Gun Control and Race: Taking Responsibility

 Former President Barack Obama recently said, in a interview with "CBS Mornings" on May 16, 2023, that the debate about gun control “has become sort of a proxy for arguments about our culture wars. You know, urban versus rural. Race is always an element in these issues.” He added that the debate over gun control has become an "ideological issue and partisan issue in ways it shouldn't".

Well, in a sense, the former President is correct. It has become an ideological and partisan issue in that the solution for Democrats and those on the Left is circumvent the 2nd Amendment in every way possible. They would like to make it illegal to own certain types of rifles simply because their stock has a military design such as the AR 15.

The media would have you believe that this is some sort of military grade firearm that somehow magically made its way into the hands of the public. For the record, an AR 15 doesn't stand for "Assault Rifle"  or "Automatic Rifle". It stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", the name of the original manufacturer, which is modeled after a military M-14 rifle.

The AR 15 is a semi-automatic rifle, the kind of which that have been around for decades and commonly for hunting or target shooting. Pretty much every manufacturer produces some sort of semi-automatic rifle. The only real difference here is the design of the stock which is intended to give it more of a "wow" factor.

The Left is also wanting to make it much more difficult to purchase handguns of all makes and models, if not outlaw them altogether.  There has even been some discussion by Democrats in Congress to require active duty and former military as well as law enforcement members to undergo special psychiatric exams  before being allowing to purchase any firearms, especially handguns.

Conservatives, as expected, deeply oppose any additional restrictions to gun ownership. They see it as an attempt to do away with gun ownership in piecemeal fashion until the average citizen is no longer able to own any firearms. They believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of all citizens to own a firearm, whether it be for hunting, target shooting, self-protection or no particular reason at all. But more so, as a bulwark against a tyrannical government as expressly stated by the Founding Fathers.

To paraphrase the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on the subject, a unarmed and unprepared populace is no longer a nation of citizens. It is a nation of subjects. They feared that any government, including the one they just created, could become despotic just as they feared the creation of political parties.  As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote".

However, what this actually comes down to is, as Obama suggests, a matter of urban versus rural and ultimately, one of race.  The truth is that Black youth are five times more likely than any other racial group to be murdered. They are also more likely to be murdered by another Black person than they are a white, Hispanic, or Asian. Whites and Hispanic youths are killed at a rate of 2.3 per 100,000. The percentage for Asian deaths is .90 per 100,000, while for black youth it's 11.8 per 100,000.

Statistics from a 2018 FBI report shows that 16% of white victims were killed by Black attackers while 8% of Black victims had white attackers. However, in crimes in general, in 80% of the cases where the victim was white, the perpetrator was also white. When it came to Black victims, the perpetrator was Black in 89% of the cases. Among Black youth, 8 out of 10 deaths by gun were homicides. The majority of which were committed by another Black individual.

A 2016 study conducted by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine examined 812 deaths in 17 states from 2009 through 2012 which involved law enforcement. The study showed that white individuals were more likely to be the victim of a police shooting than not. In fact, whites represented 52% of the deaths. Black deaths by a law enforcement officer represented just 32.4%, making white deaths 2.8% higher than that of blacks.

It should be pointed out that in 83% of the time, the victim was armed when shot by law enforcement. Black victims, however, were most often reported to be unarmed---18.4%---of the time compared to white victims, who were unarmed just 9.4% of the time. In addition, the report mentioned that black males were killed by law enforcement 2.5 times more often than their white counterparts. Black females were killed at a rate of 1.4 times more often than white females.

Could this be part of the cultural issue Obama spoke of? There is no question that Hispanics tend to avoid law enforcement. Many come from countries that have a long history of brutal and corrupt law enforcement officials where rape, extortion, bribery, and even murder are not unknown. Asians too have a fear and distrust of law enforcement for much the same reasons. Of course, in both cases, language differences add another layer of mistrust.

For whites, it's different. Most police officers and law enforcement officials are white. In fact, 60% of police officers are white. Historically, that number has been much higher. Hispanics make up about 18.2% while 12.9% of  police officers are Black and just 3.3% are Asian. Native Americans make up only 1%.

 As an aside, the number of white officers has declined since roughly 2019 while Hispanic officers have increased slightly since 2020, which also marks the same point where the number of Black police officers started to decline. The number of Asian and Native American officers has remained consistent.  

It's worth pointing out that males comprise 83.2% of all police officers while females make up 16.8%. Also, female officers earn, on average, just 94 cents for every dollar her male counterpart earns. The average salary for a male officer is $54,340 and $51,038 for female officers.

But what about Black culture? Why do blacks have higher percentage of arrests and fatalities when it comes to their dealings with law enforcement? Are they just unlucky and get caught more readily? The short answer is "no". While Asians and Hispanics have keenly developed distrust of law enforcement, both cultures have a strong appreciation for authority and authority figures in general. The same can be said of whites.

All three groups were historically taught from a young age to respect and follow authority figures, which was often reinforced at home. It was common when I was growing up to seek out a police officer or fireman if you were lost or in trouble. Neighbors would watch out for trouble and thought nothing of calling your parents to rat you out if you did something wrong. Churches and other religious institutions were another source of reinforcing the concept of authority. Schools too practiced strong discipline and misbehavior of any sort wasn't tolerated. 

However, this same level of compliance toward authority seems to be missing within the Black community. What happened? Part of the reason is due to the fact that typically white, Asian, and Hispanic households included two parents, and often grandparents, aunts, uncles, and lots of kids! It wasn't uncommon for extended family to live nearby and often visited. So, there was at least a stable family life. 

In Black households, this wasn't always the case. In 2011, 72% of Black households consisted of single mothers. In 2016, 48% of all non-Black households were married while just 28% of Black households were. According to one telling statistic, in 1925 Harlem New York, 85% of Black households had two parents. By 1965, following the introduce of various welfare programs, out-of-wedlock births had increased 25% among Blacks.  

By 1991, that figure was 68%.  As of 2017, it was 77.3%, the most of any racial demographic. This meant that Black children were disproportionately growing up without a father figure in their lives. It also means that most had little adult supervision during critical stages in their lives. While schools and other institutions attempted to fill the gap, they are no substitute for the traditional two parent family.

39% of Black children do not live with their biological father. 28% have no male role model in their lives, compared to 15% of white children. 32% of Black fathers have never visited their biological children as opposed to 11% of white fathers. As a result, black children lack a key stabilizing factor in their lives.

As an aside, 50% of Blacks have never been married compared to 33% of all other racial groups. Black males, interestingly, were also more likely--15%---to marry non-black women compared to just 7% of Black women who married outside their race. 

It's also worth nothing that single parent households are quickly on the rise among Hispanic women in the United States despite a history where out-of-wedlock births carried a strong religious and societal stigma. In Latin America for instance, the trend is spreading in spite of its strong Catholic traditions. 84% of births in Columbia are out-of-wedlock. Mexico, Chile, and Argentina have similar percentages. However, this doesn't mean the absence of a father figure, which remains a key element in Hispanic culture. Meanwhile, this trend has yet to appear in the Asian community.

Another key factor contributing to gun violence among the Black community, especially as it relates to the police, is a toxic culture toward institutional authority in general, and toward law enforcement in particular. It can even be found in some of the music Black youth and young adults tend to listen to (mainly "gangsta rap") which often glorifies guns, drugs, rape, and murder, especially of police officers.

Certain rap performers also promotes what is termed as "savage" or extreme rude behavior toward authority figures. This is often reinforced through peer pressure, which can be quite powerful among teenagers. It can be seen in schools, in malls, neighborhoods and reinforced in movies and video games, while the media (mainstream and Black oriented) has been persistently promoting a subculture of entitlement or victimhood coupled with the creation of "identity politics", a term which developed out of a 1977 statement made by the Combahee River Collective, a black feminist lesbian socialist group.

Identity politics creates false sense of separateness as if one particular group stands uniquely alone with its problems and thus develops a "us vs. them" mentality which pits them against everyone else.  At the same time, the media has sought to create a corresponding culture of subservience, manufactured "guilt", willfully ignoring or excusing the "savage" behavior by other racial groups. The media also tends to underreport or downplay certain acts of violence or inappropriate behavior in order to create a false sense of normalcy. 

Former President Obama is correct in his assessment. The rise in deaths among Black youth, and indeed, the increase in Black related crime and violence, is indeed as cultural as it is racial or ideological. We essentially have two competing cultures which are, at their core, the product of fractured families, the result of the unintended failure of various government programs, and a taught sense of distrust of authority figures, which is reinforced through misguided media, plus a glorification of anti-social behavior and "political correctness". Even in public schools, academic achieving black students are often harassed verbally or physically for "acting white".

So, what does all this mean? It means that Blacks experience a higher rate of gun related deaths any other racial group. It also means they are more likely to be the victim of a crime where the perpetrator also happens to be Black as well. They are also more likely to be the victim of law enforcement related deaths than not, particularly if they're male. Percentage wise, they have highest number of individuals behind bars, largely based on drug or felony. The media has perpetuated a sense of persecution and entitlement while excusing anti-social behavior.

 Nevertheless, the issue of gun control is, at its heart, aimed at controlling the spread of gun related violence. On one hand, gun control advocates believe that by taking guns out of the hands of all citizens, criminals would also voluntarily surrender their guns or obtaining guns would be more difficult to acquire. The end result would be a reduction crime in general. They believe that the 2nd Amendment is outdated and/or misconstrued. By forgoing this unnecessary freedom, it would be a small price to pay in order to create a less violent society. A case of sacrificing one freedom for the greater good of all.

Those who are pro 2nd Amendment, however, believes that the greater good is best served by creating as few potential victims as possible. They argue that if more people are armed or has access to guns, criminals would go elsewhere. After all they point out, criminals are, at their core, cowards. They seek out the opportunities where they're most unlikely to get caught or get hurt. By equaling the odds, gun related violence would decline. They also believe, like the Founding Fathers, that government is not to be trusted.

There a substantial distrust of government on both sides of the political spectrum. In a 2022 Pew Report, only 22% of those polled said they trusted the government. When broken down by race, Asians trusted the government most with 37% as did 29% of Hispanics. Just 24% of Blacks had confidence in the government compared to only 16% of whites. Democrats and Liberals in general expressed the greatest amount of trust with 26% while only 7% Republicans and Conservatives did! Independents also polled at 29%.

Another indicator of the divide is a survey conducted by Quinnipiac University and published in the February 16, 2023 edition of The Hill. According to the poll, 62% of respondents said trusted the police in most or all cases to do the right thing, which may sound good until you look as the responses by race.

72% of whites surveyed said that had confidence in law enforcement to do what was right at least most of the time. 49% of Hispanics agreed (Hispanics are the second largest demographic in the U.S.). However, 66% of Blacks expressed little or no trust in the police to do what was right! Asian responses were too small to tabulate.

That 66% represents 40.1 million people or about 12.1% of our total population. That is a substantial amount, especially when we member that they are affected more by gun related deaths than any other group. They also make up 38.5% of the total prison population. Whites and Hispanics comprise 57.5%. Native Americans are 2.6% and Asians are 1.4%. Nevertheless, Blacks incarceration rates are statistically higher given the percentage of their total population.  

We have to find a balance between reducing gun related violence and protecting ourselves. We require gun registration, age requirements, and waiting periods. Certain types of ammunition and gun modification kits (such as "bump stocks") are already banned. Schools used to offer gun safety classes which have long been discontinued. Law enforcements provide gun safety locks free of charge for anyone who asks.

What else can we do? We can reintroduce gun safety classes for first time purchasers of firearms or require periodic gun safety recertification for all gun owners. This can readily be done through the NRA and Gun Owners of America. In many states, certification classes are required to obtain carry and conceal permits. However, some states have done away with those, citing an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Currently, there is no registration requirements, background checks, or licenses required to purchase used firearms. Obviously creating a perfect venue for criminals. Perhaps extending the same requirements to buy new firearms should be applied to purchasing used firearms.

Efforts are underway to allow individuals to sue gun manufacturers for a gun related death. That makes as much sense as suing a car manufacturer in death of someone killed or injured in a automobile accident or suing a knife maker for cutting your finger. It's a complete abrogation of personal responsibility in my opinion.

Meanwhile, respect for law enforcement and authority figures such as teachers needs to be reintroduce. It means removing the graphic violence seen in video games which conditions young minds to devalue life. It means moving away the focus on anti-social behavior by reintroducing a sense of respect and responsibility of one's own actions and ending the sense of entitlement.

Guns are essentially a tool. They can be used for a multitude of purposes, most are good but some aren't. Either way it's the intention of the user not the tool that is at fault regardless of their race, religion, or ethnic background. We can reduce accidental shootings by using common sense such as gun safety training and keeping them away from children. But removing guns from law abiding citizens will have no affect on those who intend on harming others. Criminals don't care a whit about laws or restrictions. In fact, I dare say that criminals are the biggest supporters of gun control.

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Alarming rise in youth gun deaths breaksdown differently by race

Gun Quotes From 20 of America's Founding Fathers --- 2nd Amendment

Fact Check: Rates of white-on-white and black-on-black crimeare similar

Police Officer Demographics and Statistics In The U.S.

All Across Latin America, Unwed Mothers Are Now The Norm

Hispanic Family Values?

 

African-American Family Structure

The Origins of the 'Acting White' Charge

Public Trust in Government 1958 - 2022

Bureau of Prisons: Inmate Race

62 percent in new survey trust police to do what is right all or most of the time

The Impeachment of Donald Trump

Have you ever heard of the "50 Year Scandal Cycle? It's one of those urban myths which say that about every 50 years or so, Washington undergoes some sort of major crisis or scandal. In the early 1870's, former Union General and U.S. President, Ulysses S. Grant, was duped into the national "gold conspiracy" by the robber barons Jay Gould and James Fisk, along with members of his administration which included the Credit Mobilier and Whiskey Ring scandals. It almost cost Grant the presidency.

In the early 1920's, President Warren G. Harding's administration was caught up in the Teapot Dome scandal. Fortunately for Harding, he died before being implicated. Then in the early 1970's we had President Richard Nixon and the Watergate break-in. The result was Nixon resigning in order to avoid being facing possible impeachment while other took the fall. The next big scandal, according to the myth should be around early 2020, and right on cue, we have the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Of course, as with most urban myths, they tend to fall apart under scrutiny. After all, if you go back 50 years before Grant we have President James Monroe. His administration was relatively uneventful except for the Panic of 1819 which was caused by poor banking practices and rampant land speculation. We also had the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This created a balance of sorts between the admission of free and slave-holding states which held until the late early 1860.

Coming forward, we had other major events such as the Great Depression in 1929, which, although brought about by the economic policies of President Coolidge, were largely blamed in on Herbert Hoover. We had World War I under Woodrow Wilson and World War II under Franklin D Roosevelt, not to mention Korean and Vietnam wars as well as other economic downturns and social changes.

So while you can make of it as you will, there's no doubt that we are facing another key juncture in our nation's history. As a country, America is more divided along more lines than at any other time since the Late Antebellum Period just preceding the advent of the Civil War. At the center is President Donald Trump who is seen by the conservative Right as the last major barrier to a "socialist" or "Communist" take over by the Left. Meanwhile the Left sees Trump and his supporters as akin to Fascists or Nazis with both sides accusing the other of as the death harbinger to our nation's democracy. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Never mind the fact that we're nowhere near the accepted definition of "socialism" let alone Communism, and neither are we even remotely close to being like Nazi Germany. However, the death knell of our democratic Republic has long ago sounded. We are, as everyone should know, an Oligarchy; a tightly woven neo-fascist corporate-government alliance replete with a corporate owned propaganda wing in the form of the media. It has produced an emerging surveillance/police state, created under the auspices of "national security" which provides adequate cover to all those seeking to curtail our natural and Constitutional rights, not to mention a perpetual "war on terrorism" to artificially stimulate the economy and to "bled off" a "surplus" population and all the while making obscene profits. It has redefined "freedom of speech" and personhood. It has co-opted both political parties which now serves its interests while leaving us with the illusion of choice. Suffice it to say that America in the Age of Trump is a badly broken country, but I digress.

So what are we to make of the impeachment of Trump? Is it, perhaps, payback by the Democrats for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton? After all, he was originally brought up on four charges under the label of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Two were charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power relating to his affairs with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Two of the charges were dropped, and Clinton was brought up one count each of obstruction of justice and perjury. While Clinton was charged in a bipartisan vote in the House, he was ultimately acquitted along a split vote in Senate.

In the case of Trump, the move to impeach was strictly along partisan lines, at least in the House where Democrats are in control (and there is a personal vendetta against Trump being played out by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)). Nevertheless, when (and if) it goes to the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans and led by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), it will die an ignominious death amid partisan cries of "shame!". I wouldn't be surprised to see it remain in the House where it would be a matter of record, to be used by Democratic candidates as a club to bludgeon their Republican rivals with (especially a candidate Trump or anyone seeking to use his coattails).

But what is this really about? Trump is accused of two charges, obstruction of Congress and abuse of power stemming over his alleged attempts of using the promise of military aid and a White House meeting to get the President of the Ukraine, Volodymry Zelensky, to investigate a potential rival in the 2020 Presidential race, Joe Biden, along with his son Hunter, who has business dealings in the Ukraine.

These actually seem minor, especially when you look back at what transpired under the Obama Administration such as Benghazi, Fast and Furious, failure to reduce illegal immigration and DACA, failure to anticipate the 'Arab Spring' and the crisis in the Ukraine just to mention a few though I will add that him being "award" the Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing was a joke and greatly devalued the importance of the once prestigious award.

The Democrats (ie: Nancy Pelosi) claim that Trump's actions were tantamount to "high crimes and misdemeanors". They allege that President Trump was using his position "personal gain" when dealing President Zelensky which constituted abuse of power, and then by refusing to respond to repeated House inquiries had obstructed Congress. A "whistle-blower" report was filed by an unnamed intelligence officer who claimed that "he" had access to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky claimed that Trump was essentially trying to bribe the Ukrainian President.

However, both President Trump and President Zelensky both deny that anything of the sort happened. Besides, the military aid along with additional economic aid, were released as promised. If that was an attempt to bribe, it sure was a shoddy job. As for obstructing Congress, Trump maintains that he acted well within his presidential prerogative. Perhaps Nancy was miffed because she wasn't included in the discussions.

Additional investigation by the House via lopsided partisan hearings have produced a litany of partisan witnesses who appear to be testifying as much on heresy evidence than anything. Meanwhile, other witnesses, who may in fact be just as partisan, haven't been called despite requests by the Republican House members.

So, in the final analysis, what do we have here? Personally, I think we have the nation's divide on full display for not just the country to see, but for the whole world to witness. Secondly, we have the vitreous hatred of Pelosi for Donald Trump and all he stands for as a populist conservative on full view. She has gone out of her way from the day of Trump's election to impede and discredit Trump at every turn. Is it little wonder that she has led efforts to find a way to impeach Trump from the get-go? Of course, she's far from being the only one. Other Democrats have as well, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Elijah Cummings (D-MD) Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA). However, it has been Pelosi who has by far been the most determined.

In the end, this circus, which has cost taxpayers millions, will have accomplished little except to deepen the divide among Americans, but perhaps that's only a small bonus for the ruling Oligarchy which pulls the strings behind the curtains. Trump wasn't suppose to win. We was an outsider; a "sideshow" attraction as some of his fellow Republican candidates said of him in 2016. He wasn't one of the pre-vetted and pre-approved choices we were given. Besides, regardless of who the GOP nominee was, Hillary Clinton was the "chosen" candidate. She was supposed to receive her well deserved coronation, after which she could reward those who had supported and covered for her, not to mention use her position to bury once and for all her numerous sins of state.

But that didn't happen. Instead, a populist conservative with a reputation of being someone who spoke his mind and wouldn't be "managed" was elected. It meant that the Status Quo---the Oligarchy---had to place its plans on hold. There was even the danger that much of what they'd accomplished could be derailed or undone. It also meant that some may even be publicly exposed, which would violate a cardinal rule that was never to be violated.

I think that, in the end, this impeachment process has had but a single objective. That objective is to destroy President Trump's chances of being reelected. In short, it's nothing more than a desperate attempt at character assassination. A President hindered with the charge of impeachment, even if ultimately acquitted, could be viewed as someone who can't be trusted with power of the American Presidency. That would leave the American People with no other choice but to vote for the candidate the ruling Oligarchy has selected for us. Whether we chose to accept their selection remains to be seen.



Barack Obama Was a Foreign Policy Failure

Impeachment Inquiry Against Donald Trump

Trump impeachment inquiry: A simple guide


Top Democrats set to make Trump's life miserable in 2019

Where's The Outrage? America's Political Apathy

A few weeks ago former President Barack Obama gave a speech before Democracy Alliance. The speech was one of those typical "rah rah" events designed to rally the troops. Mr. Obama stated that one of the problems facing the Democratic Party was that the people no longer knew what the party stands for. He pointed out that much of what the public saw and heard came from the Far Left through Twitter feeds and other social media outlets; much of it promoting "crazy stuff".

I can't say that I disagree with Obama on that point. Most of what we see and hear are, in fact, some pretty outlandish ideas. However, there were several other points made in his speech which caught my attention. First, much of what he said seemed to reflect his support for the military-industrial state and Wall Street.

Historically, the Democratic Party was seen as the "working class" or "blue collar" party. However, that changed decades ago as unions began losing their financial and political clout and the party became ever increasingly propped up by the super wealthy and corporations. This was especially true after the infamous "Citizens United" decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. which effectively ended any remaining illusions of our country's republican ideals.

Today, both the Democrat and Republican parties are owned by corporate interests, and with them, their politicians. Their lobbyists help write legislation and then actively promote its passage through Congress. As a result, we've devolved from a representative or democratic Republic into a defacto Oligarchy; a plutocracy. A neo-Fascist state if you will.

Mr. Obama went on to say that America "is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement". He added that Americans “like seeing things improved. But the average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.” While it's absolutely true that Americans have lost a willingness to impose changes on our broken system, I question his comment that we aren't wanting to see the system totally remade. He made it sound like we're apathetic; like we're content to wallow in a muck not of our making until someone else comes along to clean it up for us.

Right now, there are thousands of mass protests happening around the world, from Chile to Hong Kong. Citizens are openly challenging their government (some even have reputations for brutal reprisals and repression) over issues such as freedom of speech, movement, expression---including that of religion, the climate, and free enterprise. Yet here in the U.S., with Congress maintaining dismal approval ratings for decades, where are the protests? In other countries, similar ratings are often enough of a concern to threaten governmental stability.

As an example, during the week of November 1, 2019, Congress had a disapproval rating of 72% (with 3% having no opinion)! Can you imagine? Governments in other countries would have collapsed with those kind of numbers. Congress hasn't seen an approval rating in the thirties since the last week in August...2009! And this isn't a "Republicans only" issue. The American People have soured on both parties, keeping the approval rating in the dumpster regardless of who controls the Senate or House. In fact, the same October poll asked if we approved of the way Democrats or Republicans were doing their job. 60% said no to both.

I think Americans know beyond the shadow of doubt that the political (and to a large degree, the judicial system) are broken beyond repair. No amount of "reform" or changing the window dressing (ie: voting out the incumbents) are going to fix it. Yet, we sit on our couches watching TV or playing video games, lost in the noise, and do nothing. Sure, we may "bitch and moan" on social media (while subconsciously aware that the new surveillance state is probably reading everything we write) or complain to friends or coworkers. A few may be willing to sign online petitions, but not much more than that happens.

Yeah, the Left have staged a few protests, but very few have been large (perhaps the largest to date was during President Trump's inauguration by Antifa) or sustained. The last best example was the "Occupy Movement" in 2011. Most have been small ad hoc protests attempting to block intersections or highways (a really lame idea by the way) or appearing at Trump or conservative gatherings. As for the Right, they haven't staged any mass protests that I'm aware of. At best, it's been relatively small counter protests. However, all have been directed at the other side. None at the political system itself.

Over the decades, protests against the government have been fairly successful. Look back to the Civil Rights movement. It included calculated acts of defiance designed to attract public attention such as in 1955 with Rosa Parks sitting in a "whites only" section of a city bus in Montgomery Alabama, four black students sitting at a "whites only" lunch counter at Woolworths in Greensboro North Carolina in 1960, or the Freedom Riders in parts of the South in 1961. These were coordinated with mass marches on state capitols along with demands for Congress and the President to act.

The Vietnam War was replete with examples. Everything from sit-ins, protests outside government offices, mass marches, draft card burnings, occupying college administration offices and recruiting stations, and other acts of refusal aimed specifically at garnering the public's attention. It even branched out to include popular celebrities and TV shows (remember the Smothers Brothers?) to incorporating its message in the era's music and arts. Of course, there were, unfortunately, acts of violence brought on by groups such as the Black Panthers (which evolved out of the Black Power Movement), the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weathermen, and the SLA.

Some was the result of and in response to acts of violence by the KKK and Neo-Nazis who used violence as acts of intimidation (such as blowing up churches, schools, beatings, or outright assassinations). The government too got in on the act by illegally wiretapping, surveillance, break-ins, reading stolen mail, physical intimidation, blackmail, imprisonment, fines, tax audits. Of course, we can't forget the Chicago Police riots during the Democratic National Convention in 1969 or the Ohio National Guard shootings at Kent State in 1970 in which four students were murdered and nine were injured.

There was, of course, the Women's Liberation, Environment, Farm workers, and Gay Pride movements as well as the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the late 60's early 70's. Those weren't known for their violence, but more for the shock value of women publically removing and burning their bras or gays holding parades aimed intentionally at gaining public attention by their outrageous dress and behavior, or the widespread boycotting of certain businesses. Nevertheless, these movements had as their objective equal pay and fair employment laws. They incorporated not just demonstrations, but citizens lobbying (including petitions) and working together to elect supporters to office.

Ultimately, these groups were largely successful. We saw the passage of the Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Under President Richard Nixon the war in Vietnam finally ended thanks to public pressure by 1973. President Nixon also signed into law various bills aimed at cleaning up the air, water, protecting wildlife and consumer safety.

There was the passage of equal wage, fairness in housing and employment laws along with better working conditions for migrant and seasonal workers. However, while there were some initial improvements on Native American reservations, much was left undone, especially when it came to housing, education, and medical care because the pressure wasn't maintained.

Nowadays, with the advent of the internet and social media, it's much easier to organize marches and protests aimed at a unresponsive government, but where is it? Why are the limited demonstrations aimed at either side when corporate/government corruption is the ultimate "villain" in the act? I think the answer is that politicians and corporations got a lot smarter.

First, they redirected their PR departments to focus on creating a more friendly public image by trying to get involved with local projects, emphasis jobs, gloss over outcomes, and changed advertising techniques (for a great example, take a look at the oil and gas companies and how to cover spills or court orders). Even the military did a makeover to make itself more appealing by emphasizing education, training, and "adventure".

Politicians learned to create a more "common man" image; even changing their language to sound more "down to earth", rolling up their sleeves, or hiding their elite professional and academic credentials; telling voters what they want to hear or disguising their votes. Corporations and government also got a lot cozier, especially after Citizens United which opened up the financial floodgate and all but eliminated ordinary citizens from the process.

It's more common now than 20 years ago for politicians or key staffers to turn lobbyists, earning millions to solicit their former colleagues, and you best bet that nepotism is alive and well with spouses, family members and close friends securing some very lucrative positions. Meanwhile, lobbyists "help" write legislation, provide bill summaries (and their recommendations), and freely engage in what can be called as legalized bribery.

With nearly unlimited financing of their campaigns, along with partisan gerrymandering, no term limits, it has become nearly impossible to dislodge an incumbent. They changed election laws to all but eliminate Independents and third party candidates from debates. With these same corporations owning 90+% of all media outlets, Indies and third parties are either ignored or treated like the clown car in a two ring circus. It has resulted in creating a professional political elite; a ruling class.

We've devolved into is duopoly bought and paid by a super wealthy Oligarchy with its own values and separate laws. Society has become basically a two tier economic system with the top one percent controlling 40% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 80% control just 7%. The gap between the top 10% and everyone else is 1000% of their entire wealth.

A free nation cannot survive with a political system which caters to a tiny fraction of its population, or in which the vast majority of its population is all but eliminated from the process. We're encouraged to no longer think of ourselves as citizens of a country but as global consumers. Our worth is determined by our credit rating. Our differences are magnified out of proportion to what we have in common. Americans have been manipulated. We no longer know who to believe or trust. Our hopes have been distorted into "either/or" conflicts with others.

Worse yet, we've seen this corporate/government partnership (what Benito Mussolini defined as a "Fascist" relationship) attempt to restrict or deprive us of our rights. We've seen attempts at restricting our freedom of speech and expression, our ownership of guns, to freely travel, taxation without consent, being detained without charge, what we consume, our right to privacy, and even our right to protest. Did you that there are currently 20 states with pending legislation aimed at restricting our ability to protest? Four states---North and South Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma---already have laws on the books to restricting protests. Where is our outrage?

Former President Obama is, I believe, wrong when he says that Americans don't want to "tear down the system and remake it". We do. We want to return to our representative Republic which offered each of us an equal opportunity to reach for our dreams. That doesn't mean we'll succeed. Outcomes were never guaranteed, only a level playing field. We want to return to a time where a limited government represents the people...not the super wealthy and not corporations.

If the Democratic Party can provide that, then so be it. If the Republicans can, great. If it takes a Independent or third party, then so much the better. Until then, we need to remember that protests and demonstrations work. They have worked in the past and they are working now all over the world. We must, as a nation, come together to remind those in office and those who control them that we---you and I---have the power. It's time to take back our country.


Gallup Poll: Congress and the Public

United States presidential approval ratings

Wealth inequality in the United States

Obama Tells His Party's Elites to Relax

Do You Trust the Government?

With the Presidential election cycle, among others, starting to heat up, now would be a good to time to ask yourself, "do you trust the government?". As we all know, we're no longer a democratic Republic as originally intended by our Founding Fathers. Instead, we've become a defacto Oligarchy whereby government and the super-wealthy (along with their global corporations) work in tandem to the point where are interests are overlooked (or better, ignored) approximately 99% of time according to some surveys (at best, our interests are addressed only about 10% of the time). So, what do you think, how much faith do you have in government?

According to a recent Gallup Poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans have little or no faith in government regardless of which of the two corporate owned party holds sway. As of late January 2019, only 10% of those polled indicated that they had faith in government. 31% said they had a "fair amount" while 57% had little or no confidence whatsoever.
Let me tell you, in practically every other country on this planet those numbers would be a near guaranteed that a massive revolt or revolution was about to happen. These type of results would have most government leaders shopping around for a nice place to spend in exile somewhere.

In terms of domestic policy, 63% of the population believes government can't be trusted to get it right. Think about for a minute. 63% of Americans, regardless of party, ideology, gender, age, religion or whatever have no faith in Washington's ability to deal with the issues which directly affects us each and every day. Yet, for some mysterious reason we keep falling for their same old repackaged ideas and "solutions".

In looking specifically at the different branches of government, we find that as of the end of 2018 (the most recent result) there's not much difference. 59% of the American People have little or no confidence in Congress. Of course, the approval rating for Congress has been dismal for decades; sometimes barely making it out of single digits! As for the Judicial Branch, which includes not just the federal courts, but the "unSupreme" Court as well, it's much better. 68% actually trust either a lot or a fair amount the Judicial Courts.

To get a balance perspective, I checked with Pew Research to see what they showed. The poll I looked at was the most comprehensive on trust in government from 1958 through 2015. According to them, just 19% of citizens have any trust in government. Yikes! By comparison, they number was 80% in 1963 under President John Kennedy's Administration. My how things have changed.

Pew also broke the trust factor down by party. It found that just 26% of the Democrats and Republicans trust the federal government. Given that it's largely a problem of partisan making, it's a little surprising that the figure was so low. As an aside Independents distrust the government about 70% of the time (conservative leaning is about 71% while liberal leaning is roughly 67%).

If we look at other factors like age or race, we find that younger voters (mainly Millennials and Gen Z, both of which having shown support for socialism) trust the federal more than older voters---27% among 30 and under; 19% for those 31 to 49; and 15% for those 50 and over. So while the younger generation trusts government more, the numbers are far from stellar.

Among whites in general, a mind-boggling 84% either have little to no trust in Washington. Blacks distrust the federal government by a margin of 77% to 23%. For Hispanics (many of whom having come from totalitarian regimes) 69% have little or no faith in government. These are staggering numbers; the kind of which that indicate a fundamentally flawed societal foundation of the kind you would expect to see of a nation in a "death spiral". Historically speaking, few countries have been able to survive numbers like these and emerge unchanged to their core.

As an interesting aside, those with a post-graduate degree have any trust in the government about 23% of the time. That means among the academic professionals (professors, doctors, lawyers, etc) 76% have little or no faith in Washington. Those with a Bachelor or Masters degree have an even lower opinion. 80% of them keep their hand on their wallet when Washington comes knocking. Finally, individuals with a High School diploma, GED, or less trust government just 19% said they had any faith in the federal government.

Finally, I wanted to look at the approval rating of each of the institutions I mentioned starting with President Trump. As of the first two weeks of July 2019, Trump's approval rating stood at 44%. Obama's average for his first term was 49%, so despite all the "fake news" being manufactured by the corporate owned media, Trump isn't doing too bad (the average for all Presidents is 53%).

As for Congress, through the first two weeks of July 2019, their disapproval rating stood at 76%. Lastly, the Supreme Court. Rasmussen, which had the latest polling results of the high court, found that 60% of those surveyed approval of their decisions. Meanwhile, 40% said that the ideological balance was about right with 24% saying it's too liberal and 36% saying it was too conservative.

The poll also broke down the responses by political affiliation and race as well. It found that 77% of Republicans approved of the Supreme Court's decisions along with 57% of Democrats and 50% of Independents. 64% of whites agreed as well as 52% of Hispanics and 51% of blacks. Interestingly, the poll also revealed that Justice Ruth Ginsberg was the most popular member of the court while Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a higher name recognition, albeit only slightly.

Einstein once famously remarked that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Are the American People insane or are we just that easily duped by propaganda. Maybe we're just lazy. The US Office of Strategic Services made the following observation about Adolf Hitler their psychological profile of the Nazi leader, "His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it". You could apply that same description to describe how both of the political parties as well as the corporate media acts vis-à-vis it relationship with the American People. I guess someone was paying attention after all.

So what do you think? With numbers like these (which, by the way, have been long trending), why do we keep voting in the same crooks and charlatans time and again? We know they are lying just as we know they have no intention of representing us. We know or should know that it was our actions (or inactions as the case may be) has led to the loss of our Republic.

The American People should understand by now that we need term limits; that we must end political gerrymandering; that at least at the state level, we need voter ballot initiatives and referendums and that we, the taxpayers, should have the final say on rate, tax, and salaries increases. It's our money and Lord knows that politicians can't be trusted with money. We also must remove Citizens United and get unlimited corporate money out of politics as well as end the revolving door between government, Wall Street, and E Street where is the lair for lobbyists. By the way, 80% of voters oppose Citizens United.

Until we do these things, we will continue to become bystanders to a government which was supposed to represent you and I regardless of our political leanings. In the absence of action by us, the voters and citizens of this country, money will fill the void. Lastly, if you have any doubts, I encourage you to check out the links below. We have to act.



Politicians Don't Actually Care What Voters Want

Trust in Government

Trust in government: 1958 - 2015


Presidential Approval Ratings--Donald Trump

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

0% Approve of Supreme Court Performance; Plurality Believes Ideological Balance About Right

Citizens United Poll: 80 Percent of Americans Oppose Supreme Court Decision

Karma: It Can Be A Bitch You Know (Especially in Politics)

You know, they say that Karma is bitch, which I have often seen proven true. There's also a saying by the great Chinese military and political strategist, Sun Tzu, which say that "if you wait by a river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by". Perhaps is this no better applied than in the world of politics. Not long ago, many pundits were predicting about the decline and fall of the Republican Party. The Reagan Revolution had come and gone. George H.W. Bush had liberated Exxon and BP...uh...I mean Kuwait.. from the evil clutches of our regional Iranian counterweight...I mean that ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile our national economy was sputtering, and right on queue came an unknown governor from Hope Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, better known to all simply as "Bill" and his "barely concealed" Machiavellian wife, Hillary. Well, those eight years proved to be a lot of fun didn't they? The economy bounced backed; there were some pretty positive initiatives passed, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act and Megan's Law, along with a few goofs like NAFTA and expanding NATO into Eastern Europe.

We got ourselves involved in a few civil wars, such as Mogadishu and in former Yugoslavia, and his failure to kill and/or capture Osama bin Laden at Kandahar when he had the chance. Of course, we can't forget the impeachment hearings and his lying to Congress (which apparently hinged on what the definition of "is" is). However, most people simply didn't care. They felt that was between Bill, Hillary, and his "victim-of-the-month". After all, the economy was doing great and that was all that mattered. By the time Clinton left office, the Democratic Party was doing pretty well, while the GOP was busy trying to redefine itself and remain relevant after their 1994 "Contract With America" turned out to be more of a "Contract On America" and blew up in the collective faces.

So, then came George "Dubya" Bush, aka "Shrub". I think what most people liked about Shrub...err...George was his laidback easygoing attitude. It seems everyone had an uncle like George locked away somewhere. He proved that anyone with a "D+" grade point average; who was unsuccessful as a businessman, a poor military record, a recovering alcoholic, but had lots of family money and connections could still become president, thus proving the "American Dream" was still alive.

Then again, it could be that voters just couldn't stand elitist Al Gore. Here was a man who just couldn't connect with the American People. He was "insider royalty". He was so elitist that his attempts to fit in with ordinary American's was comical. Then came the presidential debates and Gore's attempts to bully or intimidate Bush (which Bush just laughed off, along with the rest of America on national television).

Now, here was a guy born in the Heart of America, Washington DC (if you're the Tin Man); the son of wealthy and powerful Senator, Albert "Al" Gore Sr, who represented the flyover state of Tennessee. The future VP attended Harvard and Vanderbilt, and volunteered to go to Vietnam as an ordinary private, where he served with the 20th Engineer Brigade as a journalist. He would go on to serve in Congress from 1977 to 1993, when he was selected to run as Clinton's choice of VP. Regardless, Gore just couldn't connect with the American People.

Much to the surprise of the Democrats, who were still riding the Clinton high, "Dubya" won the election. As first, he seen as something of a joke: the proverbial class clown who somehow managed to steal the prom queen from the school jock. Even many Republicans started to shake their heads in embarrassed wonderment. Thankfully, there was some old hands of his dad (and the Establishment) to steer his Ship of State along the dangerous narrows; individuals like VP Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, AG John Ashcroft, Reich Secur...uh...I mean...Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. There Elaine Chao, the wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, who headed up the Department of Labor, as well as two excellent Secretaries of State, Former General Colin Powell and later, Condoleezza "Condi" Rice.

Nevertheless, it was one event which sealed Bush's presidential legacy more than any other, and that was September 11, 2001; better known simply as "9/11". It was the one event which has come to symbolize the early 21st Century. It was the day where America was deliberately attacked by an enemy most Americans didn't even know existed, from a country that some would have trouble finding on a map, and by a group the majority of Americans had never heard of...Al Qaeda.

However, there were some who had heard of its leader....Osama bin Laden; the same bin Laden whom Bill Clinton's Administration failed to kill years earlier (and the same individual whom the CIA picked out as potential leader decades before), after Russia invaded Afghanistan during the final months of the Carter Administrations and the beginning of Reagan's (under "Operation Cyclone", the CIA provided military aid, intelligence reports, training, and logistics to Afghani rebels known as the "Mujahideen", of which bin Laden was one).

This cowardly attack has often compared to the Japanese sneak attack on December 7, 1941 on Pearl Harbor, of course led to US and some allied troops to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and indirectly, led to the US and some Coalition troops to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein; apparently his usefulness had run out, and then again, maybe he knew too many secrets. The excuse this time was "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMDs", which we were repeatedly assured not only existed, but that Saddam was about to unleash on the world! Of course, as we were to learn later, they didn't exist. However, for Saddam and his cronies, he didn't matter. Only the perception that he did mattered. The outcome was a foregone conclusion...he and most of his ministers were executed.

Since then, efforts to rebuild both Afghanistan and Iraq have proved to be much more difficult than originally predicted and has led to a quagmire which we're still dealing with today. Meanwhile, "Dubya" exited the stage with the public's opinion of his administration pretty low (he has the unique distinction of having both the highest and lowest approval ratings, 51% and 25% respectively). At this juncture, the Democrats were feeling a bit more confident about the prospects for the upcoming presidential and Congressional elections. What nobody expected was a political "nobody" coming to the forefront...Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Obama was unique in several ways. First, he was bi-racial---black on his father's side and white on his mother's. Second, there wasn't much know about his formative years for sure. There were (and remain) many questions over his place of birth; his education in Indonesia and apparently Muslim upbringing; his education in Hawaii, as well as family and personal friends with far Left or Communist sympathies, including former 60's radical and member of the Weathermen, Bill Ayers. Barack Obama was pretty much an unknown at college, despite his claims to contrary. While he claimed to be a law professor, he was in fact actually an adjunct instructor who taught just a handful of courses. In terms of having any real political experience, he was a neighborhood organizer for ACORN. He ultimately managed to fill an empty seat in the Illinois Senate and amassed no memorable record (voting mostly "here" or "present"). He was later, in 2005, that he was elected to fill an empty US Senate seat. It was as "Junior" Senator, with no national or even regional name recognition, that he decided to run for president (a highly unusual and risky political move).

What made the move that much more risky was that he would face the odds on favorite, Senator Hillary Clinton (she had changed her residency to New York to run for Bobby Kennedy's old seat, thus creating a link between the Clinton's and the Kennedy's (Bill Clinton met JFK as young man and has remained a lifelong admirer). Ultimately, Clinton lost in a highly contested campaign to the Junior Senator. Obama would go on to face Senior Senator John McCain, a disabled Vietnam War veteran, former POW, and a highly distinguished Naval pilot who came from a long line of Naval officers.

John McCain, who first rose to national prominence while he was a prisoner of war, held in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton". He later became a US Senator in 1987, after having served as member of the House of Representatives. McCain quickly earned a reputation for being outspoken and frequently disagreed with GOP party bosses. He was seen by many as a moderate or a more "traditional" conservative. Given McCain's reputation and name recognition, it was presumed that he would easily beat the Illinois upstart. However, that wasn't to be the case.

Barack Obama used his youth, bi-racial status, and charismatic speaking ability to attract the emerging Millennials, who are the largest voting demographic, while McCain's appealed mainly to the aging Babyboomers. There was also a notable difference between the two campaigns. McCain's campaign conformed primarily to the more tradition format (with the novelty of selecting an unknown for VP, non-conformist Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to attract the more conservative elements of the GOP. Ironically, Palin would prove to be more popular among Tea Parties and some other conservatives than McCain). Obama's campaign was based more on the use of social media, including his use of the internet to raise money. In the end, McCain was outspent 4 to 1, and Obama won with 53% of the vote compared to McCain's 46%. Obama's first term, however, did light a spark under the Democrats, though the numbers were pretty much average with his accomplishments (except golf outings. There Obama wins hands down with 113). Immediately after becoming president, Obama was also roundly booed by public opinion for being "awarded" the "Nobel Peace Prize", an honor he didn't earn, and as a result, tarnished the award for all future recipients. However, it would be his second term which would become most noteworthy. First though, he had to defeat the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts.

Rome had its Crassus. The Democratic Party has its Al Gore. The Republicans have Mitt Romney. Romney, like Al Gore, comes from a prominent political family. Both of his parents, George and Lenore were very active in politics (his mother even ran for office), while his father went to work for the Nixon Administration as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and then, later, as Governor of Michigan. In addition to coming from a established political family, they were also Mormon. Mitt also made a fortune while working for Bain Capital (and ultimately as CEO) through leveraged buyouts. His net worth is estimated to be $250 million (his wife, the daughter of heavy construction equipment co-founder Jared Industries, Edward and Lois Davies, is worth some $50 million).

Like McCain, Mitt Romney just didn't connect with ordinary Americans. He had no real understanding of their issues, and certainly didn't share their working class values. He came across as arrogant and pandering. When the dust settled, Obama had won his second term with just over 51% compared to Romney's 47.21%. What hurt Obama in this election was the lower return of Millennials, who, while strongly disapproving of Romney, were disappointed in Obama's first term performance.

Obama's second term proved to be controversial, from de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants (and a questionable lawsuit against Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws), to the illegal sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, the "Obamacare" healthcare law (which was unconstitutionally altered by the Supreme Court. In addition, prior promises by Obama, such as keeping healthcare providers, existing insurance, all turned out to be false). Perhaps worse of all, was the lies surrounding the Benghazi attack and the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three former special forces/CIA operatives amid illegal arms shipments to Syria and the same terrorists were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (except in Syria, where we suddenly called them "freedom fighters", since they opposed Russia's longtime regional ally). But, what difference did that matter?

The situation in the Middle East failed to improve as did his attempts at expanding gun control to ban "assault" weapons. IRS official Lois Lerner testified that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been targeted by the IRS. Obama also pressed for a land invasion of Syria which was met with absolute rejection by the American People. Obama's Secretary of the Veteran Affairs, Eric Shenski, was forced to resign over charges of mistreatment, misreporting, and prolonged delays resulting in appointment backlogs and preventable veteran deaths. On the plus, Navy SEALs did find and kill Osama Bin Laden, despite delay's by the Obama Administration.

Obama, like Clinton's NAFTA, signed TransPacific Partnership, again selling out unions. We also had "Citizens United" upheld, which gave corporations the same rights as humans, except when it came to political contributions, where they were permitted near unlimited "free speech" (as donations were euphemistically called), while it remained limited for ordinary flesh and blood types. Without question, Obama's second term didn't live up to expectations, by Obama, his administration, or the American People. His approval rating for his second term only averaged 47.9% while the public's confidence in government slumped to a mere 30%.

So, there you have it. All the "static" about Trump's success or failures so soon into his first term is just that...static. Each political party has its ups and down. The big difference in Trump's case, is the open season by the corporate managed media. Trump was the "unexpected" candidate; he was the anti-establishment candidate that didn't come with strings attached. The media and political establishment----both corporate owned parties, the "K" Street lobbyists, the "princesses and snowflakes", and all those with dirty hands---already had Hillary crowned and enthroned. They were wrong. The public knew her record and they rejected it. Perhaps...just perhaps...Americans have finally had enough. We can only hope.



Obama's first term: By the number


Republicans for Obama


Obama's second term: A timeline


Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of Government

America: Is Destroying Statues and Disrespecting the National Anthem the Answer?

Forty. That is approximately how many Confederate memorials and statues which have been removed thus far (the number varies slightly, depending on the source). However, there are some 700 Confederate plaques, memorials, and statures still remaining to be either melted down and sold for scrap, or simply hidden away for all eyes to see. While a few of these statues were erected recently, many are closer to be being at least a century old. These forty or so remembrances were erected to honor and remember those who fought and died for the Southern Cause. Many of these range from small plaques to the side of a mountain.

Former South Carolina Governor Nicky Halley removed the Confederate Flag from the state capitol. Now she is Ambassador to the United Nations. Other states which still have references to the "Southern Cross" (or "Stars and Bars" as it's more commonly known) in their state flag, such as Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, or Alabama have been under pressure to remove them or adopt a new flag. We've also seen where demands that the bodies of Confederate General Nathan B Forrest and his wife be dug up and removed from a public cemetery and moved to a private cemetery by none other than Memphis Mayor, AC Wharton. Yet, while it hasn't actually happened yet, the Left doesn't have any shortage of members who would be glad to do it. Forrest was one of the South's greatest general (as an aside, while Forrest's body and that of his wife haven't been removed, there was an attempt by members of Antifa and BLM to remove the bodies which was thwarted). Can you ever imagine that Americans would stoop that low? It's not like we have no respect for the dead or honoring those who've fallen. Both the South and North fought for what they believed was right; both sides invoked God aid their cause.

Of course, much more has been done. Efforts have been made to prevent the display or selling of Confederate flags or memorabilia on public property. Some small businesses located on Civil War battlefields have been forced to close. There has been demands to change the names of streets, schools, and universities, along with any mascots or other references to the Confederacy (in full disclosure, I briefly attended J.E.B. Stuart Junior High School (go Rebels!) during the late 60's). The reason, if that's the proper word for it, is that the Confederacy was our own "evil empire" to borrow from the President Ronald Reagan and his remark about Soviet Russia. According to the Far Left (aka the Alt-Left), every Southerner at the time was a whip carrying low brow illiterate brut determined to carry on the institution of slavery for its own glory while the noble North, immune from slavery's ill-gotten profits was determine to liberate the down trodden of the South through its destruction.

Of course, that's all so much hogwash. Just under 4% of the entire South owned any slaves at all. Of that, around 2% owned more than three slaves and few yet owned enough to qualify as a plantation. Most of the South was small businesses and Yeoman farmers where the slave and their masters worked side by side and ate the same food. In some border states, free black landowners even owned black slaves (some scholars thing that the reason for this was that these individuals may have been distant relatives and the black slave owner was trying to keep them together). The beneficiary of Southern labor was primarily Northern businessmen who had a vested interest in perpetuating the slave economy since it produced low priced products. Who could resist a deal right? However, the importation of slaves ended decades before the Civil War (in 1808 to be exact); it was a fading industry. Technology was gaining ground. Slaves could be replaced and greater profits earned. Even the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, remarked that without the war, the institution of slavery would have ended on its own within a decade. Union President Abraham Lincoln stated several times that his interest wasn't on slavery, but the preservation of the nation. Even his famous "Gettysburg Address" and the Emancipation Proclamation, which followed one of the bloodiest and most destructive battles, Gettysburg, reemphasized this.

Lincoln understood that the South would not give up. It would fight as long as it could field soldiers. So, with his famous address Lincoln hoped he could hasten the end of the war. His Proclamation, which was technically illegal since it pertained to states which had seceded and he did not control, freed all slaves in the states which left the union. It was his hope that by doing this, the slaves would leave the fields and the crops would start to rot literally on the vine and in the ground. Knowing that this would mean mass starvation and since the overwhelming majority of Confederate soldiers were small Yeoman farmers, Lincoln anticipated they would begin deserting in order to tend to the crops and keep their families from starving. However, the Proclamation didn't include those slave holding states which, while sympathetic with the Southern Cause, did not leave the union (as an aside, many of these states didn't even affirm the 14th Amendment ending slavery until the 1970's. Seriously).

Ok, so much for the history lesson. The war has been over for 150 years. Nowhere was Confederate memorials, plaques, or the display of Confederate flags and so forth been an issue. Not during Reconstruction, as disastrous to the South as that was. Not during or after any of the other great upheavals in American history such as the Spanish-American War, World War I and II. Not during the fights for Women's Suffrage or right to unionize. Not during Korea or Vietnam. It wasn't an issue during the era of the Civil Rights Movement; the "Freedom Riders", the marches by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and Reverend Ralph Abernathy. It was never raised as an issue by Malcolm X or Bobby Seale. Even when the Confederate flag was hijacked by the KKK or later by neo-Nazi groups. People knew the difference; to separate those who fought and died for a war which ended over a century ago and those who sought racial division.

Why wasn't anything said or done under President Johnson's "War on Poverty"? I can't recall anyone from either the Democratic or Republican parties making an issue out of this...ever. Not even during the era of the Dixiecrats. Where was the outcry under Reagan, or Bill Clinton, or especially, during the two terms of Barack Obama? Certainly, if there was ever a time to ban flags on graves of Confederate war dead or make statues and other inanimate objects illegal, that would have been the time. But it didn't happen. Why is that I wonder? What happened? A few weeks ago, a young black female entered a Hobby Lobby store and begin a tirade over a display of stemmed cotton in vases. This individual went off; talking about how the display was an affront to her since her ancestors were (allegedly) slaves who were forced to pick cotton. WTH? Naturally, I wondered if she owned any cotton clothing or sheets.

As if that's not bizarre enough, we've had masked and unmasked members of "Antifa" and BLM try to block traffic on streets and highways, attack police officers during their "peaceful" demonstrations, shout down speakers who were invited to speak at their colleges and universities, dousing people with various nasty stuff, and tearing down statutes, plaques and anything else they didn't approve of. But that isn't the end of it. Not only have these individuals gone after Confederate flags, memorials, and the occasional dead rebel, they're expanding this to include remembrances of others they dislike like Theodore Roosevelt (what's not to like about "Teedy"?), FDR, Jefferson and the rest of our Founding Fathers, as well as prominent individuals whose ancestors may have owned slaves, and yes, even their mythic benefactor, Ole Abe himself. I'm surprised that they haven't tried to dig him up just to shoot him again. They've convinced some athletes at football games to disrespect the playing of the National Anthem.

While this statement hasn't set well with fans, it has spread to high school, junior high schools, and various football leagues (of course, many of these kids haven't the foggiest as to the real meaning , they know that their football heroes on TV are doing it and it gets them some attention). The fact is that if these rich jocks want to make a political statement, that's fine. They just need to do it on their own time, that that of the fans who pay good money to set in those seats or the fans at home for which advertisers pay big bucks to reach. Fans want to see a game. Period. If these players want to express their political opinions, do it on their time, not that of the fans or the advertisers.

There's also been a litany of other strange acts of outrage, like "cultural appropriation". Just what is that you wonder? Well, it's where one racial or ethnic group claims that a particular hair style, item(s) of jewelry, clothing, music, or even manner of speaking is exclusively theirs; no other groups is entitled to the use or part of what's being claimed. For instance, there is a YouTube video about a white girl around 14 or 15, being harassed and assaulted by some black girls (should I say girls of color?) in the same age bracket. The reason is because the white girl was wearing a hair style called "cornrolls". The black girls were demanding that the white girl remove them (I have no idea how you do that). Anyway, there has been an increase in this behavior. To my knowledge, "ethnic appropriation" of European culture hasn't been an issue. No one is demanding a stoppage to wearing shoes eating pizza, book reading, and so forth although there does seem to be a problem with the European habit of wearing a belt or suspenders to hold up one's pants which isn't being appropriated as much as it should. The fact is everything has been appropriated from somebody at sometime. That's what happens when people and cultures intermingle.

From my perspective, I think the growing "fad" or whatever it is of perpetually being "offended" by everything has gone on long enough. No one ever promised that you would never be offended by something in this life. I'm "offended" by all the wars-for-profit, corrupt politicians and governments, the encroaching surveillance state into my private life, poverty, lack of basic medicine or medicines with 3000% markups. I get ticked off by greedy warlords and corporations who prevent some from having fresh clean water or ample food. I get really miffed to see those weak abused by the strong. And yes, I get seriously irked when I'm asked to "press one" for English. I won't do it. Not now. Not ever. America is a multicultural nation, but that doesn't mean that each racial, religious, or ethnic group lives in its own enclave. Like my hero, ole "rough and ready" TR, I don't believe in hyphenated Americans. You're an American or not. You can keep your culture. You can keep you language. But in this nation, we speak English. We have certain traditions and core values. We accept people as they are and we don't try to impose our values or religion on others. If that's an problem, the solution is simple. Leave. Now. We may even wave bye.

Meanwhile, this "offended" fad needs to end. Like now. All of it started after Hillary Clinton was denied her coronation. All of it. I don't know who is behind it, but there is certainly money financing these "protests" and "demonstrations". I suspect it's to make Trump look bad and to keep occupied putting out fires. Even his own party is working against him, and naturally the media is. There used to be a tradition in this nation where we gave a new president the benefit of doubt and opportunity to prove themselves regardless of where we voted for them or not or our personal opinion of them (Harry Truman and Barack Obama are two cases in point). Lastly, I had many ancestors who fought on both sides during the Civil War and none owned slaves. One, a Confederate officer lost his arm. One, a Union sergeant, starved to death at the Andersonville POW camp just a few days before its liberation. I also had ancestors who were held as slaves--not indentured servants mind you. They were Irish, Scots, and German. Their oppressor in each case was the English (there's other lines who've been oppressed since time immemorial. Their oppressors were the stuff of legends; the Egyptians, Assyrians, Romans, French, the Vatican, Russians, Muslims, Spaniards, and Germans).

I had numerous ancestors who were oppressed over religious issues. Many didn't survive. Some did. But for all those who did, they excelled and prospered. What they lived through was put to good use. They honed work skills to become the best and they focused on education. Because no whatever happened, they wouldn't be depended on anyone because skills and education are two things that can never be taken from you. They refused to fall into the trap of generational entitlement. That's just another form of slavery.

We cannot allow our nation to be bullied into forgetting or covering up its history. We need it. It's a part of who we are, good or bad. It has made us the strongest country in the history of the world. We speak English. It's the thread that binds the fabric of this nation together. We come from every corner of the earth. Practically every religion in the world can be found here. While there are differing cultures, they ultimately blend into just one---American. So, if you're offended about a block of stone or piece of metal because you don't like the image or the message. turn your head and keep walking. That piece of stone or metal may mean the world to someone else and what's important to you may mean nothing. We are a nation of laws where no one should be exempt regardless of their income bracket, political connections, race, gender, sexual orientation or what your preferred entity of choice tells you. Again, if that's a problem, you're free to leave. Maybe that's the ultimate beauty of our country.


A Running list of Confederate Monuments Removed Across the Country



Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the United States: Here's a List


The African Slave Trade



Introduction to Cultural Appropriation