How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: Blacknright Market
Monthly Archives: May 2016
USA for Africa: Our Relations Today
Yesterday there was a town hall meeting at Holman United Methodist Church in Los Angeles, California to discuss US policy in Africa. It was hosted by California’s 37 District Congresswoman, Karen Bass. The goal of the town hall was to not only encourage more trade with Africa but to also have more African business set up shop in Los Angeles along with raising more awareness about the continent of Africa overall.
While Africa is old in the sense of its land and is known as “the cradle of civilization.” It is rather new when it comes to democratic institutions as well as being free from colonization. The 54 countries in Africa (remember, Africa is a continent, not a country) pretty much gained their independence during the 60s and 70’s. However, you might be surprised to learn that Ethiopia was never colonized. [African Independence Days] Or that Liberia was started by free Black men and women of American and Carribean descent. And though Liberia was settled by the American Colonization Society, they were not your typical colony. For no other nation claimed them. It wasn’t until 1862 that they were recognized by the US as a nation. “Liberia is the only African republic to have self-proclaimed independence without gaining independence through revolt from any other nation, being Africa’s first and oldest republic. Liberia maintained and kept its independence during the European colonial era.” [Liberia]
The United States has had a tenuous relationship with African since the days of slavery, but outside of Liberia, America has never claimed African land for its own. Now that we know a bit about Africa, we will look at what our current foreign policy is in Africa and some of the problems with doing business with Africa.
Current Policy on Africa
Karen Bass-Congresswoman for California’s 37 District
The majority of our policy involves creating infrastructure for Africa. One of the projects that are being undertaken is Power Africa, which would supply Africa with electricity. In fact, according to Ms. Bass two-thirds of Africa does not have electricity. Karen Bass even admitted that the most progressive liberals were not 100 percent behind this project because they want them to solely concentrate on renewable energy. “That is easy to say when you can go to the back of the room and turn on a light,” she told the room. While the people in Africa have no problem incorporating renewable energy into their lives, they should not be forbidden from using other electrical sources, including fossil fuels. The Industrial Revolution was able to take off here and in Europe because we were able to use fossil fuels, to now tell African countries they cannot is elitist and imperialistic. (To use language, liberals understand.)
According to the printout of facts, we each were given at the town hall the start-up of this project is the following: “Power Africa initial $7 billion commitment has already mobilized more than $20 billion in private sector commitments to invest in power generation and distribution across Sub-Saharan Africa.” I think it is great that 20 million has been raised by the private sector to help light up Africa. The more Africa becomes modernized the more it will be able to compete on the global market and that will help lift the poorest countries in Africa out of poverty. And that is exactly where the money should be coming from the private sector. My problem is we have 7 billion to help light up Africa but no money for Cost of Living Allowances for those on Social Security. We tell our homeless, especially our homeless vets, we have no money for them. Why is that 7 billion not being used to help poor Americans with no electricity like those in Appalachia?
Power Africa has been in effect for two years under an Executive Order of Obama. You know how Obama loves his executive orders. Now we haven’t heard of this in any mainstream news outlet because let’s face it-it’s Africa. If it was France or Germany, the news would have been everywhere. We could have built strip clubs and meth labs over there and no one would have been the wiser. While the initial outlay was $27 billion, two years in the program has grown to $32 billion in private and public funding.
That is not the only program Obama launched by Executive Order. The other is Doing Business in Africa (DBIA). Once again, all the information comes directly from the Congresswoman and the handouts she provided at the town hall. According to that handout: ‘The E.O (Executive Order) directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa that will be comprised of not more than 15 members of the private members of the private sector, including small businesses. ” Okay, here are my problems with this, why is not more than 15? So basically as long as they have one member that is private sector they are in the clear? Next, how big is the board? Are we talking a 15 member board, in which that would be the total board so that makes sense or are we talking a 30, 40, 50 member board? In that, case why limit it to 15? Why not make it make it so the private sector is 1/2 the board or 3/4 quarters of the board instead of limiting its overall number? Also, although it mentions small businesses, the likelihood of them being included is rather small. It is rather unlikely the Secretary of Commerce is going to have his staff run down small businesses so they can sit on the Council.
Here is how I see it, if you are really interested in American businesses doing business in Africa, you want as many on board as you can, not as little. Now maybe the other 15 slots are for African businesses, that’s fantastic, however,the handout doesn’t mention any African countries sitting on the board just various governmental agencies that will work with them in various capacities. In fact, there are 11 governmental agencies sitting on the board each with their own agenda which I am sure makes for very smooth, non-bureaucratic meetings. The agencies that are associated with it are:
- U.S Export-Import Bank
- Millennium Challenge Corporation
- Overseas Private Investment Corporation
- U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA)
- U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA)
- U.S Department of State
- U.S Department of Commerce
- U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
- U.S. Department of Transportation
- U.S. Department of Energy
- Office of the United States Trade Representative
Now according to the fact Sheet there is some good news in all this: “Taken together these new commitments (including Power Africa) amount to more than $33 billion dollars, supporting economic growth Africa and tens of thousands U.S. jobs.” Which is great, America needs jobs. Because let’s be real if America was to perish because they were too busy taking care of others and not themselves would good would that do Africa? However, tens of thousands of jobs is rather vague isn’t it? Are we talking more like 10,000 or 90,000? Why the uncertainty about how many American jobs? Is that because everyone on the committee is more focused on African jobs than American jobs?
The Problems with Africa: Corruption
An African man during the town hall got up and asked, “I have heard no one talk about the major problem in Africa, corruption. The money never gets to where it is supposed to go. It is a waste of taxpayer money.” Now had that man been American he would most likely be booed off the stage, so to speak, but since he was African he was given applause. As well as he should have been. That is a real problem on the African continent.
There is a company called Transparency International (TI) which looks at corruption around the world. It then places the country on a scale according to how corrupt they are. If you get a 0 you are very corrupt. If you get a 100 you are very clean. The most corrupt country in the world is Somalia. More corrupt than Iran or Iraq. Even more corrupt than Syria. It is dead last at 168. (There are 220 countries in the world but some of them were tied, so we end up with 168) Transparency International is an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) which means while they work closely with governments they are not tied to any specific one, therefore, they are able to be more objective when scrutinizing various governments. Somalia received an 8 out of a possible 100.
The highest ranking African country, in terms non-corruption, is Botswana. It has a ranking of 63 and lands 28 on the list. For instance, The Millennium Challenge Corporation “expects to commit nearly $2 billion by the end of 2015, nearly doubling its $1 billion dollar commitment. MCC is implementing power compacts in Ghana, Malawi and is developing energy sectors in Bein, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania.” Now let’s look at the corruption of those countries.
So the United States has just given 2 billion dollars to some of the most corrupt countries in the world. Let’s take them in order: Ghana has a rating of 47 and is #56 on the list. Malawi has a rating of 31 and is #112 on the list. Benin has a rating of 37 is #83 on the list. Liberia has a rating of 37 is tied with Benin at #83 on the list. Sierra Leone has a rating of 29 and is #119 on the list. Lastly, Tanzania has a rating of 30 and is #117 on the list. [Ratings] Not one country on the list has a rating above 5o and yet we just sent them 2 billion dollars. And why did we send them money? So, we could do business with corrupt countries. In fact, according to TI, Tanzania has become more corrupt since 2012. In 2012, their score was 35 and now it is 30. So why are we doing business with these countries if they cannot even show an improvement overcoming corruption?
Here is the thing, this is all PRIVATE sector. “Our 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index, indicating serious levels of public sector corruption.” [TI] So while your usual solution of using the private sector to get the needed funds to the people, in these cases it is the private sector is the problem and we all know if they private sector is that bad, the government is worse, so what is the solution? Is it NGOs with their associations with various governments without actually belonging to any one or as they just as corrupt as the private sector? Is it MNC (multi-national corporations) that can move in and out of countries with ease or do they just invite corruption? There is no easy solution but giving corrupt countries our money is not going be any help either.
Conclusion
Should we help Africa? Yes, of course, we should. As good Christians, we are all called to help those less fortunate. So anything we can do to help those in need in Africa we should not hesitate to do. However, if our efforts are being thwarted by corruption then all our time and efforts are for naught. My church works with an organization that makes sanitary napkins for young girls so that they can go to school when it is that time of the month. While I can’t remember the name right now, I do know my church is real good at making sure whatever we do gets to the people who are supposed to get it.
So helping Africa is not really the point here. It is doing it in the best possible way that will provide the aid they need without creating more national debt on our side. While I still think NGOs are the possible solution we have to make sure they are not corrupt as well. One such example is Heifer International: “We empower families to turn hunger and poverty into hope and prosperity – but our approach is more than just giving them a handout. Heifer links communities and helps bring sustainable agriculture and commerce to areas with a long history of poverty. Our animals provide partners with both food and reliable income, as agricultural products such as milk, eggs and honey can be traded or sold at market.”
According to Charity Navigator, an organization which tracks charities and ranks them according to their financial records and their overall transparency, Heifer International is a highly ranked charity. The highest score a charity can receive is 100. Heifer International received an 82.5 and received 3 out of 4 stars. It also received 4 stars in terms of transparency. They had a total score of 97. Oxfam, which is similar to Heifer International, was considered one of its top ten charities. [Charity Navigator] Using resources like this we can ensure what goes to African villages stays in African villages.
African related products and jewelry can be found here: Blacknright Market
18k Stamp Gold Plated African Jewelry Rhinestone Crystal Africa Map Pendant Necklace: Blacknright Market
The Constitution Party: Who Are They?
The Constitution Party was started in 1992 as the US. Taxpayers Party by a man named Howard Phillips. Mr. Phillips died April 20, 2013. [Howard Phillips] According to Ballotpedia “The founders organized the party in response to a perceived growth of government, a dismissal of constitutional limitations and a shift away from ‘limited and government, and very broad and significant individual freedoms.'” The party was officially recognized in 1996 by the Federal Elections Commission. Then in 1996 they officially changed their name to the Constitution Party.
While everyone keeps shouting about how third parties never win elections the Constitution Party has indeed won elections. It took awhile but in 2006, they had their first elected official who assumed office in Montana. His name was Rick Jore. In 2008, four were elected to office in Nevada. Currently, there have been 15 positions held by members of the Constitution Party. The truth is third parties are gaining more recognition given the dissatisfaction with both the Democratic and Republican parties.
The Constitution Party has Seven Principles it goes by:
Life for all human beings: from conception to natural death. SANCTITY OF LIFE
Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PERSONAL LIBERTY
One husband and one wife with their children,as divinely instituted. FAMILY
Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden. PERSONAL AND PRIVATE PROPERTY SECURITY
The Founding Documents interpreted according to the Actual Intent of the Founding Fathers. CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM
Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people. STATE SOVEREIGNTY
American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, with no entanglement in foreign alliances. FOREIGN POLICY
Running for the Presidency for the Constitution Party is Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley.
Darrell Castle
This is not Darrell Castle’s first attempt to run for the Presidency on the Constitution Party ticket. He did so in 2012 as well. In 2008, he was the Vice President candidate for Chuck Baldwin on the Constitution Party ticket. Darrell is a lawyer and former Marine. He is also a deacon in his Church.
According to his site: Darrell Castle was born in 1948, in Kingsport, Tennessee, graduating from Ketron High School in 1966. He attended East Tennessee State University (ETSU), earning a Bachelor of Science degree in both Political Science and History in 1970, and a Juris Doctorate from Memphis State University in 1979. He currently resides in Germantown, Tennessee. He is married and has one daughter with his wife of 38 years.
He lists his political activism as the following:
- Two terms as the Constitution Party of Tennessee State Chairman
- Three terms as the Vice-chairman of the National Committee of the Constitution Party
- Two terms as the Platform Chairman of the National Convention of the Constitution Party
- Instructor of the Institute on the Constitution course
- Author of numerous articles and commentaries addressing national issues and analysis of current events
- Board member of the Conservative Caucus since 2005
- 2007 Chairman of the National Veterans Coalition, an outreach of the National Constitution Party
- 2008 Constitution Party Vice-presidential Candidate, running mate of Chuck Baldwin.
- Creator and author of the Castle Report
Scott Bradley
There is not a lot written about Scott Bradley but there is the above video. There is also this interesting fact about Scott: “In 2010, Bradley was the party’s nominee for U.S. Senate from Utah, and he polled 5.67%, the second-best showing ever for the Constitution Party for U.S. Senate in a race with both major parties also running.” [Scott Bradley Senate Race] “Bradley has a bachelor of arts from Westminster College, masters of public administration from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. in constitutional law from George Wythe University.[2] ” Scott Bradley
There in a nutshell is the Constitution Party. While it is only a brief synopsis, it is enough to give you some information about them and then it is up to you to check the rest of it out.
Shop at Amazon: The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot
A Young Conservative Speaks Out: Michael Bezoian
On May 9th, I sat down with Michael Bezoian, a 20-year-old conservative UCLA student. He is in his junior year as a Political Science major at UCLA, which means that this is not last time we will be hearing from Michael. I worked with Michael on the Rubio campaign when he was the State Chairman for California Students for Rubio. As State Chairman, Michael oversaw the finance, recruitment, outreach, polling, and social media teams for the campaign. Since the campaign was targeted at college students, it was more heavily focused on social media and issues relevant to millennials than your average campaign.
Michael has worked for other campaigns as well. In the past, he worked on the mayoral campaigns of Jan Perry, Eric Garcetti, and Ara Najarian in addition to Adrin Nazarian’s State Assembly campaign. He said the difference working for Democratic candidates and those who were Republican was “ideology.” He went on to explain, “I didn’t believe in their ideology but that didn’t stop me from working as hard as I could for them.” This is part of what makes a conservative, a conservative – a strong work ethic. It is this strong work ethic that is going to ensure his success in any endeavors he undertakes.
I asked Michael a few questions about the election and this is what he had to say:
Q. What did you feel when Rubio dropped out of the race?
A. It was bittersweet. I had spent a lot of time with the people I worked with. One of the most unforgettable experiences was a trip a few team members and I took to Nevada less than a week before the state’s caucus. While there, we canvassed, phone banked and attended a rally for Senator Rubio. The trip was an excellent exercise in team-building and I will likely never forget it. Given the immense impact the campaign had on me, it was no surprise that I was disappointed to hear that Rubio was dropping out. I wanted the campaign to last longer because it would allow me to continue campaigning for the candidate I most believed in all while continuing to work with an incredible, hard-working, and intelligent group of conservative students. On the other hand, I believe that Rubio dropped out to preserve the conservative movement and I don’t think he did so in vain.
Q. What is your assessment of Ted Cruz?
A. A while back, I took a quiz and it said that I was ideologically closest to Cruz. Although I had the option of joining the Cruz campaign, I felt Rubio had a better chance of winning and reaching out to millennials like myself, so I joined his campaign instead. But I do like Ted Cruz and I would have voted for him if he were still in the race. In fact, a short while after the Rubio campaign ended, I was contacted by the Millennials for Cruz campaign and I jumped on board as the California chapter’s Vice Chairman.
Q.How do you see the Republican Party doing in the general election?
A. I’m not sure. You have two camps with two different theories and I’m not sure which side is right. One camp says that Trump has little chance of beating Hillary. Another camp says people have been wrong about Donald all this time and they are therefore wrong about him beating Hillary. Given Trump’s ability to tear down his opponents merely by attaching nicknames and propagating half-truths about them, it is not unlikely that when it comes time to take on Hillary, her poll numbers could drop significantly, if Rubio and Cruz are any indication. In any case, I’m not positive about which camp is right in this case.
Q. In your opinion, has Donald Trump contributed positively or negatively?
A. It’s hard to say. While he brought attention to issues that were rarely discussed before his candidacy, he did accelerate the Republican Party’s death. There is no denying that the GOP was dying, but the timing of the GOP’s implosion could not have been any worse. Although Trump is a polarizing figure, very few would disagree that he has given a voice to those who felt they did not have one before. It may also be the case that Trump put the ascension of the Tea Party on a fast track. And while I don’t think Trump represents the Tea Party, I do think that the same anger that fueled the backlash against big government, wasteful spending, and an overreaching Obama presidency is fueling Trump’s campaign. Plus, there was no denying that the Tea Party was slowly taking over the party. This election had a number of candidates that were elected to their respective offices by embracing values and policy stances that the Tea Party supports. The only problem is that Tea Party candidates are often outspent by establishment candidates and, as a result, fail to win elections. Unfortunately, establishment Republicans tend to capitulate on the issues rather than sticking to their guns. Conservatives have grown wary of Republicans making promises then reneging on them and that’s partly why I believe Trump appeals to so many people. Trump has essentially painted himself as the anti-establishment candidate even though I believe he is the embodiment of the establishment.
Q. Many conservatives are saying they are looking to go third party. If they do, do you think that will have a chance of winning in November?
A. I don’t think so. It would be especially difficult for them to win a plurality of the votes in some states. I’d argue that the third party candidate would take more votes away from Trump than he would from Clinton and that would end up giving Clinton the plurality. Plus, because it doesn’t seem as though this election will go down to the wire, at least as of now, the third party candidate would need to win a state rich with electors or several states with relatively fewer electors. The polls currently show that Clinton has the advantage over Trump. This would mean that the third party candidate would have to outperform both Clinton and Trump. The next question one should ask is which states the third-party candidate can win. Would it be a battleground state or would it be that individual’s home state? If anything, it may be too early to tell.
Q. If Rubio were to join Donald Trump as the VP would you vote for Donald Trump?
A. Reluctantly, yes. Trump and I disagree on a number of issues, but I share more stances with him than I do with Clinton. Plus, I know exactly what I’ll be getting in a Clinton presidency and I know I won’t like it. Trump has changed his stances on issues far too frequently and, for that reason, I’m very distrustful of him. However, even the remote possibility that he appoints a conservative Supreme Court justice is convincing enough for me. I see my vote to be in opposition to Clinton, not in favor of Trump. With that said, Rubio’s addition to the ticket would have no effect on my vote in November. Rubio joining the ticket, as unlikely as it now is, would most likely improve Trump’s chances. Rubio could deliver Florida. On the other hand, Kasich could bring in Ohio, which is especially important for Republicans if the 2004 elections are any indicator. In other words, the only way I see Trump winning is if he tries his best to unite the party be selecting an “establishment” vice president.
Q. What is your personal assessment of Donald Trump and do you feel he would be an effective President? Why or why not?
I don’t think he would the most effective president but I think and I hope that he will be better than Clinton. I don’t think I can ever bring myself to vote for Clinton because not only do I disagree with her on a multitude of issues, I also think she is morally corrupt. On the flip side, however, I think that Trump will also have his own downsides. Trump loves to cut deals and I wouldn’t be happy if he cut deals on my Second Amendment rights or on eminent domain or on any other aspect of the Constitution. Trump never touched on specifics during his campaign so it’s hard to know what he would do in any given situation. A lot of people are interested in this election because Trump brings in an aspect of entertainment. While this is good because more people are engaging in the political process, it has a huge downside in that Trump gives the people entertainment rather than a substantive policy debate.
Q. Taking into account your education and your previous campaign experience, what is your final prediction for November from a purely political science perspective?
A. As of right now, the data shows a Clinton presidency in 2017. Republicans are not getting behind Trump and a divided party cannot stand. While there are some polls that show Clinton and Trump tied or one with a slight edge over the other, it’s too early to make a decision based on head-to-head match-ups. A second source one may consult to have a better idea of how November might look would be favorability polls. Both Clinton and Trump are resented by sizeable factions of their own party. As a result, the question boils down to which candidate is hated less and which candidate can do a better job of uniting their party and winning swing voters. If anything is certain this November, though, it’s that down-ballot races are going to matter a lot. Especially important will be maintaining a majority in the Senate and ensuring that the President nominate a conservative justice to replace Justice Scalia. The importance of filling Scalia’s vacancy with an individual equally as conservative and as principled as he was may increase voter turnout and it may win over those who pledged to never vote for Trump.
Q. Is there anything you wish to express to our readers?
A. It should go without saying, but expect the unexpected.
Shop Amazon at Blacknright Market
All the President’s Men: How the Presidency Works
Welcome to Political Science 101. Today we are learning about the presidency. So let’s get started. The Constitution sets up 3 branches of government, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The Legislature is the first branch addressed in the Constitution, not the Presidency. That is because the founders never wanted the president to have that much power. He wasn’t supposed to run things, he was just supposed to make sure those who were running things were doing it right.
The following is the powers the President actually holds under the Constitution:
-
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment -
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
-
The President shall have The Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
As you can see the President has no authority when it comes to making laws. Let me repeat that, the President has no authority to MAKE laws. When it comes to laws his true power lies in the veto:
Article 1: Section 7:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
So the most a president can do are three things when it comes to the law. He can sign it, in which case it becomes the law. He cannot sign it, which case it also becomes law (unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law) or he can veto it. But anything he vetos the Congress can override. If you look at it, the president can say yes to a law rather easily. Saying no is much harder and even if he says no, it can be overridden.
So when a someone tells you, “As President I am going to….” and he talks to you about creating a new law, you need to ask yourself the following questions:
- Does he have the authority to do what he is saying he is going to do? (If he is talking about creating a new law, he does not. So now you have to ask yourself)
- Who in the Congress is sponsoring his idea? (If no one in Congress is backing his idea, it is not going to go anywhere)
- How much is this going to cost us? (Are we going to save money as nation or we just adding to our debt)
- What is the long term plan (Getting rid of illegal immigration is great but how will you keep them out long-term and how will you fill the jobs left open, etc)
- Most importantly, is what he is proposing constitutional? If not, then unless you want to propose another Constitutional Convention, it is not going to happen.
Conclusion
If you are still having trouble remembering all of this, simply remember the following little ditty to help you keep track of what each branch does.
Congress-they are the lawmakers. All laws must go through them.
President-He is the top cop. He is the head of the Executive Branch and he enforces the laws created by Congress.
Judiciary-They are the punishers. So if you break a law created by Congress and you have been arrested by the Executive branch then it is up to the judiciary to find out if you are guilty and punish you accordingly.
The Constitution holds all of this together. Now we need to use this information to elect the next President, not the next Con-in-Chief.
Dr. Shamsa for President
Since we running low on “natural born citizens” with any sense of morality and integrity for Presidency, I think it is time we start looking at those who weren’t born on these shores but are 1000 percent more American than the bozos we have running, so my vote is for Dr. Kamran Shamsa for POTUS.
I can see him laughing at the very thought of this. He is far too humble and good at what he does to ever think of running for the Presidency, but that is, unfortunately, bad news for us, especially as conservatives who could easily back him. These are the reason we could back him
-
He is a dedicated family man. Even though he came to my graduation, he told me he would have to leave early so he could spend time with his family. That took priority above everything, as well it should, and he was not going to miss it for the world. Every time he talks about spending time with his family he lights up a like a Christmas tree. When he told me how he met his wife, his tone suddenly changed, it went from his every day, authoritative tenor, to this wistful, melodic tone as if he was talking about the most beautiful thing ever. And there is no doubt in my mind that is indeed how he sees her. Anyone who cares about his family that much will definitely care about yours. As all presidents should.
-
Like Larry H. Parker, he will fight for you. When it was up for grabs whether I would get my triple bypass and my valves replaced, he spent all day on the phone and sending emails so I would. I doubt I am the only one he has done this for. Rule number one dealing with Dr. Shamsa: Don’t ever mess with his patients. He will let you know respectfully but firmly that you have messed with the wrong doctor and the wrong patient. In any way he can help you, he will. Anyone who fights for his patients like that will fight just as hard when those “patients” are the American people.
-
People love him. If you check out how his patients rate him, he gets overwhelmingly positive reviews. They talk about how thorough he is. They talk about how he listens to them and how their lives have improved because of him. Hmmm, he is thorough, listens to the people and improves their lives-sounds very presidential, wouldn’t you say? Even his staff love him. You can tell when someone is agreeing with you because they genuinely mean it and when they are doing so because they are just being “nice” and probably want you to shut up. Yet, when I talk to them about him, they all seem to geuninely like him.
-
For the low information voters, who have no morals and only care about surface things-the MAN IS GORGEOUS! I mean come on look at those dimples. How could you not love those dimples? And since we don’t care about morality, truth and honor anymore and only care who’s a hottie, well look at him he has got all over Donald Trump. And even if we don’t care about morals, with him you get them anyway! Yep, so you get morality, truth and honor all wrapped up in a very appealing package. And did you see him that suit? The man looks good, excuse me I have to go wipe up my drool. -
Most importantly, he is a man of faith. Now he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve. It is something personal to him. He also respectful of the faiths of others. We have discussed our faiths, I’m a Mormon and he’s not. But he never once berated or put down my faith. I am not going to tell you what his exact faith is because that is his place, not mine. But I will tell you this much it is because of his faith that he is the kind of cardiologist he is. His compassion, mercy and passion for healing can’t come from anyone but Heavenly Father himself. His faith is important to him and I know this because I have asked. He may not mention Heavenly Father with everyone he comes in contact with, but he is also not afraid to share his beliefs with those who genuinely want to know. If you want a man of God, Dr. Shamsa is your man.
For all these reasons and much more, Dr. Shamsa should be president and for all the people who are “But he was born in Iran, we can’t have an Iranian for president.” Well, my response to that is “We have already have had a crazy Kenyan who was a socialist Muslim for president, so I think we have long stopped caring about who was born here.” And if a bunch of knuckleheads can vote for Obama, a bunch of conservatives can vote for Dr. Shamsa.
Shop Amazon at Blacknright’s Market
Leaving the GOP
There was a question on JackSepticEye’s YouTube Channel that dealt with a “What Would You Rather Do” scenario. The question was would you rather leave your political party or leave your religion? That was a no-brainer for me, I had already left the Democratic Party in 2000 because of their stances on issues that I felt to be of vital importance, abortion most specifically was leaving me a bitter taste in my mouth. I could no longer stomach what the Democratic Party stood for. I knew I had to choose between the Democratic Party and God and God easily won.
Becoming a Republican was not an easy call for me. After all, I had been taught that Republicans were racists. So I started looking into other parties. There was the Libertarian Party, but that was just Democrats on speed, there was the Green Party, but they seemed like they were all waiting on their mothership to return to Earth. It wouldn’t be until years later when I heard about the Constitution Party and America’s Party but by that time I had made my decision, I would join the Republican party.
Though still hesitant about the whole racism thing, I decide that the Republican Party matched closely enough with what I believed, especially my Christian faith, that I could give it try. It wasn’t going to be easy, my grandmother actually cried when my brother told her she voted for Reagan. we were Democrats through and through. Leaving the Democrats wasn’t just leaving a political party, it was leaving my family legacy. It was leaving a big part of who I was. However, it was easy in another regard, this was my decision. It wasn’t being forced on me. I was joining because that is was everyone else was doing it. I was doing it for me. I WAS A REPUBLICAN. Not my family, not my friends, just me.
It was also eas
y because I didn’t have psychotics telling me the country was going to fall apart if I didn’t stay a loyal Democrat and vote for their candidate. They didn’t try to politically “rape” me when I decided it was time to leave the party. My faith wasn’t called into question because I didn’t like their candidate, heck the Democratic party had no faith, that is why I was leaving. I just left without any big fuss. I was no longer a Democrat, how did that happen?
When I joined the Republican party, I actually felt at home. Heck, I was a Black Republican I was special. I was one of the chosen ones. It was great, I have found people who believed in the same things I did. My party matched my faith, I could breathe again. But then something happened the Republican party stopped listening to its base. It stopped listening to people like me. I wondered, “What was the point of me leaving the Democratic Party if the Republicans weren’t going to listen to me either?”
They gave us people like McCain, whose only saving grace in my book was Sarah Palin. They gave us Mitt Romney, whose only saving grace was that he was Mormon but even on that he seemed too wishy-washy and I wasn’t about to vote for a Jack Mormon, (a Jack Mormon is someone who is culturally Mormon but does not follow the religious tenets of the Church.) Many people will contend he is indeed a devoted religious follower of the Church, but all I saw when I looked at him was a Jack Mormon.
But with Donald Trump’s emergence in the Republican party, I knew I had to leave. With McCain and Romney, I had disagreements about their policies but I never thought they were fundamentally corrupt men. I never thought if they were elected as the POTUS that my country was fundamentally doomed. Both of them had served their country and though I didn’t always agree with their decisions I didn’t think their character was so fatally flawed as to do irreparable damage to this country. I cannot say the same about Trump.
Trump has proved himself to be a marketer, not a President. He says he is going to fix illegal immigration in this country. But he hasn’t said how. Oh he is going to build a wall, but Trump can’t build a wall by himself, he has to go through the pursestrings-the U.S. Congress and if Congress does not approve, no wall. He said he would force Mexico to build it, how are you going to to that without declaring war? Again, Congress has to approve. The chances of Congress declaring war with Mexico, a country we haven’t fought in a war for over a 168 years, is relatively slim.
He has said he would send them back home and when they applied to enter the country legally, they would be welcome back. So now you have 12 million illegals who are now 12 million legal residents. It doesn’t change the social or economic problems associated with this mass immigration like schools, jobs, etc. Great so you just added 12 million people to our already faltering economy, now what?
Trump has no real plan for this country, just a bunch of talk and a bunch of supporters who believe anything he says because they have no idea how the Presidency really works. Trump has no real values and if he thinks the “Majority of Americans” want amnesty then your whole “get rid of all the illegals” goes out the window. Donald is a businessman so if he thinks he can get “a better deal” from agreeing to the Democrats, he will. It is about him, not you, not America.
So I am leaving the party, I will find another party that is better suited to my conservative ideals and support them. After all, I am a purist and I don’t bend my morals for anyone. So goodbye Republican party, I hope you don’t Whig out.
Shop Amazon at: Blacknright’s Market
“Whig”in Out: The Demise of the Republican Party
Ask the average person do you know about the Whig Party and you will get a blank stare. They don’t know about it because it doesn’t exist anymore. That’s another thing the average person doesn’t understand political parties are not forever nor were they meant to be. In fact, our founding fathers though the very ideas of parties were repugnant and a barrier to the democratic republic they built.
George Washington
In George Washington’s Farewell Address he warned his fellow Americans about the dangers of political parties. He said, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” He claimed the partisanship would lead to inter-political conflict, divide the nation, and give rise to cases of tyranny.
This is ironic given by the time he gave this speech he did belong to a political party, the Federalists, though he did not initially belong to any party when he became President. A whole encyclopedia could be done on the party system in this country, starting off with the First Party system, where we find the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans to the Second Party system where we find The Whigs, Free Soilers, Know Nothings, Democrats, and Republicans.
4th President-James Madison
While James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also warned of the downfall of factions, it nonetheless didn’t stop them from growing. “All civilized societies would be divided into different sects, factions, and interests, …of rich and poor, debtors and creditors, … the inhabitants of this district or that district, the followers of this political leader or that political leader, the disciples of this religious sect or that religious sect. In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger.” His political party? The Democratic-Republicans.
These facts are important to know because with the nomination of Donald Trump to the Republican party and the mass dissatisfaction he has brought with him, it won’t be long until the third party takes off in this country.
The Whigs-Who Were They?
In the textbook, Created Equal: The Social and Political History of the United States it states: “The Whigs, a coalition anti-Jackson forces, sought to craft an economic program that would appeal to the largest number of voters. Less concerned with the purity of their ideas than with success at the ballot box, the Whigs saw their policies as means to winning elections and not necessarily as ends in themselves.” (pg. 390)
Does that sound like any party you know? More concerned with success at the ballot box than the purity of ideas. Obviously, that idea didn’t work.According to the same textbook, “The choices offered by the whigs and Democrats failed to represent what many groups saw as their pressing political and economic interest. Many Americans turned to violence to advance or defend their causes.” (ibid)
Again does this sound like the Republican party? Failing to represent what many saw as their pressing political and economic interest? The Republican party consistently ignores their base and focuses on “winnable” issues, this sort of neglect is what led people to leave the Whig party and join the Republican party in the first place, but they have seemed to have forgotten their history.
What the Whigs Became
The Whig Party lasted 20 years, from 1834-1854. From the Whigs, we had four presidents-William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore. From the book, The Missouri Compromise and its Aftermath we are told: “On its face, this would seem to suggest that the strict constructionist viewpoint represented the consistent and scrupulous position claimed by its adherents, founded purely on traditional Whig distrust of power and unfettered government tendency towards consolidation and corruption.”
Therefore, the party that was started to fight corruption in a short 20 years became corrupt itself. Whatever their problems with “Old Hickory” at the beginning of their regime, would not be enough to save it at the end when the other parties started forming.The Whigs had real power in their heyday and I am sure many told them, it was futile to have these other parties because they were not going to beat the Whig party, but that didn’t stop them from trying. Today, people say the same thing, the Democrats and Republicans are just too strong, a third party will never work. Well, there hasn’t been enough upset people to make it work, but today there are.
The Encyclopaedia Brittanica states: “In 1840 they abandoned the sectional approach to nominate the military hero William Henry Harrison. The subsequent contest was devoid of issues, Harrison winning on the basis of incessant electioneering by his supporters in the “log cabin” campaign.”
As you can see the issues became less and less important as time went by, and because of this, people became violently opposed to the Whig Party and that is where the Republican Party finds itself today.
Conclusion
The Republican Party has a great and long history. It was the party responsible for ending slavery, segregation and has been a beacon hope and equality but it has stopped caring about those things and has become corrupt. It has become the Whigs where it cares more about its image and electioneering than it does about its base voters.
In my political science classes at UCLA, it was often discussed, that politicians seek to bring in the independent voters because they know they base will never leave them. They are wrong, though! I always knew they were wrong. You cannot disregard the base and expect them to stick around. The Whigs have proved that and now the Republican party is proving them once again. The base can only take so much before they let you know in no uncertain terms that you have lost them and you have lost them for good. If the Christian base leaves the Republican party, it will never recover and no amount of “independent” voters are going to change it. Because “independent” voters make their decisions by polls not morals and the minute it becomes problematic to be a Republican they are out.
The Republicans have “Whig”ed out and now it won’t be long until they are part of the ash heap of history.
Images sources:
James Madison-The White House
The Oreo Complex and the Law
On April 29th, 2016, outside of the Hyatt hotel in Burlingham, California where the GOP Convention took place, a massive protest was held outside. The protesters being the articulate bunch they are were seen chatting slogans like F**k the Police! and F**k the GOP!
Of course, surrounding them, making sure no one got hurt and everyone was safe was the police. Now had something gone down at the rally, had someone been hurt or worse, who would have they called? The police. Like lawyers, police are always the enemy until you need them. Their chant against the police is nothing but childish, immature whining from a group of people who glorify “the thug life” and then have the audacity to complain when the rest of society holds them accountable for their actions.
In my previous article “The Oreo Complex: Why Blacks are Failing” I talked about how Blacks deride education in their community. But the aversion education has is nothing compared to the all-out hatred of the law in the Black community. Yet in the video above you see Hispanics waving the flag of Mexico while chanting in unison to F the police. So this pathological disdain is not limited to the Black community but it does have a deep hold on those in it.
While we do have more Black men in college than in prison thankfully, having 745,000 them behind bars is not insignificant. People like Michelle Alexander blamed conservatives for this: “Now, a new racial caste system-mass incarceration- was takin hold, as politicians of every stripe competed with each other to win the votes of the poor and woking class whites, whose economic stauts was percarious, at best and who felt threatened by racial reforms. As had happened before, former allies of African Americans-as much as conservatives-adopted a political strategy that required them to prove how tough they could be on them, the dark-skinned pariahs.” [The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Pg 55-56]
Of course, the blame is put at those evil White conservatives who spend every waking hour figuring out ways to take down the Black man. Personal accountability is almost unheard of in the Black community. The protesters taking over the GOP convention are but a small microcosm of the general mentality in the black community. The government is great if you are getting free money and low-income housing but they become the enemy when you are required to follow the law of the land.
As someone who has been on welfare all her life due to my 101 diseases and disorders, I know my life has been saved countless times because I had government sources to back me up. I am grateful for all the times they have been there in the past. However, I have also had my problems with the government as well but I have never been out there saying we should get rid of the police as some kind of insane solution to the problem. There is a happy medium folks. It is called obeying the law and working within the system.
Yet, even with all this disdain of the law, there are more Blacks in Congress than any other time in the recent past. In 2014, there were 46 Blacks elected to Congress that is a ten point jump from 2001. “For the current Congress, 35% of the nation’s black population is represented by a congressional representative who is black, the highest of any minority group.”
So how do we reconcile this juxtaposition? You have one group like the Black Lives Matter group who has threatened:
“Dear white people if Trump wins young n****s such as myself are fully hell bent on inciting riots everywhere we go. Just so you know.”
Then, on the other hand, you have the largest group of Black in the U.S. Congress. Which means there are those of us who do not use violence to solve our problems but seek to change the laws by working within it.Yet despite this, too many Black people see the police as the enemy. They will put the blame on police brutality and while that is an issue that needs addressing when it arises, the overall mindset that the police are out to get all of us needs to be changed.
We dishonor the brave people like Major Gregory E Barnes who was killed in the line of duty. He died February 11, 2016, when “Major Barney, who was not wearing a vest, was assigned to the perimeter while other officers served a warrant at an apartment. When officers knocked on the door the subject ran out of a back door and encountered Major Barney. The subject shot Major Barney four times in the torso and arm as he continued to flee. A Clayton County officer confronted and shot the subject a short distance away.”
Major Barnes put his life on the line every day and eventually paid the ultimate sacrifice. Yet for many in the Black community, he wasn’t a hero but a traitor. The heroes are the ones shouting “F” the police. How did we come to this point in time? How did we go from honoring true heroes to creating these criminal messiahs? That I don’t know. I do know that until we start honoring man’s law, we will never God’s law and if we never honor God’s law all is lost.
Blacknright's Weblog 