Posts Tagged ‘Republican Presidents’

After Afghanistan

by Daniel Greenfield on Thursday, February 21st, 2013

This is article 928 of 1228 in the topic International

Some wars are lost in a matter of moments, others stretch on indefinitely. The defeat in Afghanistan crept up silently on the national consciousness and even though we are negotiating with the Taliban, the “D” word is hardly used by anyone.

According to Obama, in one of his interminable speeches which all run together and sound the same, there really isn’t a war, just a mission, and the old mission is now becoming a new sort of mission, and the missions, all of them, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, have been successful which is why we are wrapping them up, except that we aren’t really. And that’s about as clear as the message from the big white building with the neatly mowed lawn out front gets, except for the part about how its occupant singlehandedly parachuted into Pakistan, killed Bin Laden, and then stopped off for some curry and a humanitarian award.

Had McCain won in 2008, we would no doubt he hearing a lot about the “D” word and the quagmire in Afghanistan. But the “Q” word doesn’t really get mentioned either. No war has been lost. Only a mission is ending. And missions, unlike wars, can be defined in so many creative ways that it’s hard to know what to make of them. It’s easy to tell when a war has been lost, but a mission can never be lost, only renamed. And renaming is what Obama did to the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. Those wars weren’t lost; they’re only hiding out in the history books under new names and identities.

Wars are usually remembered according to the proclivities of their historians. The history books tend to record the Republican presidents of the last hundred years as either losing wars or winning wars that weren’t worth winning. Democrats however usually win every one.

The Korean War and the Vietnam War were not that far in perception at the time, but are worlds apart in the history books. Had John F. Kennedy lived to serve out two terms and then passed on the big chair to his brother, would the history books even record that the United States lost the Vietnam War? Or would it, like Afghanistan, have gone down as a story about a difficult temporary intervention that ended successfully under the leadership of a wise and caring president?

It is difficult to imagine the left’s narrative of the last century with such a big and meaty chunk taken out of it. What would have become of Oliver Stone’s career without the JFK assassination and the mythology of a cruel and senseless war in Vietnam? Or imagine the last decade if Biden and Gore had managed to talk Clinton into going after Saddam. As entertaining as such speculations might be, renaming missions and tampering with the history books does not alter the outcome of wars.

From the early days, the left had gloated that Afghanistan would become another Vietnam.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

The Grand Old Party: 1854 to 2012

by Alan Caruba on Monday, August 27th, 2012

This is article 42 of 94 in the topic Republican Party

I grew up thinking that the only political party was the Democratic Party. Born a few years after Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, he would be the only President of whom I was aware until he died in 1945, thirteen years later! A Constitutional amendment was passed to avoid that ever happening again.

Considering how much damage Obama has done in just under four years that seems like a very good idea. Defeating him for a second term is an even better one.

Lincoln was the then-new Republican Party’s first to be elected President in 1860. A much older Democratic Party had held the presidency from Martin Van Buren, with time out for Republicans William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, until Democrats James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan.

After Lincoln there was a succession of Republican Presidents until the election of Grover Cleveland in 1885. Democrats would have to wait until Woodrow Wilson to regain executive power in 1913, but he would be followed by Republicans Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

During my lifetime, the New Deal coalition forged by FDR in the 1930s fell apart in the 1960s, largely over the issue of civil rights which is a kind of poetic justice when you consider that the Democrats had sought to expand slavery in all the years leading up to the Civil War.

There have been five Republican Presidents since Lyndon Johnson declined to run for office in 1969; six if you count Eisenhower who served two terms (1953-1961) prior to the young, charismatic JFK.

I am not sure when the nation became so divided politically with the Democrats representing the liberal-progressive agenda that created Social Security and Medicare and Republicans who have always been identified with a conservative, pro-business, pro-military platform, mixed with a social outlook that still finds issues such as abortion an offense to religious and moral values. In essence they were always divided.

It is an interesting coincidence of history that today’s Republican Party candidate for President was born in Michigan where, on July 6, 1854, the first statewide convention was held near Jackson. Its Vice President candidate comes from Wisconsin where the name “Republican” was first suggested for the party in a Ripon, Wisconsin schoolhouse on March 20, 1854.

At this point in our nation’s history, the Democrat President, Barack Obama, and Democrats who regained power in Congress in 2009 has run up more national debt than all the previous presidents combined. He has brought the nation to the edge of economic collapse and, naturally, that is the last thing he wants to talk about.

The issues regarding the solvency of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have long been thought the province of the Democratic Party that would always tell voters that the Republicans intended to end these programs. Politics is rife with irony and they are now a primary issue of the Republican campaign based on trying to save them!

The contrast could not be greater. In my mind, the Republican Party is composed of grown-ups and the Democratic Party is run by children. I like the way the Romney-Ryan ticket has elevated the tone of their campaign while the Democrats appear to be so desperate they are engaging in vile accusations against Romney.

Click to continue reading “The Grand Old Party: 1854 to 2012″
Go straight to Post

A FEW POLITICAL FACTS OF LIFE

by Burt Prelutsky on Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

This is article 590 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections


by BurtPrelutsky

In presidential election years, everyone turns into a seer, a reader of tea leaves. People in the prediction business dust off their crystal balls and in a single year, pollsters like Rasmussen, Luntz and Zogby, fund their children’s college educations.

The obvious reason that elections are so hard to handicap is that unforeseen things happen. Wars break out, old girl friends come out of the woodwork, housing bubbles burst. A lot of people now forget, but in September of 2008, John McCain led Barack Obama in the polls.

To me, the amazing thing is that Republican candidates remain competitive. When you realize that as far back as a hundred years ago, progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt were gaming the system, it’s a miracle that Republican presidents have been elected as often as they have. When you factor in the number of people who, thanks to FDR and LBJ, have been made dependents of the federal government, it’s a wonder that the GOP hasn’t been turned into a minor entity on the order of the Libertarian Party.

On top of all that, you have teachers and professors who have devoted their lives to convincing their young charges that people like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez, are heroes, while the likes of George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, were nothing better than slave owners. Compounding their mischief has been a media so corrupt that the only news they can be trusted to report honestly are sports scores and yesterday’s weather.

The late Ben Hecht, playwright, screenwriter and newspaper reporter, once observed, “Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell time by watching the second hand of a clock.”

Mark Twain was even more cynical in his analysis, declaring that people who didn’t read newspapers were uninformed, whereas those who read them were misinformed. And back when those guys were “ink-stained wretches,” as reporters were affectionately labeled, newspapers were far better than they are today, if only because guys like Hecht and Twain were writing for them.

Lest anyone think that I don’t pay any attention to polls, let me assure you that I pay so much attention they have lost the ability to fool me. For instance, we keep seeing polls that indicate that Obama is running far ahead of Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and Paul, in head-to-head match-ups. That is intended to take the wind out of Republican sails, but it shouldn’t. For one thing, they tend to show Obama leading, say, Romney 48%-43% or Santorum 47% to 41%. But Obama’s actual opponent hasn’t yet been nominated. The GOP primaries are still pitting four guys against each other, so that Republicans haven’t yet had a chance to accept the fact that their favorite didn’t cop the trophy. Until that happens, they can’t possibly coalesce behind the party’s eventual standard bearer. Keep in mind that it wasn’t until June, 2008, that the Democrats finally saw Obama emerge victorious from his year-long cat fight with Mrs. Clinton.

The other reason that liberals can’t take too much satisfaction from these numbers is that when an incumbent isn’t scoring well over 50% in a head-to-head poll, the chances are he won’t win re-election. After all, he’s the known quantity.

Click to continue reading “A FEW POLITICAL FACTS OF LIFE”
Go straight to Post

Cutting Through the Political Manure

by Burt Prelutsky on Monday, October 24th, 2011


When Obama insists that tax hikes will be offset by future spending cuts, run — don’t walk! — and hang on to your wallets. When it comes to keeping their promises, politicians are notoriously untrustworthy.

Back in the 70s, Nixon and Kissinger agreed to withdraw from Vietnam on the condition that Congress would continue supplying our South Vietnam allies with money and armaments. Congress didn’t, and as a result, the Communists massacred millions of Southeast Asians.

In 1982, Reagan signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), which congressional Democrats promised would lead to three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. Take a guess which one didn’t happen. The tax increases, by the way, were to be obtained by closing tax loopholes. (Sound vaguely familiar?)

Reagan lived to regret that deal, but it didn’t prevent the Gipper from being snookered yet again in 1986, when he signed a general amnesty for illegal aliens because the Democrats vowed to close the borders. We can all see, 15 million illegal aliens later, how well that worked out.

Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, clearly wasn’t paying close attention because he pledged not to raise taxes — “Read my lips”– because the Democrats promised budget cuts.

I swear, the only example I can think of where one party has been sucker-punched more often than Republican presidents is America’s favorite nebbish, Charlie Brown, who kept falling for Lucy’s promise not to pull the football away when he was about to kick it.

If there are bigger dummies than those Republicans who trust liberals to behave honorably, it must be those besotted voters who proudly identify themselves as Independents.

I know they puff themselves up because, unlike those of us who realize that there are existential wars being waged between Israel and the Palestinians, between western civilization and Islam, and between conservatives and leftists, they like to regard themselves as clear-thinking individuals who are above what they ignorantly dismiss as partisan frays.

They bray that they want to see Republicans and Democrats act in concert, joining together to do what’s best for America. What they are too dumb to recognize is that there is no conceivable common ground when one side, in its perpetual trolling for support from unions and minority groups, regards tax dollars as the easiest and cheapest way to buy votes. One side believes in smaller government, the abiding wisdom of the Constitution and American sovereignty; the other side believes that the federal government should be even larger and more powerful; that the Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it’s written on; and that American sovereignty is a foolish conceit, and that American law and influence should be subordinate to the United Nations, the World Court, the ACLU, Sharia and Obama’s whims.

Having recently seen a production of 1776, I was reminded that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson couldn’t wait to get away from the Continental Congress. Part of the reason was the weather in a pre-air conditioned Philadelphia and part of the reason was that they missed their wives. For his part, George Washington turned down the crown and only agreed to be President because he put love of country ahead of his personal preferences.

Click to continue reading “Cutting Through the Political Manure”
Go straight to Post

Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – The big stall

by Lawrence Sellin on Monday, August 29th, 2011

This is article 37 of 81 in the topic Presidential Eligiblity

imageMembers of the political-media complex have no intention of addressing Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility for the Presidency or his criminal activity both before and after occupying the White House because it would expose their own culpability in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

Their plan is to stall, wait for the Obama “problem” to be overtaken by events, like the 2012 election, and then sweep his crimes and theirs under the rug.

Americans need to accept the fact that the political-media complex, which rules the United States, has only contempt for the electorate and is hopelessly corrupt.

Read my lips; they are not listening. Case in point; Fox News.

Roger Ailes is president of Fox News Channel, chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group and was a media consultant for Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, as well as Rudy Giuliani’s first mayoral campaign in 1989.

Ailes is a ranking member of the Republican establishment and part of the political-media complex.

Obama fraud and cover-up

Many Republicans are complicit in the Obama fraud and cover-up. Exposing Obama would threaten the political careers of most of the Republican leadership and weaken the control of the political-media complex.

In that respect, Republicans share a common interest with Democrats – preservation of the status quo.

Make no mistake; Obama endures with the blessing of the political-media complex. They are defending him because not to do so would expose the entire evil enterprise.

Both Republicans and Democrats consider the Constitution an obstacle

Both Republicans and Democrats consider the Constitution an obstacle in their path to administrative dictatorship.

For years before Obama arrived on the scene, Congress had been trying to water down the natural born requirement for the Presidency i.e. US born of two citizen parents.

In the category of Presidential eligibility, the award for political expediency at the expense of the Constitution must go to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

On July 10, 2003, he proposed “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years” (Senate Joint Resolution 15).

The measure became known as the Arnold Amendment because it would have permitted Austrian-born, naturalized citizen, Arnold Schwarzenegger, then a rising Republican star, to become President.

Democrats have supported such amendments because they allow not only Obama to be President, but also George Soros.

An amendment to the Constitution became unnecessary because a backroom deal was struck between Congressional Republicans and Democrats in 2008 to amend the Constitution by fiat through the illegal Senate Resolution 511.

Although the Constitution was violated, the political-media complex was able to set a precedent for Obama to run in 2012 as well as another Republican rising star, Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is not a natural born citizen and Constitutionally ineligible to be a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate.

But facts are stubborn things. Obama remains an illegal President and every law and every executive order he has signed and every appointment he has made is null and void.

Nevertheless, the political-media complex wants to continue the scam and will try to crush anyone who challenges its conventional wisdom.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – The big stall”
Go straight to Post

The Turning Point for “Entitlement” Programs

by Alan Caruba on Thursday, July 28th, 2011

This is article 1 of 8 in the topic Entitlement Programs

The result of all the drama emanating from Capitol Hill and the White House has been to get a lot of people wondering about the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the “debt ceiling”, the limit on how much the federal government is permitted to borrow, must be raised. It is essentially an accounting fiction because, since 1960, it has been raised 78 times; 49 times by Republican presidents and 29 times by Democrat presidents.

What makes it an issue now? $14.3 trillion dollars worth of U.S. debt.

It is not just the size of this debt, probably the greatest that any nation has ever owed in history, it is that it was initially due to a financial rescue program in 2008 when President Bush and Congress sought to avoid a collapse of Wall Street and banks. The TARP funds were eventually repaid.

Part of the current debt is due to massive spending programs by the Obama administration, allegedly to “create or save” jobs and “stimulate” the economy. They did neither.

The Obama spending programs were, in essense, Democrat slush funds parceled out to the party’s faithful to ensure that teachers and other public service workers would be retained, that General Motors and Chrysler could avoid the normal bankruptcy procedures that would have restructured both companies—and likely reduce union power, and that favored contractors could receive funding for “shovel ready projects.”

A long term, on-going problem has been the current and future debt is attributed to meeting the obligations of Social Security, introduced in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and to the high costs of Medicare and Medicaid. The latter became law on July 30, 1965 as an amendment to the existing Social Security legislation.

In sum, both programs reflect the Democratic Party’s commitment to “social justice” (wealth redistribution) that began in the early part of the last century. Republicans were not immune to this. President George W. Bush added to the costs of Medicare with prescription coverage.

The battle on Capital Hill is between the Democrats, led by President Obama, who wants to raise taxes in the midst of what is called a recession but is truly a Depression 2.0. Raising taxes is what President Roosevelt did and it simply prolonged the Great Depression by sucking money out of the free market economy.

On the other side of the non-negotiating table are the Republicans who, thanks to the Tea Party members of the House, have been forced to reclaim their reputation as a party devoted to limited government and prudent fiscal policies.

It is assumed by all that the debt ceiling with be lifted. It is unknown whether the nation’s credit rating of AAA will be reduced as the result of a failure to substantially cut spending and, far more importantly, meet its obligation to repay its debt. Indeed, the central issue is all about credit.

A nation that must borrow billions every day to meet its obligations cannot afford to lose a rating that is rooted in the very beginning of its history when Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, insisted that all Revolutionary War debts be paid in full.

Social Security is the largest government benefit program in the world.

Click to continue reading “The Turning Point for “Entitlement” Programs”
Go straight to Post

Same Old Song, Different Dance.

by Skip MacLure on Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

This is article 19 of 389 in the topic economy

Citing three respected Republican presidents, none of whom would have given Barack Hussein Obama the time of day, the Anointed One rushed once again to put his mug and carny pitch in front of the cameras for the umpteenth time.

It was fifteen minutes of soundbites of everything Obama has said in the last two and one half years. It was enough to gag a maggot… though if you’re into having other people’s money, I guess you were in Nirvana.

Obama shouldn’t be surprised if his little campaign speech doesn’t make anyone swoon with admiration at his eloquence. That’s what comes from having heard it all before… only this time we’re ready for him. All Obama could do was to excoriate the GOP for their intransigent stubbornness in not embracing his magnanimous offer to complete the devastation that he and his Marxists have so assiduously wrought.

Speaker of the House John Boehner’s reply had no soaring rhetoric, nor pleas for revenues derived from the coffers of the ‘rich’. It simply laid out the Republican position. Meanwhile, our glorious leader proclaimed loudly how the ‘rich’ had ‘stepped up before’. More of Obama’s tax the rich. You know… those millionaires and billionaires and their horrible loopholes.

You see, only a skilled guest lecturer-cum- community organizer, someone for whom someone else has always paid the freight, could fail to recognize that none of us has ever gotten a job from a poor man.

What this is, and why it is so important that Speaker Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership do not waver, is that this is Obama’s own war with the middle class in America. The middle class is the only barrier between ObaMao and the complete communist takeover of this country. Don’t kid yourselves, Obama is running scared. If he gets any more rattled, he’ll have to wear Depends.

The truth here is that this Conservative agenda is Tea-Party driven. The Patriot Movement has grown exponentially since 2008, and we’ve gained in knowledge and sophistication. We’ve become a real force to be reckoned with. We’ve literally supplied the spine that the Republicans have shown thus.
The heat is unremitting and the Tea-Party Patriots are just warming up.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2011

Go straight to Post

Is Barack Obama’s “Intellectual Stage” too High for Sarah Palin?

by John Lillpop on Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

This is article 326 of 1000 in the topic Obama

Republican presidents and vice presidents (and candidates) are repeatedly targeted by the leftist media which holds that conservatives like President Reagan, Vice-president Dan Quayle, President George W. Bush, and most recently, candidate Governor Palin, simply lack the intelligence and sophistication required for high office.

All have been described as intellectual light weights, while liberals like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi generally go unscathed.

The brutal truth is that liberals are simply not subjected to the non-stop, biased belittling that mainstream media sees fit to dump on Republicans holding high office, or seeking it.

For instance, Fox Contributor Juan Williams recently stated that Governor Palin is not able to stand on the same kind of “intellectual stage” as Barack Obama.

Intellectual stage, Mr. Williams?

It may be true that President Obama would score higher on a standard IQ test than Governor Palin, but Juan Williams does not know that.

Rather, Williams bases his assertion on the subjective notion that Obama sounds and acts more “presidential.”

Unfortunately, as the first two years of the Obama presidency have made abundantly clear, sounding “presidential” is simply not enough.

In difficult economic times, in times of war, and when the nation is struggling, leadership, judgment, and common sense are urgently needed.

Although President Obama can deliver eloquent speeches (when aided by high-technology gadgetry), he has been largely unable to perform effectively.

In sum: His policies and ideas have failed the American people, again and again.

All of which drives the question: Is genius overrated?

Assuming that Barack Obama possesses extraordinary intelligence while Sarah Palin is closer to ordinary, there appears to be a huge disconnect between IQ and actual performance.

For instance, would Sarah Palin:

  • Make closure of GITMO her first item of business after being sworn in?
  • Grant Miranda rights, civilian trials, and other privileges to enemy combatants—terrorists—captured on the battle field?
  • Continually apologize for American policies and politicians while on foreign soil?
  • Dither in moments of great national significance such as the Afghanistan War and the Gulf Oil Spill?
  • Insult 275 million Americans by declaring that ours is not a Christian nation?
  • Sign a “stimulus bill” which added nearly one trillion dollars to the federal debt without providing jobs and economic recovery?
  • Orchestrate a Marxist take-over of U.S. health care despite the wishes of a majority of Americans?
  • Constantly assail private enterprise and business, thereby creating an environment of uncertainty and fear in the only institutions that create jobs and economic growth?
  • Refuse to secure U.S. borders and enforce immigration laws, and then sue a sovereign American state for taking action to defend its citizens from invading criminals?
  • Make vulnerable the dignity and esteem of the U.S. presidency by flying off to Copenhagen in a failed attempt to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago?

In summary, President Obama may very well own an advantage when it comes to the “Intellectual Stage.”

However, in these troubled times, America desperately needs competent leadership and common sense. In those areas, Sarah Palin can more than hold her own against the failed presidency of Barack Obama.

Go straight to Post

God Bless Dick Cheney: American Hero and Unabashed Patriot!

by John Lillpop on Monday, October 11th, 2010

After nearly two years under a hostile president who appears hell bent on destroying American values and global preeminence, it is indeed a blessing to hear from an old ally, a hero who believes that being # 1 is nothing to be ashamed of and, is in fact, the way it should be!

The hero is none other than the unflappable and always pro-American Dick Cheney, former Vice-President, who continues to speak truth regardless of whose feathers might be ruffled.

As reported, in part, at Bakersfield.com, Dick Cheney delighted a huge crowd of patriots in Bakersfield, California recently:

Close to 10,000 people crowded into the Bakersfield Business Conference’s main tent to see former Vice President Dick Cheney be “interviewed” by Lynne Cheney, his wife of 46 years.

Collecting that many people all under one tent roof is a sight to see, and Mrs. Cheney commented on what a great crowd the conference had brought together.

“It’s almost enough to make you want to run for office again,” the former vice president quipped. “Almost.”

Dick Cheney worked with four of the five Republican presidents following the Eisenhower administration. With that in mind, Mrs. Cheney asked, “So who’s your favorite?”

Dick Cheney answered, “I got to work for all those presidents because I never said who was my favorite.”

His proudest accomplishment came because of something that didn’t happen: The nation did not suffer another devastating terrorist attack in the years following Sept. 11.

His greatest fear? A nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist.

“We came to the point that we could no longer treat terrorist attacks as a simple law enforcement problem,” he told the appreciative crowd. “They were an act of war.”

Cheney’s words are in marked contrast to those of President Obama who spends his time apologizing for American politicians and policies, suing sovereign American states for defending U.S. citizens, and trying to make life as comfortable as possible for terrorists and invading criminals from south of our borders.

Dick Cheney: We miss you and desperately need you and the likes of you in these troubled times!

Go straight to Post

Is Fighting for Smaller Government Racist?

by Daniel Greenfield on Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

When the NAACP allowed itself to be used by the Democratic party to try and smear a grass roots movement for smaller government as racist, the resulting controversy shone a light on more than just racism by individuals associated with the NAACP, but with the organization’s inability to delink class warfare from racism. If there is one thing that both the white media elites at Jornolist and the NAACP leadership agreed on, it’s that fighting for smaller government is racist.

The peculiar notion that reforming government by reducing its size is racist originates from the marriage of racial equality with class warfare to create the 40 Acres and a Mule politics covering everything from wealth redistribution to affirmative action to social welfare programs– all under the aegis of the federal government. And yet this same brand of 40 Acres and a Mule politics underlies the particular tragedy of the black community, whose leaders traded in aspiration and equality for government handouts, forcing them to make the argument over and over again that there can be no social justice without total government control.

When the Democratic party was forced to make the transition from a party of Northern businessmen and Southern plantation owners, after two Republican Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, put a severe dent in their Southern plantations and the Northern business offices that had formerly given the party a death grip on the country’s economy– it did so by redefining the “Company Store” to mean the Federal government. The Republican notion of individual rights and free labor met the new Democratic notion of ward boss handouts at the Federal level in a battle for the soul of the Black community, and the Democrats won. Not immediately, not conclusively and not absolutely– but they won, and the NAACP’s leadership demonstrates why.

The black leadership has gained distinct advantages for itself as a separate class, while disadvantaging the black community as a whole. Civil rights leaders who made their money on lawsuit shakedowns and diversity training seminars, corporate executives and business owners who got where they were through affirmative action programs that encouraged companies to hire one black executive for appearance not merit, and rewarded minority business owners for the color of their skin, rather than for results– helped create a black leadership that owed its position and power to government intervention, rather than ability. And in the process that same leadership marginalized more qualified people within the black community, while teaching the lesson that aspiration and ability did not matter, only connections and politics did.

Affirmative action politics closed far more doors than it opened, but those who got through the open door knew exactly what they owed it to. Creating racial quotas as a way to select leaders was an effective tool for perpetuating the same system over and over again, marginalizing black candidates and business owners as a whole, while rewarding a select few who would then be in a position to praise and maintain things the status quo.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin