Black Self-Sabotage

If we put ourselves into the shoes of racists who seek to sabotage black upward mobility, we couldn’t develop a more effective agenda than that followed by civil rights organizations, black politicians, academics, liberals and the news media. Let’s look at it.

First, weaken the black family, but don’t blame it on individual choices. You have to preach that today’s weak black family is a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and racism. The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today. In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households.

During the 1960s, devastating nonsense emerged, exemplified by a Johns Hopkins University sociology professor who argued, “It has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes.” The real issue, he went on to say, “is not the lack of male presence but the lack of male income.” That suggests marriage and fatherhood can be replaced by a welfare check.

The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today. The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it’s 90 percent. But if that’s a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.

Along with the decline of the black family comes anti-social behavior, manifested by high crime rates. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. I’d like for the president, the civil rights establishment, white liberals and the news media, who spent massive resources protesting the George Zimmerman trial’s verdict, to tell the nation whether they believe that the major murder problem blacks face is murder by whites. There are no such protests against the thousands of black murders.

There’s an organization called NeighborhoodScout. Using 2011 population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 crime statistics from the FBI and information from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies in the country, it came up with a report titled “Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America.” ( They include neighborhoods in Detroit, Chicago, Houston, St. Louis and other major cities. What’s common to all 25 neighborhoods is that their makeup is described as “Black” or “Mostly Black.” The high crime rates have several outcomes that are not in the best interests of the overwhelmingly law-abiding people in these neighborhoods. There can’t be much economic development. Property has a lower value, but worst of all, people can’t live with the kind of personal security that most Americans enjoy.

Disgustingly, black politicians, civil rights leaders, liberals and the president are talking nonsense about “having a conversation about race.” That’s beyond useless. Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? What will such a conversation do about the breakdown of the black family (though “breakdown” is not the correct word, as the family doesn’t form in the first place)? Only black people can solve our problems.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at


Obama the Unembarrassable

Sometimes I marvel at President Obama’s apparent lack of an embarrassment sensor. How can he stand before the American people and deliver speech after speech making the same tired points and pretending he is delivering the speech of the century?

Is he truly impervious to feelings of self-consciousness, or is he trying to play us for fools?

His speech at Knox College on the economy contained all the ingredients of a vintage Obama speech: much fanfare about little substance; a stunning distortion of his record across the board, especially on the economy; refusal to accept responsibility and blaming others for the problems he’s caused; his ludicrous portrayal of himself as an outsider pitted against the Washington political class he heads; predictable appeals to class warfare; tried-and-failed prescriptions for “growing the economy from the middle out”; his professed identification with the middle class, which his policies are devastating; his cynical dismissal as phony distractions of a raft of real administration scandals that would have brought other administrations to their knees; and an expression of affinity for government, not the American people, as the solution for all of our problems.

The upshot after Obama’s nearly five years in office is that the economy is still sluggish. Unemployment and annual deficits remain disturbingly high based on historical standards; our national debt and unfunded liabilities represent an existential threat to America; Obamacare hangs like an ominous tornado playground over the economy and every employer and health care consumer in the nation; America is in steady economic and military decline at the hands of a president who is in denial about it, indifferent to it or intentionally pursuing it; and the president and his renegade Justice Department and administrative agencies are riddled with scandals and gleefully flout the Constitution, the rule of law and the legislative branch.

Yet despite all of this, Obama tells us that everything is great and that things would be even better if it weren’t for partisan, obstructionist Republicans. (If the economy is so wonderful, why is Obama hopscotching the country trying to convince us of what should be self-evident?)

Obama’s refusal to accept responsibility for his policies and his scapegoating have reached comical proportions. Indeed, his economic adviser Austan Goolsbee once virtually admitted that Obama should only be associated with his economic record if and when we begin to see sustained positive results.

Such is the mentality of ideologues. No amount of failure is proof of their policies failing. Others must always be blamed.

Obama no longer dazzles us with his smoke and mirrors; he bores us with them, droning on and on for more than an hour without offering any new ideas to turn the economy around — because he has none.

Obama is as bereft of new ideas as a ventriloquist’s dummy. He is a prisoner of his own theological affinity for expansive government as a panacea. His liberal ethical code tells him that growing government is a moral imperative that must supersede everything else, even economic growth and prosperity for the very people to whom liberals claim allegiance.

As long as they are reliably growing government, statists such as Obama will not be held to account by their fellow liberals for their policy failures and for spreading misery, because they are doing god’s work, whatever that might mean to them. If his “stimulus” fails to produce jobs, it doesn’t matter, because a) his intentions were good, b) Republicans didn’t let him spend even more, and c) things would have been worse without it — even though the weight of the evidence and history prove otherwise.

So don’t ever expect Obama’s soul mates in the liberal media to hold him accountable for his record or to compare it with that of other presidents. If it is worse, it will not be his fault. His failures will always be because of the “mess he inherited,” even though no other president has ever enjoyed that absurd luxury.

But even measured against the situation he inherited, Obama has made sparse improvements, and in most cases, things have gotten worse, including the millions who have given up and left the workforce, the millions who have joined the government dependency rolls, the catastrophic national debt and our woefully insolvent entitlement programs, which he steadfastly refuses to reform.

For all his hoopla about hope and change, Obama is nothing more than a gloom-and-doom liberal who doesn’t even aspire to robust economic growth. His sole focus is not on growing the economic pie but on redistributing what he believes is a finite one.

That’s why the thrust of Obama’s disgraceful speech was on class envy, resentment and warfare. He forever castigates producers and the wealthy and promises a continuation of policies that are antithetical to growth, except for the growth of government.

As long as Obama is in office and his policies are pursued, America will be shortchanging itself and suppressing the entrepreneurial spirit and liberty of the American people, without which America is destined for ongoing decline.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “The Great Destroyer,” reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at


Liz Cheney’s Senate Bid In Perspective

Someone needs to explain to Liz Cheney that if she is running for the United States Senate in Wyoming, her opponent will be Mike Enzi, the current Republican Senator, and not Barack Obama. Since last week’s announcement of her intention to run, she has been all over the media, most recently in a rare interview by talk radio giant, Rush Limbaugh. During the interview, she eloquently enumerated all of the reasons why she would ostensibly be a good choice for the U.S. Senate. Ironically, her reasons could easily have been a personal endorsement for Enzi, with one major exception. Mike Enzi has a proven track record of standing firm on conservative principle. Contrary to the manner in which she seeks to portray herself as a common citizen from the grassroots, Liz Cheney clearly intends to run her campaign from the top down, gaining national publicity, enjoying the momentum, and no doubt the financial support from big interests outside of Wyoming. Throughout all of her media encounters, she continues to portray the upcoming contest as that of someone from Main Street going up against big government, compromise, capitulation, and Washington “business as usual,” all of which sounds great, except that none of it is true. For starters, Mike Enzi has never been a supporter of big government, and has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate. This background hardly makes him guilty of an ongoing pattern of “compromise.” He has received the enthusiastic endorsement of such individuals as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a “Tea Party” favorite. It is altogether disingenuous to insinuate, however indirectly, that Enzi has been central to the problems plaguing Washington. Cheney, on the other hand, holds much more of a pedigree from the GOP “Establishment,” as the daughter of former Vice-President Dick Cheney. And in keeping with the methodology of power politics inside Washington, she established a residence in Wyoming only a year ago, clearly as a precursor to immediately leaving the state the moment she gets the green light to return to Washington as Senator. During her interview with Limbaugh, she mentioned Wyoming frequently, in a transparent effort to assure the people of this state that she really is one of us. Yet the facts present a far different picture, one of an ambitious politician who merely sees the Cowboy State as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. In this she bears a greater similarity to Hillary Clinton, who acquired a Westchester New York address and immediately afterwards claimed to have been a lifelong Jewish Yankees fan. Also during the interview, Cheney talked of the “Code of the West,” which has the same endearing effect on the locals as wearing rhinestone studded chaps and a wide-brimmed Stetson. In this regard, even her choice of Jackson, Wyoming’s liberal Mecca, as the sight of her token homestead speaks volumes. So she purchased a high-priced piece of real estate in the state’s most manicured and posh locale, and then asserts this as a kindred bond with those across Wyoming who have endured the elements and the isolation in order to make it their home. Such a ploy is tantamount to a politician who hopes to succeed in California by buying a condo in West Hollywood and then claiming to be a soul mate of struggling farmers in the San Joaquin valley. Admittedly, Cheney sounds good when she warns of the “threats against the very principles on which the country was founded.” Who among the conservative base could argue with such a statement? But what is the reality behind it? Within the GOP hierarchy, and especially inside Washington, are many career politicians who have aided and abetted the onslaught against traditional America. And if she really has any intention of changing things, she could start by going up against their ranks. So why then would she seek to oust a reliably conservative stalwart like Mike Enzi? During a townhall meeting in Wheatland Wyoming only a few months back, Enzi explicitly denounced the cronyism that has overtaken Washington. Referring to the infamous “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill for illegal aliens, he flatly admonished “It is time to stop the back room deal making” and to return to the manner in which the nation’s legislative bodies were originally intended to operate. Though not flamboyant, he is far more in league with such notable Senators as Ted Cruz (R.-TX) and Rand Paul (R.-KY) than with the cabal of RINOs which Cheney should be targeting. Possessing the substantial political capital of high-level political connections, big money, and name recognition, Liz Cheney apparently needed an opponent who might possibly be vulnerable to such things. Consequently, Enzi’s actual track record as a Senator is of secondary importance. Rather than directly comparing his core principles, and the manner in which he has acted upon them, to the ideals she professes to uphold, it is easier to employ major public venues to essentially campaign against an imaginary foe who is far more reflective of Barack Obama, or perhaps the many RINOs whose seats she chose not to challenge. Conspicuous by its total absence in her discussions of “the loss of freedom and values” and the threat this trend poses to “the very nature of the nation that we love so much,” is any mention of the current cultural meltdown being perpetrated by political activists of the homosexual lobby. She and her father have supported the notion of same-sex “marriage,” which, although it runs completely counter to the principles on which this nation was founded, nevertheless gained a stamp of “constitutionality” last month from the United States Supreme Court. When this issue is entered into the equation, everything else suddenly starts to make sense. Special interests outside of Wyoming would certainly like to have another ally in the Senate, especially one that would supplant a vote that has been unshakably conservative and pro-family for nearly two decades. In a similar manner, those members of the Republican “Establishment” who have long wished to expunge moral issues from the party would clearly prefer a “fiscal conservative” such as Cheney who likewise eschews traditional morality, even if she does pay verbal homage to constitutional principles. In his majority opinion in which the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last month, Justice Anthony Kennedy essentially declared those who recognize its time-honored definition (one man and one woman) as hateful bigots willing to selectively deny their fellow citizens equal standing. If Liz Cheney really embraces the conservatism she espouses, she would need to take a stand with those whom Kennedy excoriated. Claiming a circumstantial exception on so defining an issue is not the same as standing firmly on principle. In fact it is the epitome of how business is conducted back in Washington. Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Nancy Pelosi, Creep Enabler

The most powerful female Democrat on Capitol Hill has turned her back on women. Again. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, entrenched 13-term incumbent, refuses to say whether creepster San Diego Mayor Bob Filner should resign amid an avalanche of longstanding sexual harassment allegations, staff resignations and now a lawsuit.

“What goes on in San Diego is up to the people of San Diego. I’m not here to make any judgments,” declared the very same feminist crusader who has spearheaded unabashedly judgmental nationwide attacks on the so-called “Republican War on Women.”

Democrat Filner’s former spokeswoman revealed Monday that he ordered her to “work without her panties on” and viewed women “as sexual objects or stupid idiots.” Other women alleged that Democrat Filner groped, forcibly kissed and harassed them. His own fiancee broke up with him two weeks ago after taking stock of his “abusiveness” and “disrespect” for women. Filner “apologized” and admitted, “I need help,” but he refuses to step down.

The sheriff’s office has set up a Bob Filner Abuse Hotline, and the mayor is now forbidden from meeting with women behind closed doors. At least one legal expert believes some of the claims rise to the level of sexual assault.

Instead of anger toward her misogynistic Democratic colleague, Pelosi got all hot and bothered at a journalist who asked her last week about the former 10-term California congressman — with whom she co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, by the way. “Don’t identify him as my former colleague,” Pelosi snippy-snapped.

Okey-dokey. Let’s just refer to boorish Bob Filner as the latest beneficiary of Pelosi’s Democratic Male Perv Protection Racket. When it comes to holding scandal-plagued predatory liberal men accountable for their scummy behavior, See No Evil Nancy’s pattern of malign neglect is unrivaled.

In a New York non-shocker of the year, another of Pelosi’s former colleagues, Anthony Weiner, is embroiled in a new sex controversy. Weiner admitted Tuesday that transcripts of lewd sex chats between him and a 22-year-old woman in 2011 — leaked on a gossip site called “The Dirty” — are real. His apparent nom de sext: “Carlos Danger.”

Vocal Democratic women were nowhere to be found. No surprise. Remember: When the original Weiner nude Twitter selfie scandal broke, Pelosi and her femme-a-gogue twin Debbie Wasserman Schultz dragged their Beltway heels as long as possible. Not until Weiner’s interactions with an underage girl in Delaware were exposed by conservative bloggers and confirmed by police did the women call for him to resign.

Pelosi’s soft-on-Dem skeeviness policy extended to Oregon Democrat Rep. David Wu, as well. While local Oregon activists and journalists exposed the sicko’s bizarre behavior for months in 2011, Pelosi looked the other way at her former colleague’s vulgar antics. The seven-term liberal congressman made national headlines after his own mortified staff revolted against their Tigger costume-wearing, drunk-texting boss.

Wu’s closest advisers demanded that he seek treatment. But House Democrats (who had poured some $80,000 into Wu’s re-election coffers) remained silent and took no action. As I noted at the time, Wu’s sexually aggressive, alcohol-addled and erratic outbursts stretched over decades. He admitted in 2004 that he engaged in “inexcusable behavior” as a 1970s undergrad at Stanford University, where school officials disciplined him after his ex-girlfriend told campus police he attempted to rape her and stifle her screams with a pillow after a breakup.

Only after The Oregonian newspaper published allegations by a teenage girl who had complained for months to apathetic Capitol Hill offices of an “unwanted sexual encounter” with Wu did Nancy “Drain the Swamp” Pelosi call for an investigation by the House ethics committee.

In a demonstration of equal-opportunity callousness, Pelosi showed the same disregard for male victims of a Democratic lecher. Pelosi’s office was told in October 2009 by the chief of staff of predatory former colleague Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., that the congressman had sexually harassed several young male staffers. Massa’s former deputy chief of staff and legislative director also contacted leading Democrats on the House ethics committee. Former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also knew of the freaky habits of the married Massa.

True to form, Pelosi and the creep enablers did nothing for five months — until after Massa resigned in March 2010. A House ethics inquiry into the sexual harassment scandal has gone where most House ethics inquiries go: nowhere.

Whether she’s carrying a gavel or just carrying water, Pelosi has served as a loyal apologist and abettor of the Democratic Bad Boys Club. What exactly will it take before voters finally turn this perv protector into a “former colleague”? Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is


Confronting America’s Racial Divide

Sixty-four percent of Americans say that it’s possible to have an honest discussion about race in America. I would like to believe that, but I am skeptical.

My skepticism is rooted in a painful recognition of the fact that white and black America have different histories and different experiences with our justice system.

Consider the simple fact that, compared to white Americans, black Americans are three times as likely to know someone in prison and twice as likely to know someone who was murdered. It’s not surprising that most black Americans view the justice system with the same level of suspicion that the tea party has for the Internal Revenue Service. The distrust is justified.

So when a jury with no blacks declared George Zimmerman not guilty in the murder of Trayvon Martin, most white Americans agreed with the verdict, and most black Americans did not.

Most white Americans believe that such a jury can fairly consider a case involving the shooting of a black man. Most blacks disagree.

Most white Americans believe Zimmerman was motivated primarily by concern about burglaries in the neighborhood. Most black Americans believe he was motivated primarily by racism.

Many conservative pundits have pointed out that the prosecution simply couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was doing anything more than acting in self-defense. Even some on the political left, people like Slate’s William Saletan, have said that when you look at the evidence and the law, the jury reached the right decision. Former President Jimmy Carter shares that view, as well.

But for many Americans, the technical analysis misses the point. Zimmerman made a poor choice when he ignored the dispatcher, got out of the car and tried to be a hero. As a result, a young black man ended up dead. Where’s the justice in that? Would it have been the same if the dead man were the son of a wealthy white businessman?

I cannot claim to speak for black Americans, but what I see in the numbers is a deeply rooted belief that the rules of the game in America are rigged against black Americans. Eighty-four percent of black Americans believe the justice system in our country is unfair to minorities.

Most white Americans are appalled by such numbers. This is why it is so difficult to have an honest discussion about race in America. They just don’t get it.

What white Americans need to understand is that there’s a reason most black Americans believe our justice system is out to get them. The reason is that for most of our history government in America was an organized conspiracy against black Americans. The Constitution includes offensive lanaguage about black slaves. Southern states implemented Jim Crow laws and provided inferior educational options to keep blacks down — laws that survived until the 1960s. There’s more to American history, of course, but we can’t ignore those realities.

What black Americans need to understand, though, is that George Zimmerman and his generation never lived in that world. America has changed, but we have failed to honestly confront our past.

If our nation is ever to truly become a land of liberty and justice for all, we need to have an honest discussion about race. The evidence of the past few weeks makes me doubt we are ready for that today.

To find out more about Scott Rasmussen, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit



Slavery in America, Saudi-Style

Yes, there’s a war on women in America. But it’s not the phony “war” that tampon-hurling feminists are always shrieking about — as they did last week in Texas to protest tougher regulations on dangerous late-term abortion clinics. No, I’m talking about a real war on women waged by Saudi royals and elites who’ve imported human trafficking and abuse of domestic workers onto U.S. soil.

Meet Meshael Alayban of Saudi Arabia, wife of Abdulrahman bin Nasser bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. She apparently thought we Americans would look the other way at human trafficking and abuse of domestic workers — you know, the way they do in her misogyny-infested home country. The wealthy Meshael Alayban thought wrong.

Last week, Orange County, Calif., prosecutors charged Alayban (who lists her occupation as “princess” on her tourist visa) with felony human trafficking. Enslavement. A Kenyan maid escaped from Alayban’s compound earlier this month after allegedly being held against her will. She told police Alayban confiscated her passport, refused to abide by an employment contract and forbade the worker from returning to her home country — where she has an ailing 7-year-old daughter.

When law enforcement officials entered Alayban’s mansion, they found four other domestic workers from the Philippines who also have indicated a desire to be freed from Saudi bondage. The servants tended to the round-the-clock needs and whims of the princess, her husband, their three young children, a grandmother and three other extended family members. Last week, Alayban posted $5 million bail (paid for by the Saudi consulate) and was whisked back to her estate by a phalanx of bodyguards. She must wear a GPS tracking device and will be arraigned at the end of the month. Her high-priced lawyers dismiss the incident as an insignificant “wage dispute.”

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas minced no words: “It’s been 150 years since the Emancipation Proclamation, and slavery has been unlawful in the United States, and certainly in California, all this time, and it’s disappointing to see it in use here.” Fortunately for the alleged victim, California has an anti-human trafficking law put in place by voters through a state initiative last year. Alayban may enjoy countless royal privileges back in Saudi Arabia, but here she’ll have to face the legal music.

The same cannot be said for the alleged abuser(s) of two Filipino women who escaped a Saudi diplomatic compound in Virginia earlier this year. At the end of April, the women broke free and were taken into protective custody by Department of Homeland Security personnel. The gated complex is owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Armed Forces Office, whose personnel reportedly enjoy full diplomatic immunity. What exactly happened, who is responsible, and what are the consequences? The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to my follow-up inquiries about the case.

These recent cases must be set against the cultural backdrop of abuse and violence by Saudi royals and elites. In 1995, Saudi princess Maha al-Sudairi allegedly beat a servant in Orlando, Fla., whom she had accused of theft, while off-duty deputies serving as her private security guards watched. The officers were later disciplined for not stopping the beating and failing to write a report and follow up on a tip that another of the princess’s slaves had been beaten, according to local news reports. Al-Sudairi fled to Europe, where she has racked up tens of millions of dollars in unpaid debts to luxury stores, art galleries, hotels and other furious creditors.

In 2002, an Indonesian maid in Florida called 911 after Saudi princess Buniah al-Saud allegedly beat and pushed the servant down a flight of stairs. On a dispatcher’s audiotape, the maid was heard “crying hysterically” and pleaded through a translator: “Help me. Help me. The boss pushed me down the stairs.” Al-Saud pleaded no-contest in Florida and was fined a measly $1,000.

In 2006, Saudi princess Hana Al Jader was arrested in Boston on charges of forced labor, enslavement and visa fraud involving two Indonesian maids. She received two years’ probation and deportation back to Saudi Arabia.

Also in 2006, Saudi national Homaidan al-Turki was convicted in Colorado for the brutal sexual assault and enslavement of his Indonesian housekeeper. Al-Turki was a married graduate student at the University of Colorado with four children. He petitioned for and was denied parole this spring after refusing to participate in sex offender treatment — which he says violates his Islamic faith.

While many Saudi enslavers and abusers have been charged, untold cases are abandoned. Brandon Darby, who worked with the FBI in an undercover capacity on anti-human trafficking efforts in 2011-2012, told me that “the Justice Department, specifically the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office, have backed away from aggressively pursuing human trafficking cases.”

Political correctness and diplomatic fecklessness are the handmaidens of women’s subjugation, right here in the U.S. of A.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is


The Day The Earth Stood Still

Saturday, July 20, 2013, is presently shaping up to be a fairly typical day in America, which in all actuality is quite a shame. Forty-four years ago on that date, at 4:53 p.m. Eastern time, a single statement crackled across a quarter of a million miles of space to Houston Texas, “Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.” And the world changed forever. This nation however, was hardly a tranquil place during that tumultuous era. The Vietnam War was at its peak, and the anti-war/anti-America forces back home were in their prime, ravaging one traditional institution after another. As an appalled majority looked on in relative silence, too stunned and disbelieving to speak out against the ensuing disaster of cultural revolution, the malignant forces of liberalism went into high gear. For their own part, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin had to deal with a couple of hair-raising last minute emergencies in order to achieve a successful landing on the Moon. Though at that time it was the most sophisticated flying machine ever built, the Lunar Module’s total computing power was considerably less than that of today’s average automobile. And at a crucial moment, its computer overloaded. Then, on “final approach,” Armstrong had to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid crashing into a field of boulders, nearly expending the vehicle’s fuel before navigating safely to the surface. But the technological effort required to get there, and the true significance of the feat, extended far beyond such aeronautical heroics. Twelve years prior to the epic journey of Apollo 11, an object barely larger than a watermelon filled the entire Western World with indescribable dread. With an announcement by the Soviet Union that the world’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 had been successfully orbited, American military strategists realized that a technological deficit was developing which could spell doom for America in the face of an onslaught of spaceborne Soviet weapons. The “space race” was on. But to the dismay of the Free World, it was clearly dominated for the first few years by one loudly trumpeted Soviet achievement after another. However, in late May of 1961, buoyed by Alan Shepard’s successful fifteen minute sub-orbital flight (an accomplishment which, in reality, amounted to slightly more than a “human cannonball” act), President John F. Kennedy gave a speech in which he made the now-famous commitment for America to send a man to the Moon before the end of the decade. Eight years and two months later, that pipe-dream was a reality. Unfortunately, the unparalleled successes of America’s space program were effected against the backdrop of previously unimaginable social transformation being propagated by the American left. So rapid and severe was this transformation that, even before Americans had successfully navigated the enormous gulf of space separating the Earth and Moon, their feat was being treated with a rash of derision and cynicism. Citing the $24 billion spent to put a man on the Moon as proof of American insensitivity to the poor, much criticism was leveled at the U.S. government, and often from the very same individuals who, only a few years prior, had lauded Soviet space achievements as a clear indication of the superiority of Marxism. In truth, during the early 1960s, the Soviets had every intention of beating Americans in the moon race. By mid-decade, several catastrophic mishaps within the Soviet space program made this dream an impossibility, thus forcing their propaganda machine to shift from glorifying the superiority of their technology to touting the ostensibly heightened morality of their social programs. And of course, American liberals dutifully followed the cue. Sadly, by the time of the moon landing, many prominent Americans were actually expressing embarrassment and regret over the cost of the venture. Within this clouded context, it should be understood that Armstrong and Aldrin weren’t merely space pilots or even explorers. Rather, they were the preeminent combatants in nothing less than a war for the future of America, and the entire Free World. And unlike the notable struggles in the jungles of Southeast Asia, this war was largely being fought by aerospace engineers and manufacturers…its victory being the fruit of their labors, seen hurtling into space from Cape Canaveral. Though it would be two decades before the collapse of the USSR, America’s successful conquest of the Moon marked the beginning of the end for Soviet dreams of technological domination over the West. While far too many among younger Americans disregard the importance of VE and VJ days, few who had to endure the hardships and sacrifices required to secure victory in Europe and Japan, could ever understate their significance. Likewise, the successful endeavor to reach the Moon before the end of the 1960’s should never have been trivialized, as the “left” has done to so many capstones of American greatness. So our nation’s flags should wave proudly across this land in commemoration of July 20. It was the day America won the Cold War. Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Lessons To Learn From the “Arab Spring”

In 1776, the thirteen American colonies declared themselves “free and independent states” and during the decade following emerged victorious against Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. They then proceeded to ratify the Constitution, thereby establishing the fledgling “United States of America.” And although that era was marked by its own series of trials and challenges, the nation overcame them and was thus set on the course to eventually becoming a world power. Bolstered by the glorious success of the Americans, the revolutionaries of France decided to undertake their own societal makeover, expelling the monarchy and eschewing such mundane and inconvenient traditions as the Church. In their place, these revolutionaries established a government of “citizens,” espousing “liberty, equality, and brotherhood” as their defining ideals. The Judeo-Christian ethic, which had guided America’s founders in their creation of the Constitution, was merely an inconvenient impediment to the philosophically superior French. Surely, in the absence of those stodgy clerics and their dreary “thou shalt not” proscriptions, the freedom and happiness of the common people could be expanded to a degree never imagined, even by the Americans. To their dismay, these utopian dreams quickly succumbed to the pitfalls of “human nature” about which our race has been forewarned ever since the days of Cain and Abel. By 1793, only four years after their joyous July 14 1789 storming of the Bastille, France had slipped into the “Reign of Terror,” during which more than thirty-five thousand citizens were executed as “Enemies of the Revolution,” amid squalor and depredation. Within the short span of another ten years, “egalitarian” France fell once again back under the oppressive fist of a tyrant, Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. The lesson to be learned from those starkly dissimilar situations is that a healthy, prosperous, and truly free society does not spontaneously erupt as a consequence of “democracy.” The liberties enjoyed by the American people had been enshrined by the Founding Fathers who first recognized them as a gift from The Almighty, and then endeavored to put in place a governing system that would stand as a firewall against any encroachments on them. Government did not “bestow” rights. Rather, it protected those rights given by God. Merely emplacing leaders in government by majority rule does not guarantee the “rights” of anyone, except those powerful and influential enough to utilize the power of government to their own advantage. Amid the nightmarish reports coming daily from Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle-East, this timeless lesson should once again be apparent. Unfortunately for the political left, it is still as inconvenient to their agenda as it was back in the days of Louis XVI. Consequently, the “experts” are once again desperately searching for an explanation of what happened to that celebrated “Arab Spring” which was promising so much hope and change to the region only two years ago. The answer is simple, but also “politically incorrect,” which virtually guarantees that although the facts glare at us from the streets of Cairo, Tripoli, and Benghazi, liberal politicians and their media parrots will go to any lengths to ignore them or, if needs be, suppress them altogether. In stark contrast to the tenets of Christianity, Islam does not foster a societal climate in which the rights of the weak are enshrined and defended against the abilities of the strong to crush them. Hence, in the aftermath of the 2011 removal of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power, governing policy became the realm of the “Muslim Brotherhood.” And although Obama Administration Intelligence Chief James Clapper assured us that the “Muslim Brotherhood” was a largely secular organization, its Islamist moorings soon became apparent. As was the case in revolutionary era France, the oppressive conditions on the street rapidly degenerated to far worse than those that had spawned the unrest in the first place. Once again, the citizenry rose up in massive numbers, voicing its indignation and disapproval. Eventually, with the collaboration of Egypt’s military, the massive uprising resulted in the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, Mubarak’s successor. Still, the violence and bloodshed continues. The latest reports from Cairo tell of a resurgence of Islamist sentiment, leading to escalating clashes between pro-Morsi forces and those who advocated his overthrow. In one instance, a confrontation between the army and a gathering of Islamist protestors ended in more than fifty deaths and four hundred injuries. And no end of this mayhem is in sight. Despite the erudite proclamations of leftists in academia and government, it is not the mere yearning for “freedom,” even if such sentiments are held be a majority of the populace, which spontaneously generates liberty and justice in a society. The burning quest for that ability to define one’s own life must be tempered with the moral quality of recognizing when such a desire wrongly encroaches on others, and a comprehension of the importance of abiding by such boundaries out of respect for a fellow human being. Otherwise, the situation quickly degenerates into Darwinian terms, by which the physically strong oppress the weak. And no series of subsequent mob uprisings will magically construct a working system of just laws and mutual respect. Unfortunately, America is in the process of descending down this very path. Liberal institutions insist that the vaunted premise of “separation of Church and state” demands that all religious (Christian) principle be purged from public presence, public awareness, and even the foundation of any law. Nevertheless, evidence of the abject failure of this approach abounds. It should be painfully obvious to all but the most ideologically blind countercultural leftists that as such guiding precepts have been expunged from American society, the general quality of life has degraded accordingly. It is neither malicious nor cynical to warn that no prospect of an “Arab Spring” exists amid the current culture of that region. As the Middle-East increasingly rejects Western values, and in particular its Judeo-Christian underpinnings, the region will see a steady decline of any recognition of human rights, which have succeeded in elevating Western Civilization as far back as the thirteenth century Magna Carta, and culminating in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Closer to home, it is imperative that Americans reawaken to their own heritage, lest they likewise lose it. They would not be the first to experience so tragic a fate. Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Latino-Americans Back GOP Amendments on Immigration Reform

If House Republicans insist on sealing the border and blocking Obamacare and other entitlements to currently illegal immigrants before any legalization can begin, how will U.S. Latino voters react? Will it trigger a backlash against Republicans or will Latinos accept the conditions willingly. A new survey just released by John McLaughlin and Associates and organized and funded by California GOP activist John Jordan, indicates that they will happily endorse the Republican amendments. To be sure, 86 percent of U.S. Latino voters back immigration reform, which includes a path to citizenship for current illegals. But, their support for reform does not stop them from wanting tougher border enforcement to stop further illegal immigration. By 60-35, Hispanic voters want tougher border enforcement. Asked about specific measures like fencing, more agents, drone surveillance and other steps to strengthen border enforcement, Latino voters approved by 55-42. And, they are even willing to hold up legalization until the get it. When McLaughlin asked U.S. Latino voters if they would support or oppose legislation that granted legal status but only did so after 90 percent of the illegal immigration was stopped, they approved by 60-34. And, by a margin of 56-40, Latino voters would oppose granting currently illegal immigrants access to federal benefits, including Obamacare, “while they are going through the legalization process and until the 90 percent goal is reached.” The survey revealed an interesting fault line between currently registered US Latino voters and those who are here legally but who are not voters and/or not citizens. Latino voters ranked immigration reform fourth on a list of four issues in importance to them. 63 percent ranked the economy first or second in importance while 57 percent cited health care and 45 percent said education was either their first or second priority of the four issues mentioned. Only 31 percent of Latino voters ranked immigration among the top two issues. But among Latinos who were not registered to vote, immigration emerged as the top priority. 64 percent of Latino voters — but only 57 percent of Latino adults — supported employers having to check with the e-verify system before hiring anyone to assure their legal status The problem the Republican Party has with Latinos is not primarily caused by immigration reform, per se. The survey indicates that it runs deeper: –65 percent of Latino voters say that they think the Republican Party discriminates against Hispanics. –62 percent say the party “doesn’t care” about people like them. –And 59 percent feel that Republicans oppose immigration reform because of a desire to keep Hispanics out of the country. But the poll indicates that passing immigration reform, even with border security amendments, could do a great deal to improve the party’s image. By 47-42, Latino voters agreed that there are “new forces within the Republican Party” like Senator Marco Rubio who “are fighting for immigration reform and for fair treatment for Latinos.” Those who dissented — 42 percent — said that it was “the same old Republican Party and is as prejudiced as always against Latinos. However, the survey indicated that only 29 percent said they would never vote for a Republican. Will passing an immigration reform bill solve the Republican Party’s Hispanic image problem? No. But it will clear the issue out of the way and allow Latinos to drift to the Republican Party impelled by their social conservatism, faith in the family, abhorrence of debt and suspicion of government handouts. In an earlier McLaughlin survey, also organized and funded by John Jordan, he found that 58 percent of Latino voters agreed with the following statement: “Democratic politicians in the U.S. remind me of the politicians in the countries we left to come here, always promising handouts in return for votes. I am worried that they could turn the United States into a country like the ones we left, not the land of opportunity we sought in coming here.” Once immigration is out of the way, Latinos will behave like other traditional immigrant groups and move right as they move up. COPYRIGHT 2013 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Machine Politics In Wyoming: America Be Warned!

Almost daily, America reels from a new affront to the Constitution and the noble principles of the nation’s founding, evoking horrified responses from “We the People” who are continually stunned that such events could be taking place here. Clearly, those at the highest levels of the monstrosity we call the federal government now believe they have been unleashed from such quaint notions as their oaths of office or the rule of law. Implementing the next portion of the leftist agenda is merely a matter of misleading a sufficient segment of the population for long enough to pressure the Congress to put a rubber-stamp on it. And increasingly, both parties in the Congress regard such action as the extent of their duties. But while the epicenter of this onslaught against the American people is inarguably Washington D.C., its impact and effects reverberate throughout public offices across the nation. Regardless of party label, the attitude of elected officials even in state and local offices is in the process of mutating into something rightfully abhorred and feared by the Founding Fathers. In the state of Wyoming, the Republican Party has been dominant for decades. Unfortunately, while many have interpreted this to mean that Wyoming must be unquestioningly conservative, the long term effect of this situation has been to degenerate the governing apparatus in the precise manner that invariably accompanies one party rule. Rather than strengthening conservative principle and fostering increased continuity with the average citizen, the unchallenged dominance of one party, regardless of the ideals it professes to uphold, inevitably regress into self-serving elitism. Those at the wheels of power recognize their positions as a means of advancing their own interests, which fosters a casual disdain for the common citizen, and in advanced cases of this affliction, overt hostility. While most of America remains unaware and unconcerned over the events surrounding Wyoming Superintendant of Public Instruction Cindy Hill, it would behoove those at the grassroots to become informed on this bureaucratic intrigue. A scenario disturbingly reflective of a political “coup” is unfolding in the Cowboy State. And its outcome will either serve as an inspiration for those citizens seeking to reclaim their power and role in self-governance, or as a model for statists across the nation who aspire to similarly trample and thoroughly eradicate the concept of government of, by, and for the people. The latest rumblings in Wyoming reveal a mood among Hill’s antagonists in the Wyoming Legislature and Governor’s office that has swung from vindictive to desperate. In the process, any early pretense of professionalism has since degenerated into a total embarrassment. Regardless of attempts by the state’s liberal media outlets to put a good face on these events, the truth continues to circulate among the citizenry, and thereby unmasks one of the darkest and most disgraceful moments in Wyoming history. Having failed miserably at discrediting Superintendent Hill by conducting an audit of her department’s expenditures last year (which it passed with flying colors), the 2013 legislature moved quickly to circumvent her constitutional authority by instituting the infamous Senate File 104 during the first days of the 2013 session. The measure stripped her office of virtually all of its responsibilities, transferring them to an appointee of Matt Mead, the current “Republican” Governor. Clearly, the GOP political machine did not anticipate the intensity of ensuing outrage expressed by the people of Wyoming. And in the latest of what has been clearly a chronologically absurd series of events, Hill was subsequently subjected to an inquisition by a committee appointed by, you guessed it, Governor Mead. Yet once again, despite the best efforts of Cathy MacPherson, the Governor’s hand-picked inquisitor, whose sole purpose was to uncover anything which might tarnish Hill’s standing, the follow up report on MacPherson’s investigation revealed far more about the sinister motives and methods of the political operatives assailing Hill than any wrongdoing in her office. Much of the report reads like a churlish compilation of whining adolescents, with no tangible grounds to assert actual misconduct by Superintendent Hill. But so despairing were her political enemies of finding some grounds on which to base their attacks, they were willing to sink to the level of truly childish back-biting, which is again more revealing of their own deficiencies of character than any ostensible flaw on Hill’s part. Nearly one tenth of the report contains a lengthy description of a birthday celebration held for the Superintendent, and the supposedly intimidating manner in which she was claimed (anonymously of course) by some to have brandished a knife as she cut the cake. Keep in mind that, even in Wyoming, birthday cakes are not cut with Bowie Knives. People invariably use something more akin to a spatula. So it is hardly likely that Hill appeared armed and threatening. Furthermore, although eyewitnesses have asserted that this gathering was a “non-event,” the report contains more anonymous accounts of attendees who supposedly were so unnerved that they had to flee the gathering. Others claimed to have had their feelings hurt on account of not getting any cake. And no, that last comment was not satire. It must be understood here that the MacPherson report was conducted at a cost to Wyoming taxpayers of more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars. With concerned Americans diligently seeking ways in which to cut government cost, Governor Mead and his minions were happily willing to squander this sizeable sum with nothing to show for it but the sort of behavior most parents hope their children will outgrow as a result of a good educational environment. Meanwhile, prior to being undercut in her job responsibilities, Cindy Hill consistently fulfilled her campaign promises of improving education levels across the state and operating her office with integrity and accountability. Elected in a landslide, the people of Wyoming overwhelmingly approved of the manner in which she carried out her duties of office. So, once again having completely flopped in their efforts to damage her reputation, what is the response of the “Good ‘ol boys” at the inner circles of the Wyoming legislature? Currently, House Speaker Tom Lubnau is working toward Cindy Hill’s impeachment, on grounds that the state needs to spend even more money on the non-issues described in tortuous detail in the MacPherson report. As a public office holder who actually abides by the law and views her position as an obligation to the people she was entrusted to serve, Superintendent Cindy Hill has focused on educational improvements with dramatic success. In the process, she has turned back enormous sums of federal and state money, which makes her a hero to the taxpayer footing the bill, but a mortal enemy to entrenched and self-serving bureaucracy. Clearly she represents a grave threat to the “business as usual” mindset of the Ruling Class. With each new effort to undermine people like her, it becomes disturbingly apparent that government at all levels has gone completely out of control and will increasingly threaten the well-being of average citizens if it is not decisively reined in. Unless such activity is brought back under the jurisdiction of the “consent of the governed,” its appetite for power will become insatiable. Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.