstream media
  • NSA spying on Americans
  • CIA spying on members of Congress
  • IRS harassment and blocking conservative groups
  • The IRS conveniently losing key emails
  • 23 unilateral changes to the Obamacare law
  • Lying to Americans about Obamacare's impact (If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.)
  • Playing foolish and dangerous games with Mideast countries
  • Catering to terrorists
  • Releasing five terrorists for one American deserter
  • Losing Iraq to ISIS terrorists
  • "Leading from behind" foreign policy that allows Russia to start another cold war
  • The dangerous unilateral reduction in military spending
  • 177 rounds of golf
  • De facto amnesty for illegal aliens pouring over the US border
Are we really better off with Obama at the head of the US? He arrived in office using Alinsky's tactics, but his bankrupt dogma fails the litmus test of pragmatic solutions. And that, of course, fans the flames of resentment and hostility.

What did Americans expect from the Community Organizer in Chief? 

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Can We Be Grown-ups Here? The Impact of a Fatherless America

While progressive dogmas may still adhere to the concept that "it takes a village to raise a child" the reality of human experience shows that what children need most is a mother and a father.

An article entitled "Fatherless America?" shows just what children miss out on because of the modern, bankrupt ideals which promote "alternative" families.

(Yes, there are certainly exceptions to every family and I'm sure some of you got along just fine without a father or a mother. The issue is not to point out the exceptions.)

(I don't know who I'm arguing with there. I just figured one of my readers would bring up a "but what about...?" exception.)

(And yes, I frequently argue with myself, especially in the shower. It's a great way to start the day.)

(But I digress....)

Here are some quotes from the article:
In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence — both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference.
The quote comes from none other than Barack Obama.

A family researcher had these observations:
For many years, marriage and children were a packaged deal, and society was pretty good at enforcing that with strong cultural norms.... 
Marriage isn't about kids anymore. It's about my satisfaction as an adult, my emotional well-being, my personal development... 
The bottom line is, kids really need frequent contact with both parents to successfully navigate developmental stages as they grow up.
How about these statistics?
A study by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services found only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families where the biological mother and father are married to each other. Thirty-three percent come from families where the parents have divorced. Forty-four percent have parents who were never married.
The University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University both found young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families — even when other factors like race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant.
Or these?
Children who grow up without a father in the home are also more likely to run away from home and commit suicide, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eighty-five percent of children with behavioral disorders don't have a father at home.

In a society bent on negating the importance of having a mother and a father in the home, the real losers are the children - the next generation who have to suffer the consequences of poor decisions made by the so-called adults of the previous generation.

If society is to survive, in the US as well as in other absent-father countries, we will need to raise a generation of adults who take responsibility for raising the next generation. The truth hurts, that children need both mothers and fathers who are committed to raising children. The adults of our current generations have never learned to put aside the selfishness of the "Me" generation.

We have enough selfish and petty adults. What we need are grown-ups.