Looking Beyond Donald Sterling

By now, everyone knows the story of Los Angeles Clipper’s owner, Donald Sterling’s banishment from the National Basketball Association (NBA) for his racist comments captured on audio tape last month. What Sterling said was totally stupid and insulting. Period! I don’t think there is any disagreement from anyone on that issue.

In the past, I have been very critical of professional athletes for their unwillingness to take a public stand on any controversial issues. You can argue whether the NBA players were aggressive enough in their protests, but at least they did protest. The Sterling issue was so bizarre that even Michael Jordan publically denounced him. You’re talking about miracles!

For a generation of athletes who have no idea what real sacrifice is all about, they made me proud. Yes, they know about sacrifice relative to playing their sport (playing through pain and injury); but they have yet to show a willingness to give up their sport, even temporarily, to take a principled stand on anything – until now.

When I think of professional athletes taking a principled stand in sports, I think of people such as Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown, Tommie Smith, John Carlos, Curt Flood, or Spencer Haywood.

So, to find out that these NBA players told the commissioner of the NBA in no uncertain terms that they were prepared not to play in their upcoming playoff games if Sterling were not permanently banned from the game and he was barred from ongoing ownership of the Clippers; this, indeed, was a historic moment for today’s athlete.

This Sterling situation was about racism, bigotry, and hate; no question about it. Relative to the Black community, there is an issue being overlooked: An alarming rise in the number of people and organizations who have contracted laryngitis when it comes to issues of racism, bigotry, and fairness involving the Black community. But like fools, many in the Black community take up the cause of every other group as their own and then get absolutely no reciprocity when Blacks are treated unfairly.

The Human Rights Campaign is supposed to be the homosexual version of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)—standing up for the equal and fair treatment of those who are homosexual. The National Council of La Raza is supposed to be the Hispanic version of the NAACP—fighting for the equal and fair treatment of Latinos. The National Organization of Women (NOW)—is the largest organization of feminist activists in the U.S. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—an organization of 2.1 million members united by the belief in the dignity and worth of workers and the services they provide and dedicated to improving the lives of workers and their families and creating a more just and humane society.

I went to each of these groups’ websites and none had issued one statement regarding the Sterling issue since it first broke. Not one word, not one sentence. Yet, liberal Black groups such as the NAACP lose their minds when someone says something considered insulting to homosexuals; or against amnesty for illegals; something deemed misogynistic towards women; or in opposition to increasing the minimum wage.

In fact, many of these Blacks spend more time supporting amnesty for illegals than they do issues devastating the Black community, like double digit unemployment. Black women constantly take on the battle for affirmative action for white women who are the biggest beneficiary of the program. Many of the workers at sports stadiums are Black and also members of SEIU.

All these groups claim to stand for fairness and equality for all, but somehow they never seem to be able to verbalize any support when the Black community is treated unfairly.

What Sterling said was an affront to all Americans, not just Blacks. If these groups hold themselves out to be the moral beacon of America; how then can they selectively show moral outrage when bigotry and racism rears its ugly head?

This type of behavior from other groups towards Blacks has been a consistent occurrence; and the main reason is weak leadership within the Black community.

These groups all know that these media appointed Black leaders will carry their water for them and will never ask or demand anything in return. These groups, with their words, claim to be in solidarity with the Black community; but with their actions, they show that they have little regard for the Black community. The only difference between them and Donald Sterling is that Sterling at least was man enough to say how he felt.

RELATED STORY: Tim Tebow Mocked While Michael Sam Praised

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Arnaud Klamecki from Lille, France. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Explicit Lyrics: How the music crusaders of the 80s and 90s lost to the Internet by Chris Kjorness

Recently, artist and researcher Nickolay Lamm released a collection of graphs charting changes in pop song lyrics. These images reveal what many critics of contemporary culture have been saying for years: Popular music has become increasingly crass. Maybe this shift is the handiwork of the usual suspects—greedy corporations, say, or an increasingly godless society. But it’s just as likely an unintended consequence of the kind of political scheming you’d expect more out of TV dramas than out of real life.

In the early 1980s, Tipper Gore, wife of then-Tennessee senator Al Gore, was on a mission. Outraged after overhearing her daughter listening to the Prince song “Darling Nikki,” she took it upon herself to do something about the state of pop music. It resembles a storyline from House of Cards: Claire Underwood had the Clean Water Initiative and her campaign against sexual assault in the military; Tipper Gore had the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), a group of Beltway wives dedicated to preserving the moral integrity of the nation’s children through a national media campaign designed to educate the public about the prevalence of explicit content in rock music. Her husband, a democrat representing one the  most religiously conservative states in the country, had his eyes on a 1988 run for the presidency. Senator Gore was therefore more than happy to accommodate his wife’s family-values crusade.

But the PMRC’s mission went beyond mere education; the organization also sought to re-establish control of children’s cultural environment through stricter regulation of music packaging and retail display. The group hoped that political pressure would compel the Recording Industry Association of America (a trade organization whose members produced more than 85 percent of available records at the time) to take these steps voluntarily.

This incident was not the first time that the record industry had been lobbied to better police raunchy lyrics. Religious groups had been staging protests, writing letters, and burning records since Elvis first shook his hips on the Ed Sullivan Show. And artists and entertainers had been fighting obscenity charges for live performances and records for decades. But suing artists and record companies proved ineffective. To be judged obscene, a work had not only to be offensive but deemed lacking “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” A more common strategy for those wishing to clean up music was to push for laws that limited children’s access to questionable material, both through a rating system, similar to the one used by the Motion Picture Association of America, and through restrictions on the placement of certain albums at major retailers.

While record labels bristled at the notion of censorship, most of them carefully monitored and crafted their content to appeal to the broadest audience possible. For example, the first commercial rap record, The Sugarhill Gang’s “Rapper’s Delight,” released in 1979, sounds rather wholesome compared even to recordings of the first live hip-hop performances from 1977 and 1978, let alone the gangster rap that caused a stir in the 1990s.

While the labels could ignore the threats of a few random fanatic groups, the PMRC represented something far more intimidating: the United States Senate, which could back up its threats with regulations.

But Congress could protect the industry, as well as regulate it—at least for a while. In the early ’80s, analog dubbed cassettes were eating into record-industry profits, and with Sony developing a digital audio recorder for commercial release, industry executives were looking to hedge their risks through a federal tax on all blank audio cassettes and cassette recording equipment. Not only would the tax increase the cost of home recording, the proceeds of the tax would be given to record producers and artists.

In the meantime, the PMRC was getting its way. The centerpiece of its campaign was the September 19, 1985, congressional hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the vital matter of “porn rock.” During the hearings, senators passive-aggressively questioned artists ranging from hair metal singer Dee Snider to folk singer John Denver, suggesting something needed to be done—and that it would be a shame for the government to have to do it. One of the stars of the hearings ended up being Frank Zappa, who vigorously questioned the purported “education, not legislation” agenda of the hearings.

In all truth, the hearings were not aimed at legislation. Prior to the hearings the RIAA agreed to label cassettes and albums with explicit lyrics, as the PMRC had recommended, making the proceedings little more than political theater designed to show that the senators involved were in line with the rising tide of 1980s social conservatism.

Early implementations of music labeling were inconsistent. Labels and artists not only decided what material to label, but what the label in question would say, making the warning label a new medium for expression. For example, the warning label on rapper Ice T’s The Iceberg/Freedom of Speech . . . Just Watch What You Say (1989) read in part, “Parents Strongly Cautioned: Some material may be X-tra hype and inappropriate for squares and suckers.” While proponents of music labeling had called for labeled records and cassettes to be confined to separate rooms in music stores, rooms in which customers would have to show ID before entering, the voluntary labeling of records placed no obligation on the retailer—although many, most notably Walmart, chose not to carry albums with parental advisory labels.

By 1990, a uniform sticker had emerged. Record companies’ concerns that the labeled records would suffer at the cash register proved unwarranted. In an industry that placed a premium on rebelliousness, the warning sticker became a badge of honor among musicians and their teenage fans. The long-held American popular music tradition of coding racy material in symbols and double entendres gave way to overt crassness. Even artists who had largely steered clear of controversy in the past, like Michael Jackson, found themselves purposefully cultivating controversy to remain relevant.

If the PMRC’s aim was to convince the music industry to clean up its act by threatening record labels’ profits, it failed miserably. Not only was the music industry raking in huge profits selling teenagers music more provocative than the Prince song that led to the creation of the PMRC in the first place, but record executives got their music-dubbing tax as well.

The labeling kerfuffle and recording tax were inextricably linked: Hearings on the tax followed the “porn rock” hearings by a couple weeks. The following year, John Danforth (R-Miss.), who had chaired the “porn rock” hearings, proposed a 35 percent tariff on digital recorders sold without an anti-recording chip. Al Gore proposed a similar tax the year after that. Gore’s act was defeated. The industry finally got what it wanted with the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which included a tax on all digital recorders, the proceeds of which were filtered back into the record industry.

Songs still needed radio airplay and video plays on MTV, both of which still fell under the FCC’s decency guidelines. Fortunately for record producers, digital recording and editing had significantly lowered the cost of creating multiple versions of a song. Record labels that had once self-censored to reach the broadest possible audience developed an alternative, two-track song model: an explicit version for the album and a cleaned-up one for the radio, allowing artists like Dr. Dre to insult the moral sensibilities of just about anyone while simultaneously getting Top 40 airplay. And it all came from a convenient quid pro quo between an industry looking for favorable treatment and an ambitious politician and his wife.

The music market landscape is very different in the Internet age. Those seeking to rein in raunchy music in 2014 would not be able to confront a single entity like the RIAA. And in the virtual marketplace shelf space is virtually unlimited, so there really is no threat of a recording being kept from consumers by a retailer (though Walmart still carries the torch). More importantly, Internet services and content providers recognize parents’ concerns and offer a variety of mechanisms to filter what their children are exposed to. Parents can pre-scan albums on iTunes or Amazon before deciding to purchase them. Internet radio services like Pandora and Google Play are quickly taking the place of radio for teens and have explicit language filters that give parents the option to weed out explicit content. And contrary to alarmist notions that the relative anarchy of the Internet would send the decency standards of popular culture spiraling precipitously down, lyrics may be getting less dirty.

For example, a search for each of the seven words you can’t say on TV at Rap Genius’s Rap Stats website, which provides an online tool that plots the frequency of appearance of individual words in rap songs from 1987 to the present, reveals that four of the seven are found less often in rap songs released in recent years than in songs released in the late 1990s.

And here House of Cards is instructive in a different way. While initially there were great concerns over explicit content in original television series produced by subscription networks like HBO and Internet content providers like Netflix, all of which operate outside of traditional FCC broadcast content guidelines, television today is not a race to the bottom. The same can be said for the 2012 Supreme Court ruling that threw out fines the FCC levied for fleeting nudity and obscenity on broadcast networks Fox and ABC.

Media consumers don’t want raw pornography; they want great content. If the artistic license to use the F-bomb helps artists create a better show or song, audiences are more than happy to go along with it. It is this understanding among audiences, content providers, and producers that has ushered in what many are calling the second great era of American television.

Today, musicians and music producers’ greatest concern is what copyright and royalties will look like in the age of online streaming. As this debate continues, it is important to keep an eye out for those who would use debates about the delivery and compensation for content as a platform for censoring and shaping the content, as well. We’ve been down this road before.


Chris Kjorness is a freelance writer and musician.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

The Real Cost of Healthcare: Questions Not Asked or Answered

A quick review of current literature on healthcare costs and healthcare cost containment is not a very productive use of one’s time.  Within minutes of beginning a review of the published literature, the researcher quickly finds himself so deep into the weeds that it is impossible to make any sense of what is being conveyed.

Throughout the entire public debate over the efficacy of Obamacare, no one seemed to be asking the pertinent questions.  No one has asked, why is healthcare so expensive, and who gets all that money?

I can recall once reading a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer about a Southeast Asian family who arrived in Philadelphia with their infant daughters… Siamese twins joined at the abdomen. Upon examination by a team of surgeons and pediatricians, doctors concluded that it would be possible to surgically separate the twins and that, after a period of recovery, the two little girls could expect to live happy and productive lives.

But then one of the reporters asked the operative question.  The Asian family had no healthcare insurance and very little money, so the question arose, how much would the estimated eleven-hour procedure cost?  The hospital spokesman responded, quite matter-of-factly, saying, “About a million dollars.”

No one batted an eye; no one questioned the estimate and no one asked for a cost breakdown.  Yet, it is necessary to ask, who gets all that money?  How many physicians would participate in the separation procedure?  How many nurses?  What would be the cost of disposable medical equipment?  What would be the cost of post-operative care?  A million dollars is a hell of a lot of money for an eleven-hour surgical procedure and a month or so of post-operative pediatric care.

If we assume five attending physicians… two surgeons, an anesthetist, an obstetrician, and a pediatrician… at $1,000 each per hour for eleven hours, the cost for physician’s services would come to $55,000.  If we assume five operating room and neo-natal nurses at $100 per hour for eleven hours, the cost of nursing care would come to $5,500.  If we assume a cost of $1,000 per hour for the use of the operating theater, the cost of surgical facilities would come to $11,000.  And if we assume a cost of $5,000 for drugs, medicines, and miscellaneous medical equipment, the direct costs accumulated on the day of the separation procedure would come to $76,500.

Then, if we assume a post-operative stay of 30 days for the twins, at $400 each, per day, for a bassinette in neo-natal recovery, that cost would come to $24,000.  And if we assume a cost of $1,000 per day to have surgeons look in on their patients, $500 per day for nursing care, and $500 per day for miscellaneous medicines, food, and diapers, the total cost of post-operative care would come to $84,000.  That would bring the total cost of the separation procedure and the post-op care to $160,500.

All of these estimated costs and daily and hourly rates are admittedly inflated.  So if the hospital prepares an invoice for $1,000,000, who gets the other $839,500?

No one in Congress, the White House, or in the mainstream media is asking the operative question that needs to be addressed.  No one is asking why healthcare is so expensive.  No one is asking, who gets all that money?

A part of the answer to that question was suggested by a recent caller to the Rush Limbaugh radio show.  The caller was a bookkeeper in the finance department of a major hospital; her husband was an orthopedic surgeon who practiced at the same hospital.  The woman explained that each time an orthopedic surgeon performed a hip-joint or knee-joint replacement, he/she was paid a flat rate of $1,250 for their time and talent.  However, when the manufacturer billed the hospital $8,000 for a prosthetic hip joint, the hospital routinely billed the patient, or the patient’s insurance company, $32,000… a 300% markup for the hardware.

Over the past three or four years, a close friend and neighbor has survived a serious bout with cancer.  And although I am unaware of the total cost of his cancer treatments by local physicians and cancer specialists at the M.D. Anderson Clinic in Houston, I am aware that the bill for his bone marrow transplant procedure came to approximately $1.2 million.

Again, how many physicians and nurses actually saw him?  How many hours did they spend treating him?  What was the actual cost of a few hours of operating room usage?  How was that $1.2 million split up between a few doctors, a few nurses, a few lab technicians, and the clinic itself?   Who got all that money?

In recent weeks, Dr. Tom Coburn has announced that he will retire from the U.S. Senate with two years remaining on his current term.  Dr. Coburn is one of the two or three finest members of the U.S. Senate and his departure will be a great loss to Oklahomans and to the country.  Unfortunately, Dr. Coburn suffers from cancer and is undergoing treatment at M.D. Anderson in Houston.  What caught my attention was a recent statement by Dr. Coburn, saying that each time he has a consultation at M.D. Anderson, he is billed for $32,000.

Again, how many physicians and nurses actually see him on each visit?  How many hours do they spend treating him or evaluating his condition?  What is the actual cost of the tests he undergoes?  How is that $32,000 split up between a few doctors, a few nurses, a few lab technicians, and the clinic itself for just a few hours of their time?   If the same team of doctors, nurses, and technicians see even as few as eight patients a day, the total income generated would come to $256,000.  Who gets all that money?

Those who work in the healthcare industry… in hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices… always have a ready answer.  They claim that it is the cost of high-tech equipment and facilities that runs up the cost of healthcare.  Baloney!  There are few hospitals or clinics in the country that cannot obtain the most expensive items of diagnostic equipment, such as MRI machines, through local philanthropy.

And those large portraits of distinguished-looking men and women hanging on the walls of hospitals and surgical wings?  Those are not oil portraits of the hospital’s “Employee of the Month.”  No, those are the portraits of the men and women who have shared their wealth by donating millions of dollars to build a wing onto the local hospital and whose names are enshrined in concrete and marble over the front door.

What is needed is a complete understanding by all concerned… especially those of us who pay the bills… of how a single dollar bill makes its way through the healthcare system and how it is divvied up at the end of the day.  To do so, it would be necessary to conduct a complete micro-economic study of a select number of major medical facilities, identifying over a specified period of time the source of every dollar that comes in the front door, and the recipient of every dollar that goes out the back door.

In other words, in any overhaul of our healthcare system, our first order of business should be to figure out exactly who is bilking the system… who is getting rich, and who is being bankrupted in the process.  Compared to the actual direct cost of healthcare, the price that consumers are asked to pay is far out of balance… perhaps by a factor of as much as four or five.  So who gets all that money?

Early in his first term, Barack Obama promised that he and congressional Democrats would reshape the American healthcare system.  They promised to insure 40 million uninsured, to substantially reduce the cost of healthcare for everyone, to save the average family as much as $2,400 a year in out-of-pocket healthcare costs, to increase the quality of healthcare for all Americans, and to do it all without increasing the number of doctors, nurses, and hospitals.

No one with an I.Q. larger than their hat size would believe they could do what they promised.  But enough low-information Kool-Ade drinkers fell for Obama’s false promise and they elected him.  Now they have to live with what he, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have produced.  When the small company and large company extensions granted by Obama expire sometime in 2016, or before, everyone will be able to see the disaster that Obamacare is.

It is likely that, beginning in 2015, a Republican-controlled House and Senate will be left with the task of cleaning up Obama’s mess.  And when they do we can only hope that they will be wise enough to begin by asking the question, who gets all the money that pours into the healthcare system?  Until we confront that question, real healthcare reform will be nothing more than an impossible dream.

Where is the Rehabilitation for “Racists”?

For decades liberals have lobbied against punishment and for rehabilitation. The argument was that a mugger or murderer was just a victim of his environment, someone caught in the crosshairs of bad nurturing and neighborhood. Accountability is unwarranted because the person bears no responsibility: he knew not what he did. And so successful was this movement that our penal system was largely reorganized based on the rehabilitation model. Why, I’ve even argued with people who insisted that “punishment doesn’t work” (apparently, they’d never heard of Singapore, caning and virtually zero crime).

So, question: where are the calls for rehabilitation, as opposed to punishment, for “racists” such as Clippers owner Donald Sterling?

And the rehabilitation mentality’s absence isn’t just apparent in the social ostracism and career destruction visited on those accused of the One Liberal Deadly Sin of “racism”*. (*Some exceptions may apply.)

It isn’t even just apparent in the social persecution of supposed “haters” in general, from Brendan Eich to the Boy Scouts to devout Christians.

Just consider leftism-disgorged “hate-crime” law. It proves ever so explicitly that, somehow, liberals have discovered the utility of punishment; after all, they will justify this legislation by saying that since some crimes target whole communities, they’re so destructive that a message must be sent. It appears that when their own ideological ox is being gored, the people who authored the atheist version of “the Devil made him do it” want Devil’s Island.

A good example is Donald Sterling. It’s not enough that he has had his reputation destroyed, been fined $2.5 million and been “banned for life” by the National Bolsheviks Association. There are people who want newspapers to stop accepting his ads. And the bigoted Al Sharpton — proving hypocrisy knows no bounds — had actually said that the Clippers should be disbanded. Yes, and maybe we should adopt the North Korean model of purging Sterling’s family and friends, too. But how much punishment is enough? How many pounds of flesh will sate the rapacious and blood-stained leftist palate? Would only a gulag and a long, slow, painful death suffice for the world’s Sterlings?

None of this is a surprise if you understand that liberals don’t operate based on principles, but feelings; in keeping with this, liberalism isn’t an ideology. It is a process. Even Marxism has a vision for how society should be (unrealistic though it is), but liberals do not. The only consistent definition of liberalism is “a desire to change the status quo,” which means there will always be, without a guiding vision, directionless, unprincipled change and action. Liberals are the children who ever fight the parents simply because that is the nature of the brat, and they do this even when yesterday’s liberals have become the parents.

How does this relate to punishment? A person operating on principle, on a vision, will try to tame his emotion and say: here’s the crime, here’s what justice dictates, so here is the proportionate punishment. But with liberals there is no justice — it’s “just us” as they’re governed by the shifting sands of convenience. Their feelings tell them that they hate the transgressor and that they want revenge, and it’s never enough to satisfy them viscerally. It’s as with the feeling of hunger: no matter how much you eat, there’s always another appetite mere hours away.

This governance by emotion helps explain why “*Some exceptions may apply.” It sheds light on why liberals haven’t made a federal case out of Bellville, NJ, Democrat mayoral candidate Marie Strumolo Burke, who lamented proposed tax-rate changes and was caught on audio exclaiming, “This is gonna be a f*****g n****r town!” It illuminates why they did nothing when then NBA owner Jay-Z threw a 2010 party in which no whites were allowed. It even explains why Sterling, whose views were long known, received not only a special dispensation but also acclaim and awards from the left. As part of their political phalanx, liberals don’t hate Burke; they don’t hate bigoted blacks such as Jay-Z; they don’t even hate rich, old white men who pay their dues and pay off the cause. And disconnected from Truth and thus having “situational values,” it’s easy for libs to live in a world of rationalization. Just give them plausible deniability in their own minds, so, as Mark Cuban once said about Sterling, they can shrug off the sin as the eccentricities of a fellow who “plays by his own rules.” But don’t you dare out yourself if you’re a white guy. Don’t become a liability to the cause. It’s as if the mistake isn’t the act (at least if you’re one of the initiated) — the mistake is getting caught.

But with those who aren’t part of their phalanx, liberals will hate, hate, hate; they will hunger for vengeance and, since vengeance never eliminates hate (only forgiveness does), there is never an end to their retribution.

To be clear, I’m not saying that outrage over “racism” is always mere artifice. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s reminiscent of medieval heresy accusations, which could be leveled against an individual by vindictive people with an axe to grind. But much of the time if not most, the anger is real.

It’s just selectively triggered.

In rare cases, the transgression itself may be enough to induce the emotional response. Most of the time, however, it’s some combination of transgression+transgressor+situation. Transgressor can negate transgression, as when a black person makes a bigoted remark; or transgressor can magnify transgression, as when a white Republican makes a corresponding remark. If a white Democrat or Democrat enabler does, transgressor status plus a situation in which you somehow maintain that plausible deniability gets you by. If it’s a wealthy, powerful black man whose success is necessary for the cause, as with Barack Obama, well, then you’re bulletproof. Then again, if you’re a wealthy, powerful white man whose failure is necessary for the cause, as with George Allen and “macaca,” you’re history.

This isn’t to say that most liberals are fully conscious of what animates them. Self-awareness is often lacking among man, and this is especially true among philosophically dysfunctional men (who we today often call liberals). All most leftists know when spewing venom at a supposedly “racist” conservative is that they hate the person, and they assume it’s only because of his transgression. Living situational lives where everything is compartmentalized, they generally don’t know what truly drives them or consider, at the moment they’re wallowing in hatred, that in the past they’ve reacted very differently to liberals in the same boat.

Of course, another factor is that liberals don’t view these transgressions the way a normal person would. They often “feel” — “think” would be the wrong word because, again, leftists generally operate emotionally — that a black’s or liberal’s uttering of a racial remark is of a very different moral species than when a white conservative does so. A black has a right to such sentiments because of the “legacy of slavery.” As for a white liberal, it was perhaps just a weak moment, a slip of the tongue; after all, the person has proven his credentials with his public face as a good leftist foot soldier. If a white conservative says the same thing, however (which never seems nearly as common), it just reflects the deep-seated bigotry that you have to know resides in his dark soul.

Going even deeper, understand that this accords with liberals’ favored reality-denying modern isms. Nominalism states there is nothing that objectively makes both a tiger and a buff tabby “cats,” categorically speaking — we just happen to view them that way. Likewise, a normal person may see two bigoted statements or two acts of punishment as occupying the same category, but there is, objectively speaking, no such thing as a category called “bigoted statements” or “acts of punishment.” Such classifications only exist in our minds, so we can assign these labels as we see fit. And in deference to relativism, which boils down to the notion that there’s no right or wrong, neither punishment nor rehabilitation can be inherently good or bad, and consistency can be no better than inconsistency.

At bottom, this is how devout leftists view the world. Subscribing to the Protagorean proposition “Man is the measure of all things” and the apocryphal one “Might makes right,” when they win culture wars and take control, they make themselves the measure of all things. Perhaps the best characterization of their philosophy is occultist Aleister Crowley’s formulation, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

And what they wilt do is persecute you. Remember that, nice-guy conservatives, the next time you want to fight them using Queensbury Rules.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of Ardfern. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

The Worst of Times, the Best of Times

I suppose that throughout history men and women have asked themselves if they were living through either the worst or best of times. The times between wars are most surely the best of times and the times leading up to and during a war qualify as the worst.  They are, however, rather quickly forgotten. It only takes about two generations—sometimes less—to move on from such events.

May 8, is “VE Day” celebrating the U.S. victory in Europe in World War Two. I suspect that most of our younger generations, including some of the Boomers, have no idea what the “VE” stands for.

World War Two ended seven decades ago, but not only have most Americans moved on from the horror of September 11, 2001, but it would appear that even the killing of an American ambassador and three security personnel in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 doesn’t arouse much anger even as we learn of a White House cover-up that utterly debases their sacrifice and loss. “Dude, that was two years ago,” said one White House staff member; as crass and crude a dismissal as one can imagine.

From a perspective of more than seventy and a half years, my mind flashes back to the Watergate scandal that began in June 1972 and concluded with President Nixon’s resignation in August 1974. That was a long two years as the attending events unfolded.

Forty-three people in the Nixon administration went to jail for their participation in the cover-up. The current Attorney General received a Contempt of Congress citation for his failure to provide information about one of the administration’s many scandals and during a recent speech to the National Action Network, a group founded by Rev. Al Sharpton, asked “What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” Does the name John Mitchell ring a bell? He was Nixon’s Attorney General.

Holder apparently believes that the charges hurled at him and President Obama are mostly based on the color of their skin. We live in a nation that has a black President, a black Attorney General, and a black member of the Supreme Court, to name just a few Afro-Americans who have made it to the topmost circles of power. There are 43 black members of the House and one in the Senate. I grew up in a nation where blacks could not eat in certain restaurants, get a room at a hotel, and even had separate drinking fountains. I witnessed the Civil Rights era and these, for black Americans, are the best of times in the long history of our nation.

For nearly all Americans, however, these are far from the best of times. In 1981 President Reagan pulled the nation out of a recession and set it on a path of prosperity that lasted well in the Clinton years. A financial crisis occurred in the last year of President Bush’s second term. If President Obama didn’t want to “inherit” that, he should not have run for office, but he spent his entire first term blaming the economy and everything else on Bush to the point where he made himself look foolish. And then he was reelected!

We are now two years into Obama’s second term and failed economic and national security policies that include the shrinking of our military power to the levels of pre-World War Two years. Domestic policies are having their effect on failed foreign policies. There are some 90 million Americans out of work or who ceased to look for it.

Peace, some say, is the period between wars and there is great truth in that. Most of my life was spent in the last century, starting in the latter years of the 1930s. There were thirty-two wars, large and small, somewhere in the world during the last century, including a Cold War from 1945 to 1991 between the U.S. and the then-Soviet Union.

So far as the U.S. was concerned, our military saw action in World War One (1914-1918), World War Two (begun in 1939, we entered in 1941-1945), the Korean War (1950-1953), the Vietnam War (begun in 1959 with initial U.S. participation in 1961. We would abandon the conflict in 1973). In 1990 the U.S. led the Persian Gulf War to drive Iraq’s Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We would invade Iraq in 2003 to depose Hussein. In the wake of the 9/11/2001 attack, our forces were dispatched to Afghanistan and are in the process of withdrawing.

War is the way nations tend to settle their differences. Despite the creation of the United Nations after World War Two ended, the U.S. has been engaged in wars and their deterrence. The rest of the world during the last century pursued wars in places that included Mexico, Russia, China, Spain and the rest of Europe, the French Indochina War, the French-Algerian War, the Soviet-Afghan War, the Iran-Iraq War, the third Balkan War, the Rwandan genocide, and the wars that Israel has endured over the more than sixty years of its existence.

This is why many are inclined to think, not only in terms of the U.S. economy, but in response to events beyond our borders—once again in Europe—that the conflict in the Ukraine may metastasize into World War Three if NATO is forced to confront a Russia behaving like it did before its former government collapsed.

I would, however, suggest that the greatest threat of war is staring the entire world in the face and that is an Iran with nuclear weapons.

We have a President who has displayed virtually no knowledge, nor understanding of the history briefly detailed here. Instead, he has pursued a deal with an Iran that has hated the U.S. (and Israel) as the heart of its foreign policy since 1979, As one former senior intelligence official was recently quoted as saying, “The fear is that the Iranians are going to pretend to give up their nuclear weapons program—and we are going to pretend to believe them.”

The only outcome of that would be an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel for whom a nuclear Iran would be a second Holocaust. Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria in 2007.

In a broader context, we and the rest of the world are living in an era in which Islam is challenging Western, modern civilization with precepts that embrace beheading, amputation, stoning to death, and other forms of violence, often against women, that must be confronted and defeated.

So, if these are best of times, they could rapidly turn into the worst of times…again.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Son of Martian running for President of the United States

Marco Cruz, a Martian, landed in the U.S. in 1970, met a woman named Stanley and she gave birth to a son they named Marco Cruz II in 1971.

Father Marco didn’t stay long in the states and returned to his native tribal area on Mars only to return briefly once years later.

Qualifying for affirmative action young Marco wasted no time in attending the finest universities in the country on the taxpayers dime and immediately upon graduation jumped into the political world seeing that as a honeypot for amassing great wealth.

Marco said what ever was necessary to get elected telling young inexperienced voters he promised them “Out of this world” stuff if elected which always got great applause.

Today Marco is a U.S. Senator and has his eye on becoming President which is the largest honeypot in the political world.

Fearing he would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen which he was taught required a child to born to parents who are both citizens at the time of birth as a requirement to be president, Marco met with Jack Maskell, the Legislative Attorney of the Congressional Research Service who gave Congress cover for the current President Obama whose father was not a U.S. citizen.

Maskell assured Marco he would write the same type of nonsensical report politicians never bother to read giving him cover as a Natural Born Citizen even though only his mother is a citizen.

He said “I gave Obama cover and no one has impeached him yet for not being a Natural Born Citizen and his father never was a citizen. I provided the same for Ted Cruz and his father was not Naturalized until 2005. I can do the same for you and I’m sure you will be an out of this world president!”

Soviet Socialism in the 21st Century Part 7: Knowledge is Power

The old saying “Knowledge is Power” is not a cliche, it is a reality of our life. I have an impression that knowledge has escaped the Obama Administration. Don’t the officials know that evil exists? Why they are not fighting it effectively? Do they have a cohesive view of what to do and what is their strategy in Ukraine this particular time? Considering the predicament, they either have no needed knowledge or they do not want to fight Evil… None of three rounds of the Obama weak and toothless sanctions will stop Russian aggression. Moreover, Russia is responsible for all the troubles in the world, including Ukraine, but the West fundamentally misunderstands Russia.

Annexation of Crimea is a beginning of the monumental offensive against Ukraine. Crimea has no drinking water, it was provided for two million people by the Ukrainian government. Russia has no other means to to do that, but the further occupation of the Ukrainian territory. The offensive will continue from different sides, South, North, West, and East. For your information, a former Soviet Republic Moldova can be a decisive point in this war. After the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, all its military equipment had been brought to Moldova in town Kolbasnoe. Look at the map of Ukraine and see the strategic location of Moldova, which has pro-Russian enclave of separatist-Kazaks there. But don’t be confused–the storage of arms doesn’t mean only a military Russian offense.

The next Crimea’s peculiarity is its demography and history; both are intertwined in a dangerous knot of contradictions and antagonism. Crimea has many different ethic groups, yet only one can be called the native Crimean–Crimean Tatars, the part of really peaceful Muslims. Fifteen thousand of them had already left Crimea as the refugees: they remember the past and do not want to live under Russian regime. To know the tragedy of their deportation by Stalin and his “Russification policy” implemented in the country, please read Baltic Winds. History provides you with the modus operadi of Stalinism, you have already seen in Ukraine: subversive activities, provocations, and cover ups used by Russia.

Here is the report about the event taking place in the Eastern Ukraine: “World leaders and Jewish groups condemned a leaflet handed out in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk in which Jews were told to “register” with the pro-Russian militants who have taken over a government office in an attempt to make Ukraine part of Russia, according to Ukrainian and Israeli media.Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city’s Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee “or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated,” reported Ynet News, Israel’s largest news website, and Ukraine’s Donbass news agency.”

Confusion has overwhelmed America. Who could do that in the 21st century?? ? History is the best teacher in all foreign and domestic affairs. We, the former citizens of the socialist countries know that history and know who committed that act, because we know Russian mentality, the KGB modus operandi , and the meaning of the term Spez. (special) Operation. The crises in Ukraine is not a mini-version of the Cold War, it is a military Spez. Operation, the continuation of WWIII, I have already described in the preceding articles. Russia is an anti-Western country with all the negative consequences of that for the world, while Ukraine wants freedom and a good relationship with the West. Current Russia is a cursed land, its agenda now to prevent the peaceful election in Ukraine. Please remember that.

Those who think that Putin is not a Soviet apparatchik are very wrong. Since the time he came to power, the liberties implemented by Yeltsin in the 1990s have been slowly but surely disappearing in Russia–the propaganda-machine of the past was reinstated. Putin is a devoted disciple of Andropov and Stalin–this is the crux of the matter in his strategy and agenda. The agenda hasn’t changed since the Stalin’s time and that is the task of this series to introduce the history of Soviet Socialism and the ideology design by Stalin. It was Stalin , who planned One World Government under the Kremlin auspices. I have already dedicated a lot of pages to him, and his activities as the Commissar for Nationalities, implementing bigotry, hate, racism, and aggression. This is an additional page.

I am not only a child of Stalinism, I am also a former Soviet defense attorney, who attended law school with some future members of the KGB and I continued a friendships with them after the graduation . Being an American citizen now, I am concerned about the state of affairs in my country America, because of what is going on in Ukraine is somewhat similar to the events going on in America. Don’t be surprised by my statement, I am intending to prove it by the comparative point… I have already started doing that on the Chapter 7, WWIII: Recruitment and Drugs, Infiltration and Assassinations, in my book titled What is Happening to America? The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction, Xlibris, 2012. It is time for you to read what Stalin had predicted for America seven decades ago:

Living in the Stalinist Russia under the predicament of constant lies and promises we knew the way Stalin would implement his agenda. Pay attention to Stalin’s targets–he concretely identified them. They are:the American “patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life.” When I heard Obama speaking about Benghazi my pulse went up–I knew, he was deceiving us, I knew about his partnership with Putin and Russian agenda in the Middle EAST. Several decades of WWIII, introduced by me earlier , also effected our foreign policy–the Stalinist offense is acting in many different fronts, in variety of forms and shapes to achieve that. It has also fundamentally effected and changed the political agenda of the Democrat Party, for the last decades.

Don’t you noticed a tremendous shift in our culture? The statements of the Democrat leaders in the Senate calling the Tea Party–the racist and terrorists are also an attempt to deceive, mislead us and to change our value system, our morality (watch Harry Reid.) The Tea Party is neither of the two. Like in Russia, the propaganda and a Spin Zone has occupied the Senate, ran by the Democrats, followed their leaders. So, let’s go to the history, comparing the events in Stalinist Russia with a contemporary America:

Truth was the main target of Soviet Socialism! Needing to defend its ideology and lacking trust in society, the system “invented” a new notion of Socialist Morality, which fundamentally affected traditional Russian culture. Socialist Morality was uniforming everything for conformity and control. This new “value” system changed the country and dehumanized its people, turning one against another, brother against brother and child against parent. Living in an atmosphere of constant fear and distrust had a profound influence on us and shaped us to a new reality.

Socialist Morality confused and cowed people. I saw it with my own eyes over the years, in the stories of thousands of people who visited my office looking for help. I could assist some of them, but there was nothing to be done for many others. We actually were forced to take part in building “the bright future of Communism.” A new, rigidly enforced set of rules and regulations in our collective society acted to discourage an individual from acting independently for fear of the consequences. Socialist Morality reigned supreme.

The Stalinist system was built on an enormous bureaucracy, and the mammoth security apparatus was an integral part of it. To safeguard the ideology and preserve Socialist Morality, Soviet Socialism created several institutions that kept us in a constant state of fear. One of them was the institutionalization of the informant system. Every office and enterprise had its cadre of informers. There were approximately 25 million informers in the country of 300 million people in 1980s. The concentration of informers was particularly intense in the intellectual fields of activity — in the educational system and especially within the media. Their numbers decreased in other fields. The informers did their “job” extremely well—the Gulag’s forced labor camps and mental institutions were filled to overflow with those who complained, criticized or dissented.

Another method of safeguarding Stalinist ideology and imposing Socialist Morality was the manipulation of religion. It made no difference if the faith was Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or some other sect. Priests, rabbis, imams and other prelates could function only under the supervision of the KGB. Every house of worship was registered and subordinated to a respective local KGB office. Those priests or rabbis who refused to cooperate were sent to the Gulag or to mental institutions. The congregants themselves were watched and often harassed, especially if the believer was among the younger generation. It was hardly worth the trouble of going after elderly believers, but ideological deviancy among youth – the country’s future – was intolerable.

The informant system and the manipulation of religion were only two methods among many for controlling the human psyche, but they were the most effective ways to enforce ideological orthodoxy. The use of violence, intimidation, deception, and the certainty of reprisal against ideological heresy kept the Russian people downtrodden and, most importantly, silent. The instruments of fear and violence did the job they were intended to do. That was our life under Soviet Socialism–we have been trapped in total Government’s control.

We are terrified to see patterns of Stalinism in our America the Beautiful today. I call a social model of Stalinism–Soviet Fascism.

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com

Cinco de Amnesty and other glorious news from the Cube

Cinco de Amnesty!

Once and Future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (S-CA) took the opportunity of Cinco de Mayo to call on House Republicans to get behind Amnesty. She exhorted her colleagues across the aisle to “emulate the bravery demonstrated in the battle of Puebla” to find the courage to pass a comprehensive amnesty measure.

The Battle of Puebla, which took place on 5 May 1862, was a major victory for the Mexican army over the French. The French had invaded Mexico contrary to Mexican law and refused to return to their own country, citing the excellent employment opportunities in Mexico, and claiming Mexico owed them compensation for past wrongs.

Although it is not celebrated as a national holiday in Mexico, Cinco de Mayo has proved a boon to American beer distributors.

In case you missed this weekend on the People’s Cube:

Rutgers: a bold stroke for freedom of our type of speech


White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Debuts New Hat Look

Interstate Tolls: New Sliding Scale

Goodlatte tells Hollywood: Immigration “Grand Bargain” coming

Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), however, would not predict during the interview when such amnesty legislation would pass.”My job isn’t to predict when it’s going to happen. My job is to build the consensus that we need to have immigration reform,” Goodlatte said.

Chair Goodlatte, I suggest you do what the large majority of American CITIZENS want and that is for Congress to fulfill the promises made when the first amnesty was made. The promises never fulfilled to this day are:


If Congress would have done that in 1986, 31 years ago, today you wouldn’t be bloviating about a “GRAND BARGAIN.” It might also help the dismal opinion WE THE PEOPLE have of you in Congress. Instead, Congress has passed six additonal amnesties or amnesty adjustments from 1987 to 2000 yet never a word is mentioned about them. Chair Goodlatte, do you know the meaning of insanity?

Chair Goodlatte, are you aware  20% of all immigrants in the world are in our country yet the senate voted to double the yearly number to 2 million a year! Our poverty rate is stuck at 15% even though you in Congress have thrown over 15 Trillion in the past 40 years, nearly equaling our current national debt, but ti won’t decrease.

Do you think the reason our poverty level won’t go down is the large majority of those brought into the country since 1965 are uneducated and unskilled and so long as you continue the madness of importing poverty it won’t decrease?

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image is courtesy of NBC News.

The Liberal Media’s Donald Sterling Race-baiting

Never let a racial crisis go to waste is, I suppose, the credo of the Machiavellian mainstream media. Since the release of the Don Sterling audio, liberals haven’t missed a chance to play the race card for all its worth. One of the worst offenders is a New York Daily News columnist named Harry Siegel, who — in a piece of pablum bearing a picture of NBA owners portrayed as Klansmen — bemoans the lack of Diversity™ in league ownership and management. Unfortunately for Siegy, his points, which start with the Klan hoods, only get worse from there.

A man with a conscience (malformed though it is), Siegel laments that the NBA is “a league where three-quarters of the players are black, but fewer than half the coaches and not even a fifth of the league office staff are black, as of October, 2013, and every majority team owner except Michael Jordan is white.” But there’s an easy remedy.

Institute a quota ensuring that whites, and other races, get proportionate representation among NBA players.

This would make the league approximately 63 percent white, 17 percent Hispanic, 13 percent black and 6 percent Asian. The remaining one percent can be represented by Clint Eastwood’s empty chair on the sidelines, and we can throw in a primordial dwarf if it makes the Diversity™ didacts feel better.

And why not? Why should proportionality go only one way? The bias here lies in self-righteously bloviating about Diversity™ when whites dominate an area while acting as if you don’t even notice it when blacks do.

Of course, liberals would say that the players have earned their positions. But how do we know the owners haven’t? After all, some individuals definitely seem to have a gift for building financial empires. This isn’t to say that every rich person makes his fortune through respectable means. Heck, some people even make millions dribbling a ball around.

But it seems that liberals, prejudiced to the core, only have a problem with it when the “wrong” groups succeed. With the contraception con spent, Barack Obama (PBUH) has used his Teleprompter recently to rail against the male/female wage gap — and he wasn’t talking about the one where young urban women earn 8 percent more than their male peers (because they’re 50 percent more likely to graduate college; I don’t think ol’ Barry mentions this gap, either). Libs could also cite how NBA owners are inordinately Jewish, but that narrative won’t work yet. And the highest-earning religious group in the nation is Hindus, but, last I heard, colleges weren’t schooling mush-head kids in “Hindu privilege.”

But talking about those things might be “publicly toxic”; you know, in the sense that Siegel said he’s sure that Sterling is “not the only owner whose private thoughts are publicly toxic.” No doubt. And I’m certain this is limited to rich white NBA owners, or at least white people in general. It also occurs to me, however, that people can develop a tolerance for certain toxins, such as when black ex-basketball players suggest all-black leagues or black civil-rights hustlers call a city “Hymietown.” And, in keeping with the toxicological principle “The dose makes the poison,” tolerance for toxins disgorged by whites stands at about .010 parts per million.

Then there are the millions, of dollars, that Siegel laments the NBA players are not getting, writing that theirs is a “league where the 360 or so athletes who, in fact, make the game, split its proceeds about 50-50 with ownership.” Note that he also dismissed the owners, who allegedly believe they make the game, as “[w]ealthy men…[who] think highly of their own contributions.”

Now, some might say that the fans make the game; after all, you earn zilch without a market. But what is Siegel’s point? Wouldn’t the proceeds split be much the same in the virtually all-white NHL? And how is that different from any corporation or successful business? A person doesn’t invest his heart and soul and risk capital in a venture without the carrot of a possibly handsome return; not even liberals such as Little Big Gulp (a.k.a. Michael Bloomberg), Warren Buffet and Donald Sterling do that.

So it sounds as if Siegel is lamenting economic freedom, as if he’d prefer a Marxist model (this certainly would have the upside of not enriching men who dribble balls and pundits who dribble ideas). Of course, nothing is stopping the players from pooling their resources and trying to buy into their team.

But perhaps most telling about Siegel’s article is what could be akin to a Freudian slip. A recurrent theme of his is that “we” can feel good about ourselves for taking the principled stand against Sterling, but there is much work yet to do. He writes, “We can all take a moment and pat ourselves on the back for not being as horrible as this appalling old man,” and later, “Once we’re done feeling good about not being Sterling…,” it’s time to beat the Diversity™ drum. But he also self-righteously states that Sterling’s “obscene behavior…has been well documented” and asks, “how could this have gone on for so long?”

What this gets at is the phoniness of the left. Let’s be clear on something: the “we” here isn’t me. It’s not most of you readers, the Heritage Foundation, Catholic Church or Southern Baptist Convention.

It is the left.

Notoriously liberal Mark Cuban, who now calls Sterling “abhorrent,” said in 2009, “I like Donald. He plays by his own rules.” (Translation: a lib who becomes a liability to the cause is “abhorrent.” A lib who is getting away with it “plays by his own rules.”) Black actor Leon Isaac Kennedy called Sterling “a prince among men.” The NAACP gave him an award and was set to bestow another. And ex-NBA commissioner David Stern, who some libs now criticize for not only tolerating the owner but even rewarding him, is, like Sterling, a Democrat donor.

The “we,” libs, is you.

It’s not conservatives. It’s not white people. It’s you.

You anointed yourselves arbiters and overseers of acceptable racial commentary; “racism” is your hang-up, your defined One Deadly Sin, your great litmus test. Don’t blame “society” — upholding your principles is your responsibility.

So most of the lib outrage over “racism” is, when not downright phony, motivated by selectively triggered emotion. It’s a ploy used to tear down tradition and traditionalists on specious grounds and win the culture war. It’s not for lib-enablers, such as late Senator Robert Byrd, who’d been in the KKK; blacks such a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton; Bill Clinton with his Obama-coffee remark; or fat cats who make big donations — until it’s time to throw them under the bus.

As for Siegel, if he’s so concerned about Diversity™, perhaps he could turn his columnist slot over to a minority. After all, the vast majority of columnists are white, Siegy, and you wouldn’t want some future writer to have to lament, “how could this have gone on for so long?”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Racism, Sexism, Hate-Speech: Let’s level the playing field

What is this world coming to?

While presenting a monologue on HBO in 2012, comedian Bill Maher called former republican governor Sarah Palin a “cunt “and “dumb twat”on national television. (excuse the graphic reference, it was necessary, for effect)

What were Maher’s consequences? Laughs.

No walk-out from women’s groups. No protests from feminists. No demand for resignation from anyone. No response from the FCC.

Maher is still working as an unfunny comedian, drawing audiences in theaters and on television, while the left-leaning media refer to his critics as right wing nuts or republican extremists. Instead of banishing, HBO signs him to more multi-million dollar contracts, some proceeds of which is proudly filtered to democratic campaigns, including Barack Obama.

The double-standard is nauseating.

There is no term more disgusting or vile to call any female, be it in private, or more so, for millions to hear – ON PURPOSE. It is far more vile than calling a black person the “N” word. The “N” word is prolifically acceptable in many venues, particularly by blacks themselves, including rap music, black theater, black on black in sports and entertainment, and in the streets in general. The “N” word is used far more often by blacks than by whites. Yet, whites are dumbed down, excoriated as racists should they use that same term.

If a prominent white person makes negative reference to blacks in any manner, he/she will be expelled, disbarred, disengaged, fired, castigated and hated in the media. Follow the path of banished food icon, Paula Deen, who admits that she used the “N” word sometimes in her early life. Twelve years a success on television; She’s out!

The “N” became the focus on the O.J. Simpson trial, as referred to in former detective Mark Fuhrman’s history. It had virtually NOTHING to do with the evidence of murdering two people by Simpson, yet it clouded the entire trial. The defense infuriated the mostly black jury using emotion, not evidence, as proof of innocence.

In 2007, Donald Imus lost his MSNBC talk show when he referred to the Rutgers basketball team as “nappy-headed hoes,” a term taken from within the black community and in rap music where it was often uttered. Imus was banished. Out.

But it’s okay to call a female politician a “cunt.” That’s not worth losing a job. It’s worth laughs and big contracts. Truth is, people like Maher think they’re immune from decorum and decency because they have a political constituency on their side.

Can anyone imagine that from a Johnny Carson or Jay Leno?

The “Racist” term is bandied about so much these days that it has lost it’s true meaning. People (including black politicians and journalists) who expose Barack Obama’s failings as a president, are ultimately deemed “racist.” When the president’s integrity is questioned, the convenient response is the “R” word. Cloud it up. I’ve been critical of Obama’s policies, and sure enough, I’ve been subjected to accusations of “racism.”

A 2013 Rasmussen poll found that, between blacks, whites and Hispanics, blacks are the most racist – even according to blacks.

The nation’s most prominent racist has been promoted to a commentator on MSNBC. Al Sharpton’s racist reputation came to the forefront in the now-famous Tawana Brawley case where he went after white men for raping a black girl, who lied. She wasn’t raped at all. Yet, when one black girl accuses whites of raping her, Al Sharpton is out of the woodwork. Never mind, that interracial rapes are committed far more often by blacks on whites than whites on blacks. And considering the population ratios, the odds show that white females will be a hundred times more likely to be raped by blacks, than a black females will be raped by whites. But leave it up to the famous reverend to inject “Racism” as the key adjective in anything he pursues. He was also famous for encounters with Jewish shopkeepers, using the term “white interlopers” in New York City 25 years ago. The target of that verbal assault had his shop burned down. Thank you Reverend Sharpton.

Sharpton has used the “N” word as much as any white bigot, including those directed at former black Mayor David Dinkins. Just recently, Sharpton has been exposed in video tapes from his earlier period as an FBI informant for alleged favors, an “N-word” spouting activist with no more interest in helping the black community other than raising all the support and money he can to espouse his political agenda. Sharpton, nevertheless, is admired by the president and by Attorney General Eric Holder. In other words, if you’re black, it’s ok. “If you’re white, we’ll get you.”

George Zimmerman committed no act of racism when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in the tragic incident in Sanford, Florida in 2012. None whatsoever! Zimmerman’s entire life had been infused with multiculturalism, tolerance and friendships with blacks, including mentoring black kids. But no sooner than the “preliminary” reports came out that a white man shot a black teenage kid, the hordes of Sharptonites came out of the woodwork, demonstrating in the streets – aided by the Holder Justice Department – condemning Zimmerman, trying and convicting him in the press and then lashing him and his family with death threats. All this based on the premise that Zuimmerman was a racist, when in fact, he was not…as proven in his trial.

That was the same justice department, incidentally, that dropped the charges against the new Black Panthers in 2009 for wearing fatigues and intimidating white voters with night sticks at a precinct in Philadelphia, a clear-cut federal crime. But if you’re black, it’s ok. If that was the KKK, the culprits would still be in prison today.

It’s time for change all right. It’s time the race baiters face their own condemnation and charges of incitement.

I agree, that there is no room for racism in America. But it is just as wrong for a black to be a racist, than it is for a white.

L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was surreptitiously recorded on a phone line that was taped, without his knowledge or approval. That’s a crime in many states, including California. When I speak to any person on a phone, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If that is violated, no matter my opinions of anything, (excepting threats to national security) someone should be charged and prosecuted.

The words of Mr. Sterling were prejudiced, racist and vile. But they were not boldly aired, they were intended as private. Nevertheless, now that they are public, team players are understandably outraged and consequences are undoubtedly forthcoming. But we must also remember that Donald Sterling is an American, just like you and me, who enjoys the rights provided by the First Amendment. He has a right to be prejudiced, he has a right to be a racist, he has a right to hate anyone he wants, he has a right to all his opinions so long as his views do not injure or deprive others of their due rights and entitlements.

And if we’re going to be so indignant, perhaps we should write MSNBC a letter expressing outrage they have employed a racist as a journalist, which destroys the credibility of that cable news station.

Demonizing is a two-way street. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

If Sterling must go, Bill Maher must go.


Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin A ‘Dumb [Vagina]‘ | NewsBusters

Rev. Al Sharpton worked as FBI informant, taping conversations with mob

What About Donald Sterling’s Right To Privacy? – NPR

Sterling, Media and the Race Card — a Confederacy of Dunces – Larry Elder Page 1

FrontPage Magazine – The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo was taken in 1989 by Cliff Wildes. It is of Cliff Wildes NBA sponsor with Donald Sterling owner of LA Clippers (center).  This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

So What if Cliven Bundy is a “Racist”?

For the record, I don’t believe Cliven Bundy is a “racist.”

For the record, I don’t even care.

Such indifference to that damnable failing, that thing we all know is the worst thing one can be, must make me a damnable man. But I am flexible. I just want equality. I’m perfectly willing to demonize “racists,” provided we give other sinners equal time.

I just want to hear, for example, “Forget the facts of the matter! The man is lustful!” or “Don’t listen to that miscreant. He’s guilty of sloth!” Or let’s say a fellow posits an opinion on, oh, taxation. Our very intellectual response could be, “Hey, didn’t I hear you talkin’ to your girlfriend about how you scarfed down four cheeseburgers at the barbecue and binged on ice cream in your easy chair? Look, everyone, he’s a glutton!”

This isn’t to say that being a bigot — the word “racist” is in quotation marks because it’s an invention of leftist language manipulators — is a good thing. Not at all. But neither is being lustful, slothful or gluttonous. Yet people who couldn’t name three of the Seven Deadly Sins and are thoroughly guilty of at least six, will claim they can disqualify a person, and his point of view, from debate based on their assessment of his moral state. What blindness — and hubris.

Bigotry is simply a sub-category of wrath, one part of one-seventh, not the moral end-all and be-all. And even if Bundy did have racial hang-ups, would it follow that he was wrong about his case or on federal power in general? Can a man be flawed, and even sinful, but yet right on a matter? Can he still have virtues? Albert Einstein could be lewd and lascivious, Galileo an irascible jerk, Ernest Hemingway was a drunkard.

This isn’t to say, as certain people with poor character once averred, that character doesn’t matter. It’s not to say a person’s vices can’t speak to motivations; it’s valid to point it out if a judge who rules that pornography has First Amendment protections habitually views porn himself. But it’s not valid to fixate on the allegedly “racist” tendencies of a judge who rules that racial commentary enjoys such protections (at least not within the context of analyzing the ruling). The difference is that since the former is wrong, there’s good reason to believe that his personal inclinations corrupted his judgment on the matter; with the latter judge, however, dwelling on the supposed flaw in question would only serve to discredit a legitimate ruling.

The point is that we all have flaws, yet all can be correct about a whole host of things. I wouldn’t have wanted Einstein to care for a teenage daughter or be president, but I wouldn’t deny that E=mc2.

Of course, it really is true that some flaws are more unequal than others — there is a hierarchy of sin — but moderns’ sense of proportion is highly askew. G.K. Chesterton said that a “Puritan is a person who pours righteous indignation into the wrong things.” Today we have Impuritans, complete reprobates worshipping at hedonism’s altar, who pour their indignation onto others in a vain attempt to wash their own souls clean of sin. But there is much more to being a “good” person than simply not being bigoted.

To further illustrate this askew sense of proportion, consider again the gluttony example. Gluttony is a sin, no doubt. But now let’s say that our society considered it the ultimate disqualifier. Let’s say we might scrutinize a person, asking “What are his food bills?” “Do cookbooks figure too prominently in his library?” “Does he wile away excessive time watching Emeril Live?” “Is he the one who cleared the buffet table like a hurdler?” And imagine we visited pariah status on the person after deeming him guilty.

Would you think this society’s greater fault was gluttony — or being hung-up about it? I’d think it exhibited a gluttonous zeal for eradicating gluttony.

The problem is that man always swings from one extreme to another. The early to mid 20th century saw the embrace of eugenics and racial-superiority dogma, which was then discredited by the loathsome Nazis. But now we just as zealously impose a dogma denying the reality of group differences and mandating equality of outcome among races.

This tendency toward true extremism — meaning, extreme deviation from Truth — brings to mind C.S. Lewis’ observation that evil always tries to persuade us to exaggerate our flaws, telling the militant he’s too pacifistic and the pacifist that he’s too militant. As an example, today we have Impuritans who, awash in the Great Sexual Heresy, will still lament how “Puritan” America is so sexually “repressed.” Evil tells the pervert he’s too prudish, just as it tells self-hating whites that they’re too anti-black.

But what we should be is anti-“racism.” I don’t mean what you think. We need to oppose both the word and the concept — at least how the latter is often conceptualized.

Bigotry is bad by definition, and that definition is commonly agreed upon. But “racism” often has a different meaning, one whose influence is readily apparent in the reaction to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s much reported comments. Al Sharpton, who once used the term “white interlopers” and once said, “White folks was in caves while we were building empires…,” called for a boycott of the NBA. Former hoop star Larry Johnson reacted to a man who didn’t want blacks around by saying he didn’t want whites around, as he suggested creating an all-black basketball league. Spike Lee told CNN he wished that white NBA players would speak out against Sterling, which is a bit like John Gotti having wished that someone would speak out against racketeering. And Barack Obama took time away from destroying our world standing, healthcare system, social policy and economy to say that “comments reportedly made by Sterling are ‘incredibly offensive racist statements,’ before casting them as part of a continuing legacy of slavery and segregation that Americans must confront,” wrote CBS DC. He then opined, “When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t really have to do anything; you just let them talk” (you don’t have to do anything except, I suppose, “confront” a “legacy of slavery and segregation”). But, okay, I’ll just let Obama talk.

Now, opportunism is often a factor in such hypocrisy, but there is something else: a striking sense of entitlement. This is why many black people will condemn a white person for making a bigoted comment with an equally bigoted comment without batting an eye; when whites are bigoted, it’s “racist”; when blacks are, it’s something else. And, in fact, this idea is encapsulated in the definition of “racism” I alluded to earlier. It’s one you’ve probably heard:

Only whites can be “racist” because a prerequisite for “racism” is not only bigoted intent, but the power to act upon it.

And, actually, they’ll get no argument from me. As I’ve said before, the left originated the word “racism,” so they may define it. They may have it.

And if they ask, I’ll tell them where they can stick it.

The problem is that conservatives, being conservative — meaning, conserving yesterday’s liberals’ social victories — parrot the word. It’s another example of how, forgetting that the side defining the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate, conservatives slavishly use the Lexicon of the Left.

Of course, eventually this will all be left in the dustbin of history. Movements, peoples and civilizations come and go, and we’ll get over our fixation with one part of one-seventh of the Deadly Sins. And then man will swing to another extreme, as he goes on to the next great mistake.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com


BLM Land-Grabbing 140 Acres From the Boy Scouts, No Tortoises Here
Democrat Mayoral Candidate Caught on Tape in Racist Tirade and the Crickets Chirping are Just Amazing

A Picture a Day keeps Thought Crimes at Bay

The latest images from The People’s Cube (March-April 2014). For a larger printable version click on your favorite thought-crime picture. 

Black Media Need Ownership—And Control

With the continued consolidation going on within the media (radio, TV, newspapers), there is never-ending debate over the issue of ownership and diversity. But how do you define ownership? Is ownership the issue or editorial control or both?

As members of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) like to remind me, Black media is by definition Black-owned and operated. The NNPA is composed of approximately 200 Black newspapers in the United States and the Virgin Islands. They have a combined readership of nearly 20 million and the organization also has a digital presence in BlackPressUSA.com, which enables newspapers to provide real time news and information to its national constituency.

There is no question that these newspapers are wholly owned and operated by Blacks, unlike media outlets such as The Grio, The Root, Essence magazine or Black Entertainment Television (BET). These outlets are merely White media masquerading as Black-owned media. The Grio is owned by NBC, The Root is owned by the Washington Post, Essence is owned by Time, Inc., and BET is owned by Viacom.

Each of these outlets is run by Black people who serve as the public face of their White-owned companies. Each of these outlet’s owners are all liberal and that seems to carry over into the work they produce.

So, with these corporate owners and their designated staffers from these Black outlets all being politically liberal, there seems to be no thought or interest in diversity of views. For the most part, Blacks crave to inclusion and then turn around and excluded those who do not agree with them politically.

The Black operators have effectively created a false narrative that they represent the views of the Black community. Nothing could be further from the truth. They represent the views of some of the Black community.

If you the Republican National Committee (RNC), it makes more sense to cultivate strong relationships and spend money with Black newspapers instead of those sickened by an identity crisis. The reason is quite simple.

Black newspapers are not beholden to white, corporate masters. Black newspaper owners are a better reflection of the true thinking within the Black community and their newspapers better reflect the full range of thinking within the Black community. Do you really think it is a coincidence that these Black outlets that are owned by white corporations are aggressively pushing a homosexual agenda or amnesty for illegals? This is in keeping with the agendas of these corporations.

You do not see these issues pushed within Black newspapers. Some individual owners may support these issues on a personal level, but it is rarely reflected in their newspapers. These corporations have invested in Black media outlets not to promote issues of relevance to the Black community, but to push an ideology and promote a cause, i.e., liberalism, homosexuality, amnesty.

Why is diversity of thoughts beneficial? Is diversity of ownership within media necessary?

What can we extrapolate from the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) report that stated, “As of 2011, whites owned 69.4% of the nation’s 1,348 television stations? That’s up from 63.4% in 2009, when there were 1,187 stations.” The report continued, “While white ownership increased, most minority ownership decreased. Blacks went from owning 1% of all commercial TV stations in 2009 to just 0.7% in 2011. Asian ownership slipped from 0.8% in 2009 to 0.5% last year. Latino ownership increased slightly from 2.5% to 2.9.” “Females owned 6.8% of all commercial TV stations in 2011, compared to 5.6% in 2009.

The same report indicated that Whites own almost 80 percent of all AM and FM radio stations, with more than 70 percent owned by men.

So, I think ownership and diversity are Siamese twins; you can’t separate one from the other. Only when Blacks own their own media outlets can they control the message that comes out of their outlets. When Whites are masquerading as Black media, their goal is to push an agenda; and in the vast majority of cases, it is antithetical to the thinking in the real Black community. Black newspapers provide a variety of issues within the Black community, liberal and conservative. The philosophical diversity of their ownership is more diverse with Black newspapers than in all the other media combined (radio, TV).

So, if the RNC is trying to establish a dialogue and a relationship with the Black community and they are trying to maximize the effort; there is no question that Black newspapers, including their websites, provide the most bang – and authenticity – for the buck.

Emerging Consensus that LBJ Killed JFK?

More than a thousand books have been written on the John F. Kennedy assassination, yet there remains much controversy as to what happened that day in Dallas. To the casual observer, the Warren Commission’s narrative of three shots in six seconds by a lone gunman may appear to be plausible. Search a bit below the surface, however, and you find many inconsistencies that call into question the entire story.

With the passage of time and the information explosion online and in books, the scope of the conspiracy and the cover-up in the JFK assassination comes more clearly into focus to anyone willing to wade through it, and look at it with fresh eyes.

Three books published in the time leading up to the 50th anniversary of the assassination present a common narrative that JFK was killed by a conspiracy led politically by Lyndon Johnson, and operationally by the CIA and J. Edger Hoover. In their books, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, by Roger Stone; LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, by Phillip F. Nelson; and Who Really Killed Kennedy?, by Jerome R. Corsi, the authors explain the psychology of LBJ, and how he conspired to bring together the details of the plot, and the cover-up that followed.

In them, we learn about a rush to advance the lone gunman narrative, about how evidence was mishandled and destroyed by the cleaning and refurbishment of the limousine, and how two mishandled autopsies on JFK’s body forever buried evidence that could explain much of what happened. We also learn how the plot was to unfold, how the CIA was to bring in the sharpshooters and provide the patsy to take the blame. We learn how the FBI, on authority by LBJ himself, would handle the cover-up, and how LBJ would then appoint a blue-ribbon commission who would confirm the cover-up of the prearranged narrative.

Lyndon Johnson was a psychopath willing to do anything to advance his rise to power. His rise was fueled by graft, corruption, and murder. Yes, murder. LBJ’s hitman, Malcolm Wallace, had killed seven other people in Johnson’s rise to power, including LBJ’s own sister, Josefa Johnson. LBJ’s high handed wheeling and dealing knew no bounds other than what he could keep from public exposure. Johnson was a ruthless politician who would go to any length to attain the presidency, including killing the president in order to assume his job. It is not much of a stretch to see a personality of his type behind the conspiracy.

The assassination of a president itself is shocking enough, but to think the succeeding president was behind the killing was beyond outrageous. It was unthinkable. Yet that is the truth we must face. Indeed, the public never seriously considered that possibility, and gave LBJ a benefit of the doubt he did not deserve.

That Day in Dealey Plaza

You do not have to be a forensic expert to know that more than one individual was involved in the assassination. A lone gunman would fire three shots in roughly equally spaced intervals. Witnesses on the plaza heard a shot, a pause, and then two more shots in rapid succession. This alone indicates more than one gunman was involved.

Yes, there were shots from the rear of the motorcade, but there were no eyewitnesses to Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman. Oswald’s rifle had a misaligned scope and a malfunctioning magazine receiver. Oswald was a mediocre shot at best. To accurately shoot three shots in six seconds by an expert sharpshooter with a functioning sniper rifle would be almost impossible. For Oswald and his malfunctioning rifle, it surely was impossible.

Many believe the Zapruder film has been doctored and is not a reliable source of evidence. Yet in it, there is still sufficient reality to show what truly happened in those critical seconds. One sees the kill shot to JFK’s head with an exploding type of bullet. JFK’s head jerks left and rearward indicating he was struck from the right-front. Jacqueline Kennedy’s climbing onto the trunk of the car to recover a piece of skull fragment confirms the kinetic force of the bullet spraying bone and brain matter rearward. This shows that the shot was not possible from the School Book Depository to the rear. It had to come from the grassy knoll.

In the seconds after the shooting, dozens of witnesses rushed to the sound of the gunfire on the knoll to find the shooters. They could still smell the gunsmoke in the air. Once there, some found official looking men brandishing credentials claiming to be the Secret Service. These agents were impostors. The Secret Service later said that they did not have any agents in that area until at least an hour later.

Oswald was a CIA pawn, set up to be the fall guy. And in case you didn’t know, he personally knew Jack Ruby. There were no fingerprints linking him to the shooting. The paraffin test on his cheek came back negative, indicating Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. Modern voice technologies have also determined Oswald was speaking the truth about his innocence.

The Troubled Kennedy Presidency

JFK started his presidency by botching the Bay of Pigs invasion. The failure was squarely his. For those in the Pentagon and the CIA, his appearance was weak at a time when America needed to show strength and resolve in the face of the increasing Soviet threat. In the year to come, the Bay of Pigs fiasco would lead directly to the Berlin crisis, and then to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Perhaps the CIA is somewhat to blame as well, but no matter. JFK fired CIA Director Allen Dulles and other CIA leaders shortly afterwards personalizing the distrust between him and the agency.

In the summer of 1963, JFK had an epiphany of sorts, and sought a more peaceful dialogue with Castro and Khrushchev. Gone were his “go anywhere, pay any price” inaugural ideals. His June speech at American University gave voice to his new attitude.

At the same time, Vietnam was spiraling out of control. Hardliners wanted a strong response in Vietnam, and Kennedy was not to give it to them. That fall, JFK decided to pull troops out of Vietnam by 1965. With the hindsight of 50 years, this was the right decision, a true profile in courage. But with his failure at the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy had no credibility with military leaders, or with the CIA. To them, his decision to go soft on the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Vietnam amounted to treason, and it set events moving toward a fateful day in Dallas.

As the rift between Kennedy and hardliners widened, into the void stepped Lyndon Johnson. Never to let an opportunity go to waste, LBJ found the ultimate solution to his Bobby Baker scandal that was coming to a boil on Capitol Hill. LBJ’s days were numbered, and he was facing possible prison time. Kennedy was already showing signs that Johnson would be dumped from the 1964 ticket. With his ruthless drive for power, and RFK as the likely successor to the JFK legacy, LBJ would be out in the cold, except of course, if he could pull off the crime of the century, kill JFK, and garner public support in the process.

Johnson’s Involvement

Oliver Stone produced the movie, JFK, based on Jim Marrs’ 1989 masterwork, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. In the book and in the movie, you get a scattershot of diverse motives and factoids, but not the plausibility of it happening in concert. It was the CIA, the FBI, the mob, Texas oilmen, Dallas Police, the Secret Service, and so on. Too many people involved, too many loose ends, too many ways for the secrets to come out.

Missing in both accounts was a central figure in the assassination plot. If there was a conspiracy involving the mob, the FBI, the CIA, the oilmen in Texas, Lyndon Johnson would have had to be involved. Anybody he could not payoff, intimidate or bully into a corner, LBJ would just have them put away. This was as true for JFK as it was for anyone else.

Lyndon Johnson is the key to the Kennedy assassination. Johnson had the most to gain. He had the means and the motive to bury the facts. There was nobody with the leverage he had. He was the Vice President, and if he wanted to kill the president, he had the ability to do so by corrupting a wide array of people to do the deed and cover it up. LBJ was sufficiently ruthless to do whatever it took.

For many years, Johnson was a neighbor and a close confidante to J. Edger Hoover, Director of the FBI. Normally, people like him would be in jail, but in LBJ’s case, he held much sway with Hoover and the justice system. JFK, however, planned to force Hoover out in 1965 with the mandatory retirement at 70 for all federal employees.

With LBJ in the White House, the Bobby Baker Scandal investigation would be dropped. LBJ correctly calculated a grieving nation would rally behind him as JFK’s successor. Johnson would then have avoided political exile and incarceration, Hoover would get a lifetime tenure in the FBI, the CIA would have their war in Vietnam, big oil would have a politician office to legislate in their favor, and the mob would have someone to call off the dogs. It all hinged on the narrative of Kennedy being killed by a crazed lone gunman.

Johnson met the night before the assassination with the Suite 8F Group of co-conspirators at the Dallas home of Clint Murchison to finalize details of “The Big Event,” as it was called. Johnson’s mistress,Madeleine Brown, told investigators years later that Johnson told her that evening, “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That is no threat. That is a promise.”

Not seen in the famous Ike Altgens photo was the 6’4” LBJ as he rode in the pale blue Lincoln, two cars back in the motorcade, a second or so after JFK had been shot in the throat. The much smaller Lady Bird can be clearly seen, however. LBJ was ducking low in his car as it approached Elm Street even before the shots were fired. He knew the shots were coming, and he was trying to take cover.

Moreover, Malcolm Wallace’s fingerprint was found on a box in the sniper’s nest of the School Book Depository. Within minutes of the shooting, a general description of the suspect fitting Oswald hit the newswires. So started the Oswald frame-up on the lone gunman narrative, and woe to anyone who might know too much and inadvertently tell the truth.

It is astonishing how many witnesses to the assassination met untimely and abnormal deaths. In his book, Hit List, Richard Belzer estimated that in the 14 years that followed, of the 1400 witnesses involved, 70 had died by homicide, suicide, or by some other unnatural way (an extremely improbable statistic). Most notable among them are William PitzerGuy BannisterDavid FerrieDorothy KilgallenLee BowersMary Pinochot MeyerSam GiancanaJohnny Roselli, and George de Mohrenshildt.

Allen Dulles, having been fired as Director of the CIA, loathed Kennedy. This attitude was found throughout the agency. It would not be difficult to find individuals to participate in the plot. Dulles, through his contacts may have provided many of the resources. After the assassination, LBJ named him to the Warren Commission, which would then overlook and cover-up much of the evidence.

Johnson and Hoover’s involvement of the assassination begs the question on whether they were also involved in the Robert Kennedy assassination. They knew that if RFK became president in 1968, their cover-up would likely be revealed. The JFK and RFK assassinations are likely linked according to Roger Stone.

What the Assassination Means Today

With the perspective of time, and dedicated research by countless individuals, we now know the central figure in the plot and the cover-up was Lyndon Johnson, and with him, the narrative comes more clearly into focus. However, the larger implications of our nation’s history, and what we think of ourselves, are more muddled than ever.

Phillip Nelson poses some basic questions. Who had the most to gain and the least to loose, who had the means to do it, and who had the apparatus in place to subsequently cover it up? Who had the kind of narcissistic sociopathic personality capable of rationalizing the action as a greater good together with the resolve to carry it though? Only one person had the wherewithal to do all this. Only LBJ was in a position to control the pre and post assassination conspiracy. The totality of the evidence points to him.

Johnson is revered by liberals for the legislation he rammed through Congress in the years after his taking office. To Johnson, the ends justify the means. But is this how Americans like to think of themselves? Roger Stone writes:

Lyndon Johnson, as a psychopathic serial murderer, is not a pleasant topic to think about for establishment liberals who like to think of him as a belated champion of civil rights, voting rights, and a slew of Great Society programs. In fact, acknowledging the JFK assassination for what it was— a coup d’état— is discrediting to the narrative of the United States as a beacon of democracy, freedom, and justice as well as a place that is morally superior to banana republics and third-world dictatorships. Establishment conservatives, just like the liberals, choke on that bone in unison.

The JFK Assassination is, by far, the biggest cover-up in American History, the consequences of which still reverberate loudly over the American political and social landscape. For the public, the shock of the assassination was terrible enough. But to even think that the Vice President was behind a coup d’état was just unbelievable. Johnson used this disbelief to his advantage, and covered up the truth until years after his death in 1973.

More than fifty years later, what does revelation of a coup d’état in the United States mean? That is a huge question. Who we are and who we wish to be as a nation was severely damaged that day. Because of the assassination, the trust in government by many citizens was lost, perhaps forever. America lost its innocence in this horrendous event, and the lessons learned have yet to be publicly discussed. With the passage of decades not knowing the truth, and a now a majority of Americans born after that fateful day, we stumble on as a lesser people. It is time to set the record straight.