Archive | December, 2012

Why would a black person be a Republican?

31 Dec

What reason would a black person have to be a black Republican? I’ve seen this question asked in a very perplexed manner by liberals and many blacks and minorities. I’ve even seen anger and vicious attacks brought by white and black liberals towards conservative blacks for being Republican. In all honesty I am perplexed when someone asks why a black man would be a Republican. Here’s my attempt to give some reasons.

First off, let us define what a Republican is because in the recent years we have come to confuse Neo-conservatives with being Republicans. A Republican is someone who prefers a small Federal government that does not intrude into the personal lives of individuals. (hint: I do not consider George W Bush to be a Republican or a conservative for that matter, apparently neither does he). As the GOP is struggling to find itself after the handing of the 2012 presidential election over to Barak Obama, it is emerging that a Republican is someone who wants the U.S constitution followed (in both foreign and domestic affairs) and the Federal government restricted to only the power given to it in the constitution. A Republican would rather have maximum personal responsibility without the Federal government trying to come in and ‘take care of them’ by means of programs and government spending. So now back to the question, why would a black person be a Republican?

Doing away with the income tax. Maybe some blacks would rather keep the money that they work hard for. Maybe some blacks do not believe in the idea of the government using lethal and deadly (literally holding someone at gun point) force in order to extract someone’s paycheck from them and redistribute it to someone else. If you think the ‘gun point’ word usage is extreme, just think to yourself about a scenario where you refuse to pay income taxes. Is the IRS going to show up at your door to kindly ask you to pay? No, they show up with your arrest and detention in mind. What do you really think happens if you aggressively resist arrest? Some blacks prefer the idea of being taxed on what you spend and not on what you earn. Why would you be a Democrat then with all the doctrine of forced wealth seizure and redistribution now prominent in the Democrat party?

Belief in free market capitalism. Black people in America have been entrepreneurial for a long time. I believe that it stems from a time when drastic limits were forced upon blacks in America, whether it be slavery or Jim Crow laws, hence an evolving spirit to simply become self sufficient and do things for yourself since outside forces were placing limits on blacks. Just think of Booker T Washington’s ideas on skill attainment. There are many blacks today who believe that a free market capitalist system with less government regulation and red tape, is the best way to better themselves and increase personal wealth and prosperity. Why would you be a Democrat when the prominent thinking in the Democrat party seems to be ‘the free market has failed’?

Guns, guns, guns. What if black people believe in the idea that more good people carrying guns results in less crime? What if you do not mind the idea of individuals being able to carry firearms in a concealed or unconcealed manner out in public? Would you join the Democrat party who in many ways, seemingly want to limit access to firearms?

Let me pose some other questions to you. What if you are black and do not believe in the idea of the government inserting itself into the doctor/patient relationship by means of Obamacare? What if you are black and believe in states rights and do not think the Federal government should be using a ‘one size fits all’ approach to legislation? What if you are black and you believe (CONSISTENTLY believe) that the Federal government should not be participating in trying to police the world, and you want a foreign policy of non-intervention rather than the unaffordable foreign policy existing now? (There’s no doubt that the GOP is leading that charge rather than the Democrats who are ok with bombing other countries with drones if Obama or some other Democrat does it). What if you are black and you believe that the problem of 16 trillion dollar debt should be solved by eliminating unconstitutional Federal departments? What if you are black and you do not believe in the concept of centralized economic planning? What if you are black and you believe in implementing a sound monetary system based on a gold standard, and do not like the idea of the Federal Reserve trying to manage the economy? What if you are black and do not believe in the Patriot Act or the NDAA? What if you are black and you believe that Social Security is a scam and you’d rather have the option of opting out of it to keep your own personal retirement account?

What if you are black and you believe these things? What party would you be more likely to identify with?

I think the rise of the black Republican is something that is inevitable. We are seeing today more than ever that the Federal government cannot micromanage the personal lives of individuals foreign or domestic. The 16 trillion dollar debt in America is a grand testament to this. Black people in America are waking up to the fact that the Federal government and its spending and over reach are  eroding our way of life.

Here’s an observation about liberal anger towards the black Republican. Time and time again I hear liberals criticize black Republicans as being ‘Uncle Tom’s’ or even ‘acting white’. Why? Because a black person wants to be self sufficient, keep the money they earn and have the possibility of defending themselves with lethal and deadly force, they are labeled as an oddity? Many liberals seem to actually believe that black people cannot make it in America without a government crutch. How do people not see the intolerance and racism in this? In other words, based mainly on the genetic make up of a black person they assume that the black person needs special help. Wouldn’t they have to assume in some part then that solely on the genetic make up of a black person that blacks are inferior and cannot function on their own, but by default need help?

Upon asked what the racial term is for a white man that believes in the same small government constitutional concepts, I have seen liberals become confused and go speechless. Their lack of a word to me suggests that they have a special place in their heart for a black person that prefers a small Federal government and more personal responsibility and liberty. In the minds of many liberals, a black person who believes in these things seems to deserve to be called a throw back slavery term or earns the accusation of somehow acting out of character for a black person. How is it out of character or ‘acting white’ if you’d prefer to opt out of Federal government programs and keep the money you work for?  We are not at a point in America of racial harmony. Its possible that such a point may never exist in America, but when a black person wants to express his political views and happens to believe in a small Federal government restricted by the constitution, I do not see anything wrong with him/her having the freedom to do so freely. Its time to stop looking at the Black Republican as an oddity.


The Sandy Hook Shootings

22 Dec

I am still trying to figure out what exactly happened at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14th 2012. One of the official news stories is that ‘a lone gunman’ went into a school armed with 2 pistols and a shot gun. He shot and killed 26 people and then killed himself. Niall Bradley, a writer with Veterans Today has documented the multitude of changing details and facts that keep surfacing about the shooting. Some news stories are even claiming that a gunman was actually arrested in the woods near Sandy Hook. Here’s the link to Niall’s article so that you can try to decide for yourself what happened at Sandy Hook.  While so many news outlets report the story as though it’s a done deal, I’ll keep trying to figure out the facts.

I must mention also as a side note that I do not like conspiracy theory (there seems to be a lot of conspiracy talk surrounding the shootings). I would much rather focus on facts and empirical evidence. With that in mind, many of us have seen the footage on YouTube of Robbie Parker laughing merely seconds before giving a speech about his daughter Emilie Parker who was killed in the shootings. All I can really say is that I find it odd that a father would be laughing right before giving a speech about his daughter who died suddenly. To me it seems like if your child had been killed suddenly you would look more somber, you would probably be trying to compose yourself before getting on TV to talk about your deceased child. You would probably still be trying to work through your grief, not laughing about something right before speaking about her. That’s just making an observation though. Someone else might watch the clip and come to a different conclusion.

The real story to me in all of this seems to be school shootings in general and the availability of guns. How do we try to solve the problem of these school shootings? My first suggestion would be to take down the signs that advertise schools as ‘gun free zones’. What would happen if you advertised your neighborhood as a ‘gun free zone’? How do you think armed criminals would feel upon seeing that your neighborhood was gun free? To me ‘gun free zone’ signs are a broadcast that you are a sitting duck. In other words it is suggesting to armed criminals that if they were to come into this ‘gun free zone’ with a gun, people are less likely to be able to defend themselves using lethal and deadly force. It may seem like a strange idea to you, but what if a sign was put up reading ‘teachers inside may be armed and prepared to defend their classrooms with lethal and deadly force’. Really think it over instead of just thinking the statement is extreme.

If you had been in a classroom and an armed gunman went on a rampage, how different would you feel sitting right next to a friend who is familiar with guns, armed and ready to use that firearm to protect the classroom? At least you would have some type of chance at self defense. Some people make the argument for more police presence, or armed guards being placed at schools. This doesn’t sit well with me. First off it places the responsibility of personal protection into the hands of a third party. To me that would also normalize the concept of having armed police around all the time, which to me resembles more of a police state than the free society America is attempting to get back to being. Generally speaking, people who carry guns for protection tend to be more responsible than irresponsible. If you have gone through the trouble to get a concealment license, you are probably not going to want to do anything to mess that up. Let teachers who have their concealment license, carry on school property. At the college level, students should be able to carry. Our personal safety and protection are our own individual responsibility first and foremost, not the responsibility of the government or police. Keep in mind also that police for the most part show up after a crime is committed in order to clean up or try to prevent further crimes from occurring. We are the first responders when a crime is occurring against us. The idea of banning guns is a bad argument. All that does is guarantee that criminals will be able to access guns, while the good guys remain defenseless. Besides, America is not really set up for gun bans. The constitution recognizes the right of the individual to keep arms. The keyword here is right to keep arms. You do not have to ask permission from anyone if something is recognized as a right. The gun ban argument suggests the context that the government lets us, or gives us permission to have guns. This is not true. Having permission and having a right are two different things. The government recognizes our right as stated in the constitution to keep arms.

Think it over. Good individuals who carry firearms are a plus when dealing with criminals who carry firearms. I’m not saying that there is a perfect solution to every situation, but for the very least I think individuals should be able to defend their lives using lethal and deadly force against a bad person intent on doing harm with lethal and deadly force.

Why did Mitt Romney lose?

19 Dec

As Republicans are still in recovery mode from losing (or should I say giving away) the 2012 presidential election I think a few things must be discussed. Many in the GOP aren’t going to want to hear it, but I feel as though the GOP worked very hard to earn this loss. Though I am more of an independent who leans to the right, I did not vote for Mitt Romney. I could not bring myself to do it. From start to finish I saw a guy who talked and talked but never really and truly distinguished himself from Barak Obama. Sure he sounded at times like he would be different, but the more Romney spoke is the more I realized that Romney and Obama were simply two sides of the same coin. Both would not introduce competition to the Federal Reserve, both would not abolish the IRS, both have the same unaffordable foreign policy of pre-emptive wars against countries that do not seem to pose a threat to the mainland U.S, both were in favor bailouts and stimulus packages to corporations at some point, both offered no new ideas on the extremism that we see in American drug war policy, and both would not out right overturn the Patriot Act or NDAA.

Even though I despised Romney from the very start, I still watched the debates hoping he would give me something I could latch onto but that moment never came. Romney got to the debates and seemed to use focus group tested tag lines about ‘jobs’, ‘the economy’ ‘Reagan’ and ‘Iran’. He came off as a fake, and his record seemed to be all over the place on different issues. We got to the problems we have in this country mainly because of large obtrusive, expensive Federal government. We are not going to solve our problems with more of the same. I think it is also important to note that we amongst the small Federal government crowd are not going to solve our problems by parading ‘conservatives’ to run races that have any remote resemblance to George W. Bush. It’s not so much that Obama won, it’s more so that Romney turned off so many small government conservatives that actually believed in principles, conservatives simply rejected Romney. Just think about it. The GOP went up against a person that sounds eerily like a Marxist in a country that professes to love freedom yet the Republicans could not pull off a win. That’s how much people did not like Romney. While I am mentioning George W. Bush I think it is important to mention that 9/11 Republicanism is dead. Mccain’s loss proved it, Rick Santorum’s joke of a campaign proved it and now Romney’s failure to captivate conservatives has proven it. Enter Ron Paul.

I believe completely that Ron Paul has single handedly destroyed 9/11 Republicanism. I would argue that he is in the process of putting a stake in the heart of Neo-conservatism and given rise to something called the Constitutional Conservative. He has brought certain issues to the forefront of the GOP with his plain spoken logic that just will not go away. Because of Ron Paul the GOP is now in the middle of a shift. There is no way forward in the GOP without constitutional, liberty based (some might say Libertarian) ideas. I would go as far as to say that any Republican trying to get conservatives pumped up about pre-emptive war, getting involved militarily in more countries (despite very clear 16 trillion dollar debt) and not addressing the problems with the Federal Reserve, the NDAA and the Patriot Act will simply lose elections at the national stage. Ron Paul brought in a massive segment of people from all walks of life and racial backgrounds who were not there before, into the GOP. I remember seeing the percentages before the primaries indicating that minorities favored Paul to the other GOP candidates. Paul was the only one who had the courage to address the racial bias in America’s drug war problem. Ron Paul was and still remains a motivator. He renewed a confidence in liberty and the constitution and brought fresh ideas to the table that drew in millions of people, in many cases away from the Democrats. If Romney had whole heartedly embraced a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas, maybe he would have stood a better chance. Instead the GOP higher ups along with Romney’s people chose to work dedicatedly against the Paulistas, mainly in the nationwide conventions, disrupting them, disregarding rules, participating in fraud, physically assaulting people, censoring their speech, ignoring people who showed up and followed the rules that they’d taken the time to learn, dividing the party and some may even say, cheating Ron Paul out of the nomination in Tampa. The point of an election is to encourage people to vote for you and your party, not reject them and then somehow be surprised or shocked when your party loses. To the older guard in the GOP reading this, it is important to understand that there is no way forward without the Ron Paul people. Let me rephrase that…there is no way forward in the GOP without the Constitutional conservative or the small government ideas of people like Thomas Jefferson. Already, the higher ups in the GOP are talking about Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan as potential 2016 presidential candidates. I think any one of those will mean another loss for the GOP. These gentlemen have not decisively rejected the George W. Bush doctrine. I have heard none of these gents come out against the Patriot Act, NDAA and pre-emptive war. That alone will cause people (many of them young) to reject them. The GOP will need someone who is a stark difference from George W. Bush. Maybe the GOP needs to be looking at Judge Napolitano, Thomas Massie or Rand Paul for 2016. The advice I would give the GOP higher ups? Read the constitution, stop trying to tell the liberty crowd to basically give you money, sit down, shut up and vote for more expanded unconstitutional government, and realize that liberty ideas will expand the party. If the GOP does not wake up and realize this, they will keep reliving the Romney experience.