On Black History Month

Why is Black History only One Month

Fatherhood.gov is a federal government web site operated within the Department Health and Human Services. It takes only minute of research to link backward through the Office of Family Assistance to the Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. The home page of the web site of the FRPN makes no apologies for their goals:

  • Promote the evaluation of fatherhood programs
  • Expand the number of researchers and others evaluating the fatherhood programs
  • Disseminate information that helps the expanded numbers of researchers evaluate the fatherhood programs they have researched and evaluated

It might be easier to understand if written this way: spend buckets full of taxpayer money paying lots of people to figure why, how or where fatherhood in this country went away so liberals will feel better explaining why it wasn’t their fault. The truth is that if not for liberal sponsored government programs Black History would probably not be limited to just one month out of twelve.

Morgan Freeman has said the history of blacks should be part of American history not limited to just the one month. Thomas Sowell is quoted as saying, “liberals seem to assume that if you don’t believe in their particular political solutions, then you don’t care about the people they claim to want to help.”

Why would such highly regarded black men make such statements?

Mr Freeman’s statement is certainly not difficult to understand. But Dr. Sowell’s has a back story that spans decades of experience. Consider first that Dr. Sowell has very few comments supporting any race as a basis for much of anything. He makes a valid point when he says that many Americans and certainly most of the white liberal establishment can identify all of the black racial leaders, but are silenced when ask to name race-based leaders who are Asian or Jewish.

Sowell grew up in Harlem before the civil rights bill or the War on Poverty. He did not graduate from high school yet he became a senior fellow of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. He is a Marine, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and earned his doctorate in economics in 1958. It is important to note that 1958 pre-dates the 50 or so years of democrat party control of the federal government. So it is even more noteworthy that this black child of poverty accomplished the feat of earning his doctoral degree before the democrats, liberals and progressives began building their government financed Great Society and their War on Poverty to “help” blacks do exactly what free and ambitious men like Sowell had already proven could be done without their “help.”

This year marks the 52nd anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Act no longer has any real value in this age of non-citizen, illegal immigrant voters and the nonsense of motor voter, no ID, same day voting laws, et cetera. It is more interesting to note we have now entered the second half century of the Civil Rights Act. Arguably these two so-called landmark pieces of legislation were the first two battles in Lyndon Johnson’s legacy named the War on Poverty. But the question is, why did congress pass the Voting Rights Act in 1965 when the 15th Amendment to the Constitution very clearly addressed the issue 95 years earlier. The 15th Amendment was ratified February 3, 1870. The text is direct and to the point: “The right of the citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

At the time the democrats decided they wanted to take credit for helping blacks the 15th Amendment was already 95 years old! The democrats’ claims of being the party that took action to help blacks were shouted the loudest by the great Ku Klux Klansman, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia and his cohort the father of government paid abortions, the architect of Medicare – Lyndon Johnson. So while the nation’s attention was focused on the Viet Nam War raging half way around the globe, the racists rantings of democrats in Washington sat the stage for big socialist government to manage the lives and fortunes of black families in America.

In recognition of this black history month, let’s take a moment to acknowledge some of the successes of the government’s race-based social welfare programs.

  • As recently as the early 1960’s two-thirds of black children were living in households with a mother and a father. Today, thanks to special welfare incentives, that number is reversed to less than 1 in 3 living in two parent households and that number drops to as few as 1 in 10 in the inner cities with a history of democrat control. This then is the real back story for the government fatherhood research programs; liberals again trying to double down on failed policies.
  • In the past 8 years under the economic leadership of a black president, the black to white poverty gap has increased – not decreased.
  • The percentage of blacks to whites in prisons is higher today than it was in 1960.
  • In spite of one of the highest cost per student rates in the world, 80% of black students in New York city’s public schools perform below grade level and well below their counterparts in charter and private schools; schools now being forced to downgrade into federally mandated common core curriculum standards.
  • Black crime rates were lower in the 1940’s and 1950’s than it is today after 50 years of government social engineering, even though in those decades black poverty rate was much higher and racial discrimination was legal.

The list of accomplishments of the Great Society’s social welfare programs could be extensive. But perhaps the greatest of all the liberals’ victories against blacks in America is the hyphenation of their identity. They no longer consider themselves Americans. Today they are hyphenated Americans, even when their American born ancestors can be traced back over 150 years. This self-imposed segregation has created what Wall Street Journal senior editorial page writer, Jason L. Riley, describes as “a culture that produces little black girls and boys who are already worried about acting and sounding white by the time they are in the second grade.”

U.S. Math Scores Drop to 35th

U.S. Math scores down to 35th from 28th

Reading and Science rankings also decline.

In the month following the election a report was released that got little attention. The report shows results of the most recent student assessment testing conducted worldwide. Once again, the United States students’ performance declined. In 2009 U.S. student rankings peaked from their 2003 and 2006 upticks, but since 2009 the news has been continuously disappointing.

The assessment tests are given every 3 years to 15 year old students. After decades of decline in several areas of education such as high school graduation rates, education was prioritized by the Bush Administration. In spite of criticism, scores improved over the next 3 rounds from 2003 to 2009. However the improved scores came with the cost of a more difficult curriculum which was blamed by many for a reduced high school graduation rate. In 2009, of the 34 reporting countries, only 8 had a lower rate than the United States.

In addition to falling test scores, between 1995 and 2008 America’s college graduation rate fell from second to thirteenth. President Obama set a goal to raise the U.S. college graduation rate to number one. However, Obama’s education program focused on ways to increase graduation quantity without consideration for the quality. As a result U.S. student test scores turned downward over the next 6 years and the latest report shows our math scores had declined all the way to 35th and science and reading skills seem to be headed lower as well. Reading skills alone fell from 14th in 2009 to 24th in 2015 while science dropped from17th to 25th.

Clearly the negative influence of Obama’s federally mandated Common Core can not be ignored.

What’s behind those Names Leftists call Trump

The truth as I understand it is that Hillary is a career politician with an extraordinary amount of experience in getting things done in Washington. Trump is a despicable, unpredictable megalomaniac that has zero plan and on top of it is racist, xenophobic, alienating, misogynist, who not only has sexually assaulted women but brags about it openly.”

image1In the weeks between the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the women’s march following Donald Trump’s inauguration, I was privileged to exchange thoughts on America with a young graduate of the University of California Santa Barbara who holds a post graduate degree from Columbia, is an education executive with Planned Parenthood and marched in the women’s protest in Washington DC.

Our correspondence followed a note sent to friends in California fallaciously asking if they were preparing for secession. I had read news about Governor Brown’s choice for California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, and I included a link to an article about Becerra’s ties to the radical Marxist / Chicano organization M.E.CH.A. The goal of his organization as stated on the group’s web site is to create a social crisis so great the only solution would be reorganization with California and a large portion of the southwestern U.S. becoming the Chicano nation of Aztlan.

MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as “Mechistas,” romanticize Mexican claims to the “lost Territories” of the Southwestern United States — a Chicano country called Aztlan.

From the M.E.CH.A. web site

Although M.E.CH.A. has roots in Denver’s Crusade for Justice civil rights group, its initial organization grew from a meeting of several like-minded groups on the campus of UC Santa Barbara. My young friend was proud to explain how her former campus has probably become more radical than UC Berkeley. She accepts that the southwestern U.S. had been stolen by white settlers and soldiers who slaughtered natives.

Even more interesting is that she views America as a country built on land stolen from the original residents by murdering between 1 and 95% of them. The number doesn’t matter since 1 is as bad as 95%. Then, to build the capitalist economy, the founding white fathers kidnapped and enslaved a significant portion of the population of Africa. Again, “significant” portion is any number, as even 1 justifies condemning all white people in today’s America as undeserving murdering slave runners. To support her argument, she cited her friend who writes history curriculum (implying a credible source) that until 1820 there were more blacks in the country than whites.

It seems her opinion is that any wealth or power the U.S. has accumulated is the result of abuses to women, the murdering of Indians, and the bloodshed of enslaved blacks who’s labor enriched the politically powerful who control capitalism. She firmly believes those abuses will intensify under the “white nationalists” President Trump is installing in powerful positions. Especially if he takes away a woman’s right to abort a baby at taxpayers’ expense. But that of course is not a bad murder of a person, it is simply a woman being free to live her life the way she wants. A bit convoluted but certainly her belief.

How can anyone prove something which does not exist, does not exist? Is it possible? No! However, events which have occurred can be discussed. Unfortunately such discussions are often based more on feelings or beliefs than facts. Name calling is typical – especially from those who suspect they really don’t have facts on their side. Such discussions nearly always end when the shouting and name calling become excessive, violent, or both.

She didn’t want to continue to read my “… propaganda, tunnel vision, trump bullshit…” because, “People around the world (will) die because of this man’s policies. That is real and happening…I’m here for the worldwide struggle for equity (equality I think she meant) not stories like this (the vulgarity of the march) meant to distract us from what’s really happening.”

The latest example of liberalism came recently as the world watched liberals on the UC Berkeley campus advance from shouting to beating as attendees attempted to get past the blockade and attend a lecture by a conservative author. Sadly, as police stood idly by, protesters supposedly there to protect the innocent students from hearing the poison speech of the invited author, beat attendees with a shovel and left one bleeding in the streets as other liberals sat fires and destroyed property in the area. This scene followed a similar but less violent protest on the University of Colorado at Boulder just days earlier. It seems the liberals involved need to compete with each other for the title of most radical.

My young friend was quick to justify violent radicals on the California campuses because President Trump must be stopped – for the sake of humanity? Her quote pictured above is repeated in various forms by many on the radical political left. It is also an excellent example of an emotional argument containing both name calling and a syllogism fallacy.

Since syllogy is the most popular means of introducing a debate tactic known as a red herring into a liberal headline story, taking a minute to understand what it is and how it works is important to understand today’s media name calling attacks on anyone who threatens to reduce the influence of the media or the political establishment.

Syllogism fallacies begin with a statement difficult to deny which in turn supports a conclusion. In my friend’s example, she claims Hillary is a career politician and therefore is successful. The fallacy is that the conclusion – that she has gotten things done – is certainly supposed to mean she got ‘good’ things done. But who gets to say if those things were good. Judging from the rioting and violent assaults on the campus of UC Berkeley as leftist protesters shut down a scheduled presentation by a conservative author, only liberals are allowed freedom of speech and they decide what defines a positive accomplishment. So lets examine closely my friend’s quote.

The fallacy makes the claim that she got things done because, and only because, she was in Washington. But there is no evidence offered to support that idea. Therefore, to question what she accomplished opens a new debate and introduces a new set of opinions about whether those “accomplishments” were positive for the country or not? And now the debate is based on the opinions about things that got done and not if they got at all. Suddenly the otherwise questionable claim that Hillary has had “extraordinary” experiences in Washington is accepted as evidence she has been a successful career politician. And now the entire fallacy is arguably supported by opinion not facts and the debate reaches a draw.

Convoluted? You can be assured that this is how nonsense becomes a powerful force in politics. But as evidenced by the second half of my friend’s quote, if the syllogy fails to catch and deflect, name calling is always the best second choice. And just look at that list: despicable, unpredictable megalomaniac (which could mean he is either unpredictable or a megalomaniac but to be both would be contradictory), racist, xenophobic, alienating and a misogynist who rapes and molest women. She can say these things because his political opponents said so on television – and that makes it true of course.

When name calling, using more syllables gains the most attention since they sound more intelligent. Most people don’t like to admit they don’t know what a derogatory name means so they simply accept it must be true if someone ‘smarter than themselves’ said it. But as evidenced by the photo seen above taken recently at the women’s protest in Washington, anything associated with the Nazi party, racism or Fachism or vulgarity also seems to excite the liberals.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑