A Time for a (Voting) Change: Republicans, Latinos and Other Minorities

According a recent Marist poll, as posted on Yahoo! News, more Latinos are registering Republican than Democrat. The survey shows that Democrats have only a 39% support among Hispanics compared to Republican support is 52%.

The poll also indicates that few Hispanics support Joe Biden in 2020 than they did Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 8 percentage points (63% from 71%). Of course, Biden has done little to merit the support of Hispanics or anyone else for that matter. Biden's approval numbers has been among the worse of any U.S. President at this point in their presidency, and his Vice president, Kamala Harris, has polled the lowest of any VP.

So, what's going on? Why are Hispanics turning away from Democrats? Historically, Cubans have been predominately Republican (or more accurately, conservatives) in part, thanks to Republican support of Cuban immigrants fleeing Castro's Cuba. However, Hispanics from Latin America, have tended to lean Democrat because of their more lenient policy toward open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Polling responses seem to indicate that the Democrat Party's continuing shift further and further to the Left is the primary cause. Overall, Hispanics tend to be fairly conservative, or to rephrase it, more traditional. They tend to be very family centered and religiously oriented with the majority being Catholic. Hispanics also tend to hold traditional values when it comes to work and home life.

These tend to be conservative values as well. With the Democrat Party moving ever further to the political left, they are isolating Hispanics. Ironically, even the Left's use of the term "Latinx" which is aimed at being less sexist then "Latino" which generally refers to males, is largely rejected by the Hispanic community. 32% if registered Hispanic voters identify as Independent.

As an aside, the Hispanic community in general is seen as being male oriented ("macho") and in its extreme, very sexist in its portrayal of women. Homosexuals and "metro-males"  are also frowned upon and often ridiculed or used as a comedic prop in Hispanic television and cinema.

When we look at overall turnout, Hispanic voters, which make up roughly 11% of voters, have increasingly turned out since 2014 when only 20% voted to 2020 when just over 50% showed up at the polls.  This matches black voters who are turning out at about 65% and white voters, who make up a increasingly diminishing majority with about 67% of all voter, had a high in 2020 of 72%.

It's worth noting that whites represented 85% of voters in 1986 now represent roughly 67% in2020. Hispanics in general comprise about 23% of the overall population, reaching just over 60 million in number.

When we look at voter turnout by age as of 2020, seniors (60+) still represent the largest voting bloc with nearly 80% showing up to vote. Late middle age voters (45 -59) ranked second with just over 70% turnout. Both of these groups include both cohorts of Boomers with the later age bracket including the leading portion of Gen Xers.

Middle age voters (30 - 44), had a turnout about 65%. This group includes the bulk of Millennials and trailing Gen Xers. The lowest numbers belonged to the 18 - 29 age group (historically trailing edge Millennials with the bulk comprising mainly Gen Z). Their turnout in 2020 was barely over 50%. 

It should be noted that Millennials tend to be divided ideologically between socialist democrats and libertarians while Gen Z tends to favor socialist democracy. The later is also the most diverse demographic in U.S. history.

When we look at voter registration in general, we find that currently 40% of all voters are Independent. 30% are Democrat and 28% are Republican (Independents were as highly as 46% in January 2022. I January 2021 it was 50%). In fact, Independents have held a consistent majority of all voters since about 2008, and yet it's a little amusing and at the same time frustrating to see pollsters attempt to link Independents to either of the two corporate parties.

11 states now have Independent majorities, including most of the Northeast, Oregon, Arizona, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, and Arkansas, while in several others they're the second largest voting bloc and growing. In the next ten years, an estimated half of all states will have an Independent majority.

They like to use leading questions like "do you lean Democrat or lean Republican" as if Independents are secret or closet partisan voters (I usually respond, "so you mean which of your two parties actually leans closer to the majority of Americans?"). Independents are just that...independent.

Most are ideological exiles (some willingly and some unwillingly) from both corporate parties. They hate dogma. I suspect most were the ones who, in school or church, would always raise their hand with a question to the consternation of their teacher or pastor!

Independents are natural moderates or centrists. They are conservative on some issues and more progressive or liberal on others. The one thing they aren't is predictable, which is what frustrates pollsters who like to put everyone in a box (hence the "lean towards" questions).

The only reason that even more voters aren't Independent is thanks to the partisan primary. Most elections are decided in the primary. That's where the party eliminates everyone but the one they want to represent them. Most primaries are financed by you---the taxpayer---where you either know it or not or want it or not.

However, Independents and third party members are prohibited from voting in most partisan primaries (what's known as "closed primaries").  That means they are forced to pay for a primary they aren't allowed to vote in. Talk about taxation without representation! That's why many Independents and third party members will temporarily switch to one of the corporate parties and then switch back; they want a say in the choice of candidates. 

Pollsters try to make a big deal of this (and often use the "lean toward" lie). One of the great frustrations (and fallacies) of our "winner-take-all" system is that it excludes everyone but the winner. If your choice loses, you're not going to be represented  for the next two, four, or six years. Consider that for a moment.

As an aside, when I say "you" here, I don't actually mean "you" the voter personally. The parties represent corporate cliques. They serve specific special interests groups which literally write the legislation which they then help turn into laws. You merely get to decide which of the two your interests most closely aligns. It's not like they care what you want or think. Wolves don't care about the opinions of sheep. 

The reason I mention this is that interestingly, Hispanics are increasingly showing up as Independents. Perhaps this just follows the trend of voters in general who are abandoning the inept and corrupt duopoly.  Independent and third party voters understand the political system is broken beyond repair and simply aren't willing to play along with the charade any longer.

Many of the recent immigrants coming to America are leaving behind broken political systems as well. They've not just "played the game", they've lived the game. 1/3 were born outside the U.S.. They know how rigged it can be. That's why they left in the first place! 

You can imagine their disappointment when arriving in America to find that they traded one corrupt system for another, except this one only gives you two choices. Maybe that's the reason growing numbers have opted to register Independent wherever its allowed.

When it comes to black voters, the nation's second largest racial voting bloc (Hispanics are the largest non-white voting bloc), they have a strong preference for the Democrats (when it comes to partisan registration, Democrats still hold a slight edge of the two corporate parties).

83% of black voters are registered as Democrats compared to 10% Republican, but again, the continual shift further Left, like with Hispanics, is starting to affect attitudes among black voters. As a population, many older black families tend to be socially conservative; holding similar "traditional family values" as Hispanics, Asians, and whites.

Two key issues affecting black voters are jobs and healthcare. Income levels had historically been much lower than whites, and more recently, even compared to Hispanics and Asians. This is often blamed on the high number of single adult households (mainly absentee fathers), tendency to live in high crime areas, have stable housing, and lower academic performance, especially in junior and senior high school (gangs, drug and alcohol abuse are also cited as key underlining factor).  

Blacks have long lead the list of having the highest numbers living in poverty.  In 2020 is was 19.5% for blacks.  For Hispanics, it was 17%, while for Asians it was 8.1% and 8.2% for whites. The overall poverty rate was 11%.

This makes black families particularly vulnerable to social program funding cuts. Republican policy has typically focused on reducing or even eliminating many social programs such as Head Start and after school activities, as well as job training programs or low interest home and business loans, whereas Democrats have generally tried to maintain, if not increase funding in the past (although in recent years that hasn't always been the case). 

Prior to Covid's appearance in 2019, one Pew survey found that 43% of black families claimed to have trouble paying their bills either on time or being able to make minimum payments on a regular basis. The same survey indicated that 33% depended on a food bank in order to regularly put food on the table. This percentage was higher than any other racial group.

Despite the trend of the Democrat Party toward the extreme Left, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, remain generally loyal, despite growing numbers of Hispanics abandoning the Democrats for the GOP and Independents. But that isn't to say the Republicans aren't moving just as fast to the extreme Right. The result is a further widening of the gulf between Americans.

Meanwhile, the growing public anger toward the overtly corrupt corporate duopoly and a political system which has long ceased to represent the people will continue to grow until it reaches a boiling point. If the protest of January 6th is anything, it's that the boiling point is a lot closer than some realize, especially within the Washington Beltway.  Both parties will continue to hemorrhage numbers while Independents, already a majority, will continue to grow along with third parties.

Both parties, in their desperation, will do whatever they must to maintain power. They already use tactics commonly found in third world petty dictatorships such as keeping out opposition through restriction of election laws, restricting free speech and assembly, increased surveillance, manipulation of the economy, voter suppression, and propaganda.

As already pointed out, they manipulate primaries. They also require an inordinate amount of signatures for Independents and third parties to get on the ballot while outright barring them from national debates. In some states, they prohibit referendums and ballot initiatives.

The corporate owned media treats third party and Independent candidates as circus sideshows if they're acknowledge at all. And, of course, both parties have deals with big money donors to keep any funding away, which all but assures them of being unable to get their message out. The end result is that voters get two pre-selected choices, which is to say, they get no choice at all.

They even denied Independents and third parties the opportunity to be appointed to boards and commissions, as well as even having separate election officers (currently they lumped into the smaller of the two parties and totally ignored afterwards). 

Nevertheless, the prospects for both parties are pretty dim, especially as America becomes more diverse. They can't realistically be everything to everybody and still serve their corporate paymasters. If we follow our current course, America will become a cold and grim neo-fascist corporate state like something out of some dystopian Sci-fi movie like Blade Runner, 1984, or The Running Man.  Americans, whether generational or recent, are independent oriented, innovative, and entrepreneurial. All they ask for is a fair shake; a equal opportunity. 

Power is never surrendered willingly. It will be up to the American People to take back their government and their country. It won't be through the system. It's hopelessly and intentionally broken. It won't come celebrity billionaires and global corporations. They are the holders of power. It won't come from so-called "political leaders". They serve and benefit from the broken system. The same goes for their political parties.  If it comes at all, it will be from those independent thinkers and doers.   

 If you want to know more, please take a look at 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 A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

Yahoo! News: Why the Latino vote is a growing problem forDemocrats

As Democrats go hard Left, Hispanics Head to the Center

United States Elections Project: Voter Turnout Demographics

 

Gallup: Party Affiliation

Gallup: U.S. Political Party Preferences Shifted Greatly During 2021 

 

Ballotpedia: Partisan Affiliations of Registered Voters

Pew: Key Factors About Black Eligible Voters in 2020Battleground States

Income and Poverty in the United States 2020

 

The NFL and Racism: Changing The Tune and Paying the Piper

The NFL has, for the last two years, done little to prohibit players from kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem. A sign of disrespect by most Americans. The result was more than just fans booing but a dramatic drop in game day attendance, team merchandise sales, and a huge loss in TV viewership. The solution for the networks was to stop showing the National Anthem in the hopes that viewers would return. The results have been mixed with the NFL, the teams, and the networks losing billions while long time fans have found life outside of football and other professional sports.

Now, on the heels of the COVID-19 virus which has already cost professional sports multi-billions of dollars, the NFL has decided to cut their proverbial wrists. They've decided to play a so-called "black national anthem" at the start of every Week One game; preceding our National Anthem. They are encouraging everyone---players, coaches, owners, and fans---to stand for the black national anthem, while kneeling for America's National Anthem. The lunacy is mind-blowing. This move will cost them huge swaths of fans, some forever, and more revenue than they can imagine.

Meanwhile, just to drive home the point of how out of touch many of these individuals have become, from the players and coaches, to the owners, player's union, to the President of the NFL, Roger Goodell, let's consider this. There are now mounting "demands" that some of the teams change their name and logo (and not just the Washington Redskins) which they claim are demeaning.

The majority of those complaining include groups on the Left who've started applying pressure not just on the NFL leadership or the owners, but on corporate sponsors like Nike, PepsiCo, and FedEx, making the "Redskins" name change solely a financial based decision and based on the opinion of Native Americans.

Polls conducted of Native Americans found that many weren't "offended" by the Washington "Redskin" team name or logo. Some felt it was intended to honor Native Americans. As an aside, it was a Native America who designed the logo. In 1971, Walter "Blackie" Wetzel, a member of the Blackfoot Tribe, came up with the logo, which his grandson, Lance, said brought a sense of Native pride. Wetzel grew up on the Blackfoot Reservation in Montana, and eventually became president of the National Congress of American Indians.

Lance went on to say that not only was his family upset by the change, so were members of the Blackfoot Nation and other tribes. He added that over the years the team brought in tribal singers and dancers, and incorporated Native American imagery onto team merchandize and advertising, which helped the tribe. Another classic example of Native Americans getting the short end of the stick...again?

So what do you do when you're dead wrong? Simply, you keep trying to get the result you want. So far that hasn't happened. I'm sure that at some point it will. They may eventually get the results they want or find some individual to use as their "proof". Maybe they'll interest Elizabeth Warren. I hear she has between 1/32 and 1/1024 Cherokee ancestry.

That just seems to be the way things are today doesn't it? Ignore what the people while continuing to push your agenda in a media echo chamber until everyone either tires of it and gives in or until someone else comes along with another issue who is louder than you are. Everyone (well, most everyone) these days is scared of being called some name like "racist", "privileged" or whatever. We can't seem to even agree to disagree and go with our lives. So, if we're to play this absurdity all the way out, what do you think we'd end up with? Let's consider some possibilities shall we, beginning with the NFL?

Okay, we have to face the face the owners of the Washington Redskins are caving to BLM and a minority of others and will change the team name and logo. A few suggestions I've seen are the "Red Tails" after the Tuskegee airmen's 99th Fighter Squadron of World War II. Some have recommended "Warriors" which provides a slight nod to Native Americans. Some more "creative" suggestions have included the Washington "Wussies" or "Grovelers", not to mention a few more colorful examples!

Of course, if the "Redskins" nickname is offensive, then we need to consider other team names like the Kansas City "Chiefs" (the term "Chief" is seen as being derogatory unless aptly deserved. Much like calling a black man "boy"), the Buffalo Bills (Buffalo Bill is now labeled a "racist"). The Dallas "Cowboys", Houston "Texans", and San Francisco "49ers" are all obvious. Their nicknames are references to groups who participated in the stealing of Native American land, so they have to go.

We have the "Raiders", "Vikings", and "Buccaneers" which could infer plunder and pillage, and of course, the slave trade which pirates of all sorts actively engaged in. Naturally we can't forget the New England "Patriots" which is blatant reference to old rich slave owning white men. If any go, it has to be that one! Green Bay's nickname, the "Packers" was for Acme Packing Company (formerly the Indian Packing Company), a meat processing business in Green Bay, Wisconsin. That might be offensive to vegans.

The Pittsburgh "Steelers", formerly the "Pirates", changed their name as a nod to the steel industry, then a major regional employer. They many want to rethink that one. After all, steel production creates a lot of air and water pollution, not to mention land destruction through ore mining. The pollution it puts out includes ammonia, cyanide, and naphthalene; all of which are highly toxic and cancer causing. I can see environmentalists getting bent out of shape if they realized the connection.

Most of the remaining nicknames pertain to animals, such as dolphins, eagles, and tigers. It would be a stretch, but a good argument could be made by some zealot that the images encourage the eradication of these animals through fishing, hunting, or captivity. Of course, it could be argued too that the use of these nicknames and symbols bring awareness to their plight. So, I'll leave these alone.

Nevertheless, out of the 32 professional NFL football teams, at least ten need to change their team nicknames and logos. After all, if a name and logo designed by a Native American and seen as a source of pride for Native Americans is seen as "offensive" by a small minority of rich individuals who aren't Native Americans, then there's no reason these other names and logos should be left intact is there?

While we're at it, let's look at professional baseball. The most obvious are the Cleveland "Indians" and Atlanta "Braves". No brainer. They're right up there with the "Redskins" and "Chiefs". They have to go. The San Diego "Padres" and Los Angeles "Angels" (not to mention the New Orleans "Saints") nicknames are offensive to atheists and agnostics (or not). They've need to go. The Texas "Rangers" are named after obvious wild west racist police officers. The San Antonio "Spurs" are, once more, about cowboys and land theft from Native Americans. The Milwaukee "Brewers" name was due to the German immigrants and breweries which sprung up in the region. So, because of Hitler, the Nazis, and all, that name has to be changed too.

The New York "Yankees" gotta go. These New England sailors were known for hunting whales, seals, and dolphins and for shipping slaves (that is, before 1808 when it was outlawed). Same argument for the Seattle "Mariners" and Los Angeles "Clippers". The "Clippers" also transported miners, settlers and cargo from the West Coast up to Native American Alaska and to Asia (mainly China), and returned with a lot of Chinese passengers, so that may need to be looked at.

The Pittsburgh "Pirates" fall into the same category as the "Vikings" and "Raiders" mentioned earlier. Some names which I'm sure the Left won't object to are the Los Angeles "Dodgers", Cincinnati "Reds" or Boston "Red Socks". As for the rest, they're a hodgepodge of animal, geographic, and random names which are open to interpretation.

Although I'm not a professional basketball fan (or a fan of college sports in general), a few team nicknames come to mind for immediate change. First is the Boston "Celtics" with its little leprechaun mascot. An insult to Irish everywhere, though it may not count since the Irish are historically white and thus automatically "racist". However, in their defense, many were sold as slaves by the British and Arabs. They were also the first indentured servants in America starting in 1607 at Jamestown.

The Philadelphia "76ers" is a reference to the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence, which was signed in Philadelphia in 1776. Again, old rich white men; many of whom owned slaves. This falls into the "no brainer" category as well. The Washington "Wizards", Orlando "Magic" and the Washington "Mystics" of the WNBA are obviously encouraging witchcraft and Satan worship. No need to say more.

The Golden State "Warriors" seem to be a positive wink at Native Americans. About the only ones who might object to that nickname are peace loving groups like Antifa. The Utah "Jazz" is kind of iffy. It could be considered an appropriation of black music, and thus culture, or it could be viewed as a recognition of it. Either way, a portion of all team sales needs to go to a fund for alleged "reparations" post haste.

As for the remaining team nicknames, most seem pretty harmless; names like "Knicks", "Nets", and "Thunder". But like anything, they can be made into something they're not and never were intended to be, much like the Washington "Redskins" nickname.

None of the names used by these professional sports teams were ever intended to offend or otherwise injury anyone or any group in anyway. More often than not, they were intended to celebrate those whom their teams were named after. Be it hard working blue collar men and women in the food processing or steel industries, or the courage and bravery of Native Americans, or sense of adventure and toughness of seafaring mariners, the Irish or Vikings.

The Native Americans didn't ask for Washington's owners to change anything. It was mostly a small group of overpaid loudmouth individuals. Lastly, but no less importantly, the playing of any anthem before that of the Star Spangled Banner---a song dedicated to the unity of every man, woman, and child in this country irrespective of their race, religion, origin, ethnic group, gender or any other factor---is a slap in the face of the American People and everything good this nation represents.

It's more deeply an insult to all those millions of men and women of all races who gave their lives for this country along with all my fellow disabled veterans. It disrespects the first responders of this country of all races, genders, orientation, and religion who come to our aid without regard to any other factor except our need. They put themselves in harm's way for our protection. Yes, there are a few "bad apples", but show me a group where there aren't. Nevertheless, the good far outweighs the bad. For this, you put nothing before it and you show your respect by standing for it.





9 in 10 Native Americans aren't offended by Redskins name



Warren Releases DNA Results, Challenges Trump Over Native American Ancestry



Wokism Erases Native American Who Designed the Redskins Logo



The World Counts: Steel Production


Indentured Servitude in British America

Ensuring the Flow of Oil: Coping with an Increasingly Belligerent Iran

As you may noticed (in between hoopla over Trump's phone call the Ukrainian President or the increased calls for Trump's impeachment by the Democrats) that things are heating up---again---in the Middle East. This time it was an alleged attack by the Houthi rebels, a radical Muslim group, in Yemen. This time it was an attack on Saudi oil production. The attack came by way of armed drones and was directed at the world's largest oil processing plant.

The plant, owned by Armaco and is located in Abquiaq, was hit by ten drones which resulted in taking out half of Saudi Arabia oil processing capabilities (the plant is also responsible for 5% of the world's total production). Although the drones were said to have come from Yemen and was launched by the Houthi rebels, Saudi officials were quick to point the finger at Iran, which has had a long and often violent history with the Saudi government (a second, smaller, oil facility was also attacked).

Saudi officials stated that the attacks were too well planned and implemented, as well as too technical, to have been carried out by the Houthis alone. In addition, the drones appeared to be based on Iranian models which are produced in North Korea. The drones have an approximate range of 186 miles, which means that besides being able to targets in Saudi Arabia, they could also hit locations in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries in the region (as an aside, while these were short range models, other similar drones have a ranges up to 930 miles).

In addition, Iran is believed to have been a solid sponsor of the Houthis, along with other extremists groups in the region such as the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, not to mention Boko Haram in Nigeria and the remnants of Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL. As for the Houthi, who are officially called "Ansar Allah" or "Supporters of Allah", they are mostly Sunni Muslims and have been active since around 2014 (interestingly, thought while mainly Sunni, they follow the Shia "Zaidi" philosophy, which demands that they take an active role in opposing what they see as "social injustice" against fundamentalist Islam). As of 1994, Zaidi Muslims made up just 0.05% of the Muslim population worldwide.

They also claim to be anti-Imperialist (meaning the U.S. and the West), anti-Zionist (anti-Israel), and Muslim revisionist (ie: party like it's 724!). They are also nationalist and believe they have a divine right to reclaim lands lost in the past---real or imagined. Finally, they claim allies throughout the entire Middle East, including Syria, Oman, Iran, as well as Eritrea and North Korea. In addition to the recent attacks by the Houthi rebels, with possible aid from Iran and North Korea, there has been the more direct actions taken by the Iranians themselves.

In May and June of this year, six ships were attacked by the Iranian's Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN). Four attacks occurred in May just north of the UAE while two tankers, one British and the other Japanese, were rocked by Iranian mines just east of the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf of Oman. Surveillance footage showed an Iranian naval patrol boat attempting to recover an unexploded mine from one of the damaged ships. Just prior to the attacks, Iran naval forces attempted to shoot down a U.S. Navy drone patrolling the area.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the IRGCN has been doing its best to harass U.S. naval warships in the Gulf; the presence of American and other warships in the region is to keep the shipping lanes open and safe and the oil flowing. In June, the IRGCN fired several missiles at the USS Maddox (DD-731) and the USS Turner Joy (DD-951) as the operated in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of Vietnam (neither ship was hit). While the Iranians have long been demanding that the U.S. and other "imperialist" nations stay out of the Gulf waters, lest they face attack by the IRGCN, the attempted attacks off the coast of Vietnam came as something of a bemused surprised. Apparently the Iranians now believe they control the waters in and around the South China Sea! I wonder what the Vietnamese government thinks of their uninvited "protectors"?

Meanwhile, the Iranian government has promised to send ships (up to four) to the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast with further promises to make possible ports of call; perhaps in Cuba and Venezuela. The move is likely an effort to try and intimidate Washington in a "see how it feels" grade school move. Whether the Iranian Navy pays a visit to this side of the globe is really irrelevant.

However, what is more disconcerting is not whether Iran sends ships to the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Coast, it's the fact that Iran has been doing everything possible to provoke the U.S. and its allies at nearly every turn. They've repeatedly found reasons---excuses---to resume the develop of their nuclear reactors (or, as most of the world believes, its nuclear warhead capability, just like its buddy North Korea has been doing).

Its long standing support of Hezbollah and Hamas has proved to be a serious threat to Israel's security. Its support of terrorists groups in Africa and throughout the Middle East are just as dangerous. It's even thought that the Iranians have helped trained and possibly fund terrorist cells crossing our southern border. In fact, several individuals have been caught, in El Salvador and in Mexico. So what's at play here? Why would a little piss ant country like Iran want to pick a fight with the U.S., Great Britain, Israel, or for that matter, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf State countries?

Iran has had a chip on its shoulder since the Iran Revolution and the hostage crisis of 1979. I can't say that I blame them. The U.S. and Great Britain had long played politics in Iran, and for that matter, the entire region. We've overthrown their governments, manipulated control over their oil productions, and treated them more as subject than economic partners. The overthrow of the Shah was meant as a message that enough was enough; the answer to all their problems they were told was the return to Islamic fundamentalism.

Since then, Iran was has been trying to exert itself as power unto itself. They totally broke from their dependence on the West. They fought the U.S. backed Iraqis, under another dictator we supported, Saddam Hussein, to a standstill. What's more is that they decided that the U.S. and Israel were the two big evils in the world; the forces most capable of stopping them from a revived Islamic Caliphate (they even nicknamed America and Israel "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" respectively). They repeatedly promised to wipe Israel off the face of the map and destroy America's power and influence. As far-fetched as it seems, these are not intended to be idle threats.

Iran allied itself with the former Soviet Union (and now Russia), as well as China and North Korea. They have found common cause with nearly every anti-American, British, or Western nation they could find. They have sponsored terrorist groups wherever possible. The objective is not a full-on assault on American or Western forces. Despite their espoused willingness to die for Allah, they intend to get some mileage with those threats first.

The idea is to needle the Americans and its allies; to inflict as many small wounds as possible to weaken the West. It's also to intimidate the West and to try to make themselves seem more powerful than they are in reality. Of course, they'll strike hard whenever the opportunity presents itself. Their hope is that if America or Great Britain for instance, do respond, that they can turn this into a "Islam vs. the Infidels" battle. That's one reason they sponsor groups willing to attack countries like Saudi Arabia who are generally pro-Western. In addition, most Saudis adhere to a competing and larger Islamic sect---Sunni. The Iranians are Shiite, which brings me to a seemingly unrelated issue---oil production.

While the United States is the world's top oil producing nation (and the top consumer of oil and gas), Saudi Arabia is the second largest, and as I previously said, it's most Sunni, except in the Al Hasa region, which has a large Shiite population and produces the majority of the country's oil and gas. Russia is third (and a major supplier of oil and gas to Europe). While modern Russia is largely Christian (Eastern Orthodox), it has large minorities of Muslims, mainly in the south (about 6.5% of Russia's total population is Muslim. The majority are Sunni while about 10% are Shiite).

Next comes Canada followed by China. While officially an atheist nation, China does have a several provinces which are home to large Muslim populations (approximately 1.8% of China's population is Muslim); the largest of which is located in the Uyghur province in the northwest. Of China's 55 "officially" recognized minorities, ten of them are Sunni Muslim groups. As an aside, despite being a top producer of oil and gas, China and India are also the largest importers of oil and gas after the U.S due to their growing economies.

Following China, Iraq is the sixth largest producer of oil and gas. It hold the world's fifth total reserves, which represent 18% of the total reserves in the Middle East and 9% of the world's total reserves. It's worth noting that 67% of the Iraqis are also Shiite. However, the Sunnis have dominated the historically pro-Western governments (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni). Iran, which is about 95% Shiite, is the seventh largest producer with the fourth largest proven oil and gas reserves.

In eight place is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It hold the seventh largest proven oil and gas reserves in the world. 85% of its citizens are Sunni. Brazil is ninth, but expect that ranking to rise as its ability to develop access to its reserves grows along with its economy. Finally, in tenth place is Kuwait. While 95% of its exports are oil and gas, its production level has been decreasing over the last couple of years. Nevertheless, it still has ample reserves to draw on. About 65% of its population is Sunni.

Other key players of note include Nigeria, which accounts for 6% of the world's production; Libya and Algeria with 3% each, Angola with 5% and Venezuela with 4%. Of these only Venezuela doesn't have a Muslim population, and of those who do, they also all have an Iranian presence in one form or another (remember, for instance, that Boko Harem has been very active in Nigeria as well as the Islamic Fighting Movement in Libya). It's also worth nothing that the majority of the major oil and gas producers---30 in all---are members of OPEC. Also, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Russia are the world's largest net exporters of oil and gas. Other regional populations to consider include the Kurds, of whom 85% are Sunni while 78% of Turks identify as Sunnis.

So, what does all this mean? Simply this, Iran intends to exert its influence by affecting the safe flow of oil and gas in the Gulf region. This, in turn, will cause the price to fluctuate and ultimately increase as tensions rise and ebb due to the uncertainty factor. This will obviously affect the world's economies, especially in the West. A weaken economic West means a more vulnerable West, and a West less willing or perhaps unable of protecting its allies.

It also means an increasingly politically unstable West as government attempt to find ways to satisfy their oil/gas needs, fund its militaries, and meet domestic demands amid rising prices for not just heating oil and gas, but for food as well, and taxes (a particularly bad winter for instance could be catastrophic). Plus the increased pressure on governments in the Gulf region will also affect the stability of their governments amid increased terrorists attacks and declining trade with the West.

Of course a direct confrontation with Iran could produce the same results as well as create a banner to rally various Muslim extremists under and also provide opportunity for anti-Western powers to join together to take down the "Big Satan" while wiping the "Little Satan" off the map as promised.




Attack on the Saudi oil field a game changer in Gulf confrontation

The World's Top Oil Producing Countries


Houthi Movement

"No Go Zones" in America? A Look at the Reality and the Possibility

Following my recent article on "sanctuary cities", I came across an article on "no go zones" here in the United States. Well, that certainly got my attention since these so-called "no go zones" were all Muslim in nature. Some were apparently just a small community centered around a mosque while others were said to be much more sinister in their purpose. Typically these were described as Muslim "terrorist training camps". If true, then that's certainly something I wanted to know more about.

According to the articles (I say "articles" since, in my research, I came across other articles which made similar claims), there are somewhere around nine states which harbor these encampments. These include the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington, along with Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma. In addition, the Mid-West states of Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan were included. Other states, such as New York, Alaska, Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina also appear. A few articles mention Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky.

The articles reminded me of the same type of fear generated by claims of neo-Nazi/White Supremacists having similar types of closed off communities in places like Idaho or Montana back in the 70's and early 80's, as well as Black Supremacists living in de-facto sealed off urban neighborhoods in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and elsewhere during the late 60's and early 70's; places where even the cops allegedly feared to tread. Of course, from the late 1960's through the 1990's there were numerous religious or cult communities which were closed to outsiders scattered all the country, though mostly in the Western states.

The idea of wanting to live in a community of like minded individuals isn't new to this country. Almost from the beginning, Quakers, Puritans, and even Catholics segregated off together. Later, as the population grew, we saw Jews, Poles, Germans, Irish, Lithuanians, Italians, and others settle in their own ethnic/religious communities. Some groups, like Blacks and Chinese, followed suit, although this was partly the desire to be together (safety in numbers) and partly due to bigotry.

In fact, it's actually only been relatively recent that these type of communities have begun to break up, although newer groups such as Hispanics, Africans, Bosnians, and, yes, Muslims, have tended to cluster together (Hispanics from poorer and less educated countries like Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador) tend to stay close to Spanish speaking Roman Catholic parishes while Muslims may remain close to a particular mosque which has connections to their hometown, sect, family, etc. That's also why small ethnic businesses are usually established nearby; everyone likes familiarity. We are, after all, a tribal species.

So, is there any truth to these articles, particularly that they are engaged in terrorist training? That's hard to say. Certainly, the FBI, ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) along with Homeland Security would want to know (I would imagine the IRS would also have more than a passing interest too). Naturally, we all remember how well the Feds handled Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco (sarcasm intended).

In the past, terrorist acts in this country have tended to be either comprised of a small group (usually two or three individuals, with the exception of the cowardly 9/11 attack), or more often than not, the lone individual. In fact, the majority of these individuals described themselves as "self radicalized"; usually starting with a psychological "kinship" with the terrorist group's cause, and then become increasingly more radicalized through articles, books, and especially the internet; particularly via websites produced by these groups. These websites are usually very well designed with terrific graphics, and typically done in wide range of languages to give them that "personal" touch.

As a rule, the websites are divided into three segments: propaganda, ideology, and the "how to" section. The first two are pretty self explanatory. They are designed to attract those who may have a curiosity (perhaps under the auspices of trying to find out the "other side" of the story). They also present a skewed worldview as you might expect, complete with images of throngs of cheering well-wishers as their conquering heroes march into a newly "liberated" neighborhood or town complete with smiling men and happy children (a surefire tug at the ole heartstrings). They include "correct" religious instruction, especially for those interested in a do-it-yourself religious conversion, along with the proper religious diet and even physical training programs for that jihadi on the go!

The last part is where the newly recruited ideologue comes in. These individuals are typically encouraged to come and join the fight against--insert cause "here"-- where you'll be rewarded with whatever lights your fuse. However, if you are unable to make the trip, no problem! These websites come complete with videos instructing the dumbest of would-be terrorists with information on how they too can be become a mass murderer in just a few easy-to-learn lessons! They can learn everything from simple harassment techniques, improving their shooting skills, to the ever popular improvised bomb making. Perhaps the best thing about these sites are the ease at which they can be setup and accessed at little to no risk to the actual terrorists.

Nevertheless, while these type of sites do exist, they are pretty closely monitored by the NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Interpol (and thankfully so). Naturally, there are certain mosques where Imams (religious leaders similar to a minister) of questionable moral character may secretly operate their own illegal terrorist training cells. These rarely ever contain anymore than just a small handful of utterly devout students. The goal is to create as many disconnected and independent cells as possible. That way, if one is compromised, it doesn't affect the others (as expected, these eventually show up on the radar too). As an aside, this technique was used to great success by the various resistance groups in Nazi occupied Europe; India during British colonial rule; Vietnam and Southeast Asia.

However, it's important to point out here that the majority of terrorist attacks in the U.S. haven't come from Muslim or any other religious groups. They tend to be the loner with their own unique cause, be it being snubbed by students at school or a girl, feeling like an outcast, pissed off at an employer or fellow employees, and so forth. Despite media propaganda, not all mass shooters are "Right Wingers" either. The man who attacked the Congressional Baseball Charity game singled out Republicans. The latest two mass murders were done by individuals who were members of Antifa, the so-called "Anti-Fascist" group which acts more like Hitler's Brownshirts or the Communist "Red Faction" than not. Nevertheless, in terms of voter registration, the majority are Democrats. More importantly, they are also usually young, male, disenchanted with life, and more often than not, mentally ill.

Europe, on the other hand, does have "no go zones" in truest sense where Sharia law is enforced, whether you're a Muslim or not. In fact, there is an active and ongoing attempt to spread its influence beyond the localized Muslim communities. There is little doubt that religious radicalization is alive and well, along with the possibly active terrorist training (we know rape gangs not just exist, but that there is actual training on how to organize rape gangs). Without a question, the attacks which have taken place in Europe have had a strong religious extremist undertone whether the governments there have the courage to admit it or not.

As for the "no go zones" in the U.S., they really don't exist, at least not like they do in Europe. Yes, some are restricted to some religious or some other denominator, but as I've said, that's hardly new nor does it constitute an actual "no go zone" since law enforcement and first responders have access. Historically, the biggest concern has not been keeping out but in preventing people from leaving (the "Moonies" and Jim Jones' "People's Temple" come to mind), which is why it's important for police access. Perhaps the most often overlooked "no go zones" are Native American reservations, which are defacto separate and semi-independent nations within the U.S. though they are freely visited.

Do they stockpile weapons, ammo, or conduct paramilitary training? Perhaps, but so far nothing has surfaced by the Feds, but that doesn't mean that something isn't happening. After all, both the White and Black supremacists groups back in the day conducted paramilitary training. On the other hand, perhaps their training involves is no more than of a matter of providing internal security (reservations have their own police for instance). Unfortunately, until they either act or the Feds find something that's pretty compelling, it's virtually impossible to know for sure. Not very comforting is it?

Personally, I don't really have an issue with a group of like minded individuals deciding to set up their own little community and living a peaceful existence off the grid. During the late 60's and early 70's, there was a proliferation of so-called "Hippie communes" which attempted to do the same thing. Their goal was to self-sufficiency; grow their own food (sell or trade any excess), make their own clothes, and so forth. The vast majority of these failed after a few months or years, but a couple did succeed and lasted for a couple of decades.

Of course, they lacked the defining religious element. If that element is benign, then there should be no problem. If it's not, then it could become a breeding ground for disaster. The treatment of White and Black supremacists communities in the past have tended to be more than a little heavy handed as well. Given how the Federal Government has acted in the past, there is always the possibility that one misstep could trigger another Waco or worse.

The Bill of Rights is perhaps one of Mankind's greatest accomplishments, along with the Constitution. They are also uniquely American. We were born out of a desire to be free from government's interference. That included the right to associate with whom we want, to protect ourselves, and to believe in what we wanted. However, time has tempered those ideals. For instance, felons aren't free to associate with other felons. Perhaps that's a good idea. Perhaps not. We are free, in theory at least, to live with whomever we want, which would include those of like race or faith. But how about practice? Can a neighborhood association specifically say only Chinese or Hispanics are allowed? Nope. What about only Jews or Baptists in a particular neighborhood? Hardly.

Can we buy machine guns, flamethrowers, or landmines to protect ourselves? Not a chance. In fact, while the Second Amendment is one of the most important amendments, especially from the perspective of our Founding Fathers, it is also perhaps the most heavily restricted amendment with everything from what you can own, how old you have to be, and where you are allowed to carry it.

In terms of religion, we're free to believe as we choose. We're even allowed to follow certain social and dietary laws without paying a "pew tax" like in some countries. However, what if that religion allowed pedophilia? What about covering covering your face for official identification? What if it allowed so-called "honor killings" (religiously sanctioned murder to "protect" a family's "honor")? How would you feel about the right---and duty---to beat your wife or of restricting her rights under the Bill of Rights? Does their religious laws supplant our secular natural laws (laws bequeath to us simply for being human beings)? What about their religious belief that everyone must conform to their religious laws and traditions regardless of your personal beliefs?

This is what potentially makes these communities different. It's an entirely different culture which follows entirely different laws (in fact, they hold that our secular laws have absolutely no value whatsoever). They believe they have the right to exclude others who do not follow their laws and traditions. They believe in the right and obligation to impose their beliefs on others by any means at their disposal.

Yet, those very things---freedom of association, religion, and even the Second Amendment---are fundamental to America. How are we going to handle this as the Muslim population in America grows and the risk of radicalization increases as we admit those from areas where religious extremism is common along with an anti-West or anti-American sentiment?

Hopefully, it will never become an issue. Hopefully a peaceful coexistence will prevail as it has between others of different races, ethnic groups, and religions. Of course, this worked because we operated under the old "melting pot" concept where immigrants were strongly encouraged to integrate. Today, it's "multiculturalism" where assimilation isn't encouraged or even considered necessary! Obviously this hasn't worked well at all in Europe. Can the American temperament prevail where the European has thus far failed? So far these communities have been peaceful. Let's hope it stays that way.



Muslim Terrorist Training Camp Found In Alabama

Muslim of the Americas: Enclaves in the U.S.

Center for Immigration Studies: No Go Zones and Assimilation

No Go Zones: Alt Right fantasy or a new face of Europe?

The Catholic World Report: Raheem Kassem's No Go Zones is unsettling, necessary reading

Slipping Off the Mask of Identity Politics

We've all heard the terms---LGBQT Equality, Alt-Right, Black Nationalism, Senior Entitlements, Veteran Needs, and countless others. These are all examples of the latest trend on modern political landscape--- Identity Politics. In fact, identity politics can now be used to define issues germane solely to seniors, urban vs rural, education, culture, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, and so on.

There's really nothing new about identity politics. It's been around from almost the moment we started coming together to form villages, towns, and cities thousands of years ago. Mankind is tribal. We've always been tribal. We are hardwired to be tribal. Tribalism is what has protected us, provided for us, sheltered us, and enabled us to develop sub-specialties which led to the creation of economies and thus civilizations. Identity politics is our incarnation of tribalism.

The modern notion of tribalism or identity politics began in the early 1960's with the likes of King, Abernathy, Randolph, Young, Wilkins and the Civil Rights Movement they led which sought to create social and economic parity between the black community and white community. This later resulted in the creation of a competing parallel moment which sought to replace the white, mostly male, political, social and economic leadership with a black counterpart. In fact, in some cases, it sought to create a competing counterculture; a separate society which wanted instant change "by all means possible". This was the black nationalism of Huey Newton and Malcolm X. Nevertheless, the concept of modern identity politics was born.

The term itself is thought to have first emerged in 1977 as part of a political manifesto put out by Barbara Smith, one of the founders of a black Lesbian feminist group, the Combahee River Collective, which also had a strong Marxist bent to it. What's different is that today's version is more about the creation of a very narrow demographic which is focused on just a few issues for their own benefit at the expense of all other issues and groups.

Under Classical Marxism, the notion of identity politics was already well defined. It was the working class---the proletariat---against the bourgeoisie; that is, the owners and Capitalists. However, the objective was to change the social structure in order to benefit all not just the working class. Under National Socialism (aka "Nazism"), it was about removing one group---the Jews---and replacing them with another group---the "Aryans", and with it, creating a new social, economic, and political order.

Nowadays, it's not about changing the social order. It's about substituting one group for another so society itself doesn't change. Just one's place in it. The Far Left, as well as the Democratic Party, are often accused of promoting identity politics, both in terms of claiming solidarity with each group and sub-group's goals while at the same accusing Conservatives and the Republican Party of backing the Alt-Right or Alternative/Far Right, which is the politically correct term associated with "white nationalists", "white supremacists", "white nationalism" and others on the so-called Far Right (we are to believe this includes the Tea Party, pro-life, and those who are anti-illegal immigration or pro 2nd Amendment).

Of course, it should go without saying that there are those on the Right who maintain that the extreme Left and Democratic Party are trying to promise everything to everybody in order to cobble together a new political base which includes black and Hispanic nationalist groups like Black Lives Matter and La Raza, as well as those who have pro-Marxist or pro-socialist leaning, radical feminists, pro-choice, and pro-amnesty group along with those who'd like to restrict or prohibit gun ownership and stifle free speech. Even those like Antifa, which often behaves like the Fascist it says it opposes, are being courted.

Regardless of who accuses who of what, the end result has been a further division of this country by those who are solely interested in their own issues at the expense of everyone else. It's not like these groups are able to achieve any real political clout beyond the regular news cycle. Nevertheless, the corporate media makes them seem larger and more powerful than they actually are. The real special interest group, the moneyed powerbrokers, continue on with politics as usual.

These other groups do nothing more than serve as a distraction from what's really happening behind the scenes in Washington and on Wallstreet. We find ourselves fighting against each other on issues and causes which mean little or nothing. The identity politics of old may have organized around one segment of society, their ultimate objective was to transform society as a whole for the betterment of all; not to the exclusion of all as it is today.

It's time we take stock of what we have in common with each other and not in the manufactured differences which the media promotes. As long as we remain divided, we cannot focus on the crimes and violence being committed at home and abroad in our name. Only by coming together as unhyphenated Americans will we be able to address these modern day robber barons; the globalists who seek to undermine our national sovereignty, undercut our Bill of Rights, and usurp our Constitution.

We've become an Oligarchy. Power is in the hands of a ruling political class comprised of plutocrats and an elite clique of very powerful and wealthy CEOs. There is still time to take our country back and restore what we've lost, but the sands are quickly running out of our nation's hourglass. We're seeing our freedoms chipped away piecemeal. There's an invasion taking place in Europe and countless attempts to repeat the experience within our borders. Jobs, especially union jobs, are exported overseas, leaving many Americans scrambling to find ways to pay their bills and keep food on the table while taxes and public utility rates increase in order to pay for these unwelcome changes.

Even our children and grandchildren aren't safe. Through the inclusion that's identity politics, we have drag queens reading to our kids...in school libraries... about the normalcy and joys of gay relationships . Some have even been putting on excerpts from their routines! I couldn't care less about someone's sexual proclivities, but damn, should children be exposed to this stuff at such a young age? Others are trying to claim that pedophilia is normal; just another "sexual orientation" like any other. The hell it is!

Being called a "racist" is now justified if you, for instance, happen to disagree with someone of another race (this works only one way of course). It seems to be a handy little tool to get what you want or to get out of trouble. Reverse racism has become acceptable to the point where whites and even Asians are expected to feel ashamed of their racial and/or ethic heritage. There are even white females who feel that they're "obligated" to have sex with a minority male in order to "atone" for some mythical transgression of their ancestors. Shouldn't we simply focus on ending racism period? At one point, not that many years ago, racism had all but vanished.

There are those who seem indignant that the majority of Americans support protecting our borders, our national sovereignty or not using taxpayer money to support those here illegally. Those individuals talk about so-called "migration rights" as if a secure border is somehow a bad thing. There are religious organizations and church who think they're are exempt from federal laws concerning immigration; that we should "embrace" foreign languages, values, and traditions at the expense of our own. Even some cities and states believe they can ignore federal immigration laws with impunity, and still have the audacity to demand more federal dollars to cover the cost! This is yet another form of identity politics.

When it comes to religion, it's just as crazy. Under the facade of modern identity politics, Christians, as well as Jews, Hindus, and Buddhist, among others, are expected to curtail their religious practices so that one group doesn't feel "offended" or excluded. There are even LGBQT and feminists groups who support this when, in truth, that religion would murder the other two without a second thought because that's part of its guiding dogma. It would be their "religious duty"! Again, identity politics.

The irony (and humor) here is nearly overwhelming. It would be like "Hasidic Jews for Nazis" in 1934. Meanwhile, the US is attempting to impose "democracy" on a people who barely have any concept of democracy while attempting to gain control through military means of their natural resources.

We are under surveillance in some form or fashion nearly every moment of our lives (for our own protection we're told). We watch helplessly as wars and conflicts are orchestrated under the banner of "spreading democracy" or overthrowing some tyrant (which, as usually the case, we helped to install and whose usefulness has expired) while deals over the control of resources and assets are made in boardrooms and on Capitol Hill.

The United States was intended to be a unique experiment in the history of Mankind. It was to be a place where anyone from anywhere, regardless of their circumstances, including race, religion, or ethnic group could come and start over. All we asked was that you leave behind your past prejudices and hatreds; that you accepted our laws and values, and you did it legally. There was no room for hyphenated loyalties. You were an American or you weren't. Naturally, it helped if you spoke out language. Whatever you brought with you in terms of traditions and so forth was blended in with every other immigrant. It was called the "The Melting Pot", and it made us a great nation.

Today, we're told to embrace "multiculturalism"; where everyone could bring a piece of their home country with them, along with all its petty bias and hatreds. You could even bring a system of religious laws not compatible with democracy, and yet we're told to accept those differences as if nothing will ever happen. Identity politics once again. Of course, all we have to do is watch world news to see that's not true. The social and religious values are different; often brutally so. The work ethics is different. One society believes in hard work and self-improvement while the other believes in getting by off of others.

This is the other side of identity politics. It says that all societies have equal value and thus are fully compatible with ours; that no society is better than another. This doesn't encourage building a stronger society, but one which will result in a balkanized nation. Of course, by breaking us down into the smallest denominator, we're more controllable; more manageable, and if you're setting at the very top of the food chain and your goal is absolute control, then that's exactly what you want.

A Future Misplaced

People are a curious lot, especially when we resort to "herd mentality". For some reason, we seem to have this tendency to act or think in a certain way just because we perceive or we're told, that "everyone else is doing it", be it some fashion or gaming or whatever trend. Maybe we've just been conditioned by Madison Avenue marketing types to follow these made up trends. Maybe it's genetic, or perhaps it's a little of both. Lately, we've tripped into something similar to herd mentality, but potentially much more sinister, and that is "political correctness" or as it's otherwise known, being "PC".

Why do I say that? Because political correctness makes use of the our "group think" behavior by attempting to alter a person's behavior into conforming to a often manufactured set of parameters. This effort generally includes stigmatizing, bullying, and sometimes includes the use of or threat of violence. George Orwell discussed this kind of behavior in two of his most popular books, "Animal Farm" and "1984". However, Orwell was simply writing what he saw taking place in Stalinist Russia, where certain ideas were "erased" from the public conscientious. It didn't take long for this to go from ideas or words and phrases to erasing actual people and events from the accepted history (it's been said that history is nothing more than a collective agreement of assumptions).

The Catholic Church has had a very long history of rewriting (or "correcting" to use their phrase) history through its destruction of "heretical" sects, religious texts and other books. It has deleted, altered, and reinterpreted hundreds if not thousands of religious scripture in order to promote its political-religious agenda going back centuries. Of course, many other religions have done so as well. More recently in history, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy , Spain, Hungary and Romania all made great use of politically correct behavior which included not just intimidation but made use of mass book burnings (as did the Catholic Church which, as often as not, was simply stoking the flames for the religious and political dissenters tied to the stake). However, none did it better than Stalin who even had photos and film edit out the latest political enemy along with all mention of their very existence (while sometimes inserting himself to create the image of the all present and powerful leader).

Here in America, we're seeing something similar being played out. Perhaps not to the extent mentioned above; at least no one has been burned at the stake, executed, or set to a concentration camp...not yet anyway. What I'm specifically talking about is the accelerating tendency to distort and/or attempt to erase a part of American history. We've long heard the story about how George Washington could never tell a lie when in truth he was a little shady on his real estate dealings or how Abraham Lincoln "freed all the slaves", which is patently not true. However, that is where I want to go with this article, namely the removal of our portion of collective past as a nation. Let's get started with ole log splitting "Honest Abe".

First off, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, a slave state, as was the first and only President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis (as an aside, both were born in log cabins). Lincoln's family moved to Indiana and finally settled in Springfield Illinois while Jefferson Davis moved to Mississippi. Lincoln would grow up being mostly unsuccessful in everything he did and hardly "honest" even as a lawyer. Of course, in time, and after numerous false starts, Lincoln finally succeed in becoming President, but it was of a nation which was deeply divided along many lines and had been since the 1840's. Davis would be more successful in his business ventures and ultimately become one of America's greatest US Senators. When he agreed to become President of the newly created Confederacy, Davis said it was the "saddest day of my life", but felt he had no other choice. Lincoln repeatedly said he had no opposition to the issue slavery with respects to the nation and would do whatever he could to keep the nation together, including the acceptance of slavery (privately, Lincoln opposed slavery). However, slavery was not the key issue for succession. It was only one, albeit a vocal one, of the many reasons for the division of the union---the two key factors being the issue of state's rights and economic development (which was brought to a head with Worrall Act).

Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, understood the complexities of succession. He even acknowledged that the institution of slavery was unsustainable and would very likely have ended on its own within ten years if not sooner. When Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, following the bloody and indecisive Battle of Gettysburg, it was in hopes of bring the war to an end. The Proclamation pertained ONLY to the states which had seceded and not to the slave holding border states and territories. Since the South was primarily rural, Lincoln hoped to draw Southern soldiers away from the battlefields and back to the farms as slaves left and crops began to rot in the fields. Of course, Lincoln's order was illegal in that it was being issued over territory where he had no jurisdiction, but he hoped it would have the same results. Of course, the industrial might of the North ultimately won and the South was utterly laid waste.

Decades later, veterans on both sides meet; some became good friends with their counterparts on the other side. Eventually, the widows, children, and descendants of both the North and South began to form associations erect memorials and statues. Even our current "Memorial Day", originally a Southern holiday, was adopted nationally. Now, some 152 years later, a new type of Civil War seems to be arising. We have a small minority of individuals who are quite adapt at being vocal as well as making use of the "politically correct" trigger, are demanding that all traces of the Confederacy be erased. We've already seen where decades of misleading education has created the popular myth of "Lincoln the Modern Moses " or that there was a single sole cause for the war when in truth, less than 4% of the entire South owned any slaves (the average was three). Most slave owners worked shoulder to shoulder with their slaves. Only 1% were the stereotypical "Terra" plantations.

These individuals and groups are demanding that all statues pertaining to the Confederacy be removed and destroyed. Thankfully, most are being saved and removed to less prominent locations. However, these demands include the renaming of schools, roads, and the removal of any and all Confederate flags or memorabilia from public property as well as museums, cemeteries, battlefields, or even re-enactments along with prohibiting the sale of related memorabilia. Failure to comply could result in threats of violence (sometimes it's more than mere threats), protests, boycotting and labeling as a "racist". As a result, state and local leaders have tucked tail and complied with these terrorist demands in the name of political correctness.

Now, as if that isn't intimidating enough, these same individuals are demanding an end to so-called "cultural appropriation". By that they mean prohibiting non-black individuals from wearing certain types of ear rings, hair styles, or clothing. Some have tried to extend that to creating "all black" associations, social functions like school graduations, and even "white free safe spaces". Finally, there is the demand for "slave reparations", which range from a cash settlement, a free house and/or car, to a guaranteed annual income or a tuition free college education, all paid for by a special tax on non-black individuals. The worse part of this is that some publicly elected individuals or appointed institutional leaders are actually considering this while a few have actually already implemented some of these demands!

I suppose that, in some ways, I can understand their frustration (note: since I'm not a racial minority, that statement can be construed as being "racially insensitive" or not "PC"). Anyway, they rightfully claim that, per Lincoln, those who left their masters would receive "40 acres and a mule". They were to be resettled in what was then called "Indian Lands"; that is, what's now Arizona and New Mexico. The alternative was a one way trip back to Africa, which some took. They founded the country of Liberia, which is basically the anus of the world. Home to huge blocks of poverty, poor sanitation, unsafe food, inadequate housing, a seriously corrupt government, and up until recently, ground zero for the Ebola virus. However, Lincoln's assassination nullified that verbal agreement (the reason for the offer in the first place was because Lincoln felt that whites and blacks would not get along well together). These individuals also claim, again rightfully, that because of slavery, they lost their cultural inheritance and connection to their history.

However, before they try to fix the blame on the US, they need to be reminded that slavery was introduced to America by the Spanish, then the Portuguese, Dutch, French and English. Even Native Americans, who were occasionally slaves themselves, held both white and black slaves. Furthermore, do you think any of these slave traders actually traipsed through the jungles in search of some hapless victim? Nope. They were caught and sold by other African tribes; usually as a result of a conflict or war, or some chief wanted someone's wife, daughter, property, or simply to get rid of a possible rival or troublemaker. Sometimes, these poor souls were sold to European slave traders in port; sometimes they were sold to Arab slave traders who took them East to sell (this practice by Arab slave traders still continues).

The fledgling US was among the very first countries to stop the importation of slaves into the country (1794 and again in 1807). So, who should be responsible, if anyone, for so-called "reparations"? Of course, there is the fact that there were actually some free black farmers and merchants who actually owned black slaves. We also shouldn't forget the non-slave free blacks in the North and in the so-called "Indian Lands" of the West, or those who came to America post 1865. Then there is the problem of multiple compensation given that very few blacks in America today actually descended from a slave. What about non-black individuals who were held as slaves such as the Irish, Scottish, Germans, Native Americans or Asians? They should be compensated too since they were enslaved by the same people (BTW, I am not referring to indentured individuals. That was a voluntary arrangement which often ended in freedom at the end of their term of servitude).

So what do we do? Is rewriting or distorting history the best answer? Should we try to bury the past by denying mainly WASPish Americans their history the way some blacks claim they were denied? What about those demanding the statues of Andrew Jackson be removed too? What do we gain by destroying our past or even the symbols of our pasts, or more importantly, what do we lose as a nation? Is it now acceptable to prohibit individuals from displaying pride in their heritage or honoring the dead just because a small minority claims to be "offended" or because you might be called a name? Do we try to forget the past by erasing its markers and symbols the way Stalin did his enemies? Do we reward individuals for something which may or may not have happened to an ancestor 150 or 200 years ago? If so, what about others who suffered from the same fate? Should be force museums and battlefields to close or cloak the truth, yet we publicly fund other groups simply because of their race? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy...or cowardice? Should we allow others to censor our words? What about digging up the dead? The City Council of Memphis Tennessee voted move to remove the remains of Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest, his wife and relocating them from the city cemetery, along with his statue. Is that morally right? Should all images of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves (including Jefferson and Washington) be removed, their homes closed and their bodies disinterred too (ironically, Robert E. Lee did not own slaves and whereas neither did Lincoln, his wife's family did). What about Union Generals who owned slaves, such as U.S. Grant, who came from a slave holding family?

Claims of "cultural appropriation" too is another case of "me thinks you protest too much" to borrow a line from the Bard's pen. Civilization has always advanced thanks to "cultural appropriation" . Perhaps this should be simply chocked up to another example of extremism, no different from the divisive political morass in Washington or the theocratic-based hatefulness taking place in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa except this racism being perpetrated by the same individuals who scream "racism". We would do well to seek the middle ground; to reach for a societal equilibrium and strive for a consensus which serves the greater good but leaves our values intact. As for me, I am not afraid of words; of being called a name by someone who is likely to be more guilty of its meaning than I. We should stop trying to destroy the past. To do so is like setting ourselves adrift by cutting our historical anchor or throwing our moral compass overboard. We should learn from the past, embrace the present, and keep our eyes fixed on the future.


More states seeing Confederate statues defaced.

Third Confederate statue removed in New Orleans

Bulldozing Monuments and The War on American History

A Confederate General's Final Stand Divides Memphis