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.

Donald Sterling is the wealthy, white, 81 year-old billionaire owner of the LA Clippers NBA basketball team. Sterling has been married for over 50 years to the same white woman, but reportedly he has also had a mixed race girlfriend for the past few years. In what appears to be a lover’s quarrel, the girlfriend tape recorded Sterling saying he was troubled by her appearing with blacks in public. Apparently the little love tryst has gone south so Sterling is suing the girlfriend, attempting to reclaim a $1.8 million house he provided, plus several luxury cars and lots of cash. Turning over damning audio tapes to TMZ appears to have been the girlfriend’s revenge.

As a result of all this, as of the moment of this writing, Sterling has been fined $2.5 million by the NBA and has had a lifetime ban placed upon him for associating with his own team or the NBA in general. Team sponsors are bailing by the minute, so far costing the team likely in the tens of millions of dollars in income. He will probably be forced into selling the team at a fire sale price far below that which Forbes magazine recently valued at $575 million.

Sterling told his girlfriend that he didn’t like seeing her in public with blacks, but that he was OK with her doing whatever else with them in private, up to and including sleeping with them, (his words.) Sterling has twice been honored and recognized with significant awards from the LA NAACP, the latest being quickly and hastily recalled. Sterling surrounds himself with blacks; that is, most of his players and the coach of his team as well.

So, Sterling will endure a financial hit of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars and likely be forced into selling his business because he told his girlfriend he didn’t like seeing her in public with blacks.

Let compare and contrast this with rap, rap artists, the rap culture and NBA players.

Rap artists routinely mix misogamy, murder, mayhem on the police and the encouragement of assaulting women while glamorizing gang-life and throwing the N word off on almost every lyric. They do this in exchange for millions of dollars. The NBA itself is no stranger to gang affiliation. At least eight players or former players are gang members. Many throw gang signs out to the crowd during games. Dozens have been arrested for anything and everything from murder to rape, robbery and assaults.

While happily taking Mr. Sterling’s millions in exchange for playing basketball, players are cranking up the sounds of those rap artists in their cars, homes and locker rooms, filling the air with the N word and every vile, disgusting and hateful form of speech quite imaginable to a fellow thug but completely revolting to the rest of us.

Now this group falls all over each other to express their outrage about Sterling when they should be filled with justifiable and warranted self-loathing, not only for their hypocrisy, but for their own personal choices in life and failures as role models.

Silence

“I know black contractors who have gone out of business because their black workers were not prompt or had negative attitudes. I know black workers who take pride about going to work any hour they feel like it, taking the day off when they feel like it … Many leaders who are black and many white liberals will object to my discussing these things in public. But the decadence in the black community … is already in the headlines; the only question is what should we do about it.”

Let this be a lesson why political correctness, (PC) is really censorship disguised as goodness and righteousness.

Jesse Jackson made this above quoted statement in 1976.

If I, as a white writer had said this, many would accuse me of racism. Many in Jesse Jackson’s community likely called him an “Uncle Tom” for saying it. Still others, cowed into silence by the PC Gestapo, read these words and nod in silent agreement; looking left then right, making sure no one sees them.

PC stifles spirited dialogue, differing opinions and open, honest debate. That’s its intended function; to SHUT YOU UP. Your tortured silence is then taken as agreement and approval, providing the fabrication of virtual consensus and broad acceptance in its real, actual absence.

Nearly 40 years after Jesse Jackson made this remark we since have had men and women of color in the highest positions of power; from the current President of the United States, former Secretary’s of State, Senators, Congressmen and women, judges in the highest courts, Governors and others across the spectrum of leadership and influence throughout the country. And with these advances, one would expect that the experience of being a black American would have realized a corresponding change as well and by any measure it certainly has. It has by some standards deteriorated.

The likes of the Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s of the world, (aptly dubbed the “’poverty pimps” by former black congressman J C Watts), have demanded and obtained more and more government intervention and largess, intentionally replacing the traditional family, fatherhood and self-reliance with votes in exchange.

Robert Woodson Sr. is the CEO of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise and a black conservative. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, he is quoted describing the current governmental infrastructure of welfare like this. “My worry and my fear is that the money and the resources will go to the same racial grievance groups, the same members of what I call the poverty Pentagon. They’ll give it to Al Sharpton and the others to do what they’ve been doing for decades, to do what doesn’t work-what in fact is making things worse.”

And there you have it; and only because a black man had the courage to say it and this white writer had the temerity to re-phrase it in today’s PC America.

What happened to our voice? Do we still own an opinion, or shall we let others do our bidding? Your silence does just that.

Bob Kingsley

Port Dickinson, NY

(Article attribution to the WSJ, Saturday/Sunday print edition, April 19-20, 2014, page A11, Opinion page, “A Black Conservative’s War on Poverty”)

It is a fact that black Americans represent 12.6% of the US population. It is also a fact that black males represent approximately 55% of those in US prisons.

Race-baiters lecture us by stating that this disproportionality results from a discriminatory justice system, not because black men really commit more crimes.

It is also factual that black males represent 78% of the NBA and 65% of the NFL. How do the race baiters explain this?

How do those who make their livelihood fueling the race war explain why a country would on the one hand discriminate so aggressively against blacks in the criminal justice system while at the same time finding them statistically over-represented in the world of professional sports?

Wouldn’t a racist nation covet the fame and fortune of professional sports for themselves over those whom they supposedly despise? Would that same racist nation elect a black president?