Liberals Side with Illegal Immigrants over Blacks Born in America

Speaking on liberal progressive Democrats, Malcom X once stated: "The white Liberal differs from the white Conservative only in one way; the Liberal is more deceitful, more hypocritical, than the Conservative. Both want power, but the White Liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the White Liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or a weapon in this political football game, that is constantly raging, between the White Liberals and the White Conservatives. The American Negro is nothing, but a political football." From this statement one can decipher two things: 1] that Malcom X had no love or respect for the progressive liberal left of American politics and 2] in many respect, he viewed Blacks who did in the similar vein as mindless serfs being conditioned to accept without question as their slave ancestors did.

What is ironic is what he spoke that day in 1963 is the present reality for Black America. In just 30 years, the Democratic Party has morphed into some sort of Star Trek space anomaly. When Clinton was President as well as Obama, border protection and building walls along the border was all the rage. Presently it is not and the new bevy of the Democratic mind meld are in lock step to make sure open borders are the future of America. Why? Because the Democrats are fighting for illegal aliens and have become more valuable to their ability to acquire and maintain power, that they have replaced African Americans on their hierarchy of political social Darwinism.

Everywhere one looks Blacks are taken a second place behind illegal immigrants. One of the biggest places we see this is in the criminal justice system. Take California for example. Since the late 1980s, activist in California were trying to obtain government funding to assist in reducing over crowing in jails and hire more public defenders.  The funding was never available according to law makers. The tune is different today because funding is being cut for public defenders in California while inordinate funds are being found to protect the rights of criminal illegal aliens. Last year in California, lawmakers approved $45 million to expand legal services for immigrants to assist more than 2 million people living in the state illegally and to protect them from deportations. Two years before that, the state put in place a “sanctuary state” bill to expand “sanctuary city policies, prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect or arrest people for immigration enforcement purposes.”

This is happening all across the country. Recently in Denver Mayor Michael Hancock announced plans to set aside hundreds of thousands of dollars to form an immigrant legal defense program and similar efforts are being introduced in San Francisco and Seattle. In Washington State a bill was just passed that prohibits discrimination by employers and landlords “based on citizenship or immigration status.” As one writer and radio host put it: “In other words, if an employer had two equally-qualified candidates to choose from — one a citizen and one an illegal immigrant who had been deported several times — and the employer hired the citizen, this could be grounds for a lawsuit on the immigrant’s behalf…Under Washington state law, they would have the right to a cause of action against that employer if they were discriminated against because of their legal status...Now federal law might come in and have something to say about that, but this is what Washington state law would say.”

I do not mind helping people but I do expect US citizens should come first. In California, Blacks are suffering yet are being ignored. Although Black people in California are just 9 percent of the population of Los Angeles County, yet are nearly 40 percent of the homelessness. The same is true for San Francisco. The research results are startling. While 5 to 6 percent of San Francisco’s population is black, more than 40 percent of the city’s homeless population is black.

Albeit I am focused on race, on the micro level, on the macro level all American citizens loose when our resources are not used for the tax payers that provide them. Clearly Democrats have other interest than serving the people born in America, and have all but relegated the Black vote to side chick status, fact is US policy should focus on US citizens and the working men and women who want access to opportunity and a safe place to live. This is only possible if we address illegal immigration. Economically, it has been estimated that Illegal immigration costs taxpayers in all 50 states approximately $90 billion. In California it cost $12.3 billion to educate the children of illegal immigrants annually in grades K-12.

The progressive focus on taking care of criminal illegal aliens severely impacts outcomes for the worse in the African American community. First most illegal aliens come to America with very few years of schooling. This means they will likely end up in low-paying wage jobs. Not only will this put them in competition with poor blacks in the US with similar educational attributes but also other immigrants who came to the US before them. Thus with a larger pool of low skilled workers, wages will go down because there will be a surplus of workers to jobs. This point was hammered by then-chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, the late great Barbara Jordan of Texas in 1994 when she testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. She stated: "Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. … Failure to develop more effective strategies to curb unlawful immigration has blurred distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants. ... The Commission is particularly concerned about the impact of immigration on the most disadvantaged within our already resident society — inner city youth, racial and ethnic minorities, and recent immigrants who have not yet adjusted to life in the U.S."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, recently said that "We are a nation and land of laws, not just [one where] some people are subject to laws and others are not." This maybe the only time to date I have agreed with her. However, I wonder why this isn’t the standard with respect illegal immigration? Because Black people are not reproducing enough to provide them with the unconditional and unearned votes we give them. Through democratic supported eugenic genocide in the form of abortions and Planned Parenthood, Blacks just do have as many children as the used to. And if democrats get their way for a mother to be able to decide to murder a child after it has been born, our population will really start to evaporate. This is one reason why AOC support people not having more children – just bring them over from 2000 miles below the Mexican border already made. Yes, in 2019, Liberals side with illegal immigrants over Blacks born in America, for criminal illegal aliens are the new black.

Read More

Why This Black Man Voted for & Support President Trump

Over my lifetime, I have been asked numerous questions over various subject matter.  Many in jest and passing and others due to my teaching and research.  However, recent times seem to have me entertaining one question at a frequency I have never prior experienced: why and how, could you as a Black man, vote for and support President Donald Trump? In typical fashion I answer the query terse and succinctly without any wiggle room for them to ask for any additional clarification.   As such their response is usually in the form of cursing, name calling or not having either the information or vocabulary to refute my position. This time I will formally address my views in totality, insofar as much as I can based on present temporal limitations.

First, I was born in the United States of America and ergo I am an American. I believe full heartedly in the slogan and impetus behind the slogan MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. I have lived outside of the USA for years. In African nations, the likes of Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa and traveled spending months in places including but not limited to Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Malawi.  Most folk that say America was never great from my experiences, have never lived let alone traveled to a third world country. They have never had to live not being able to drink water out of a faucet without fear of contracting fatal bacteria or dying. They have never had to live in places where the roads are truly undrivable around a nation and having electricity is fleeting, irregular and rare. They have never had to risk parasitic infections like river blindness from just swimming or even taking a shower or fear walking down the street or across a field for fear of stepping on a landmine. No most are spoiled, self-centered narcissists that take such things for granted. Now I will accept some may say that America was never great due to its history of genocide against native Americans and slavery, but I was never a slave and realize via experience I have it better here than anywhere else in the world. I acknowledge the plight we as African Americans suffer due to slavery, but I do not live in the past, I progress towards tomorrow. I do acknowledge this nation's legacy of racism, hatered, segregation and Jim Crow, and that it will always be a reality, but to repeat my prior statement - I do not live in the past, I progress towards tomorrow. I am not a victim, for victims have no control or choices (I have both).

Then there is the incessant proclamation of Trump being a racist. Me, I do not see it. In fact, I prefer competence over diversity. Now diversity is good, but I’d rather have a competent staff or physician or professor than have one placed on me because of their sex, ethnicity or gender who is dumb as a mf. But in all honesty, you can say or speak as you want, it is the policy that matters. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden spoke diversity and love for black folk but all we got were mandatory minimums, three strike laws, and the removal of black men from our communities and the dissolution of the black family unit. President Clinton did more to hurt Black folk than any insensitive statement made by President Trump. We do not even have to add that the Clinton Administration withdrew Pell Grant eligibility from people in prison through his signing of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I would mention Obama but I have previously written about how he destroyed the Black economic base.

Therefore, policy matters more than words. It was President Trump who gave HBCUs more funding than any other President. It was Trump who appointed 1st black woman nominated to be Marine brigadier general in the Marine Corps. It was Trump who designated the first national monument to honor African American Civil War soldiers ever in the United States and made Medger Evers home a national historical monument and landmark. These things are cool but are just cosmetic to me. It is the policy of the Trump administration that I am most impressed with, policies that benefit all Americans.  But I will stick to black folk first.

Under Trump. African-American unemployment is at a record low, total African-American employment has increased by 976,000 since President Trump’s election and the poverty rate for African Americans reachedits lowest level since slavery (joke is mine). Add to this President Donald J. Trump’s Opportunity Zone Incentives, which are promoting and resulting in record investment in mainly Black economically distressed communities. Also, the Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency has placed a major focus on Black and Women business development. One of the least known actions of the Trump administration is legislation he signed into law that forgave more than $300 million in Hurricane Katrina related debt for New Orleans, Louisiana and Dillard and Xavier Universities in particular. There is also the criminal justice reform signed into law under Trump called the First Step Act. I could go on, but the media has set your narrative for you. Me, I read and form my own views by myself. 

I also agree with Trump’s immigration and bringing US military home from all these endless and futile regimes change wars. With respect to immigration, I am for it, it is illegal immigration I am against. No other nation in the world would let people come in their country with which they have no idea who they are, or what is their history, criminal or public health wise.  I live in a house with walls and they are not immoral. Instead they protect my family. If a hoard of 10 or more folks came to my front door demanding entry to my home just because they ask or want too, If I do not know them they are not getting in. If they own their own accord decide to come in anyway by trying to break down my doors or come through the window, they are criminals and will be SHOT. America is my home, and, in my view, it is reasonable for me to ask who is at my door or border and for them to ask permission to come in, point period. Likewise, I fight my own fights not others.  Libya, Syria, Yemen or Iraq has never done anything to me, so why should I fight for them? Answer no reason. The reality is that when illegal immigrants enter, jobs in dry-wall, construction, plumbing and other areas mean lower wages for black folk working and born in America. Then there is the reality that we have homeless people born in America that we do not or cannot take care of for spending an average net fiscal cost in government services for illegal aliens of $65,000 or $135 Billion annually. 

I could continue but I will not. I would rather state my position and let others decide for themselves. None the less. I voted for Trump, support Trump and will never get tired of all this winning. So, I say you do you and I do me and don’t call me names because your vocabulary is limited, and you get your information from television pundits rather than reading to inform yourself.

Read More

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: What Real Voter Suppression Looks Like

One of the most contentious issues brought about as a result of the 2016 Trump Clinton Presidential debates concerned if Trump lost, would he accept the results.  This was never asked of Hillary Clinton, mostly because the costal elites and East coast media machine had decided it was a foregone conclusion that she would win, but she didn’t.  Now it is the democrats who seem to have a problem accepting the outcome of the presidential election.

Now comes the kicker. Since they are unable and unwilling to accept the outcome of the people, they have started a new movement to skirt the assurances of the constitution and a representative government by doing the outlandish – replacing the electoral college with the popular vote. The vehicle for this is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This compact is comprised of 11 states and the District of Columbia on board. Recently, Colorado is set to become the latest member of this group of states joined together to bypass the electoral college system. Yes, that is correct, and if successful, it would give the 2020 presidential election to whoever wins the popular vote. Although it could only go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes pass the law, it remains a frightening proposition to know that this how people who frequently scream voter suppression, are in their own way suppression the vote of the citizens of their own state. As it stands, the states in the compact has 172 electoral votes.  

This is why the framers, via the twelfth Amendment, instituted the electoral college, to prevent group think and highly populated urban areas to have more say than less populated and rural areas. When we vote to elect a president, we are really selecting a slate of electors to indemnify that the candidate who wins in that state with a plurality of the votes gets all of the state’s electoral votes.  This system has worked very well.  However, sometimes as we recall from the 2000 election, the Electoral College can result in a candidate that wins the popular vote can still not become president.   Likewise, in the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only 43 percent of the popular votes. Although the introduction of a third party candidate, Ross Perot was the main reason for this, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections in either 1992 or 1996, yet he was named as President because he won an Electoral College majority in both elections.

I think democrats need to think twice before they take us down a slippery slope to re-write, changes or alter the constitution. In particular, if we pick and choose only the parts of the constitution they do not like. Although they continue to scream Russia stole/hacked and interfered in our electoral process without evidence other than Ads on twitter and Facebook, and equally contend that people are so dumb and stupid that memes made us vote the way we did, or that Pro-Beyoncé and Anti-Beyoncé were targeted to split the Black vote, they never ever consider that Hillary Clinton was just the perfect image of unlikableness (i made this word up) ever to run for the highest office in the land.

We must accept the constitution as it is. Why? Because James Madison and Hamilton really didn’t want The United States to be a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic.  They both wrote extensively about this with Madison being mainly concerned with tribes, mobs or ‘Factions’ (pro-life, pro-choice, pro illegal immigration, anti-illegal immigration, free trade, anti-trade, isolationist, globalist etcetera) that could hurt the nation by violating the rights of and having more power than other citizens based on where they lived. Specifically, he stated that such groups could possibly: “sacrificeto its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of othercitizens.”

  

This is why we need the Electoral College and why it should never be obviated from our national political process.  To suggest the opposite is infantile and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Constitution of the United States and reading of the Federalist Papers (expressly Federalist #10). Moreover, to change to the results of the popular vote to select our President would be true voter suppression.

Read More

Neoliberalism or How to Pimp the Underclass in Six Syllables

For long as I can recall, at least after the civil rights era, the economic prosperity in the African American community has been on the decline. Ironically this started under the purview of a new approach to economics trumpeted to be the end all and be all to the problems (economic and civil) that confronted the U.S. since the end of the Vietnam war. This is what it was supposed to be but what it became was a new-fangled form of lassez-faire policy that to date, has serve to retard economic growth and increased disparities in wealth and income inequality in the U.S. and worldwide.

You got it, I am speaking about neoliberalism. I have defined neoliberalism policy as policy that transfers controls of economic factors from the public sector to the private sector. Neoliberals rather in the form of Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Tony Blair or The Clinton’s assert that economic and foreign policy that removes trade barriers and restrictions on capital flows is the best thing you can do to create job growth, economic prosperity, wealth and more importantly, eliminate or at least, lift folk out of poverty. Although apolitical, after the 80s, democrats (social democrats in France, Labor in England & Democrats in the U.S.) used this ideology to usher in and promote their views on domestic and foreign policy. A strange occurrence, since historically, these political parties were framed as being the representative of the little man, main street, the factory worker and union member. Establishing neoliberal free market foreign and domestic would mean that the democrats would not have to work with the vulture class.  This meant forming more relationships with the elite and wealth of the big cities more so than the lowly farmers of the Midwest or miners in other states.  Even in urban areas, it meant economic ostracization for minority communities until it was time to secure their vote.

This alone demanded that Democrats listen and accept more ideas from the wealthy and affluent, and it has been the same since Tony Blair and the Clinton’s. Although democrats proclaim their policies serve progressive and liberal objectives, the harsh reality is that the do not. They have led to the destruction of unions and reduction in collective bargaining rights while they claim to be the party of the working class.  They have tightened relationships with the white-collar elite and for taking their money, have put in place policy that has help to suppress wages and wage growth.  These policies have also resulted in the ruination of the auto industry as we have witnessed in Detroit. But they did not stop there.  Starting with Bill Clinton, they even deregulated banks and had the gumption to tell the working poor that their situation was due to education, while rich liberals ignore the fact that even going to college, whether one finishes with a degree or not results in most African Americans having amassed nearly two times the amount of student loan debt than whites. Even Obama and other black establishment cats representing the democratic party got in on the act preaching the same credo asserting a culture of poverty argument that basically suggest that black are poor and need to go to college. As if all our problems are due more to having a poor education, than the neoliberal policies they unabatingly advance.

With Obama and his neoliberal economic locution, African American unemployment is still two times that of white unemployment. Economic disparity between whites and blacks has grown wider since his election and African American median income has fallen more than 10 percent with 26 percent of Black households being considered “food insecure.” Since Obama took office, the seasonally adjusted labor-force-participation rate for black Americans across the board has declined and the number of black food-stamp participants has increased more than 50 percent. Add to this that the percentage of black Americans who own homes has declined sharply and that real median income among black households based on data from your Census Bureau has also declined.  This means a higher poverty rates for blacks since 2008, a reduction in the number of young black men with full-time employment and an increase in median white wealth providing them with more income at a pace way surpassing that of blacks under your administration. Maybe this is why it has been determined that single African American women ages 36 to 49 have a median wealth of $5. This is without me even mentioning the paltry rate of GDP growth since you took office.  To put it bluntly, the economic liberalism of the Obama era was just a more murderous form of Reagan – unfettered (legal or illegal) immigration was encouraged and a blind eye was turn to both corporate tax evasion via overseas accounts and the activity of criminal banker activity on Wall Street.

All the can be connected in a causal manner to policy put in place by folk (99% democratic progressive liberals) elected to office or thought leaders, by the poor and working class black folk who have been distressed by said policies. Again, plainly put poverty and racism has only got worse during Obama’s tenure. Obama and democrats love to tout a higher minimum wage as being a solution but never answer how is this possible, when even with a higher wage, you cannot be sure that cats will give folk the hours they need just to get by let alone move out of poverty? How can this solve any economic issues sustained for blacks since democrats came to power during the post-civil-rights era and with democrats still pushing for capitalist globalization that has had a disproportionately negative influence on African Americans over the past 40 to 50 years? How can this help when 95% of the jobs created during the Obama Presidency were temporary? And don’t say because we talk about education because the reality is that African Americans with some college education have higher unemployment rates than whites who never went to college or even completed high school?

It was President Obama in 2014 that stated "if Uncle Jethro would get off the couch and stop watching Sports Center and go register some folks and go to the polls, we might have a different kind of politics." This in a nut shell is neoliberalism, who's efficacy that even the IMF is starting to question. A philosophy which states we get rich if you vote for us and us alone while you black folk will remain restricted to unstable low wage service sector jobs (which are vanishing) and represent the fastest growing population of homeless in the U.S., women and children. This is one reason why economic position of African Americans have not changed since democrats began to represent all major urban areas since the mid-1960s. If I am wrong, then why have schools failed to improve and have been on a downward trend since then?  Why have long-term job prospects in these same places decreased and even disappeared since then? Neoliberalism has never been shown to have been effective or even work in the real world, especially when it comes to improving the economic conditions of blacks regardless of location of residency. So, I ask you, why support a party that takes your vote and destroys your community and ability to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Riddle me that Batman.

Read More

The Falsity of a Free Press

For some reason that I have failed to comprehend, people are actually up in arms over the manner in which President Trump is addressing and defining mainstream media outlets – namely CNN, the Washington Post, New York Times and MSNBC among others. I have heard it pronounced as an attack on democracy or that his actions characterize an effrontery to a free press. It is the latter notion that sets me aback for the press in America isn’t reflective of free, rather it is corporatist for lack of an even more accurate description.

When we assert the concept of press freedoms or freedom of the press, it implies that there is no interference from any ever-powerful or omnipresent political or established state, or other organizational entity.  We do not have this with the mainstream media in America anymore. What is called and referred to as a “free press” is in reality just a vehicle by which the public is fed the agenda of government and corporations under the cloak of unrevealed activities of elites in newsrooms primarily located in New York and Washington, DC. Modestly put, the mainstream media isn’t a free press but rather a speaking board by which state and corporate bodies are able to repeat without investigation, the narratives designed to encourage spreading specific political information to program thought and behavior.

Moreover, the people that own and run these East and West coast news outlets are billionaires, like Rupert Murdoch,  Michael Bloomberg and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who own all or significant proportions of media platforms the likes of the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. This is factual at the local level as well for Warren Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway owns more than 60 daily newspapers across the nation. Taking this a step farther, it is estimated that 90% of what we watch, listen to and read is owned by 6 companies. Yes it is true, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS and Comcast own 90% of the TV stations, radio stations, movies, magazines and newspapers that every American rely on for news, entertainment and information many require to be so-called ‘woke.’

Such a consolidation of news media companies cannot be considered the stalwart of a free press, instead it is an ‘owned press’ in which freedom means motives of operation imbued in the content they select to provide or hide thanks mostly to Congress and the FCC, and which was accelerated in 1996 when then President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act, which led to rapid consolidation of the radio industry. Just think about it, in 1983, 50 companies owned 90% of American media.

Now I know the contrarian who watches six or more hours of TV a day, well above the time we spend reading and asking questions will disagree.  But history and the official record suggest otherwise. In 1975, the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities found that the CIA submitted stories to the American press. In fact, in the 1950s, the CIA put in place Operation Mockingbird which was a program designed to, and effectively used US journalists at establishments like the New York Times and CBS to feed them official state propaganda stories to send out to their American consumers.

Journalists were even paid by the CIA to promote such stories or on the low end, just given the information and put it out as real news, when in fact it was made-up and fabricated propaganda - ‘fake news’. The truth of the matter is that the US government via the CIA, has for years influenced US news media to advocate specific political storylines. Although Operation Mockingbird was supposedly ended in the 1970s, the objective and free thinking individuals could imagine that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 still serves the mission and purpose of the federal government by allowing for the American public to be a target audience for U.S. government-funded narrative inculcation campaigns. And don’t sleep, it was way harder to carry out such activities after 1953 when Allen W. Dulles became director of the CIA because there were more individual players in terms of wire services and newspapers then.  

I’m not sure but I think it was Malcolm X who called this shit ‘tricknology’. These folk are effectively and actively trying to influence the narratives that mindless self-absorbed narcissist ignorantly consume in an effort to create your reality for YOU. And I know it is effective because YOU believe it.  Wouldn’t surprise me none if such cats watch the Oscars and see a movie about the White Helmets win yet yo dumb azz can’t comprehend you been sold a storyline to completely hide the fact that the White Helmets are a component of Al-Qaeda. It is called TV programming and not TV reasoning – they just  “programming” into your mind every single day for hours upon hours what they want you to think and accept without research and query to believe what they want you to believe and sway on how you see the world. 

It is you, your bich azz that allow these immovable establishments to fix the agenda for what they want you to care about – Russians, Jeff Sessions and Russians, General Flynn and Russians, Russians interfered in out elections. But as I said, yet you don’t even realize the information released in Podesta and DNC hacks (if the Russians released it or not) was accurate and factual but never ask if I should consider if I should have this information to make a electoral decision, or tow the MSM line that I should not use this to inform myself, although factual just because of what I watch on TV say you shouldn’t? But keep on with the Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Mandela a terrorist, FBI didn’t spy on MLK, there was not Tuskegee Experiment, we have to do Iran-Contra and the ubiquitous Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (when you knew Iraq never attacked us).

Six corporations’ folk, 90%, send everything through your television, everything you watch. You can trust them folk, I won’t.  So wake up folk, can’t be woke and sleep walking, they are not the free press, they got a pimp.

Read More

TV Watchers Miss the Taiwan & Pakistan Big Picture

There were several kerfuffle’s that the alphabet networks and their mindless audience pushed as being calamitous actions taken by Donald Trump this past week.  The two that caught my attention occurred while listening to NPR and applied to Taiwan and Pakistan. Seems that Mr. Trump accepting calls from the democratically elected Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and responding to a similar call from Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were appalling, shocking and destabilizing, averring that the President Elect supposedly upended the traditional convention on how to deal with Chinese geopolitics, consequently destroying nearly 40 years of standard US diplomacy regarding Taiwan, and our relations with India via Pakistan.

This response was predictable based on how the MSM media has dealt with Trump and hung on his each and every word and tweet. Those critical of Trump say that his actions are just thoughtless blundering mistakes and signs of his ineptness in foreign policy. This was not the case. These single-minded individual elite’s infer that this is a reflection of Trump being a political novice.  I take the contrarian view and assert it is the complete opposite.

The US relationship with China has continuously been all over the place since the end of the Nixon Administration.  Likewise, we can only thank Obama with his droning and unauthorized raids in Pakistan (Bin Laden included) as only bring about more political destabilization with respect to diplomatic actions with the nation. It is as if the pundits do not see how their speculations on behalf of ratings and sensationalization, are being overstated.

Let’s start with Taiwan and China. After the Ford administration, upon taking office, President Jimmy Carter was in such a big hurry to normalize relations with China that in 1978 Congress got involved to make sure that America’s mutual defense treaty with Taiwan would not fall by the wayside. So under the leadership of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, a bipartisan congressional alliance proposed the Taiwan Relations Act after Carter ignored their concerns. In essence congress indicated that the United States would not hesitate to aid Taiwan if it was invaded by China going against terms of diplomacy established in 1949. Carter like today’s media pundits were afraid this would upset and hurt China’s feelings.

By the Time Bill Clinton was in office, a ‘One China’ policy and de-recognition of Taiwan was in full effect and since his Administration; we have not been honest in our foreign policy objectives. So in simple terms, the current reaction to Trump’s actions in regards to China-Taiwan may be unhelpful and may hurt the fledgling Taiwan democracy and should be considered more important than papers and air time advertisement media outlets sell.

All we can take away from this is that Trump is making good onhis tough talk on China and that he will shake the ways of old off and not be restrained by the bureaucratic practices of the old political establishment guard. Just by going against 37 years of China-US diplomatic protocol of the“One China” policy the US accepts and respects without query. No US President or President-elect has ever called a Taiwanese leader in recent decades. Trump’s independence is what the story should be about not to mention two things are abrogated from the popular analysis: (1) Chiang Kai-shek is no longer the leader of Taiwan and (2) Trump isn’t the first president or president-elect since 1979 to have communicated directly with a president of Taiwan noting that if memory serves me correctly Reagan did the same thing when he was president elect.

Fact is politicians on both sides of the isle have been reconsidering albeit very quietly the US-China-Taiwan relationship since 1989 (Tiananmen Square) and the question if they really want Taiwan to unify with China. In fact I bet I could find support if I really wanted to be super-duper accurate that since Tiananmen Square, the US have been selling more and more weapons to Taiwan, but this is mere speculation on my part. The point is Trump has not only shown himself thus far  to be an effective negotiator, he has also been continuously underestimated every step of the way so far by folk whom think they know it all in the media and has proven that there is more than one way to skin a cat metaphorically.

Adding Pakistan to the mix, we see the same thing if we are truly objective before we are outraged.  It is clear that President-elect Donald Trump may be amenable to similar eccentric methods regarding bilateral ties with the nation and Pakistani Prime Minister. In this case, the media analysts have called Trump’s actions on one end ridiculous and the other distressing.  Based on what I read all he said was that he thought Sharif was “a terrific guy” and wanted to visit what he described as a fantastic country with great people speaking of Pakistan. What all of this suggest is that Trump is not the traditional status quo political cat to the disdain of the traditional American political elite and mainstream media. All he wants is for the US to be a part in trying to secure peace between India and Pakistan.  What’s wrong with that?

The problem is that the reaction of the US media may be the biggest issue with respect to both  China and Taiwan, and Pakistan and India by blowing all of this out of proportion in their desire to “get Trump” by any means necessary. Fact is that US foreign policy is fluid and changes and over stating events as the aforementioned can do more harm than good. It is as if Trump taking a phone call is more problematic for the Chinese than Obama selling four missile carrying frigates and billions in other weaponry to Taiwan.  Then there is the fact that Trump isn’t even in office yet and has not even laid out any foreign policy. So just calm down and wait for something tangible to report on and not personal bias in the form of made-up fears.

Read More

Why do impoverished Black people support Hillary Clinton?

When I think of Hillary Clinton, and the strong support she has from black people, it simply blows my mind.  Here is this woman, an elite northern school graduate from middle class Chicago whom was not only president of the young republicans but also a Goldwater girl in 1964 in the form of both volunteer and supporter. In case you may have forgotten, Barry Goldwater was the first Republican to win the Deep South since Reconstruction by campaigning to defeat the Civil Rights Act and consequently was the main person whom motivated Hillary Clinton to get into politics.

As expected, black politicians have lined up in like they were camping out to get the latest IPhone or new pair of Yeezies to endorse her. It as if by doing such and showing your loyalty to master, she will let you move into the big house as a reward for being faithful to the Clintons.  This was the way it was in 1992.

In 1992 when black folk put Bill Clinton in office in addition to some theatrics of his own (playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show and walking up to an American citizen during the debate to answer questions directly), African American communities across America in rural and urban areas were suffering and had been devastated economically. If one is old enough to recall, one reason for this was Bill Clinton’s ability to say things to the black community that he would say in opposite to white communities. On the same day in the morning Bill Clinton would be singing Lift Every Voice and Sing at a NAACP or black Baptist church meeting and later on that night speaking to a room full of Dixiecrats tell them how he was willing to be tougher on crime and make our cities safer than republicans ever could.

Bill, the democrats, the service economy, big banks, Wall Street and the average white American won but not black folk, we got the shaft. The late 1980s and early 1990s was a period of mass losses in factories across the nation and the diminution of U.S. manufacturing.  All because big corporations were moving abroad as a consequence of globalization and in search of cheaper labor and fewer regulations.  This continued at an even larger scale and greater pace with Clinton as President.

At the start of his presidency, America saw unemployment rates among young black men multiply to pornographic levels. As a direct result, crime increased and we were watching the start of the crack cocaine epidemic. Now Blacks were in essence caged in segregated public housing hoping that the Democratic president would do something to help as he promised during his campaign. He was able to secure 83 percent supportfrom black voters in 1992.

Unfortunately under the Clinton regime we observed the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates in American history. He was firmly in support of the sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which not only resulted in disproportionate arrest and sentencing for African Americans, it also increased funding for drug-law enforcement as a continuation of prior republican administrations war on drugs.  He also pushed for a federal “three strikes”law and in 1994 he signed a $30 billion crime bill that mandated life sentencesfor some three-time offenders, and provided $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces among other things.  

By 1996, after securing 84 percent black vote to gain a second term and using coded language about race (crime, welfare, crack cocaine) to divide the nation and divert attention from the economy that worked only for the top one percent, the federal the penal budget became twice the amount that had been allocated to food stamps. 

The next move for his administration was to cut billions from public-housing and child-welfare (Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)) budgets and have them re-directed to increasing incarceration. In fact, Clinton cut funding for public housing more than 60 percent ($17 billion) while increasing funding for prisons by more than 170 percent ($19 billion).

So what Bill Clinton supported from a policy perspective was what democrats in large urban areas had been supporting for the prior 50 years - discriminatory laws that keep black and poor people in their place while extracting lifeline resources that serve to sustain people during times of economic hardship. But this wasn’t enough for him; he had to go even beyond cruelty.

Next the Clinton Administration eliminated Pell Grants for prisoners seeking higher education to prepare for their release and overtly supported laws that would make it easier for public-housing agencies to deny shelter to anyone with any sort of criminal history.

It was President Clinton who proposed the “one strike and you’re out” initiative, which meant that families could be evicted from public housing because one member (or a guest) had committed even a minor offense – this was his brainchild. No black men whom had been released from prison with nothing could no longer return home to family if they lived in federally assisted housing or else the entire family would be kicked out. On top of this, the Clinton Administration promised,signed into law and made certain that anyone convicted of a felony drug offense would never be able to get federal financial aid if you had drug convictions.  He signed into law a lifetime ban on welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense.

When Bill was finished, more than half of working-age African-American with criminal records was now by legal sanction, burdened with congressional and presidential approved discrimination in housing, employment and access to education. Moreover, after his two terms as President, Clinton left the nation with the highest rate of incarceration in the world, thanks to his 1994 Crime Bill which saw conservatively, more than 80% percent of all drug offenders sent to prison being black men and the unemployment rate for non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) being north of 40 percent - all with the approval and support of the current democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and the unusual accomplice of the black vote. Now I know many will say that this was Bill and Not Hillary. Truthfully they are one in the same – HILLBILL.

So all I am asking is what have the Clintons done to keep black folk voting for them other than belong to the Democratic Party? Why do impoverished Black people living from paycheck to paycheck support Hillary Clinton?

The housing bubble that precipitated the crash that created the Great Recession was done mostly on the backs of people of color. The bankers who profited from preying on the black communities got bailed out to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars; their victims mostly lost their homes. The perpetrators were never even indicted by the Obama administration, which had been tight with Wall Street from jump.

And it is bazaar how folk forget how she and her husband went after then Senator Obama.  In 2008 while campaigning in South Carolina Hillary suggested that Dr. King’s dream was wasn’t anything without President Lyndon B. Johnson passing the Civil Rights Act. Tim Russert, then the host for NBC Meet the Press said it was as if she was saying “it took a white man to get blacks to the mountaintop.” Then there is what Bill Clinton was reported to have said after it was reported in 2010 he was upset that Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary. In the book Game Change written by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin it is reported in a conversation with Kennedy he said, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” describing Senator Obama.  We won’t even speak on her dismal record with Black New Yorkers or Blacks across the nation while she served as the Senator from New York.

The simple truth is that Black Americans have been voting for the Democrats consistently for more than the past forty years and we have little if anything to show for it with the exception of a few Attorney Generals, a President, and a museum. Why, because economically, we have been shown but fail to acknowledge that the economic positions of the democratic clearly elucidate it as being the party of the affluent white collar white and no one else.

How can we forget or ignore that it was the Clinton administration that deregulated banks and Wall Street which was a major factor in the financial crisis the U.S. experienced in 2008 and had a more than disparate impact on African Americans compared to any other ethnic racial group in the country. And his relationship with Wall Street and Big banks is no different from his wife.  How else can folk get upwards of $250,000 for forty-five minute speeches without doing any actual work? The role of the practices of big banks and Wall Street on the African American community cannot be denied yet she panders to us like the man on the corner begging for some change. She may speak out about redlining practices that are discriminatory and illegal and predatory lending but the only time we see or hear from her, like most other democrats is when they want our votes and support while at the same time she is all buddy-buddy with the folk who are making it extremely hard for African Americans (the people she called super predators and deadbeats) to obtain a fair and equal economic footing in America. So again I just ask why impoverished Black people support Hillary Clinton. 

For more than 40 years her party has collectively siphoned the African American vote without returning anything in exchange for our continuous and even subsistent electoral support and what have we received or to show for it economically?  A few social programs designed to make us helpless and dependent on government, the status of a permanant status as secondary class citizens in America just like during the Black Codes and Jim Crow, and historically high levels of crime in our communities, unemployment, poverty, incarceration rates, poorer health and wellness status and mass illiteracy.

I take it these basic public benefits are the aspects of Hillary Clinton’s policy that excites you and her base – have at it. Personally I deserve better and much, much more.

Read More

#PodestaEmails Adumbrated

The Clinton Foundation, Gold Mine hustle

Hillary did delete emails herself after all

Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents Via @HalleyBorderCol

Flint not having water to drink because it scores political points via @JordanChariton

Preparing statements for Hillary about how hard state dept. is working & how she only had one Blackberry-lie via @andrewthechap

Are they using @ClintonFdn email list serve for Clinton Campaign fund raising purposes? Is that legal? Via @escoker

Clinton Camp Discussed Deleting Emails Despite Knowing It Was Against the Law via @mtracey

Indian Billionaire wants to donate over a million to Hillary. Need to figure out modalities via @IFlipTrips

Hillary Clinton tried to avoid press for the entire election via @TheTrumpFound

Hillary admits to wanting #TPP. "I believe a strong and fair TPP trade agreement is both possible and necessary" via @KGBVeteran

How to lie about emails. #PodestaEmails4

What did .@hhigginbottom do that they had to keep her "happy" by making up a job for her she didn't earn? #PodestaEmails4 via @kinni00

Nepotism! Hillary campaign was handing off jobs to relatives of top staffers. #PodestaEmails5. Via @basedmattforney

Democrats do not value black voters and are just using them every election cycle to win. Know who you are voting for. Via @WhyBuild

Clinton Fdn paid BLM, Glenn Beck & Black Panthers to suppress the elections. Via @Shoes2Match

I clearly remember @DWStweets telling us there was no secret plan to limit the debates. Via @abowersock.

HRC camp having black church event trying to hide Bill passed Robert E Lee day and had pride in Ark confederate flag. Via @WDFx2EU7

HRC aid brainstorms "excuse" she can make for not turning over all her emails even after subpoena #PodestaEmails4. Via @JordanChariton

Democrats think galvanizing the black electorate is done through tokenism rather than policy. Via @rtyson82

@johnpodesta and #JASTA lawyer discuss the implications of Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation. Via @partystraws.

@billclinton sexually abused his 3rd cousin while she babysat Chelsea! #PodestaEmails4 #PodestaEmails. Via @chiIIinois.

Read More