Fear and Loathing in America

The fire-ready-aim crowd was dead wrong about Trevon Martin and now Michael Brown.  While reasonable, rational people waited for answers and legal processes to sort through the issues before reaching their conclusions, felonious thugs were burning, looting and shooting cops in protest.  Doubling down on wrong, they rushed to judgment; small minds so filled with hatred that they lack the capacity to accept fact over emotion, even when a fellow-traveler and down with the struggle black US Attorney General serves reality and truth to them on a silver platter, concluding that no laws were broken, no rights denied.

In other words, justifiable homicide.

I don’t hear any apology.  I see no sign of shame, remorse, or culpability.  To which social services office should police officer Darren Wilson report in order to get his life, job and good reputation back?

These situations are really about issues of crime, punishment, criminals and their contempt for authority.  Martin and Brown were convenient excuses for criminals and their sympathizers to go on a rampage.

The majority of those so enraged by the justifiable homicides of Martin and Brown are  criminals or their apologists, sharing in common a deep hatred for police, the law and authority.  In Martin and Brown they see themselves and it’s a wakeup call they hoped was really just a bad dream, not quite the one Dr. King had in mind.

Blacks overwhelmingly commit more crimes than whites, (according to the NAACP,  blacks are imprisoned at a rate of 6 times that of whites).  Instead of being embarrassed and ashamed, seeking answers and solutions, race-baiting mouth organs like felon and tax-cheat Al Sharpton devise clever phrases like, “hands-up, don’t shoot” as a diversion from the undeniable facts that ironically keeps blacks in a sort of bondage, now of their own making; that mistaken belief that embracing the criminal element is a part of their culture, a sign of their genuineness, in spite of the fact that the scenario, “hands up, don’t shoot” never happened.

Is this what it means to be, “Keepin it real” and is it worth the price?

The black men who have ran away from their families and their obligations are only outnumbered by those who were perp-walked away to prison in shackles. Black crime is almost always black-on-black especially involving homicides.  Blacks are overwhelmingly killing each other.  This undercurrent of self-loathing is the direct result of liberal ideology that fosters the premise that certain members of our society just can’t make do on their own without help.  Unfortunately, the ploy may have worked.

Facts and statistics can be difficult things.  These are fundamental problems with hard answers that require unprecedented changes in mind-sets.  The most important truism to be dispelled is the heretofore undisputed notion that the instances of arrest and incarceration need to mirror image the percentage of a population’s representation in society.  This assumption is flat out false.  For example, men overwhelmingly out-number women in prison populations yet are about evenly divided in society.  Does this mean that thousands of criminal women are on the loose, or does it mean that men are more likely to commit crime?  Blacks make up over 87% of professional basketball players even thou they are only representative of 14% of the overall population.  Does this mean that whites are being denied their places in the game because of racism, or because blacks perform this particular skill at a higher level?

In a complex world, full of choices, opportunities, struggles and unknowns, it is a misguided, utopian notion to believe everything, (or anything) can be controlled.  Societal decisions cannot logically be attached to mathematical expectations of congruency based on statistical expectations of a one-to-one correlation.  That is not how our complex, free-will society is constructed but liberals like to think they can control everything as if life was a consensus building project in a group therapy session.

Statistical facts do not constitute racism, but they do stifle the truth at the sacrificial alter of the politically correct.  Black’s commit more crimes than whites but saying so brands you a racist, even in the face of the fact that blacks occupy prison cells at a rate of over six times their representation in society.  Black’s are twice as likely to disobey traffic laws and are at twice the risk of traffic accident death than are whites, this according to the National Transportation Safety Board.  Facts and statistics can be difficult things, but this explains why blacks are more likely than whites to be stopped for traffic violations; because they are more likely to disobey the traffic laws.  To simply make this observation of fact should not qualify the speaker as a racist and in the effort, seek to silence the truth, but in most cases it does just that and in the face of that fear of being labeled and marginalized, these observations go unstated and henceforth no furtherance of the issue is made.

It is a fallacy to accept the premise that crime rates correlate with groups based on their representation in the greater community.  In other words, it is erroneous to believe that because blacks represent 14% of the population, they should also automatically represent 14% of the criminal activity as well.  There is no basis in fact for assuming this.  There is no direct, mathematically or socially constructed theorem that validates this, yet it is accepted as proof of racism when the rates of crime exceed those ratios.

Perhaps solutions are not even possible anymore.  Maybe we have allowed the supposed acts of salvation-through-social-services to continue for so long that we have successfully dismantled and eradicated the black family.  If so, thank President Lyndon B. Johnson, (LBJ) and the Great Society for making the black man inconsequential to the family, which may be in fact the welfare states strategy to remaining in power for ever.  Here is LBJ, in his own words, according to Ron Kessler’s book, “Inside the Whitehouse.”, speaking with several governors about the effects of providing welfare and housing benefits for inner-city blacks in the 1960’s.

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

That quote, from the lips of the father of the Great Society, bastion of salvation to the black community.

Blacks were duped and continue to be duped by liberal ideology.  It appears LBJ was right, as 90% or more of blacks vote Democrat in every national election.  Conservative principles align properly with men and women of character, not of reliance, learned helplessness and self-pity.  The soft bigotry of low expectations, practiced so honorably by liberals, ought to be the stuff of scandal and distain, a clear insult to all people.  Truth be told, the historical, early struggles of blacks align more closely with the self-reliance and fortitude of traditional conservative values.

Change is only possible from within the community through self-awareness and a reset in thinking about the obligation individuals have for taking care of their own affairs.  As long as the black family continues to self-inflict the injuries created by missing fathers, unacceptable rates of criminal activity and the rejection of education and main stream societal values in exchange for “gangsta idolatry”, nothing will change.  That truth, once embraced, and then the poisonous impediments finally discarded will once again set people free, this time from the tyranny of liberal condescension and decades of low expectations that have, unfortunately for many become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Leaders in the media are artful in crafting one line narratives that dumb down much more nuanced and complicated situations.  They also use the opportunity to foment and rankle as many of the “low information” population as they can.  This is just a fancy way of saying they try and upset the morons around us who believe whatever they are told on TV.  Such is the situation in Ferguson, Missouri regarding the death of felon thug, Michael Brown.

“Unarmed black teenager” yes, brute, violent felon, trying to take a cops gun, also yes but the media shines their light on wherever they can sell the most advertising and get the highest ratings.  Their jobs have little or nothing to do with real journalism or finding the truth.

“Unarmed, black teenager” is all that resonates in the moron’s ears as they don’t even stop to comprehend a grand jury’s months of examination, testimony and evidence that lead to the correction conclusion that Michael Brown deserved to die that day because he was attempting to take the life of a police officer.  The proper reaction to this should be good bye and good riddance violent street thug.  At least now, this vermin will harm no one else.

Instead, the idiots protesting use this as an excuse to raise hell and commit crimes.  This is because they are morons to begin with and then whipped into a frenzy by a gleeful media who can then take their pictures and make money selling what has now come to be “the news”, all custom made by the media for their own enrichment.

Michael Brown is dead and rightfully so.  Officer Darren Wilson should have been cited for bravery and then perhaps the murderous animal that assassinated two New York City police officers wouldn’t have been so emboldened by a media narrative that encourages and benefits from the chaos they themselves help to create.

A voice jolted me awake early one Sunday morning, both silent but deafening, beckoning me to church.  Ignoring the first request, a second one pushed me out of bed and towards the closet.  Hung-over, I tossed myself into a seldom worn suit and drove to the church of my childhood, my thoughts amused and awakened by the power of that voice.  I hadn’t set foot in that sanctuary for a few years but at that moment, a minute late and still in the parking lot, I smiled in wonder.

As I entered the front doors, I could hear the muffled sounds of that magnificent organ behind the closed doors to the sanctuary.  On my way up the stairs, the music stopped, replaced by a familiar voice from my youth.  As I opened the door and entered the room, the face of the voice at the pulpit was clear.  He was in mid-sentence, mentioning me by name as I took my seat.  Surprising us both, the speaker said, “and here he is now, hello Bob.”  That speaker, Kurt, a childhood friend that had grown up with me at this church, was the guest speaker that morning.  I’m sure everyone in that church thought we had planned this, but we had not.  I hadn’t seen Kurt in over 10 years.  My name was mentioned in his opening remarks as he rattled off a litany of people that were there as children and gone as adults.  Kurt went on to share the story of his growing up in the church and his long departure and how years of absence had now made his return something more meaningful.  His story was my story.

This all took place over 30 years ago.  The event was a watershed moment in my life but it wasn’t by any stretch the end of a struggle or the beginning of a gracious life of piety, I wish I could report otherwise.  What it did was to cement my faith in the power of the Spirit.  That voice, pestering me, the guest speaker that Sunday, his message and his timing, all of that was a gift from the Holy Spirit to me, most undeserved, but granted non-the-less; how could that not have changed my life?

I hope to be that voice for you today.  Re-examine the worship traditions of your own history and if that’s not possible, then I am inviting you to my church next Sunday and every Sunday.  The magnificent building at the corner of Floral Avenue and Main Street, next to the arch in Johnson City, is where this happened to me.  Our service is traditional and our numbers are small, but our pastor is a man gifted by God to be an inspiration, and at 10AM on any Sunday, you are invited to share that gift with me.

I can’t promise you the same kind of grand entrance I received some 30 years ago, but I can guarantee you the grace of God before you go.

Port Dickinson, NY

What began as “the Ray Rice incident” has now morphed into a full frontal attack on not only the National Football League, (NFL), but men in general.  Even though the incidents of domestic violence and other crimes are markedly lower in the NFL than in the same general public demographic, this inconvenient truth has not diminished the out and out lie that now drives the agenda:  Professional football players are dangerous, violent predators that routinely assault and otherwise mistreat and degrade women.  Any discussion to the contrary; debate or analysis that does not comport with this everyone-knows-this-is-true agenda earns the heretic so daring Satan’s mark.

Misandristic, militant feminism drives this narrative, believing that their stance on the issue insulates them from criticism, the theory being that anyone who dares question the motives or facts in the matter automatically receives the label of denier of the obvious and woman hater, marginalized and discarded as unworthy of consideration.  You either get with the program and embrace the group-think on this issue or you are an outlier, banished from all contemplation.

A video recording for all to see is what propelled this incident into the marching orders for the social engineers to find the requisite excuse to advance an agenda that strives to actually end the game of football as we know it, and further homogenize the male species into the neutered state of being that misandrists till now have only dreamed of.

Combine the head injury claims, the tightening of rules about appropriate tackling, illegal use of the helmet, lawsuits from ex-players claiming dementia and other injuries with this latest slew of allegations of domestic violence, and you have the necessary ingredients for making a case that brings down the very symbol of manhood for many; Football.

When these social engineers can bring NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to his knees, almost literally, as we witnessed during a recent news conference, they gain strength by sapping it from the strong.  As Goodell leads the long line of those who need punishment into the open arena for their public flogging, the hand-wringing, weeping, apologetic lap-dogs, afraid to fall out of step are cowards of the first order, happy recipients of a do-it-yourself neutering.

Honorable and virtuous men do not strike women, no need for classes or reminders.  When these crimes happen, the legal system is the appropriate forum for resolution.  When you are a celebrity, and make your living entertaining the public, you may also suffer by way of lost endorsements and public condemnation.

But make no mistake, the masterminds of the militant, misanderistic movement are using this combination of events to advance wholesale change in a way that may seem appropriate in the heat of the emotionally charged moment, but is actually taking advantage of emotionally skewed thinking to mask the real goal of furthering the feminization of men.

The Goodell’s et al represents the low-hanging fruit for self-flagellation, but the rest of mankind won’t subscribe as ordered.

Professional football player Ray Rice was arrested for assaulting his fiancé.  The judicial system processed and adjudicated Rice’s case and he was punished accordingly.  On what legal basis does the National Football League, (NFL), act in further punishing Rice?

How is it that the NFL has justification or authority to extend and increase the punishment that the legal system has already metered out?  Since when are employers extensions of our legal system in deciding crime and punishment?

By initially suspending Rice for two games and then reacting to public sentiment by changing that decision to an indefinite suspension, the NFL arbitrarily deciding to heap punishment on top of punishment, clearly at the whim of public pressure and the anticipated politically correct backlash.

If this same incident involved another man instead of a woman, none of this reaction by the NFL would be happening.  If another man spit in Rice’s face, (as is alleged in the case involving the woman), many would view the ensuing assault as just desserts yet many in the shrill, modern feminine movement lecture us about the equality of men and women; equal only apparently until that first punch is thrown and then, instantly those same screaming-for-equal-rights feminists run for cover and without a hint of irony, seek the comforts and confines of the traditional mantra of never-hit-a-woman.

 Can’t have it all ways girls.

 Not many right minded men would spit in the face of a 206 pound professional football player, but apparently his girlfriend felt empowered by the feminine movement to try her luck at it.  By their own standards of supposed equality, they should have seen it coming.

A regional group of grocery stores in conjunction with a local chain of gas stations offers a rewards program that discounts gas prices based upon the amount of grocery purchases. The more you spend on groceries, the more you save on gas.

As I stood in line, cash in hand, waiting for the proud, loud and obese welfare queen with 5 out-of-control kids to scan her food stamps card, the clerk announced that she had “earned” 30 cents per gallon discount on her next gas purchase.

“Earned?”

Dictionary.com defines “earn” as, “to gain or get in return for one’s labor or service.”

Maybe the new policy on the rewards program would be to give it to the next person in line that can produce proof that they paid taxes that make food stamps possible to begin with.

Public service announcements shame us into believing that 1 in 6 suffer from something called “meal uncertainty.” With over 50 million people on food stamps and roughly 300 million people in the USA, this must be how they concoct this preposterous number. Look around you at the grocery store and observe the folks on food stamps. There is no uncertainty as to the fact they are getting their food, and apparently plenty of it. As a group, those on welfare are more than twice as obese as the rest of society. Medicaid recipients use almost 70% of their medical benefit services addressing health issues directly related to being over-weight, yet the hunger-is-an-epidemic crowd would have you believing the poor routinely go hungry. If this were true, you would think that in Broome County we would see many incidents of malnutrition, but according to the NYS Health Department, not a single case has been reported in recent memory.

We don’t have a hunger problem in this country, we have a nutrition problem.

Food stamp recipients should be evaluated for their familial and health needs and then be given healthy, affordable, quantity controlled foods, chosen specifically for their circumstances. No more shopping without regard to price or healthy content, recipients would receive nutritional foods chosen and packaged at the most affordable cost.

Statistics show that those on food stamps are overwhelmingly making the wrong nutritional choices. Those of us who are being forced to pay their bills ought to be making healthier decisions on their behalf; after all, we’re also paying for their healthcare. Once self-sufficient, they can eat whatever they can pay for, but as long as they seek our help, they ought to be obliged to accept our guidance as well.

Now, if we could manage to have maybe one day a week where the only folks allowed into the grocery store are those with cash or credit cards, perhaps going to the local market would be less like a trip into a war-torn ghetto near a mental hospital and more like a nice opportunity to interact and socialize with your working, thoughtful, taxpaying neighbors without the need to carry a gun.

It’s about time that nationally syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts is called out for being the race-baiting racist that he is, hiding as a coward behind his own skin color.

Pitts is the token columnist that thinks he has a free-rein to write carelessly about all subjects in black and white, simply because he is black. Pitts seemingly couldn’t care less about black-on-black crime or other black-only issues, he is only interested in sounding his bigoted trumpet when there’s a white person to blame for something in the black community. Pitt’s pen writes in black ink only.

Like Obama and Eric Holder, Pitts banks on the fact that in today’s racially charged world of the politically correct threatening social condemnation on anyone daring to take a black commentator to task, no one white dares talk back.

I’ll take the dare Leonard.

His recent comments regarding the events unfolding in Ferguson, Missouri are irresponsible, incendiary and outrageous. Linking Rodney King, Trevon Martin and a host of others to Ferguson is one-hundred percent wrong. He is attempting to prove cause and effect when there is none. Each of these events are unique to themselves. Each event is or was investigated and adjudicated. The system was put into play in each scenario and like it or not, each was settled with the specifics of each instance being relative to the case, but not interchangeable as Pitt’s suggests.

Pitt’s and those of his ilk use selective issues of race for their own convenience while ignoring other examples that contradict their flawed social theories. The only difference between Pitts, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is a pen in the one hand and a microphone in the other.

What is interesting about the likes of Pitts is that he is the voice of outrage only to a white audience. Leonard can ruffle soft white feathers, but he is inauthentic in the black community he purports to represent. To most of the blacks Leonard cries for, he is simply another Uncle Tom sell out, shirt-and-tie wearing friend of the man, Oreo cookie that isn’t “keeping it real.” Brooks brothers slacks over wing-tips don’t fly in hip-hop town Leonard.

It never seems to dawn on anyone as to ask the question of these social engineering poverty pimps, (as J C Watts has called them), that being; how then did you yourself find your way out of the supposed hopelessness and claimed impossibility of achieving that which you did? How is it that these community leaders can understand the plight of the downtrodden while at the same time having managed to crack the code to escape it themselves?

Wouldn’t the likes of Leonard Pitts, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton be of better service to their black brethren if they showed them how to achieve, just like they did, as opposed to encouraging them to celebrate in their hopelessness?

Of course, doing so would put them out of business, so parish the thought and back to the business of blaming others.

The debate on immigration, borders and the broad public policy issues addressing these matters deeply divides the citizenry of the United States. Clearly our current methods of grappling with these complex issues are yielding no consensus building; to the contrary, we are further polarizing and expanding the space between the opinions and those who hold them. The debate and the divide worsen and chaff with each proposal and counter proposal, producing further frustration and a worsening polarization.

I propose a plan to unite and clearly define each country’s destiny by putting these issues directly into the hands of the people themselves for a solution. We begin by placing a single, simple resolution on a US national ballot that will ask:

Shall the United States of America offer to the people and country of Mexico, the opportunity to become citizens of and a State in these United States? Simultaneously, voters in Mexico would be asked if they wish to become American citizens through Mexican statehood.

The success or failure of these resolutions will reveal each country’s actual willingness for addressing these issues with solutions either great or small. If the initiative fails on the US side, then it is clear that the majority of US voters prefer stronger border protection, as well as immigration policies and procedures that control access to the country. If the initiative passes on both sides, then with it would come all of the regulatory burden, oversight, taxation, policy enforcement, legal requirements, agency review etc. that all US states currently enjoy. The US Constitution and all of her laws, regulations, treaties and world-wide agreements would apply equally to the new state of Mexico. Compliance with OSHA, the EPA, FEMA, the IRS, all would embrace our newest state.

Should the Mexican voters decide against becoming a State in the United States, then it would be clear that border protection, immigration policy and questions of US national sovereignty and self preservation are proprietary questions answered only by the United States and not subject to debate and input from those interests outside of our country.

Admittedly anecdotal, I believe that the resolution, on both sides, would be soundly defeated. The open borders crowd in America is a small but shrill minority. The exposure to the bright light of simply proposing the resolution puts the question and its philosophy clearly into the open for unobscured observation in the absence of hyperbole. If defeated, the open border crowd would be rightly marginalized into non-relevance.

Judging by past mass demonstrations and rallies, the Mexican mainstream has a thinly disguised disdain of the US and holds strongly to its deep Spanish heritage with no desire to assimilate to US ideals of nationalism and heritage. By maintaining the stark economic disparity between our countries, the Mexican wage earner in the US does better when that difference is the greatest. Continued border porosity assures that outcome.

Solution through resolution would expose the hypocrisy on both sides and settle this long standing dilemma by placing the decision making authority exactly where it belongs, in the hands of the people.