A recent hack from Gucifer 2.0 has revealed that the DNC has intentionally sought to minimize the influence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the Democratic Party. In an effort to contain the virulence of these activists, the DNC has recommended that its operatives and politicians listen politely to the activists but limit their influence. The memo also instructed candidates to advocate policies that “rebuild the relationship between police and community” by exploring ways to reform police training and limit abuse. The position clearly leans towards the “cops are guilty” mentality, but also demonstrates the DNC’s unwillingness to let their radicals get out of line.
This, of course, prompted a reply from BLM: “We are disappointed at the DCCC’s placating response to our demand to value all Black life. Black communities deserve to be heard, not handled. People are dying.”
No surprise there.
And of course, this underscores Trump’s message: the Democrats don’t care about African Americans, they just care about the votes of African Americans. Consider the fact that for decades the Democrats have controlled some of America’s biggest cities and African Americans still languish in the ghetto. Something isn’t working and Trump’s saying as much. While the liberal media has gone ballistic over this, they refuse to countenance the fact that they, not hick Republicans from the midwest, bear responsibility for the state of the inner cities. African Americans, more than anyone else, have suffered in countless ways over the past decades under Democrat rule and now under the Obama administration (the slow “recovery” has hurt them more than most). If a black Democrat in the Oval Office can’t help his own people out, why not take a shot with the billionaire? Oh, and the alternative? Hillary: a woman whose husband oversaw the slashing of welfare benefits and a dramatic increase in black incarceration. And yet the Democrats still maintain a chokehold on the black vote. The irony: before emancipation the Democrats owned the black vote (3/5s per slave) but now they completely own the black vote (one whole vote per person!).
But Trump actually wants to change that and he’s forcing the Republicans, who have for too long disregarded the black vote as not worth the effort, to actually acknowledge the barriers that confront African Americans. Trump is insisting that the GOP stop talking about abstract freedom, and limited government as the panacea for everything, and actually make a case for how they will make things better for Americans, including minorities. Truth is he has always talked about making America as a whole great again, now he’s just playing the left’s game and emphasizing minorities who are part of that thing called America.*
I’ll protect you from the corporations.
Hillary recently published a piece on CNN decrying campaign finance laws (see Citizens United) and state’s “restricting voting rights.” I’m not convinced that Citizens United is the great evil it’s cracked up to be. Jeb(!) with his grand war-chest is on life support. Trump is playing the game with pocket change. So much for buying elections. Nor do I think that efforts to improve the integrity of the voting process necessarily imprudent (we don’t want dead people voting, do we?). But I’m not interested in either of these issues at the moment. What interests me is Hillary’s belief that democracy, and more of it, is a good in-of-itself. As she puts it: “Let’s restore people’s voices and people’s votes to their rightful place — at the center of our democracy.” Clear away the barriers thrown up by corporate money and voter restrictions, let the unadulterated voice of the people ring forth, bring freedom to the oppressed, and the nation will rise to a glorious future. In this assumption, Hillary is joined by her competitor, Bernie. Of course, it’s Hillary, and she’s received gobs of money from corporations and so I suspect Hillary’s appeal is fundamentally disingenuous, and yet the belief in the will of the people is deeply ingrained in the progressive left. Continue reading
As France reels from the terrorist attacks a few days ago, there are a number of questions swirling around the future of Europe when it comes to the still steady influx of refugees. Hollande has stated that France will still accept refugees in the wake of the attacks, despite Marine Le Pen smiling like the cat who ate the canary and enjoying rising political clout. The narrative persists that the refugees are not to blame for terrorism, and I think it is a legitimate point, but it cannot be denied with a straight face that the “Everyone Welcome” policy of Angela Merkel and other EU leaders seems a bit rash in retrospect. After a bomb scare in Hanover just yesterday, it is clear that everyone is very much on edge, and both sides of the refugee issue are very much entrenched. This is where we are right now, but I would also like to explore how we all got here and what ‘here’ even is.
First off, the largest culprit cited for the refugee crisis is the Syrian civil war, a product of the failed state bonanza known as The Arab Spring. It began with peaceful protests by a Sunni majority and then turned to a proxy war once Hezbollah and America got involved. I have my own theories on the subject relating to how involved the US and other western powers were in turning the peaceful protests into a war. Hint: very. The mainstream media version claims that “The Butcher Assad” barrel bombed his people and so they took up arms against him. It’s thin, very thin. In fact, it has been argued quite convincingly that Assad had the support of most Syrians at the start of the civil war, not to mention that the US supplied Al Nusra and helped turn the war into a sectarian conflict.