Is it time for black Americans to vote republican?

Here's something I would like to see some serious debates on: is it time for African Americans to start voting for republicans?

After the Civil War, after blacks were given the right to vote, nearly 90 percent of them voted for republicans.  In fact, by 1912, republicans were still receiving 93 percent of the black vote.  Then, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, blacks started to vote with increasing frequency for democrats, and now about 90 percent of blacks vote democrat.

During the Great Depression blacks suffered hard, and it was at this time that they started to vote for democrats.  They were told by the Roosevelt administration that they would be better served by progressive handouts than the capitalistic programs doled out by republican.  Considering most blacks needed assistance at the time, they started voting for democrats in huge numbers.

In 1936, only 25 percent of blacks voted for FDR.  However, by 1936, 75 percent of blacks voted for democrats for the first time in history.  Since then democrats have voted for democrats and their progressive agenda ever since.  So, the question of the day is, how has that fared for the black community?

Recently, Stephen A. Smith, a black commentator for ESPN said the following:

I have often said that from a political perspective what I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote republican.  Do you know that since 1964, black America hasn't given the republican party more than 15 percent of its vote?  Here's what that means.  What that means is that one party... the black folks in America are telling one party, 'We don't give a damn about you!'  They're telling the other party 'You've got our vote!'  Therefore, you have labeled yourself disenfranchised because one party knows they've got you under their thumb.  The other party knows they'll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest.

This has spawned an interesting debate.  Here are some more statistics to add into the discussion.

1.  A majority of blacks want school choice, and democrats oppose this while republicans support
2.  We have 50 million Americans on food stamps
3.  We have 92 million Americans not working
4.  We have 45.3 million Americans in poverty
5.  The Obama Administration has accumulated more debt that every other president combined
6.  50 percent of black teenagers can't get a summer job
7.  There are 20 million more Americans on food stamps and in poverty after 7 years of Obama
8.  We have the lowest labor participation since 1978
9.  Median income is down $4,000 under Obama
10.  In 2008 there were 7.5 million black on food stamps, now the number is 12 million
11.  Black teenage unemployment has gone up
12.  Labor force participation has gone down
12.  Black home ownership has dropped
12.  Black unemployment rate hovers around 12 percent in America
13.  The voting rights act of 1965 passed because of efforts by republicans (was not on LBJs agenda)
14.  The civil rights act of 1964 passed because of efforts by republicans (was not on LBJs agenda)
15.  Reagan signed a 25 year extension of the voting rights act
16.  GWB signed a 25 year extension of the voting rights act
17.  Obama's policies have failed all Americans, and especially hit hard are black Americans
18.  The poverty rate in 2014 was about 14 percent, and this was basically the same as it was in 1967 when LBJ started his war on poverty.
19.  Since black teenagers can't get a job, that means they are hanging around with their friends, and this is how they get into trouble.

So, the question to ask is: how are black Americans better off under democratic leadership?  The overall consensus of voters was that having a black president would make things better for blacks, and the evidence suggests that this has happened?  

It's better for blacks to be working and have opportunities, and this, I think, has not happened under democratic leadership.  Or has it? If there are statistics that show blacks are better off under democratic leadership, I haven't seen them.  Have you? If so, please post in the comments below.

Further reading:

1. Why African Americans Should Vote Republican
2. The War on Poverty After 50 years
3. Why did black voters free the republican party

Enumerated versus Implied powers of the U.S. Constitution

Enumerated powers are powers given to Congress and clearly mentioned and defined in the U.S. Constitution. Implied powers means that, while not specifically mentioned or defined, it may be inferred by the remaining document.  

An example of implied powers is noted by the following passage from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Here are listed three natural rights: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  There are many other natural rights, although they are merely implied in this document.  Since natural rights was a common theme at the time, the founding fathers figured they didn't need to list them all because they "assumed" people would know the rest.

However, most states were not willing to sign on to (ratify) the constitution without a specific enumerated list of rights and an enumerated list of powers granted to the federal government.  It was for this reason that the Bill of Rights was created.  They feared that without these 10 amendments state and individual rights, which are implied by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, might not be respected if they weren't specifically included within the Constitution.

So, the first 10 amendments were added and the Constitution was ratified by the colonies.

However, there was still no way that the founding fathers could list every enumerated power, and so many continued to be implied.  When Congress makes a law regarding an implied power, this may result in a conflict between the states and the federal government.  The resolution of such conflicts is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, which has the sole purpose of making sure all laws passed by Congress are Constitutional.

A perfect example of an early disagreement between the states and the federal government regarding an implied power occurred during the presidency of George Washington, when Washington used the power of the Executive Branch for something that was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton wrote a bill that made it through both branches of Congress.  The bill was opposed by Thomas Jefferson on the grounds that the Bank of the United States was not authorised by the Constitution.  Washington agreed,  but he sided with Hamilton's argument in favor of the bank.

The argument used by Washington was that, since an enumerated power granted Congress the right to collect taxes, it was reasonable to "assume" that Congress could also create a bank to hold those taxes and act as a bank for the government.

The most recent example Congress and the president using implied powers was the passage of Obamacare.  While republicans used the 10th amendment, the Commerce Clause and the fact that the federal government can't force you to buy something as an argument in support of the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, the Supreme Court ruled the implication was that it was a tax and therefore constitutional.

So even though healthcare is not covered under an implied power, and even though the 10th amendment reserves the right to govern on healthcare to the states, the Supreme Court decided it was covered as an "implied power" of Congress.  

Three advantages of Federalism, and why it should be respected

One of nice things about the United States (nice if you are a traditionalist) is Federalism, whereby two or more governments share powers over the same geographic region.  The U.S. Constitution grants certain powers to the federal government and the state governments.

For example, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants the U.S. Congress certain powers, often called enumerated powers, such as coining money, regulating interstate trade and commerce, declaring war, raising an army and navy and to establish laws of immigration.

Things the states cannot do are listed in Article I, Section 9. Among these, states are forbidden from coining money, entering into treaties, charging duties on imports and exports and declaring war.

Under the 10th Amendment, powers not enumerated by the Constitution, such as requiring drivers license, defining and creating rules for marriage, creating laws regarding abortion, creating and maintaining an educational system, or powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states or the people to decide.  

Federalism was an ingenious plan for a couple reasons.  

1.  It gave the Federal government just enough power to establish and maintain a stable infrastructure, such as creating and maintaining a postal service, a military, to regulate commerce to create a stable economic environment, etc. 

2. It prevented the Federal government from making laws that would infringe upon state and natural rights.  In essence, it told Congress what it could rule upon (enumerated powers) but what it could not rule upon (10th amendment). 

3.  The founding fathers thought Federalism was a good way to prevent the federal government from passing laws that created risky programs that might bankrupt the nation.  They knew it was okay for a state to create risk because the federal government would be able to bail out the state.  Yet if the federal government took a significant risk and failed (and Obamacare is a great risk), protections created by the Constitution would likewise fail.  It is for this reason only states are allowed to create laws regulating abortion, healthcare, education, etc. If one state does well, others may copy.  Yet if one state fails, others won't copy.  That's a major advantage of Federalism, allowing sort of a trial and error system within the states. Yet if the federal government fails, who will bail us out?  The founders thought of this, and that's why they created a system of Federalism. 

Bottom line: Federalism was a system to limit the scope and power of the Federal government, and to protect state and individual rights. It was meant to prevent the federal government from getting out of control.

Here is a list of all 30 enumerated powers

One of the things that makes the U.S. Constitution superior to all others is that it limits the powers of Congress.  In other words, Congress only has the power to make laws regarding items specifically listed in the Constitution.  These powers are generally referred to as enumerated powers.

Many of these powers are listed in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, and many others are listed in the Bill of Rights, among the other 17 amendments, or scattered elsewhere throughout the Constitution.  Overall, there are only 30 enumerated powers, or only 30 areas in which Congress has the power to act upon (it may be 35, depending on how they're counted).

We also must regard the 10th amendment here.  It says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."  What this means is that if it is not covered among the enumerated powers (i.e. marriage, abortion, Internet, education, etc.) Congress has no legal right to rule on it, and if it does, then the U.S. Supreme Court shall overturn it.

Here is a list of all 30 of the enumerated powers.  This list is from the tenthamendmentcenter.com, although it can be found in pretty much any book covering the U.S. Constitution, including the Constitution itself. .

1. To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7. To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
19. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
20. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
21. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
22. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
23. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
24. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
25. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
26. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
27. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
28. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
29. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
30. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Republican party is failing to represent the American people

A friend of mine was all concerned about Glenn Beck leaving the republican party.  I guess she thought it would upset me, considering I'm a big fan of Beck's. My response was: "It doesn't surprise me at all."

Why I'm not surprised is because Glenn Beck has morals and values and principles that do not change based on the whims and wishes of a modern world.  His ideas and values are akin to those of Americans for most of history.  Yet those values are currently not shared by the current leaders of the republican party, who continue to support and push forth the progressive agenda as opposed to making efforts to try to stop it.

Because to Glenn Beck, and I agree with him, it's not about republicans versus democrats, it's about conservative and libertarians versus liberals and progressives.  The leaders of the republican party keep using conservatives and libertarians to get elected, and then they compromise with democrats to advance the democrat agenda.  If we wanted them to compromise with democrats we would have voted for democrats."

It's true.  It's about people who aim to defend and protect individual liberties at all costs, versus people who aim to create laws to perfect society at the expense of liberties.  It's about those who do what's right regardless of political implications, versus those who do what they think is needed to win elections.

She said, "Give some examples."

I said, "The 2014 election was a complete rejection by the American people of Obama's agenda.  They elected republicans in a landslide, giving republicans a mandate to reject and oppose Obama's agenda. Instead of opposing Obamacare, they completely fund it.  Instead of opposing Obama's unconstitutional executive order on amnesty, they completely fund it."

I said this completely on emotion, as though I were defending a good buddy.  I read this before I even knew for a fact Beck was truly leaving the party, and before I read Beck's reasoning for doing so.  It was only after I had the above discussion that I read Beck's remarks about why he was no longer a republican.  It did not surprise me how close I was to his reasoning.

He wrote a letter to Karl Rove that pretty much explains everything.

If you don't think that the Republicans are progressive light then you don't know the history of the movement started by Teddy Roosevelt and the GOP.

There are good men and women in the party that believe in the constitution. Are you one of them?

Do you seriously believe that Jeb Bush is not progressive light? Help me out with
Common Core and Jeb Bush!

...How about Mitch McConnell and his targeting of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee?How are things working out for all of the campaign promises? How about the deficit? The war? Defunding ObamaCare?  Oh, didn't the GOP vote to confirm Cass Sunstein? How is illegal immigration working out for you? (Actually, I know the answer: really well as your big corporate buddies love it. Especially down in the colonias). It is modern day slavery. Has Grover started any new Muslim Brotherhood front groups you and the Bushes can pass off as the good guys? How about some more FCC regulation on the Internet?

Oh, I forgot! You did get to the bottom of Benghazi. Oops. Nope. It must be because you are swamped in actually fixing the VA system for all the men YOU put in harms way. Gosh, sorry. No, you aren't even doing that.

...How is the health of the three equal branches of government?

I will say this; you are better than the president. You are only half as bad. You are only doing the fundraising dinners, while he is doing that AND playing golf. It is almost like you are progressive light.

I know, you understand 'strategy' and I don't. I know, you can't push for these things right now! You will lose the presidency in 2016.

No, now you have to compromise on things like immigration etc. so you can win the White House. THEN you will have the White House, the Senate and the House. That is when you really go for it ... Right?

Next time. Not now. That when things really change! Just like they did when you had both branches under Bush!!

Crap. Another bad example.

You guys have the spine of a worm, the ethics of whores, and the integrity of pirates. (My apologies to worms, whores and pirates)

You are right about one thing,

I have said this before. You are also right that you don't need to worry about me.
You need to worry about the American public. Because they have had it up to their teeth with you, the GOP and the DNC lies.

...It is sad that you can no longer hear the American People because they could save you. Instead you listen to your political consultants and the amazing thing is you still believe all of it.

Can you not smell what you are shoveling anymore?

The world has changed. The whole world is being redesigned. Not by government but by dreamers and doers.

You are the taxi medallions in an Uber world.

You don't have to be young to see that. You just have to be open and honest.
Instead, you just continue to shine up the progressive agenda of people like Jeb, pressure, corrupt or threaten freshmen and smear the good people of this country who believe in the actual principles enshrined in the constitution.

It is sad what the GOP has become. You would campaign against Reagan. (Cruz has the principles of Reagan- but all you see of Reagan was HOW Ronald Reagan won, not WHY he won). JFK would be too small government for the GOP as you see it.

"Government isn't the solution, Government is the problem". You believe only government run by the Democrats is a problem.

I think that last quote pretty much sums up the frustration of the republican party.  Republicans champion against too much government that stomps on liberties.  However, when they are in office they sign laws that do just that, and they do it to get re-elected.  If you don't believe me, look at how many bills that took away freedoms that George W. Bush vetoed.

John McCain, for instance, instead of opposing the idea of man made global warming, his agenda was merely a softer version of Obama's.  Instead of spending a billion dollars on stuff we don't want, McCain championed to spend half that.  So what's the difference?  Either way we get what we don't want.

I personally think that Beck is a little premature to simply leave the republican party.  I think he would be better served to champion for a true libertarian or conservative who truly believes in the founding values of this nation.  Someone who will run as a conservative and act as one once elected.

I also honestly believe Beck is not an idiot, and if a Reagan-Coolidge-esk candidate is nominated by republicans, he would assuredly vote for that person.  This, as he well knows, is the only way to change the republican party so that it truly does represent the American people.

Further reading:

• Rove lays into Glenn Beck
• 'You want to rumble Rove?' Glenn pens open letter to Karl Rove
• Eight years, 12 vetoes: why president Bush chose to ignore his veto power

Obama's responce to Netanyahu victory: a nuclear Iran

Benjamin Netanyahu won a landslide election in Israel, and Obama has yet to congratulate him.  He h

as congratulated the people of Israel for a good election, but not the victors.  Instead, Obama and John Kerry are over in Iran trying to broker a deal that would allow the Iranians to have nuclear weapons in ten years.  Many see this as a slap in the face to Netanyahu.

Obama has said Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. It is based on this fatwa that Obama believes the Iranians will not use their nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons.  And even if the fatwa doesn't exist, he believes the U.S. can convince them over the next ten years not to develop weapons.

The problem with this is that Iran was built on a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. Another problem is that no one can find any evidence that such a fatwa exists. A fatwa is a legal pronouncement issued by an expert in religious law, and it's usually a pronouncement against the infidels or the enemy, not against a weapon.

Iranian leaders are proud of their fatwas, and therefore list them publicly on their websites.  The Iranian website Tasnimnews published 493 fatwas from Khamenei dating back to 2004, and not one of them says anything about nuclear weapons.  According to the Washington Post, the evidence that such a fatwa exists is "quite fuzzy."

There was actually a scientist who called into one of the radio shows I was listening to on the way home from work one day, and he said that if Iran bombs Israel, the reaction would also destroy Iran. So the question posed was: why would Iran use a bomb to destroy the infidels in Israel if it would result in their own destruction?

The consensus was that Muslims don't value life the way Christians do. Or at least Radical Muslims don't value life.  So if they destroyed themselves in the process they'd go down in history as heros of the cause.

Anyway, along with the anti-nuclear weapon fatwa, Iranian President Rouhani said he won't use whatever remnants of the nuclear program are left in ten years to create nuclear weapons.  Being that the Iranians have shown their radical Muslim tendencies many times over the past several years, it's amazing to me that we are even talking to them.

Oh, and one more thing.  If there really is a fatwa that says the Iranians will not use their nuclear program to develop weapons, then why are we talking to them.  If they have sworn off nuclear weapons, why to we need to broker a deal?

It seems that a more rational approach would be for Obama and Kerry to help the "hardliners" in Iran who oppose the Iranian Regime and want to oust it in favor of a democratic government.  Instead, he goes to Iran, tries to broker a bad deal with them, while saying to their people:

Hello. To everyone celebrating Nowruz -- across the United States and in countries around the world -- Nowruz Mubarak. This year we had the best opportunity in decades to pursue a different future between our countries. Just over a year ago we reached an initial understanding regarding Iran's nuclear program. I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully with diplomacy. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.

To make sense of this, we must understand that the entire premise of fascism is that a worldwide utopia can be created through negotiations.  They actually believe this idealist utopia will some day be a reality.  They believe those who oppose them are idiots. Yet the idiots usually tend to be the realists.

Hitler said he was going to kill all the Jews and Chamberlain didn't take him seriously.  Iranian leaders have said many times over that they want nuclear weapons and they will stop at nothing until Israel is destroyed.

Yet now it's Obama who isn't taking the fascist seriously.

Further reading:

• Netanyahu looked very presidential before Congress
• Obama addresses His people -- in Iran
• The Truth About the Ayatollah's Fatwas
• Idealism versus Realism
• Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal

Will Obama force people to vote

At the City Club in Cleveland, on March 15, Obama toyed with the idea of passing a law requiring mandatory voting. He said, "“In Australia, and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything.”

Of course it would also mean taking away the right not to vote, which would mean that Americans would be giving away one more freedom.

For a country that is the leader of the free world, no person should be forced to do anything. No person should be forced to by health insurance, and no person should be forced to vote.

A person has a right to make bad choices, though. For instance, if you choose not to have health insurance, a hospital should have a right to refuse to treat you if you are not willing to pay for whatever procedures you need.

That is my opinion. I don't believe that a free nation should make any law forcing people to do things they don't want. However, that does not mean that a nation should make laws that take away personal accountability for one's actions either.