In the immortal words of former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, “to every man there comes a time when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a great and mighty work; unique to him and fitted to his talents; what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be his finest hour.”
The Republican Party is currently being tapped on the shoulder and being asked to do “a great and mighty work, unique to them and fitted to their talents.”
They are being tapped on the shoulder by the Black community who are begging the Republican Party to give them a reason to vote Republican in next year’s presidential election.
The Black community gave Obama 94% of its vote in 2008, not just because he was Black; but because he said he was “change we could believe in.”
Obama said he would get the U.S. out of all these “unnecessary” wars; indirectly giving Blacks the impression that he would then redirect the money spent on war to dealing with the high Black unemployment rate, the lack of access to capital for Black entrepreneurs, shoring up the failing schools within the Black community, both secondary and college.
Six and a half years after Obama was “tapped on the shoulder;” he has indeed been found “unqualified and unprepared for the moment that could have been his (and America’s) finest hour.”
By any and all objective measurements, the Obama presidency has been an abject failure for Blacks: double digit unemployment, declining home ownership, shrinking net worth, decreasing college enrollment, especially at Black colleges, and non-existent government contracting opportunities for Black businesses just to name a few.
Republicans still have time to show the Black community that the party is prepared for this moment that could be its finest hour, but time is running out.
They need to start with something very simple: tell the Black community in no uncertain terms, that they are wanted and welcomed in the Republican Party.
Then the Congressional leadership must convene a series of private meetings with “the right” Blacks in education, business, the clergy. This is not to be confused with them meeting with Blacks that they are “comfortable” with.
Republicans have a history of favoring Blacks who will tell them what they want to hear, versus Blacks who will tell them what they need to hear.
Obama has done more to destroy Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) than any other person in this country’s history with the policies coming out of his Department of Education. What are Congressional Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to repair this damage?
Government contracting opportunities for Black entrepreneurs has all but dried up under Obama. Banks refuse to loan money to many small business owners. What are Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to change this?
The Black church is furious with Obama over his aggressive push for homosexual entitlements and his refusal to protect their commitment to faith if they receive government funds for after school activities for their church member’s kids. What are Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to protect a church’s right to freely practice their faith without government interference?
Obama has intentionally done everything in his power to drive a wedge between Blacks and his administration. There is no poll that can accurately measure the disappointment and frustration Blacks have with Obama.
They are literally begging the Republican Party to give them substantive reasons to vote for them. But they first must be made to feel welcomed in the party.
The party must build relationships with the more than 200 Black newspapers in the country and spend advertising dollars with them. The party must stop being afraid to challenge the NAACP and the National Urban League when they are advocating liberal policies that will continue to adversely affect the Black community.
They must establish a surrogate program of “credible Black Republicans” that can represent the party on various radio and TV shows. The party has shown an extreme amount of incompetence and a total lack of understanding when it comes to branding the party within the Black community.
During presidential elections, Republicans average about nine percent of the Black vote. That’s with doing nothing. Just imagine what can happen with a little effort. Realistically it is very doable to get between 15-20% of the Black vote next year; but only if the party starts now with constructive engagement with the Black community, Black media, and Black organizations.
What a tragedy if this moment also finds the Republican Party “unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be its finest hour.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Black-Business-Woman.jpg469639Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2015-04-14 08:38:242015-04-14 08:38:24Blacks Are Begging the Republican Party
Last week I couldn’t help but watch with sadness the National Urban League’s annual “State of Black America” report being released at a press conference. This was their 39th annual report. According to their press release, “it has become the most highly-anticipated benchmarks and sources for thought leadership around racial equality in America across economics (including employment, income and housing), education, health, social justice and civic engagement. Each edition of the State of Black America contains thoughtful commentary and insightful analysis from leading figures and thought leaders in politics, the corporate arena, NGOs, academia and popular culture.
The theme of the 2015 State of Black America¨ “Save Our Cities: Education, Jobs + Justice” conveys the urgency of focus around each of these areas and their interconnectedness in our ongoing quest for full equality in America.
So, what is the state of Black America in 2015? In short, on many fronts, Black America remains in crisis—and we see justice challenged at every turn.”
As you might guess, I have a different point of view.
The state of Black America in 2015 is not in crisis; but rather the state of the “media appointed Black leadership” is in crisis. This includes organizations and people like the National Urban League (headed by Marc Morial), National Action Network (headed by Al Sharpton), the NAACP (headed by Cornell Brooks), and the Congressional Black Caucus (headed by Democratic Congressman G.K Butterfield of North Carolina).
All of the above groups and their “media appointed leaders” have one thing in common: they all are vestiges of the Democratic Party. They are all card-carrying members of the Democratic Party and all of their proposed solutions to what ails the Black community come straight out of Democratic talking points.
The interesting thing is that these groups and their leadership are totally out of step with the grassroots within the Black community.
Blacks consistently support marriage between a man and a woman; and school choice and vouchers more than any other group. But this group’s “leadership” has been willingly hijacked by the fringe left at the expense of the very people they claim to represent.
The saddest part of watching Morial’s press conference last week was that he refused to state the obvious—that the past six years under Obama, America’s first Black president, has been an unmitigated disaster for Blacks.
Mr. Obama’s campaign theme in 2008 was “Hope and Change.” Now, after six years, people, especially Blacks, are saying they have no hope that he changes. Mr. Obama is the first president in the history of the U.S. to deliberately ignore his largest voting bloc — the Black community.
We are 13 percent of the population and gave Mr. Obama 96 percent and 94 percent of our vote in 2008 and 2012, respectively. In 2012, the Black voter participation rate (66.2 percent) was higher than overall turnout (58 percent) and, for the first time in the history of the U.S., higher than the White rate (64.1 percent). So, where is the “voter suppression” that liberals keep talking about?
If Mr. Obama was a corporation, his largest shareholders would be: Blacks, Whites, Latinos and Asians. In capital markets, dividend payouts are distributed according to percentage of ownership, from the highest to the lowest. On this principle, Blacks should be the largest recipient of Mr. Obama’s largess. But in typical Democratic fashion, Blacks don’t even get crumbs from the table.
The biggest beneficiaries of Mr. Obama’s presidency are: homosexuals (an estimated 2 percent of the population), illegals, Hispanics and Whites. I challenge my readers to name one thing Mr. Obama has done “specifically” to benefit the Black community — the largest shareholder in “Obama Inc.” If Black voters were shareholders in “Obama Inc.,” they could have gone to court and sued for fraud and breach of contract — and prevailed.
The Black community had every expectation that Mr. Obama would provide “targeted” remedies to address seemingly intractably high unemployment within our community. Instead, the Black unemployment rate rose from 10.3 in January of this year to 10.4% last month; yet the national rate fell from 5.7% to 5.5% during the same period–and not a word from this president.
Blacks had every right to expect Mr. Obama to be supportive of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Instead, the HBCU community and its students have been devastated under this president; but yet they continue to swear their allegiance to Obama’s presidency.
According to the Urban League’s own numbers, “the median African American household income was $34, 815, or only 60 percent of the $57,684 for white households. Blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to live in poverty.
The median black wealth is $6,314 compared with $110,500 for whites, meaning the median black household has only 6 cents for every dollar the median white household possesses.”
These negative indices didn’t begin under Obama, but there is no denying that they have accelerated during the past six years. If we had a White president presiding over these types of economic numbers, Democrat or Republican, Blacks would be screaming to the high heavens about the state of the Black community.
The first thing Blacks must do is to accept the fact that Obama is the problem, but we all know that will not happen. The state of Black America is denial.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/state-of-denial.jpg391640Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2015-03-24 15:38:332015-03-25 09:23:36Blacks Are in Denial About Obama
In Dallas, Texas, the newly formed Huey Newton Gun Club marches in the streets bearing assault rifles and AR-15s. “This is perfectly legal!” the club leader shouts. “Justice for Michael Brown! Justice for Eric Garner! … Black power! Black power! Black power! Black power!”
Meanwhile, closer to Washington, DC, the venerable National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) responds to the fatal shooting of two New York City police officers in December by repeating its call for tougher gun-control laws.
How, then, do black Americans feel about guns?
They are divided on the issue, as are Americans generally. But that doesn’t mean they’re evenly divided. The 21st-century NAACP represents what one black scholar calls “the modern orthodoxy of stringent gun control,” whereas the members of the Huey Newton Gun Club are a minority within a minority, as were the Black Panthers of the 1960s, from whose founder the gun club takes its name.
It turns out, however, that the gun-toting resistance may better represent the traditional majority among the American descendants of enslaved Africans — including the original NAACP.
Peaceful people with guns
An older and deeper tradition of armed self-defense “has been submerged,” writes scholar Nicholas Johnson, “because it seems hard to reconcile with the dominant narrative of nonviolence in the modern civil-rights movement.”
It is the same tension modern-day progressives see in libertarians’ stated principles. Advocates of the freedom philosophy not only see our principles as compatible with gun rights; we see those rights as an extension of the principles. For a government (or anyone else) to take guns away from peaceful people requires the initiation of force.
“But,” progressive friends may object, “how can you talk of peaceful people with guns?”
What sounds absurd to them is clear to the libertarian: the pursuit of “anything peaceful” is not the same as pacifism. There is no contradiction in exercising a right of self-defense while holding a principle of nonaggression. In other words, we believe peaceful people ought not initiate force, but we don’t rule out defending ourselves against aggressors. And while a few libertarians are also full-blown pacifists who reject even defensive violence, that does not mean they advocate denying anyone their right to armed self-defense (especially as such a denial would require threatening violence).
The black tradition of armed self-defense
For more than a hundred years, black Americans exemplified the distinction above when it came to gun rights. The paragon of black nonviolence, Martin Luther King Jr., explained it eloquently:
Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.
King not only supported gun rights in theory; he sought to exercise those rights in practice. After his home was firebombed on January 30, 1956, King applied for a permit to keep a concealed gun in his car. The local (white) authorities denied his application, claiming he had not shown “good cause” for needing to carry a firearm.
Modern advocates of gun-control laws will point out that King ultimately regretted his personal history with guns, seeing them as contrary to his commitment to nonviolence, but King understood that his pacifism was not in conflict with anyone else’s right to self-defense.
According to his friend and fellow activist Andrew Young, “Martin’s attitude was you can never fault a man for protecting his home and his wife. He saw the Deacons as defending their homes and their wives and children.” The Deacons for Defense and Justice was a private and well-armed organization of black men who advocated gun rights and protected civil rights activists. Even after the Deacons became a source of embarrassment to many in the nonviolence movement, King maintained his support.
“Martin said he would never himself resort to violence even in self-defense,” Young explained, “but he would not demand that of others. That was a religious commitment into which one had to grow.”
While King may have come to see his strategic nonviolence as being of a piece with personal pacifism, most activists in the civil rights movement saw no contradiction between nonviolent strategy and well-armed self-defense.
“Because nonviolence worked so well as a tactic for effecting change and was demonstrably improving their lives,” writes Charles E. Cobb Jr., a former field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), “some black people chose to use weapons to defend the nonviolent Freedom Movement. Although it is counterintuitive, any discussion of guns in the movement must therefore also include substantial discussion of nonviolence, and vice versa.”
Voting-rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, for example, advised blacks to confront white hatred and abuse with compassion — “Baby you just got to love ’em. Hating just makes you sick and weak.” But when asked how she survived when white supremacists so often grew violent, Hamer replied, “I’ll tell you why. I keep a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom and the first cracker even look like he wants to throw some dynamite on my porch won’t write his mama again.”
In Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms, Johnson shows that the attitudes of King and Hamer go back for well over a century in the writings, speeches, and attitudes of black leaders, even when their libertarian attitude toward firearms was at odds with the philosophy of their white allies.
Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave and the most famous black leader of the 19th century, rejected the pacifism of his white abolitionist supporters when he suggested that a good revolver was a Negro’s best response to slave catchers.
Harriet Tubman, the celebrated conductor of the Underground Railroad, offered armed protection to the escaped slaves she led to freedom, even as they sought sanctuary in the homes of Quakers and other pacifist abolitionists.
Lest you think religious devotion divided the black community on this subject, a mass church gathering in New York City in the mid-19th century resolved that escaped slaves should resist recapture “with the surest and most deadly weapons.”
W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the cofounders of the NAACP in 1909, wrote of his own response to white race riots in the South: “I bought a Winchester double-barreled shotgun and two dozen rounds of shells filled with buckshot. If a white mob had stepped on the campus where I lived I would without hesitation have sprayed their guts over the grass.”
If that sounds like simple bloodlust, consider that Du Bois outlined for his readers an understanding of armed violence that should resonate with advocates of the nonaggression principle: “When the mob moves, we propose to meet it with bricks and clubs and guns. But we must tread here with solemn caution. We must never let justifiable self-defense against individuals become blind and lawless offense against all white folk. We must not seek reform by violence.”
Du Bois was not at odds with the larger organization for which he worked. “While he extolled self-defense rhetorically in the Crisis,” writes Johnson, “the NAACP as an organization expended time, talent, and treasure to uphold the principle on behalf of black folk who defended themselves with guns. That fight consumed much of the young organization’s resources.” Yes, the NAACP originally devoted itself to defending precisely those same rights that it now consistently threatens.
These examples all predate the nonviolent civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s. But as King’s own words show us, support for armed self-defense continued well into the civil rights era. In fact, Charles Cobb argues in This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible, the success of the civil rights movement depended on well-armed blacks in the South. Cobb writes that the “willingness to use deadly force ensured the survival not only of countless brave men and women but also of the freedom struggle itself.” The victories of the civil rights movement, Cobb insists, “could not have been achieved without the complementary and still underappreciated practice of armed self-defense.”
Even Rosa Parks, quiet icon of both civil rights and nonviolent resistance, wrote of how her campaign of peaceful civil disobedience was sustained by many well-armed black men. Recalling the first meeting of activists held at her house, Parks wrote, “I didn’t even think to offer them anything — refreshments or something to drink.… With the table so covered with guns, I don’t know where I would’ve put any refreshments.” The guns didn’t go away after her victory in the Supreme Court. “The threatening telephone calls continued.… My husband slept with a gun nearby for a time.”
The origins of gun control, public and private
In contrast to the rich black history of peacefully bearing arms, the earliest advocates of gun control in America were Southern whites determined to disarm all blacks. In 1680, the Virginia General Assembly enacted a law that made it illegal for any black person to carry any type of weapon — or even potential weapon. In 1723, Virginia law specifically forbade black people to possess “any gun, powder, shot, or any club, or any other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive.”
These were laws from the colonial era, but even after the Second Amendment, we see the same pattern: Southern whites who reacted to the abolition of slavery “through a variety of state and local laws, restricting every aspect of Negro life, from work to travel, to property rights.” Johnson explains that “gun prohibition was a common theme of these ‘Black Codes.’”
Where the Black Codes fell short in their effectiveness, the Ku Klux Klan and an array of similar organizations “rose during Reconstruction to wage a war of Southern redemption.… Black disarmament was part of their common agenda.”
But while many white people were opposed to the idea of black people with guns, black support for gun rights, according to Johnson, “dominated into the 1960s, right up to the point where the civil rights movement boiled over into violent protests and black radicals openly defied the traditional boundary against political violence.”
That violent and radical turn was the catalyst for a dramatic transition, as the movement ushered in a new black political class. Rising within a progressive political coalition that included the newly minted national gun-control movement, the bourgeoning black political class embraced gun bans.… By the mid-1970s, these influences had supplanted the generations-old black tradition of arms with a modern orthodoxy of stringent gun control.
Top-down versus bottom-up
In every large group, there is a division of interests, understanding, and goals between an elite and the rank and file. In American history, those of African descent have been no different in this regard. But for most of that history, the black leadership and the black folks on the ground have been in agreement about the importance and legitimacy of armed self-defense — and equally suspicious of all attempts by any political class to disarm average people.
According to the new orthodoxy, however, any preference that black people demonstrate for personal firearms cannot represent the race — only a criminal or misguided subset. So the black political class consistently supports disarming the citizenry, both black and white — although remarkably, some are even willing to target gun bans to black neighborhoods.
But while the black elite tries to plan what’s best for the black rank and file, some individuals are rejecting the plan and helping to drive history in a different direction. “Recent momentous affirmations of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” writes Johnson, “were led by black plaintiffs, Shelly Parker and Otis McDonald, who complained that stringent gun laws in Washington, DC, and Chicago left them disarmed against the criminals who plagued their neighborhoods.”
What do we make of these rebels? Are they traitors to their race? Are they dupes of the majority-white gun lobby? Or were they, as Cobb describes Southern blacks of the 1960s, “laying claim to a tradition that has safeguarded and sustained generations of black people in the United States”?
Neither Parker nor McDonald will be nominated for an NAACP Image Award any time soon, but perhaps they represent a different black consciousness — a more individualist, even libertarian, tradition with a stronger grounding in black history.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/20150203_CivilRightsGunsdetail.png313631Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-02-06 15:59:082015-02-06 15:59:58Armed and Black: The history of African-American self-defense by B.K. Marcus
Last week’s midterm elections were historic. Republicans regained control of the U.S. Senate, increased their majority in the House, and expanded their majority among governors. While these gains were historic and impressive, there was a bigger story that no one is talking about.
According to early polling figures, Black participation in this year’s midterm was 12 percent, down slightly from 13 percent in 2010. Eighty-nine percent of Blacks voted for Democratic congressional candidates and 10 percent voted for Republicans. This year’s figures match the 2010 midterm figures for Democrats and represents a slight increase in support for Republicans, up from 9 percent in 2010 to 10 percent in 2014.
In Illinois, incoming Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner received 6 percent of the Black vote. He actively courted the Black vote, but did it the wrong way. For example, how many people in Illinois know that Rauner has endowed a full professor’s chair at historically Black Morehouse College in Atlanta? There was no reason why he should not have earned upwards of 25 percent of the Black vote with his history in the Black community. But, as with many White Republicans, his White consultants and staff thought they knew more about the Black community than Blacks.
The exit polls further noted that 11 percent of Black millennials, 12 percent of Gen Xers, and 7 percent of those ages 45-64 voted Republican. The RNC, under the leadership of Reince Priebus, is the only Republican entity that “gets it” when it comes to the Black vote. The House and Senate campaign committees and the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) are still living in the dark ages when it comes to the Black community.
I know Republicans are still in love with this idiotic notion of being “colorblind,” but if they can’t look around at their staffs and realize that they are surrounded by Whites, then they have a real problem. Either they are truly colorblind or just blind to people of color.
So while last week’s national elections were historic for Republicans, they were not transformative. However, what happened in Ohio was not only transformative, but it was also a tectonic shift in the political landscape of America.
Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich received 26 percent of the Black vote. He was endorsed by the Call & Post, Ohio’s leading Black newspaper. In their editorial of endorsement, they listed two specific examples of how Kasich addressed issues of concern to the Black community. Kasich expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income Ohioans and supported set-asides for minority contractors on the Opportunity Corridor construction project in Cleveland.
According to the newspaper, “Opportunities like the Opportunity Corridor usually means ‘inopportunity’ for us [the Black community]…Of the $267 million in construction contracts on the Corridor, Kasich set aside a staggering 20 percent for minority-owned and disadvantaged firms. That’s about $22.7 million dollars ‘specifically’ for Black-owned businesses, not to mention an additional half a million dollars thrown in for job training of area residents. And even this came with some maneuvering from him on our behalf with the federal government and Turnpike Board.”
Contrast that with Obama’s record of issuing fewer Small Business Administration (SBA) loans to Blacks than George W. Bush.
Ohio’s is home to the political story of the year.
So, to the House and Senate campaign committees and the RGA, now we have empirical data that shows Blacks will vote Republican if given a reason. But when GOP candidate continue to make racist insults or, in the case of Illinois governor-elect Bruce Rauner, fail to mention things they’ve done that will resonate with African Americans, the GOP will not attract Black voters who are disgruntled with the Democratic Party and looking for an alternative.
Obviously, left to their own devices, GOP candidates can’t do this on their own. That’s why they need to look beyond the White male consultant who offer bad advice on how to reach the Black community. I ask my Republican friends: When will you begin to hire Black consultants to cultivate this fertile movement in the Black community? When will you hire Blacks who are not ashamed of their Blackness for staff positions? When will you spend money with Black media buyers?
Republicans hire more Black Democrats to work their campaigns than they do Black Republicans. Years ago, I committed to never voting for or working with any Republican that didn’t have any Blacks on their staffs or as consultants; and I have made good on that commitment.
Republicans should make a public commitment to broaden their base to truly look like America. If Republicans transformed the way they interact with the Black community, especially by using Black Republicans and Black political operatives, that indeed would be both historic and transformational.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/black-vote.jpg392638Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2014-11-12 06:30:522014-11-12 19:03:25Republicans Can Make Headway with Blacks
The closer Election Day gets, the more confused I am by the behavior of Democrats. For the past several years, there has been this false obsession with the importance of the Hispanic vote. All you hear in the media and from the political pundits is “the Hispanic vote, the Hispanic vote, the Hispanic vote.”
Democrats have been throwing amnesty at illegals, giving away Supreme Court seats to Hispanics (Sotomayor), and making it easy for illegals to take American jobs.
It’s almost as though the Black vote doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter. It seems as though Democrats are saying why pay attention or pander to Blacks; they know Blacks will always give them their vote and not expect or demand anything in return.
The Hispanic vote is only influential in a few states: California, New Mexico, or Nevada to name a few. They tend to congregate in large numbers in a small number of states.The Black vote is wide and deep, especially in the South and Northeast.
Hispanics are approximately 16 percent of the nation’s population, but only 10 percent of eligible voters. Even worse, only 7 percent vote.The Hispanic population of eligible voter is smaller than any other group (voting age population or VAP). The VAP for Whites is more than 77 percent, for Blacks 67 percent, and for Asians 52 percent.
As they do every two years, the Democrats have their biennial epiphany about the Black vote because they need Blacks to save them at the ballot box come next week.
Before I get into the Democrat’s latest epiphany and what it looks like; let me remind you of what Obama said about Black people in 2012 during an interview with Black Enterprise (BE) magazine. They asked him about the criticism he had received about ignoring Blacks and Black businesses. His response was, “I’m not the president of black America. I’m the president of the United States of America.” In other words, he will not engage in targeted solutions to problems that are unique to the Black community like the double digit unemployment rate (11.6 percent). He continued by saying, “a rising tide lifts all boats.”
So Obama is saying what’s good for America is good for Blacks and vice versa.
If this is the case, then can someone explain to me why Obama and the Democrats, fearing defeat in the Senate, are suddenly are spending $ 1 million dollars “specifically” targeting Blacks on radio and newspapers? Why are they not taking the same advertisements they are running in White media and use the same for Black radio and newspapers?
In other words, Democrats will “target” Blacks for purposes of an election; but won’t do the same thing in the area of legislation and public policy. If Obama is “president of all of America,” why is he “targeting” Blacks regarding the upcoming elections? Won’t people “think” he is Black? Won’t people “think” he is being partial to Black media? Of course he is and it’s the smart thing to do. So, if Obama and Democrats can “target” Blacks for political ads, for political purposes; could they not also “target” Blacks with specific legislation and executive orders to deal with the double digit unemployment rate? The answer is a resounding yes. But Obama and Democrats don’t value the Black vote; they only “use” the Black vote.
But yet, this is the same president and party that refuse specific actions for Blacks, while showering homosexuals and illegals with every political favor under the sun; and they are now targeting Black radio and newspapers in the last 30 days of the election because they are desperate.
According to the nonpartisan research group, Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats are expected to spend upwards of $ 1.76 billion for this year’s elections; yet they only allocate $ 1 million for Black media in the last 30 days of the campaign. You do the math. This shows how little value they place on the Black vote – until it’s too late. These ads are being run on radio shows hosted by Tom Joyner, D.L. Hughley, Ricky Smiley, Al Sharpton, and Joe Madison. There are 24 months in an elections cycle, but Democrats only spend money with these Blacks for 30 days of that cycle.
The question is also where they spend this money. Do they actually think comedians and buffoons can influence the Black vote. But, then again, how appropriate that the Democrats think that comedians can get Blacks to vote because the past six years have been one big joke played on the Black community.
Winston Churchill once said: “To every man there comes a time in his life when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a great and mighty thing; unique to him and fitted to his talents. What a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be his finest hour.”
Barack Obama was tapped on the shoulder and given the chance to be the first black president of these United States. When President Obama assumed office 6 years ago, he faced a collapsing economy, a world with seemingly endless conflicts, a citizenry very unsure of their future. After years of war and chaos, America wanted someone who would inspire the nation to return to greatness, someone who would reassure the nation that everything would be alright.
Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was indeed very inspirational and historic. He is the gold standard for presidential campaigns. He ran the closest thing to a perfect campaign, twice — 2008 and 2012. He is the best campaigner in the country’s history — yes, even better than Bill Clinton. It is unheard of not to have turnover at the highest levels of a presidential campaign. This never happened in the Obama campaigns.
How can such a master campaigner be such a horrible president? How can such a campaigner be such a totally inept manager of the federal government?
As president, Mr. Obama shows none of the passion he showed as a candidate; as president, he shows none of the discipline that helped him run a near-perfect campaign; as president, he seems neither willing nor able to build coalitions to move America forward.
Mr. Obama’s campaign theme was “Hope and Change.” Now, after six years, people, especially blacks, are saying they hope he changes. Mr. Obama is the first president in the history of the U.S. to deliberately ignore his largest voting bloc — the black community.
We are 13 percent of the population and gave Mr. Obama 96 percent and 94 percent of our vote in 2008 and 2012, respectively. In 2012, the black voter participation rate (66.2 percent ) was higher than overall turnout (58 percent) and, for the first time in the history of the U.S., higher than the white rate (64.1 percent).
If Mr. Obama was a corporation, his largest shareholders would be: blacks, whites, Latinos and Asians. In capital markets, dividend payouts are distributed according to percentage of ownership, from the highest to the lowest. On this principle, blacks should be the largest recipient of Mr. Obama’s largesse. But in typical Democratic fashion, blacks don’t even get crumbs from the table.
The biggest beneficiaries of Mr. Obama’s presidency are: homosexuals (an estimated 2 percent of the population), illegals and whites.
I challenge my readers to name one thing Mr. Obama has done “specifically” to benefit the black community — the largest shareholder in “Obama Inc.” If black voters were shareholders in “Obama Inc.,” they could have gone to court and sued for fraud and breach of contract — and prevailed.
The black community had every expectation that Mr. Obama would provide “targeted” remedies to address seemingly intractably high unemployment within our community. Instead, the black unemployment rate remains at double digit levels (11.6 percent ) — and not a word from this president.
Blacks had every right to expect Mr. Obama to be supportive of historically black colleges and universities (HBCU). Instead, the HBCU community and its students have been devastated under this president; so much so that several black educational groups are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the Obama administration.
A recent Associated Press-GfK poll indicated that even Democrats have lost faith in Mr. Obama and his ability to govern. According to this poll, only 27 percent of Democrats are confident the government can keep them safe from terrorist attacks.
Mr. Obama used to be able to make Americans feel good simply by giving one of his patented rousing speeches; but by now, most Americans have tuned him out because they don’t believe anything he or his government has to say.
Mr. Obama said Ebola would never reach our shores, now it’s here. He said the border was secure, but you have illegals streaming across the border with all kinds of diseases that they refuse to disclose to the American people. He said the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous, popular reaction to an anti-Muslim video, but of course everyone now knows it was a terrorist attack. He said you could keep your own doctor, yet he admitted that he willfully lied.
The handwriting is on the wall, Mr. Obama’s presidency is over! As it is written in the Bible in the Book of Daniel 5:25-27: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. This is the interpretation of the thing: Mene; God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Tekel; Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.”
In what could have been his and America’s finest hour, Mr. Obama has been found “unprepared and unqualified for the moment.”
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AmericanCurrentSee.com. The featured image is of job seekers waiting in line at a 2011 Congressional Black Caucus job fair. AP Photo/Atlanta Journal & Constitution, Bob Andres.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/unemployment-benefits_lea_c0-182-4320-2698_s800x466.jpg372640Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2014-10-21 05:53:442014-10-21 06:01:53Obama Turns Back on Blacks, Fails Test of Loyalty
Folks, this crap has gotten serious. Our fellow Americans, black and white, are suffering and even dying because the elites in politics and the mainstream media have been selling false narratives (lies) to black youths for decades.
A recent article exposed the unreported phenomenon that mobs of hundreds of black youths are wreaking havoc in major cities, attacking innocent whites, including old men and women. They are stealing and destroying property at will; without getting arrested I might add.
Why are these black youths so filled with racial hate? Why do they feel justified in their actions?
I throw the blame at the feet of the elites with big stages and big microphones who hate America as founded; the let’s-help-Obama-fundamentally-transform the country crowd. Using their powerful platforms in public schools, Hollywood, TV and news outlets, elites have been spreading their evil gospel of victimhood, division and hate.
When you consistently tell black kids via the media and in class rooms that white men and cops exploit every opportunity to shoot them, that all opposition to Obama’s agenda is racially motivated, that all wealth was stolen from the poor, that all of their failures and woes are due to white privilege, how on earth could you not expect black youths to hate whites and feel justified taking back everything stolen from them?
We whine about MSM bias. But the problem is far more physically dangerous and tyrannical. How long will we allow self-important elite vipers to control us, dictating what is acceptable public opinion via their consensus, bullying Americans into submission?
Everyone knows if you dare challenge the elites’ view of an issue, your derriere is grass. It has gotten really outrageous and scary, folks. If you buck these people, you risk total destruction, the loss of your job or your career. And for good measure, they drench you with a bucket of foul smelling public humiliation.
No longer are Americans allowed to think or behave according to our conscience or faith. Elites all over TV have decreed that we commoners must surrender our will to them. Period.
A few examples.
The elites’ consensus is pro football player Adrian Peterson spanking his child with a switch is child abuse, and they are demanding that Peterson pay dearly. Most members of the elite believe you should never spank a child.
Proverbs 23:13 says, “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die.”
When I was a kid, Mr. Charley abused his grandson Charles, and all us kids in the neighborhood knew it. All us neighborhood kids were spanked by our parents with belts and switches, but Charles endured beatings.
One Sunday morning, I did something worthy of a spanking. Dad did not want to spank me before preaching his sermon at church. He promised to deliver justice after church.
I completely forgot dad’s promise and was enjoying a delightful Sunday afternoon when dad summoned me to their bedroom. He fulfilled his promise. What a dirty trick. Just kidding — my dad was and still is wonderful.
The elite take everything to the ultimate extreme to intimidate people into agreeing with them or keeping their mouth shut. Any TV pundit not jumping on the elites’ Adrian-Peterson-is-a-child-abuser bandwagon is accused of contributing to the abuse of children.
Since 1933, the Washington, D.C. pro football team has been called the Redskins. Out of the blue, the elites’ have deemed the name as offensive as calling blacks the n-word. Wimpy sportscasters have vowed to no long say the name on the air. For crying out loud dudes, grow a spine.
Elites have decided that anything less than 100% public embrace of homosexuality is hate speech. So when Superbowl-winning coach Tony Dungy said he would not have selected the first homosexual player because the media circus would cause a huge distraction in the locker room, elites went crazy. They verbally bludgeoned Dungy and figuratively dragged his carcass through the MSM streets branding him a Christian hater.
Elites have zero tolerance for the slightest push back or disagreement once they have established their consensus on an issue.
Then there is the Ray and Janay Rice incident. The elites are demanding the head of Ray Rice delivered to them on a silver platter.
Elites are vilifying fans, incensed that they would display such insolence by wearing Rice jerseys and advocating that Rice not be banned from pro football for life. Perhaps fans are requesting a little mercy for Rice because they remember crazy, stupid, impulsive mistakes they made in their youth. I remember my stuff. But let’s not go there. Jesus said, “He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)
Check out the suffering in these comments from Mrs Rice.
“No one knows the pain that the media & unwanted options (sic) from the public has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret everyday is a horrible thing. To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his ass off for all his life just to gain ratings is a horrific (sic).”
Is this young couple receiving any sympathy from holier-than-thou paragons of compassion among the elites? No. Their attitude is screw you, Mr and Mrs Rice. This is our opportunity to extort money from the NFL and further our false narrative that women, like blacks, are routinely beaten and abused in America.
When will more Americans “get it” that the elites believe America is the greatest evil on the planet?
Rest assured, the elites will read my comments regarding Mr and Mrs Rice and attempt to brand me a hater of women. My beautiful wonderful wife of 38 years will tell them to get a life.
Do you see what we are up against folks? A 50-foot killer elite monster dictates what we can say publicly. This extremely viscous beast crushes challengers while devouring our freedom of speech and controls our behavior. The elites go happily on their way to their next A-list event, ignoring the destruction left behind in the wake of their violence and hate inspiring rhetoric (lies).
It is crucial that we stay alert and not buy into the elites’ spin or be intimidated into embracing their mandated opinions on issues.
Quoting Nancy Reagan, it is time to “just say no!”
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Adrian Peterson with his son Adrian, Jr. and is courtesy of TMZ.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Adrian-Peterson-and-his-son.jpg434631Lloyd Marcushttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Marcus2014-09-26 06:04:482014-09-26 06:07:33Attack of the 50-Foot Killer Elite Monster
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.
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.
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.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/demonstrators-defy-curfew-ferguson.jpg397639Paul R. Hollrahhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPaul R. Hollrah2014-08-28 15:32:572014-08-28 15:39:38Why Are Black People So Angry?
I’m Gonna Make A Change, For Once In My Life It’s Gonna Feel Real Good, Gonna Make A Difference Gonna Make It Right… I’m Starting With The Man In The Mirror I’m Asking Him To Change His Ways And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change
(from Michael Jackson’s hit song “Man in the Mirror”)
This song is very appropriate for the situation going on in Ferguson, Mo. Regardless of what happens during all the legal wrangling, one thing is certain: the residents of Ferguson have had all the power they ever needed to make the change they have been seeking. And they haven’t used it.
Some have argued that Ferguson is symbolic of “inner city America.” They argue that Ferguson is about racism, hopelessness, structural and systemic discrimination, and Blacks who feel helpless.
Well, it’s kind of hard to make these arguments when Blacks are almost 70 percent of Ferguson’s population. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are 14,297 Blacks and 6,206 Whites; 22 percent live in poverty; the mayor is White; there is only one Black on a 6-member city council (.096 percent); three Blacks out of 53 policemen (5.6 percent); and the St. Louis suburb is the sixth most segregated city in the U.S.
As a native of St. Louis, I worked closely with my friend, Freeman R. Bosley, Jr. in his successful efforts to become the first Black Circuit Clerk for the 22nd Judicial Circuit in 1983 and the first Black mayor in 1993 (with 66 percent of the vote). Blacks were a majority of the city; so I thoroughly understand the power of the vote.
Juxtapose this with the voting history of Ferguson. In this year’s elections, only 12.3 percent of eligible voters actually voted (17 percent White, 6 percent Black); 11.7 percent in 2013; and 8.9 percent in 2012.
How can one argue that Blacks have no power?
A more accurate statement is that Blacks have refused to exercise their power. You can’t blame that on the “White man” or “racism” or the “system.” In the Wizard of Oz, the Lion already had courage; the Tin man already had a heart, and the Scarecrow already had a brain; but they had all been so psychologically abused that they couldn’t see the power they already had. The Wizard just simply reminded them of what they already had. Upon the prompting from the Wizard, they then began to actually believe again in themselves and the power lying dormant inside of them.
Many across the country are asking: What do the residents of Ferguson want? Thus far, their response has been “justice;” meaning they want the White policeman who killed Michael Brown, Darren Wilson, indicted, convicted, and sent to jail. Well, that is out the control of any one person. The facts of what happened must be established and then let the justice system function.
The fact that Blacks have the power of the vote is undeniable. They have the power to control the political climate in Ferguson – that is no fairytale. The question is do they have the courage to look at the man in the mirror and make that change? Do they have the heart to change their apathetic approach to voting as a perpetual tribute to Michael Brown? Do they have the brains to understand the power dynamics of voting?
Just like the Wizard did nothing to change the conditions of Dorothy and her friends, there is nothing America needs to do for Ferguson that they can’t do for themselves. They have everything they need. Maybe the death of Brown will be the reminder of what has been lying dormant in the residents of Ferguson all along.
Maybe after all of the marches are over, they will be, as Fannie Lou Hamer put it, “sick and tired of being sick and tired.”
Ferguson has non-partisan elections, meaning no votes are cast based on party affiliation, but vote for the individual. The residents of Ferguson need to begin to run – and vote for – candidates who can best represent their interests. The government can provide tax credits and other tax incentives for businesses to locate to Ferguson. Social service agencies can provide job training programs. And the federal government will even help provide much needed training of their police force.
But in the end, Ferguson will have to look at the man – and the woman – in the mirror and make that change.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/man_in_the_mirror.jpg322628Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2014-08-26 17:02:552014-08-26 17:03:43Residents of Ferguson Need to Make a Change
Blacks rioting and looting in Ferguson, Missouri continues for a fifth day. We learned last night from a Missouri resident that the riots are spreading to other suburban communities and that black rioters are throwing bricks off of overpasses along U.S. Highway 70, a main route through St. Louis, MO.
The Washington Post’s Sean Sullivan reports, “Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) called the situation in Ferguson, Mo., ‘deeply troubling’ late Wednesday and announced he would change his schedule in order to visit the city on Thursday, signaling a new, more intense level of engagement than in previous days.”
Missouri residents are concerned that the riots have gotten so out of hand that Governor Nixon needs to call out the National Guard. Some say Nixon, a Democrat, won’t because he fears aggravating rioting blacks, who are a large block of Democrat voters. After the Governor visits the area he may change his mind?
Jason DeWitt from Top Right News (TRN) posted a YouTube video of one black mans view of the riots. DeWitt writes:
TRN has covered the Ferguson Riots outside St. Louis over the past 2 days, as a peaceful protest over the shooting death of a Black man by a police officer spun out of control into a violent rage. Hundreds of looters ransacked dozens of stores, including Target and WalMart, and looted and burned down a QuikTrip. Rioters shot at police and even police helicopters in the madness.
[ … ]
But with Sharpton’s trademark chant of “no justice, no peace” about to reverberate from Missouri, one Black Facebook user didn’t want to hear a word of it.
In an epic rant as a Black man against the Black rioters of Ferguson, Johnathan Gentry unleashed a very different message: “We Need to Change as Black People.”
Watch this video commentary by Johnathan Gentry:
Trystin English a black women who was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri but now lives in Florida posted her perspective on the Ferguson riots on her Facebook page.
I was born and raised in the St. Louis area, have family there and went to high school in Ferguson-Florissant School District which has delayed opening of the school year until August 18th due to the riots.
Ayn Rand wrote, ““The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.” The slogan “no justice, no peace” is an uncontested absurdity which must be contested. It promotes violence over the rule of law. That is the official ideology of far to many blacks and far to many black leaders.
Johnathan Gentry understands this when he says “We Need to Change as Black People.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ferguson-missouri.jpg347640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2014-08-14 06:31:522014-08-14 07:35:18VIDEO FROM FERGUSON, MO: All Blacks know how to do is "blame the police and white folks"
President Obama hosted the first ever U.S.-Africa Business forum last week here in Washington, DC. Leading up to the conference, the U.S. Commerce Department announced:
“On August 5, 2014, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the U.S. Department of Commerce will co-host the first-ever U.S.-Africa Business Forum, a day focused on trade and investment opportunities on the continent. The U.S.-Africa Business Forum will be part of President Obama’s U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, the first summit of its kind, and the largest event that any U.S. president has ever convened with African heads of state or government.”
I must admit that the various panels consisted of executives who all had a track record of great achievement. Panelists included Americans, Indians, Africans, and women. But, I couldn’t help but notice that there was not one Black American on any of the panels.
Not only has the first Black president continued to ignore his most loyal voting block, the Black community, but by his actions he has made it perfectly clear to African leaders that Black business leaders are totally irrelevant within the U.S.
There was not shortage of Blacks who could have fit the bill: Ken Chenault, CEO of American Express; Dick Parson, former CEO of Time Warner; Dave Steward, CEO of World Wide Technology ($ 6 billion in annual revenue); Junior Bridgeman, owner of 195 Wendys (doing more than $ 500 million in annual revenue); Bob Johnson, CEO of RLJ Holdings, who has already invested money in hotels in Liberia.
There was one panel that had five African presidents: Macky Sall (Senegal), Paul Kagame (Rwanda), Jacob Zuma (South Africa), Jakaya Kikwete ( Tanzania), and Moncef Marzouki (Tunisia). The panel was moderated by Charlie Rose. I guess the White House has never heard of Black interviewers such as Charlayne Hunter-Gault, Michelle Norris, or Gwen Ifill.
The first question Rose asked was about the ebola virus. The presidents seemed to have been quite offended by the question and pushed back that America only views Africa in terms of the negative.
The blame is totally Africa’s fault for the negative portrayal they receive in U.S. media. African presidents come to the U.S. and rarely, if ever, engage with the American media and definitely not with the Black media.
Kagame admitted as much when he told Rose, “We [must be] able to own up to our weaknesses, our mistakes and own up to our solutions and contribute to our solutions. We can’t even tell our story. We even depend on others to tell our stories which leads to distortions.”
When the president of Cameroon landed in the U.S. on his presidential jet at Andrews Air Force Base (where Obama’s presidential jet is stored), there was a huge story written about his arrival in the Washington Post. No, no it was not on the front page. No, not in the business section, But on the gossip page. There was not one mention of the president’s name. The full page story was all about the president’s wife hair. Yes, you heard right, her hair; and the author of the story was a Black female.
This is how irrelevant Africa is viewed by the U.S. media. This is what happens when African presidents and their U.S. based ambassadors have no meaningful engagement with the media.
Africa can’t continue to demand to be a player on the world’s stage in the 21st century and yet govern and lead with a 20th century mentality. In many ways, having a media strategy is just as important as having a military strategy.
Controlling how you are perceived in the global market place has a direct impact on the investment community throughout the world. One needs to look no further than Equatorial Guinea to prove my point. It is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet; and outside of the oil industry, it’s almost impossible for them to get investment in their country.
I didn’t see or hear one media interview with any of the presidents during their stay in the U.S. The daily media coverage was focused on all the traffic problems being created by the street closures because of the various presidential motorcades.
Obama spent more time discussing the unemployment rate in Africa than he has the unemployment rate within the Black community here in the U.S. He talked about targeted incentives for investment and job creation on the continent of Africa; but can’t find the time to create opportunities for Blacks here at home.
Obama even created the Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders. According to the White House, “through this initiative, young African leaders are gaining the skills and connections they need to accelerate their own career trajectories and contribute more robustly to strengthening democratic institutions, spurring economic growth, and enhancing peace and security in Africa.”
How about a similar program for Blacks in the U.S.?
EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of Yahoo News.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-WAS-Was8856057-1-1-0.jpg359640Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2014-08-12 10:54:162014-08-12 10:54:16Blacks Missing from U.S.-Africa Business Forum