On Endless Wars

In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned against foreign entanglements.  He put it this way, “So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.  Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”

There has seemed to be a lot of anger in the veteran community over President Trump’s decision a couple weeks ago to remove the approximately 50 U.S. soldiers who had been serving as some sort of “deterrent” in northern Syria.  Cries of “abandoning our valiant Kurdish allies” have been heard from pretty much every media outlet.  I must admit, my very first reaction was the same – Anger.

But, after stepping back and thinking it over, I realized that this is exactly the tactic that’s been used by the permanent foreign policy establishment and military industrial complex since the end of World War II.  Can anyone say “tripwire”?

 That’s exactly what our troops in Europe were during the Cold War.  They were there to ensure that IF the Soviet Union attacked, the loss of American lives would ensure that the U.S. would enter the war to protect Western Europe.  In essence, the American government was willing to sacrifice American lives to defend our allies.   A noble pursuit.

But, what has become of that alliance?  NATO was created to deter the Soviet Union.  That entity collapsed in 1991.  Since then, the foreign policy establishment has been constantly searching for new “enemies” so they can continue to be relevant in their think tanks.  Russia is our enemy now.  But, as the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia was not destined to be so.  Under Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin there was every opportunity to forge a new relationship with Russia.  If that had happened, however, all the old Cold Warriors would be left with no one to fight.  Instead, they convince Presidents to become involved in civil wars around the globe, or seek to impose American-style democracy on societies that don't have the traditions or institutions to support it.  These become "traps", making it almost impossible to withdraw without "abandoning an ally".

The NATO countries have consistently refused to spend the agreed upon amounts for their own defense.  In essence, American taxpayers have paid so that European economies could thrive.  At the same time, whenever there’s trouble in the world, they stand back and let America bear the burden.

Syria represents this same type of trap that’s been used to try and tie the hands of every President.  Obama decided to take sides in a civil war.  This was exactly what we did to get involved in Vietnam.  And, I'm reminded of how the Democrats cut off funding and we abandoned the South Vietnamese to the Communists.  We send our troops in with no declaration of war by Congress.  We ally ourselves with someone to put down the latest brush fire.  Then, we can’t get out without the whiners in Washington playing on everyone’s emotions.  “Oh, our national security is at stake”.  “We can’t abandon our allies”.

 What we owe the Kurds is our thanks for assisting in taking out the ISIS caliphate.  “Hey, thanks guys.  Really appreciate your help.  But, we came here to do a particular job.  It’s done.  We didn’t come here to try and settle your centuries old scores.  We’ll keep some Intelligence assets and Special Ops folks in the region to keep hunting down ISIS fighters.  But, you’ve got to figure out how to deal with Turkey on your own”.

 The same holds true for Saudi Arabia.  The Iranians blow up a Saudi oil field and the Pentagon immediately sends 2,000 more troops.  Fortunately, they are not ground forces.  Instead, that deployment represents 2 fighter squadrons and 3 air-defense units.  But, the question must be asked, “With all their money and all the other military gear we’ve sold them, why can’t they defend their own oil fields?’  Unlike in the Gulf War, when America was dependent on Middle East oil, such is no longer the case.  Having the fighter squadrons there takes some of the pressure off the Navy carriers in the Gulf, potentially flying missions to attack ISIS.  But, what we should do is train the Saudis to operate the air-defense systems, leave the weapons there, and bring those troops home.

Then, there’s Afghanistan.  The mujahedeen fought the Soviet Union to a standstill in the 1980s, causing them to turn and run.  Yet, these same people can’t cope with the Taliban?  Another example of using America as a crutch to keep from defending their own territory.  We went there to defeat Al Qaeda.  We accomplished that mission.  It’s time to give the Afghans the weapons they need and let them settle things themselves.  18 years is long enough.

To those who ask “What message is this sending to our other allies around the world?”, it says don’t count on America to keep jumping in and pulling your chestnuts out of the fire at every instance of man’s inhumanity to man.  In actuality, we have no “allies”, except maybe Israel.  That’s the only country that hasn’t asked us to come and fight their battles for them.  They just ask to be provided the tools to do so.  What we have are national interests which can and do change. 

This is why the Deep State hates Trump.  He’s not going along to get along, putting American men and women in harm’s way just to please those who haven’t gotten over the Cold War.  Old George knew what he was talking about.

Joe Biden - Candidate or Criminal

In the ongoing "saga" of the Democrat's impeachment "inquiry" in the House of Representatives, the asserted "grounds for impeachment" boil down to 2 issues.  Did President Trump threaten, extort, or in any way coerce the Ukrainian President by withholding U.S. military aid unless President Zelinsky "did him a favor"?  If so, exactly what was that favor?

The Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media continually misrepresent what was said in that phone call, asserting that the "favor" was to investigate Joe Biden, to "dig up dirt" on Trump's political opponent in the 2020 campaign.  But, a review of the transcript of the call clearly shows that the favor was aimed at investigating Ukraine's possible interference in the 2016 election.  From page 3 of the transcript:

President Zelinsky's immediate reply indicates that he understood exactly what Trump was asking for and, at this point in the conversation, Joe Biden had not been mentioned.  But, note that it is Zelinsky, not Trump, who first mentions Rudy Giuliani:

Biden's name comes up in the next section of the conversation:

What this boils down to is a matter of perspective and interpretation.  In order for there to have been a "quid pro quo", the person being pressured, or extorted, or blackmailed would have to know what the "quid" was in order for there to be a "quo".  According to President Zelinsky himself, he stated that he did not feel pressured in any way and, in any event, wasn't even aware that the military aid was being delayed.  Of course, he could be lying in order to curry favor with the U.S.

However, his lack of knowledge was reinforced by former U.S. envoy Kurt Volker's opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee:

As events unfolded, the aid was released in September without Ukraine having investigated anything.

What seems to have everyone in a tizzy is even the mention of the Bidens.  The entire focus of the Democrats and the media is that Joe Biden is seeking the Democratic nomination for President.  Therefore, Trump is accused of seeking "foreign interference" in the 2020 election.  But, what if Joe Biden is actually a criminal and Trump is entirely justified in seeking to bring him to justice?  Does an alleged criminal get a "free pass" from investigation and prosecution just by deciding to run for President?

Those who've been following this story since it broke are no doubt aware of Biden's boast that he withheld aid in order to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired.  What no one has mentioned is that Biden's actions violated international law.

In 1965, the United Nations unanimously adopted Resolution 2331, Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Domestic Affairs of States. Of particular note are the following paragraphs of resolution 2131: 

“1. No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned. 
2. No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind."
This non-intervention rule is a principle of international law that restricts the ability of outside nations to interfere with the internal affairs of another nation. At its core, the principle is a corollary to the right of territorial sovereignty possessed by each nation. 

Title 22 of the United States Code outlines the role of foreign relations and intercourse in the United States.  Chapter 52 of the Code restricts the actions of Foreign Service personnel with regard to other sovereign nations:

§3904. Functions of Service

Members of the Service shall, under the direction of the Secretary—

(1) represent the interests of the United States in relation to foreign countries and international organizations, and perform the functions relevant to their appointments and assignments, including (as appropriate) functions under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, other international agreements to which the United States is a party, the laws of the United States, and orders, regulations, and directives issued pursuant to law;


The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations mentioned was enacted in 1961.  The United States is a signatory to that Convention.  Article 41 states:

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

It could be argued that Joe Biden, even though Vice President at the time, violated not only Title 22 USC, but also both United Nations Resolution 2331 and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations when he interfered with the internal affairs of Ukraine by coercing that sovereign nation to fire its Chief Prosecutor, the equivalent to our Attorney General.  There is no statute of limitations for such a violation.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton signed, and the Senate ratified, the Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

Article 1 of this Treaty outlines the Scope of Assistance that will be provided:

Under the terms of this treaty, President Trump had every right to request President Zelinsky's assistance in investigating Joe Biden's possible violation of title 22 USC.  Biden doesn't get a "pass" just because he decided to run for President.

The New Left, Revisionism, and Identity Politics

I was born in Houston, Texas and grew up witnessing the effects of the Jim Crow laws in the South.  My high school did not have 1 black student until 1967, 13 years AFTER Brown v. Board of Education ordered desegregation of the public schools “with all deliberate speed.”  My parents and grandparents were not particularly political, but they were Democrats, as practically everyone was in those days in the states of the former Confederacy.   I remember my maternal grandfather, who had been born and raised in Georgia, occasionally mentioning a particular “secret society” to which he belonged.  It wasn’t until I became an adult that I realized he was speaking of the KKK.  I didn't hate blacks.  I just didn't think much about them one way or another.  THAT was the environment in which I was raised, having little contact with blacks, but having internalized the idea that they were inferior.

The military changed all that, and it happened very quickly.  Upon arriving at Marine Boot Camp, I found that my bunkmate was a young black kid from inner city Detroit.  He had grown up watching the Civil Rights movement in the mid-1960s morph into the Black Power movement in the late 1960s.  We were thrown together and quickly realized (within 48 hours of arrival) that everything we thought we knew about other races was false.  We were just two individuals who needed each other.  We needed to pull together to get through a very difficult and stressful training program.

In the 1970s and 80s, it was universally recognized by all social science researchers that the institution which had made the greatest positive strides in race relations was the American military.  That is still the case.  Of course, we no longer have a draft and compulsory military service.  Hopefully, young people reading this can learn a bit from someone who has lived a lot of years and witnessed the deliberate effort on the part of the Left to convince you that America is the focus of evil in the world.

During my 30 year military career, I went to night school to get a Bachelors degree and went on to obtain a Masters degree.  Prior to my full retirement, I taught freshman college students both American History and Government.  I witnessed, from the inside, the transformation of higher education.

What we’re witnessing today is the result of a 50 year campaign to undermine the American ideal of individual freedom and replace it with Marxist collectivism.  It’s no wonder that so many Millenials favor Socialism.  They’ve been indoctrinated to that view by professors who, in most cases, have never even visited a Socialist country. 

But, don’t take my word for it.  As Jay Parini, former professor of English at Middlebury College in Vermont, put it in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education in 1988, “After the Vietnam War, a lot of us didn’t just crawl back into our literary cubicles; we stepped into academic positions. With the war over, our visibility was lost, and it seemed for a while—to the unobservant—that we had disappeared. Now we have tenure, and the work of reshaping the universities has begun in earnest. “

Or, Andrew Ross, professor of English at Princeton, "I teach in the Ivy League in order to have direct access to the minds of the children of the ruling class."  Or, Annette Kolodny, former Berkeley radical who became Dean of the Humanities Faculty at the University of Arizona, "I see my scholarship as an extension of my political activism."

These people, and many others like them, who were undergraduates in the 60s, stayed in college, went on to graduate school, obtained their PhDs, and set about using their particular academic discipline to indoctrinate what is now 3 generations in the Marxism they internalized in their youth. 

They fully understood that K-12 education programs children to defer to their teacher.   Whatever they’re taught MUST be true.  Think of your time in public school.  If you questioned what you were being told, it would most often be seen as a discipline problem.  In college, there are many professors who use their grade book as a weapon, ensuring that students learn what is presented or risk a bad grade.

In the early 1980s, the New Left realized that the revolution of the proletariat, predicted by Marx for all capitalist countries, just wasn't going to happen in America.  Unlike conditions in the 1800s when Marx wrote, the working class was NOT particularly dissatisfied with their lot in life.  While they weren't rich, they recognized that they certainly weren't as poor as in other countries under Socialism.

So, the New Left needed another strategy.  They settled on Identity Politics as the way to pit Americans against each other. In a 2000 article in New Literary History, Grant Farred actually laid out that strategy.  "The various struggles of the 1960s provided the new social movements—groupings organized around single issues, such as race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, issues all too frequently ignored in mainstream politics—with their fundamental building blocks.  The diversity of political activity in the 1960s demonstrated to its 1970s and 1980s successors how to mobilize marginalized constituencies, how to ‘politicize’ culture, and how to deploy ‘difference’ as an ideological tool.”[1]

Once you understand that what you've been force fed in school has been based on a deliberate, decades long campaign to destroy America from within, perhaps you'll reconsider whatever previous so-called truths you've believed and you will #WalkAway.  I will certainly walk WITH you.  I really believe that progress is being made.  Who would have thought just 2 1/2 years ago that black residents of Baltimore would run Al Sharpton out of their city:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY39Qy_BXIQ

---

^[1] Farred, Grant, “Is There Life after Identity Politics?”, New Literary History, Vol. 31, No. 4, (Autumn, 2000), p. 629

 

Beware Public Opinion Polls

Those who follow the news have no doubt heard that, according to the latest Fox News Poll, if the 2020 election were held today, Donald Trump would be defeated by Joe Biden 49% to 39% and Bernie Sanders 46% to 40%.  Additionally, more Americans apparently disapprove of the way Trump is doing his job than approve, 51% to 46%, with 3% responding "I Don't Know".  All the "talking heads", particularly those representing the Democratic Party, have been quick to seize on these poll results as proof positive that Trump is in serious trouble seeking reelection.

One of the graduate school seminars I took for my Masters in Government was an in-depth study of public opinion polling.  The most fundamental point made was that, unless one obtains a copy of the poll, the poll results should not be taken seriously.  The way in which poll questions are written, as well as the order in which they are asked, will have a direct influence on the outcome.  The most important questions to be considered are whether the poll results reflect "informed" opinion, whether the poll was truly random, and whether the results have been controlled for possible bias.

When a poll taker calls a potential respondent, there is no way of knowing what that person is doing.  Perhaps they just sat down to dinner.  Perhaps he/she has just been watching a news cast or has been perusing their favorite "news" site on the Internet.  Their answer to the first few questions will reflect whatever has been most recently on their mind.  If the poll is intended to gauge political attitudes, the results will also be skewed in favor of their political affiliation.

 In the case of this latest Fox News Poll, Question #1 asks "Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president? [If Approve/Disapprove: is that strongly (approve/disapprove), or only somewhat?]

Asking this as the very first question is problematic for a number of reasons.  It does not necessarily reflect an informed opinion.  The respondent may be someone who simply doesn't follow the news and has little or no knowledge about any of the national issues and what Trump is, or is NOT, doing regarding those issues.  The individual may simply provide a response based on what he/she heard their neighbor say, (i.e. Donald Trump is a racist/white supremacist, hates immigrants, etc.)  The respondent's political affiliation will definitely affect their answer.  If they've just watched a "news cast" on CNN or MSNBC, they will be more likely to answer that they disapprove.  Conversely, if they watch Fox News, their answer will likely be the opposite.

In this particular poll, the respondent's political affiliation is not ascertained until Question #17:  "In the presidential [primary election/caucus] in [state] next year, are you more likely to vote in the Democratic or Republican [primary election/caucus] for president, or are you unlikely to vote in either?"   Although the polling methodology is claimed to be random, in actuality the people who answered the phone and participated are skewed toward the Democratic Party by 8 percentage points.

This skews the entire poll, particularly regarding Questions #20 and 21.  "If the 2020 presidential election were held today, how would you vote if the candidates were:  [If Don't Know] Well, which way would you lean?"  For Question #20, Joe Biden is inserted.  Biden is preferred 49% to 39%.  Question 21 inserts Bernie Sanders - result Bernie 46%, Trump 40%.

These are the numbers being thrown around this week.  However, if one considers the 8% Democratic bias revealed by Question #17, Biden would only lead Trump by 2% and Trump would be ahead of Bernie.

In order for poll results to more accurately reflect informed opinion, respondents should be asked questions dealing specifically with various issues BEFORE being asked whether they favor one candidate over another.  This forces them to think not only about each issue, but also to consider where the different candidates stand on those issues.  Question #38 asks a very relevant question:

38. Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing for the United States to move away from capitalism and more toward socialism?

 Good thing            Bad thing             (Don’t know)

 34%                       54                             22 

Questions 39-43 represent examples of how questions can elicit information that answer the direct question posed, but do not reflect any serious knowledge of the complete issue:

39.-43. I am going to mention several policy proposals. For each one, please tell me if you favor or oppose the idea.   [IF FAVOR / OPPOSE:  Is that strongly (favor/oppose), or only somewhat?  [RANDOMIZE] 

                                     ----------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose------------------- (Don’t  know)                                                                   TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat        TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

Changing the health care                65%              34                  31                23%             9                 14           12 

system so that every 

American can buy into    

Medicare if they want to?

The above question tells us nothing because it is does not ask the respondent to even consider what the "buy in" would cost them.

Here is the next question in the sequence:

                                     ------------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose------------------- (Don’t  know) 
Allowing refugees from      TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat       TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

Central America to seek

political asylum in the           50%              24                    27              41%              18                 24                  9 

U.S.?

Here we have a number of problems.  In the preceding question, the TOTAL percentages were the sum of the Strongly and Somewhat categories (i.e. 65% = 34+31, 23% = 9+14).  Here, we have 24% as Strongly plus 27% as Somewhat.  Yet, the TOTAL is shown as 50% instead of the correct sum of 51%.  Likewise, 18 Strongly plus 24 Somewhat under the Oppose column should add up to 42% instead of 41%.  One is compelled to ask what's going on here?  Do the people at Fox News not know how to add?  Why would the TOTAL percentages be displayed differently?

The main problem with that question, as posed, is that it does not require the respondents to reflect on exactly what it is they understand by the word "asylum".  An individual truly seeking escape from a threat of violence for their political beliefs is one thing.  But, if they are simply seeking to enter the U.S. to escape poor economic conditions in their home country, it is something entirely different.  Are the respondents making such a distinction?  Of those coming to the southern border, what percentage fall into what group?  The distinction matters because those simply seeking to improve their economic condition do NOT qualify for asylum.

The next 3 questions, if asked BEFORE the question of which candidate the respondent would choose if the election were held today, would elicit completely different results.

                                     -----------------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose------------------- (Don’t know)

Getting rid of private                   TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat       TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

health insurance and 

moving to a government                43%            22                  22                  48%           17              31                   9 

run health care system

for everyone?

Here again, we have a math problem.  22% Strongly plus 22% Somewhat = 44%, not 43%.  Yet, under the Oppose column, they've added 17% and 31% correctly.  Why should anyone give this poll any credence when there are such inconsistencies in simple math?

                                 -----------------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose------------------- (Don’t know)

  

Decriminalizing entering                   TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat       TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

the U.S. without proper

documentation?                                    34%            18                  17                  57%           18              39             8 

                                   -----------------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose--------------- (Don’t  know)

Providing health insurance               TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat       TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

coverage to undocumented

immigrants?                                          32%            13                  19                 60%           16               44             8 

The last two questions show clear opposition to the positions being put forth by not only Biden and Sanders, but most of the other Democratic candidates, as compared with Trump's position.

Finally, there is Question #45, which is posed in this way:  "Do you approve or disapprove of the job  the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency or ICE is doing?  The answers are as follows:

           Approve         Disapprove             (Don’t know)

   45%                    49                                5 

This is an extremely loaded question because it does not ask the respondent whether he/she is aware that ICE is following the laws passed by Congress and is conducting business in exactly the same manner as it did during the previous administration, when Obama was characterized as the "Deporter-in-Chief".

As stated previously, for the results of a public opinion poll to be useful in any way, they must seek to reflect "informed" opinion, not simply "gut" reaction to a phone call.  If Questions #1, #20, and #21 were asked at the END of this poll, I have no doubt the results would be entirely different and would more properly reflect a more thoughtful response.

The most salient point is NOT to put any stock in the poll results touted in the media.  They called the 2016 election wrong.  It's likely they're equally wrong in stating current public opinion.

Red Flag Laws Must Be Carefully Crafted

In the wake of the shootings in El Paso and Dayton, the President has called for Gun Violence Restraining Orders or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), colloquially termed Red Flag Laws.  What exactly are these laws and what do they do?

The way the law is usually carried out is that someone requests a temporary gun restraining order against a person that lasts, generally, for a short period of time. A hearing is held at which the person can respond to the evidence against him or her, and then the judge issues a final order.  If the judge determines the person is a risk to himself or others, he can order the person to turn in his gun over to state authorities for a certain period of time.

In 2018, there were bills introduced in the Texas Legislature proposing such a law.  Both House Bill 131 and Senate Bill 157 were similar in that they both would allow a court to issue a TEMPORARY EX PARTE ORDER, allowing law enforcement to enter an individual's domicile and confiscate any firearms found without providing that person with due process.  In other words, simply on the basis of an allegation.

The NRA has been widely criticized for opposing Red Flag Laws.  However, the NRA does NOT oppose such laws per se.  It has simply stated some specific provisions that any such law should have to garner its support:

1) Anyone subject to an ERPO should have the opportunity to challenge the order with full due-process protections in place.

2) An order that confiscates firearms should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.

3) If a person's mental health is questioned, the judge should concurrently make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment.

4) Whether or not the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment, the person subject to the ERPO should receive mental health treatment.

5) The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms.

6) There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon the termination of an ERPO.

7) The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.

In the case of the proposed Texas laws, a person's guns could be confiscated based simply on an allegation made by a family member.  The "accused" would then be afforded a hearing within 14 days in which to disprove the allegations.  This turns our criminal justice system upside down, assuming guilt.  The accused is put in the position of having to prove innocence.

Take the hypothetical case of a messy divorce.  An angry spouse could walk into a District Attorney's office and file a complaint in ex parte fashion.  Simply on the basis of this allegation, a search warrant could be issued and the firearms of the other spouse taken.

The proposed penalty for filing a false complaint is stated as a Class B Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $2,000 fine.  However, under Texas law, unlawful possession of a firearm is most often prosecuted as a Class A Misdemeanor, calling for up to 1 year in jail and a $4,000 fine.  Depending on the circumstances, it could also be prosecuted as a 3rd Degree Felony, punishable by 10 years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Neither of the Texas bills passed and the NRA did, in fact, oppose both.  However, had lawmakers simply provided for due process protections, doing away with ex parte orders and providing the accused with normal due process protections, along with stiffer penalties for filing a false complaint, the NRA would most likely have withdrawn such opposition.

Voter ID – Blacks Are Suppressing Their Own Voting Strength

Perhaps because the Federal government has spread its tentacles into almost every aspect of life in America, most people fail to realize that the action (or inaction) of their local government has a much greater impact on their daily life than does the government in Washington.  The ongoing fight against Voter ID, particularly by black spokespersons is a case in point, exemplified by this March 2019 conversation between Candace Owens and Hawk Newsome of Black Lives Matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuhzDVlecKE

While it is true that one needs an ID to do just about everything today, Candace is making the wrong argument and Newsome is focusing on things that supposedly happened 50 years ago.  Instead, the black community should be thinking about the effect that illegal immigration is having on the black vote today.

While not necessarily a correct view, ethnic groups tend to believe that only someone of their tribe can properly represent them.  This has led to extreme gerrymandering of districts to ensure that only someone of a particular race or ethnic group will be elected.  At the local level, this is becoming more and more problematic for the black community because of illegal immigration.

Take the case of New York City, where the Hispanic population is 27.5% compared to blacks, who make up 25.1%.  These are just the “official” population figures.  When one factors in the illegals who are not counted, most of whom have come from Latin countries, blacks are seriously outnumbered.  This is becoming the case in many major cities which do a thriving business in producing fake Social Security cards so illegals can be hired.  In the absence of Voter ID, those illegals are allowed to just walk in and vote.  For every black vote cast, there are as many as 3 other votes that cancel them.

For Federal elections, this favors the Democrats and is why they favor open borders.  By offering "free stuff" to illegals, they are building a constituency that they believe will permanently vote Democratic.  At the local level, however, this pits ethnic groups against each other WITHIN the Democratic party.  Federal and State money that goes to cities is normally in the form of Block Grants.  The City Council then decides where that money will be spent.

Because humans are tribal by nature, they tend to settle in neighborhoods with others who share their tribal identity.  During the Jim Crow era in the South, the Democrats enshrined this into law.  Although the North did not segregate the races by law, there was de facto segregation that can still be seen to this day.  The races tended, and still tend, to settle in their own neighborhoods.

City Council districts are not drawn along neighborhood lines, but contain various neighborhoods.  Those of Hispanic descent do not necessarily share the same values and culture as those of African descent.  As the illegal immigrant population grows, black voting strength is further diluted in those cities.  Consequently, the money is going to flow to those areas represented by the majority of votes on the City Council. 

Candace Owens would do well to point out to the race baiters that, instead of harping on wrongs committed in the past, both real and imagined, blacks should be aware that they are rapidly losing whatever voting strength they may have once had.  They should not oppose Voter ID as a "Republican plot" against them.  By doing so, they are harming themselves.

Assume That Trump IS Racist - OK, So What?

Even Donald Trump's staunchest supporters will acknowledge that the wording in many of his Tweets is ill considered.  In the aftermath of his Tweets about Baltimore, the Left predictably erupted with the standard shouts of Racist.  Well, let's just assume for a moment that Trump IS racist.  In terms of Baltimore, that begs the very large question - So What?  What possible difference does it make to the thousands of black people suffering in that city?

Trump has been criticized, even by Fox News anchors, for not having presented his "plan" to fix the problems in Baltimore.  That, in itself, demonstrates how supposedly educated people don't really understand how our government works.  One anchor, Bill Hemmer, was interviewing the former governor of Maryland.  He said something to the effect of "But, Governor, you were the highest elected official in Maryland.  Why didn't you step in to fix those problems"?

No President or Governor can "fix" problems at the local level.  Anyone ever heard of Home Rule?  Cities have their own governments.  The only way for a President or Governor to "step in and fix" local problems would be to declare martial law and send in troops.

Let's assume that Trump called Dr. Ben Carson into the Oval Office and said, "Listen, Ben.  I really don't think those lazy black SOBs in Baltimore have the mental capacity to properly spend the $6.9 billion dollars we've given them this year, but I'm not going to stop it.  Go down there and see what you can do".

Is that any different than the statement made by Lyndon Johnson when asked why he was nominating Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court?  According to several Johnson biographies, he said, , “when I appoint a ni***r to the bench, I want everybody to know he’s a ni***r.”  The Democrats hail Johnson as a hero and say that he had a "change of heart" about blacks in his later years.  But, that statement was made 3 years AFTER Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Robert Parker, Johnson’s sometime chauffeur, described in his memoir Capitol Hill in Black and White a moment when Johnson asked Parker whether he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “ni***r” or “chief.” When Parker said he would, Johnson grew angry and said, “As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, ni***r, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.”

Given what we experienced in the Kavanaugh hearings and with Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, Lyndon Johnson would not even be welcome in the Democratic Party today, simply because of statements he made 50 years ago.  The Left makes no allowances for youthful indiscretions or for someone to actually mature into a different point of view.

But, that brings us back to Trump.  There have been no white people in charge in Baltimore for decades.  And, there have certainly been no white people living in those blighted areas that Trump identified.  White people haven't done anything TO the black people in Baltimore.  Those people are living in misery despite what white America, in the form of billions in tax dollars, have tried to do FOR them.  Somewhere along the way, that money has been redirected SOMEWHERE.

The black "leaders" and elected officials in Baltimore are no different than the Somali warlords who stole all the food and let millions die of starvation.  If Trump WERE racist, he might point this out and say that there must be something biologically inferior with blacks because they are engaging in the same behavior as their "savage" counterparts in Africa.  But, even if he did so, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to those people suffering in those blighted neighborhoods.