Those who wish to dismiss that truth as the racist rantings of a now-deceased, staunchly conservative Republican president would do well to remember that its sentiments were also echoed by former president Barack Obama, our liberal, first black president.
In an impassioned 2008 Father’s Day speech, Obama made clear the impact that single-parent homes—a direct result of the welfare state—were having upon black children. He said:
Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.
But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing—missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
* * *
Obama continued:
You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled—doubled—since we were children. We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
In the twelve years since Obama delivered that moving speech, our society seems to have barreled further away from its lessons. The general shifting of American culture toward liberal ideologies has loosened the stigma of out-of-wedlock childbirth among all races. We are engaged in a cultural war—one that is being waged between those who uphold the traditional values responsible for our country’s achievements, and those pushing for an updated, faux-progressive, radically destructive change.
I have often said that no society can survive without strong men. Radical feminists regularly insinuate that accepting the empirical evidence that children fare better with their fathers in the home suggests that women ought to remain in abusive relationships if they become pregnant. This is a twisted, neoliberal assessment that works to devalue the presence of men, through the argument of an extreme. Of course, no women (or men, for that matter) should remain in abusive situations for the sake of children, and of course there are plenty of examples of single parents raising their children up to be successful adults. But these represent exceptions, not the rule. As a rule, children fare better in two-parent homes. We should not uphold exceptions as proof that women do not need husbands and children do not need male guidance. If given the choice, we should always seek to provide children with the head start that comes from being raised in a healthy, two-parent environment.
BLACK GENOCIDE, LIBERAL SUPPORT
In 1965, a man by the name of Daniel Patrick Moynihan made the terrible mistake of telling the truth. As the assistant secretary of labor, he was asked to study black poverty, during the time when America had just formally acknowledged the wrongs of segregation. With this acknowledgment came the fashionable belief that black people could no longer be held responsible for anything. Every ill that had befallen our community from that point onward became viewed as a legacy of white supremacy. In essence, black Americans became blameless. So when Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued his study, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, and highlighted the collapse of black marriages in America as a contributing factor to black poverty, he was roundly condemned for “victim-blaming.” It would take decades before experts agreed that everything he had reported was accurate.
Also buried in his report was another data point that was likely to strike fear into the hearts of any racists who were intent on maintaining the status quo. Moynihan noted that the black population was growing. Beginning in the 1950s, the black population grew at a rate of 2.4 percent per year compared to 1.7 percent for the total population, leading Moynihan to write, “[if] this rate continues, in seven years, 1 American in 8 will be nonwhite.”
Efforts to control the black population had been in place since at least the 1920s, when fear began spreading around the nation that the preferred, more intelligent white race was becoming threatened by immigration. Popular eugenicists made the argument that it was necessary to make efforts to stop those who were deemed undesirable, from reproducing. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood—who is today hailed as a hero for giving women greater control over when they bear children—was one such eugenicist. Sanger upheld the popular belief of her day that America needed to hinder those with unfavorable traits from reproducing.
From 1939 to 1942, Sanger led the Negro Project, an initiative that was purported to combat poverty among southern blacks by providing family planning education and access to birth control and contraceptives. Intentional as she was, Sanger pushed to partner with black ministers, who she knew would be instrumental in gaining the trust of the people she was looking to “help” and might thereby conceal her true motives.
Sanger wrote to Dr. Clarence Gamble, another leader of the Negro Project, “The minister’s work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the [Birth Control] Federation [of America] as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach.”
While Sanger’s appeal to the black community may have been about “choice,” the fact remains that she openly authored articles in support of “applying a stern and rigid policy of sterilization” in an effort to “insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents.” So ingratiated were her ideas with the racism of her time that she addressed Ku Klux Klan members to garner further support for her birth control measures.
At the turn of the twentieth century, the eugenicist sentiment became a growing movement in America. The list of those deemed “unfit” included immigrants, the physically and mentally disabled, the impoverished, the stupid, and of course, blacks. The practice of forced sterilization upon black women in the rural South was so common it became known as Mississippi appendectomies: doctors would tell women that they needed to have their appendixes removed but would instead rob them of their reproductive abilities.
In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which would eventually become the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, today the largest provider of abortions in the United States. And since 1973, when abortions became legal, black women have terminated far more pregnancies than women of any other race. According to 2016 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with 401 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest abortion ratio among racial groups—far higher than the 109 abortions per 1,000 live births of white women. Despite representing just 13 percent of the United States female population, they make up nearly 40 percent of all abortions. What is more, research conducted by the Life Issues Institute found that “79 percent of abortion-offering Planned Parenthood facilities are within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods,” and “62 percent are near black neighborhoods.” This data clearly speaks to the intentional targeting of the black community, much in the same way that Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project targeted poor black women in the South.
Of course, this ugly truth regarding Sanger’s legacy has been pardoned by liberals who continue to carry out her agenda. And with more than 19 million black babies having been aborted since 1973, one black pastor was right to warn that “If the current trend [of abortions in the black community] continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant.” According to a Pew research report, the birth rate for blacks declined 29 percent between 1990 and 2010.
It’s no wonder Democrats have suddenly come out in support of mass illegal immigration, as a new victim class t
o carry their party will be needed in the near future. Democrats continue to champion abortion as “reproductive health care.” And in the same way that the welfare system works to enable irresponsible behavior, so too does the abortion—industry—except this time, parents can abandon the responsibility of taking care of their children while they’re in the womb.
Rev. Dr. Luke Bobo, an anti-abortion pastor from Kansas City, Missouri, told the New York Times, “Those who are most vocal about abortion and abortion laws are my white brothers and sisters, and yet many of them do not care about the plight of the poor, the plight of the immigrant, the plight of African Americans. My argument here is, let us think about the entire life span of the person.”
Thinking about the entire life span of a person is a historically conservative position. It was President Reagan who cleverly remarked on the irony—that every person who is for abortion has already been born. Hypocrisy, though, has come to define the Left’s various platforms. Is it not a wonder that the same party that claims that racism is at the core of black American ills routinely promotes the policies and ideologies that victimize black families the most? The same people who scream about black incarceration rates, economic disparities, and impoverished neighborhoods never lend their voices in attacks against the welfare system, which inspires all three. Similarly, is it not a wonder that the same people behind the Black Lives Matter campaign, the ones who claim to care about the unjust slaughter of blacks in the streets, refuse to acknowledge that today the most unsafe place for a black child is in its mother’s womb? Indeed, perhaps the reason Democrats don’t attack these industries is that they are the authors, perpetrators, and main benefactors of their Machiavellian designs.
3 ON FEMINISM
There are so many different channels and underground passages through which the Left funnels its poison to black America. The one that I have been the most outspoken against is feminism. What even is feminism? The first answer that seems true is that nobody knows anymore. A movement that was born out of noble and humble beginnings in a search for equality of opportunity between the sexes has now devolved into something quite different and altogether unrecognizable from its initial nascent form. Modern feminism is now the plaything of the Left; it is the harbinger term for a witch hunt against all men. This time, though, the witches are doing the hunting.
In the last three years, since the #MeToo movement has taken hold and caught fire, leftists have done everything in their power to divide the nation into two groups: feminists and antifeminists. In the process, an effort that was launched to call attention to rampant sexual abuse and harassment in the entertainment industry has somehow devolved into a trend of denigrating any person, male or female, who does not blindly support the Left’s modern feminist agenda.
I, of course, fall into this group because I am an avowed antifeminist, but does that mean that I support the subjugation or harassment of women? Of course not. Nor do I support the subjugation and harassment of men, which is exactly what modern feminism does.
Nothing about modern feminism, commonly termed “intersectional feminism,” has anything to do with its original search for equality. Indeed, the founders of the feminist movement, more commonly termed “first-wave feminism,” would see none of their original movement in what the word is used to encompass now. Voting rights for women, equal legal standing with men, a recognition of women as equally capable and competent in most workplaces, and the ending of gender-based discrimination—these goals have, for all intents and purposes, been achieved. This is not to say that pockets of sexism do not still exist; of course prejudice in all its forms maintains its hideouts in modern society. But the modern feminist movement works only to exacerbate these issues.
The truth is that as a woman in America today, I am now not only on equal footing, but in fact positively discriminated in favor of, by employers over men. As a woman in 2020, I have a greater life expectancy, a greater probability of receiving a college education, and in many profes-sions a greater likelihood of employment with more years to enjoy my pension and a greater array of benefits available to me than a man. This is why I so proudly declare that I am not a feminist. Rather, I feel positively affirmed in my femininity.
FEMINISM IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED LIBERAL WOMEN
It should first be made clear that Democrats do not care if you believe women. They just want you to believe their women.
Brett Michael Kavanaugh, appointed to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2006 under President George W. Bush, was nominated by President Trump on July 9, 2018, to take the then-vacant position of Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. In his remarks after being nominated, Kavanaugh said, “No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Kavanaugh would be drawn from the same D.C. Circuit that has given rise to the appointments of Justices Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Scalia; his path to the Supreme Court included Yale University, Yale Law School, clerking at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits, clerking for Justice Kennedy at the Supreme Court, working for Ken Starr (former solicitor general of the United States), working for the legal team of President George W. Bush, working for the private practice of Kirkland & Ellis as partner, and, of course, serving as a U.S. circuit judge. Yet this impressive track record of legal scholarship and experience was to simply be discarded by the Democrats as they unleashed the true horror of leftist feminism upon him. Christine Blasey Ford, a registered Democrat and financial contributor to leftist political organizations, came forward as his chief accuser before other speculative witnesses also emerged from the woodwork. Ford accused Kavanaugh of having forced himself on her at a house party in the summer of 1982, when he was seventeen and Ford fifteen. Her written testimony before the Senate Judicial Committee accused Kavanaugh of violent attempted rape at that house party in an upstairs bedroom with Mark Judge, a school friend of Kavanaugh’s, who she claimed was also present:
I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. That was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.
Ford named three men and one woman in her testimony: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, and “my friend Leland Ingham.” It must have therefore been difficult for Ford to learn that both Judge and Smyth denied any recollection of having attended such a party. On top of that, her “lifelong friend” Ingham (a phrase used by Ford) released a statement via her attorney that said, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser [nee Ingham] does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.” This must have been especially hard for Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, to hear, although was it not slightly suspicious that Ford would pick Debra Katz as her attorney? In a Washington Post puff piece titled “Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz: The feared attorney of the #MeToo moment,” the author Isaac Stanley-Becker writes:
By her own words, she [Debra Katz] is part of the resistance to the Trump administration’s agenda. “This administration’s explicit agenda is to wage an assault on our most basic rights—from reproductive rights to our rights to fair pay,” she said last year in an interview with the National Women’s Law Center. “We are determined to resist—fiercely and strategically.” Her views test a line between legal advocacy and political activism at a moment when sexual harassment and gender discrimination have become the terrain on which American political warfare is being waged.
Guess it makes perfect sense, therefore, that this collective of anti-Trumpers would latch on to a story from thirty-six years ago where the main accuser cannot remember any of the major details. These are a few of the total absurdities of the Blasey Ford case; furthermore, who among us cannot remember a truly traumatic event from our childho
od? When writing this book I had to recall several events from my childhood, all of which are far less traumatic than alleged violent attempted rape, and yet my ability (with a memory that I would say is average) to recall specific details, including addresses, attendees, and exact sequences or timelines up to twenty years ago, seems far better than Dr. Ford’s.
Soon after Blasey Ford emerged, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick (the latter represented by well-known Democrat swindler and convicted felon Michael Avenatti) also accused Kavanaugh of having exposed himself to them years before. It was at this moment that the word “feminism” took on its truly modern meaning: all men are guilty until proven innocent in a kangaroo court. Blasey Ford and the other Democrat witnesses could have, in one fell swoop, undone a thirty-year legal career: the whole of modern sanity was on trial in Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Alleging that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982, Blasey Ford became the ultimate weapon of the liberal feminist movement—soon enough #BelieveAll Women became the mainstream mantra. What an absolute absurdity it is to say #BelieveAllWomen. Do women not lie? Have women never made up a story? Was it not Eve whom the serpent tempted in the Garden of Eden—or was that incident but the earliest fault of the patriarchy?
Women are clearly and evidently as capable of wrongdoing as men. In the spirit of true equality, should we not have our motives questioned as well?
Critics deemed me cynical for not believing a woman who, as a registered Democrat, suddenly felt it appropriate, after thirty years, to come forward to try to discredit one of the most conservative picks for the Supreme Court, by a president who has been universally hated by the Democrats themselves.
Blackout Page 5
