Dems’ ‘Poison Pill’ Pandering to Black Americans

Dems’ ‘Poison Pill’ Pandering to Black Americans

By Erik Rush •

It’s hardly a secret that those in the field of 2020 Democrat presidential hopefuls are pulling out all the stops with some of the most outrageous giveaway proposals in order to coalesce support among intellectually indolent identity groups. Some of these are being rehashed—such as pledges to institute reparations for slavery for black Americans—but inasmuch as all are being presented as newly-minted, and some folks may not be of sufficient age to have seen them proposed in the past, revealing these for what they truly are is, at this juncture, a prudent measure.

Most of the grander schemes that far left Democrats propose have the redistribution of wealth (confiscation of taxpayer dollars) as a major objective, although this is never discussed. Those with the most rudimentary understanding of economics know that universal “free” healthcare or higher education would lead to economic stagnation the likes of which we’ve never seen; those proposing these policies simply hope that the economic folly and dire consequences will be handily overlooked in light of the enticing promises of free stuff.

Pete Buttigieg, the celebrated mayor of South Bend, Indiana whose chief qualification for political office is apparently a proclivity for preferring sexual relations with other males, is one of those vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. On his campaign website, Mayor Pete has rolled out a comprehensive plan for ameliorating all of the woes of blacks in America. Called “The Douglass Plan” (after former slave, social reformer and statesman Frederick Douglass), it promises to resolve or advance such issues as health equity and justice, schools, black history, criminal justice reform, equal employment and business opportunity, public health, infrastructure, environmental justice, voting rights, the Electoral College and fair political representation—all as they relate to black Americans.

Curiously, all of this is framed as though these are issues about which Buttigieg is uniquely enlightened and uniquely qualified to address.

Apart from the shameless usurpation of Douglass’s name (as an escaped slave, Douglass himself was vehemently anti-Democrat, that being the party of slavery at the time), the page reads like one of those interminably long web ads for some cheesy weight loss program or plutonium-powered flashlight. Like Obamacare, if one reads between the lines, it’s easy to see the stealth money and power grabs therein.
More significant than the grandiosity and narcissism inherent to this plan is the fact that all of the problems cited on Buttigieg’s webpage from which black Americans suffer can be directly traced back to the policies of liberal Democrats. Further, most of them were instituted expressly to keep blacks socially and economically disenfranchised—and seeking aid from their Democrat overlords—in perpetuity.

An even more outlandish and dangerous policy proposal has been made by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). Two weeks ago, Harris unveiled a $100 billion plan she promised to advance as president to increase black homeownership. Speaking at the 2019 Essence Festival in New Orleans on June 6, Harris called home ownership “historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth in our country,” and pledged to “remove barriers that black Americans face when they go to qualify for a home loan.”

This “investment” by the federal government (taxpayers) “to put homeownership within the reach for those who live in redlined communities” may sound attractive to struggling black families who’ve been convinced that rich whites are the reason they can’t afford to own a home or who aren’t aware that redlining (race-based lending criteria) is illegal, but there’s an even bigger problem here than Harris’s duplicity or the inordinate percentage of economically-challenged blacks:

It’s already been tried, and with disastrous results.

Nearly all Americans who can read remember the subprime mortgage crisis and the economic implosion of 2008, from which many are still recovering. This can be directly traced to The Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 federal law ostensibly designed to encourage banks to help meet the needs of low- and moderate-income borrowers. The law was repeatedly tweaked by both Democrat and Republican lawmakers and administrations over the ensuing 30 years, largely to ingratiate politicos to those low- and moderate-income borrowers, but the machinations of some involved had far more sinister motives.

As I and others noted repeatedly during the Obama years, The Community Reinvestment Act was horribly abused by certain lawmakers and activists, some of whom were closely following the Cloward-Piven strategy of Orchestrated Crisis. This was a protocol that called for overloading the public welfare system in order to precipitate an economic crisis so profound that it would lead to a replacement of our government with a hard line socialist one.

Subsequently, irresponsible mortgage lending—particularly to lower-income ethnic minorities and the marginally solvent—was encouraged, and many banks were threatened with litigation by unscrupulous lawmakers and activist groups if they failed to comply. Some of these groups (most notably, The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN) had very close ties to the Obama cabal, and some were card-carrying communists. The financial crisis which came to a head in October 2008 following widespread defaults on these loans had worldwide implications and, despite the economic woes suffered by millions as a result, certain Democrat apparatchiks cashed out to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the fray.

To this day, the only economists who contend that The Community Reinvestment Act did not play a major part in this crisis are those firmly ensconced in the far left camp.

Long story short: In addition to the tiresome Democrat refrain of soliciting money and power in order to fix problems that they have in fact created for black Americans, the potential for devastating consequences attendant to superficially attractive proposals such as the ones floated by Buttigieg and Harris are clear. Many of these have, as Cloward, Piven and their acolytes acknowledged, hastening the fall of capitalism as their chief objective.

Which, as we know, is what the left has always been about…

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Dem Contenders’ Laughable, Massive Giveaways

Dem Contenders’ Laughable, Massive Giveaways

By Erik Rush •

The hyperbole, histrionics and aggressive selling of socialism to the masses over the last two years belies the fact that the political establishment and those on the left are desperate and scared as hell. As I’ve articulated previously in this space (and more than once), these folks rightly arrived at the conclusion that the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016 was not only a mandate against the socialist policies of Trump’s predecessor, but an indicator that the electorate is waking up to the lie of the two-party system and that it is likely to become increasingly difficult for mainstream politicians to deceive voters via the machinations and boilerplate rhetoric of the past.

As such—and because progressives don’t have much that’s real to offer—they’re pulling out all the stops; this is reflected in part by some of the proposals being made by the legion of possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. As will surprise few, these consist of some of the biggest giveaways ever conceived by political candidates. Subsidized college tuition (I won’t insult readers by using the term “free”), universal student loan forgiveness and “Medicare for all” are just a few.

These are calculated to appeal to those who could care less about the overall standard of living in America, as long as they “get theirs”—this group being a fast-growing segment of our increasingly narcissistic, uninformed society.

Among the mind-bogglingly unaffordable proposals being floated are reparations for blacks for slavery. On April 8, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a bill that would study the concept of reparations for descendants of slaves. Booker said that the bill is “a way of addressing head-on the persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in our country.”

The persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in America is an utter fiction (unless one takes into account the uncomfy bed progressives have made for blacks), but blacks and rank-and-file liberals have been convinced that these are endemic to our nation.

The idea of reparations for slavery has been floated before. Outside of those who summarily endorse anything proposed toward compensating blacks for their suffering, and blacks who would eagerly take a check regardless of the long-term cost to them or the nation at large, most people tended to come down on the side of the idea being demonstrably stupid.

First off, there isn’t a black person alive today who suffered under the institution of slavery, so how would one determine to whom reparations should be paid?

Then, we have to consider the basis for paying reparations. Is it “generational trauma”—the implied cultural effects of being black in a nation in which blacks were once second-class citizens? This obviously represents a perilous degree of abstraction, but if it is the case, we must then consider the question of degree: An 80 year-old black person has obviously experienced far more in the way of the cultural vestiges of slavery than an 18 year-old, so shouldn’t the octogenarian get a bigger check?

For that matter, shouldn’t I get a bigger check than the 18 year-old, since I was born at a time when there were far fewer opportunities for blacks than there are today—or does the fact that I’m of mixed race “cancel things out” and exempt me?

Would everyone in America who “looks black” be awarded reparations, or would they be required to submit a genealogy in order to establish that they were descended from a slave of record?

Perhaps blacks would be awarded reparations based upon the percentage of “black blood” they possessed. Considering Massachusetts Senator and 2020 presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, it occurs to me that this would open the door to a whole lotta fraud.

Would naturalized blacks from Africa and the West Indies and/or their descendants be included in this grand plan? If not, how could they be reliably excluded in a nation that can’t even keep the integrity of its voter rolls? Again, the potential for fraud looms large.

Then, where do these reparations come from? If the resources are to come out of taxpayer dollars, would all blacks then be exempted from paying federal income taxes? I mean, leaving aside the inequity attendant to paying reparations at all, I don’t see any reason why working blacks should contribute toward paying reparations to other blacks.

There’s another important question to consider: If we accept the premise that the descendants of slaves are deserving of reparations despite never having suffered under the institution of slavery, does this not open the door to the reciprocal argument—that whites should be held accountable for the actions of those who participated in maintaining the institution of slavery, despite never having done so themselves?

While the idea of reparations for slavery may be laughable on its face, it must nevertheless be taken seriously, since there are definitely enough propagandized blacks and foolish whites among us to make this a reality given the right (or wrong) combination of a Democratic president and Democrat-controlled Congress.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns