Culture and Religion

Reparations: Why the push now?

Published

2 days ago

April 17, 2019

Ray Fava

Democrat presidential candidates have launched the debate of reparations (back?) into prominence. The idea is that the government will compensate black people for the sins of slavery over a hundred years ago. There are no specifics in regards to rich black people, mixed people, or African-American immigrants. Nor is there a dollar amount specified. The vague notion of free money always has its appeal to the recipients. However what are the motivations of these promises? Are the Democrats shamefully pandering? Or are the Democrats corralling?

There have been recent incidents of Democrats overtly pandering like AOC having a blaccent which is hardly different from Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden when they pandered to black people. The entire border crisis is a Democrat ploy so that they can drastically shift America’s electorate in their favor by pandering to the illegal immigrants whom they help vote already or intend to give citizenship so that they will vote someday.

So before answering the three questions posed in the beginning, it must be determined, the reason the Democrats pander. Steve Deace, on a recent “Blaze Roundtable” discussion, which is a must-watch, described the Democrat electorate according to a NY Times study. The study found a gaping disparity between Democrats on social media and Democrats in real life. The discussion concluded with Steve Deace explaining how the Republicans are a coalition and the Democrats are a confederacy (just like old times). Democrats are a confederacy of identitarian politics: blacks, hispanics, gays, Muslims etc. So, pandering to keep this confederacy alive is blood flow for the party.

But not all pandering comes in equivalent degrees. The recent push for reparations is an aggressive pander that can literally be construed as buying votes. “You give, I give.” It makes for a good campaign promise like canceling student debt (that was voluntarily assumed.) However, when it comes to Democrats pandering to black Americans, one needs to notice clear trends.

The first trend is increasing racial tensions. Much of this came from the Obama years beginning with events like the death of Trevon Martin by the hands of a hispanic man. However, when Daron Wilson defended himself against Michael Brown, the media and police misrepresented the situation, culmulating in riots that could have been avoided. Several other false martyrs were raised, and occasionally there were wrongful deaths. People’s racism kept them from treating every person’s hashtag as an individual case. Nor did they care for rule of law in the matter. In Baltimore, the Freddie Gray trials featured a blatant instance of a social justice jury that hanged the first (black) defendant. He was charged with various homicide and reckless endangerment charges because he didn’t put a seatbelt on Freddie Gray. The rest of the defendants chose bench trials to their own acquittal. Baltimore is a worse place as a result. This led to people like Kaepernick and various rap stars perpetuating victim ideology, despite their success. This year the Grammy’s gave “This is America” Song of the Year. The song features talentless repetition of the phrase “Get your money, Black man.” This is in stark contrast to the black comedy Barbershop which lampooned the idea of reparations and even having the (arguably) most thuggish character deliver the monologue. Control the culture and you control the policy is a widely believed sequence. Well, the culture is going downhill, as evident by the Grammys and our uncultured society. Thus, this creates a breeding ground for free money policies. This would indicate that the Democrats are simply pandering to pander.

The second trend is Blexit. Donald Trump, for all his statements, won more of the black vote than Mitt Romney or John McCain. Kanye West and Chance the Rapper stated that black people do not have to vote Democrat. I’ve been largely critical of Candace Owens; however, her function in the Conservative movement is a necessary campaign to break the hegemony of the black Democrat vote. After all, the Republicans have pandered hard to Jews. Hispanics tend to vote more Republican with each generation. The confederacy of the Democrat Party if unraveled would spell the doom of the socialist movement in America. Perhaps the Democrat push for reparations is a tactical maneuver to maintain their most secure voting block. It’s very possible this hegemony is more fragile than ever but the gift of free money can forestall eventual disaster.

Final Thoughts

As for the three questions posed in the beginning, come to your own conclusion. The goal of this column was to generate consciousness as to why this policy suggestion is having an aggressive push.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Click to comment

Culture and Religion

Sometimes it’s the little wrongs that stick

Published

38 mins ago

April 18, 2019

JD Rucker

Sometimes its the little wrongs that stick

I was a pretty cocky kid.

It’s something that I get to hear a lot lately, especially when connecting with old friends from high school and college. I remember thinking that I wouldn’t be that guy, the one who looks back while on the second half of a standard life and calls himself stupid, but that’s exactly what I’ve started doing. I was a cocky, stupid kid.

There are several instances that I can recall that had an effect on the way that I grew and would eventually point me to dedicate my life to Christ. One of those events was very small, so small that the person I “wronged” likely doesn’t even remember the incident.

I was managing a steak house in Oklahoma City. I was the youngest of the managers of what was supposed to be a summer job and ended up supporting my young family for three years. I was cocky (and did I mention I was stupid as well?) and took pride in my ability to diffuse situations. It wasn’t a fancy steak house. In fact, it was a two-story, 550-seat monster that served hundreds of steaks every night.

One particular evening I was helping one of the servers by taking the order. It was a special day for the patriarch of the family and they were celebrating – what exactly I don’t recall or perhaps never knew. The special day man had one important request – no Texas toast. His wife (or daughter, couldn’t tell for sure) said that he was extremely allergic to anything that had bread and I assured her that no bread would touch his plate. I plugged in the order, put the special instructions in all caps (NO BREAD NO BREAD NO BREAD) and went on to see to the hundreds of other guests as well as the staff.

I was walking by the table, just checking in, when the food came. Time went into slow-motion mode as the plate was put down in front of him with a big, buttery piece of Texas toast right smack dab on his 14 oz. ribeye. The look on the wife/daughter’s face has always stuck with me. It was pure disappointment, shock, and even a little bit of fear all flashing before me in technicolor slow motion.

Instantly, I reached down and grabbed the plate, but the man grabbed my arm. His fury was clear. I told him that I would get him a new steak, but refused to let go. He wanted to keep that steak hostage to make certain that we didn’t just take it to the back, pull of the bread, and serve him the same steak. I assured him that we wouldn’t do that but he was firm. He didn’t believe me and that made me mad.

In the same situation today, I wouldn’t have tried to take the steak back. In fact, I would have left one more instruction on the ticket – “Page ME for delivery”. I would have made certain that the bread didn’t go on his plate. Instead, I allowed myself to get angry. I took it out on the staff that couldn’t read instructions. I took it out on the table that had a special occasion ruined. I didn’t even comp the meal because of my petty, stupid, cocky anger.

For all I know, they never thought about it again. For all I know, the man was emotionally unstable and hurt someone that night due to my mistakes. His grip was very strong, the type of grip that one can’t get by working out. It only comes from working through life with your hands.

It’s the fear in the wife/daughter’s eyes that I’ve never been able to shake for two decades. Mad – understandable. Disappointed – who wouldn’t be? Fear – that’s something that was distinct. She wasn’t looking at me. She was looking at him. She was waiting for his response. I don’t recall if I truly saw it out of the corner of my eye or if it has emerged through my imagination over the years, but I think she even looked up at me with a subtle, desperate shake of her head as I tried to pry the plate from his grip as if she was warning me that this many might kill me over the mistake.

We never know the effects of our actions. We don’t know what little thing we might do that causes someone to snap, something bad to happen, or something life-changing that could have been avoided by being a little less stupid, a little less cocky, and a lot more like a believer in Jesus Christ should act.

I never had the chance to apologize properly to the family. Maybe that’s why it stuck with me for all of these years. The slow motion look of mixed, terrible emotions – I pray that my little act of defiance didn’t cause pain to anyone.

Boost This Post

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Culture and Religion

Do not presume to know if someone is saved, even if they’re pro-abortion pastors

Published

16 hours ago

April 18, 2019

JD Rucker

Do not presume to know if someone is saved even if theyre pro-abortion pastors

This could very easily turn into a discussion about Arminianism versus Calvinism, but that’s a topic I’m still not ready to tackle on this site. One thing I will tackle is the presumptive nature that guides many people to make calls about who is a Christian and who’s a false-Christian as if they’re baseball umpires calling balls or strikes.

It’s something I’ve faced on literally hundreds if not thousands of occasions over the years. People will read my bio on the various social networks, then use my proclamation of being a Christian to call out my posts. Heck, it happened twice today on a reply I sent to Kamala Harris on Twitter that had absolutely nothing to do with faith. I’ve grown used to it, and I try my hardest to never let it get to me on a personal level. I’ve found that many who call me out for a Tweet or Facebook post are simply disagreeing with the content and trying to shame me by saying it’s not very Christian-like. This is a common tactic, folks, so be mindful of it if you face similar complaints.

But today I’d like to discuss a similar situation. Should Christians call out other’s who profess to be Christians based on actions or perspectives that are clearly non-Biblical? The answer to this question, in my humble opinion, is yes and no. Yes, I believe it behooves us as Bible-believers to call out the actions of others, particularly if they profess to be Christians. No, I do not believe we should be claiming people are not Christians because of their misguided beliefs or actions. That’s a call that’s way above our pay grade.

For example, there was a lot of controversy over a letter by 150 Christian leaders who support a pro-choice stance. As most Christians know, abortion is not a Biblical practice and is spoken against in the Bible itself. We should definitely be calling on those who are supportive of abortion and who also profess their faith, but we shouldn’t be telling them they’re going to burn in hell over their perspective, that they have no Grace, or that they’re not really Christians. I said it before and I can’t really say it enough – such things are above our pay grade.

More than 150 "Christian" leaders signed a letter supporting abortion.

The letter was signed by pastors who identify as Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Unitarian, AME, Catholic, Episcopal, Brethren, Anglican etc.
https://t.co/xf64Lfj3Xn

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) April 17, 2019

We know from the Bible what God disapproves of, but we are not capable of known WHO God approves of, as in who He considers to be saved as a Christian. When we tell people who believe they are saved that they’re actually not saved because they believe in abortion, we’re presuming to know God’s Will on such matters. We do not.

If we want to call out the sin, that’s proper. If we’re telling a sinner they’re condemned to hell because of their sin, it’s like taking on the role of passing eternal judgment. That is not our calling. Mind your tongues, folks. God does.

Boost This Post

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Culture and Religion

Michael J. Knowles on the reality of ‘white privilege’ and intersectionality

Published

23 hours ago

April 17, 2019

Michio Hasai

Michael J Knowles on the reality of white privilege and intersectionality

There’s a strange contradiction that’s been essentially taking over the mentality of many leftists for some time now. The contradiction has to do with bigotry and is framed around the concept of “white privilege.”

If you’re white, you instantly have privilege in their eyes. If you also happen to be a straight male, you really, really have privilege. This characterization by the left does two things. It paints those who are straight male Caucasians as not being capable of experiencing the types of hardships experienced by others and it forces anyone who is not a straight male Caucasian to embrace their victimhood if they’re going to be part of the leftist tribe.

This is, of course, all ludicrous. White privilege is a myth in today’s America. There are enough safeguards to protect those who aren’t straight white males from persecuting the rest of us, and those safeguards have been working. But that’s not enough for the left. They aren’t looking for equality. They want the status they place on people of having “white privilege” to work against them.

Michael J. Knowles and Andrew Klavan from the DailyWire took to Texas A&M to discuss some of the challenges leftists force onto people, particularly at college campuses in America. The event, hosted by YAF, yielded an extremely interesting series of discussions. You can watch the whole event here.

Knowles was asked about “white privilege” and gave a thoughtful response. Here’s one important quote from his answer:

“Ironically what this ideology does is it turns privilege into victimhood and it turns victimhood into privilege, and that’s the upside down world of the left, and it’s why they go after you on immutable characteristics such as the color of your skin and your biology and your chromosomes.”

Will there ever come a time when the left is willing to look past our gender, religion, sexual preference, or the color of our skin and simply see people as who they are? The way things are going, it doesn’t seem like it.