Dear Joel Mathis: Liberalism, Not Nationalism, Killed Compassion in America

blank

Here is a photo of what the “free” press allows me to freely use when I look for images of the illegal immigrant caravan/invasion heading to America.

 

In his essay published in The Week magazine, self-described “liberal” Joel Mathis ponders the question, “Has nationalism killed compassion in America?”  The piece is an unintentional tribute to Ronald Reagan’s famous quip, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”  Follow along, and you’ll see what I mean.  My remarks are in red.

 

By Joel Mathis

There’s been some heavy lifting lately, in the non-Trumpist precincts of our politics, to rescue the idea of “nationalism” from the clutches of President Trump and his alt-right followers. Lest liberals and progressives be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we’re reminded in books and essays that nationalism has its uses — forming the glue that provides us with social cohesion and a welfare state, among other goods.  These “nice-guy nationalists” make good points. There’s just one problem: America’s best-known nationalist is the president. And he’s not much interested in social cohesion.

In the interest of time I’ll leave aside the bizarre claim that “a welfare state” is one of the benefits of nationalism in order to focus on the even stranger claim that it is Trump who isn’t interested in social cohesion.  Ever since Barack Obama emerged on the national political scene the Left has perfected the devious art of projecting their own sins onto the opposition and then attacking them for it, and this notion that it is Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, who divide us is one of their most cynical projections.  Statistics show that race relations began their steep decline under Obama, the predictable consequence of Obama intentionally stoking racial tensions (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”)  Moreover, who could plausibly deny that the entirety of the Left’s political strategy is vested in the politics of division when Democrats are continually pitting minorities against whites, women against men, poor against rich, and when it’s become the Left’s norm to openly disparage “old, white men?”  While the Right promotes the melting pot, the Left promotes multiculturalism, yet history proves that social cohesion fails when immigrants reject assimilation or embrace the Left’s nurturing of perpetual victimhood.  

“You know what I am? I’m a nationalist,” Trump declared Monday night in Texas. “Okay? I’m a nationalist.”

To get a sense of what this means in Trump’s hands, it’s good to take a look at the so-called “migrant caravan” currently marching north from Guatemala to the United States border. From the accounts of people on the ground, it appears this caravan is composed largely of people fleeing deprivation and violence in their home countries. It’s the sort of thing you or I would do if our families were similarly endangered; ardent nationalists have decided to treat these fleeing families like an invading military.

“An assault!” Trump told told the Texas rally.

“Migrant hordes,” writer Rod Dreher blogged at The American Conservative.

Even The Associated Press got in the act, calling the caravan a “ragtag army of the poor” in a tweet that was later deleted.

But the people forming the caravan are not an army. They aren’t seeking collectively to capture land or dislodge governments. They are merely individuals seeking a better life and traveling in the direction they think most likely to help them find it.

“Treating this as an ‘invasion’ is a bad idea, and it’s going to end horribly if it is treated such as that way,” an independent voter said Monday on Fox News, and that’s perhaps the most sensible statement made on any cable news network this year. 

Parents sometimes refer to medicine as “candy” to entice their children to take it, and this psychology is not lost on the sly Left when they try to manipulate their way past our natural defenses by insisting that we not call things what they really are.  Illegal aliens are “undocumented,” insists the liberals in the Orwellian speak that we’ve become accustomed to.  And now an invasion is not an invasion.  It’s just an innocent, happy parade of people wanting a better life.  I might prefer to live on the French Riviera but I don’t gather 13,999 of my friends and march on France.  The U.S. has a process for considering applications for asylum.  Purposefully ignoring that process in a calculated effort to take advantage of loopholes in our immigration system and create chaos at our border is what makes this an invasion, and Democrats – always the useful idiots – are cheering it on. 

Nationalism may provide us with social cohesion — and that’s good — but it is also a garment best worn lightly. That’s a tricky, perhaps impossible, expectation: In many cases, nationalism asks us to disregard our own moral sense in favor of group loyalty.

Morality tells us that when people are hungry, we offer them food.

Morality tells us that when people flee violence, we offer them protection.

Morality tells us that all humans are worthy of moral consideration, no matter their origins or circumstances. 

First, morality tells us that when you are hungry or need protection you don’t break down the door and help yourself to what others have worked hard for.  You knock on the door and politely ask for help, at which time it is the homeowner’s right to determine whether your need is genuine and whether you are an innocent victim or just looking for an easier way at someone else’s expense.  In America we call that respecting the rights of others, and that is the moral thing to do.  Another moral tradition we once had in America was to reject the evil temptation to falsely impugn – for political gain –  peoples’ motives by coyly suggesting that ethnicity or financial status is the reason for their objection to thousands of people marching on our border.  Never mind that this charge is rich coming from people who’ve popularized the denouncement of “old, white men;” it is the rejection of U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law that’s inspired Trump and conservatives to condemn the “caravan,” and it is Mathis himself who stoops to immorality by using the group’s shared ethnicity as an excuse to pull the tired, old race card.  By the way, wouldn’t you love to know how many poor, uneducated, non-english-speaking immigrants are included among Mr. Mathis’ close circle of friends? 

Nationalism often — not always, but often — asks us to disregard those moral considerations, or at least to quiet them a little bit, to place a higher importance on defending the integrity of arbitrarily drawn borders than we do the lives of people trying to escape inhumane situations. Nationalism tends to divide humans into “us” and “them” and tells us “they” are worth less. Frequently — and Trump has based his entire political persona on this idea — it tells us that “they” are probably bad people. Why? Mostly because they’re not us. How do you get to be us? Well, it’s all kind of an accident of birth, really. At best, it’s absurd. In many cases, nationalism is simply racist.

There it is again of course – the race card.  The truth is, Trump has based his political persona on the concept of putting America first.  Not white America.  Not black America.  Not male or female America.  Just America.  You can see it.  You can feel it.  It’s palpable, and his focus on treating the country as a whole, rather than dividing us into subgroups as the Left always does, flies in the face of these trite accusations of racism.  Is he nationalistic according to its real definition?  Yes, in the sense that he wants to promote our interests and our culture.  There’s nothing wrong with that unless you’re a leftist mired in the standard creed of loathing America.  As for “arbitrarily drawn borders,” one could say that the borders of Mr. Mathis’ property are just as arbitrarily drawn, yet that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t fight for them if necessary. 

The nice-guy nationalists advocate a rather bloodless view of nationalism’s benefits, but the history of the last century, with its wars and genocides, provides plenty of evidence that nationalism can turn very bloody, indeed. Still, it probably is utopian to think we poor humans can get very far without organizing along national lines. And “Morality Is Complex and Transcends National Lines!” is a poor riposte, politically, to the pithiness of “America First!” This column isn’t going to win any elections.

The caravan keeps advancing north. So what to do? How do we balance the benefits of nationalism — and the legitimate obligation to protect our citizens and their well-being — against the need to look out for our neighbors beyond our borders?

In the short term, you can treat the caravan like what it is — a collection of needy, dispossessed humans fleeing dire circumstances — instead of as an invading army to be met with force. Instead of cutting off aid to the caravaners’ countries of origin, let’s figure out how to help them, now, where they are, before they get to our border. Difficult? Sure. Worth it? Probably.

In the long term, the United States can consider how its policies may actually create the refugees it so desperately wants to reject. U.S. policies, for example, helped create the circumstances that allowed the MS-13 street gang to flourish in Central America. Maybe we should do less of that kind of thing?

In the same vein, perhaps Trump — who needs to serve American interests — might come to understand he does not best serve an “America First” vision with his preferred “we-win-you-lose” deals with our allies and rivals. America’s security and prosperity can best be enhanced by assisting the security and prosperity of people around the world. It’s that vision, not some utopian altruism, that has guided much of the postwar world order that Trump seems ready to undo.

The migrant caravan is still hundreds of miles from the American border, but it’s not too late to seek constructive solutions. Right now, though, it’s the regular nationalists — not the nice-guy kind — who are running the show.

What intrigued me most about this piece was the headline asking if nationalism has killed compassion in America because I see things quite differently.  I think it is liberalism, not nationalism, that’s killing compassion in this country.  Liberals tell us that instead of teaching a man to fish so that he becomes self-sufficient that we must fish for him whether we want to or not.  We get no say in determining whether the man is capable of fishing for himself.  If he has no fish, that alone, we are told, is proof that he is entitled to our fish.  And if we have the nerve to point out that perhaps the man was napping rather than fishing or that he refuses to learn to fish, well then we are racists who should not be allowed to speak. 

We are told that our borders are “arbitrary,” that the people who come here by the millions to use our schools, or hospitals, our roads, our police, our courts and who – by virtue of evading the system – sometimes bring crime and disease, just want a better life.  Our own desires for a better life are of no consequence.  Conservatives’ accounting for the hundreds of billions of dollars illegal immigration costs Americans are dismissed as “lies” by the Left, while they refuse to engage in any truthful accounting themselves.  The actions of the Left with respect to illegal immigration engender feelings of powerlessness in those of us who believe that we are entitled to have a say in the immigration policies of our nation, and who believe all our laws should be enforced, not just those that are convenient to the Left.  To whatever extent compassion is dead in this nation, THIS – this political game-playing with our laws and immigration policy – THIS is what has killed it.  Turn the mirror around, Mr. Mathis, and take a good, long look.  This is what you and your leftist friends have wrought.

One last question for Mr. Mathis and any liberals who happen to read this: 

Have you considered the moral implications of what happens now to the people truly in need of asylum after you’ve made such a mockery of our generosity?  No?  I thought not.

~CW



Categories: Political

Tags: , , , , , ,

27 replies

  1. Good post CW. Early progressive thought has transformed America from a Republic to a Democracy and modern liberalism is transforming America from a Democracy to a Socialist state. Natural law morality principles about welfare also states that only those who use the money responsibly deserve it. Besides, there is an interest principle in welfare. Yes, we help people we know in need (we have an interest in their welfare). We do not want to help people we do not know through a coercive tax system. Morality, natural law, and common sense means the lowest possible government office should handle welfare. If healthcare is a right (I do not believe it is, we have the right to pursue health but are not guaranteed health), then a one size fits all government system violates that right by making it more inefficient, costly, and wasteful.

    It is violation of the takings clause to take property (money) from a private citizen for private reasons. It can be taken for public reasons enumerated in the Constitution: postal infrastructure, the military, etc. It violates natural law to take property from A and give it to B. Of course the takings clause also says there must be just compensation for any takings, but the coercive 16th amendment provides the government can implement an income tax. But the 16th amendment does not say the government can collect taxes for any reason outside its enumerated powers including taking money from one private citizen and giving it to another.

    FDR started class warfare and it is really bad now. The term discrimination is used every time someone is offended or annoyed. I think we should talk in generic terms instead of about race, gender, socio-economic status. How is that done. It is done by talking about rights and not about discrimination. We seem to care more about what we think our neighbors should be doing instead of what they have the right to do. If someone’s rights are violated it does not matter if they black, white, male or female. It does not matter where it happened or why it happened. It is a mistake that needs to be corrected. Everyone has the same rights, but with social justice: enemy combatants have more rights our military; diversity provides protected groups of citizens more rights than other citizens; illegal aliens have more rights than citizens; the poor have more rights than the wealthy; urban citizens have more rights than rural citizens; customers have more rights than businesses; employees have more rights than employers and the list goes on. This is what we created. In essence we are using the same justification Justice Taney used in Dred Scott to discriminate against blacks today to discriminate against non-protected groups of citizens. It is wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

    • >>”If healthcare is a right (I do not believe it is, we have the right to pursue health but are not guaranteed health), then a one size fits all government system violates that right by making it more inefficient, costly, and wasteful.”

      That was brilliantly put, Patrick. I couldn’t agree more. Ditto for this statement:

      >>”But the 16th amendment does not say the government can collect taxes for any reason outside its enumerated powers including taking money from one private citizen and giving it to another.”

      Liberals are tragically clueless about the destruction they’ve brought upon us in their false pursuit of “compassion.” One would think that every now and then they would actually open their eyes and look around at the state of things since they began their mission to “help” us and would see that healthcare is a mess, taxation is out of control, race relations are in the toilet and Americans are more cynical than ever before but they seem blind to it.

      Thanks for your great comment. Good to “see” you, as always.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Obama didn’t stoke racial tensions. That’s absurd. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Under the Obama administration cell phones with cameras became ubiquitous. Which then allowed black Americans in particular to obtain video evidence of police brutality. That, and the right’s inability to accept a black president are what has stoked racial tension. Of course, instead of addressing police brutality like grownups, you all have decided to take the bizarre stance that it doesn’t exist.

    Secondly, if you’re so proud of your writing, why don’t you sign your name to it?

    Like

    • Sometimes correlation equals causation and sometimes it doesn’t. Obama is an intelligent man, and there were a lot of things he could have done to promote unity among the races but instead he chose the path that fueled the divisions for reasons that are obvious to those of us who understand what he’s really about. What was the point, pray tell, when Obama took to the stage to accusingly proclaim that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon? You tell me, since you’re so smart. Because I can think of no other reason than that this intelligent POTUS wanted to create a sense of shared victimhood among blacks over an isolated incident between two people, one who happened to be black and one who happened to be white. But I will anxiously await your explanation.

      I read the news every single day, and every day I see stories of white people killed or otherwise harmed by blacks, yet I’ve NEVER heard Donald Trump come out and indignantly complain that those victims could have been HIS son or HIS daughter. He hasn’t used the crimes of these individuals to fuel anger towards an entire race. Obama’s biggest contribution to the steepening race divide, more importantly, is what he DIDN’T say. While he was quick to insert himself into any controversy in which there was some perceived injustice by a white against a black, he never said much about the rampant culture of black on black violence in urban areas around this country. Shhhhh! It’s a secret. It’s also a secret that blacks murder at a rate of some SEVEN times that of whites in the U.S. We’re not allowed to acknowledge these truths because this makes us “racist,” even though the facts are never racist. Obama also DIDN’T come out, either as president or former president, and defend the flag that represents ALL of us when Colin Kaepernick and others began their campaign of disrespect on the phony premise that we’re all a bunch of racists. Obama chose sides, and which side he chose is abundantly clear.

      What fueled the decline in race relations was the false perception, strangely nurtured by a black man who became POTUS thanks in large part to white voters, that racism is endemic in America. How’s that for irony? Instead of applauding the great strides we’ve made in a world where racism is the natural state (point to a country of mixed races without race issues, if you disagree. I’ll wait.), he focused the country’s attention on a tiny minority of racial conflicts and implied that this was the true state of our nation. And it was all with intent, because Obama ain’t no dummy. Gotta keep the hostility going because that’s what keeps people loyal to your party, right? Otherwise they might start voting on things like the economy.

      And just to remind you: 95% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008. 93% of blacks voted for Obama in 2012. Only 55% of whites voted for McCain and 59% for Romney. Tell me again who the racists are?

      As for signing my real name, I don’t do so because I promised my husband that I wouldn’t. Apparently he doesn’t want us to be chased out of restaurants or to have our address published so that we can be harassed in our home by people who reject the notion of free speech. Go figure. That said, as soon as someone starts paying me to write I’ll be more than happy to use my name. And yes, I’m very proud of what I write.

      Thanks for your comment.

      Liked by 2 people

      • There’s no “rampant culture of black on black violence.” That’s a right wing myth. Black on black violence is exactly as prevalent as white on white violence. This country has NEVER completely or correctly addressed racial equality. Obama attempting to mention it from time to time was not race baiting. You all are snowflakes. Racism IS endemic. For you to pretend it isn’t is again, not even in line with reality. Black people are routinely arrested for petty crimes most white people get away with. Black people are routinely given longer prison sentences than white people for the exact same crimes. Because of the legacy of slavery, racism and Jim Crow, black families haven’t been able to acquire land or build wealth. You’re living in a fantasy world.

        If you’re so sure you’re just, right and correct, why not ascribe your name to your writings?

        Liked by 1 person

      • This study shows that blacks are 7x more likely than whites to be wrongly convicted of murder. Is that where you’re getting your insane statistic? https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf

        Liked by 1 person

      • >“There’s no “rampant culture of black on black violence.” That’s a right wing myth.”

        Per the FBI’s homicide stats for 2016 in which the attacker was known, 43% of victims were black even though blacks are just 12.7% of the population. 90% of those killed were killed by other blacks. So you just ignore those dead bodies and keep telling yourself that black on black crime is a “right wing myth.” Meanwhile, blacks will keep killing each other because leftists like you consider it non-PC to face the truth.

        https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

        Re homicides in the U.S. in 2015 per the FBI: 53.3% of the homicides in the U.S. in which the offender was known were committed by blacks, who make up only 12.7% of the population, while whites, who make up 77.5% of the population, were responsible for just 44% of the homicides in cases where the offender is known.

        https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide

        Or if you prefer you can look to Wikipedia which states on it’s page on “Race and crime in the United States:”

        “According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with European Americans 45.3% and “Other” 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than European Americans, and the victim rate 6 times higher.”

        Did you read that, Amber? 8 times higher. Or do you consider Wikipedia to be an arm of the right wing?

        >>”This country has NEVER completely or correctly addressed racial equality.”

        When was the last time you investigated the impact on blacks in America caused by the disparity in single-parent households, Amber? Never, I suppose. That’s typical. A child who grows up in a single-parent household is far more likely to live in poverty and to experience all of the life-long detrimental effects of the unfortunate choices made by his or her parents than children born to married couples. No amount of “addressing” racial equality can make up for what liberal policy and black culture has done to the detriment of blacks over the past 50 years.

        >”Because of the legacy of slavery, racism and Jim Crow, black families haven’t been able to acquire land or build wealth.”

        That’s going to come as surprising news to Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Kenneth Chenault, Will Smith, Sheila Johnson and the millions of other black people who’ve managed to succeed despite their skin color. How do you explain their success? BTW, it’s been well over a century since slavery was outlawed. Time to stop using that as an excuse.

        “…why not ascribe your name to your writings?”

        What’s this obsession with my name? Feel free to call me “CW.” Or did you want to shame me on FB for having the audacity to speak the truth?

        Liked by 2 people

      • I’m going to make a prediction that the vast majority of people wrongfully convicted are males. Go look and tell me if I’m right. How do I know this? Am I psychic? Actually I just know how to apply common sense. Men commit the vast majority of crimes. It therefore stands to reason that they are the most likely to be wrongfully convicted. That same logic applies to blacks. Any race that commits a disproportional amount of crime is also more likely to have a disproportional number of wrongful convictions. Do blacks get more of their share? That’s entirely possible. But if stereotypes play into people’s false assumptions about an individual, WHO is responsible for the stereotype? I’m a woman, and when I’m faced with stereotypical notions that have some basis in reality (such as that women are more prone to crying at work, for instance) I blame that on the people whose BEHAVIOR is responsible for the stereotype. Nature gives us the power to observe and to form conclusions based upon what the history shows us. Young black males commit a disproportional amount of crime. THAT is what feeds the stereotype that leads to wrongful convictions. All blacks should join forces to condemn those of their own race who’s misbehavior reflects on the rest. When did you see Obama do this?

        Liked by 2 people

      • BTW, you never answered my question:

        Why did Obama proclaim that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon?

        Liked by 2 people

      • I didn’t respond about Travon because to most of us, the answer is obvious: Obama was pointing out, correctly, that if he had a son, that son would be more likely to be racially profiled, and possibly killed, by someone unreasonably scared of a black boy because of racial prejudice. Are you really THAT fragile?

        Do blacks commit more crimes at a greater rate than whites? Or are they more likely to be arrested and charged? How many white people commit crimes in this country every single day and walk away from those crimes?

        How many black men turn to drug dealing because they can’t get to Wall Street? But we’ll arrest black drug dealers all day long and let white collar criminals (who are generally white) walk.

        I’m pestering you about your name, because you seem to think you’d be unjustly harassed or called-out for your beliefs. But if you’re so proud of those beliefs, and you think they’re justified, then why not openly stand for them? If the rest of us are crazy and wrong, then stand proud!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Amber you’re just like every other leftist who sees only what she wants to see. I gave you the FBI stats, but you still choose to ignore reality, and you always will. So which one of us is fragile? Nothing shall be allowed to interfere with YOUR precious prejudices. I can see that. You prefer to believe there’s some grand conspiracy to keep the black man down (never mind that a black man was just elected POTUS – twice!). Do you really think your head-in-the-sand attitude is helpful to blacks? If so I defy you to give me just ONE example of where the refusal to deal with reality was ultimately helpful to anyone. Facing the truth, not burying the truth with political correctness, is the only way that the black community is ever going to achieve equality the way you leftists want to measure it (i.e. by outcome), because your problem is that the rest of us can see the truth and we’re going to respond to it and act accordingly whether you like it or not because that is HUMAN NATURE. We were designed, for our own protection, to use our powers of observation in the judgments we are forced to make every day. Do you look out the window or peephole before you answer your door? Why bother if you’re not allowed to make judgments about people? Oops.

        What’s truly funny is how different the real world is from how the Left portrays it. I just moved after living next door to Houston for two years. Houston has a large black population, so I had the opportunity to observe and be part of lots of interactions between races. Black people held the door for me when I entered a store, and I held the door for them. I said, “hello” when we crossed paths walking in the park and they smiled back and said, “hello” to me. I witnessed thousands of interactions in this supposedly prejudiced world and never once saw people being hostile to each other because of their race. I had a black roommate in college. I had some preconceived notions about blacks and she had some about whites but we got along great. Do you watch football? Pay attention to the comradery, friendship and respect that’s evident among the players. That’s not staged. THAT’s reality. It turns out that when people BEHAVE in a certain way, skin color isn’t an issue. Many conservatives who didn’t like Barack Obama would have elected Allen West for POTUS in a heartbeat, and yet YOU stoke the racial divide by suggesting that it must be our racism, not our ideological differences, that made us dislike Obama. YOU did that.

        >>”Obama was pointing out, correctly, that if he had a son, that son would be more likely to be racially profiled, and possibly killed, by someone unreasonably scared of a black boy because of racial prejudice. We….”

        Then Obama should have held a lot more press conferences to point out, CORRECTLY, the resemblance between himself and a lot of other young men who committed serious crimes, since he was so desirous of educating the public about the impact of race. And whether or not someone is “unreasonably” scared is not Obama’s or your decision to make. If Trayvon had entered one end of an alley but then saw a group of white males with shaved heads and black boots coming in the other direction and was scared, would that have been “unreasonable?” After all, he didn’t personally know those men. IN FACT, based on what experience has taught him (whether his or someone else’s) it would be perfectly reasonable for him to be wary and to turn around and go the other way for his own protection. We’d think he was a fool if he DIDN’T listen to his common sense.

        Anyways, since Obama ONLY took the opportunity to point out the resemblance when the “victim” was black, I’m going to be a cynic and assume that his goal was to prejudice the country against George Zimmerman. And it worked, didn’t it?

        Liked by 3 people

      • FYI Amber:

        https://commonsensematters-cw.blogspot.com/search?q=death+penalty

        I wrote this post 8 years ago, and I take the subject of wrongful conviction very seriously. I don’t, however, make it a matter of race. ALL wrongful convictions matter, and whether the fault be on whites or blacks, ALL should be held accountable and dealt with harshly.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Wow. U know what you are talking about. Tell it tell it Sister!!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’m trying, Charlie!

        Liked by 1 person

    • So what you’re saying then is that black people are more violent than whites and more likely to commit crimes because they’re innately more bad, and more flawed, than white people, and there are zero outside factors that contribute to a higher black crime rate. No wonder you won’t reveal your real name.

      Like

      • Amber, you urgently need to do two things:
        1) Take the blinders off and open your eyes. You’re thinking process is stuck in a rut and you refuse to admit the facts as presented to you. You’ve bought into the liberal thinking just like they wanted you to do.
        2) The whole name thing you’re hung up on? Get over it!! Again, look around you and you’ll see a lot of bloggers use an alias and for a wide variety of reasons. Although, if you can’t figure that out for yourself, you’re probably also incapable of doing item 1.

        Liked by 2 people

      • CW: Black proper kill black people, just as white people kill white people. People tend to murder those they know. I acknowledge your FBI statistics. Tell me, WHY is there more crime in the black community, in your ultimate wisdom? Since you seem to conveniently discount ALL of the research, statistics and facts that show blacks are more likely to be targeted and punished by police, AND receive longer prison sentences? So what is the reason behind black crime? By the way, have you EVER been stopped an frisked for no reason? Because this routinely happens to black and brown Americans. They are pulled over by police at a rate higher than whites. What’s your explanation? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/the-stop-race-police-traffic/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Seeing as how you’re now resorting to putting words in my mouth, I can only assume you’re getting even more desperate to cling to your precious prejudices, i.e. those false notions that you’ve bought into and that your own identity is invested in.

        Where did I say blacks were “innately more bad” than white people??? If that’s what you took away from the examples I gave of blacks and whites getting along just fine despite “endemic racism” then you need some remedial reading lessons. But I will assert that there is a CULTURAL difference in much of the black community wherein certain self-destructive and violent behaviors are not only the norm, the are practically celebrated. It happens in certain white communities as well, just not in the proportions that it occurs with blacks. How you cannot see this is beyond my understanding. I can only assume it’s willful blindness, or do you think the violence that goes on in places like Chicago and St. Louis is normal?

        You say you want to see an end to the racial inequities, yet you refuse to acknowledge and address the very problems that lead to these inequities, which only causes me to question your sincerity. It’s like a fat person refusing to acknowledge that they overeat, and you trying to help them by going along with that falsehood. Good luck with that strategy. I’m not saying that racism doesn’t exist. Of course it does, on BOTH sides. But while people like you and Barack Obama and Colin Kaepernick are laser-focused on a handful of misdeeds by the police (yes that’s right, I said a HANDFUL, and even some of those had to be misrepresented to get the outrage going), millions of black and white Americans are getting along just fine every single day with nary a word from any of you. I fully acknowledge that blacks are disproportionately victims of the system, but IMO that’s the consequence of the reality of being disproportionately responsible for crime. Changing the reality is the only way to cure the consequence. So if you sincerely want to make a difference, start seeing and speaking the truth. If you just want to wallow in indignation, then by all means keep your blinders on.

        Liked by 2 people

      • >>>“…have you EVER been stopped an frisked for no reason? Because this routinely happens to black and brown Americans. They are pulled over by police at a rate higher than whites. What’s your explanation?”

        Once again I will refer you to the reality of the stats, Amber, and the concept of human nature. If a certain segment of the population has a history of committing more crime, then it stands to REASON that they will be targeted more by police. You CANNOT get around that reality unless you want to make the unreasonable demand that cops start each day by erasing the memory of every experience they’ve ever had. YOU don’t do that, but you want cops to do that. I’m guessing that while young black males are more frequently targeted, that old black women aren’t typically targeted. Why is that? They’re still black, aren’t they? Maybe – just maybe – old black women aren’t stopped and frisked any more than old white women because these groups aren’t known for their history of criminal behavior. Ya think?

        Let me also point out that the article you linked to gives the example of a black man who was stopped and later sued the city and won. But contrary to your premise, the article doesn’t suggest the cops had “no reason” to stop him. Here, in fact, is what it says: “His tickets—for running a light and not carrying proof of insurance—were dismissed.” That doesn’t sound like “no reason” to me, so you might want to re-think your indignation.

        Back in college I was once stopped for suspicion of drunk driving after cops saw me leaving a bar in my car at 12 a.m. and then weaving in and out of the lines of the curvy road. They made me do a sobriety test in the middle of the street. Ironically I hadn’t had any alcohol. I had gone to the bar with a co-worker and it was so packed that we were never able to get service. We played Pac-man for a bit and then left, and since there was no one else on the road at that late hour (or so I thought) I was lazy and kind of made a straight line instead of following the curves. I didn’t enjoy walking a straight line, etc., at 12 a.m. in the freezing cold on a public road but I didn’t hold a grudge against the police. They were doing their jobs and their assumptions weren’t unreasonable given what they saw. I cooperated and it was fine. If middle-aged, white women suddenly started committing crimes at a higher than average rate and, as a consequence, I was the target of suspicion by police, I wouldn’t be mad at the police! I’d be mad at the other middle-aged white women whose misbehavior was reflecting badly on the rest of us. THEY would be the object of my anger, not police.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You asked: “WHY is there more crime in the black community?”

        1. Culture
        2. Poverty
        3. Denial/Political correctness

        My black roommate in college once mentioned to me that growing up she had a padlock on her bedroom door. This stunned me. I asked why. So her brothers and sister wouldn’t steal from her, she answered nonchalantly. They weren’t poor. Her dad had a good job. But they lived in a predominantly black area in Denver where stealing was commonplace. Teenage pregnancy and having children out of wedlock were also commonplace, which brings me to #2, poverty. Look at the trends for out-of-wedlock births in the black community, Amber. Per Wikipedia;

        “When Moynihan wrote in 1965 on the coming destruction of the Black family, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 25% among Blacks. In 1991, 68% of Black children were born outside of marriage. In 2011, 72% of Black babies were born to unmarried mothers.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure

        And in 2017 the rate rose to 77% according to The Washington Examiner.

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/77-black-births-to-single-moms-49-for-hispanic-immigrants

        Here’s a quiz for you: Which side of the political spectrum advocates marriage and two-parent households for raising children?
        A) Conservatives B) Liberals

        If you answered A you would be correct. Back in the 70’s-ish liberals starting telling us marriage was unimportant, just a piece of paper. They made it politically incorrect (i.e. they censored people) to criticize people for having children out of wedlock. They normalized it. They promoted welfare policies that rewarded people for this destructive behavior. The more out-of-wedlock kids you had, the more you were paid. And now it’s the norm which is why poverty is more prevalent in the black community and black young men in these situations have no role models to keep them in check. Education isn’t taken seriously, so they turn to selling drugs to get the money for the things they want. But try expressing any of this in a politically mixed environment and see the evil looks you get. We are never allowed to suggest that blacks may by responsible for their own troubles. It’s all racism, we are told. And so it only gets worse.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. EXCELLENT!
    Your comments are right on and should be addressed by this America hating socialist. But of course he won’t.

    IF you look at his article and your comments, 2 separate world view emerge. One, the emotional whiney ‘how horrible’ leftist who really can’t see reality. And the second is the hard facts that man isn’t really moral in his original state. He needs laws and religion for his moral base. (Read Bastiat!)

    I’ll be sharing this one to many.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks, tannngl.

      “…2 separate world view emerge.”

      You got that right! Isn’t it funny how, in the world of the leftists, morality only goes one way?

      No, I wouldn’t expect Mathis to ever respond. Liberals avoid genuine debate like it’s the plague.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I noticed that you mentioned our laws and that Mathis made no mention of them whatsoever in his spiel. A spiel that was written to strike libs in the heart to influence them toward sympathy and further paint us the bad guys.

    Compassion has to be balanced with practicality and common sense – another point that eludes Mathis. It’s not practical for me to give to so many charities that I can’t put food on my own table. If I can’t take care of me, I’m no good to any charity. I feel compassion for a lot of people in this world, but that doesn’t obligate me to help them all. This all applies to our country as well.

    And what is this garbage about ‘US policies helped create the circumstances that allowed the MS-13 street gang to flourish in Central America’? I’d love to hear his explanation on that one! And of course in true lib style, he thinks we should increase the aid we send to these countries – their go-to answer is always to throw more money at a problem. Not once did he stop to think that the leaders of those countries misspent the money – nah, lets’ don’t put the blame on them, let’s just up the ante.

    This IS an invasion – instead of marching here, why didn’t they march on their own governments? Mathis is another liberal who needs a boot right in his compassionate ass.

    Good stuff, CW, very good.

    Liked by 2 people

    • >>“Compassion has to be balanced with practicality and common sense…”

      Precisely, Kathy. Moreover, who died and left liberals like Mathis in charge of deciding what compassion should be for EVERYONE?? HIS personal compassion doesn’t automatically create an obligation on my part, as much as he’d like to think it should in all his liberal arrogance. Our country was never meant to be a vehicle for satisfying liberals’ needs to prove how compassionate they are. Let them spend their own resources if they’re so compassionate.

      With respect to his claims on MS-13, there’s a link in the original article which didn’t come through when I copied it for some reason. I looked at it but it’s lengthy and what it seems to come down to is blame America first for all our “meddling.” Frankly I don’t care how MS-13 started. The only relevant thing now is that we don’t want them here, and that’s our right.

      Thanks for the great comment!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: