Monday, February 08, 2016

Mass Murderers and Radical Environmentalists

By Paul R. Hollrah

If we were to compile a list of history’s most prolific mass murderers, who would we put on our list?  Attila the Hun ravaged the Roman Empire during the 5th Century, killing and maiming all who stood in his way.  In the 13th Century, Ghengis Khan and his Mongol hordes roamed far and wide, creating a bloody empire that stretched from China and the Korean peninsula all the way to Iraq and Eastern Europe.  

From 1921 to 1959, Josef Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with a cruelty unprecedented in human history, killing some 60 million of his own countrymen.  In the 1930’s and 40’s, Adolph Hitler murdered some 6 million people – mostly Jews, Gypsies, and others who were deemed ineligible for membership in the “master race.”  And from 1975 to 1979, the Khmer Rouge, under the leadership of Pol Pot, murdered nearly 4 million in a wanton political “cleansing” of the Cambodian countryside.

But who would we select as the greatest mass murderer of all time?  The leading candidate for that title would be American marine biologist Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Springthe principal force behind the banning of the pesticide DDT and the godmother of radical today’s radical environmentalists of the political left.

DDT is an odorless chemical pesticide used to control disease-carrying and crop-eating insects.  Developed in Germany in 1874, it did not come into common usage until World War II when it was effectively used for pre-invasion spraying of jungles and marshes.  Following the war, it was widely used throughout the world as a means of combating yellow fever, typhoid fever, malaria, and other diseases carried by insects.

Not only was DDT a major boon to the life expectancy of people throughout the world, it could be purchased for just pennies a pound.  In India alone, the number of cases of malaria was reduced from 75 million to less than 5 million in just ten years.  

But then, in 1962, Rachel Carson published her book, Silent Spring, and environmental activism quickly became a leading fad among American liberals.  Carson charged that, as DDT entered the food chain, certain reproductive dysfunctions, such as thin eggs shells in some species of birds, might occur.

In late 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency initiated a series of hearings on the potential dangers of DDT.  After seven months of exhaustive hearings, the EPA’s Administrative Law Judge, Edmund Sweeney, ruled that, “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife… The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”

Nevertheless, in spite of all of the scientific testimony to the contrary, pressure by radical environmentalists caused EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, a wealthy member of the Environmental Defense Fund, to reverse Judge Sweeney’s ruling, declaring that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” and banning its use for virtually all applications.  

Although reliable statistics are hard to find, it is estimated that, in the forty-five years since the banning of DDT, more than 9 billion cases of malaria have been reported, most of them in developing countries.  At the rate of 700,000 to 800,000 malaria-related deaths per year, more than 36 million people have lost their lives to malaria in the past forty-five years… 90% of them pregnant women and children under age 5.  

By comparison, the Great Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 26, 2004, killed more than 227,900 people in 14 countries, and 125,000 more were seriously injured.  But the loss of life and the injuries due to drowning and the collapse of buildings may have been exceeded by those who would die as a result of starvation and the spread of disease, such as typhoid fever, dysentery, cholera, and malaria.  

Typhoid fever, dysentery, and cholera can be treated with a combination of drugs and/or oral rehydration, but malaria is another matter.  Malaria is best controlled through the application of DDT in mosquito-infested areas.  But DDT is no longer an alternative.  Its use has been banned since the early ‘70s as a result of pressure by radical environmentalists in the United States and Europe.

But now, in the early months of 2016, epidemiologists are confronted with yet another incurable disease related to mosquito infestation.  According to a February 5, 2016 report by Investor’s Business Daily, “The Zika virus is spreading and some public health officials seem to be near panic.  Whatever happens, don’t blame the mosquitoes.  This is a man-made problem.”  

The report goes on to say, “Maybe the Zika outbreak will fade without having become too widespread, the way the Ebola scare never lived up to the hype.  But for now, Zika is apparently on the move and government health officials believe it will spread throughout the Americas, except for Canada and Chile.”

A January 2016 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) tells us that, “Zika virus disease outbreaks were reported for the first time from the Pacific in 2007 and 2013 (Yap and French Polynesia, respectively), and in 2015 from the Americas (Brazil and Colombia) and Africa (Cape Verde).  In addition, more than 13 countries in the Americas have reported sporadic Zika virus infections indicating rapid geographic expansion of Zika virus.
Although generally not fatal in either adults or infants, the normal symptoms of Zika virus infection include mild headaches, skin rash, fever, malaise, pink eye, and joint pain.  With symptoms lasting only a few days in adults, Zika fever has been a relatively mild disease of limited scope, with only one in five persons developing symptoms and with no fatalities.  As of 2016[update], no vaccine or preventative drug is available.  However, the WHO recommends that symptoms can be treated with rest, fluids, and acetaminophen.   
However, the WHO reports that, “During large outbreaks in French Polynesia and Brazil in 2013 and 2015, respectively, national health authorities reported potential neurological and auto-immune complications of Zika virus disease.  Recently, in Brazil, local health authorities have observed an increase in Zika virus infections in the general public as well as an increase in babies born with microcephaly in northeast Brazil. Agencies investigating the Zika outbreaks are finding an increasing body of evidence about the link between Zika virus and microcephaly.”

Microcephaly is a birth defect in which a baby’s head is smaller than expected when compared to healthy babies of the same sex and age. Babies with microcephaly often have smaller brains that might not have developed properly.

Zika virus is a member of the virus family Flaviviridae (genus Flavivirus)transmitted by the sting of the Aedes mosquito.  Under normal circumstances, since DDT poses no threat to humans or to the environment when properly used, the mosquito populations could be controlled through the use of DDT.  However, controlling the spread of deadly diseases through the use of DDT is not a part of the radical environmentalist agenda.  As Investor’s Business Daily correctly points out, “(T)he eco-activists would rather tolerate tens of millions of Third World deaths for the sake of a political agenda.  That’s the cruel and inhuman way of the environmentalist.  He will trade lives – and jobs, and economic liberty, and others’ wealth – in exchange for making the world… worse.”    

So who wins the title of the greatest mass murderer of all time?  If we count all of the lives that would have been saved in the past forty-five years through the application of DDT, that number would exceed the total number of people murdered by Attila, Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, combined.  

To allow all of those lives to be lost in the name of “environmental protection” and “animal rights,” using junk science as a basis, is not just inhumane, it is genocide on a grand scale. The title of “Greatest Mass Murderer of all Time” goes to the late Rachel Carson and all of her radical environmentalist followers.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.





Sunday, February 07, 2016

The Email Saga

By John R. Bolton

The more you know about the State Department, the worse Hillary's actions look.

For alumni of U.S. national-security departments and agencies, Hillary Clinton’s email saga is mind-numbing. The publicly available information makes clear she and her aides violated so many elementary security prohibitions that alumni are speechless. They wonder, had they done what she did, how quickly they would have lost their clearances and jobs and how extensive the criminal indictments against them would be.

By contrast, many who have never served in government or dealt with classified information see the affair as opaque, even overblown. Certainly Clinton has worked hard to foster that impression. Leaving political spin aside, and without delving into arcane legal analysis, which is it? What did Clinton and her entourage actually do day-to-day, and what does it mean? In hopes of making things a little clearer, herewith the observations of one State Department alumnus, who has pondered how he would look in an orange jumpsuit were he in Clinton's shoes.

State, like other national-security agencies, has both classified and unclassified ways for its employees, especially the most senior, to communicate. Clinton erred in two separate but often confused ways. First, she used private channels for official government business, and second, she used unclassified channels to send and receive classified information.

Her first error violates basic common sense, familiar to any private business: Business channels should be used for business purposes and personal channels for personal purposes. Obviously, there can be ambiguity between business and personal communications, such as one spouse asking another, "When will you be home for dinner?" But in Clinton's case, there seems to be no ambiguity: She simply did not use government channels for her electronic communications. Her motive was almost certainly to put information she alone deemed personal beyond government access, which is impermissible even for the most junior clerk, let alone the secretary of state. Clinton's private email system by definition undercuts her defense that she complied with government record-keeping requirements because all her emails went to unclassified government accounts (such as her aides'). Without full access to her server, why should we believe Clinton didn't send emails to aides' private email addresses, thereby shielding them entirely from potential government retrieval?

Clinton's second error, using unclassified email systems—whether her private accounts or State's unclassified email system (through her aides)—to transmit material that should have remained in classified channels, is the nub of the email issue. Clinton has asserted that what she did with her private channels was "allowed." Yet she has produced no evidence whatever of who did this "allowing" that was contrary to applicable statutes and express State Department regulations involving official business and information security.

Clinton clearly did not vigorously pursue normal State procedures to have her private email server legitimized. Had she somehow gotten the necessary signoffs from the bureaucracy, she would have at least had cover from the current firestorm, and we would have heard about it long ago. Far more likely, she realized that, had she asked plainly, she would have been told plainly that her scheme was way out of bounds.

How should she have pursued standard approval procedures from department officials responsible for legal compliance and security requirements? She could have solicited an opinion from State's legal adviser, the department's general counsel. Either verbally or in writing, she could have described what she proposed to do and asked if it was acceptable. There is as yet no evidence that anyone contacted the legal adviser's office on this subject. Perhaps Harold Koh, legal adviser under Clinton (now back at Yale Law School), can inform the public debate by telling us whether he was ever aware of what Clinton was doing. Or the FBI could ask him directly. (There is no attorney-client privilege issue here; Koh's client was the U.S. government, not Clinton personally.)

Similarly, State's executive secretariat (charged with the critical bureaucratic task of managing paper flows and records of decisions by Clinton and other key officials) would have been utterly remiss if it were blind to Clinton's ignoring government communications channels, let alone security requirements. And other State offices like the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (charged among other things with the secretary's safety) and the Bureau of Information Resource Management had important equities at stake. Were they, or their boss, under secretary for management Patrick Kennedy, ever consulted or informed about Clinton's practices in whole or in part? And has the FBI talked with any of these people yet?

Clinton's next line of defense, as she stated January 31: "There is absolutely no evidence that I sent or received any email marked classified." Of course, using a private email account or even State's unclassified email system and marking emails classified would be an immediate, incontrovertible admission that security requirements had been violated. The way to avoid creating such evidence is not typing "Secret" or the like in the emails. That gambit, however, cannot declassify information already classified or classifiable.

What exactly were Clinton's aides doing that resulted in classified material being exchanged among them? Here, it helps to understand how classified information, especially highly sensitive material, is distributed within State. Some particularly sensitive intelligence is available only in hard copy. Scanning it into an unclassified email system would mean retaining the original classification markings, an exceedingly incriminating action, as explained above. Considerably more classified information is available electronically, but it cannot be transmitted from the classified to the unclassified system except by State Department technicians in very limited circumstances. For example, you cannot attach a classified document to an email on the classified system and send it to an AOL or Gmail account. One of the most fundamental protections for secure IT systems is that they are not connected to the Internet. When I was at State, for example, I had two computers behind my desk connected to completely separate classified and unclassified systems.

Given these obstacles to readily transferring classified materials into unclassified emails, what almost certainly happened is this: Clinton aides would read classified documents, either hard or electronic copies, and type the information, paraphrased or verbatim, they wanted to transmit into unclassified emails. They would then send them to Clinton, unflagged in any way as containing classified material. She could forward an email to someone else, or send it back in reply. That's why so many emails are now redacted. If the FBI is doing its job, it will interview the senders of those emails, asking them how they obtained the information they transmitted.

Most emails released to date were exchanged among Clinton's close political circle at State, but some originated from career personnel. This is a particularly pernicious, if little-noticed, consequence of her disdain for proper security: dumbing-down security protections department-wide. State's bureaucracy knows no higher career goal than getting face time with the secretary or otherwise getting their names before her. No Washington bureaucracy is cleverer in figuring out how to reach that objective. Very likely, some number of senior State careerists knew of Clinton's private email and accordingly communicated much of what they wanted her to see in unclassified form, thereby breaching security. More fodder for the FBI.

But, Clinton pleads, she did not originate any emails with classified information. Even if true, Clinton, the queen bee of this scheme, unarguably understood the game. In one known instance, proving the point clearly, she instructed an aide to delete classification markings and send classified material on an unclassified fax. If this isn't evidence of "specific intent" for prosecutors, nothing is. It is delusional to say that an experienced, well-briefed official wouldn't have had a good and growing sense of what should be classified, whether the material originated with her or not. Clinton served for six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she saw significant amounts of classified information. She was no babe in the woods when she came to State. Once there, moreover, she signed a standard non-disclosure agreement that by its express terms defines classified information as "marked or unmarked .  .  . including oral communications."

Clinton tries to minimize the seriousness of her error by arguing, as she did during the January 31 interview, that having hundreds of her emails wholly or partly redacted before release is nothing but "classification in retrospect." This dodge is either deceitful or utterly uneducated. To argue, as Clinton does, that information properly unclassified at the time she received it can grow more sensitive as time passes is so breathtaking it almost defies physical reality.

For the vast bulk of classified government documents, the potential damage from being leaked diminishes over time, largely for two reasons. First, time sensitivity is a significant factor in classification decisions. When, for example, a U.S. diplomat receives intelligence about negotiations in real time, the need to shield the information as highly classified may be very transitory. Even just days later, its value may have largely dissipated. Second, the passage of time almost invariably reduces the damage to the United States if the information gets into the wrong hands. Thus, immediately leaking sensitive information can be highly damaging, but leaking it a year later may only be embarrassing, while in five years there may be essentially no harm at all.

The situation is different, and much worse for Clinton, regarding intelligence gathered through sensitive sources and methods. While the significance of the content itself likely diminishes over time, the sensitivity of sources and methods can last decades or longer. Compromising these sources could put lives at risk and ruin billion-dollar collection systems. This is certainly true for "Special Access Program" (SAP) reports, recently prominent because even the State Department withheld 22 Clinton emails in their entirety because they contained SAP material.

State's current leadership, however, is clearly trying to provide cover for Clinton by disputing classification decisions of other agencies. Bureaucrats often engage in such internecine warfare, but the operating principle has long been that the classifier of information retains control over its distribution and release. This principle rests on the common-sense notion that the agency originating or acquiring the information is best-positioned to decide how much protection it requires. State would feel the same way the intelligence community feels today about Clinton's callous disregard for its judgments if, for instance, the Defense Department decided to declassify State reporting cables. Significantly, as Fox News's Catherine Herridge has reported, the FBI is asking the originating agencies for their judgments, rather than relying on State's post facto obstructionism.

Finally, Clinton is calling for all of her emails to be disclosed publicly. This is the most hollow, hypocritical ploy of all. She knows with certainty that the administration will not release them. The classification protections are not Clinton's to waive, any more than she could waive executive privilege on her emails with President Obama if he determined to keep them privileged. And we now know, despite earlier denials all around, that Obama and Clinton did indeed communicate through her private channels.

Clinton has many other points of vulnerability that have barely been noticed. For example, hostile intelligence services can remotely capture control of cell phones and other electronic devices with microphones and have them transmit back everything the microphones pick up, even when the devices are apparently turned off. This is why, on entering a secure classified information facility, people must leave their electronic devices outside the room. This is also why senior U.S. officials are asked not to bring cell phones and laptops when they visit countries like Russia and China, because of the severe risk the equipment could be compromised during their trips. Yet for four years, Clinton and her top political staff apparently traveled worldwide with personal electronic gear such as cell phones and iPads, ignoring specific recommendations from State IT personnel not to do so.

We have just scratched the surface here of the irregularity of Clinton's practices while at State. And that could be the FBI's hardest job: how to find sufficient resources to investigate properly before the suspect becomes their boss. The race is on.

John R. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06.
 

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Black Democrats Are Not Happy With Hillary Clinton


Commentary

By Frances Rice

Hillary Clinton is clinging to the hope that her flailing campaign will be saved by black Democrats in the South. However, an under reported story is just how negatively black Democrats view the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee. Below is an article published in the Sunshine State News that excoriates Hillary. Further below are some facts about the true history of civil rights being disseminated to black Americans by the National Black Republican Association.

An even greater blow to Hillary's supposed "Firewall" is the recent switch of endorsement by the past president of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, from Hillary to Bernie Sanders. As was reported in The New York Times: 

A former N.A.A.C.P. president is expected to endorse Bernie Sanders on Friday, in a move that could enhance the Vermont senator’s support among black voters across the country. Benjamin T. Jealous, who headed the N.A.A.C.P. from 2008 to 2013, is expected to appear in New Hampshire alongside Mr. Sanders to come out publicly supporting the senator, according to a person connected with the Sanders campaign.  Mr. Jealous, a well-known and respected figure, was at age 35 the youngest person ever elected to lead the N.A.A.C.P. and focused much of his time on issues of voter registration and mobilization … Meanwhile, Mr. Sanders also picked up an endorsement from the Las Vegas-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 357 on Thursday, making inroads with labor in a state where unions are expected to play an outsize role in the Feb. 20 Democratic caucuses. Read more HERE.
______________

Hillary Clinton Is Not The Second Coming Of Harriet Tubman

By Leslie Wimes











What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, right?

How many times are black people going to place their eggs in a Clinton basket and expect something different?

Other than play the saxophone and have an office in Harlem, why do we love Bill, and other than being married to Bill, why do we love Hillary?

As much as we all loved to call Bill Clinton the “First Black President,” my good friend, prominent Tallahassee attorney Chuck Hobbs broke it down rather well when he wrote this:

“Don’t get me wrong, I respected some aspects of Clinton’s presidency, but his legacy with respect to race included not only advocating causes that gutted high-paying blue collar jobs in the Midwest (NAFTA) and others that imprisoned more black men than ever. He and his wife also joined in lock step with Newt Gingrich in promulgating “welfare reform” that made black mothers who were already catching hell to raise their kids catch even more hell.”

You can read Chuck Hobbs’ article in its entirety here.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2008 primary race against Barack Obama, her true colors, as well as Bill’s, started to show. They are all for black people as long as we are asking how high when they say jump.

When the issue came up of Florida and Michigan breaking the rules and being punished for it, Hillary Clinton kept quiet. She allowed her surrogates to advocate for cheating. Even Donna Brazile famously said that when you want to change the rules in the middle of the game, it’s called cheating. Hillary Clinton wanted to win at all costs, and she didn’t care who she had to roll over to do it. Even her supporters got downright rabid. Remember Harriet Christian and her “inadequate black man” rant?

There are still those who say Hillary and her camp were the source of the Jeremiah Wright scandal. She wanted to damage Obama however she could.

They say Hillary and her camp helped fuel the birth certificate issue, even though she knew it was a non-issue, she wanted to damage Obama anyway she could.

The infamous 3 a.m. ad she ran was a thinly veiled racist swipe at Obama, because while your little white children are sleeping, this black man couldn’t possibly protect them.

Bill Clinton, who hilariously enough was jealous that Obama was going to be the REAL first black president, tried to demean him as only a black candidate in South Carolina and tried to brush him off as nothing.

When Bill Clinton thought Rep. James Clyburn was “pulling strings” behind the scenes in South Carolina, where Hillary Clinton lost to Obama, he said to Clyburn, “If you bastards want a fight, you damn well will get one”.

Don’t believe me, hear it from Clyburn’s own lips here.

Black people need to realize when they are appreciated, and when they are being used.

If Hillary Clinton wasn’t whipping/nae-naeing, dabbing, and whatnot before, why do it now?

Hillary knows that what is saving her butt now is the African-American community.

The only reason THAT is the case is because her NAME is familiar. I want her GAME to be familiar as well. It isn’t as fun as y’all think it is.

We talk about how our African-American men are disproportionately behind bars, and here Hillary Clinton is, taking large sums of money from the private prison industry.

She talks a lot about her advocacy for children -- black children, Latino children, etc., but at the same time, she supports policies that send the parents of those children to jail.

I guess that makes the private prison industry folks who line her pockets happy, right?

What irks me most of all are the endorsements of the families of Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, and Eric Garner. These families have become OUR families in a way. Clinton knows that. I feel she is using that to get our votes via our empathy and sympathy for those families and the tragedies they suffered.

What is Hillary going to do next? Find the family of Emmett Till and send out an endorsement letter from them? I think if it were not for the fact that Sandra Bland’s family KNOWS the sincerity of Bernie Sanders -- he did what he did with them outside the public eye -- Hillary Clinton would have tried to get HER family to send out an endorsement letter.

I would imagine if Bernie Sanders asked that family to endorse him, they would. But it appears as though he is above using tragedy for personal gain.

Not Hillary Clinton.

The Latino community had it right when they told her that she was not their abuela.
Black folks, she ain’t your Madea, Harriet Tubman, Sista Souljah, Ride-or-die, or none of that.

I’m beginning to think she isn’t even your friend.

Leslie Wimes is president and founder of Women on the Move and the Democratic African American Women Caucus, www.daawc.com. She lives in Palm Beach County. 


 _______________

 Civil Rights History – In A Nutshell

By Frances Rice

 At its core, the battle for black emancipation and civil rights was a fight between the two major political parties.

The Democratic Party fought to preserve slavery and deny civil rights to African-Americans. For details see Wayne Perryman’s book “Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats: The Untold Story of Race & Politics Within the Democratic Party from 1792-2009.”

The Republican Party was started as the anti-slavery party and fought to end slavery. A YouTube video featuring Wayne Perryman summarizes the stellar civil rights legacy of the Republican Party.

After Republicans won the Civil War, with over 700,000 white Republicans losing their lives, they amended the Constitution to grant African-Americans freedom (the13th Amendment)citizenship (the 14th Amendment) and the right to vote ( the15th Amendment).

Republicans then passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867, designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to African-Americans.

When Democrats took control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875. Democrats then passed discriminatory Jim Crow laws that put African-Americans in virtual slavery. More details can be found in the book by Columbia Historian Dr. Eric FonerA Short History of Reconstruction (1st Edition).”

It took Republicans nearly six decades to finally achieve passage of civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools.

Over the objection of Democrats, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois championed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in ‘57, ‘60, ‘64, ‘65 and ‘68. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act and crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Today, Democrats try to hide from their racist past by falsely claiming the parties switched sides. In fact, racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was—and still is—the party for African-Americans. Contrary to popular belief, President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” was not an appeal to racism. Instead, he tried to get Southerners to stop discriminating against blacks and join the racially tolerant Republican Party.

After Wayne Perryman sued the Democratic Party for their 250-year history of racism, Democrats put up another smoke screen by calling themselves “Progressives.”  An article in “The New York Times” The Case Against Woodrow Wilson at Princeton exposes how the progressives’ icon, President Woodrow Wilson, was “an unapologetic racist whose administration rolled back the gains that African-Americans achieved just after the Civil War, purged black workers from influential jobs and transformed the government into an instrument of white supremacy.”  Democrats/Progressives talk tolerance, but practice intolerance. A particular target today for their demeaning racial slurs are black Republicans.

As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have run black communities for the past 60 years and their socialist policies have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands, witness Detroit, Baltimore and South Chicago. Yet, Democrats have the gall to blame Republicans for those deplorable conditions.

Every election cycle, to garner the black vote, Democrats incite hatred against Republicans, accusing them of “voter suppression,” that is, wanting to stop black people from voting. In reality, Republicans want to implement voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud. Also, African-Americans are smart enough to get an ID to use a bank, fly in a plane or visit the White House. It is an insult for Democrats to claim blacks are too stupid to present that same ID when it comes time to vote. Meanwhile, voter fraud is a real problem.

Since the time of slavery until today, the Democratic Party’s modus operandi has been to keep African-Americans poor, uneducated and voting for Democrats. Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop African-Americans from voting for Republicans. Now Democrats use deception and social welfare programs to keep African-Americans from voting for Republicans. Welfare reform is needed because the poor women can't get government welfare, if there is a man in the house. This insane policy breaks up familes and condemns poor people to generational poverty.

It is time for African-Americans to stop having their vote taken for granted, hold politicians accountable for their policies and demand access to a quality education through school choice programs. In the Battle For Equality, the Republican Party is and always has been a partner for African-Americans.

Friday, February 05, 2016

The Republican Party Celebrates Black History Month


By Frances Rice


















 
To celebrate Black History Month, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus hosted the 4th Annual Black Republican Trailblazer Awards Luncheon in Florida, honoring former HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. 

As reported in an article in the Daytona Beach Journal, Priebus made an appeal for more black voters at an awards luncheon at the Bethune-Cookman University. Priebus cited Abraham Lincoln and emphasized the GOP's historical claim to being a party of inclusion. Below Photo: News-Journal/David Tucker
 




















 
 

 

Here is a quote from the article published in the Daytona Beach News Journal:
Three of the first four finishers in the Republican Iowa Caucus featured faces of color — Cuban-Americans Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and African-American Ben Carson. That's not lost on Tyson Brown, a Bethune-Cookman University student. "I believe that's an important point," he said. "It is a first step to getting more black people and people of color to the Republican side." Ever since losing the 2012 presidential race, with an overwhelming majority of African-Americans and Latinos siding with the Democrats, the Republican Party has devoted time and resources into outreach such as Thursday's 4th Annual Black Republican Trailblazer Awards Luncheon at Cookman's Mary McLeod Bethune Performing Arts Center.

Below is an article that appeared in the Black Enterprise Magazine.

 
_____________

 
By Hailey Wallace
 
On Thursday, February 4, the Republican National Committee will recognize Black History Month with the 4th annual Black Republican Trailblazer Awards Luncheon. The awards ceremony will be held at prominent HBCU Bethune-Cookman University in Daytona, Florida.
 
This year’s theme is Pursuing the Promise. Notable GOP heavyweights will convene to watch RNC Chairman Reince Priebus present the Trailblazer Award to this year’s honoree, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Alphonso Jackson. Jackson will be honored for his significant contributions to the Republican party through his prolific public sector work.
 
Jackson first entered the public sector when he was appointed president of the Dallas Housing Authority, making history as the first African American to hold the position.  A tireless advocate for the city’s poverty-stricken residents, he worked to desegregate the city’s public housing properties, revitalize crucial revenue-generating commercial properties, and secure the return of a major supermarket to West Dallas, which has gone years without one.
 
Jackson returned to the public sector in 2001 when he was appointed Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by President George W. Bush. In 2004, Jackson again made history when he became the fourth African American to serve as HUD Secretary. During his tenure, he worked to empower black-owned businesses, increasing the percentage of HUD contracts awarded to black businesses from 14% to an impressive 25%.
 
Past Trailblazer Award honorees have included Sen. Edward Brooks, Sen. Tim Scott (currently in the news for his endorsement of Hispanic GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio), Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), and Rep. Mia Love (R-UT).
 
This year’s awards ceremony is one of many testaments to the RNC’s commitment to rectify the mistakes of the 2012 presidential election when the minority vote seemed to be little more than an afterthought. Republican party leaders have been making a huge push for minority inclusion with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus urging his fellow party members to ramp up their outreach efforts, while earnestly insisting that “black lives matter.” Priebus has traveled to HBCUs all over the country, helping to launch College Republican chapters to increase the GOP’s engagement and accessibility to young black voters.
 
Time will tell if the RNC’s efforts pay off in November. But their renewed commitment to inclusion, as well as a refocused take on the issues affecting the black electorate, has undoubtedly helped propel the GOP’s efforts to reflect the changing demographics of the country.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Hillary Clinton Dodges Questions, Stonewalls and Deceives in Debate


RNC
 
RNC Statement On The MSNBC Democrat Debate In New Hampshire
 
WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus released the following statement at the conclusion of the Democrat debate in Durham, New Hampshire:

"Hillary Clinton’s dodge on releasing transcripts for closed-door, paid speeches before special interest groups is exactly why the American people overwhelmingly see her as dishonest and untrustworthy.  Hillary Clinton must do more than just ‘look into’ releasing the transcripts from all her paid speaking engagements; she needs to release them in full.

"Stonewalling and deception have become a Hillary Clinton trademark, and the American people deserve to know what she said behind closed doors to earn $21.5 million in speaking fees.  From conflicts of interests and foreign donations to her family foundation during her tenure at State, to an unsecured secret email server in her basement to skirt transparency, the self-described ‘most transparent person in public life’ seems to have a lot to hide.  It’s time for Clinton to come clean for once and release the transcripts before New Hampshire voters head to the polls on Tuesday."
 
###