FIRST Has anyone seen Stephen A. Smith on television the past few days? Is he still employed by ESPN? This week, the sports personality and commentator spoke at a Vanderbilt University symposium and said this:
“What I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican. Because from what I’ve read, and I’m open to correction, but from what I’ve read, Barry Goldwater is going against Lyndon B. Johnson. He’s your Republican candidate. He is completely against the Civil Rights Movement. Lyndon B. Johnson was in favor of it. What happens is, he wins office, Barry Goldwater loses office, but there was a senate, a Republican senate, that pushed the votes to the president’s desk. It was the Democrats who were against Civil Rights legislation. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it…”
Stephen A. then concluded with this:
“Black folks in America are telling one party, ‘We don’t give a damn about you.’ They’re telling the other party ‘You’ve got our vote.’ Therefore, you have labeled yourself ‘disenfranchised’ because one party knows they’ve got you under their thumb. The other party knows they’ll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest.”
He is absolutely right. Many conservatives of all races have been asking this question for a long, long time: Why does the African-American community continuously allow the Democratic Party to take their votes for granted and then reward them with over 90% of their votes every two years?
One one side of the aisle, you have a political philosophy that advocates dependency on government, less freedom, high taxes and burdensome regulations on small businesses, keeping children locked in broken down school systems, and the breakdown of the nuclear family. It is the essence of tyranny.
Conversely on the other side, conservatism is about more freedom for the individual, encouraging entrepreneurship with low taxes and less regulations, school choice, and a strong nuclear family. It is the essence of liberty.
Which side is more suited to improve the economic lives of the black community?
However, the problem that conservatives have in reaching this demographic is the ability to articulate conservatism. Too many times, conservatives pander to groups of people that are loyal to liberalism or they soften the message to make it seem less offensive, as if liberty and freedom is detestable. These tactics do not come across as overly genuine.
Conservatives must earn the black community’s vote and we can begin that process in 2016 by nominating an articulate and passionate conservative who can slowly make inroads into the black community by expressing with bold colors the differences between one philosophy that makes people dependent on government and another one which empowers the individual with liberty and freedom.
We are glad that Stephen A. Smith is willing to risk his standing in the sports community for being an African-American and saying something so bold and courageous.
Well done.
Students at the University of California in Berkley protested in their skivvies at a UC Regents hearing Tuesday discussing tuition rate increases of 5% a year for five continuous years. Taking their clothes off down to their underwear and throwing fake money around, the students were clearly unhappy with former Department of Homeland Security secretary and current UC President Janet Napolitano for hiking their already expensive college costs. While we feel bad for these students, we do have a solution to offer up: give the protesters free tuition and only raise the cost of tuition on the other students not participating in the protest as an example of wealth redistribution and socialism. After all, Berkeley is home to some of the most radical socialists and communists this country has ever seen. Perhaps when the policies that these leftists will actively campaign for finally hits them squarely back in the face with a dose of reality, they might wake up. We surely aren’t holding our collective breath. And, oh by the way, UC President Napolitano was caught on the mic saying in the response to the yelling and chanting protests, “we don’t have to listen to this crap”. She later apologized. Madame President, these protesters are only doing what Saul Alinksky taught you and your fellow leftists.
In case you missed it, and we don’t blame you if you did, Chicago’s mayor Rahm Emanuel is fighting for his re-election life against an opponent even more liberal than the former Obama Chief of Staff. Is that even possible? What’s to the left of communism? Nevermind, doesn’t matter! In a political dogfight, Mayor Emanuel is courting Republicans to help him win the April 7 runoff. This is just plain crazy. No Republican with dignity would ever campaign for, donate to, or simply vote for Rahm Emanuel. This is the same man who once sent a dead fish in a box to a pollster because he was late with the polling results. Emanuel has very few if any redeeming qualities that any self-respecting Republican could be proud to have voted for. And yet, 2010 wave election recipient and GOP Senator Mark Kirk and the new Republican governor Bruce Rauner have either publicly or privately endorsed “Rahmbo”. Is this what the people of Illinois voted for in 2010 and 2014 respectively? A senator who says re-electing the mayor is the only way to save the city of Chicago from becoming another Detroit? Or a governor sent to Springfield to change the status quo and reverse the damage liberals have done to the state for years who is privately work behind the scenes to keep the mayor in office whose ideology and policies are destroying the city? We realize Illinois is a deep blue state but just having a Republican get elected is simply not good enough. The citizens of Illinois can do better by electing politicians who won’t support a far left mayor. They can start in the next year’s senate primary by defeating Sen. Kirk should he decide to run again.
Final Has any other administration in United States history ever been so hostile towards another head of state as the current Obama regime is towards Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? After the prime minister’s victory in Israel’s Tuesday election, the Obama administration refused to congratulate Mr. Netanyahu both publicly and privately until nearly two days passed. U.S. presidents in the past have had preferences to who they would prefer win an election in another country, but it is unprecedented, though not unsurprising, for the Obama administration to actively hope for a Netanyahu defeat. In fact, the Obama administration even sent operatives to Israel in the lead up to the election to defeat the prime minister. The leader of Israel is being graceful in his words concerning the disdainful post-election reaction to his re-election by the President of the United States and his minions in the media. But we can only imagine how Mr. Netanyahu really feels privately about leading a country that is the only democracy in the Middle East and a longtime ally of the U.S. and being treated with such disrespect by our president. What a shameful disgrace!
