Clashing Realities - How To End Racism in America

With all the talk of racism today, and all the anger, distrust and violence associated with it, it behooves us as a nation to find a way to put racism behind us. But how?

Before getting into how we can fix this, we need to determine the root cause - the REAL reason why one race feels as though they are being persecuted. Many have touched on various possible causes, but few have ever come close to getting to the bottom of it. To do that, we must face certain realities that we, ourselves may not be familiar with. Each race exists in a reality different from any other race. So I am going to ask you to put aside your biases for just a few minutes, and put yourself into one of the following scenarios.

 If you are white, put yourself in this situation:

You are born out of wedlock, and into poverty. Your father, if you even know who he is, no longer is a participant in your life - he's out of the picture. Lord only knows what your mother must do to try and support you - maybe she works 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs and has no time to raise you. Or maybe it's worse than that, with prostitution and drugs. To make matters worse, you are placed into a school that is sub-standard, and which will never prepare you for anything other than life on the streets. You learn more from members of the local gangs than you do in school.

You can see what is happening to your mother. Add everything up, and the anger builds. Anger at an unfair society that takes a baby that was born equal and turns him or her into something seen as inferior, facing hopelessness and a lack of respect for others, and even for life itself.

You see your life as hopeless, and not worth the litter in the alleys you gravitate to. And if your life has no value, then NO life has value, and it would not bother you to take the life of someone who gets in your way.

And as you fall into a life of crime, drugs, prostitution and self-loathing, you act in ways that cause other races to fear you. And when they fear you, they treat you with distrust, disrespect and loathing. And that just proves to you that you are righteous in your own hatred of them. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the other hand, if you are a minority, put yourself into this situation. You are now white for a few moments. You see what is happening in the streets. You see people who do not speak clear English, wear their pants down around their knees, hide their faces with hoodies, and engaging in the behavior mentioned above. And every day the news is filled with stories of blacks killing blacks  - thousands a year in Chicago, alone. You become incredibly leary when you encounter someone of that race, even if that person is a good person, because you do not KNOW him. The reality of life as a black man, coupled with what you see, and hear in the news has created preconceived notions as to what you might expect if you interact with them. And when fear clashes with anger, you get violence.

OK, there we have the two scenarios - in one case, there is distrust and hatred born of hopelessness. And in the other case, distrust and hatred is born of fear and what you see when faced with such a person. He hates you, and you hate him. Not because of anything you or he may have actually done, but only because of different realities clashing.

Fixing this will not be easy, nor will it happen quickly. But it CAN be fixed before another generation arrives and grows up.

First, we need leaders who will address the breakup of the family unit, and help families stay together. If, for example, a woman can collect more welfare if the father is not in the home, then there will be no man in the home. We need to change the narrative that will increase the odds of a father accepting responsibility for his children. And for those families who still do not include a father figure, we must provide one, in the form of "big brothers and sisters" and mentors.

We must make it easier for a single mother to support and care for her children - with those mentors and with free, quality day care and more support.

And we need to get certain representatives and senators to stop blocking "school choice". Every child, regardless of circumstance or neighborhood should be afforded the best K-12 education possible. A good education will do more to end the hopelessness and self-loathing that now exists in many minority communities. Dump the unions that want to keep the status quo - they are concerned only with their members - the teachers - at the expense of the children.

And our police should receive additional training to help them come to grips with possible outcomes when realities clash. Without letting their guard down, they need to be more empathetic with those whose reality is harsh.

And our leaders must never, ever "pander" to minorities. This just perpetuates the distrust and disrespect by inferring that they ARE being persecuted. If any candidate for any office resorts to pandering, do not vote for them. They should not get a single vote.

And every candidate for office should ascribe to the suggestions above, and work tirelessly to make them happen.

As for race-baiters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the not-so-Reverend Wright, we can deal with them by not empowering them or suppporting them. If anyone wants to use race to divide us, they should be ignored.

And on the other side, black leaders, families and clergy need to work tirelessly to bring an end to the black-on-black crime in their communities, and instill in their children a deeper respect for others.

And within a generation we could all but wipe out most of the root causes of racism. If minorities have hope, a family, a good education and support structure that surpasses that of gangs and drugs, and if the rest of us work tirelessly to help make that happen, America will again be the "Shining Beacon" for this troubled world.



If you find any value in this post, please pass it on, because it will take a lot of us to make it happen.

/

The Dallas Debacle - How To Stop The Carnage

In the wake of the horrible tragedy in Dallas the other day, where 12 police officers were shot, America seems to be confused as to how we can stop this kind of carnage. What confuses me is why so many people are confused as to what can be done to stop it, when the shooter, himself, told us where the blame lies, and how to fix it.

To hear many (particularly on the left, but to a lesser extent on the right) the blames lies in gun ownership, because the victims were shot, or in cases like the cop who shoots an unarmed black person, the blame lies with "rampant racism". In other instances, they claim the fault lies in income inequality, or with the wealthy.

Neither guns nor racism nor wealth are to blame. Those are nothing more than "staw men" designed to get us to NOT focus on the real issue.  All of these tragedies are caused by hatred, distrust, disrespect and disdain for certain groups of people. And while that, in some cases, is racism (on both sides), that is still not the cause. If we want to put a stop to such tragedies, we need to address the issue that CAUSES that hatred and disdain - the rhetoric on the left that stokes the flames, and douses an ember with gasoline, often for their own personal gain in the form of power. It is, quite simply, the essence of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and Saul Alinkski's "Rules for Radicals". Stir the pot. Divide people. Get them angry and hateful and fighting each other so you can go in and pick up all the marbles.

When a politician, for example, uses a tragedy like Dallas or Ferguson to push their political agenda, they are fanning the flames - they are pumping the gas when they, as leaders, should be pumping the brakes. When that politician panders to a specific group, whether it be blacks, hispanics or the poor, that politician is intentionally creating a rift, a division, among Americans. They are using an "Us versus Them" strategy to divide and conquer. And in doing so, for the express purpose of getting those groups to vote for them, they are laying the groundwork for a "Dallas Debacle".

When you hear a politician, or someone in the media (who does this to get ratings - a different type of vote) blaming guns, or cops, or the wealthy, or anything other than the rhetoric that divides us, then you are hearing the very people who are to blame.

Putting a stop to these tragedies is as simple as putting a stop to the rhetoric that divides. And we do that at the voting booth - simply do not vote for anyone who panders for votes, or engages in rhetoric that divides instead of unites. If we keep them out of office, we take away their power to inflame. And if we stop patronizing media outlets that use that rhetoric to increase sales or ratings, then they, too, lose their power to divide us.

And if any of this makes  sense to you, you can do your part by passing this on.

"United we stand. Divided, we fall." We, and only we can decide which it will be.

/

Matt Damon Again Shows His Ignorance

OK, so this is getting absurd - Matt Damon (not unlike many Hollywood airheads) insists on proving to the world how ignorant he is. Last month he tried, unsuccessfully, to play an economist, and got it so wrong because he never bothered to do even basic research. And now he says all guns in America should be confiscated. Really?

Every single study, and all of the statistics prove a few points that Damon and his ilk are apparently unaware of (or CHOOSE to ignore). First, bad guys do not, and will not abide by laws. Anyone willing to murder fellow human beings will not be deterred by a law that says he cannot have a gun. The bad guys will ALWAYS have guns. Look at Chicago, a city with the toughest gun laws, yet every street punk and gang member has one, and the murder rate is the highest in the nation.

Next, in EVERY case where a bad guy with a gun started killing people, he or she was only stopped by a good guy with a gun. None has ever been stopped with rhetoric - or gun laws!

Follow that with the simple fact (and common sense) that criminals (predators) seek out easy marks (unarmed prey) and avoid confronting those who may be armed. This is shown most impressively by the fact that every - EVERY - mass shooter (either a deranged person or terrorist) has chosen to do his killing in a gun-free zone such as a mall, theater, school and the like. Imagine if the entire country was a gun-free zone!

So, let us for the moment look at America as a nation where guns are made illegal, and all honest citizens turn in their guns. Since criminals will not turn in theirs, we would have a nation where the criminals and killers will be unfettered. And even if, by some major miracle, we could confiscate all the guns from criminals, that still would not end the violence - any 10 year old can build a gun. I was only 8 when I made my first "zip gun". It's not rocket science. So criminals would STILL get guns.

And even if we could erase the technology for building guns, those intent on killing will use other methods. Remember the Boston Bombers who used pressure cookers? McVey who made a bomb from fertilizer? The maniac who used a sword? Those who use knives? Biological or chemical agents (the guy who poisoned bottles of Excedrin)? Or how about jet-liners (or box cutters), like the ones that murdered 3000 citizens on 9-11?

To the Hollywood elite like Matt Damon I would make a simple suggestion - stick to playing a smart person on TV and don't insert yourself into subjects you do not comprehend. Just because you can play a doctor on TV does not make you a doctor.

/

Political Correctness & the Left - Why They Love It

The vast majority of people who believe in and practice Political Correctnes are liberals. Have you ever wondered why? It's simple, really.

If there is one thing that gives liberals heartburn and prevents them from having their way of ruling over us, rather than being ruled by us, it is the Constitution. It is liberals who try to squelch free speech, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. These, and other rights in the Constitution make it difficult for liberals to force their agenda on America.

So they invent something called Political Correctness back in the '70's. This seemingly harmless method of imposing "niceness" gained ground simply because it was promoted as being the "civilized" way to express oneself. In reality, it was an end-run around the Constitution, by castrating the First Amendment. When outcries from liberals saying "Hey, guys", or using terms like "queer", or having Indian names for sports teams is no longer permissible, they are blatantly taking away our right of free speech and expression. To a liberal, those rights only apply to them. THEY can speak at college campuses and spout their diatribe, but conservatives cannot. Conservative speech is shouted down, or eggs and pies thrown at them. What's more, "pacifist" liberals believe violence is okay as long as it promotes their agenda and shuts down opposing views. That is Fascism.

I'll get this out of the way - I do not favor Donald Trump as a presidential candidate - I would have preferred a true conservative. But he is absoluterly, 110% correct when he says Political Correctness is the bain of a free and civilized society. If only one side can present their views, then neither freedom nor civilization exists.

Liberals like Soros, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Reed and most of Hollywood and all liberal "professors" know they cannot destroy the Constitution, But they CAN make it irrelevant with the help of Political Correctness.

/

How and Why Joe Biden Can Become the Democrat Nominee

Let's start with the obvious - Bernie Sanders, Lord love him, will never be president, no matter what. While the democrat party is moving toward socialism, they are not yet ready to put forth a socialist right now, because they know America would never elect a socialist.

This brings us to Hillary. But there is a better than even chance Hillary will be indicted, or at least a recommendation for indictment, and if that happens, the DNC will be scrambling to find a replacement, because America is not ready to elect a criminal, either.

If Hillary is indicted, her Super Delegates will melt away faster than an ice cream cone in a microwave oven. She would no longer have a majority, which creates a contested convention. In such a scenario, those Super Delegates, all of whom are Senators and other party leaders would vote for someone that a) suits their agenda and b) is liked well enough to have a shot at getting elected. They will, after a few votes, settle on "Uncle Joe" Biden.

Of course, Bernie and his supporters would be rioting in the streets, which would only hurt the crippled Democrat Party further, reducing even Biden's chance of winning.

If Hillary is indicted, it would take a miracle for the democrat nominee, which is likely to be Biden, to win in November.

But who knows? America elected Obama twice, despite the damage he has done to the economy, our foreign relations and our military.

What Matt Damon is not Smart Enough to Understand

At the MIT Commencement, Matt Damon, actor (not economist) stated that it was the banks and Wall Street that caused the economic collapse, further stating they committed theft and fraud.

I'll get to the specifics that show Mr Damon's ignorance shortly, but for now I will state unequivically (and will prove) that it was not the banks and Wall Street (though they may, indeed, be corrupt). The only theft and fraud was when the government, ruled by a Democrat majority, bailed them out, and when Obama stole the money from GM stockholders and gave it to his donor buddies in the unions. THAT was the theft and fraud. The banks and Wall Street were mere beneficiaries of Democrats giving away taxpayer money to their cronies and donors.

So, just exactly what DID cause the crash? Would you beleive it was 60 years of Democrat bills? And Mr Obama, himself? Did you know it was Obama, as a lawyer in the 80's, who sued to force banks to issue bad mortgages to people who could not afford them? And that forced banks, in order to protect their depositors, to reduce the risks by "bundling" those sub-prime mortgages, creating the derivatives that brought down Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?

All economic experts and studies agree on a couple of points - the meltdown was triggered (not caused by) the selling of "derivatives" and the foolishness and mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which in turn caused the housing industry to fold up like a cheap suit. This resulted in foreclosures, bankruptcies and further resulted in products not being purchased, as people are not furnishing or remodeling homes, or they simply do not have the money, as their recent home equity loans put them under water. Like the ripples when you toss a stone into a pond, the devastation spread outward, touching even the furthest shore.

So, why did this happen? The answer is complex, but I will attempt to simplify it a bit.

The infamous derivatives, the main trigger, are nothing more than a bunch of risky mortgages bundled together, then shares of that bundle are sold off to investors - because of the risk, most were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So the question now is, "Why were there so many risky mortgages? It sounds like the banks are responsible, just as the Democrats say. Those nasty banks made bad loans, which were bundled by that greedy Wall Street  bunch, and sold off to the mismanaged Fannie & Freddie. Right?"

Not quite. It LOOKS that way, and that is what Democrats want you to believe - they need to have voters hate all the appropriate "straw men". And, since the trigger was pulled while Bush was in office, they claim it is therefore "Bush's fault."

But things are rarely as they appear. Let's dig a bit deeper.

Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) were the guys who were supposed to be overseeing Fannie Mae. When George Bush and John McCain saw problems arising in 2003-04, they attempted to push through a bill that would regulate them better. Frank & Dodd killed the bill, convincing Congress that "Fannie Mae is fine - there are no problems."

So, in the final stages, it was Democrats who not only fell asleep at the wheel, but convinced Congress not to take action. Now we go deeper.

Why were derivatives even necessary? Why were those risky mortgages being created? And this is where it begins to get meaty. It actually starts back in the '70's, under Jimmy Carter (D). Democrats believed that every American - even the poor - should be able to own their own home. But banks did not want to make such risky loans in areas known as "redline districts" - areas that were in decline and/or populated by the poor. In other words, since banks are in the business of making money, not losing it, they were reluctant to loan money to people who could not repay.

In come the Democrats, led by "community organizing" groups like ACORN. Together they pass a law in Congress known as CRA - the Community Reinvestment Act. This bill REQUIRED banks to make the risky loans. Banks were no longer permitted to use "redlining" to refuse mortgage applications. This was the beginning for what would later force the creation of derivatives.

Banks could still refuse mortgages to those who could not qualify based on income and credit history, however, so the problem at this point was relatively minor. But then along comes ACORN again. ACORN sued the banks through their attorney, community organizer Barack Obama (D)*. The lawsuit forced stronger changes to the CRA. Under Bill Clinton (D), the Bliley bill was passed which strengthened the CRA of the '70's and literally forced banks to make even riskier loans. And the bubble of risky notes grows out of control.

Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

Now, as I said, banks have to make, not lose, money. Otherwise they would not survive. So it became necessary for them to "spread the risk" by bundling the risky notes - if a few defaulted, the rest would cover the losses. This bundling was the creation of derivatives. Banks were forced into this by the CRA and the Bliley bill, both signed into law by Democrats.

So now we have Fannie Mae under Frank (D) and Dodd (D) buying up risky notes that the Bliley Bill and CRA required banks to make, under Carter (D) and Clinton (D), and forced by Obama (D).

As you can see, Bush had nothing to do with all this - in fact, this mess is what HE "inherited" from Clinton. But it actually goes back further.

In the 1930's, FDR (D) created Fannie Mae. And in the '60's, Lyndon Johnson (D) privatized Fannie Mae, giving it the ability to grow out of control, nearly unrestricted.

Everyone involved in the creation of the meltdown was a liberal Democrat - FDR, Johnson, ACORN, Carter, Obama, Clinton, Frank, Dodd.

One more thing to consider - the meltdown began in July 2007. Democrats controlled Congress since January 2007. Since it is Congress that makes law, they bear some responsibility.

I have been posting this true history for almost 5 years. Still, liberals like Damon, Whoopie, Sarandon, Sanders, Clinton & Obama are still blaming Bush, banks and Wall Street, and Republicans are just too stupid to dispute them by using these facts taken from government agencies and the Congressional Record.

If more people were less ignorant and more willing to at least check out the facts, Democrats would not get a single vote come November. It they and their cronies who are responsible for bringing America to its knees.

*
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011

State/Territory Illinois

Obama's $12 Billion "Hidden" Tax On Us

President Obama just passed an executive order requiring businesses to push up the salary cap for overtime to over $45,000. In other words, salaried employees earning more than $27,000 and less than $45,000 per year (about 4.2 million) will be able to collect overtime pay in addition to their salary. Sounds reasonable, eh?

Not so much. This move will cost businesses $12 BILLION per year. And since businesses (unlike the government) cannot print money, they must increase the cost of their products and services. This means that all consumers, rich or poor, you and I, will be paying that $12 billion. This amounts to a back-door tax on all of us - even the poor.

So, assuming Mr Obama is not a complete idiot, why would he hit us with such a tax just before a critical election?

Remember that 4.2 million people who will GET that $12 billion? They are VOTERS. And many will remember this boon come election day, while the rest of us who are getting soaked will not, simply because most people do not realize that the $12 billion is coming from their pockets.

Ever the corrupt, partisan liberal politician, Obama has struck another blow against democracy by buying another 4 million votes to keep the corrupt politicians in power, and sending us the bill!