Where is Our ‘Voice in the Wilderness’ touting Conservatism?

For crying out loud, will someone “pleeeeease” take a stand for Conservatism? Someone forwarded this article to me, “Why Are Republicans Suddenly Leaning Left?

The article cites numerous examples of the GOP obviously believing it must embrace at least lukewarm Liberalism while backing away from Conservatism to win elections.

The article mentioned that Mitt Romney avoided saying “Republican” in an ad supporting Scott Brown’s Senate run. Romney said in the ad referring to Brown, “will buck his own party to do what’s right for New Hampshire.” Romney’s statement implies that Conservatism can be mean, but rest assured that Brown will push back if Republicans go down that road. This hogwash drives me nuts because Conservatism is not mean, Liberalism is mean!

Mr Romney you are an honorable man. But, if you are not going to boldly articulate the superior attributes of Conservatism; how it is rooted in compassion and why it is most beneficial to all Americans — if you are afraid to explain the foundational evils of Liberalism, please stay home; out of the 2016 presidential race.

In the first 2012 presidential debate, Romney kicked Obama’s butt with truth and facts. Then, Romney went on “prevent defense” in the next debate. His behavior said, “I have Obama on the ropes. I’m not going to say or do anything to blow my lead.” Consequently, in the second debate Romney allowed Obama to get away with lies.

Clueless low info voters believed Obama’s lies and his sycophant MSM allies said nothing. Romney’s lukewarm defense of Republican principles (Conservatism) led to 4 million frustrated Republican voters staying home, not bothering to cast their votes on election day.

Thus far, Romney is telegraphing that he will use the same failed “don’t-come-across-too-conservative” strategy again. Stay home Mr Romney. Please stay home.

Even the Bible expresses displeasure with those who are afraid to stand up for what they believe. “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

Like President Ronald Reagan, I am a bold colors kind of guy.

Enough with the weak kneed apologizing and watering down what it means to be conservative; allowing certain Americans to break laws due to race, embracing immoral and culturally destructive behaviors in the name of inclusion.

I liked G. W. Bush, but I rue the day that he came out with his “Compassionate Conservatism”. He reinforced Dems/liberal’s lie that Conservatism is not by nature, compassionate. The truth is Conservatism is the epitome of compassion. When will someone have the backbone to stand up for Conservatism; tell Americans why it is far better for them than Liberalism? I am a black conservative because it would be idiotic and self-destructive to embrace Liberalism.

Conservatism 101: A Tale of Two Dads – Little Johnny Says He Does Not Want to Go to School.

Liberal dad’s reply: “Son, I feel your pain. School has too many challenges. Stay in bed. I will provide for and protect you.”

Conservative dad’s reply: “Johnny, you get your butt out of that bed this instant and get ready for school. I will speak to the principal, attend PTA and do whatever necessary. You need an education to have a happy and fulfilled life. I love you son.”

Which dad is righteous, loving and truly compassionate?

Folks, my little scenario illustrates the foundational beliefs under girding Conservatism and Liberalism in America. Conservatism is good for people, offering help to launch folks into self-reliance and personal achievement which creates self-respect and self-esteem.

Liberalism is notorious for dissing people, implying that they are stupid and weak in need of cradle to grave government dependency and intellectual liberals managing their lives.

This is why it is so frustrating to watch the MSM get away with branding the Tea Party “extreme” with very little push back and even support from the GOP. At the core of the Tea Party is Conservatism. Unlike liberals, we respect the individual. We are patriots who desire our government to abide by the Constitution. We desire smaller government, laws enforced equally, fiscal responsibility and a president who does not behave like our Imperial Dictator. And yet, we in the Tea Party are the ones called crazy extremists and a threat to our nation. Why won’t someone tell America the truth, who we really are?

Continuing to allow liberal’s lies about conservatives to go unchallenged is unacceptable. Liberal’s modus operandi is to accuse conservatives of the very crimes they commit.

For example: Liberals say conservatives are intolerant. Liberals are the epitome of intolerance. And for all their campaigning against bullying, liberals are notorious bullies. Talk about blood in the water; how many times have we witnessed the liberal MSM having a feeding frenzy ripping apart someone who dared to express a point of view other than their consensus on an issue?

Bloody victims barely hold on to life after suffering public humiliation and the loss of property and income. And yet, these vicious liberal bullies get all the credit; praised as paragons of compassion. The truth is compassion is the heart of Conservatism.

With Obama’s declining approval numbers, GOP candidates have a golden opportunity to explain the superior attributes and benefits of Conservatism.

Who will be our John the Baptist? Who will be our voice crying in the wilderness proclaiming the good news of Conservatism?

Could Independent Scotland Become a Haven for the Free Market?

Thoughts on prospects for breaking from Britain by Robert Ramsey.

By leaving the United Kingdom, Scotland has a chance to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. These last few weeks have shown the Yes vote sitting at around 50 percent—an astonishing number considering that Scottish independence has for years merely been a pipe dream.

The future appears to be bright, but only if things don’t go as promised.

Those campaigning for the Yes vote have promised a currency union with England and a continuing supply of oil. Their economy would be tied to the oil and the security of the pound. If things go wrong, they say, the Brits will bail them out.

The English are in no way on board with a currency union, though, with several finance ministers, including Danny Alexander, the chief secretary of the treasury, insisting that there will be no union. The English have few incentives to enter a currency union, so the likelihood of one coming into existence is low.

If the currency union doesn’t work out, the Scottish National Party has stated that admittance to the EU, with access to the euro, is very likely. This appears to be a dubious claim as well, with several high-ranking European Union officials announcing in the last few weeks that Scotland will probably not be admitted, particularly without its own central bank.

This would leave Scotland with one option: to form an independent currency based solely on its own economy.

While this is the last thing the Scottish want—as it means they would be much more open to financial crisis—in the end it could be a very good thing.

The most prosperous nations in the world all have two things in common: They have small populations and smaller governments. Scotland has both of these things.

If Scotland has to depend on its own national currency, there will be two likely results:

One is they’ll have to lower regulations on the industries currently present in Scotland in order to make them stay. There is nothing more frustrating to a multinational corporation than to have to change up an already-working system, and so Scotland will have to sweeten the pot. This means incentives not only for companies to remain, but for new ones to set up shop.

Secondly, Scotland will be free from the giant Westminster bureaucracy. This would leave Scotland with a smaller government able to more nimbly adapt and adjust to changes. It would also mean that the government would be more accountable to the small population, which has always boded well as far as reducing waste goes.

The Scottish National Party, the primary driving force behind the Yes campaign, has also claimed that the oil fields in the North Sea will provide enough cash flow to build an economy mirroring that of Norway, a socialist utopia. This has become the crux of the campaign, and large numbers of critics have stood up to say that Scotland might very well soon run out of oil.

Like having an independent currency, running out of oil might play in Scotland’s favor. Currently, the oil is presented as being the crutch holding up the national economy. If this crutch were to disappear, then the economy might collapse altogether, according to critics. The answer to this is simple: If the Scottish economy is merely being propped up by oil taxes, etc. then maybe the taxes are the problem, not the oil disappearing.

Faced with shrinking oil production and an independent currency, Scotland may very well have to reduce taxes, regulations, and government spending on a drastic scale in order to ensure economic growth. In other words, Scotland might become a haven for the free-market, and with that will come wealth and prosperity for every Scotsman.

Strong Percentages of Americans Unlikely to Consider Voting for a Muslim, Transgender, or Agnostic/Atheist Presidential Candidate

NEW YORK, /PRNewswire/ — It’s all about the issues, right? Not necessarily, according to a new Harris Poll. When asked to describe their likelihood to consider voting for a presidential candidate fitting a varied series of backgrounds, there are clearly certain characteristics which are deterrents to strong percentages of Americans. Specifically, just over half (52%) say they’d be either “not that likely” or “not at all likely” to consider voting for a Muslim candidate (vs. 28% who would be “very” or “somewhat” likely to do so); meanwhile, pluralities would be unlikely to consider voting for a transgender man or woman (48%, vs. 34% who would be likely to do so) or an agnostic/atheist candidate (45% vs. 39%).

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll® of 2,537 adults surveyed online between August 13 and 18, 2014. It should be noted that when evaluating these hypothetical candidates, respondents were asked to assume each was qualified and in alignment with their own political views. It should be noted that while these questions give a good measure of the relative impact of different characteristics and backgrounds, they do not necessarily predict their real impact on voting behavior because such decisions are made based on a more comprehensive set of factors.

(Full results, including data tables, available here)

Voting booth biases

Americans are more split on the idea of a Hindu candidate (39% not likely vs. 37% likely) and a candidate unwilling to discuss his or her religious views (40% and 41%, respectively).

As for a candidate who won’t discuss their sexuality, 43% would be likely to consider such a candidate while 36% would not. While likely support outpaces opposition in this case, it’s important to note that this still means fewer than half of Americans would support a candidate declining to discuss this matter but who otherwise aligns with their political worldview. Similar results can be seen for Buddhist (43% likely and 36% not) and Mormon (47% and 35%, respectively) candidates, as well as candidates identifying as bisexual (46% and 38%, respectively) and homosexual (49% and 34%, respectively).

The safe bets? Majorities of Americans would be likely to consider voting for Protestant (72%), Catholic (72%) and Jewish (69%) candidates, candidates without children (72%), and candidates who have never been married (70%).

Generational disparities

Matures are more inclined than any other generation to say that they’d be unlikely to consider voting for a Muslim presidential candidate, while opposition is lowest among Millennials (74% Matures vs. 58% of Baby Boomers, 51% of Gen Xers and 39% of Millennials). As a rule, opposition to most of the candidate types evaluated is higher among older generations:

  • Looking at sexuality as a factor, older Americans are more inclined than their younger counterparts to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for transgender (59% Matures, 55% Baby Boomers, 46% Gen Xers, 37% Millennials), bisexual (52%, 43%, 33% and 30%, respectively), or homosexual (47%, 39%, 30% and 26%, respectively) candidates, along with those unwilling to discuss their sexuality (47%, 40%, 30% and 31%, respectively).
  • Turning to the impact of religious views, older Americans are also more inclined than those in younger generations to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for Agnostic/Atheist (65% Matures, 50% Baby Boomers, 40% Gen Xers, 34% Millennials), Hindu (50%, 44%, 35% and 32%, respectively), or Buddhist (48%, 43%, 34% and 27%, respectively) candidates, as well as those unwilling to discuss their religious views (52%, 45%, 39% and 30%, respectively).

Millennials, on the other hand, are more likely than any other generation to display reluctance to vote for a Mormon candidate (42% Millennials vs. 34% Gen Xers, 33% Baby Boomers and 27% Matures).

Political partialities

A similar story emerges along political lines, with Republicans more likely than Democrats or Independents to show resistance to many of the candidate types under consideration:

  • Looking at religion as a factor, Republicans are more inclined than Democrats or Independents to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for Muslim (73% Republican, 39% Democrat and 53% Independent),  Agnostic/Atheist (63%, 37% and 40%, respectively), Hindu (55%, 31% and 38%, respectively), or Buddhist (53%, 28% and 35%, respectively) candidates, as well as those unwilling to discuss their religious views (56%, 34% and 34%, respectively).
  • As to the impact of sexuality, Republicans are more inclined than Democrats or Independents to say they’d be unlikely to consider voting for transgender (68% Republican, 34% Democrat, 50% Independent), bisexual (57%, 27% and 34%, respectively), or homosexual (52%, 23% and 31%, respectively) candidates, along with those unwilling to discuss their sexuality (49%, 31% and 31%, respectively).

Moving in the opposite direction, Democrats are more likely than Independents – who in turn are more likely than Republicans – to indicate reluctance when it comes to voting for a Mormon candidate (45% Democrat, 33% Independent, 25% Republican).

Independents present an interesting case: on the one hand, they are more likely than Democrats to show reluctance to vote for Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, transgender, bisexual or gay candidates; on the other, their views are more in line with those of Democrats in responding to candidates who choose not to discuss their religious views or sexuality.

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online, in English, within the United States between August 13 and 18, 2014among 2,537 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, The Harris Poll avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Poll surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in our panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

SOURCE: The Harris Poll.

About The Harris Poll®

Begun in 1963, The Harris Poll is one of the longest running surveys measuring public opinion in the U.S. and is highly regarded throughout the world. The nationally representative polls, conducted primarily online, measure the knowledge, opinions, behaviors and motivations of the general public. New and trended polls on a wide variety of subjects including politics, the economy, healthcare, foreign affairs, science and technology, sports and entertainment, and lifestyles are published weekly. For more information, or to see other recent polls, visit the HarriPhoto – http://twitter.com/harrisints Poll News Room. To see other recent Harris Polls, please visit the Harris Poll News Room.

RELATED LINKS

http://www.harrisinteractive.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHarrisInteractive
http://twitter.com/harrispoll
http://www.facebook.com/HarrisPoll
http://www.facebook.com/harrisinteractive?ref=share
http://twitter.com/harrisint

EDITORS NOTE: These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls. The results of this Harris Poll may not be used in advertising, marketing or promotion without the prior written permission of The Harris Poll. Product and brand names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.

Florida: GOP County Chairs unanimously vote to Oppose Pot Amendment

Saying it is filled with loopholes that would allow widespread access to pot, Republican county chairs voted unanimously Friday to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana.

Critics of the November ballot initiative, backed heavily by attorney and Charlie Crist supporter John B. Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan law firm, say the measure is so broadly written that it would allow people who don’t truly need medical marijuana to get it.

Others question the medicinal value of the drug.

“I do not want to see Florida turned into the pot capital of the world,” said Tony Ledbetter, Chairman of the Volusia County party.

The chairs also voted to oppose a proposed conservation amendment that would dedicate a share of real-estate tax revenues to efforts such as buying and preserving land.

Opponents say that measure would endanger property rights and tie the hands of the Legislature when lawmakers craft the state budget.

Here is the latest video ad featuring John (for the reefer) Morgan released by VoteNoOn2:

charlie-crist-john-morgan-in-florida-trend

Charlie Crist with John B. Morgan.

Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said, “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters. But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”

Ben Pollara, a Democratic fundraiser and campaign manager for the United for Care group, stated, “We want to be able to have our stereotypical, lazy pothead voters to be able to vote from their couch.”

As American essayist and novelist Charles Dudley Warner wrote, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” In this case marijuana makes strange bedfellows.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Welfare Recipients Can Use Debit Cards for Marijuana
Black market boom lays bare a social divide in Colorado’s marijuana market | The Guardian
Parents Warn Against Synthetic Marijuana After 19-Year-Old Son Dies | KTLA
New marijuana drug ‘Wax’ looks and feels like lip balm – DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
Man Allegedly Shoots Teen Over Stealing Marijuana – Huffington Post
Two Teens Arrested for Marijuana Burglary
Porterville, CA teens busted for drugs at school with intent to sell, cops say – ABC News
Girl eats father’s marijuana-laced bar – AP

Republican within striking distance of picking up Delaware U.S. Senate seat

Kevin Wade

Kevin Wade, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Delaware.

With the primary races over and growing attention at the local, state and national levels will be on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. The real battle nationally is in the U.S. Senate. Millions will be poured into races to retain or obtain control of that body.

However, there is one key Republican U.S. Senate race – in Delaware.

Kevin Wade, a self-made business man, believes he can take Joe Biden’s former U.S. Senate seat and put Delaware solidly in the “R” column. A Battleground Tracker poll shows Wade within striking distance of the incumbent Coons.

DE_Senate

Historically the Delaware U.S. Senate seat is won with approximately 150,000 total votes. The race in November will likely hinge on about 8,000 voters changing their voting pattern on the General Election Day. It is projected that the Republican turnout will be 10% higher and 10% lower for the Democrats. That leaves 8,000 voters to be convinced to swing  this U.S. Senate Republican on November 4th.

This is the seat formerly held by now Vice President Joe Biden. That alone must have Delaware Republicans energized.

According to Wade, “It is all in reach. I don’t understand the fascination with ‘big state’ races at the national level. My vote in the U.S. Senate would count as much as California’s U.S. Senator. The yield on a donor dollar and volunteer hour is so much higher in this small voting universe in Delaware.”

Kevin Wade on the Two Americas:

Recently Wade was at the Gaza Frontier with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers. Wade notes, “No civilian was closer. I am a trusted friend and have trusted friends there. Because of this trust, senior IDF officers closed their eyes to my presence in the forward area. The soldiers I met were returning from house-to-house fighting inside Gaza. Others were going across the fence line to enter combat. It was and remains a tough fight. To be clear I was not in combat; just nearby. One explosion was so close I felt the blast wave and my ears rang.”

“The soldiers asked me to break bread with them at their late night mess. Another night I was invited to join their prayer circle for the traditional Soldiers Prayer before they entered combat. I went to Israel, when under attack by Hamas rockets, to form a personal impression. On my last night in Israel I was invited to be a guest on I24 TV, Israel’s “CNN” for a live worldwide broadcast about the conditions there. Thirty minutes later I was face down in a roadside ditch due to another rocket attack. I saw the two rockets rise up with a fiery tail from a field to my right,” recalls Wade.

Watch this short video of Wade’s visit to Israel:

To learn more about Kevin Wade visit WadeforUSSenate.com.

Is Charlie Crist Barack Obama light?

There is a standing joke in Florida which goes something like this: A Republican, Independent and Democrat walk into a bar. The bartender says, “And what can I get you Mr. Crist.”

Charlie Crist is making Florida history as the first politician to run for the same seat as a Republican and Democrat. Crist has changed his campaign strategy to keep from talking about his previous political positions, rather he is trying to talk about his opponent, and sitting Governor, Rick Scott.

A recent Crist fundraising email shows how much he has embraced Barack Obama’s  pro-Pot, pro-Gay, pro-Big Government, and pro-Abortion agenda.

Jessica Clark, Deputy Campaign Manager Charlie Crist for Governor, in a fundraising email states, “What would Rick Scott do with four more years and no electorate to face? With no reason to temper himself, we’d find ourselves with an even more extreme version of Rick Scott.”

The questions Clark asks are ones many Americans are asking about Barack Obama. Americans see what a Democrat can do with “four more years and no electorate to face.” America now finds itself with a “ever more extreme” Barack Obama with “no reason to temper himself.”

Clark states, “He [Rick Scott] cut $1.3 billion from our schools. He signed bills requiring medically-unnecessary ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. He limited access to the polls, and absolutely savaged our beautiful state. And that’s all when he knew he’d have to face the voters again.”

Clark refers to Governor Scott exclusively but her accusations are highly questionable.

Charlie Crist wants to spend more money on public education. However, the amount of federal tax dollars poured into public education since 1970 has failed to change student performance (see the below chart).

doedataonfunding

Federal spending on education compared to student achievement. For a larger view click on the chart.

free abortion tattooed womanCrist opposes women having an ultra-sound before having an abortion. Crist is worried that if women have an ultrasound it will show a live fetus, a baby, moving in the womb. Why? Because he supports and is supported by those few radical Planned Parenthood members who demand free abortions without limits, on demand and without apology. It does not matter that a study by Dr. Priscilla Coleman and Dr. David Reardon of nearly 500,000 pregnant women reveals abortion is much more dangerous to women than giving birth.

Crist is against any of Florida’s sixty-seven Supervisors of Elections updating voter rolls as required by law, period. Crist wants dead people, felons and illegals aliens on the voter rolls. Why? They vote Democrat.

Crist makes the absurd statement that Governor Scott “absolutely savaged our beautiful state.” Why? As Joseph Goebbels wrote, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Charlie Crist believes in the power of the state, the truth be damned.

Finally, Charlie Crist does not want to talk about his boss John B. Morgan, head of the Morgan & Morgan law firm. Why? Well just watch this video titled, “Crist-Morgan for Florida“:

You see Charlie Crist is depending on the pot head vote.

crist-morganAna Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said, “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters. But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”

Ben Pollara, a Democratic fundraiser and campaign manager for the United for Care group, stated, “We want to be able to have our stereotypical, lazy pothead voters to be able to vote from their couch.”

Crist is considered by many as the white Barack Obama. When Obama ran for president in 2008 he had positions much different than those he has today. Crist has fully embraced Obama and his political positions. Any questions?

RELATED ARTICLE: Doubling Down on Pot: Buffett Sells Upper Deck, Room to Grow – Bloomberg

Crist-Morgan 2014 ad hits the airwaves

Multiple media outlets have written about legalizing marijuana in Florida, a.k.a. Amendment 2, was designed to get out the vote for Charlie Crist. Well the Republican Governors Association (RGA) has taken note of this political strategy and produced a campaign ad linking John B. Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan, and Charlie Crist, one of John Morgan’s employees.

Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said, “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters. But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”

Ben Pollara, a Democratic fundraiser and campaign manager for the United for Care group, stated, “We want to be able to have our stereotypical, lazy pothead voters to be able to vote from their couch.”

Here is the RGA campaign ad titled, “Crist-Morgan for Florida“:

John Kennedy from the Palm Beach Post reported:

“With little to say about Crist’s record, Morgan resorted to drunken obscenities to try to generate excitement about voting for the notorious political opportunist,” said RGA Communications Director Gail Gitcho.

“If these are the political allies Crist keeps and would be willing to elevate to positions of authority, his judgment needs a serious course correction,” she added.

Morgan has made no apology for his comments at the Lakeland event, which followed his appearance in a debate with Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, a leader in the campaign against the marijuana measure on November’s ballot.

As American essayist and novelist Charles Dudley Warner wrote, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” In this case marijuana makes strange bedfellows – Crist, Morgan and the Democrat Party of Florida.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Welfare Recipients Can Use Debit Cards for Marijuana
Black market boom lays bare a social divide in Colorado’s marijuana market | The Guardian
Parents Warn Against Synthetic Marijuana After 19-Year-Old Son Dies | KTLA
New marijuana drug ‘Wax’ looks and feels like lip balm – DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
Man Allegedly Shoots Teen Over Stealing Marijuana – Huffington Post
Two Teens Arrested for Marijuana Burglary
Porterville, CA teens busted for drugs at school with intent to sell, cops say – ABC News
Girl eats father’s marijuana-laced bar – AP

Republican Tim Scott Doesn’t Run from his Blackness

In the past, I have been extremely critical of so-called Black Republicans, as well as so-called Black conservatives – and that’s not going to change. Too often they feel the need to check their Blackness at the door under the perverted guise of currying favor with Whites within the party.

These are the type of Blacks that many in the party want to showcase. Getting on FOX News Channel seems to be their ultimate prize of validation. Most of these Blacks have no relationship with our community; and come across as so extreme that no one takes them seriously, other than FOX. Yet, many of these Blacks have become the public face of Black Republicans.

But South Carolina senator, Tim Scott, is everything a true Black Republican could and should be. He is Black and proud of it. His Blackness is what he is; his values are who he is.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, an Indian-American, appointed Scott to fill the U.S. Senate seat that was vacated by Jim DeMint in 2013, making him the first Black senator from South Carolina and the first from the South since 1881; Republican Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi had been the last.

Prior to his appointment to the Senate, Scott was elected in November 2010 to represent South Carolina’s 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives, the first Black Republican from the state since George W. Murray in 1897. Scott has also served in the South Carolina General Assembly (2009-2011) and on the Charleston County Council from 1996-2008. He and Corey Booker (D-N.J.) are the only two Blacks serving in the U.S. Senate.

To his credit, Scott has not bought into the ridiculous notion that you can’t be Black and Republican, too. I have never heard him make the asinine statement that “I am not a Black senator, I am a senator who happens to be Black,” as though he was just walking down the street and “Blackness” suddenly jumped all over him.

He realizes, like we all should, that his Blackness doesn’t define who he is, but rather the values and the choices he makes for his life. Unlike many Blacks in the past, he has willingly embraced the opportunities to speak to Black audiences anytime the national party has asked him.

Scott fully embraces opportunities presented by the national party to expand the base of the party; while being very cognizant that his first obligation is to the people of South Carolina. They are not mutually exclusive goals.

Scott has made it a point to visit all eight Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in his state. He actively embraces and seeks opportunities to meet and engage with Black voters of South Carolina whether they vote for him or not.

Several times a year he goes undercover and works low-wage jobs so he can learn what his average constituents go through. He does all this with no media fanfare or staff. Here is how the Washington Post reported on one such encounter, “James Copeland, who recently worked alongside Scott at a Goodwill store in Greenville, S.C. When Copeland – an African-American – was told of Scott’s identity, he responded positively. Oh, wow, I thought he was just some guy off the street. He was really speaking on my level. I felt like I can relate to him. I’d vote for him. Absolutely.”

Another major criticism I have made about Black Republicans is their refusal to hire Blacks on their staffs. This is not the case with Scott. His office is like a mini-United Nations. He actually has Blacks who have authority to make things happen. By doing do, he is opening doors for them to be future powerbrokers within the party.

Two months ago, Scott authored a non-binding resolution in the Senate promoting diversity in hiring. According to Scott, “The ultimate goal of the resolution was to hopefully heighten awareness of the opportunities to create the workforce of the future, today.” Republican senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Deb Fischer of Nebraska and Rob Portman of Ohio all signed on as co-sponsors.

While these actions by Scott might seem small in the larger scheme of things, they are not. In the past, figures such as Senator Ed Brooke (R-Mass.), Secretary of Transportation Bill Coleman and Assistant Labor Secretary of Labor Art Fletcher were Republicans who never comprised their blackness. In recent years, however, it has almost a requirement that a Black Republican distance himself from his race to move ahead in the party. Scott may represent a long overdue shift in the other direction.

Through his actions, Scott has proven that Black Republicans don’t have to check their Blackness at the door. Being Black and Republican is not an either/or proposition; but rather a both/and proposition. Now, if we can just get more party members to understand the importance of what Scott is doing.

Islamic Gulen Cult Pours Money into Political Campaigns by Andrew Walden

For Mark Takai the campaign contributions are rolling in … from the secretive union-busting Turkish Gulen cult.

When Reps. Rida Cabanilla and Mark Takai, took a free 2013 trip to the South Caucasian Republic of Azerbaijan together, the $8,000 gift raised eyebrows even in the fetid swamps of the Hawaii legislature.

The Daily KOS called the trip “an oil industry-funded junket to Azerbaijan,” sponsored by the Houston-based “Turquoise Council” an  organization with deep oil-industry connections co-chaired by the sister of Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry.  The Turquoise Council is also one of dozens of US-based groups run by the Turkish Islamist Hizmet movement, controlled by secretive Imam Fethulla Gulen from his home-in-exile and headquarters in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania.

The Washington Post May 30, 2013 called it, “Time to Cash In“.

Politico described the trip as part of “a multimillion-dollar industry of recruiting current and former U.S. officials.”

The Washington Diplomat, June 26, 2013 explains, “Some state legislators may even one day end up in the halls of Congress.  So courting them is important to Azerbaijan.”

For Takai the campaign cash started rolling soon after he returned.  Now twelve of his top 150 contributors are Turkish including several executives of identified Gulen cult organizations.  The total payoff for Takai, $20,000 and counting.

Given the Gulen cult’s predilection for labor law violations at cult-connected charter schools, it is possible that these contributions may be considered illegal false-name contributions from the Gulen movement itself.  Cult members laboring for the Imam under “Tuzuk contracts” are obligated to kick back all of their salaries beyond a bare minimum needed to survive.

Gulen’s illegal labor contracts are described as “ugly unionbusting” by the Chicago Federation of Teachers.  A 2011 Gulen effort to take over Mokapu Elementry school on Kaneohe Marine Base was thwarted by HSTA members after they became aware of the organization’s anti-labor ties.

a2.azerbaijan.envoy.story

Rida T.R. Cabanilla, who represents District 41 in the Hawaii Legislature, left, and Mark Takai, who represents Hawaii’s District 33, present Azerbaijani Ambassador Elin Suleymanov with a box of Hawaiian Host chocolate-covered macadamia nuts during an Independence Day reception in Baku. Photo: Larry Luxner, Washington Diplomat

Civil Beat July 11, 2013 reports: “Cabanilla and Takai said they aren’t particularly concerned about accepting such an expensive trip because it doesn’t violate their own personal ethics or state standards. They both said that they measure the appropriateness of accepting such junkets by weighing how the underlying donation might influence them.

“There’s nothing in the Legislature now that would directly benefit Azerbaijan,” Takai said, “so it passes the ethics concern.”

But Takai is running for Congress.  And with thousands of Islamist foreign fighters flying to Ankara to cross the border and join ISIS, US-Turkish relations are front and center in efforts to avoid returning US ground troops to the region.

The Star-Advertiser August 30, 2014 says “(Takai) prefers a nonmilitary option….”

Stopping the influx of foreign fighters has got to be high on any list of non-military options.  But it appears the influence peddling doesn’t work both ways.  Takai declined comment when Hawai’i Free Press asked if he had spoken to any Turkish or Azeri contacts about infiltration of foreign ISIS fighters into Syria and Iraq.

Its not a casual question.  Even after a recent falling out with the Turkish government, the Gulen cult is believe to count amongst its members as many as 80% of Turkish police.

Azeri police detain an opposition supporter in Baku, October 12, 2013. David Mdzinarishvili / Reuters

Buzzfeed, June 3, 2014 points out that the Turquoise Council is a front group for Gulen, and asks, “Why has Baku teamed up with the Gulenist movement to win the hearts and minds of small-time US lawmakers?”  Wyoming state Rep. Dave Zwonitzer told Buzzfeed, “You don’t get a free 10-day trip sponsored by the oil company without somebody asking for something.”

Maui News columnist Ben Lowenthal February 28, 2014 explains:

“Mark Takai doesn’t seem to have a problem with taking sides. Last year he—along with other American legislators—signed off on a birthday note to the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. Takai congratulated Aliyev in his efforts to reduce crime within the country and promoting allegiances abroad.

“Aliyev has been criticized by many diplomats and those that follow international relations as an autocrat. After taking office in 2003, he eliminated term limits for himself from the constitution. He’s been accused of running a corrupt government, clamping down on a free press, and rigged elections. The infamous Wikileaks website released a cache of diplomatic cables in 2012 that compare him to a mafia crime boss. Surely, Takai was aware of this before congratulating him on reducing crime in his country eight time zones away, right?

“Takai hasn’t talked about the birthday note recently, but perhaps his views on foreign policy will be examined soon. After all, he is among the seven candidates running for Congress in the First District. What exactly does Takai think about Azerbaijan?”

Civil Beat February 11, 2014 reports, “Reps. Rida Cabanilla and Mark Takai…co-sponsored …House Resolution 13 recogniz(ing) the 22nd anniversary of the Khojaly tragedy which, according to the resolution, involved the slaughter of hundreds of innocent civilians in Azerbaijan in February 1992 (and) House Resolution 9 call(ing) on the United States to strengthen its efforts to facilitate a political settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.”

Campaigning for Congress, Takai didn’t make time for many committee meetings this session.  But while racking up an impressive number of absences elsewhere, he did show up to chair the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Military, and International Affairs, and Culture and the Arts where his resolutions were referred.

In February 12, 2014 testimony before the committee, progressive activist Dr. Dawn Morais Webster points out, the “rather strange resolution … will be used to strengthen a false representation of historical facts about the relationship between Azerbaijan and Armenia….  Since 1998 the United States has been rendering official assistance to Ngorno-Karabakh to help overcome the consequences of the devastating aggression by Azerbaijan….  (D)uring the Karabakh war, between 1993 and 1994, Azerbaijan used its connections with Islamic terrorist networks to hire thousands of Afghan mujahedeens and other Islamic mercenaries linked to various international terrorist organizations to fight against Armenia and Karabakh.”

In a move unusual for Hawaii’s chair-deferent legislators, both resolutions were rejected by members of Takai’s own committee.

SOURCES:

PDF: Takai Gulen Donors

Extortion, Criminal Conspiracy: FBI investigating Gulen Religious Cult behind Mokapu STEM School, Pacifica Institute

Anti-gay religious cult tied to torture seeks Charter conversion of Mokapu Elementary

Gulen Cult: Legislators to welcome “Ugly Unionbusting” to Hawaii schools?

Did Sen Mike Gabbard get hoaxed by fake Turkic President?

Legislators Have No Business In Turkey

Gulen Cult trying to bribe Legislators with Free Trip to Turkey

The End of Politics—Part One by Max Borders

Our current social operating system might soon be obsolete.

Someday we’ll look back on politics and shake our heads. It will have been a necessary phase—but not one we’ll want to relive. Necessary, because we have been undergoing a series of phases, none of which we could have bypassed.

We have already entered the next phase. Call it the Age of Connection. Once we realize all the benefits of this next phase, we’ll see how wasteful and acrimonious the prior phase had been.

Trench warfare

Most days it doesn’t seem like we are entering a transpartisan, post-political era. Most people are so locked into the political paradigm that arguments about who is to fund whose birth control—or whether the schools should get another bond—seem bigger than life. Each side cedes mere inches back and forth between election cycles in a kind of trench warfare. Such is the nature of politics. And in politics the only thing we share in common is a desire to take power, as there is one ring to bind them.

The tribe who has the ring rules the land, at least for a while. The other side snatches it back sooner or later and the whole thing starts all over again. Yet each side labors under the idea that if they can just get and keep the ring, they will use it to good ends. We’ll give it to the right people, they imagine. The right people are incorruptible. We’re still waiting on the right people.

So we engage in a titanic tug of war. Time and energy we could use on creative activities we spend locked in counterproductive struggles. We polarize. We argue. Our tribal-coalitional natures—as well as the unwavering belief in our own laundry list of values and virtues—divide us in ways that go deeper than party affiliation. One side wants to take away the guns and the sodas, the other wants to pray away the gay, and the rest of us hang out at the margins. People can scarcely talk to each other without spitting venom. If there are any beneficiaries to this tit-for-tat, it’s rarely the ones we send our prayers up to in the voting booth. A parasite class of special interests reaps most of the rewards, because the real action is on K Street. For the rest of us, politics is at best a spectacle, a kind of team sport.

Was all this struggle necessary?

And yet there is virtue in such a zero-sum game. Politics is a way humanely to fight over the control of hierarchy. The U.S. republic was in certain respects designed to create checks between factions and parties by setting them against each other. Ballots over bullets and all that. It was thought of as a necessary evil—an alternative to the subjugation of people, which came from monarchy, feudalism, and aristocratic privilege. In Madison’s Federalist 10, he expressed concern about the “mischiefs of faction” found in democracies of various sizes. The republic had been a way to temper the consequences of faction, even as “causes of faction cannot be removed.” The democratic republic was thus a kind of rationally conceived operating system, forged in compromise after a unique opportunity to start fresh. In other respects, however, the development of this American-style republic was a phase transition.

In other words, the democratic republic was likely to have arisen at some point due to the world’s becoming more complex. Some revere the founding as the explication of timeless principles we only had to discover using reason. And yet we know the founders were crafting rules at a certain stage of technological development and historical context. They were moving headlong into a future informed by reasonable assumptions about human nature and the world in which they found themselves. To understand this stage and stages prior, it will benefit us first to take our time machine a little further into the past, then to zip back to the future.

The rise of hierarchy

For millennia, our ancestors roamed the African steppe. Early humans were hunter-gatherers, anthropologists say. And as those ancestors succeeded at hunting and gathering, their numbers grew. But the world was no Garden of Eden for long. Life could be nasty, brutish, and short. As their numbers grew, these tribal bands eventually confronted life-threatening scarcities. And old Malthus was more or less correct: Success in procreating meant the land would reach its carrying capacity. To avoid Malthus’s trap, early folk had to move about. Their migrations contributed to the world’s great peopling.

As the early humans moved around, they collided. There was fierce competition for available resources. Peoples faced off in bloody conflict. Inter-tribal warfare meant the hunter-gatherer tribes had to become warrior clans. They had not only to learn to fight and kill, but they also had to learn to organize themselves to fight together better. None of this is meant to suggest that early peoples did not trade peacefully across tribes. Many did. But those who did not become traders were raiders.

Such a harsh state of affairs meant that, to survive, your tribe had to develop better “social technology.” We’re not talking about Windows for Cavemen. Social technology is our shorthand for how people organize themselves. The victors transmitted their stories of glory and successful warfare strategies into the future. Likewise, while strength, courage, and superior weaponry go a very long way, social technology could also make or break a clan society.

Agriculture and statecraft helped settle some of these fighter nomads. With settling came civilization. Still, much of history since the world’s great peopling has nevertheless been a story of warfare. After all, civilization often comes with wealth and power.

In the simultaneous development of warfare and civilization, one social technology came to dominate: hierarchy. Atop this form of organization there was usually one person. He went by many names—chief, king, warlord—but to succeed he would have to be a leader capable of gaining the fear, respect, and loyalty of his people. In accepting this leader, the clan would have gained an advantage. By letting a skilled strategist command them as a force, they could operate as a single, fierce unit. Such would be a recipe for survival and glory in an age of conquest.

Of course, those capable of such fierceness and cunning were also capable of suppressing dissent. Those who wished to survive in the order were likely to accept the order, survival being preferable to slaughter.

Once-great empires soon grew up amid the detritus of war. The clan-king became a god-king. The administration of empire required more layers of hierarchy, which meant delegating power to satraps and governors. The emperor would issue commands to subordinates and those commands would be carried out by those on down the chains of command. Patronage relationships became the norm. The order of man lording power over man took on religious dimensions. Values such as loyalty, honor, obedience, and patriotism firmed up the hierarchy, and without such values, the structure could be weakened either from internal dissent or from better organized enemies.

Hierarchy became more elaborate over time as each layer was added, and hierarchy persisted, apparently, as humanity’s dominant social technology.

Despite a couple of eighteenth century revolutions in France and America, hierarchy was still, in many respects, the dominant form of social organization throughout the world. That is to say, more of the world is structured more like medieval Europe or feudal Japan than like Switzerland, and Japan and Switzerland have their command-and-control structures. Even the United States—that great beacon of freedom—now bears a striking resemblance to Rome. The American Founders had made improvements by creating institutional checks on power within its hierarchy. But its hierarchy persists. Is it long for this world?

Better all the time

Now to the present. There is no doubt too much war in the world today. The good news, however, is that the human race is entering an unprecedented age of peace, connection, and prosperity. The great fact is that since about 1800, we’ve been growing more and more prosperous. It’s all thanks to an ongoing process of decentralization in which humanity reaps the rewards of innovation, production, and trade. More and more of the world runs on adaptive, lateral relationships instead of command-and-control structures, on open systems rather than closed ones. Nested networks of human flourishing abound, and they are challenging the hierarchies around them. The question that should puzzle us is whether these nested networks exist despite or because of prevailing national hierarchies. Paradoxically, the answer could be “both,” depending on where and when in the world we look.

To read the news, though, you wouldn’t think anybody could claim things are getting better. The media sell more spectacle and turmoil than they offer happier trends over longer timescales. Their reports leave many of us with both a false impression and a general ignorance about just how good we’ve got it compared to people throughout most of history. As writer and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker says in an interview with the New Scientist:

I was struck by a graph I saw of homicide rates in British towns and cities going back to the 14th century. The rates had plummeted by between 30 and 100-fold. That stuck with me, because you tend to have an image of medieval times with happy peasants coexisting in close-knit communities, whereas we think of the present as filled with school shootings and muggings and terrorist attacks.

Then in Lawrence Keeley’s 1996 book War Before Civilization I read that modern states at their worst, such as Germany in the twentieth century or France in the nineteenth century, had rates of death in warfare that were dwarfed by those of hunter-gatherer and hunter-horticultural societies. That, too, is of profound significance in terms of our understanding of the costs and benefits of civilization.

From the perspective of the grand sweep of history, we are living in an age of peace and abundance.

Even the poorest places on earth are far better off than they were just a few decades ago. Indeed, in the last 30 years alone, the number of people living in abject poverty has been cut in half. Day by day, violent aggression over resources is rapidly being replaced by the structures of commercial competition and human cooperation.

Commercial competition creates for us a positive-sum world—that is, a world of ever-increasing wealth. Today, the titanic struggles are far more often among companies competing to offer, say, better gadgets. Small businesses are battling it out at the intersection of Third and Main to serve a better taco, brew a craftier beer, or open a hotter nightclub. The ones who benefit are those who are best served by this competition. And, of course, those who serve customers best—finding that sweet spot between production costs and price—get wealthy. All exist in an ecosystem of value.

In this more benevolent form of competition a fundamental truth remains: The fittest social technology will survive. Over time—as conquest culture has given way to commercial culture—we have come to see fewer warlords, clan kings, kings, and emperors, and more bosses, executives, and CEOs. To some, this may not sound like such a big improvement. The competition is still fierce. Companies are still frequently cast as villainous exploiters, occasionally for good reason. But this shift from conquest to commerce has resulted in more people enjoying more good things than at any time in human history. And it’s only getting better.

But in this transition we have to ask: Will CEOs and middle managers also go the way of kings and lords?

Both the modern nation-state and the modern corporation share social technologies that go back thousands of years. But in between hierarchical governments and hierarchical firms, there is a great teeming. It is not chaos. People truck, barter, exchange, collaborate, and cooperate. In some cases—such as Morning Star Packing Company and Zappos—phase transition has already been made.

Outside the firm, community groups meet over potluck dinners planned online. Friends find each other in dive bars. Husbands and wives find their way home to one another, the bills get paid, and the kids get to school. Lovers find each other online in a kind of dating anarchy. And all of it happens without a director or a designer, like starlings in murmuration—a beautiful, unconducted symphony. More and more of the world operates in a place between rigid order and errant chaos—unmanaged, and yet orderly. More and more of the world is self-organizing.

Phase transition

Complexity science predicts the global trend to which I alluded above. At the risk of oversimplifying, the theory says “complexity transitions” will happen according to the amount and type of information flowing through a system. Remember, whether we’re talking about a collection of PCs or a collection of people, if information gets transmitted among them, you’ve got a system. How elements of that system deal with information and resources—or, in the case of firms, knowledge and decisions—will determine the nature of that system to a great degree.

Because information helps coordinate behaviors within a system, the way a system is organized will determine whether the system lives or dies. Because systems always exist in some environment, often competing with other systems, evolutionary pressures are going to determine whether a system such as your club, company, county, or country can compete. And to compete, a system has to deal effectively with information.

Complexity science shows that in order to deal with more information, systems have to change. The process starts with a group getting big enough to form a hierarchy. This usually happens when the group has outgrown the organizational limits of the clan structure. As more power gets delegated, growing the chains of hierarchy, the system becomes more complicated. But the hierarchy can only handle so much complication. Eventually the system breaks down or changes into something that looks more like a network, with an increasing number of “nodes” operating in peer-to-peer fashion. Lateral relationships form. Decision-making power spreads down and out. This is the complexity transition.

Yaneer Bar-Yam (quite literally) wrote the textbook on complex systems. He describes the process that unfolded historically:

Ancient empires replaced various smaller kingdoms that had developed during a process of consolidation of yet smaller associations of human beings. The degree of control in these systems varied, but the progression toward larger more centrally controlled entities is apparent. … this led to a decrease of complexity of behaviors of many individuals, but a more complex behavior on the larger scale.

But this could only be sustained for so long.

As time progressed, the behavior of individuals diversified as did the collective tasks performed by them. Diversity of individuals implies that the behavior of the entire system on the scale of the individual became more complex. This required … adding layers of management that served to exercise local control. As viewed by the higher levels of management, each layer simplified the behavior to the point where an individual could control it. The hierarchy acts as a mechanism for communication of information to and from management.

But how far can introducing layers of management be sustained? At “the point at which the collective complexity is the maximum individual complicity, the process breaks down. Hierarchical structures are not able to provide a higher complexity.”

Complexity science tells us the battle lines will be drawn mainly in terms of how each organization processes information and applies knowledge to make decisions. And if there is a way for an organization to deal with complexity beyond hierarchy, that form of organization is poised to challenge the reigning paradigm.

So, if we put our ears to the ground, we can hear the rumbling of two great organizational types: one that looks more like a hierarchy and one that looks more like a network. Hierarchy still dominates. It is powerful—especially as it appeals to the human desire to be in control. Consciously or unconsciously, people in hierarchical organizations will also fight for the status quo as long as they benefit from it. It’s human nature. Yet, decentralized systems can be more flexible, and as Taleb says, “anti-fragile.” So the question remains: Which form will win?

Before we try to answer that question, I want to leave you with more than just the image of clashing social technologies. Because what we’re really interested in here is human flourishing—or, more specifically, how people can organize themselves to improve their well-being. The extent to which we can organize ourselves to be happier, healthier people is the extent to which we can organize ourselves to create more peace and prosperity. Hard to believe? Despite some of the wrenching changes that will be hastened by this coming clash of systems, a more abundant and humane world awaits.

Founding redux

In thinking about phase transition, though, the Founding still looms large. The American Republic and many democratic republics since were brilliantly crafted systems designed to maximize freedom and limit the excesses of hierarchy. Or, put another way, documents like the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution put forth answers to the question, “What sort of political order can be created to unleash as much human autonomy possible?”

But our operating system, as operating systems will, has become buggy, strained, and outdated. Not only are people becoming weary of a system designed to pit people against each other with a crude majoritarian calculus, but new systems are being developed to accommodate phase transition. Indeed, some of these systems don’t require the permission of authorities. They arise from technologically connected people along the lines of what James C. Scott describes in Two Cheers for Anarchism:

More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy,” the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.

Some will try to argue that our social operating system as originally conceived by the Founders would be a lot better than the corrupted version we have now. I am sympathetic to that position, but Public Choice considerations like those found in the works of James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and Mancur Olson caution otherwise. With the rise of special interests, they remind us, something is bound to go wrong. Now there is a sense in which we cannot turn back the clock and debug the program. Instead, for the first time in history, technology and culture are allowing us more and more opportunities to create new systems and migrate between them. Indeed, it used to be that to change systems, one had quite literally to migrate, as in pick up within one territorial jurisdiction and move to another. And that, too, is an increasingly viable option. But migrating between systems is also something that, these days, you can do from your sofa.

This is the first in a two-part series. Read part two here.

MaxBordersVEsmlABOUT MAX BORDERS

Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also co-founder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

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

Exposed: Do you know the real John B. Morgan, Charlie Crist’s alter ego?

morgan and obama

John Morgan with Barack Obama.

Many people do not know the real John B. Morgan, head of Morgan & Morgan legal firm in Orlando, FL. John B. Morgan is Charlie Crist’s boss and the power behind the Crist campaign. Charlie runs the Tampa office of Morgan & Morgan.

John Morgan and Charlie Crist are inextricably linked. Morgan supported Crist when he was a Republican governor, when he ran for the U.S. Senate as an Independent and now that he is running for governor as a Democrat.

So let’s take a quick look at the real John Morgan, the man behind the Florida marijuana legalization Amendment 2.

charlie-crist-john-morgan-in-florida-trend

Charlie Crist and John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan.

John Morgan – DUI and Police Battery:

In 1997, Morgan Was Arrested For Battery On A Police Officer. “Until his arrest last week in Casselberry for battery on a police officer, 1997 had been a very good year for Orlando attorney John B. Morgan.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)

  • Morgan Was Pulled Over And Cited For A DUI. “But at about 3 a.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 10, Morgan and his red Cadillac were pulled over on S.R. 436 after pulling out of a Denny’s parking lot. Police say he swerved across lanes without signaling and stopped abruptly in the intersection with S.R. 17/92, after having traveled five feet past the white line marking a safe-stopping location. After the light changed, Morgan drove on, nearly clipping the curb, before using all three lanes to negotiate a curve, according to reports by Casselberry police. He was pulled over at Brewer Street and, after reportedly failing field sobriety tests, cited for driving under the influence.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)
  • During The Arrest, Morgan Became “Enraged,” Hitting And Headbutting The Officer And Calling The Officer A “Fat Fucker” And “Baldy.” “But, according to the arresting officer, Morgan became enraged upon arriving at the Seminole County Jail, called the officer a “fat fucker” and “baldy,” twice headbutted him, and hit him in the face with his left hand.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,”Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)
  • Morgan Was Charged With DUI, Failure To Provide Insurance, Two Other Traffic Violations, And Battery On A Police Officer. “So, in addition to charges of DUI, failure to provide insurance and two other minor traffic offenses, Morgan was charged with battery on a police officer, a third-degree felony calling for up to five years in prison.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)
  • Morgan Pled Guilty To Drunken-Driving, Receiving A Year Probation, $500 Fine, And Having His License Suspended For Six Months, And Prosecutors Dropped The Battery Charge. “John Morgan, a personal injury attorney, has agreed to a plea deal in his drunken-driving case. Attorneys said Wednesday that Morgan would be sentenced to a year’s probation, fined $500 and give up his drivers license for six months. In return, prosecutors reduced the charge from a felony to misdemeanor and dropped a battery charge.” (“Lawyer Morgan Agrees To Plea Deal In DUI Case,” Orlando Sentinel, 1/29/98)

This Was Not Morgan’s First DUI Charge, Which Came In September 1993, When Morgan Pled Guilty To A Reduced Charge. “Then on Sept. 10, 1993, Morgan accepted a plea bargain reducing his charge to reckless driving. He paid a f $500 fine and agreed to serve 100 hours of community service or pay another $1,000. Perhaps more importantly, Morgan that time had escaped the public embarrassment of being convicted of DUI.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)

  • In 1993, Morgan’s Attorney Filed 10 Motions And Attempted To Argue Alcohol Had Nothing To Do With The Two Car Accident, After Morgan Registered A 0.134 On A Breathalyzer. “In 1993, Hyman filed more than 10 motions contesting Morgan’s arrest for DUI after a minor two-car accident in Altamonte Springs. Morgan said he was ‘distracted by his car phone,’ according to the report. But after failing field tests, he registered 0.134 on the Breathalyzer.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)
morganmugshot

John Morgan mug shot. For a larger view click on the image.

Related Links:

John Morgan’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous
The Morgans Host President Obama
John Morgan Mug Shot
Florida Democrat Candidate Raising Money from Trashy Talk Show Host, Cop Beater and Extreme Liberals

Massachusetts: Pastor Scott Lively makes ballot for Governor — A Powerful voice on pro-family issues

Pastor Scott Lively officially makes ballot for Governor of Massachusetts! Speaking out on pro-family issues other candidates won’t touch. Submits over 12,500 valid signatures from 250 towns across the state! Supports Fisher in GOP primary.

Pastor Scott Lively, the internationally renowned pro-family activist, author, and spiritual leader of the Springfield, Massachusetts based Abiding Truth Ministries, has officially made the ballot for Governor of Massachusetts, as an Independent. He is joined on the ballot by his Lt. Governor running mate, Shelly Saunders.

Scott Lively’s candidacy has caught on around the state. Here’s one of their flyers. Here’s their website.

In Massachusetts 10,000 valid signatures are needed to get on the ballot for Governor. In the days leading up to the July 29 deadline Dr. Lively’s statewide team of signature gatherers turned in approximately 16,000 signatures. Over 12,500 have now been validated by the local town clerks, well over the amount needed, from over 250 Massachusetts cities and towns.

Scott Lively and his running mate Shelly Saunders were hitting the streets campaigning early. Here they are in the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade back in March. Needless to say, they got a great reception that day!

Lively speaks out on issues that others don’t want to touch!

Since he announced his candidacy earlier this year, Dr. Lively has been a wonderful breath of fresh air at gubernatorial candidate forums on pro-family issues, especially the ones involving Democratic and Independent candidates together. In particular, he has been completely unafraid to take on the radical homosexual agenda, which is a subject that other candidates either tend to support, or stay away from. But he’s also articulated a Biblical approach to a range of other issues, such as health care and tax reform. Needless to say, voters in Massachusetts are not used to seeing this!

As we reported back in March, Scott Lively was outstanding in a candidates’ forum for “LGBT issues” sponsored by WGBH and the homosexual lobby group MassEquality. He was the only one actually willing to tell the truth among a sea of politicians shamelessly pandering to that lobby!

Lively was outstanding at this “LGBT issues” forum. Watch it here.

Recently at a candidates’ health care forum in Roxbury on Aug. 20, Lively outlined the Biblical-oriented approach to health insurance that he uses for himself, as opposed to RomneyCare (now ObamaCare) which is standard in Massachusetts. It’s very interesting. The other candidates were not too pleased, to say the least. Watch that forum HERE.

At the health care forum Lively outlined a Biblical-oriented approach that he uses himself!

To supporters: Vote for Mark Fisher in Sept. 9 Republican primary

Independent candidates for Governor do not go through a primary, but are directly on the ballot for the Nov. 4 General Election. Thus, the real “action “coming up is the Sept. 9 primary. There are three Democrat candidates for Governor and two Republican candidates for Governor in that primary. (There are also two other Independent candidates besides Lively who made the ballot for Governor.)

The Republican primary race features establishment RINO Charlie Baker against conservative Tea Party candidate businessman Mark Fisher. Fisher is good on all the issues. Because of his unabashed conservatism, the politically “moderate” State Massachusetts GOP has taken extraordinarily underhanded actions to destroy Fisher’s candidacy. Baker is leading in the polls but Fisher, with a big Tea Party and pro-family effort, is making a strong surge for conservative voters to go to the polls on Sept. 9.

Thus, Lively has released the following statement encouraging his supporters to vote for Mark Fisher in the Republican primary on Sept. 9:

I am asking my supporters to vote for Mark Fisher, a genuine conservative, in the Republican Primary on September 9th.  If Mark can win the primary, I have promised to defer to his candidacy and bow out of the race should he make a strong showing approaching the general election.  I will not be the reason an authentic conservative Republican would lose the governor’s seat.

Should Fisher lose, Lively’s campaign will go forward at full speed and he will definitely be a presence. The Boston mainstream media has a history of including the independent candidates in their televised gubernatorial debates. This may be because the independents have traditionally been hardcore liberals. And except for Lively, that’s the case this year.

In addition to campaign . . . cutting edge activism!

In addition to the formal campaign, Dr. Lively has continued his cutting-edge activism and religious pursuits as head of Abiding Truth Ministries, taking on many of the larger issues of the culture war. For example:

  • “Not Just Another Sin.” In response to what he (and others) see as a “tidal wave of gay theology” coming to Christian churches, he has published a pamphlet for pastors and others titled “Not Just Another Sin. ” It has already been highly acclaimed and he and others are preparing to distribute it across the country!  Read & download it HERE.
  • Debating Vicky Beeching. Lively did an excellent interview on British television debating Christian performer Vicky Beeching who recently “came out” as a lesbian and was celebrated in the mainstream media. Watch the video HERE (Scott Lively appears at 7 min 40 sec).
  • Anti-genocide organization. Dr. Lively is in the process of forming an organization in Springfield called “Christian Genocide Rescue” to address the horrors of the mass murders of Christians happening in Muslim countries right now. He recently held a “Rally Against Christian Genocide” that included a march through Springfield, MA.

However, he has curtailed much of his international traveling because of the campaign for Governor and other constraints. This month he had been scheduled to be in England for two weeks, and he recently canceled a trip to Russia scheduled for October.

And then there’s the international lawsuit against Lively . . .

As we’ve been reporting, back in March 2012, a radical Soros-funded organization based in New York began a high-profile lawsuit against Pastor Lively, filed in federal court in Springfield.  They are making the absurd and ridiculous accusation that Lively is guilty of international “crimes against humanity,” based on a few pro-family speeches he made in Uganda several years ago. This bizarre lawsuit is largely meant to intimidate Lively and anyone else from speaking out internationally on the homosexual issue.

Homosexual activists hold rally outside courthouse at Scott Lively’s initial hearing in 2012.

Quite a bit has happened in that case this year, and we have a full update coming up.

Currently, the case is in the midst of the “discovery” process. Dr. Lively has been required to find and submit over 4000 documents to the court and to the Soros-funded group, and he is still in the process of submitting more. His lawyers have also submitted lists of documents for the plaintiffs to submit.

The preliminary activities in the case will continue for several months. The trial itself would probably not start until early 2016 -– if it’s allowed by the judge to continue.

Lively is standing up boldly in this. The belief is still that the judge -– as left-wing as he is –- will eventually be forced to conclude that this lawsuit has no legal basis and dismiss it before it goes to trial. But in this insane world, anything is possible. We will keep you informed.

Massachusetts: How the GOP tried to destroy Mark Fisher, conservative candidate for Governor

But as Sept. 5 primary nears, Tea Party activists are fighting back! How MassResistance made the difference . . .

Most people assume that the major threat to getting conservatives elected to high office is the liberal Democratic machine. In recent years there’s been another major front in that war: The Republican Party establishment –both state and national. This is fueled by millions of dollars from “progressive Republican” businessmen. And, sadly, it includes many sellout pro-family groups and politicians. [All photos by MassResistance except where noted.]

Fisher at the GOP convention:”I am a full-platform no-excuses-necessary loyal and proud conservative Republican … [Around the country] conservative solutions are the cure for liberal failures … The time has come to tear down that big liberal tent.”

This kind of talk drives the GOP establishment crazy!

But we’ve never seen anything like the Massachusetts Republican Party’s outrageous (and we believe, criminal) efforts to subvert pro-family/Tea Party candidate Mark Fisher’s campaign for governor, which we’ve detailed below.

During Fisher’s speech, former Mass. Governor Bill Weld (sitting, at right), a RINO who voted for Barack Obama, looks up at Mark Fisher and you can tell he’s not happy!

A disturbing national trend explodes in Massachusetts

Ever since the days of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, there’s been a tension between the GOP establishment — who felt they could avoid the Left’s hostile attacke by appeasing them on most “hot-button” issues — and the conservative base who vote on principle. In recent years, this has led to many high-profile battles with Tea Party backed candidates in Republican primaries, which has angered the establishment considerably.

So now we’re seeing the next step: The aggressive purging of conservative candidates for high office before they can get a foothold.

Here in Massachusetts this has turned the State Republican Party into an overtly hostile anti-family institution devoid of political principles that long-time activists no longer recognize. This year Party elites were particularly determined to avoid a primary battle for Governor that could endanger their annointed “moderate” candidate, Charlie Baker.

Fisher’s candidacy for Governor attracts a torrent of GOP hostility

The appearance of Mark Fisher in the Massachusetts governor’s race stymied the Republican establishment. He is not only a fairly solid conservative and wealthy enough to get his campaign off the ground, but he is bright and articulate and can hold his own in any debate. For example, in several head-to-head debates with GOP rival, Charlie Baker, does a much better job in our opinion.

Mark Fisher and Charlie Baker debate at Boston Globe office, which is unquestionably hostile to Fisher.See article and VIDEO of debate here.[Boston Globephoto]

From the very beginning of his campaign, Fisher became Public Enemy #1 to the Republican State Committee and their allies. Their goal was to keep him from being able to run in the primary. And they almost succeeded.

Below is a list of the efforts by the GOP and “pro-family” establishment in Massachusetts over the last year to keep conservative Mark Fisher from being able to run for Governor against the RINO Charlie Baker in the Republican primary. Even most Republicans aren’t aware what’s been going on. That’s why we’re publishing this.

Don’t be surprised if you see these things happen in other states:

A. Prior to the State convention . . .

1. Hostility at his candidacy by “pro-family” Republicans. Late last year when Fisher announced his candidacy, and it became known that he was a pro-family conservative with the means to carry on a serious candidacy, the establishment (including so-called “pro-family” people) began hounding him not to run so Baker would not have a “conservative” challenger. According to newspaper reports this included Karyn Polito (currently running for Lt. Governor), State Rep. Ryan Fattman, and GOP National Committeewoman Chanel Prunier, who also leads the Coalition for Marriage and Family. We know of many other prominent GOP politicians and pro-family “leaders” who also approached Fisher.

2. Turned down by GOP sign company. According to reports, in February Fisher was turned down by a company that regularly makes campaign signs for the GOP because the company was warned  not to do business with Fisher or risk losing other GOP sign business.

B. At the March 22 GOP State Convention . . .

The Mass. GOP state convention filled Agganis Arena at Boston University.

To get on the state ballot, a candidate needed 15% of the delegates to vote for him at the state GOP convention on March 22, 2014. The Mass. GOP made an enormous effort to keep Fisher from getting that amount.

3. Outrageous fee to speak at GOP convention. In order to speak at the GOP State Convention, the Mass GOP raised the “entry fee” for gubernatorial candidates to $25,000, to deter Fisher. Candidates for other statewide offices were charged a fraction of that to speak. Fisher paid it.

4. State Committee emails telling delegates to vote for Baker. The day before the Convention, delegates received “official” looking emails from their state committee representatives telling them that to vote for Charlie Baker – and thus not have a primary by keeping Fisher off the ballot — would be the best thing for the Party.

This “official” email to delegates from their state committeewoman started off with “official” info, but then told them that voting for Baker would be best for the Party.Read it here.

5. The waiting room from hell. State-wide candidates were given nice rooms to prepare for their convention speeches. Mark and his team were given a smelly locker room with benches surrounded by toilets and shower stalls.

Going into the convention Fisher people expected to get 30%. Given that GOP activists who become delegates and actually go to the convention are generally fairly conservative, and seeing who they were on the day of the convention, it was generally believed that Fisher would get at least 30% of the vote. But no one was prepared for the high-pressure campaign that took place that day.

6. Huge pressure on delegates to vote for Baker. Throughout the day, a small army of State Party officials, State Committeemen, GOP State Reps, Town Party Chairmen, GOP candidates for office, and others put on a coordinated effort to strong-arm and harangue delegates not to vote for Fisher –- to either vote for Baker or vote “blank.” We heard about all kinds of interesting threats, mostly involving loss of GOP financial support and/or access to GOP facilities.

On the giant screen GOP national committeewoman Chanel Prunier exhorts the delegates to vote for Charlie Baker.
This delegate told us that during the convention he was pressured by his state committeeman, state committeewoman, State Rep. and even a state pro-family activist to vote for Baker.But he held out and voted for Fisher!

7. GOP won’t release video of Fisher’s convention speech. When his turn came at the convention, Fisher gave a very good speech. The GOP had set up a sophisticated video recording system in the auditorium. But later when Fisher asked for a copy of his speech, the Mass GOP refused to give it to him. Luckily, MassResistance also made a video of his speech, which we’ve allowed his website to use.


VIDEO: Fisher’s convention speech was one of the best we’ve ever seen. The GOP wouldn’t release their video of it, so we let him have OURS!

8. Delegations’ votes are publicly announced, but result is ignored.The vote tally was very public. A GOP official at the podium called out to each of the 40 delegations for their results. Each delegation, using a portable microphone from their area in the auditorium, announced their totals for Baker, Fisher, and “blanks” from their tally sheets which had the names of the delegates and how they voted. The whole thing took about 20 minutes. But at the end, the grand totals were not announced.

9. Convention halts while “re-counting” takes place. The convention immediately stopped and a group of party officials huddled around some tables in front of the stage. At first was not clear what they were doing. Finally, we were told that a “re-counting” of sorts was taking place. This went on for at least half an hour or more.

Right after the public vote. Party officials gathered around a table at the front of the hall for a “re-count.”

10. Baker is declared winner, but actual vote totals still not announced. A few minutes later, Baker was declared the “winner. ” And with a rain of balloons and confetti, and he came up and gave a speech. But what percentage did Baker get? What percentage did Fisher get? It was not announced – only that Baker won.

Even though no vote totals were announced, Charlie Baker was hailed as the “winner” with a sea of confetti. Here Baker (center) is being congratulated by Bill Weld (right).

11. “Re-counting” continues, and “results” finally announced. After Baker’s speech, party officials moved to tables in a back room area and continued their mysterious “re-counting.” After about another two hours, it was announced that Fisher had only received 14.765% of the votes, just missing the 15% requirement. Fisher’s people were not allowed to examine the tally sheets for themselves, however.

The “re-count” group then convened to a back room out of sight. Long after the convention had been gaveled to a close, people continued waiting for the results of the “re-count.”

C. After the convention . . .

12. Mass GOP announces Fisher will not be the ballot. The day after the convention, the Mass GOP announced to the press that Mark Fisher had not received the 15% requirement, and therefore would not be on the ballot. The GOP stood by its “re-count.”

13. Tally sheets still kept hidden.  The Mass GOP continued to refuse to let anyone see the individual delegate vote tally sheets, which apparently added up to the GOP’s new official vote count. Several delegates expressed concern that their votes had been tampered with, miscounted, or that they were “assigned” votes when they hadn’t voted at all.

14. MassResistance video of public vote during convention shows Fisher got his 15%! During the convention, while the delegation votes were being publicly announced, no one had thought to write them down and add them up. But MassResistance videoed the entire process.When we played the video and counted the votes that were announced, we found that Mark Fisher GOT just over 15%, even if you include blank votes. We posted the video and allowed the Fisher campaign to use it, and it was reported in the Boston media. This brought up an additional question: Why were “blank” votes counted in the total, when it was apparently against the rules?


VIDEO: MassResistance video of the roll call vote at the GOP convention revealed that Fisher GOT his 15%! Thus, Fisher’s campaign got new life.

15 Fisher takes the Mass GOP to court.  Why did the public vote count show that Fisher got his 15% but the mysterious “recount” by the GOP showed he didn’t? Why the difference? Obviously, an examination of the tally sheets –- which should have had every delegate’s name and how he voted — would reveal that. But the Mass GOP refused to release them, and they would not give a reason. So the Fisher campaign filed a lawsuitagainst theMass GOP in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston to examine the tally sheets and get on the ballot.

16. Mass GOP caves in and allows Fisher on the ballot. After about three months of preliminary court hearings, the Mass GOP decided to let Fisher on the ballot. But they still refused to release the tally sheets – even to State Committee members – for examination.

17. Court case temporarily crippled Fisher candidacy. Although Fisher won the case, it left his campaign in terrible shape. It cost Fisher’s campaign approximately $100,000 in legal fees. But also, during that 3-month period he was considered “not on the ballot,” so he could not easily raise money, nor could he attract enough volunteers to help get his required 10,000 signatures which were also needed to get on the ballot, so he had to pay professional signature gatherers. And during that time he wasn’t included in candidate forums, etc. so he lost a lot of public visibility. It was a devastating blow that almost sunk him.

18. Fisher campaign not allowed to use Mass GOP campaign resources. The Mass GOP has set up an expensive and elaborate “MassVictory” operation with offices, phone banks, etc. around the state. All GOP candidates are allowed to use those facilities -– except Fisher. They won’t let his campaign use them. It’s outrageous.

19. Fisher not listed on Mass GOP website. The State Party website currently has names and photos of all the statewide candidates on the ballot – except Fisher. The sheer hatred of Fisher by the party establishment takes them to these absurd lengths.

20. Sleazy GOP State Committee votes to keep tally sheets secret.Even after the court case subsided, the Mass GOP executives had even refused to let the 80-member elected State Committee see the tally sheets! So in July, a group of conservative State Committee members petitioned the Chairman to call a meeting so the Committee could vote to release them. The Chairman called the meeting, but it was closed to the public and held in secret. In the closed meeting, the majority of the State Committee voted not to release the tally sheets to anyone, not even to themselves! (What possible reason would there be to keep them secret . . . unless there was some criminal wrongdoing that took place?)

21. Mass GOP lavishly funding Baker, Fisher gets nothing. The Mass GOP is using its resources to raise enormous funds for the Baker campaign, but nothing for the Fisher campaign. This includes, according to the Boston Globe, paying a consulting firm to fundraise for Baker. In fact, we have been told that Republican donors are being told NOT to donate to the Fisher campaign. This has had a disastrous effect on Fisher’s fundraising capabilities.

22. Alleged threats to media by Mass GOP. A radio talk show host told us that members of the media have been threatened by GOP officials if they cover Mark Fisher to any extent, they will be persona non grata by the rest of the GOP during this election cycle.

By far the most troubling aspect of this was how easily virtually every “pro-family” GOP politician sold his soul and fell into line for Baker and against Fisher when pressured by the establishment.

We don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the Mass GOP has become a dishonest, unprincipled cesspool that good people should stay away from — and only donate money to individual candidates.

And then there’s the Frank Addivinola episode

Mark Fisher wasn’t the only pro-family candidate squashed at the convention. Frank Addivinola, a businessman and college professor, was a U.S. Senate candidate. But like Mark Fisher, he was an unabashed pro-family advocate.

Although his campaign had a booth at the convention, through a still unresolved series of events he was not given a chance to speak.

U.S. Senate Candidate Frank Dddivinola (left) at his table at the Mass. GOP convention.

But Addivinola was VERY popular among conservatives across the state and would have easily gotten his 15%. So the Mass GOP didn’t take any chances. When it came time for the nomination of candidates, the Chairman allowed the establishment candidate, Brian Herr, to be nominated, then immediately closed the nominations! So no one could even nominate Addivinola.

Even though Addivinola’s banner (for which he paid them plenty!) was right next to the podium, they pretended that his candidacy didn’t exist.

It was still possible for Addivinola to get on the ballot via signatures, since he was running for a federal office. But once the Party officially considered him a non-candidate and denied him all support, his campaign never recovered from that. Thus, Herr is now unopposed in the primary.

Tea Party groups & others rallying statewide for Fisher as Sept. 9 primary nears

Fisher’s campaign is making a surge!

None of the above adversities have stopped the Fisher campaign or its supporters statewide. Fisher continues to appear everywhere, every day, and has impressed people wherever he goes. This has only ignited Fisher’s people even more.

In mid-August a group of Tea Parties, conservative leaders, and non-establishment pro-family groups, began a furious grassroots push to energize the GOP conservative base of voters to go to the polls on Sept. 5 and vote for Fisher. Will this become another David Brat over Eric Cantor? No one knows. But the energy is there!

This is the flyer that Tea Parties across the state are handing out. You can download a copy here.

This is a favorable primary race because Democrats and independents will be drawn to the highly contested Democratic primary, and many mainstream Republican voters will likely think Baker is a shoo-in and not bother to go to the polls. Even Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe’s (relatively) conservative columnist, who’s a registered Independent, said he’s voting in the Democratic primary — because that’s “where the action is.”

This is a great opportunity for a possble pro-family upset – in a RINO state! If you are a registered voter in Massachusetts, you know what to do on Sept. 9.We’ll see if Massachusetts can do it!

GOP, Are You Ready To Reach Out to Blacks Yet?

Because I am a black conservative, someone wrote asking me this great question.

“What is it that compels some black men and women to cling to, and follow people like Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Obama, Spike Lee, Black Panthers, Holder, etc.?”

I have pondered the same question. Some black folks embrace victim status because it provides cover for their laziness and irresponsible lifestyles. Black Judases preach a false evil gospel of victimhood-ism for profit. Some blacks are racist, pure and simple.

I believe a majority of black Americans simply have not been exposed to unfiltered Conservatism; blacks articulating how blessed they are to be born in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet.

Ironically, all of the blacks who are given big microphones to tout the horrors of being black in America are wealthy. The MSM and Democratic Party viciously and relentlessly block any and all patriotic black voices from the main stage touting achieving success and wealth the old fashion way via education, hard work and morally right choices. And of course, we know the reason for their attempts to silence such voices is because the MSM and Democratic Party’s mission is not to empower blacks, but further their big government socialist/progressive agenda.

Now that America is burning in the flames of racial tension and polarization, it is crucial that Republicans/Conservatives finally reach-out to black America. I am not suggesting that they offer blacks a Democrat-lite, America sucks and is somewhat racist — so we will lower standards and give you free stuff message. Heaven forbid.

I am talking about taking a pedal-to-the-metal conservative message to black America, boldly articulating its virtues and why it is the best for all Americans; the most direct route to success.

While I have no problem with packaging our message to better connect with diverse audiences, our rock solid conservative principles must remain in tack. Republicans must reject using the Democrats’ insidious tactic of dividing Americans into victimized voting blocs (blacks, women, Hispanics and so on). After convincing various groups of Americans that they are victims, the Dems request their votes to use as protection money to keep their white racist sexist Republican/conservative enemies at bay. It is disgusting and evil.

A young black college student worked on the Tea Party candidate Joe Carr’s U.S. Senate campaign for college credit. The black youth told me that he realized he is conservative. That’s what I am talking about; giving blacks an opportunity to hear our inspiring be-all-you-can-be feel good message. Ronald Reagan’s speeches always made me feel good about myself and my country.

Several years ago, I produced many of the Volusia County Florida Republican Executive Committee annual Lincoln dinners. I was one of two blacks on the committee. I was always thinking of ways to invite and involve more blacks. A few outspoken voices said, “Why bother? They are going to vote for the Democrats no matter what we do.” I have experienced that same defeatist mindset in the national GOP leadership.

Using my background from working in the Creative Services Dept of a major TV station, I designed a campaign to reach out to blacks titled, “Reach Your Dreams”. My campaign included touring the black community; music and conservative minority speakers telling their stories of how they achieved their American dreams. GOP officers consistently shot my idea down. “Why bother?” They thought it would not produce enough votes to make it a wise financial investment. I argued that it was not totally about producing votes. It was the moral and right thing to do.

Well, the GOP’s chickens have come home to roost for allowing the Democrat’s lie that America and Republicans/Conservatives are racists to go unchallenged. Oh my gosh, did I just quote that evil man, Rev Jeremiah Wright?

To spread Christianity, Romans 10:14 says:

“And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?”

I wish to apply this same wisdom to spreading our gospel of Conservatism. Blacks can not embrace the liberation of Conservatism without hearing about it.

My dad has been a Christian preacher for over 50 years. Little did I know that God was preparing me for such a time as this; appointed to spread the gospel of Conservatism to those suffering, lost and enslaved by Liberalism.

Bottom line, we conservatives must find a way to bring our good news to black Americans. It is the moral and right thing to do for America.

Witnessing a Failed Presidency

When we elect someone—anyone—to the office of President, it is only natural that we attribute great political skills, intellect, and judgment to that man. We want to believe we have selected someone with the ability to do what must be done in a dangerous and very complex world.

This may explain why Presidents who have presided in times of war are more highly regarded than those that have not. Washington brought the nation into being by patiently pursuing a war with Great Britain, Lincoln saw the Civil War to a successful conclusion, preserving the Union

The last century offered two world wars and several lesser ones, Korea and Vietnam. Voters put Franklin D. Roosevelt in office in 1933 and then kept him there until his death in 1945 just before the conclusion of World War Two. They had no wish to disrupt his conduct of the war with anyone else. It fell to Harry Truman to wrap up World War Two and to pursue the Korean War to repulse communist North Korea’s invasion.

The Vietnam War had its genesis in the JFK years, but it was Lyndon Johnson who committed to it with a massive influx of infantry and massive bombing, neither of which was able to deter the North Vietnamese from uniting the nation. Having lied the nation into the war LBJ concluded at the end of his first term which he had won in a landslide that he should not run again given the vast level of unhappiness with the conflict.

The failure to respond in a strong way to the Iranians who took U.S. diplomats hostage left Jimmy Carter with a single failed term in office. Neither domestically, nor in the area of foreign affairs did he demonstrate strength or much understanding.

After 9/11 George W. Bush used U.S. military strength to send a message to the world in general and al Qaeda in particular. By the end of his second term, a completely unknown young Democrat emerged as the Democratic Party candidate for President by campaigning on a promise to get out of Iraq and offering “hope and change.”

AA - Going from bad to worseBarack Hussein Obama captured the imagination of the voters. He was black and many Americans wanted to demonstrate that an African-American could be elected President. He was relatively young, regarded as eloquent, and seemed to project a cool, self-composed approach throughout his campaign.

The only problem was that he lacked a resume beyond having been a “community organizer.” He had graduated from Harvard Law School, but all of his academic and other public records had been put under seal so they could not be examined. Twice he ran against relatively lackluster, older men who did not possess much charisma, if any.

In his first term, his “stimulus” to lift the economy out of recession was a trillion-dollar failure. By his second term, however, the singular first term “achievement” was the passage of the Affordable Patient Care Act—Obamacare. When finally ready to enroll people it instantly demonstrated technical and policy problems. Obama began to unilaterally make changes to the law even though he lacked the legal power to do so.

The war in Iraq whose conclusion he had ridden to victory in 2008 and 2012 came unraveled and the Syrian civil war in which he had resisted any involvement metastasized into a barbaric Islamic State that seized parts of Iraq and northern Syria.

Halfway through his second term, it was increasingly evident that Obama did not want to fulfill the role of the Presidency to provide leadership in times of foreign and domestic crisis.

On August 28 Gallup reported “Americans are more than twice as likely to say they “strongly disapprove” (39%) of President Barack Obama’s job performance as they are to say they “strongly approve” (17%). The percentage of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama has increased over time, while the percentage who strongly approve has dropped by almost half.”

His passion for golf became noticeable in ways that went beyond just a bit of vacation time. The time he spent fund raising seemed to be more of a priority than dealing with Congress. Not only did he fail to develop strong political working relations with members of his own party, his churlish talk about the Republican Party began to grate on everyone.

Though no President cares much for the demands of the press, they play an essential role in a democracy. His administration went to extremes to close off access to its members and by striking out at the press in ways that turned it from one that had gone out of its way to support him in the first term to one that actively, if not openly, disliked him in the second.

One characteristic about Obama had become glaringly obvious. He lies all the time. He lies in obvious and casual ways. In politics where one’s word must be one’s bond, this is a lethal personality trait. He dismissed the many scandals of his administration as “phony.”

Given the vast implications of what is occurring in the Middle East, in Ukraine, and elsewhere around the world his response was to interrupt his golf game to give a short speech and then return to the greens. In a recent press conference he said he has “no strategy” to address the threat that ISIS represents.

What Americans have discovered is that they have twice either voted for (or against) someone with fewer skills and even less desire to do the job for which he campaigned. This lazyness combined with his radical liberal politics have finally become obvious even to his former supporters.

His statement that he had no strategy to deal with the threat of the Islamic State and that it was perhaps too soon to expect one to have been formulated has led to the conclusion that he was far less intellectually equipped to be President than many had thought.

Now he must be endured and survived.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image was taken by the AP on May 12, 2014 of President Obama speaking during a press availability in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.