How the American Voters Have Become Political Orphans

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than the decade leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during Great Depression or the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division today may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent elections (such as in New York City and Virginia as well as events in places like Dearborn Michigan) have served only to highlight our division. What have we've become?

One ideal our nation was founded on was the belief in a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government out of our private lives. However, now there are those who believed that government should be our primary source of our social and economic salvation. While our Founders believed that one succeeds or fails by their own efforts, we have those who think that government and by extension, society, “owes” for them simply for existing.

There are those who believe in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal than others and should be given special consideration for some historical slight or another. Another group believe success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to impart the skills one needs to succeed in society.

Meanwhile, others believe in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. As a result, society has to become a mediocrity. Meritocracy, where people are hired based on their skill and compatibility, is proclaimed “unfair” or “racist”. Successful people somehow "owe" those less successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or thought that playing sports  was more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a job just in the name of diversity or equity instead of knowledge or ability.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They believed in the right to petition their elected representatives meant the right to question them, and if necessary, to recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our private affairs. Individual privacy was essential as was freedom of speech, press, and association. With just five corporations controlling 96% of everything we watch, hear, or read, including the news, we no longer have those freedoms. We have a propaganda machine.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”. Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They truly believed in "America First". They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proven to them that their mistrust government was justified. They understood that power, once obtained, is seldom willingly given up. They also knew, long before Lord Acton famously said it, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupted absolutely.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Most of our Founders opposed the creation of political parties as “cliques” who would, in time, seized power from ordinary citizens and use it to push their own agenda. They would be horrified by the control Big Business has over government.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That makes them the largest political bloc in the country. That also means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are in fact minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering pushing their own agendas without public input or approval.

Our Founders also supported the concept of the “citizen legislator”, where a citizens would serve one or two terms in office and then return home and allow another citizen to do the same; a form of term limits. In this way, legislation would also stay relevant and reduce the chances of corruption.

What that absolutely disapproved of was notion of a “professional” politician, which was seen as little better than leach living off their fellow citizens. As an aside, these “citizen legislators” were only to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses and not given a salary. Serving in government was seen as the civil duty of each citizen.

Personally, I believe that once a newly elected politician raises their hand to take the oath of office, they automatically end any political allegiance. They aren’t there to represent the agenda of some political  party or corporate clique. They are there to solely represent the American People and those of their district. Nothing more and nothing less.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while We the People are left dealing with the mess and picking up the tab on something we had no say in.

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how one corporate clique wants more of our tax dollars. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule in politics today and not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you rarely see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws with loopholes so they can make more money while avoiding taxes (or better yet, passing those taxes on to us). They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms into cushy government appointments and back again. They are the corporate lobbyists and Beltway insiders.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources. Their goal is nothing less that control, be it of assets, market access, natural resources, and, of course, of us.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by national boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and proud citizens to mere global consumers “loyal” to one toilet paper brand, detergent or another product. If you carefully watch their programming, you’ll see just how interchangeable we're made to feel. We’ve become indentured economic serfs, hostages to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence.

They are the ultimate users and corruptors. We are artificially divided as every turn. We are pitted against each other in some way, be it work, entertainment, sports, and of course, gender, race, religion, and politics. As long as we’re divided, we aren’t focused on the real villains of our collective misery.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this manufactured divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Returning to our constitutional republican government will require more mere tweaking.

Many already recognize this. Given the dominance of Independent voters, it’s obvious that many are finally waking up. Some, however, may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Lady Liberty has been prostituted out by Wall Street. Our freedoms, once guaranteed, are being usurped and sold to the highest bidder.  Uncle Sam is on life support while his two incompetent physicians, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment for the disease they caused. Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice. 

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! 

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

 

Examining Racial and Ethnic Reality Part 1: Introduction, Home and Hearth, and Education

 

Growing up in the United States in the 1960’s and 1970's, we were often told that “polite society” doesn’t publicly discuss religious, political, or sexual preferences.  Race was another such topic. Today, things have changed and it seems that everything is on the table.  There are those who seem to expect some sort of positive reinforcement for wearing their political, religious, racial, or sexual allegiance on their sleeve.

They feel entitled to an obligatory pat on the back, a celebratory ice cream cone, or handout, and when that reward isn’t forthcoming, they become offended, indignant, or defensive. They become upset that their life choices or fluke of genetics aren’t being rewarded or as impressive as they think they should be to others. 

You’re expected to embrace their world view or face being ostracized (aka “cancelled”), shouted down, physically attacked, or worse yet, being called a name and incredibly, they become indignant when they are the ones called out.  Race and ethnicity are such topics, and ones which warrant critical examination.  

Introduction

For example, when we examine race, we find something similar in the reaction. Individuals, almost two centuries removed, want not just sympathy for what some ancestor may or may not have endured, but they want to be compensated for what they never experienced. Those who look beyond color and (to quote Dr. Martin Luther King), judge people by the “content of their character” are often considered the worst offenders.

They behave as if this was a one off historical phenomena. Just one group--- white Europeans---were somehow solely responsible for the institution of slavery, forgetting that the most prolific dealers of human flesh weren’t Europeans, but the Arabs of Northern Africa (who put a premium on white flesh).

They give no thought to the historical fact that forced servitude has existed since Mankind existed. Every people and every race has at one time or another been slave and master. It’s a chain we all wear. They have also conveniently ignored the fact that it was these same white Europeans who all but put an end to this hateful institution or that they implemented legislation and taxpayer supported programs balance the scale that has existed since we roamed the African savannahs.

Equally, they’ve chosen to disavow the historical fact that it was their brethren who betrayed them and sold them into slavery, which sadly still continues to this day in Africa as well as parts of Asia. Perhaps the ancestors of the person on the street they randomly call “brother” or “sister” may been responsible for the plight of their ancestor, only to have later been caught up in the net? Such twists of fate aren’t as uncommon as one might think. It’s well documented that blacks owned black slaves in the U.S. or that native Americans had slaves of all races.

Nevertheless, for some reason, they “demand” to be compensated for what they aren’t entitled to (and arguably have already been given). They “demand” that the people who freed their distant ancestors from bondage must also assume some form of self-imposed “guilt” for doing so. Why is that? Is this anger at the people who delivered them from slavery justified or is it anger at themselves for not taking the initiative to free themselves and their refusal to place the blame where it truly belongs?

Shouldn’t their anger be more accurately directed to those who ensured their bondage in the first place, or is that just a little too close to home? If there is some sort of guilt to be had, perhaps it should be their failure to take responsibility for their own future, trading a “master” on a plantation for a politician or bureaucrat? What of the millions of immigrants who’ve come here from a different culture and customs, not speaking the language, and with next to nothing in their pockets, but have adapted very quickly?

They took advantage of the opportunities available, and as a people, kept their independence, and succeeded while the so-called “freed” people who’ve had the advantage of time, language and integration remain in a state of self-imposed bondage, blaming others for their poverty, broken homes, crime, high unemployment, alcoholism and drug abuse. If it was systematic, there should be few or no exceptions, but there are many.

In their anger at themselves, they lash out at others, such as in Cincinnati a few weeks ago, violently attacking individuals who were of no threat to them or looting the businesses of immigrants who’ve succeeded. Is this self-loathing, reversed racialism, opportunism or a combination? Let’s set aside emotions, pre-conceived ideas, and bias in order to examine the data and see what it can tell us.

Home and Hearth

According to the U.S Census Bureau, Whites have 50.5% of all live births while Blacks have 13.9%. Asians and Pacific Islanders are responsible for 6.2%. Native Americans have 0.7% of all live births, and Hispanics make up 25%. Nevertheless, the overall percentage of White and Black fertility rates have been in decline over the past several decades as has Native Americans.

 However, Hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders on the other hand have seen their fertility rates increase, meaning that Asian and Hispanic populations are growing relatively faster than that of whites and blacks. By 2050, the U.S. is expected to reach a near racial parity with no dominate race. How that will work out remains a guess but often cited as a key factor for an eventual (and likely) balkanization of the United States.

A key factor in predicting the eventual success of a child is whether or not they are born in a dual or single parent homes. According to the Center for Equal Opportunity, Black Americans have the highest rate of illegitimate children. According to the Center, nearly 70% of Black children---69.3%-- are born out of wedlock. Compare that to 41.6% of Hispanics and 21.9% of Whites. It’s 59.3% for Native Americans. For Asians of Chinese origin, that number is 6.4% while Japanese Americans it’s 9.7%.

Two interesting asides worth mentioning are these. 45% of Black professionals (including managers) have had at least one illegitimate child compared to just 3% of White professionals.73% of Black high school students admit to having sex. That compares to 52% of Hispanic students and 44% of White students. Also, Black adults have the highest divorce rates while Asians have the lowest. Native Americans have the second highest and Hispanics have the second lowest.

When it comes to preschool care, Hispanic children are most likely to receive home centered care from a parent.  Black children are most likely to receive some form of home based care from a non-parent relative (like grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc.). White kids are most likely to receive home based care from a non-parent or relative such as a nanny or babysitter. Children of mixed race were most likely to receive preschool care from some sort of center (such as a daycare). When it came to subsidized care, Hispanic and black children were most often the beneficiaries.

The National Library of Medicine reported that Black infants tended to have lower birth weights than other groups. They also reported than less than 1/3 of children living at or under the national poverty rate took advantage of programs such as Head Start, and while Head Start tends to provide higher quality care than other centers, Black children receive poorer quality care compared to children of other races. The reasons cited were the birth weight (including high nutritional foods, as well a poor educational levels Black as well as Hispanic ethnicity, especially in family care centers.

 Interestingly, a 2013 study by the Centers for Disease and Prevention reported that 70% of Black fathers who live with their kids were active in their lives compared to 60% of Whites and 45% of Hispanics. 78% of Black fathers tended to have dinner with their children every day while 74% of White fathers and 64% of Hispanic fathers did. Additionally, 27% of Black fathers took their children to and from activities. By contrast, just 20% of White fathers did.  When it came to the all important homework and childcare, 41% of Black fathers stepped up. Meanwhile, only 29% of Hispanic fathers and 28% of White fathers helped out.  

Education

When it comes to graduation, Asian and White students have the highest rates with Asians leading the way. Among Asians and Pacific Islanders, the graduation rate is 94%. For Whites it’s 90%. Hispanic graduation rates are 83% while for Black students it’s 81% and 74% for Native Americans.  

Some additional statistics along the same lines that I found was that 68% of Asians have a bachelor’s degree or higher. That compares to just 25% of Hispanics and 44% of Whites.  On the other side of spectrum, just 4% of Asian had less than a high school diploma. Only 5% of Blacks didn’t have a high school degree along just 7% of whites. However, just over 20% of Hispanics lacked a high school diploma.

It bears mentioning the Black females graduate at a higher percentage than Black males. 64.1% go on to college and graduate. Of those, 71.5% earn a master’s degree, and out of those, an impressive 65.9% obtain a doctorate although more Black males  overall have a doctorate or professional degrees such as a law  or medical degree. It bears mentioning that Black female students face a unique hurdle their counterparts don’t.

For those that tend to be “overachievers”, they are often harassed or treated as social outcasts for their academic performance, often being accused as “acting White”, coming most often from their Black male peers. There have been instances reported where Black students have asked that they not be singled out publicly for some achievement or award to avoid being bullied.

 Some actively try to downplay their academic performance, and even join in with the “bad crowd” in order to blend in. Some have reported being coerced into skipping assignments or school, drinking, drugs, violence, crime, and sex in order no to stand out. The result is that they usually end up holding the proverbial  “bag” and sidetracking their lives.

Finally, it bears mentioning that there are 180 “Black Only” academic scholarships and over 25 “Hispanic Only” scholarships and about 12 scholarship programs directed toward Asian-Americans. Native Americans can apply for approximately 150 “Native American Only” scholarships plus individual tribal scholarships. As for Whites, there are none. The reason, it's argued, is that Whites aren't a minority (the U.S. Census Bureau would disagree. White males are in fact a minority). 

Nevertheless, as the counter argument runs, scholarships should not be based on racial or other quotas, but rather on financial need based on their social-economic situation. It’s also worth noting that prior to 2023, ranked racial quotas were used by many colleges and universities in order to increase  on campus “diversity”, even bypassing higher qualified candidates.

In part two of our look at race, we'll take a look at employment and unemployment, Affirmative Action and quotas, racial equality in politics, crime  and prison sentencing. Finally, we’ll address the issues of reparations, the future of race relations, and what does all this mean, if anything?

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Trans-Saharan slave trade

Barbary slave trade

Barbary Pirates and English Slaves

Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women

Study: Black dads more involved in activities with theirchildren than other groups

Quality Disparities in Child Care for At-Risk Children:Comparing Head Start and Non-Head Start Settings

Fast Facts: Women of Color in Higher Ed

Race and Intelligence

First Divorce Rate by Age and Race/Ethnicity  

Our Never Ending War on Illegal Immigration: A Brief History

Immigration has been an important issue in the United States since at least the middle 19^th century when the U.S. began considering the creation of immigration laws. During the post-Civil War period, the United States experienced an economic boom, and we were expanding westward at breakneck speed. We needed people able and willing to meet this boom head on. Men and women were needed to fill the ranks in factories, lay railroad tracks, bend rivers to our will, level mountains, build cities, work farms, raise cattle and sheep, and provide back breaking labor. The war had laid bare our "Manifest Destiny".

Starting in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the first immigration law. The law included a literacy test, established a tax to be paid by new immigrants, and allowed officials a wide berth in deciding who could be admitted or excluded. The law also contained a “Asiatic Barred Zone”, which was a quota system to limit individuals from certain country entrance into the U.S.

Nevertheless, it paved the way for the Immigration Act of 1924. Originally, the laws were created with the purpose of keeping track of and limiting who was entering the country, their skill level or occupation, level of education, did they have the means provide for themselves until they got established, and country of origin. Eventually other statistics came along and asked questions about age, religion, overall health, or ethnic group to gain a more complete picture of our changing national demographics. America was, after all, a melting pot.

Today, we continue to regulate and monitor who comes and goes from our country, as does every other nation on the planet. Governments worldwide have a duty to secure their borders and an obligation to protect their citizens. It’s the central component to the legal concept of national sovereignty. Without a defined and secure border, it's not truly a nation. It's merely a territory.

America is facing a national crisis. Some even refer to it as a non-violent “invasion" similar to what Europe is currently experiencing (although that situation has become more violent due to an increase in physical assaults, murders, robberies, and rape gangs). While illegal entry into this nation (mainly along our southern border) has been going on in drips and drabs for decades, it’s been since the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that it has evolved into the serious problem is it is now. 

The primary reason for the influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, at least initially, was the social and economic upheavals happening in Latin America (some at our instigation), such as militarily in places like El Salvador, Panama and Nicaragua, or were due to violent hurricanes and tropical storms  hitting nations like Haiti and the Dominican Republic. President Ronald Reagan was the first post-Watergate president to address the issue of illegal immigration.

In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (aka "IRCA"). The law set new minimum guidelines for arriving immigrants and streamlined immigration policy.  It promised tighter border security and established strict penalties for employers who knowingly hired someone here illegally. In addition, Reagan granted amnesty to some 3 million, mostly Hispanic, individuals illegally residing in the U.S. 

In signing the bill, President Reagan made it clear that this was “one and done” and that the U.S. would crackdown hard on illegal immigrants and there would be no further amnesties offered or given. However, what would-be migrants apparently heard was that if they could illegally enter the U.S. and evade authorities long enough, they’d eventually be granted amnesty too. As a result, the flow of migrants crossing the border illegally increased over previous years.

During George H. W. Bush's administration in 1990, Congress modified and expanded the Immigration Act of 1965, which increased immigration levels by 40% and included a provision for allowing family members to join those already here. It also doubled the number of work-related visas and increased the number of applications available to “underrepresented” nations.

 In 1994, under Bill Clinton’s presidency, Congress also pardoned roughly 548,000 illegal immigrates living the U.S. while fining them $1000 (which was waived). This amnesty was renewed in 1997 and again in 2000. Also in 1997, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) which give legal status to over one million illegal residents (most form Latin America) who had lived here since 1995. Facing claims of discrimination, NACARA was amended in 1998 to include an undisclosed number of Haitians illegally living here since 1995.

However, President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRAIRA”). Critics thought the bill went too far.  Under the bill, immigrants, regardless of the legal status, could be deported if they were convicted of having committed a felony. The new law would also remove anyone who overstayed their vistas, by so much as a day, could be deported and would automatically be ineligible to apply for a new non-immigrant visa. From 1996 through early 2000, deportations went from 50,000 to more than 200,000.

In 2000, the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (“LIFE”) was passed, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants attempting to obtain permits (aka “green cards”) to work here legally and had married legal or natural citizens. This allowed them to jump to the head of line, thus bypassing millions of other would-be immigrants waiting to gain legal entry into the United States. And who says crime doesn’t pay?

Despite promises to crack down on illegal immigration while running for office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). This allowed some allowed some 700,000 individuals who had come here illegally while under the age of 18, de facto U.S. citizenship in the form of renewable grants.

In 2013 and 2014 two efforts were made to allow illegal immigrants a path to remain in the U.S. The first was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. The bill would also dramatically increase the number of work visa programs from 65,000 to 180,000. In 2014, President Obama attempted to get Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (“DARPA”) into law but failed. This was another efforts to provide a pathway for approximately 3.6 million illegal immigrants to become citizens.

During this same period, dozens of American communities opted to ignore federal immigration laws by declaring “sanctuary” status. What this meant was that they would not cooperate with federal immigration officials is identifying, apprehending, or detaining any non-resident, illegal or otherwise. Not unexpectedly, there were massive increases in illegal migrants which brought huge jumps in demand for government services.

As a result, local taxes were dramatically increased along with demands for more state and federal money. Can you imagine refusing to cooperate with federal authorities while demanding they send more money to help them in breaking the law? Talk about a sense of entitlement!

Under President Donald Trump’s first term, there were several attempts made to curtail the tidal wave of illegal immigrants coming from our southern border, but from Asia (including China), Africa, the Caribbean (many of whom were fleeing areas hard hit by storms and corrupt governments), and the Middle East, which included not just refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but unfortunately members of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorists as well.

Trump went so far as to try to contain the influx of migrants attempting to cross illegally by beginning to be a massive wall along the southern border. While nationally, many people supported the concept, which was also locally popular, Trump face widespread criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, various pro-immigration groups (many of whom had strong church ties), and even foreign governments.  In addition, Trump was urged to suspend all border crossings under Title 24 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Starting on day one, President Joe Biden sat about dismantling as much of Trump’s immigration policy as he could by signing the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. He ended Trump’s travel ban which prohibited unrestricted travel from known terrorist countries like Iran and Libya, started tearing down the border wall, and reaffirmed the legal status of DACA recipients. 

 In June 2024 he signed legislation to shut down the border in illegal crossings that surpassed 2500 a day.  Between January 2021 and January 2024, ICE encountered 7.2 million illegal immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. In 2023, there were a record 2.5 million occurrences.  The bill also suspended protection from deportation to anyone unable to provide proof of need for asylum.

It's also worth mentioning that international law states individuals seeking asylum may do so if they are being persecuted due to their race, religion, gender, or ethnic status. Seeking asylum for economic purposes is not recognized as a legitimate reason to be granted asylum. Secondly, the individual seeking asylum must apply to the next closest country, not the country of their choice.

Now that Trump is again president, he has hit the ground running on the immigration issue as promised. With nearly 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and decades of bipartisan blunders to correct,  thousands of illegal immigrants have already been deported to their home country, despite a lot of gnashing of teeth by their respective leaders.  Apparently, they think that the United States is somehow obligated to accept and provide for these individuals. Ironically, if this happens there, the outcome wouldn’t be so amicable. Individuals caught in their country illegally face an automatic prison sentence as does anyone who aids them in any way.

Some leaders of foreign countries have been openly critical of the United States efforts to exercise this most basic of national rights, while at the same time exercising their right to secure their national borders and protect their national sovereignty.  The media makes sure you see migrants carrying signs which read "We're Human" and "No One is Illegal". No one is doubting their humanity or that people aren't illegal. However, sometimes their actions are. That's why we have laws and courts to enforce those laws. It's the price we pay for a civil society. 

Clearly there needs to be a single universal law regarding the disposition and repatriation of individuals seeking to enter a country illegally which protects the right of a country to secure national borders and maintain its national sovereignty.  It should also include guidelines for dealing with individuals, groups, or associations (and private or religious) who promote the breaking of international and national laws concerning immigration. It should be up to each nation to provide for any exceptions such as a natural or manmade disaster.  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

 Historical Overview of Immigration Policy

The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)

 

Immigration and Immigrants: Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Actof 1996

Immigration policy under the Joe Biden administration

America's Global Economic Performance and Our Failing Schools

 

Many of the things we took for granted when we were in school back in the 1950's, 60's, and '70's are not considered "politically correct" these days. It seems that the emphasis is more on not "offending" anyone or promoting a culture where nearly everything is acceptable, no matter how irrational. Kids can't tell time using a analog clock or write cursive but they get to pick which gender they want to be and no one has to even tell their parents! You send "Johnny" or "Mary  to elementary school in the morning and they come home as "Johanna" or "Mark"! What the hell?  I was happy if I got to pick out my shirt for school let along my gender! Besides, everyone knew girls had cooties. 

Today kids have story time read to them by individuals dressed like they belong in some sort of John Waters' movie.  They can now choose what they want to study (or not) based on their racial or gender identity.  Disrupting class isn't at all uncommon and often excused as being a part of their "learning culture" or symptomatic of some attention disorder we never heard of when we were kids in school.

 Assaulting teachers while trying to teach class or enforce discipline isn't unusual (and woe unto the teacher who physically responds). Teachers in their 20's or 30's getting caught having sex with kids barely in puberty happens so often it's barely news worthy.  Professional ethics aside, what about simple  morality?

 I personally happen to support saying the Pledge of Allegiance (if you don't want to participate, fine. Just don't interfere with those who do). Strict discipline in the classroom, active participation of the parent or guardian, and teaching civics are essential. If they don't understand the function of government and their role in society as citizens, how can they protect their freedoms? Volunteering 90 days at the end of senior year performing some civic service such as Habitat for Humanity, helping out at the VA hospital, Meals on Wheels, participate on a police or firefighter advisory board, helping seniors or working as an election officer should be mandatory before graduating. 

 I am especially keen on learning being the focus of education. Anything beyond that (sports, band, cheerleading, or whatever) should be a privilege for maintaining good grades. Poor grades or disciplinary issues and the privileges are suspended until the grade or behavior situation is corrected. Repeated offenses and they're revoked. Period.

Some individuals and groups want to promote the introduction of their agenda a denominational prayer in public school and teaching creationism in public school either alongside evolution or to the exclusion of evolution all together. If that's want you want for your child, great. Send them to a parochial school.

 I have no problem with a minute of silence to get yourself mentally ready for the day ahead. If you want to quietly say a little prayer (or have a little prayer circle), have at it. If you want to do a quick mediation, or some late minute cramming for the test you forgot about or get your homework in order, that's fine too. Just be respectful of others. I do not support the notion of mandatory participation in someone else's religious expressions unless it's part of a comparative religions class examining all faiths.

Another key issue is the emphasis on higher education. I also don't believe college is for everyone or necessary for every or even most jobs. Sure, there are some occupations where higher education is needed because of the intellectual nature of the work. However, there are jobs where someone with a proper high school education should be able to do quite well. One reason employers ask for a college degree is just to get a qualified applicant at what would otherwise be the high school  equivalent.

 I've seen high school "graduates" barely function on a 8th grade grammar or reading level or can do math much beyond a 6th or 7th grade level. You can all but forget about basic geography and history (but boy oh boy do they known or video games!).  One resulting outcome is the lowering of colleges and universities minimum admission standards to create an artificial parity based on race or gender rather than academic performance. This is nothing more than a quota system based on discrimination.  

Far too often, teachers and school administrators "fail students forward" rather than hold them back out of fear of being accused of racism, genderism, or whatever the victim card du jure happens to be.   The most common excuse is that failing little "Brad" or "Babs" hurts their self esteem. I think saddling them with a worthless education or bleak employment opportunities is worse than bruised feelings.

Is it any wonder that the United States consistently performs in the lower half of the second tier globally? The U.S. ranked 16th out of 81 industrial countries according to a 2022 test of 15 year olds as administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). We placed 16th in science among the same 81 countries. When it came to mathematics, we were 34th. The top five highest scores all belonged to Asian nations with Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Macao consistently being among the top performers. 

These are some of our current and future economic competitors for high paying jobs and market shares, which affects employment levels, quality of life, and other key metrics.  If we think of education as an investment in human capital or part of our economic national security, we're losing the battle.

Although the U.S. spends more taxpayer money per student than other countries, we are obviously not getting our money's worth. Incoming President Trump is putting together an advisory committee---the deceptively named "Department of Government Efficiency" (it's not an actual government agency)  led by Elon Musk and  Vivek Ramaswamy. Their job is to review various government projects, programs, and departments and find a way to make them work better and within budget.

 I suggest they start with our school system and find ways to improve our performance. After all, everything starts with education (there are some who, since the 1990's,  have been calling for the disbandment of the Department of Education and a return of educational authority back to the states). As an aside, the Department of Education was elevated to a cabinet level position in October 1979 by President Jimmy "Peanut" Carter (D-GA).

This was just four years after the advent of the disastrous court ordered  fiasco known as "forced busing" which effectively eliminated neighborhood schools. Students as young as six and seven years old, were put onto school buses and shipped all over town for hours at a time each way. This implementation of "social engineering" was intended to create balance in the schools academically and racially.

What it accomplished was a general lowering of academic performance which continues to this day. A better option would have equalizing the money spent on each student and rotating teachers. However, that would have produced a battle with the powerful teacher unions. So, what can we do about it?    

One potential solution is to weed out not just the academically unprepared, but also  redirect individuals who lack the interest or aptitude for higher education. One option would be to adopt a system similar to Germany's where students are tested periodically throughout years K - 8, and channeled into programs which lead to two years degrees, trade or technical schools, or on to higher education. It's one of the reason's Germany has one of the world's most advanced economies in the world.  Of course, the final decision belongs to the student (and parents) who may choose the academic path of their preference.

Students unprepared academically are re-immersed back into the subjects they poorly performed on via in person or online tutoring while extracurricular actives such as sports are put on hold. Students may be required to attend before or after school instruction. In some cases, this may take place during the summer. Until they can pass those courses, they should remain  suspended from  any non-academic events.  

The result is that the abilities and interests of the student is targeted  instead of trying to funnel them onto a path where they have little or no ability or interest. Trade or technical school is one such option. Unlike Europe, America faces a serious shortage of carpenters, welders, plumbers, electricians, glaziers, construction equipment operators, cyber security specialists, and other skills. It's a economic sector where there are real shortages and great opportunities. Making six figures annually isn't unheard of. Neither is owning your own business, where income opportunities can be even higher.

In a 2023 survey, there was a shortage of approximately 374,000 skilled workers in construction. The Association of General Contractors of America had a 70% positive response rate about concerns over the availability of skilled contractors and subcontractors in the upcoming years. 80% of those surveyed said they were worried about unfilled positions long term in the construction industry.

Between now and 2023, the renewable energy industry alone will need 1.1 million more workers worldwide and another 1.7 million to operate the equipment. According to a January 2024 U.S. Bureau of Labor report, the manufacturing industry in the U.S. has a staggering 584,000 unfilled job openings.

Among the reasons for the critical shortage of skilled workers is that the current workforce is slowing but steadily aging out. Almost 70% of supervisors in just the electrical trades are Babyboomers who are quickly reaching or passing retirement age.  More individuals are retiring and leaving than are replacing them. Another explanation is the push by school counselors, college recruiters, and a negative public perception about blue collar workers in general.

The truth is that training for a career in the trades is far shorter and cheaper than getting a Bachelor degree from a college or university. Training, on average, is two years or less plus a short apprentice period which may start simultaneously while being paid with benefits (the average apprentice earns roughly 50% of a skilled worker's salary). It takes about three weeks to qualify for your CDL license needed to be a long haul truck driver (the average salary--with experience--is just over $78,000 yearly).

Typically the cost of attending a trade or technical program can range from just a few thousand dollars to roughly $30,000 with an average cost of $15,000. Many of those attending a trade program are often hired before graduating (some start work will still attending school).

Compare that with the cost to obtain a four year degree. The current average is approximately $10,490 per year for in-state students. For out out-of-state students, that cost can jump to as high as $24,000 per year. If you plan on attending one of the top schools, the cost can be a lot higher. There are a few cheaper options (like attending a unaccredited institution), but remember that you get what you pay for and that's nowhere more true than in education.

Then there's the debt. On average, 61% of those who graduate from a public university leave with diploma in one hand and a bill for $31,960 in the other hand. Over their four years, the majority of students will occur a debt of at least $30,000 by the time they leave. The average federal student loan debt is $37,853 dollars. If you pursue a Masters degree, the costs and debt will be substantially higher.

It used to be that many American workers graduated from high school with a functional degree and would get a good paying job with benefits down at one of the local manufacturing companies. They'd join a union for job security and they were pretty much set. For a large percentage of the country, it was a near guarantee to their entry into the Middle Class. It wasn't uncommon for this path to be multigenerational, but those days are long gone.

Starting in the late 1970's American began transitioning out of manufacturing and largely into the lower paying (and the less secure non-union) service industry. What industry remained has become more automated, replacing most positions. The only ones with job security and a good paycheck are the ones who repair or program the production line robot. But that's not the half of it.

Our parents and grandparents didn't have to face is the level of competition we do. Today, workers not just compete with each other for scarce well paying jobs, nor is their competition in the next town or state. Today's employee faces competition for work thousands of miles away, in countries like India and China where unions don't exist and people will work for next to nothing (and forget about benefits. They're happy just to have a job!). This is where America is losing ground, and when we look back at math and science score of our students, the future doesn't look to bright for the U.S..

When  it comes to technology, the world leader is Japan (Japan is also the world's most literate nation). Second is South Korea followed by China which has a knack of acquiring, studying, and adapting U.S. and global  technology. You don't have to look much further than the America's F-35 and China's J35A stealth fighter jets for proof.

In fourth place the good ole U.S. of A. Behind us is Germany, a country the size of Wisconsin and with a reputation for high quality engineering and efficiency thanks to their excellent dual avenue academic system which puts the trades on equal ground with higher education without the stigmatism as we mentioned earlier. Of course, we wouldn't expect anything else from the Germans.  As an aside, Russia graduates the most engineers of any country followed by the U.S. and Iran according to UNESCO.

 Singapore, a former British colony, is next (remember at the beginning of this article where I mentioned that the top five nations in academic math and science among 15 year olds were all Asian?). Coming in seventh place is Russia. Another country with a "gift" of mimicking U.S. technology. Great Britain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Switzerland round out the top ten.

The key to the future is innovation. It's where tomorrow originates. So, who leads the world when it comes to innovation? That honor goes to Switzerland which dominates its second place competitor, Sweden. The United States has dropped to third place and is just ever so barely ahead of Singapore and the UK. For now, this may get us by, but not for long. Not at the pace the world is changing. How long can we hold on? Only time will tell. But one thing is for certain. If we don't do radically improve our school system and the quality of graduates, we may be facing a bleak future as the world's largest Banana Republic.

 

Thank you for reading Another Opinion! We hope you enjoyed this article and will pass it along. Please don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly, please "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Please find below the links we consulted in researching this article. 

 

Department of Government Efficiency

U.S. Education Rankings Compared to Other Countries

Tradespeople wanted: The need for critical trade skills inU.S.

These countries have the most technological expertise

    

'Try Acting Less White' : Diversity Training Webinar Gone Awry

 

We've all heard the advertising slogan, "Things go better with Coke". Well, they may want to update that. Apparently not everything goes better with Coke. I'm talking about a online training webinar entitled "Confronting Racism: Understanding What It Means to Be White, Challenging What It Means To Be Racist" which was promoted by the popular soft drink manufacturer and hosted by LinkedIn.

The online training webinar, allegedly a project of Robin D'Angelo, author of "White Fragility" and was being hosted by LinkedIn, has been removed because of the immediate blowback and negative publicity it caused.  The story about the webinar was broke by Karlyn Borysenko, a psychologist and activist against critical race theory, which is the basis behind "white privilege" and institutional racism.  

According to Borysenko, she was sent the screen shots from an anonymous whistleblower at Coca-Cola who claimed that the webinar was part of the company's mandatory diversity program, "Better Together", and had been acquired through the business oriented website, LinkedIn, for their use.  

The webinar implied that all whites were naturally born racist, which was reinforced by societal norms. The course encourages white employees to "act less white" and adopt certain undefined behaviors such as being "less oppressive", "less certain", "be less arrogant, and to "break with apathy" in dealing with blacks in general according to some of the webinar's slides (you can read the slides through the links below).

 It also encourages employees to "break with white solidarity" which seems to imply that whites act as some monolithic front when it comes to dealing with racism. Another one of the slides evidently told employees to be "less white" in their daily dealings.

The webinar also appears to imply that racism is a one way street; that only whites are capable of racism. If the term "white" was replaced with "black", "Hispanic", or "Asian", we'd be seeing 24 hour news coverage complete with faux outraged politicians, celebrities, sports figures, and all the empty talking heads on the various news channels condemning the webinar. Lawyers would be lining up around the block to go after Coca-Cola, LinkedIn, and no doubt, the content writer. 

LinkedIn has removed the webinar. Ms. D'Angelo has stated through her representative, Caitlin Meyer, that she was not aware that she had been included in the webinar or that the slides had been "re-edited" in the manner presented (particularly as a training course on anti-racism). She also stated that the content presented in the webinar did not properly reflect her work.

As for Coca-Cola, they acknowledge having a diversity training program entitled "Better Together" which was linked with LinkedIn's educational products, but it denies that the courses are "mandatory" (according to Ms. Borysenko, several employees she spoke with said the programs were, in fact, mandatory).  The soft drink conglomerate promised that it would continue to "refine their curriculum".  

So, what happened? Ms. D'Angelo denies that either the webinar nor its content was the result of her efforts. In fact, she seemed to be a bit put off by the content of the slides mentioned. LinkedIn, which hosted the webinar, yanked it and thus far hasn't commented. Coca-Cola appears to have got caught with its pants down and minimized any responsibility of the content judging by their brief statement.

There's nothing unusual about companies offering courses on race relations or diversity. I took diversity classes in graduate school and again when I was an adjunct professor. Even when I was enrolled in community organizing training, diversity training was part of the curriculum.

I never had any issue with diversity training. When I was growing up in the deep South during the 1960's and the Civil Rights movement, our classes were already highly diverse. They included Native Americans, Hispanics, Greeks, Irish, Italians, Asians, and had quite a number of black students too.

We had Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhists, rich kids and the children of migrant workers. None of us cared. We learned together, got in trouble together, played together, occasionally fought with and beside each other. We accepted our differences as well as our similarities as just a part of life. That's just the way it was, and that's the way it's always been for me.

I've known people from across the spectrum. Most were just acquaintances; people I encountered throughout my comings and goings. A tiny few were close friends, and others I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. If you treat people the way you want to be treated, you shouldn't have any problems. I believe that's all most anyone really wants.

As for diversity training, it's to help expose people to different races, cultures, religions, and values. Anything which can help us get along together I'm all for. However, I do have an issue with trying to blame any race or singular group for our problems. Usually it takes two to tango.

Racism is not a solo sport. It works both ways. Yes, there are white racists, but there are black, Asian, and Hispanic racists too. Hatred is, sadly, open to all. Racism and discrimination have always existed, and to some degree, will likely continue to exist for some time to come.

Racism and discrimination have been a part of the human condition since the beginning. Both developed out of our tribal beginnings. It was likely due to our sense of competition, be it for shelter, resources, or reproduction. We are hardwired to seek out the familiar and reject what's different. We also seek out approval and reaffirmation of our beliefs and values, which became, over time, our traditions and eventually, part of culture and self-identity. 

We've never stopped being, in some way, tribal. We've never stopped being competitive, be it in school,  the workplace or the playground. Over time we've learned to suppress our suspicions and cooperate. It proved to be mutually beneficial for our survival. We've adapted. We've changed. Be it our values, traditions, or even cultures.

Adaptability has been our secret power. It's what has enabled us to survive everything from wooly mammoths, cave bears, and saber tooth tigers, to plagues, wars, and climate change.  Experiencing and accepting diversity is part of that adaptability. However, trying to claim that racism or discrimination is a one way street isn't. It's an attempt to project our successes or failures onto someone else.

The barriers of the past are for the most part gone. Yes, it's taken time; far too much time. There are still barriers out there. Women are still not treated the way they should in the workplace for instance, yet they make up almost 58% of the workforce. They are too often denied supervisory or senior management positions. They still aren't paid the same as men for doing the same job.

People who are LGBT are still frowned on. Personally, I don't care what your sexual orientation is. In fact, it's none of my business any more than mine is theirs. I certainly don't think it has any part to play in academia or the business world. The only thing that matters is their personal conduct and their professional performance.

The same goes when it comes to race, religion, or ethnic heritage. If you can practice your faith without disrupting business or being anything less than professional with another employee or customer, so be it. If, because of your ethnic heritage, religion, or culture, you can't (or won't) work with someone else of a different heritage, religion, culture or gender, you might consider your other employment options.

If you believe you are "entitled" to a job or promotion because of the color of your skin or gender, then I don't think you're the right person for the job. I'm not a fan of quotas. You should be hired or promoted because you're the right person for that position.

People should be hired or promoted because they have proven experience as well as the right education and skill set. Most of all, because they have the right attitude to get the job done and can be counted on.  By the same token, companies should never hire or promote anyone just because it looks like a good PR opportunity. Ultimately, they do both the individual and the company a disservice.

Finally, this. We all belong to one race---the Human race. We are the lone survivors of millions of years of evolution. Just 300,000 years ago, nine humanoid species walked this earth.  We're all that's left, and we have the wherewithal to wipe out every living thing on this planet (with the possible exception of cockroaches) within a matter of minutes.

Though we're just a single race, we belong to different branches on the same family tree. We have our differences, just like they are differences between cousins within the same family. Some of us have darker skin or lighter hair. Some have blue eyes, and others have green eyes or hazel eyes, while the majority have brown eyes.

 Some are taller, shorter, or carry an extra layer of fat to protect us from the cold. We are male or female. We have different shaped skulls or shaped eyes. And yes, there are subtle differences in intelligence just like there are subtle differences in athletic ability or immunity.

We have different cultures, traditions, values, and religions. That doesn't mean one is worse or better than the other. It just means we developed these civilizing factors based on differing environments and experiences.

However, we also have much more in common than not, such as our love for our children, appreciation for our elders, a need to protect things and individuals which we value, as well as a distain for certain types of behavior such as theft, murder, or lying. 

Diversity training is suppose to expose us not just to dissimilarities, but also to our similarities. It's meant to teach us as much as about what we have in common than not. I don't know who was responsible for this webinar (which, it would seem, were altered to enhance our differences and encourage racism rather than consign it to junk heap of the past).

I'm a little disappointed of the relatively few whites who objected to the webinar and lack of coverage by the media. Had some other race been used, I have no doubt that there would have been just as many (if not more) whites objecting as the race in question and it would have been all over the news.

Yet, it appears that few minorities objected to the webinar's message that white employees needed to be more subservient and to act "less white" or that whites only should be required to take diversity training. If diversity training is about anything, it's learning to get along. Thus, shouldn't everyone participate?

When it comes to racism, or discrimination in general, we need to have each other's back. This is especially true when you realize that America is no longer a single race dominated society.

America is becoming a nation of minorities with no single group having a singular dominance. Whites and Hispanics will hold a near parity, followed by blacks and then Asians. However, within a few decades, Asians may dominate in some areas; blacks in other areas.

We will either survive together or we will perish together. We don't have to like each other. We don't have to associate or live with each other in our private lives. But, if we want to survive, then we had better start treating each other how we want to be treated. That begins by accepting that racism goes two ways, and neither are acceptable.

 

Critical race theory

'Try to be less white': Coca-Cola hit with backlash over 'confronting racism' training course

Whistleblower: Coca-Cola Uses Antiracist Training That Tells Employees  'Try To Be Less White'

Coca-Cola Facing Backlash, Say 'Be Less White' Learning Plan Was About Workplace Inclusion

Coca-Cola slammed for diversity training that urged workers to be 'less white'

 

Political Correctness Running Amuck

The one thing I think I've noticed most about this holiday season are the number of articles I've read or that have been sent to me detailing how this or that celebration has been cancelled or that some school has been closed because of a school program or academic exercise. For instance, I recently read about a group of ninth grade students who were studying geography. As part of their assignment, the teacher required the students to know the country, the capital, some basic facts about the country and a phrase. Sounds harmless enough right? Well, apparently not. When they got to Saudi Arabia, the students were required to cite the Shahada, which is considered the core principal of Islam (the phrase states that there is no god but Allah and his prophet is Mohammed). Not surprisingly, once the parents became aware of this, all hell broke loose to the point where the school closed early for the Christmas Holiday (or are we calling it the Winter Solstice or winter season festival holiday now?).

In several other instances, Christmas activities in public areas were either curtailed or cancelled because groups of Moslems complained to local government officials that their religious sensibilities had been "offended" by these open displays of religious devotion---specifically Christian devotion (I can only imagine their reaction to seeing public or even private displays celebrating Chanukah). There was even complaints filled by a Moslem group over Buddhist monks doing their sand painting at a local mall; again citing that their feelings had been hurt). Naturally, this got me to think---when did it become fashionable for people to wear their feelings on their sleeves? When did it become mandatory that that we cater to every veiled threat or every quivering lip?

I recently read that Europe is in serious trouble with their "refugee" situation, and I'm not even talking about the terrorists going on a murder spree in Paris or the dozens of mosques which have been shut down in France due to their connections with terrorist organizations or even the large weapons and explosive caches they've found! Nope. I'm talking about the Mayor of Munich receiving a signed petition from recent arrivals demanding a stop to Oktoberfest. Why? The usual suspects I suppose---pork products, beer, cute frauleins in dirndls, men and women (and boys and girls) enjoying some om-pa-pa music, playing games and having a good ole time...together. In public. Oh the shame of it all! In Scotland and Ireland, various city officials and/or church leaders have received "requests" to cease ringing church bells since it disturbs Moslems going about their daily business and students studying the Koran.

In London and other English towns and cities (like Manchester and York), the Moslem faithful routinely pour out into the street for their prayers despite repeated requests by police and city officials to move their prayers elsewhere since they are blocking traffic and interfering with business (New York and few other US cities are already starting to face that issue). Even when alternative locations were provided, the requests were ignored. My understanding is that other cities on the continent such as Paris, Marseilles, Hamburg, Berlin, Dusseldorf are having similar problems. In some locations, Sharia law is enforced, even on non-Moslems. Often, the police will avoid these areas for fear of attack or triggering a protest. In Scandinavia, crime has skyrocketed, especially in the case of aggravated assault and rape (in some locations, rape has doubled or tripled and in every case, it has been attributed by authorities to the new arrivals). German school girls have been asked not to wear short skirts as not to offend Moslem families. Even lounging at the beach or pools is considered "offensive" as is women wearing short or walking alone. This makes me wonder, if something like that could ever happen here.

Well, we do have students sent home because an article of clothing they're wearing may be "offensive" like a Confederate flag or historical character, a cartoon character, pro-US military, or an American flag (there have been numerous instances of individuals being told to remove their American flags. You know, something vile like that. Yet other items, such as a raised clinched fist, Pan-African colors (or similar jewelry), or individuals who promoted racial violence are seemingly ok. Even Pancho Villa, Malcolm X, or Che Guevara t-shirts are cool but not t-shirts Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, or the fictional Dukes of Hazzard's car, the "General Lee"; not to mention jewelry or clothing with certain religious symbols or sayings (like Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist. BTW, can you imagine anyone actually having an issue with Gandhi? Seriously).

While we're at it, how about banned books? It's not like we have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech or expression right? I bet you didn't know that Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer" and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" are on the prohibited list at most public schools did you? How about "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown, "The Call of the Wild" by Jack London, or "Gone With the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell. So is "Fahrenheit 451" by Scifi legend Ray Bradbury or the classic "For Whom the Bells Toll" by Ernest Hemingway. "The "Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald are on the "naughty list" too. And we can't forget "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville, "The Red Badge of Courage" by Stephan Crane, Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", as well Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher. To be sure, there are more (and I would be remiss to not encourage you to read every last one of them, and if you don't have time, they at least watch those which were made into movies). Even the Bible is considered a no-no, but reading the Koran isn't.

Listen, like it or not, while America is a secular society, we were founded on Judeo-Christian principals as well as on the Enlightenment. It's part of who we are. If nothing else, these books help us to think critically and encourages us to examine our world. Why then would they be removed from school libraries? Could there be some small kernel of truth in these books that we don't want our children exposed to; something perhaps that would make them reexamine the world; would give them cause to ask "why" or even challenge the status quo? We've seen how there are efforts to rewrite our history' to tell it through the lens of our own bias. When I was in school, we were taught how "explorers" like Columbus and Cortez came to this New World and found only savages (and wealth) while searching for a short cut to Asia and India. We were taught how America was "settled" Pilgrims and how we tried to "civilize" these strange people we named "Indians" through enslavement, broken treaties, massacres, destruction of their food, clothing, and water sources, and so forth (or how we had a "divine obligation" to convert them", whether they wanted it or not) after they saved our behinds from starvation and freezing. But what we managed to do, however, was destroy their culture, tribes, and seized land through any means possible. The reality was that it was us who were the uncivilized ones. We're taught that the Civil War was all about the issue of slavery and that our Founding Fathers were nothing more than rich racist white guys.

The truth was that the Civil War was about far more than slavery, which really didn't become a factor until after Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation", which freed slaves only in states which had seceded, but not in slave holding or leaning border states and territories. The reason was to force Confederate troops to return home to save the crops from rotting in the fields and their families from starving. Any humanitarian reasons were secondary.

In fact, Lincoln had previously stated that he would not interfere with the issue of slavery. His intent was strictly on preserving the union. Yet, today, we're told something completely different, and in the process, we're attempting to rewrite history by removing Confederate symbols, monuments and even the names of schools and mascots. In New Orleans, the city council voted to remove all Confederate monuments. In various cemeteries, they prohibit placing the Southern Cross on the graves of Confederate soldiers. In Memphis Tennessee, the city council bowed to pressure to dig up the remains of General Nathan Bedford Forrest along with his family! There's more, like the site where the massacre of Native Americans took place at Wounded Knee is for sale, perhaps even for commercial development. Sacred sites belonging to Native Americans are routinely dug up or mined (especially in the Black Hills of North Dakota). Where's the outrage?

Language too has been altered by political correctness. We're not supposed to use certain terms out fear someone might not like it. Despite all the terrorist attacks and acts of violence, Obama and members of his regime still refuse to say "Islamic" or "Moslem" when discussing them, even when the terrorists say it or it's in the name of their organization! We're not supposed to say "illegal" immigration. Nope, that implies they did something wrong like break the law. Instead, we're told to call them "undocumented" immigrants as if they left their green card or naturalization certificate in their other pants! We're suppose to refer to minorities with some hyphenated term as if there is some unique distinction or dual loyalties. Asian-Americans as if they are from Asia and have become Americans. Well, that's ok I suppose, if you were born in Asia and have become American, although if so, then your loyalty should first and foremost be to this country. African-American. Same thing (of course, for many of the black Americans, their distant ancestors may have gone from Africa to any part of the English, Spanish, Portuguese, or Dutch empires before ever ending up on these shores). Besides, Africa is a continent and isn't just home of black individuals. It's been the home of Arabs from the Middle East and Central Asia since the early 7th century; encompassing the top third of Africa. Even in South Africa, the English, Dutch, and Germans have lived there since the 1500's. Yet still, despite all this, those of European origin in this country are never referred to as "European-Americans". Personally, if you're born or naturalized here, you're an American plain and simple.

As alluded to above, clothing styles and dress are permitted for some but not for all. Why is that? Moslem women are encouraged to where traditional clothing instead of adapting. It's common to Spanish, Somalian, Chinese, Arabic, and host of other languages everyday when it used to be that immigrants wanted to look, act, and speak as Americans as quickly as they could. Instead of a melting pot, practically every community is now a mini world bazaar! Maybe that's good, however, I think English should be mandatory and all documents paid for by taxpayers should be printed only in English to encourage people to learn and speak the language to they will be able to converse with everyone else. Let's look at the entertainment media for instance. TV and radio channels exist for specific racial and ethnic groups, but not for all groups. Frankly, and quite honestly, I don't care. In fact, I think that's great, but why isn't that allowed for all? If there's a potential market, it should be explored. Commercials and TV shows mandate diversity unless that program is comprised of or aimed at a minority audience. You can have movies where black actors perform in whiteface (such as in the movie "White Chicks" or actor Nick Cannon), which is never considered racist by the media, but heaven forbid if a Asian or white performer did blackface. It's ok to have minorities comedians do white jokes or jokes about other racial groups, no matter how vulgar, but never ever can white comics do jokes about a minority (however, self-depreciating humor is permitted by white comedians).

Remember how much trouble Comic Jeff Dunham got in over "Achmed the Dead Terrorist" while nothing at all was said about "Bubba J", the NASCAR loving redneck? Gays and transgendered comics can make fun of each other or straight people but never can straight people return the favor. Why is that? I have no problem laughing at white or straight jokes, but I see no problem laughing at jokes aimed at different groups either. Humor is intended to bring down walls and to see the absurdity that we all experience in life. It makes me wonder if performers from the past like Jack Benny, George and Gracie Allen, Abbott and Costello, Billy "Bojangles" Robinson, The Marx Brothers, Lucille Ball, Shirley Temple, or Laurel and Hardy among numerous others could even make it today. Heck, even saying "Merry Christmas" or Happy Easter" can even get you in trouble!

Of course, we've enacted laws to balance the economic table if you will, from eliminating poll tax and giving women the right to vote, to fair housing and financial loan legislation. We've mandated hiring quotas to ensure adequate representation in employment (though that particular law, Affirmative Action, is in need of serious reform) and despite equal work/equal pay laws, there's still disparity and much needs to be done.

So what does it say when one group conduct activities what would otherwise be considered racist or even a hate crime against another group such as threats of violence, harassment, or preventing them from entering polling place or business through physical intimidation, especially when the Attorney of the United States refuses act? Is reverse discrimination ever justified? Attempts at improving education among minorities through busing has been a mixed blessing. Yes, there has been some academic improvement among minorities, however, performance among non-minority students have declined along with the overall academic performance of public schools in general, and students spend hours being shuttled from location to location. There is still the troubling issue of superior performing minority students, mostly living in predominantly black communities, being bullied or assaulted for doing well in school, which is generally referred to as "acting white" as if failing is more admirable goal. This type of mentality, which often goes hand in hand with classroom disturbance, threatening or assaulting teachers, bus drivers or school personnel, has to be stopped immediately. Teachers and bus drivers are not babysitters, nor are they prison guards or targets. If a student prefers ignorance over knowledge or violence in lieu of civility, and all attempts otherwise have failed, then obviously alternative means must be employed.

So, returning to the original question posed in this article as to whether political correctness and bowing to pressure could ever happen here or be tolerated here, the answer appears to be yes. In fact, it may be an important factor in America's social and economic decline. When college student demand "safe places" because they are emotionally or psychologically unequipped to deal with the real world, then we have a serious problem. The bad guys don't do "quiet time" and they don't care if you count or three or not.

We can protest and proclaim "black lives matter" and disrupt or destroy businesses but nobody cares when everyone shouts "all lives matter" as if violence or injustice happens to just one group. It doesn't. Sorry to burst your balloon. Every life regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic origin or sexual preference, is of value.

What must be done is to find and eliminate the causes, and that starts will respect--which is earned, not given. It also meaning valuing others as much as yourself. It's accepting the face that the government or the world doesn't owe you squat. You are solely responsible for your actions including your failures as well as your successes. We need to lighten up too and stop taking ourselves so seriously (there was a incident at the University of Louisville where the president and some staff members donned sombreros, ponchos, fake mustaches and posed for picture at a Halloween themed staff party...and he and the university are still apologizing for it. Really). We, as Americans, have more serious issues to contend with, starting with restoring our democratic republic and that's going to take all of us working together.




Banned Books That Shaped America
http://www.bannedbooksweek.org/censorship/bannedbooksthatshapedamerica


'Acting White' Remains a Barrier for Black Education
https://reason.com/archives/2014/10/08/acting-white-remains-a-barrier-for-black#.go4oeau:uqSh


One Year Later, Sill Not Sold
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/10/07/one-year-later-still-not-sold-wounded-knee-owner-try-drone-flyover-157217