The Dividing of America


Someone on Facebook posted the below picture with a not too subtle reference to the horrific mass shooting in Orlando on the morning of June 12, 2016.

A correct and worthy statement on its face. But, to the point of the message in the picture, I know of no one nor any group advocating that the LGBT and Muslim communities in our country are, or should be, in conflict. Only the progressive element in our country is seen to benefit from dividing people. Let's analyze this a little further to assess my position.

The "author" of the picture is David Klion. Who exactly is he, one might ask?

David Klion is a former associate editor at World Politics Review. He previously served as senior editor for Bloggingheads.tv and ran its international affairs series, Worldwise. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a master’s degree in Russian history from the University of Chicago and has lived, worked and researched in the former Soviet Union. His work has appeared in The New Republic, Al Jazeera and other publications.

One of the organizations highlighted in red is clearly and fully dedicated to the progressive left political persuasion in this country. The other in red is clearly and fully dedicated to anti-American, anti-Semitic, Islamic supportive positions.

It is fairly easy to discern that the progressive left has as its focus to "divide and conquer" the peoples of the USA toward the aim of solidifying its political power and influence. Calling someone a racist, especially when not accurately used, tends to divide - not unify. Even the most liberal/progresssive of news offerings, The Huffington Post, acknowledges that since Obama took office we, as a Nation, are more divided.

In the above picture, seeing the words "RESIST THEM", I had to ask myself, "who is THEM?" Considering the source, I am left but with the assumption that he means the conservative political element of our country - For demeaning people is a favorite tool of the progressive political adherents. (Below is a picture of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"; see # 11.) Why this assumption?

Let's look at a few examples to illustrate:

The conservatives seek to have voter ID laws passed such that only provable citizens of our Nation are allowed to vote. Seems a reasonable position; after all, try voting in Canada or Mexico as a non-citizen and see what happens.

Conservatives resist the use of "political correctness" as it tends to do nothing but create a "divide" among people. Why is it that progressives tend to call all who they oppose "racist"? I believe that Valdimir Lenin put it best": "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

The progressives' continual response is to call conservatives "racist". It seems they feel that voter ID laws are discriminatory against blacks - since so many blacks are poor. Let's not even count that in all 50 States obtaining a valid voter ID is FREE.

Well, if voter ID laws are really discriminatory against the poor, consider that there are many, many more poor whites than blacks - almost twice as many, in fact:

"OH! But the poverty rate is higher for blacks than for whites.", one offers. Yes, that is correct; and also for hispanics.

But, we are talking about real people here - not statistics. Consider: would you rather have 99% of $1,000 or 1% of $1,000,000,000?

To use the term "racist" with the voter ID issue is a totally incorrect use of the word (look up its definition) - for the poor come in all shapes and sizes - and colors - and races.

The Obama administration, over the last 7 1/2 years, has orchestrated numerous "race-centric" actions that seem but to have the aim of dividing the American people.

Here are a few examples in addition to those is the link above:

The current administration failed to prosecute obvious voter intimidation activities by the New Black Panther Party. In the words of Obama's then Attorney General when questioned on the lack of prosecution, Eric Holder replied, "... I think does (sic erat scriptum) a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people."

Consistently, Obama has sided with a black over persons of some other race and offered much before evidence and facts presented themselves. In all cases the facts proved the president wrong. See THIS and THIS and THIS and THIS.

But, what does he have to say on the Kate Steinle (i.e., a caucasian) incident? THIS!

With this administration's continued race-centric policies, caucasians can get an infinitesimal look at how blacks must have felt before the legal system in this country guaranteed their equality. The inequality of blacks was wrong. And so is an administration that attempts to hold blacks above the law. That two wrongs don't make a right is as true today as when it was first uttered.

And, with all the above, have we heard conservatives call Obama a racist? No! Does Obama seem to favor blacks over whites? Has Obama favored Islam over Judaism & Christianity? The answer to both is YES! No, racism is not Obama's "thing", as it were - in my opinion. The division of the American people seems to be the "game" he's playing. More on this later.

For the next example let's move to Donald Trump. He is continually being called a racist by the progressives for his positions on building a wall across our Southern border to keep illegals out and his temporarily stopping "Muslim refugees" who can't be vetted from entering our country.

Several points on this.

First, most (and I emphasize "most") of the illegals are, in fact, hispanic. Many, however, are not. So, it is curious that the word racist is used as being hispanic does NOT constitute a "race". Nor, in fact, does being a Muslim denote any "race" whatsoever. Islam is a geo-political-religion that spans all manner of peoples - thus, transcending "race".

As an aside here, I am uncertain how anyone - you and I included - would prove that we ARE or that we ARE NOT a Muslim. Think about it. This is especially true when one considers the Muslim's Holy Book, The Qur'an, offers that it is perfectly permissible - and even advocated - that a Muslim lie to an infidel; a infidel would be any non Muslim.

Now, to those who would argue that refusing a set of people - for any reason - is not the "compassionate" America everyone wants. Well, that sentiment is understandable but naive.

The number of Islamic peoples being brought into the US is not a small number. And, more than just a few favor Sharia Law- the very antithesis of the American way of life, its laws, and the very fabric of what makes America great.

Good reasons to worry with an ever increasing Muslim population: Their Qur'an offers that a way to further Islam is to overcome a nation with population growth through migration and maintaining a higher birth rate than the nation to which they migrate. If one needs further information on Islam and how it may relate to the USA, Click Here.

Take a look at Europe today with all the Islamic incursion. How's it working for them?

All of the above is about dividing the American people. Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States. AND, he is - so far - being very successful at doing so.

Consider: it is almost impossible to transform a Nation when its peoples are united - united in spirit, united in a belief in the greatness of the country in which they live, and united in a belief that all are equal under the law.

In order to transform such a Nation, the people must be divided - divided in spirit, divided in a belief in the greatness of the country in which they live, and divided in a belief that all are equal under the law.

The current administration, with the help of progressives (both Democrat and Republican alike) and with the full support of the media, has been successful at the division attempt. They have used the "rich vs. the poor" argument as one of their effective weapons.

To ensure the rich vs. poor weapon is in effect, they have furthered the wealth separation of our people. Consider: over 50% of our people pay no income tax; the influx of illegals across our border heightens the number of poor in our Nation, and the advocating of "refugees" being admitted in an ever increasing number go to, yet again, increasing the number of poor. The poorer people are the more dependent on the government they are. The more dependent the more likely to vote for those who "provide" - i.e., the progressives.

The first picture, shown above, alludes to pitting the LGBT and Muslim communities against another.

Now, since both the LGBT and Muslim communities here are treated as "special groups" by the government, there is no good reason to have them turn against each other. So, what does an administration do in such a situation?

They change the narrative!

And, such a change was instituted in the form of "blame the guns"; or, increase gun control.

And, even in the midst of the Orlando tragedy, the push for more gun control was quickly raised. The fact that the progressives' simplistic message is without logic may be summarized by another picture posted on Facebook:

If the above isn't convincing, consider the following: Edmund Burke offered us this - “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” If even that's not convincing, then perhaps a word or two from a Native American may help in the understanding:

To offer but one incident to the low class approach progressives have to further their aim of more gun control, Click Here. No matter if one is a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative, a Liberal, a Progressive, or a Libertarian, and whether one is for or against gun control, to interrupt a moment of silence for those murdered in Orlando for some anti-American, anti-Constitutional agenda is both repugnant and reprehensible.

This administration seems to follow Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":

Of special note on this offering is the second part of rule #3.

SUMMARY:

Do not let that most evil of syndromes, political correctness - and all that it entails, lead us into giving up our liberty and way of life to those who would promise us "free stuff".

And, as ole Ben Franklin once offered: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."