AWRM
02/13/2020 09:43 PM Pardon Roger Stone [by ConSigCor]

TUCKER: ‘President Trump Must Pardon Roger Stone’ to Prevent ‘RussiaGate 2’


Tucker Carlson made the case that President Trump must pardon Roger Stone, not only to save Stone's life, but to finally end the Russia hoax


By Tom Pappert | National File Thursday, February 13, 2020

On the Wednesday night broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson urged President Donald Trump to pardon Roger Stone, who was facing up to 9 years in prison until the Department of Justice rescinded its sentencing recommendations, and said doing so will prevent Democrats from claiming that his conviction and sentence prove the “Russia Hoax” was real.

In Carlson’s view, Democrats will use the conviction and sentence of Stone as “prima facie” evidence that Russia did, in fact, manipulate the 2016 election by hacking the DNC, then provide the information to Wikileaks, who released the information through Stone.

“This is a pure political hit,” said Carlson. “Roger Stone is facing prison because he is a high profile Donald Trump supporter. It’s that simple. You want proof? Here it is. John Brennan and James Clapper will sleep at home tonight.”

“Both have been caught lying, under oath, on camera, about matters of national importance,” declared Carlson. “And yet neither is in jail. Neither has been indicted. Neither ever will be.”

Carlson then pointed out that the lead prosecutor for Stone’s case “is now literally an MSNBC contributor,” and condemned that the judge in the case as “an out of control Democratic partisan, who purely out of spite stripped Roger Stone from his First Amendment rights, and prevented him from making a living.”

“Now Stone and his wife, who is 71-years-old and deaf, have lost their home because of this,” continued Carlson. “They have no insurance, they’re utterly broke. The whole thing is shocking, and it’s disgusting. It’s a farce that discredits the entire American justice system.”

Carlson added that President Trump seems to share this conclusion, pointing to a recent tweet by the president,
Only your patronage to the Infowars Store is what keeps this beacon of truth lit in the controlled-narrative darkness.

“This is a horrible and very unfair situation,” President Trump wrote on Twitter. “The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them.”

“Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!’

Carlson then made his case that the conviction and sentencing of Stone will vindicate Democrats’ claim that President Trump was only elected due to interference from Russia.

“Stone’s prosecution was designed, in part, to confirm the fantasies that Democrats have constructed to explain the outcome of the 2016 election,” said Carlson. “In other words, if the Russia collusion story was a hoax, and of course it most certainly was a hoax, then why is Roger Stone going to prison for his role in it?”

Carlson then began to make his case for President Trump to immediately pardon Stone.

“If Roger Stone serves even a single day behind bars, the Russia lie will be validated as true. Stone’s imprisonment will be prima facie evidence in the view of Democrats,” declared Carlson. “So at this point there is really only one solution, the president must pardon Roger Stone or commute his sentence before he goes to jail.”

Carlson conceded that “Democrats will howl if he does that,” but noted that “They’re howling anyway. They howl every day.”

He also pointed out that “Chuck Schumer is now yelping about yet another investigation into Roger Stone,” calling it “RussiaGate 2.”

Concluding, Carlson added that “In one entirely constitutional act, the president can save Roger Stone’s live, vindicate himself, and end this nonsense forever.”
4 10 Read More
02/11/2020 07:00 AM Clean House: [by ConSigCor]

Clean House: Trump Fires 70 Obama Holdovers From National Security Council

President finally draining the swamp after Vindman episode


By Jamie White | INFOWARS.COM Monday, February 10, 2020

President Trump has reportedly removed over 70 Obama-era holdovers from his staff, including the National Security Council.

The purge comes after Trump fired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother from the NSC on Friday, along with former Ambassador to Ukraine Gordon Sondland, for their “insubordinate” roles as “witnesses” in the Democrat impeachment campaign that failed last week.

From the Washington Examiner:

President Trump is making good on his promises to “drain the swamp” and cut Obama-era holdovers from his staffs, especially the critical and recently controversial National Security Council.

Officials confirmed that Trump and national security adviser Robert O’Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, who had fattened the staff to 200.

Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.

NSC Senior Director for Strategic Communications John Ullyot said the Trump administration will likely remove even more staff.

“This month, we will complete the right-sizing goal Ambassador O’Brien outlined in October, and in fact, may exceed that target by drawing down even more positions,” said Ullyot.

Vindman had testified to the House Intelligence Committee in November that Trump tried to pressure Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, but Trump released the transcripts of his phone call with Zelensky which discredited Vindman’s accusations.

“Fake News @CNN & MSDNC keep talking about ‘Lt. Col.’ Vindman as though I should think only how wonderful he was,” Trump tweeted last week.

“Actually, I don’t know him, never spoke to him, or met him (I don’t believe!) but, he was very insubordinate, reported contents of my ‘perfect’ calls incorrectly, & was given a horrendous report by his superior, the man he reported to, who publicly stated that Vindman had problems with judgement, adhering to the chain of command and leaking information. In other words, ‘OUT’.”
5 12 Read More
01/23/2020 12:26 AM New Coronavirus Has Same Kill Rate as the Spanish Flu [by ConSigCor]

Professor Warns New Coronavirus Has Same Kill Rate as the Spanish Flu


Spanish flu killed 20-50 million people.

By Paul Joseph Watson | INFOWARS.COM Wednesday, January 22, 2020

A professor has warned that the new deadly coronavirus which originated in China has the same kill rate as the Spanish flu, which claimed the lives of 20-50 million people in 1918.

Fears of widespread contagion are growing after hundreds of cases were confirmed and 17 people died. The virus originated in an animal market in Wuhan, China and has now spread to numerous other countries, including the United States.

The virus has a 2% death rate, compared to 0.1% for the regular flu. For every 50 people who are infected, one will statistically die.

“This [2019-nCoV’s death rate] could be 2%, similar to Spanish flu,” said Professor Neil Ferguson from Imperial College London.

“Novel viruses spread much faster because we have no immunity,” he added.

Yikes.

Let’s do some math here.

In 1918, the population of the earth was just under 2 billion. Spanish flu killed around 20-50 million, around 15% of population. In today’s figures with a population of 7.8 billion, a similar kill rate would take out 1.1 billion people.

Fatalities are occurring as a result of of pneumonia and there is “no effective anti-viral,” according to Professor Peter Horby from the University of Oxford.

Hopefully now that the Chinese government has banned all travel in Wuhan and shut down the airport, the spread of the virus will be massively contained.
23 69 Read More
01/16/2020 05:23 PM The Virginia Gun Rights Conflict: [by ConSigCor]
The Virginia Gun Rights Conflict: Best And Worst Case Scenarios

Brandon Smith
January 16th, 2020
Alt-Market

In my article ‘Trump Impeachment And The Civil War Scenario’, I warned that conservatives and leftists are being pushed to the brink of a shooting war using various methods of social manipulation and 4th Gen warfare and that this conflict, if dictated by gatekeepers of the false Left/Right paradigm, would only benefit establishment elites in the long run. Internal division among the public is designed to keep us at each other’s throats while losing focus on the real enemies.

Hardline Democrats and the social justice cult are merely a symptom of the disease, they are not the source of the disease. However, I also acknowledge that the rift between conservatives and the political left has become so extreme that reconciliation is almost impossible. War might be unavoidable, and the globalists love it. If they can pretend like they had nothing to do with creating tensions, and if conservatives are so blinded by anger against Democrats that they refuse to admit that some of their own political leaders (including Trump) have been co-opted, the elites win.

The danger in any civil war is that BOTH sides end up being manipulated and controlled and that the situation is maneuvered towards an outcome that only serves the interests of a select few.

Virginia may be a testbed, a trial run for a nationwide conflagration, and if it does hit a point where state officials compel a violent response from the citizenry, then it is important that liberty advocates remain vigilant and steer clear of incompetent or controlled leaders.

It is also important that they remember there is a much larger agenda at play here; the Democrats may be useful idiots fueling that agenda, but most of them are oblivious to their role. Our fight is not with the Democrats, our fight is with the globalists that influence them; the same globalists that are trying to influence us.

First and foremost we have to address the propaganda because all wars begin first in the public consciousness. The current situation in Virginia remains a battle of political rhetoric and “fluid” interpretations of the law. Here are the arguments I’ve seen from the political left so far on the issue of 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries:

Leftists argue that sanctuary county resolutions are “purely symbolic” and have no force of law behind them.

This is a rather naive (perhaps deliberately naive) position, as it ignores the fundamentals. The force of law is either compelled by conscience, or it is compelled by violence. The law itself is meaningless without these two factors. If groups of citizens choose not to follow a law because they find it morally reprehensible, there is nothing the state can do except try to frighten them into compliance with the threat of violence. The concept of law by itself has no energy and claiming that something is “right” because it is now “law” is not a valid argument.

In the case of anti-gun laws in Virginia, the VAST majority of counties in the state and the people in those counties have made it clear that they will not comply. The leftists have completely ignored this fact by simply saying “They have to comply because the law says so…” This is the type of attitude that leads to war.

Leftists argue that state laws supersede county authority and there is no legal standing for sanctuary resolutions.


The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that constitutional protections provided by the Bill of Rights supersede ALL other laws. It does not matter if attempts are being made by state governments or the federal government to degrade constitutional rights, the people are empowered to refuse and fight against ANY laws which violate constitutional rights.

For example, Democrats often bring up the history of Jim Crow Laws as a rationale for Federal intervention in the legal affairs of states. Jim Crow laws were segregation laws passed by state governments, and in many cases, there was resistance on a public level to these laws. Democrats like to cite Jim Crow laws whenever conservatives argue for states’ rights and 10th Amendment nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. They have conveniently memory-holed the issue whenever state laws are working in favor of their agenda.

The bottom line is this: The constitution and Bill of Rights take precedence over all other laws in the US, and if Democrats are going to use legal technicality as their foundation for draconian gun control measures, then they really have no leg to stand on. If their argument is that citizens and counties have no legal right to nullify state laws no matter how immoral or unconstitutional, then what would they say if a state government brought back Jim Crow or legalized slavery? Virginia’s gun control efforts are no different.

Leftists assert that new laws in Virginia are “standard” because similar laws have been passed in other states.

This is the totalitarian tip-toe at work. Once an unconstitutional law is passed in California, New York or Illinois, this, therefore, means that the laws have become “standard” and are thus acceptable.

An unconstitutional law is an unconstitutional law. It does not matter how many states pass such a law and proclaim it normal or standard. The people of Virginia have announced en masse that they have no intention of following new gun control laws. The people have spoken, over 90% of counties in Virginia have passed 2nd Amendment resolutions with the support of the citizenry. Democrats gaining seats in an election does not give them the power to deny constitutional rights to Virginians.

Beyond this, the Virginia laws are nowhere near standard. Clearly, Virginia is being used as a testing ground for Red Flag laws in particular, which are the most concerning. Red Flag laws allow gun confiscation without due process based on ambiguous accusations backed often by zero evidence; it is prosecution and punishment without representation or defense. Red Flag gun laws are a means by which the state can violate your rights while circumventing due process.

(I will make a note here that leftists aren’t the only people that are pushing for Red Flag laws. Donald Trump is a vocal supporter of them as well)

The numerous laws Virginia’s government hopes to implement set the stage for the incremental removal of all gun rights. Currently, at least four of these laws have been advanced by the Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee and many more are expected to be implemented by the end of this month.

They are pushing the envelope to see how far they can move the boundary of what is “standard” when it comes to anti-gun laws. The people of Virginia know this is the agenda. It has ALWAYS been the leftist agenda (not to mention a globalist agenda) to seek out total disarmament of the population while claiming they only want “reasonable safeguards”. This is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated.

Leftists argue that law enforcement authorities that refuse to enforce new gun laws risk losing their “official immunity”.


I’m not sure that “official immunity” has anything to do with the enforcement of gun laws; it is meant to protect LEOs from civil litigation while conducting normal ministerial duties. This sounds more like a thinly veiled threat against county officials and law enforcement who refuse to comply. It is also an empty threat.

County officials cannot be compelled by the state to actively enforce unconstitutional gun control laws, nor can the state force a county to set aside funds for such an effort. In the case of county sheriffs, these are officials elected by the people of the county, and they answer to those people first, and state government second. County officials can be punished for breaking the law, but they cannot be punished for not enforcing the law to an arbitrary degree that the state sees as acceptable.

Leftists are pursuing other more aggressive avenues to enforce new gun laws.

Representatives of the state government have threatened the possible use of the national guard to force counties to comply. They have made a budget proposal for $6.5 million to form a new “sex offense and firearms investigation unit”, which they deny will be used as a goon squad to enter into sanctuary counties and enforce new gun laws by circumventing local law enforcement, much like the federal government uses the FBI or ATF to circumvent state authorities when it pleases them.

Finally, the Virginia government is also seeking at least $250,000 to be allocated to prisons, and this is directly tied to the new gun laws and the people that will be imprisoned by them.

The governor of Virginia claims that he supports grandfathering in existing guns as long as they are registered in the new state database. Of course, gun owners know from history that the first step towards total confiscation is forced registration. The mainstream media has suggested that anyone who thinks these budget changes are in preparation for arresting gun owners is a “conspiracy theorist”.

They had better be right because the government of Virginia should know that if they did compel such actions it would be a detrimental mistake.

The national guard of Virginia is made up of the citizens of Virginia, and many of these people may not comply either. If they do, or if the state establishes an enforcement arm to target individual citizens to make examples out of them, the most likely outcome is that people will defend themselves and their constitutional rights. People on both sides might be hurt in the process.

The question then arises: Are these laws worth dying for? I can say with some authority as a long-time activist in the liberty movement that the majority of conservatives are willing to risk death to protect their rights. Are state authorities willing to risk death to enforce unconstitutional laws? Because that is where this situation is headed…

Leftists claim that 2nd Amendment sanctuaries are not comparable to illegal immigrant sanctuaries.

Leftists are correct, the two situations are NOT the same. Illegal immigration is not a constitutionally protected right, and gun ownership is.

I find it fascinating that not long ago leftists and statist Republicans were arguing fervently against the idea that states and municipalities could nullify federal law. During the 10th Amendment and nullification uprisings that led to such confrontations as Bundy Ranch, these people viciously attacked anyone that supported sovereignty activism. They used to claim that the federal government was the alpha and the omega; the final word. Now, suddenly, leftists have pulled a u-turn and are attempting to assert sovereignty rights for illegals in sanctuary states and cities. Again, illegals are not afforded constitutional protections, gun owners are.

One could try to make a moral argument in favor of protecting illegal immigrants from deportation, but there is no legal argument. And, I could easily present a far superior moral argument against illegal immigration than they ever could in favor of it. I would have to write a whole other article to cover this issue in-depth, but it is important to point out the double standards and hypocrisy inherent in the leftist position.

Leftists argue that this is only about Virginia.

Conservatives don’t see it that way. A conflict in Virginia will likely attract thousands of people from outside the state, because the view will be that the line is being drawn there. It may also spread beyond Virginia into other states with unconstitutional gun control measures.

Now, it’s important for conservatives, especially those that actually live in Virginia, to understand that there will be con men and shysters who will show up out of nowhere and try to exploit the situation to elevate their own careers or public image. They will try to make as much money as they can while shamelessly self-promoting. They will pretend to help while offering substandard advice and substandard training. And if the manure hits the fan, these guys will suddenly disappear as quickly as they arrived.

There will also be people who will try to steer the conflict towards a left vs right paradigm, as I noted earlier. Sanctuary counties should maintain local leadership and local representation in these matters to avoid being manipulated. If people outside the state want to help, then they should be fine with doing this under the supervision and management of the locals.

The best possible scenario would be that the state government of Virginia realizes that it’s not worth it to try to enforce unconstitutional gun laws and that the risks are far too high to manage. They would abandon such endeavors and recognize that counties will not comply even if they try to apply leverage to them.

My suspicion is that the state will try to enforce laws quietly and incrementally at first, arresting a handful of violators and activists over the course of several months to make examples out of them while test running Red Flag laws for backdoor confiscation. They will wait for the activists to quiet down and go home.

The worst-case scenario is that this is an establishment beta test for the rest of the country and that they may WANT to start a conflict in the hopes that this will spread into a national civil war. This kind of scheme would require accelerated and violent enforcement of gun laws by Democrats in Virginia to elicit an immediate response. If this is the case, and a wider conflict is triggered, conservatives MUST NOT lose sight of the bigger picture. The globalists should be the focus of our ire; the democrats are being used. A conflict-based only on the political division will mean defeat for us all, and a win for the elites.
13 48 Read More
01/14/2020 05:09 AM Black America Before LBJ: [by ConSigCor]

Black America Before LBJ: How the Welfare State Inadvertently Helped Ruin Black Communities

by NC Scout | Jan 11, 2020 | AP Editorial Staff,

Coming from our site sponsor Ammo.com, this post chronicles the failures of American liberalism in the maintenance of oppression. Political exploitation is a very real thing- and has been so for many decades. It is my prayer that Americans wake up to that reality and embrace the message of freedom- free markets, the recognition of the absolute right to be armed, and the right to live a life as seen fit; it is a fundamental philosophical truth that, unlike the falsehoods professed by Marx, have worked, time and again. -NCS

“We waged a war on poverty and poverty won.”
President Ronald Reagan, 1988 State of the Union Address

The dust has settled and the evidence is in: The 1960s Great Society and War on Poverty programs of President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) have been a colossal and giant failure. One might make the argument that social welfare programs are the moral path for a modern government. They cannot, however, make the argument that these are in any way effective at alleviating poverty.

In fact, there is evidence that such aggressive programs might make generational poverty worse. While the notion of a “culture of dependence” is a bit of a cliché in conservative circles, there is evidence that this is indeed the case – that, consciously or not, the welfare state creates a culture where people receive benefits rather than seeking gainful employment or business ownership.

This is not a moral or even a value judgment against the people engaged in such a culture. Again, the claim is not that people “choose to be on welfare,” but simply that social welfare programs incentivize poverty, which has an impact on communities that has nothing to do with individual intent.

We are now over 50 years into the development of the Great Society and the War on Poverty. It is time to take stock in these programs from an objective and evidence-based perspective. When one does that, it is not only clear that the programs have been a failure, but also that they have disproportionately impacted the black community in the United States. The current state of dysfunction in the black community (astronomically high crime rates, very low rates of home ownership and single motherhood as the norm) are not the natural state of the black community in the United States, but closely tied to the role that social welfare programs play. Or as Dr. Thomas Sowell stated:

“If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.”

Here’s a peek into how black America has been a victim of LBJ’s Great Society and War on Poverty.

Defining Terms: What Is the Great Society and the War on Poverty?

Before going further, we must define the terms “Great Society” and “War on Poverty.” These are two overlapping, but somewhat distinct terms that are, in any event, not the same as “welfare” as a whole.

The “War on Poverty” refers to one part of the Great Society, namely the part focused specifically on poverty. When the War on Poverty was started in 1964, the poverty rate in America was 19 percent. Seeing an opportunity to recreate the same New Deal magic that had propelled President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the White House in four successive elections 30 years earlier, Johnson pushed his War on Poverty.

It’s worth noting that the New Deal has some success to boast in terms of lifting some extremely poor communities, particularly those in the rural South, out of grinding forms of poverty. This was through, for example, mass electrification and other similar campaigns, which radically redefined the experience of the poor in the United States. One can argue about the ethics of redistributive wealth programs, but one cannot argue about whether or not, for example, the electrification of the Tennessee Valley elevated people out of crushing and abject poverty – it did.

There are four primary initiatives of the War on Poverty:

The Economic Opportunity Act: This was the flagship effort of the War on Poverty. It created the Community Action Program, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) and Job Corps.
The Food Stamp Act of 1964: This created a food stamp program that remained largely in place until President Bill Clinton “ended welfare as we know it.” At this time, food stamps were open-ended and could, in theory, be a means of feeding a family for life.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964: This is known as the most sweeping legislation impacting education passed by the United States Congress. It sought to level an alleged “achievement gap” in public education. It has been reauthorized by both Democratic and Republican presidents under the names Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, No Child Left Behind Act of 2004, and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015.
Social Security Act of 1965: Created both Medicare and Medicaid.

The Economic Opportunity Act, in particular, was insidious in that it gave broad leeway to create programs without Congressional approval or oversight. An example of this is the Head Start program, which is shown to have only extremely limited and short-term effects on the ability of children to succeed in public schools.

The Great Society refers to a far broader set of programs, some of which still exist today, others of which were casualties of both the massive budget for the Vietnam War, LBJ’s other pet project, as well as the passage of time and subsequent Republican administrations. It’s difficult to summarize the Great Society as a whole, precisely because its scope was so broad. Education, health, welfare, culture (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, for example, is a product of the Great Society), transportation, the environment, housing, labor and rural development were all areas where the Great Society had some hand.

Whereas the New Deal has demonstrably impacted communities with crushing and severe forms of poverty, the Great Society has demonstrably not only not “worked” by any available metric, it has also created a negative impact, most severely felt in the black community in the United States.

This article will make the case that the Great Society is the greatest disaster to befall America’s black community since slavery.

What Were the Goals of the Great Society?

Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society: How LBJs Welfare State Helped Ruin Black CommunitiesSome discussion of the goals of the Great Society and its historical context are in order. The Great Society was seen by LBJ as nothing less than the completion of the New Deal as pioneered by his predecessor and mentor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The thinking was basically this: The New Deal proved that government intervention could have some impact on poverty. As we stated above, there is some truth to this, albeit in a limited sense. The New Deal was able to lift incredibly poor people out of what were effectively Third World conditions in the United States. Because Johnson had at his disposal “the best and the brightest,” he believed that all he needed to do was apply their technocratic acumen to the problem of poverty and it would be solved.

One of the glaring and immediate differences between the New Deal (where it was successful) and the Great Society was the definition of poverty. Poverty, the kind the New Deal was effective at reducing, was largely an objective condition. For example, people without electricity or running water in their homes. For the Great Society programs, however, poverty was largely defined in subjective, albeit quantifiable, terms like educational attainment and income level.

Here’s the problem with defining poverty in those terms: We now live in a world where the overwhelming majority of people who wish to get one can obtain a college degree. All this has done is devalue the college degree and saddle people with both unmarketable skill sets and a high level of nondischargeable debt. A college degree simply doesn’t mean much anymore because anyone who wants one can have one.

Similarly, consider income in real terms – the ability to buy things. The poorest people in America now have access to more computing power in their pocket than NASA used to go to the moon. Cheap consumer goods are plentiful, even for people with very low incomes – part-time minimum wage jobs, for example.

Poverty, defined as “making much less than rich people” or even “struggling to get by” simply means one is at the bottom of the economic ladder. The bottom of the economic ladder will always exist as long as there is one. Grinding, Third-World-style poverty – in the vast overwhelming majority of cases – is a thing of the past. The United Nations puts the percentage of Americans with access to electricity at 100.

A report estimated that 1.6 million Americans lack access to “clean” water, “clean” here being a weasel word that is undefined. Even if we took the 1.6 million figure at face value (which we should not), this means that approximately 0.48 percent of all Americans (i.e., less than half of one percent) do not have access to “clean” water.

In the absence of significant poverty conditions to attack, the “War on Poverty” was largely about hitting a moving target subjectively defined as “having less than some other people.”

Despite the best intentions (to which, it should be noted, “the road to hell is paved with”), the Great Society was bound to fail simply because there were no clear targets. In this sense, the War on Poverty prefigured other government wars on abstract concepts, such as the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

The failure, of course, is seen by big government advocates as a sign that not enough has been done. Since the War on Poverty began, $15 trillion has been spent, with negligible impact on lifting people out of poverty. For context, the Apollo program cost $25.4 billion, $146.1 billion in 2019 dollars. Put simply, for the cost of the War on Poverty, America could have funded almost seven Apollo programs.

Unlike the War on Poverty, the Apollo program was a resounding and verifiable success.

The Breakdown of the Black Family

“The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”
Thomas Sowell

The biggest problem resulting from the Great Society is the breakdown of the black family. This is a sensitive subject, but one that must be broached to fully understand the devastating impact that the Great Society has had on the black community in the United States.

In 1965, when the Great Society began in earnest following the massive electoral landslide reelection of LBJ, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among the black community was 21 percent. By 2017, this figure had risen to a whopping 77 percent. In some cities, this rate is as high as 80 percent, with most of the unwed mothers being teenagers. We have documented extensively in our article on the death of civil society in the United States the negative effects of the single-parent household on child development and outcomes. The black community is now entering its third generation of single parenthood as the norm, something that rose astronomically with the advent of the Great Society.

To provide some historical context, the out-of-wedlock birth rate in the black community was already rising before the Great Society. In 1938, that rate stood at 11 percent. Still, it’s worth noting the difference between the slow and steady increase of 1938 to 1965, and the explosive growth from 1965 until the present day. In any event, black women were more likely to be married than white women as late as 1950. It’s also worth looking at single parenthood over time: In the 1950s, 52 percent of all black children lived with both parents until the age of 17. By the 1980s, that number had plummeted to 6 percent.

In addition to outcomes, there is also a wide divide between the percentage of black families in poverty when there is a father present. Among married black families, the poverty rate is 8 percent. Among black households headed by a single mother, that rate jumps to 37 percent.

And again, while we outline a number of negative consequences resulting from single-parent families, it’s worth pulling one out in relation to the destruction of the black family in America: There is no better predictor of male criminality than being raised in a fatherless home. 70 percent of all juvenile offenders in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes. This includes 60 percent of all rapists, 72 percent of all murderers, and 70 percent of long-term inmates.

Black Participation in the Labor Market


There is another statistic that is significant when it comes to evaluating the role of the Great Society in the destruction of the black family and, by extension, black society: participation in the labor market.

This is an important metric for a very simple reason: Few would argue that it’s better to not work than to work. Data provided by every census between 1890 and 1954 shows that black Americans were just as active – and sometimes more – in the labor market than their white counterparts. In 1900, for example, black unemployment was 15 percent lower than white unemployment. In 2017, it was 30 percent higher.

If the conventional narrative on black American poverty and general social dysfunction were correct – that this was caused by the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and private discrimination – wouldn’t we expect to see a decline in black unemployment rather than the opposite?

Black Business Ownership

Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society: How LBJs Welfare State Helped Ruin Black CommunitiesOf course, participation in the labor market is not the only metric of economic activity. Another is business ownership. The years between 1900 and 1930 are known as “the Golden Age of Black Entrepreneurship.” By 1920, there were tens of thousands of black businesses in the United States, the overwhelming majority of them very small, single proprietorship. This in no way diminishes the importance of this sector of the black economy. People who had, in many cases, started their lives as slaves were now, even when “poorer” in terms of income, freer than many of their white counterparts who worked for wages.

There was also a social aspect to this period of black entrepreneurship. Black insurance companies and black-owned banks represent the apex of the economic pyramid in the black community. While the black community was comparatively poorer than its white counterparts, money spent by black Americans could stay within the black community. Thus, the black community could enrich itself from the bottom of the ladder all the way up to the top.

This concept was known as “double duty dollars.” The idea is that money spent at black businesses not only purchased goods for the consumer, but also played a role in advancing the black race in America. This, and not government handouts, was seen as the primary means of achieving, if not a perfect equality with whites, a social parity with them.

Another aspect of why black entrepreneurship was so important in the black community was that national businesses tended to ignore the black market entirely. This, however, began to change in the 1950s and, to a much greater extent, by the dawn of the next decade. No one forced national businesses to begin marketing their products to black America. National businesses simply saw that there was an emerging black middle class with money to spend and didn’t want to get cut out of the market.

Today, black business ownership is in a state of “collapse” according to Marketplace.org. This cannot entirely be laid at the foot of the Great Society. For example, the unlikely culprit of integration is one of the reasons that the black business districts began to fall apart. For example, once the biggest burger joint in town would serve black people, there was no reason to go to “the black burger joint” anymore.

Still, it’s impossible to separate the end of the thriving black business districts from the Great Society. These were once centers of the community, in addition to being centers of commerce. Now they are virtually extinct. While other factors are in play, it’s difficult to not notice the overlap between the rise of the welfare state through the Great Society, the overall decline in the black community’s civil society anchored by the black business community, and black business ownership in general.

The Decline in Black Homeownership

Another area where the impact of Great Society policies is seen is in statistics on black homeownership. The black homeownership rate is basically the same today as it was 50 years ago. There was a spike in black homeownership during the Bush years. However, these were largely a function of subprime mortgages being given out to people who couldn’t really afford them.

Few places saw the hand of government on the scale more than housing. One of the final policy initiatives of the Great Society was the Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination in housing sales (but not in lending practices). This effectively meant an end to “restrictive covenants,” which allowed a homeowner to specify that their house could not be sold to a black family, not just for an individual sale, but in perpetuity.

As a brief aside, this is, as are many other parts of the Great Society, an egregious attack on freedom of association, property rights, and ability to transact and dispose of one’s property in a manner of one’s own choosing.

Which Way Forward for the Black Community

Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society: How LBJs Welfare State Helped Ruin Black CommunitiesIt’s difficult to ignore that black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, who champion the policies of the Great Society, which have largely destroyed the black family and black civil society. Why is this?

There are a number of factors in play here. First, the Democratic Party has little incentive to provide innovative solutions for such a loyal voter bloc. Black Americans have voted at over 80 percent for Democratic Party candidates since 1964. In several elections (1964, 2000, 2008 and 2012) they voted over 90 percent for the Democratic Party candidate. The highest share of the black vote received by the Republican Party since 1964 was 15 percent, achieved by Richard Nixon in 1968 and Gerald Ford in 1976. While Donald Trump’s performance among black voters has been touted for its strength, he received only 8 percent of the vote, reversing a trend where the black vote dropped as low as 4 percent in 2008. Despite the much-touted “Blexit,” 2018 saw no significant exodus from the Democratic Party on the part of black voters – a scant 9 percent voted for Republicans.

The flip side of this is that there is not much incentive on the part of Republicans to court black voters. While the Nixon “Southern Strategy” is slightly distorted when presented, the core of this narrative is true – when presented with various strategies for victory, Nixon chose to appeal to northern, union Catholic workers and Southern Protestant conservatives, both of whom were white. This is simple math: A large increase in the black vote doesn’t represent a whole lot of votes, but a minor increase in the white vote moves the needle significantly. The so-called “Sailer strategy,” named after Steve Sailer, exploits this math: Spiking the rural white vote to record levels while effectively ignoring all other voting blocs is what delivered Donald Trump the presidency.

The point here is that neither party is incentivized to offer solutions to black Americans. But black Americans are also not demanding solutions from either political party, as evidenced by the lockstep voting for Democratic Party politicians, despite failing to deliver anything of value in 50 years.

One historical example that might represent a way forward is the National Black Independent Political Party. Formed in 1988, it had virtually no impact on electoral politics. However, its model might represent something of value for black Americans looking to break free of the two-party duopoly and demand actual policy solutions from Washington. The purpose of the NBIPP was not to obtain power in its own right, but rather to form black America into a political voting bloc that could act as kingmaker in elections. This is in the broader tradition of self-reliance in the black community.

Whatever the way forward is, one thing is clear: Social welfare programs ostensibly designed to help the black community have done little more than put the boot of government on the neck of black Americans. Rather than raising up the black community, these programs have acted to – despite whatever their intentions might be – destroy the black family, the black business community, and black social solidarity.

What might “work” depends on what the goal is. However, the evidence is in and the Great Society’s War on Poverty has been a resounding failure.
1 4 Read More
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (ConSigCor), 2 guests, and 0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
AdamT, Mattnik, FreeTwoBee, 11B_Rifleman, black5heep
3809 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums37
Topics15,722
Posts135,860
Members3,809
Most Online69
Dec 14th, 2018
Popular Topics(Views)
February
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Top Posters(All Time)
airforce 20,063
ConSigCor 17,493
STRATIOTES 12,864
Doktor_Jeep 7,005
SBL 4,317
Lord Vader 3,823
Imagrunt 3,469
tire iron 3,426
The Greywolf 3,150
Hawk45 2,856
Shout Box
Today's Birthdays
adt76, Hylton
.
©>
©All information posted on this site is the private property of the individual author and AWRM.org, and may not be reproduced without permission. © 2001-2018 AWRM.net All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1