Posts

Radical Hate-Rep. Ayanna Pressley Calls for Unrest in the Streets, Targeting Republicans

The only way these haters get attention is to incite and destroy. Never does anything positive or good come from their quarters. Never.

The evidence is overwhelming. The Democrat Party is dangerous. They must go down hard in November. No party that is this radical should have any kind of political power. By the way, if Joe Biden wins in November it is folks such as Pressley, Omar, Tlaib, AOC and others who will be in charge of the country. Biden needs their support, so he will always appease them as POTUS.

Rep Ayanna Pressley Calls for Unrest in the Streets, Targeting Republicans

By David Harris Jr. August 16, 2020

Ayanna Pressley has sent the message out to the Democrat friends rioting across the country to continue to do what they do, but to make sure you target Republicans when you do it.

If President Trump had sent out a message like this the mainstream press would having a field day… but it’s okay when it’s a Democrat.

What does she mean when she says unrest I wonder? I think we all know what that means. After all, the squad refuses to condemn violence from Muslim terrorists.

Should they expect less from Godless terrorists? Democrats for some strange reason believe the riots benefit them in 2020 even when the voters feel that they are siding with the rioters.

Remember when the passive Tea Party came onto the scene? The mainstream media played them up as the second coming of the Nazis. But now that the Democrats approve of, or at least refuse to condemn the riots, the silence is deafening.

In fact the media is avoiding even talking about the looting, the burning of private and public property and the assaults on anyone who gets in their way, as if they aren’t really happening.

The IRS should investigate the media because their favored treatment of Democrats is the largest in-kind contribution they have ever gotten. In fact they would be guilty of making contributions far beyond legal limits.

Pressley is a member of The Squad that also includes fellow radicals AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, or as I affectionately call them “The Four Horse’s A**e* of the Apocalypse.

They are the most radical group in the US Congress. They consider Moa, Stalin and Lenin as being too far right wing for their tastes.


HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM


RELATED ARTICLES:

Chris Wallace: Biden ‘Not Doing Really Any Serious Interviews’ – ‘Damnedest Thing’ He Isn’t Putting Anyone on Sunday Shows

Antifa thugs go to Motorcycle Rally and quickly regret it

VILE Media, Democrats Use Death Of Trump’s Brother To Attack The President: ‘The Wrong Trump’ Died

Black candidate brings BLM mob to the burbs, terrorizes white teen girls: ‘We sick of yo white a*s!’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?

Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls. Georgetown University professor Christine Fair happened upon neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who is not me, at a gym and began berating him. The gym then revoked Richard Spencer’s membership. I have no regard for Richard Spencer, as often as I am confused with him (even in the comments at National Review on this piece, some clown says that the article should have highlighted Richard Spencer’s remarks on white nationalism, not his criticism of Islam; in reality, he is the one who writes about white nationalism, and I am the one who writes about Islam, and we are two completely different people): he has more than once demanded that I reveal my “real” name, as he is convinced that I am secretly a Jew who has changed my name to fool good white folks like him.

So while I have nothing but disgust for Richard Spencer, I have even greater disgust for Christine Fair, who in this incident showed herself to be more of a Nazi than Richard Spencer could ever hope to be. Like the Nazis, she wants those whom she hates destroyed, full stop. Just destroyed. She doesn’t want them to be able to speak in public. She doesn’t want them to be able to hold memberships in gyms. She doesn’t want them to be allowed to live in the city she lives in. She doesn’t want them to breathe. This is quintessentially Nazi behavior, and is in direct contradiction to the principles that make a society free.

While Richard Spencer is indeed a Nazi, albeit in a different way from how Fair is one, and there is no excuse for that, as long as he is not breaking any laws he has as much right to be in that gym as Christine Fair has. But not as far as Christine Fair is concerned. She has apparently not reflected upon the precedent she is setting, or on the possibility, as remote as it is, that one day her views could be out of favor, and she could find herself getting poisoned, and forbidden to speak, and screamed at by campus fascists, and driven out of gyms, and the like, and that a healthier and freer society allows for the freedom of expression and doesn’t persecute or hound those whose ideas are unpopular or even unarguably obnoxious.

National Review writer Jeremy Carl brings me into this because I have been on the receiving end of Fair’s wrath before, and have found her to be a shockingly rude, unkind, angry, and remarkably unpleasant individual — all while she preens as an exponent of “tolerance” and “peace.” Carl is a bit hasty, in my view, to accept the claims of my critics without evaluating those claims or my work on their merits, but his anxiousness to distance himself from me is perhaps understandable in a piece that appears in the publication that Ann Coulter so famously observed years ago was run by “girly men.”

I would happily debate Jeremy Carl, or Christine Fair, or any serious analyst on the nature of Islam or any of the assertions I have made in my work, and I am confident that the claims about my work that Carl so readily embraces here would, in that event, be proven false. It’s certain, however, that neither Carl nor Fair will agree to debate me, and so that is that. Whatever the undeniable flaws of Carl’s piece, he is dead-on about the Left’s increasing authoritarianism and thuggery. Mark my words: I won’t be the last enemy of the Left that Leftists will try to kill.

Addendum: I just noticed that in her hate screed against Richard Spencer in the Washington Post, Christine Fair cites as factual the thoroughly discredited study claiming that “right-wing extremists” pose a greater threat than Islamic jihadists. This is what an academic is today: not a thinking individual, but a propagandist for the hard-Left.

Georgetown University professor Christine Fair

“Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech,” by Jeremy Carl, National Review, May 24, 2017:

…Let’s stipulate that Richard Spencer is a man who has embraced values that are anathema to America’s, and that his vision is quite obviously not one that conservatives or Republicans share. But Fair publicly claims that Spencer’s very presence in the gym, because of his political views, creates an oppressive environment, which is a much more dramatic and potentially dangerous claim. If you are still cheering on Professor Fair, consider the case of another Spencer — Robert Spencer (no relation to Richard), a persistent critic of political Islam and a favorite of Steve Bannon and other figures in the Trump administration.After he spoke to a large audience last week in Reykjavik, Iceland, a leftist approached him as he was dining with companions and managed to slip a combination of MDMA (“Ecstasy”) and Ritalin into his drink, causing him to become ill to the point that he was hospitalized. Fortunately, police seem to have identified the perpetrator. But despite Spencer’s relative prominence and the dramatic nature of the crime, this political poisoning attracted almost no attention from the mainstream media.

As Spencer put it ruefully, “The lesson I learned was that media demonization of those who dissent from the leftist line is a direct incitement to violence. By portraying me and others who raise legitimate questions about jihad terror and Sharia oppression as racist, bigoted ‘Islamophobes’ without allowing us a fair hearing, they paint a huge target on the backs of those who dare to dissent.”

Spencer, the author of two New York Times bestsellers on radical Islam, is certainly controversial — and has his fair share of critics even on the right. But one should be able to be controversial without being poisoned. In the wake of the bombings in Manchester, are critics of political Islam really the people who should be beyond the pale of civil discourse?

hat does all this have to do with Professor Fair? Well, it turns out that Robert Spencer too has had his share of run-ins with Professor Fair, who according to Spencer called him a “lunatic” and likened him to Charles Manson while “refusing (of course) to debate me on questions of substance.” Robert Spencer says he has never met Fair in person, which has not saved him from being a repeated target of Fair’s ire.

Very well, you may say, but Spencer’s harsh and cherry-picked criticism of Islam may have stirred up legitimate anger — there’s no reason to defend him.

Well, how about Asra Nomani, a liberal Muslim immigrant woman, former Wall Street Journal reporter, and Georgetown professor who committed the mortal sin (to Christine Fair) of voting for Donald Trump and then writing a piece in the Washington Post explaining her decision. In response, she was brutally harassed by Professor Fair on Twitter for the better part of a month. As Nomani subsequently wrote to Georgetown in a formal complaint against Fair: “Prof. Fair has directed hateful, vulgar and disrespectful messages to me, including the allegations that I am: a ‘fraud’; ‘fame-mongering clown show’; and a ‘bevkuf,’ or ‘idiot,’ in my native Urdu, who has ‘pimped herself out’ . . . this last allegation amounts to ‘slut-shaming.’”

But while a quick perusal of Fair’s public statements reveals her to be an extreme case, a virtual parody of liberal intolerance, she is hardly the only liberal behaving badly. In just the past year, many conservatives, libertarians, and other assorted right-wingers, from Ann Coulter to Charles Murray to Heather Mac Donald to Milo Yiannopoulos to Ben Shapiro, have been shouted down and prevented, often by violence, from sharing their views, most often on America’s campuses. And so far, almost without exception, those universities have declined to give any significant punishment to the perpetrators. It is all well and good for conservatives to point out that there is a yawning gap between the Richard Spencers of the world and the Charles Murrays and Heather Mac Donalds. But for the Christine Fairs of the world — and an increasing number of her ideological soulmates on the left — they are all the same. None should have the right to speak — and increasingly, they are not even free to lead private lives free of harassment and threats. All of the people named above have been called “Nazis,” “white supremacists,” and similar epithets. If the Right, through silence, decides it’s okay to harass or physically attack Richard Spencer because he is a “Nazi” (a video clip of an Antifa member sucker-punching Spencer has become a favorite Internet meme on the left), they should not expect that the punchers will stop at Richard Spencer — or Robert Spencer, or even Asra Nomani. If we won’t fight for the free speech of those who anger the Left, no matter how distasteful we find their views, because we are afraid that the Left will wrongly ascribe their views to us, then conservatives are little more than feeding red meat to the ravenous left-wing lion in vain hopes that they will be the last ones eaten. And the lion is getting stronger and hungrier.

In his comments on Fair, written long before his poisoning incident, Robert Spencer wondered, “Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?” It’s a question the Left doesn’t want to answer — and too many on the right, afraid of being labeled as bigots by the most intolerant voices on the left, are scared to even ask.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump’s temporary immigration ban

UK: Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says jihad mass murderer was “not a Muslim”

Black Anger: Who’s to Blame?

On the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a black high school student from Miami, was shot to death during an unprovoked attack on neighborhood watch coordinator George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic.  The incident occurred when Martin became concerned that his movements were being observed by a person or persons unknown.  When attacked, Zimmerman was awaiting the arrival of local police after having reported the presence of a suspicious-looking person passing through his neighborhood.

In the afternoon of July 17, 2014, on a sidewalk in Staten Island, New York, 43-year-old Eric Garner, a black man, was approached by police officers when he was observed selling individual cigarettes from packs without tax stamps, a violation of New York state law.  Garner complained about being “harassed,” and when an officer attempted to place handcuffs on him he slapped the officer’s hands away.  Garner, a very large man who suffered from asthma, struggled with five officers, during which time he was allegedly held in a chokehold for approximately 15 seconds.  Officers called for medical assistance but Garner expired an hour later of cardiac arrest.

Just before noon on August 9, 2014, 18-year-old Michael Brown, a 6 ft. 4 in. 292 lb. black man staged a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store in Ferguson, Missouri.  Minutes later, as he and an accomplice strolled down the middle of a local street, they were told to move to the sidewalk by a white 28-year-old Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson.  When Brown refused and Wilson attempted to exit his police vehicle, Brown attacked him and attempted to take his firearm.  Brown ran away for a short distance, but then turned and charged the officer, during which time he was mortally wounded by several shots from the officer’s handgun.

On April 2, 2015, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a 44-year-old black man, Eric Harris, was a suspect in an investigation in which he allegedly arranged to sell a handgun to undercover officers of the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office.  As Harris attempted to evade arrest he was tackled and brought to the ground.  However, as he continued to resist arrest he was shot in the back by 73-year-old Robert C. Bates, a white Tulsa County reserve deputy, who mistakenly retrieved his Smith & Wesson revolver while attempting to reach for his Taser.

On April 8, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, a white police officer, Michael Slager, stopped a Mercedes sedan with a broken tail light driven by a 50-year-old black man, Walter Scott.  Slager ordered Scott to remain in his vehicle; however, as Slager ran a radio check on Scott for outstanding warrants, Scott exited his vehicle and fled.  When he refused to stop, Officer Slager pulled his Taser and fired at Scott.  When that failed to stop him, Slager pulled his handgun and fired eight shots, mortally wounding Scott.

At 8:40 AM on April 12, 2015, in Baltimore, Maryland, 25-year-old Freddie Gray, a black man, was injured when he attempted to elude police.  As Gray was being taken to a police van he would not, or could not, walk and was physically dragged to the vehicle by two officers.  When he was taken to a hospital, doctors determined that his spinal chord was 80% severed at the neck.  Gray died on April 19, 2015, and in the week that followed, the City of Baltimore was plagued with arson and riots.

It was here, during the War of 1812, that Francis Scott Key huddled behind the ramparts of Fort McHenry and penned the immortal words of the Star Spangled Banner, which later became our national anthem.  If Key were alive today he would be saddened to know that the fires that swept across Baltimore in recent days were not the result of a British naval bombardment, but of the criminal acts of street thugs, our fellow citizens, who gave vent to their frustrations by putting the torch to the homes and businesses of their friends and neighbors.

So what is the common denominator in all of these incidents, if any?  It is that, in each instance, the black men involved were either resisting arrest or fleeing to avoid arrest.  With that level of fear and resentment of police within the black community, it causes one to wonder whether or not we have passed the point of no return in race relations where it is no longer possible to create a color-blind society.  What is undeniable is that young black men have created a stereotype for themselves… a stereotype that must be fully understood by all concerned before we can even begin to deconstruct it.  So, if black people did not set out to purposely create a subculture in the freest, most prosperous nation on Earth… a subculture typified by poverty and hopelessness… then they must have had some very determined help.  And we know who that was.

For example, in 1866, after being defeated in the war to end slavery, Democrats established a paramilitary auxiliary called the Ku Klux Klan.  The Klan’s purpose was to keep the freed slaves in line and to intimidate them into voting for Democratic candidates.  Over the next 85 years the KKK waged an unrelenting war of terror against blacks and white Republicans.  Tuskegee Institute archives indicate that, between the years 1882 and 1951, some 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites, nearly all Republicans, were lynched by the KKK.  Is this sad chapter in U.S. history being taught in Black History classes?  If not, why not?

Along with the violence and the intimidation of the KKK, Democrats in southern legislatures enacted Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes… dictating where and for whom blacks could work, where they could live, where they could eat and sleep, which restrooms and drinking fountains they could use, and where they were allowed to sit in movie theaters and on trains and busses.  Are black children taught the truth of Jim Crow and the Black Codes in Black History classes?

Then, in 1894, after regaining control of the Congress, Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894, repealing much of the civil rights legislation passed by Republicans in the 28 years following the close of the Civil War.  What followed was a period of some 60 years in which black civil rights were in limbo.  Are these truths taught in Black History classes?

It was not until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that black people could see a glimmer of hope for the rights Republicans had won for them during the previous 90 years.  So is it any wonder that, 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, many blacks still feel the indignation of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and the Black Codes?

In the earliest days of the civil right movement, Democrats resigned themselves to the fact that their century-old campaign to oppress blacks through violence and intimidation was at an end.  Instead, they found it politically expedient to create a welfare system through which they could simply purchase the allegiance of black people… in effect, paying blacks NOT to pursue the American Dream as every other ethnic group before them had done.  As a result, the welfare state has robbed black men of their pride and their dignity, and many have resigned themselves to lives of crime and anti-social behavior.  Where better to see the fruits of that cynical stratagem than in recent videos of arson and looting in Ferguson and Baltimore… what black activist Tavis Smiley predicts will be the “new norm” in race relations?

But none of this would have been possible without the acquiescence of the black community.  To learn how Democrats were able to implement their grand strategy we need look no further than a federal program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a social welfare program passed in 1935 by a Democrat Congress and signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt.  It was a program in which a family was eligible for benefits only if the family had at least one dependent child, under age 18, who was “deprived of financial support from one of their parents due to the parent’s death, continued absence (emphasis added), or incapacity.”  In other words, if two able-bodied parents lived in the household the family was denied AFDC benefits.

Nothing… not drugs, not poverty, not urban decay, nor lack of educational opportunities… has contributed more to the disintegration of the black family unit in America than the restrictions of the AFDC program.  As a consequence of AFDC, marriage was discouraged, fathers were forced out of their homes, and single-parent welfare mothers found they could increase their monthly income by simply having more babies.  As a result, we now have a society in which three out of four black babies are born out of wedlock, where black father figures are absent from their children’s lives, and where black mothers, unable to control their fatherless children, find so many of their young men either behind bars, addicted to drugs, or the victims of gang violence

It’s not as if opportunity has passed black people by.  If black parents, in the 50s and 60s, had insisted that their children do their homework every night; that they be in school every day; that they always behave themselves, inside and outside the classroom; and that, once they’ve entered the workforce, they always give their employers eight hours of their best effort in exchange for eight hours pay… the time-honored formula for achieving the American Dream… African-Americans would be far down the road, socially and economically, from where they are today.

But blacks are not entirely to blame for the social and economic condition in which they find themselves.  It is true, as liberals and Democrats insist, that black people in America are “victims,” but not in the sense that liberals and Democrats would have us believe.  If black people would be honest with themselves they could readily see that every state run by Democrats is in steady economic decline, dominated by public employee unions and saddled with billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, while every major city run by Democrats is a cesspool of crime, drug addiction, and economic stagnation.  Cities and states governed by Republicans are quite the opposite, although urban blacks continue to nestle comfortably in the pocket of Democrats.

Pride, dignity, and self respect are not easily come by and the larger population, primarily white people, are not likely to forgive and forget the outrageous behavior of young black men until they’ve proven that they deserve to be treated as equals.  It is they who have dug a deep hole for themselves and white people cannot dig them out of it.  That is something that only they can do and it’s time they got started.  But that task cannot be accomplished so long as they continue to squander their political power and influence in exchange for crumbs from the Democratic table.

Why Are Black People So Angry?

Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri prove, if nothing else, that a great many black people are very angry these days and some will use almost any perceived slight as justification for rioting, looting, and arson. So who or what is the source of that anger?

Looking back over the history of black people in America, we are told that a black man in Virginia, Anthony Johnson, became the first slave-holder in America in the 1650s. In 1860, the American people elected their first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, and the following year, in 1861, he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves to be free men and women. Then, on December 6, 1865, in spite of strong opposition from Democrats, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, banning slavery in the United States forever.

In 1866, after being defeated in the war to end slavery, Democrats established a paramilitary auxiliary called the Ku Klux Klan to keep the freed slaves in line and to intimidate them into voting for Democratic candidates. However, just because the slaves were freed and human slavery had been permanently outlawed, southern Democrats did not suddenly join the ranks of abolitionists. Instead, once they’d regained control over southern legislatures they set about enacting Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes, dictating where and for whom blacks could work, where they could live, where they could eat and sleep, which restrooms and drinking fountains they could use, and where they were allowed to sit in movie theaters and on trains and busses.

These restrictive policies were in effect across much of America as late as the 1950s. So is it possible that many blacks still feel the indignation of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and the Black Codes, fifty years later? Yes, of course. Such indignities are not easily washed away in only two or three generations. And is it possible that young blacks today feel a strong sense of resentment for a nation that treated their grandparents so inhumanely? Yes, of course.

While human slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow and the Black Codes have been major factors in black-white relations, they are not the primary contributing factor in the question of why so many black people today exhibit such anger, or why so many young blacks walk around with a chip on their shoulders, just daring white authority figures to knock it off… as was the case with Trayvon Martin, in Florida, and Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri. So what is it that causes many black people to use any pretext to go into the streets, defy police authority, and set fire to their own neighborhoods? To find an answer to that question we must first determine what has been the major contributing factor in the disintegration of the black family unit.

To find an answer to that question we need look no further than a federal program called Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), the first of two major tipping points in black history following the Emancipation Proclamation. AFDC was passed in 1935 by a Democrat-controlled Congress with a 72-23 majority in the Senate, a 322-103 majority in the House, and signed into law by a Democrat president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In order for a family to be eligible for AFDC payments, the family must have had at least one dependent child, under age 18, who was “deprived of financial support from one of their parents due to the parent’s death, continued absence (emphasis added), or incapacity.” In other words, if two able-bodied parents lived in the home the family was denied AFDC benefits.

Nothing… not drugs, not poverty, not urban decay, nor lack of educational opportunities… has contributed more to the disintegration of the black family unit in America than the restrictions of the AFDC program. As an unintended consequence of AFDC, marriage was discouraged, fathers were forced out of their homes, and single-parent welfare mothers found they could increase their monthly income by simply having more babies. As a result, we now have a society in which three out of four black babies are born out of wedlock, and where black mothers, unable to discipline their fatherless children, find so many of their young men either imprisoned, addicted to drugs, or the victims of gang violence.

Far too many young black men are like Michael Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, who told the press that his friend was shot to death by a white police officer as he walked toward the officer with his hands in the air. When he gets before a grand jury, under oath, Johnson may have a different story to tell. However, Johnson’s 15 minutes of fame may cost him dearly. When police ran a background check on him they found that he was wanted on an outstanding felony warrant in Jefferson City, Missouri. In that case, Johnson was arrested for theft, lied about his identity, and failed to appear in court on his trial date. How will such young men ever be able to enter the work force as reliable and valued employees? By their own actions, they have thrown away any chance of ever realizing the American Dream. How would they answer that question found on most job applications, which asks, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”

The second major tipping point in black history was the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, striking down the “separate but equal” concept in public education, followed closely by the War on Poverty of the Kennedy-Johnson era. It was then that Democrats resigned themselves to the notion that their century-old campaign to oppress blacks through violence and threats of violence was at an end. Instead, they found it politically expedient to simply buy the allegiance of black people with funds from the public treasury.

al sharpton angry 2

Reverend Al Sharpton.

Accordingly, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, enacted a vast array of social welfare programs designed to mollify blacks and to capture their votes for Democrat candidates. At that juncture, blacks had two well-defined paths to choose from: 1) They could choose what conservatives and Republicans offered: equal opportunities in jobs and education, hard work, and perseverance… the time-honored road to the American Dream, or 2) They could choose the “free lunch” that Democrats offered. Unfortunately, under the self-defeating leadership of race hustlers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, blacks entered into a “devils bargain” with the Democratic Party, choosing the “free lunch” alternative.

It was pure cynicism on the part of white Democrats. In his well-documented book, Inside the White House, historian Ronald Kessler quotes Lyndon Johnson as he justified his support for civil rights legislation to two Democratic governors on board Air Force One. Johnson is quoted as saying, “I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”

The only price blacks had to pay for all the free money, food stamps, subsidized housing, free healthcare, and preferential treatment in jobs and higher education was to pull the Democrat lever on Election Day. Since that time, blacks have consistently given 90-95 percent of their votes to Democrats. Yet, 61 years after Brown v. Board of Education, and in spite of endless Democratic promises of “better times,” blacks have seen little social and economic progress.

So we should not be surprised that, after many decades of being told by liberals and Democrats that they are “victims” of rich whites and business owners, blacks sometimes throw tantrums like spoiled children. Frankly, I’d be angry too if someone made the same promises to me, over and over again, for a half century or more, and I could find no evidence that they’d delivered on those promises. So is it any wonder that, because of all the broken promises and unfulfilled expectations, we now find a sub-culture in which far too many blacks, by their own choices, fail to take advantage of the educational and job opportunities available to them? Instead, we find millions of urban blacks consumed by a seething anger and a sense of crushing hopelessness.

If black parents, at the time of the two major tipping points describe above, had insisted that their children do their homework every night; that they be in school every day; that they always behave themselves, both inside and outside the classroom; and that, once they’ve entered the workforce, they always give their employers at least eight hours of their best effort in exchange for eight hours pay, African-Americans would be far down the road, socially and economically, from where they are today. But that’s not what happened. Instead, blacks have wasted more than half a century of progress cradled in the smothering embrace of liberals and Democrats who were interested in them only for the electoral majorities they helped produce on Election Day.

ferguson suicide

For a larger view click on the image. Cartoon by Ramirez.

Because of their fawning obeisance to the liberal cause, blacks have dug a hole for themselves that will be all but impossible to climb out of. To do so would first require that they have what it takes to admit that their political allegiances have been misplaced. But they’re not likely to do that anytime soon. Instead, we find them doubling down on their support for Democrats. And while they’ve paid a heavy price for their fealty to the Democrat Party, forfeiting their political independence and their ability to think for themselves, along with much of their pride, their dignity, and their self respect, they should not be holding their breath waiting for Republicans to enter into a bidding war with Democrats for their hearts, their minds, and their votes. Unlike Democrats, Republicans have a fondness for honesty and integrity in politics, and, unlike Democrats, they will never adopt bribery as a strategic element of their national platform.

By promising them cradle-to-grave economic security, Lyndon Johnson promised that he’d have blacks voting Democratic for the next two hundred years. If that’s true, and if blacks fail to get new leadership willing to speak the truth to them, they will have another 150 years of empty promises to endure. Unfortunately, we have a black man in the White House who seems to think that it is his job, not to unite the races, but to find new and creative ways of dividing Americans along racial and economic lines. So long as blacks continue to believe that he is on their side and that he is trying to do what’s best for them, they’ll just have to go on being angry.