Obama, Susan Rice, Clinton, and Biden

 

"How Did Obama Make All That Money?"

When it was obvious that Biden wasn't really in charge many were saying Obama was in charge. I believed it. I went on to ask where was Susan Rice. She stepped down from the position as Biden’s Domestic Policy Director.  I knew she was sneaky. She worked for Obama and Clinton. She went [BACK] to Netflix. She first went to Netflix BEFORE Obama left office ... now we see how Obama and Family walked out of the Whitehouse 30x's richer than walking in 8 years prior.

Also, if you were paying attention Obama gave a speech referring on HOW TO CONTROL THE MESSAGE. NETFLIX just offered and made a deal with WARNER BROS. to buy them. CNN and MSNBC are possibly partnering with a 'Progressive' entity. The Tech Giant who bought CBS is somewhat Conservative. He may try to block  the Netflix/Warner Bros. deal. "Content is King. Distribution is Queen."

Remember, Obama made the Military Industrial Complex a LOT OF MONEY ...

"Susan Rice In Politics:

Susan Rice served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) from 2009-2013, a key role where she represented American interests, advanced human rights, and worked on global security issues, notably securing strong sanctions against Iran and North Korea and supporting interventions in Libya. She was a prominent member of President Obama's foreign policy team, advocating for multilateral solutions and strong U.S. engagement at the UN before becoming National Security Advisor. 

Key Roles & Contributions at the UN:

US Ambassador to the UN (2009-2013): As Permanent Representative, she led U.S. efforts in the Security Council.

Sanctions & Non-Proliferation: Secured tough UN sanctions against Iran and North Korea to curb nuclear proliferation.

Humanitarian & Security Issues: Advocated for interventions like the one in Libya (UN Resolution 1973) and addressed issues from poverty to genocide.

Diplomacy: Known for her candid and persuasive approach, fostering international cooperation. 

Career Progression:

Clinton Administration: Served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and on the National Security Council.

Obama Administration: U.S. Ambassador to the UN (2009-2013), then National Security Advisor (2013-2017).

Biden Administration: Served as Director of the Domestic Policy Council (2021-2023). 

In essence, her time at the UN was a significant period in her extensive career, establishing her as a formidable diplomat and a strong voice for U.S. policy on the world stage.

Susan Rice and Netflix:

Susan Rice returned to Netflix's Board of Directors in September 2023, after stepping down from her role as President Biden's Domestic Policy Advisor; she previously served on the board from 2018 to 2020, bringing her extensive international and domestic policy experience to the streaming giant's leadership team. Her reappointment was announced by co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, who noted her valuable contributions and expertise as the company navigated industry challenges like Hollywood strikes and growth in advertising. 

Key Details:

Appointment: Rejoined the board in September 2023.

Previous Tenure: Served on the board from 2018 to December 2020.

Reason for Leaving (2020): Stepped down to join the Biden-Harris Administration as Domestic Policy Advisor.

Role: Member of the Board of Directors, receiving an annual retainer.

Expertise: Brings experience as former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and National Security Advisor under President Obama, adding significant policy and international perspective. 

Significance:

Her return provided valuable seasoned leadership as Netflix dealt with industry shifts, including the writers' and actors' strikes, and expanded its ad-supported business.

Rice's background complements the board, which includes other media and tech veterans."

#Obama #SusanRice #Clinton #Biden #UN

The Shadow Government and the Lucrative Afterlife of Power: A Conservative Examination

The persistent question—“How Did Obama Make All That Money?”—echoes through conservative circles not as a query of simple accounting, but as a profound concern about the nature of modern power. It cuts to the heart of a disquieting reality that many on the right have long suspected: that for the political left, governance is not a temporary stewardship of constitutional authority, but a springboard into a permanent, unelected, and immensely profitable influence industry. This is not merely about wealth accumulation; it is about the creation of a self-sustaining Shadow Government, a complex where political power, corporate cronyism, and media control fuse to perpetuate a progressive agenda long after the voters have rendered their verdict.

The narrative that President Biden is a figurehead, a vessel for the third term of Barack Obama, is dismissed by the mainstream as conspiracy. But conservatives view it through a lens of observable continuity. The policies, the rhetoric, the personnel—all point not to a new administration, but to the resuscitation and expansion of the Obama-era political project. When Susan Rice, a hardline Obama loyalist and former National Security Advisor, was installed as Biden’s Domestic Policy Director, it was a telling signal. Here was a figure steeped in foreign intrigue and partisan combat, now tasked with shaping the most intimate aspects of American domestic life. Her subsequent, seamless return to the boardroom of Netflix—a company she first joined in the twilight of the Obama presidency—is not a coincidence. It is a feature of the system.

This is the “sneaky” revolving door that conservatives find so corrosive. Susan Rice’s career is a case study in the new model of power. She served under Clinton, was elevated by Obama to the United Nations and the National Security Council, where she played key roles in consequential decisions like the intervention in Libya, and then transitioned to a Biden White House role. Her value to Netflix is explicitly not in entertainment production; it is her “extensive international and domestic policy experience.” In plain terms, it is her insider knowledge, her network of contacts across the globe, her understanding of regulatory levers and governmental thinking. This is not public service transitioning to private enterprise; it is the monetization of state access and classified insight.

And this brings us to the core of the Obama wealth phenomenon. The conservative perspective rejects the left’s caricature of this as mere jealousy. The concern is about the *mechanism*. Former Presidents have always earned money from books and speeches. But the scale and speed of the Obamas’ post-presidency enrichment, estimated to be well over $100 million, points to something beyond memoir royalties. It points to the leveraging of a political brand and a global network into a multimedia empire.

President Obama’s own words are instructive. His speech on “HOW TO CONTROL THE MESSAGE” is not a benign lecture on civic engagement. To conservatives, it is a chilling blueprint for narrative domination. He understands, with acute clarity, that in the 21st century, political power is downstream from cultural power, and cultural power is controlled by content and its distribution. His landmark production deal with Netflix, valued in the tens of millions, was the foundational move. It wasn’t just a paycheck; it was a command post. From this platform, he and Michelle Obama’s Higher Ground Productions can shape documentaries, series, and films that advance a specific worldview, bypassing traditional editorial gatekeepers and speaking directly to a global subscriber base.

Now, consider the proposed chess move: “NETFLIX just offered and made a deal with WARNER BROS. to buy them.” While the specifics of such a deal may be in flux, the strategic implication is colossal. Warner Bros. is not just a studio; it is an archive of American culture and a powerhouse of content creation. For Netflix—a platform already heavily influenced by the Obamas—to absorb such an entity would represent an unprecedented consolidation of narrative control. As the post astutely notes, “Content is King. Distribution is Queen.” A Netflix-Warner merger would crown a single, progressive-leaning entity as both the primary creator and the primary global distributor of filmed entertainment.

This is where the conservative alarm bell rings loudest. The post mentions CNN and MSNBC “possibly partnering with a 'Progressive' entity,” while noting the “somewhat Conservative” tech giant who bought CBS might try to block the deal. This frames the current landscape accurately: a brewing war for the soul of American media. On one side, a coalescing progressive infrastructure linking Silicon Valley (Netflix, social media algorithms), Hollywood (Warner Bros., Disney), and the legacy press (CNN, MSNBC). On the other, a fragmented set of alternatives—Fox News, talk radio, and a handful of independent outlets—fighting an uphill battle against deplatforming and cultural marginalization.

The role of the “Military Industrial Complex” is the final, grim piece of this puzzle. The post’s terse reminder that “Obama made the Military Industrial Complex a LOT OF MONEY” is a crucial, if uncomfortable, bipartisan truth for conservatives to acknowledge. The Obama administration oversaw a continuity of defense contracting, drone warfare, and foreign engagements that enriched major contractors. The concern here is not isolationism, but the corrupting fusion of perpetual state conflict and private profit. When former officials like Susan Rice or countless Pentagon appointees glide into boardrooms of defense contractors or tech firms selling to the Pentagon, it creates a closed loop. Policy decisions made in government can create markets for companies that then hire those same policymakers. The incentive is not for peace or prudent defense, but for managed, perpetual engagement that feeds the beast.

From a conservative perspective, this entire ecosystem represents the antithesis of the Founding Fathers’ vision. They feared the encroachment of a permanent, unaccountable ruling class—what they called an “aristocracy.” Today, we have a **Laptop Aristocracy**: a meritocratic-seeming elite whose currency is not land or title, but access, data, narrative control, and government contracts. They rotate between offices in the West Wing and corner suites in Silicon Valley and New York. They enforce ideological conformity through corporate HR departments and social media terms of service. They transform the political capital earned by public vote into private, generational wealth and cultural hegemony.

The question, “How Did Obama Make All That Money?” is therefore answered. He, and his cadres like Susan Rice, understood that in the modern era, political victory is temporary, but cultural and financial capital are permanent. They have built a shadow government not of dark rooms and whispers, but of bright Hollywood sets, sleek tech campuses, and well-funded non-profits. It is a government that operates without elections, without subpoena power, and without term limits.

The conservative response to this must be twofold. First, it must relentlessly expose the mechanisms of this system, calling out the cronyism and the revolving door for the corruption they are. Second, and more importantly, it must offer a compelling, positive alternative rooted in transparent, constitutionally-limited government, free speech as a true first principle, and an economic system that rewards genuine innovation and work rather than political connections. The battle is no longer just for the White House or Congress; it is for the boardrooms, the studios, the server farms, and the screens in every American home. To cede this ground is to lose the country itself. The Shadow Government is real, it is wealthy, and it is counting on you not to pay attention.

#Obama #Biden #SusanRice #UN #Netflix

The Narrative Versus The Truth: How Media's Obsession with Race Betrays Its Duty

 

The Narrative Versus The Truth: How Media's Obsession with Race Betrays Its Duty

Jake Tapper at CNN said the guy arrested for planting pipe bombs was White ... His face was already out there. BTW, his Father once ran a Bail Bondsman business in Tennessee.  It was call 'FREE AT LAST BAIL BONDSMAN'.

More On The Situation

In the immediate, chaotic aftermath of a national crisis, the public turns to trusted institutions for clarity, context, and truth. The responsibility of the press in these moments is profound: to inform, not inflame; to clarify, not confuse; to report, not role-play as activists. Yet, time and again, major segments of the American media, led by flagship networks like CNN, fail this basic test. The case of the individual arrested for planting pipe bombs in the lead-up to the January 6th Capitol breach serves as a textbook example of this failure—a failure rooted in a corrosive, progressive ideology that prioritizes political narrative over factual accuracy, and racial grievance over national unity.

When CNN’s Jake Tapper emphatically stated on air that the suspect was “White,” he was doing more than merely describing a physical characteristic. He was, within the coded language of modern left-wing media, activating a pre-written script. It is a script that casts every national trauma through the singular, distorting lens of race and white supremacy. Before any motive was known, before any thorough investigation was complete, the narrative machinery whirred to life: this was another example of “right-wing, white extremist” violence. The fact that the suspect’s face was already publicly available, and that his ethnicity was visibly apparent to anyone with eyes, was irrelevant to Tapper’s declaration. Its purpose was not to inform, but to categorize and condemn an entire demographic and political movement in real-time.

This instinct is not journalistic; it is ideological. It flows from a worldview that has taken hold in newsrooms, journalism schools, and corporate boardrooms. In this worldview, America is not a complex nation of 330 million individuals, but a simple hierarchy of racial and identity groups, locked in a struggle between oppressor and oppressed. Every event must be filtered through this lens. Thus, a criminal act by a white individual is never just the act of a lone, troubled person; it is inherently politicized, framed as a symptom of a broader societal sickness—a sickness located almost exclusively in one half of the political spectrum. Contrast this with the media’s handling of crimes committed by individuals of other backgrounds, which are often meticulously framed as isolated incidents, with strenuous efforts made to separate the perpetrator from any broader ethnic or religious community. The double standard is glaring and deliberate.

The most revealing detail in this entire episode, however, and the one that most thoroughly explodes the media’s preferred narrative, is the detail Tapper and his colleagues undoubtedly wish would disappear: the suspect’s father once operated a bail bonds business in Tennessee named “Free At Last Bail Bondsman.” This name is not a casual coincidence. It is a direct, powerful, and intentional invocation of the most sacred phrase from the most famous speech of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream.” It is a phrase that resonates with profound meaning in the Black American community and for all who cherish the legacy of the struggle for racial equality.

From a conservative perspective, this detail is critically important for two reasons. First, it utterly shatters the lazy, bigoted assumption that an individual of European descent cannot be deeply influenced by, or connected to, Black American culture and history. The immediate media assumption was of a “white supremacist.” Yet the most prominent public marker from his own family’s life is a business whose very name shouts a celebration of Black liberation. This stark contradiction reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of judging individuals not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin—a practice conservatives reject unequivocally. It forces a humbling admission: human beings and their motives are complex, and they defy the cheap, cardboard-cutout stereotypes peddled by cynical journalists and political operatives.

Second, and more damningly, the media’s near-total silence on this glaringly relevant fact exposes their fundamental dishonesty. For a press corps that claims to champion racial justice and contextual reporting, the omission of the “Free At Last” detail is a journalistic felony. Why was this not headline news? Why was there no segment exploring its significance? Because it disrupts the narrative. It introduces nuance where they demand caricature. It suggests a story that cannot be easily weaponized for the ongoing political project of dividing Americans by race and condemning traditionalists as irredeemably bigoted. A business with that name does not fit the pre-assigned box of “white extremist,” so the information was effectively buried. This is not an oversight; it is censorship by omission, driven by ideological conformity.

This incident is a microcosm of a much larger and more dangerous trend: the transformation of the mainstream media from a watchdog of power into a praetorian guard for progressive dogma. Their goal is no longer to report facts that inform a democratic citizenry, but to shape a narrative that manipulates public opinion toward desired political ends. In this model, every story is a morality play. White conservatives must be cast as villains. Their communities must be portrayed as festering with resentment and hate. Any complicating data—like a family business named after Dr. King’s dream—must be suppressed, lest it grant humanity to the designated villain and confuse the audience.

The conservative response to this is not, as our detractors claim, a rejection of holding extremists accountable. All violence against persons or property must be condemned and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of the perpetrator’s politics. The conservative response is a rejection of collective guilt and a demand for intellectual honesty. We believe in judging individuals as individuals. We believe a criminal is a criminal, full stop—not an avatar for his entire race or for everyone who shares his political philosophy. The media’s rush to pin this act, and acts like it, on “whiteness” or “conservatism” is a form of bigotry as virulent as any other. It is an attempt to discredit the ideas of half the country not through debate, but through guilt-by-association with the worst actors imaginable.

Furthermore, this obsessive focus on racializing every incident actively harms the pursuit of genuine security and social cohesion. It distracts from the real, complex roots of violence, which often lie in mental illness, personal grievance, and the dark corners of the internet that transcend traditional political categories. It prevents us from having an honest national conversation about these root causes. Instead, we get a staged political theater where journalists like Tapper perform their wokeness for the applause of their coastal peers, while the nation’s wounds grow deeper and its divisions more entrenched.

The “Free At Last” detail stands as a permanent rebuke to this whole corrupt enterprise. It is a testament to the messy, surprising, and interconnected reality of American life that ideology cannot neatly explain. It reminds us that symbols of unity and freedom can appear in the most unexpected places, and that families are more than political labels. The media’s failure to grapple with this truth is a failure of their profession’s highest calling.

In the end, the story of the pipe bomb suspect is a story about two forms of betrayal. The first is the alleged betrayal of the suspect against the laws and peace of the nation. The second, and in many ways more corrosive, is the betrayal of the media against the truth and the people they are supposed to serve. Until newsrooms rediscover the core principles of their craft—objectivity, fairness, and a commitment to facts over narrative—they will continue to lose the trust of the American people. And they will have earned every bit of that distrust. A nation cannot heal, and a republic cannot function, when its primary storytellers are more committed to a political agenda than to reality itself.

#race #media #doublestandard

The Failure of the Factory Model: How Bloated Bureaucracy and Misplaced Priorities Are Failing Chicago’s Children

 

The Failure of the Factory Model: How Bloated Bureaucracy and Misplaced Priorities Are Failing Chicago’s Children

In the grand political theater of American education, few stages are as tragically illustrative as the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system. Year after year, the narrative follows a familiar, dismal script: demands for more funding, protests over “austerity,” and lamentations about systemic inequities. The proposed solution from the left is invariably the same: more. More money, more administrators, more social programs, and crucially, more staff under the banner of reducing class sizes. Yet, when one examines the stark outcomes—the abysmal proficiency rates in reading and mathematics—it becomes undeniably clear that the progressive experiment has failed Chicago’s students catastrophically. From a conservative perspective, the problem is not a lack of resources, but a profound misallocation of them, coupled with an ideological refusal to embrace reforms that actually work. The obsession with the student-teacher ratio is a distraction from the core maladies: a suffocating bureaucracy, the stranglehold of teachers’ unions on policy, and a deliberate abandonment of the fundamentals of academic excellence.

Let us first confront the hard data, the outcomes that should be the sole metric of any system’s success. According to the Illinois State Board of Education’s 2023 report card, only **21%** of CPS students in grades 3-8 are proficient in English Language Arts. In mathematics, the figure is a staggering **15%**. This means that in a city spending billions annually on education, over three-quarters of students cannot read at grade level, and nearly 85% cannot perform math at grade level. These are not mere statistics; they are an economic and moral death sentence for a generation, perpetuating cycles of poverty and dependency. Against this backdrop of academic ruin, the constant union-led cry for smaller class sizes rings hollow. CPS already boasts an average student-to-teacher ratio that is often comparable to or better than many high-performing suburban and private schools. The system has poured resources into hiring, yet the needle on achievement has not moved. Why? Because the issue was never purely numerical.

The conservative argument here is rooted in realism and efficacy. Reducing a class from 28 students to 22 is meaningless if the teacher is hamstrung by a curriculum more focused on social justice activism than phonics and multiplication tables. It is irrelevant if the classroom environment is chaotic because disciplinary authority has been stripped from educators in the name of “restorative justice” policies that prioritize the perpetrator over the learning rights of the collective. It is a wasted investment if the best teachers are paid and promoted identically to the worst, trapped in a union-negotiated seniority system that values time served over talent or results. The unions, notably the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), have successfully championed lower ratios not as an educational strategy, but as a jobs program and a bargaining chip. Every push for smaller classes means more dues-paying members, greater budgetary leverage, and increased political power. The children’s literacy is a secondary concern to the growth of the union apparatus.

This misallocation is glaringly visible in the administrative bloat of CPS. While classrooms may see some benefit from staffing, the real growth has been in a top-heavy, non-teaching bureaucracy. legions of diversity officers, equity consultants, and administrative coordinators draw hefty salaries, producing compliance reports and ideological initiatives rather than improving direct instruction. Every dollar spent on a new central office initiative on “culturally responsive teaching”—while perhaps well-intentioned—is a dollar not spent on proven, direct-instruction curricula like phonics-based reading programs (the science of reading) or high-quality math textbooks. Conservatives advocate for a radical re-prioritization: defund the bureaucracy and empower the individual school principal and the classroom teacher. Flatten the administrative hierarchy and send the resources directly to the point of contact with the student.

The solution lies not in tweaking ratios within a broken model, but in fundamentally transforming the model itself through competition and choice. Chicago’s children are not widgets in a factory, yet they are trapped in a state-monopoly factory model of education. The power to choose—to exit a failing school—is the only force that creates the accountability and innovation the system desperately lacks. The flourishing of charter schools in Chicago, often operating with slightly *higher* student-teacher ratios than district schools, provides a powerful counter-narrative. Schools like Noble Street or Urban Prep consistently achieve far better academic outcomes with more disadvantaged populations. They do this not with magical ratios, but with a culture of high expectations, disciplined environments, longer school days, and the freedom to hire and fire based on merit. They are not bound by the union contract that protects ineffective teachers. The conservative mission must be to universalize this power of exit through robust school choice. Illinois’s Invest in Kids Act, a tax-credit scholarship program, was a lifeline for thousands of low-income families, allowing them to choose private and parochial schools. Its recent expiration, due to lack of Democratic support, is a testament to the political establishment’s loyalty to the system over the student. This must be a rallying cry: fund students, not systems.

Furthermore, we must restore the foundational pillars of education that have been eroded. The “whole language” approach to reading, favored by progressive education schools for decades, has been a disaster for CPS students. The science of reading, with its structured, phonetic approach, is not a conservative or liberal idea—it is a correct one. Yet, its implementation is fought by entrenched interests wedded to failed methods. In mathematics, the shift away from memorizing math facts and standard algorithms toward vague “conceptual understanding” and “fuzzy math” has left students computationally weak and unprepared for higher-level STEM courses. Conservatives call for a return to content-rich, knowledge-based curricula like E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge, which builds vocabulary and cultural literacy—the very tools needed for comprehension and upward mobility.

Finally, we must address the crisis of authority and social order within schools. Students cannot learn in environments of disruption and violence. The conservative principle here is simple: education cannot occur without first establishing a safe and orderly environment. The push to dismantle school policing and dilute discipline in the name of racial equity has had the perverse effect of making the most vulnerable students—those who come to school to learn—less safe and less able to do so. Teachers must be restored as authority figures in their classrooms, supported by administrators who back them up on behavioral standards. This is not punitive; it is the prerequisite for a functioning learning community.

In conclusion, the tragic proficiency rates in Chicago are not an indictment of class size, but of a failed governing philosophy. The progressive alliance of the teachers’ union and the Democratic political machine has created a system that excels at self-preservation and ideological posturing but fails at its core mission: teaching children to read, write, and calculate. Pouring more money into this broken structure, specifically to hire more staff into the same flawed paradigm, is an act of profound negligence. The conservative path forward is clear and bold: break the monopoly. Empower parents with vouchers and education savings accounts to choose charter, private, or parochial schools. Strip away the bureaucratic bloat and redirect every possible dollar to the classroom teacher. Replace ideological curricula with proven, content-rich academics. Restore order, discipline, and the noble authority of the teacher. The children of Chicago are capable of excellence. They are being betrayed not by a lack of teachers, but by a lack of courage from those in power to dismantle a system that serves adults at the expense of the next generation. It is time to declare the factory model bankrupt and offer every child a ticket to escape. Their future depends on it.

#Chicago #Students #Schools

'GRATEFUL TO GOD': FOX News Media names @ahasnie its newest White House correspondent while gearing up to anchor her own Saturday program beginning January 10th.

 

'GRATEFUL TO GOD': FOX News Media names @ahasnie  its newest White House correspondent while gearing up to anchor her own Saturday program beginning January 10th.

#FOX #FOXNEWS #AISHAHHASNIE

MORE ON THE SUBJECT

FOX News Media promoted Aishah Hasnie to White House correspondent and an anchor for her own Saturday program, which will begin on January 10th. She will anchor a solo signature program from 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm ET. This promotion adds to her existing role as a senior national correspondent for the network, which she joined in 2019. 

• New roles: Hasnie is now a White House correspondent and will host her own Saturday program on FOX News.
• Anchor duties: Her new Saturday show will air from 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm ET, starting January 10th.
• Network history: She has been with FOX News since 2019 and was previously a senior national and congressional correspondent. 

 

 

Dick Van Dyke Hosts Two-Hour Sing-a-Long Ahead of 100th Birthday and Performs ‘Mary Poppins’ Hits: We Must ‘Revive the Art of Conversation’

#DickVanDyke #Aging #Hollywood

The Erosion of a Nation: Confronting the Realities of Uncontrolled Migration

 

The Erosion of a Nation: Confronting the Realities of Uncontrolled Migration

"I just heard a lady say that in London you can walk for an hour and not see a White British person. She said it's no longer a British city and that is the capital of the UK. And most, if not all of the Migrants are Muslims.

They complain about 'Colonialism', now we are seeing 'Muslimism'..

And they're killing Christians in Nigeria LEFT and RIGHT. So, I guess being a Christian is Taboo now ..."

The heart of a nation is found in its capital city—the living repository of its history, culture, and identity. When a citizen can stand in Trafalgar Square, walk through the streets of Whitechapel or Tower Hamlets, and feel like a stranger in her own land, something profound has been lost. The recent testimony of a British woman stating that one can walk for an hour in London without seeing a White British person, and that the capital feels no longer British but increasingly Muslim, is not an isolated anecdote. It is the vocalization of a deep, widespread, and justified anxiety that pulses through the silent majority of Britain. This is not about racism; it is about preservation. From a conservative perspective, what we are witnessing is not multicultural enrichment, but a quiet, demographic revolution enabled by decades of failed immigration policy, cultural capitulation, and a catastrophic loss of national self-confidence.

The transformation of London and other major British cities is the direct result of a political ideology that holds all cultures as equal, but holds British culture in particular contempt. For generations, a left-liberal establishment has pursued a policy of mass immigration without assimilation, championing diversity as an inherent good while systematically dismantling the cohesive bonds of British identity. The result is not a vibrant tapestry, but a frayed and fragmented society where parallel communities develop, governed by their own norms and loyalties, often at odds with the foundational values of the nation that hosts them. When migration occurs at such a scale and speed—particularly when it is illegal and therefore beyond any democratic mandate or control—it ceases to be immigration and becomes colonization in reverse.

The lady’s observation points to a critical truth: this is not primarily about ethnicity, but about culture and religion. The charge that many of these new arrivals are Muslim is significant because Islam is not merely a private faith; for a substantial minority within the global Muslim community, it is a comprehensive political, legal, and social system—a *din wa dawla* (religion and state). When migrants arrive from societies where Sharia law is the ideal and where separation from non-Muslim society is encouraged, the expectation that they will seamlessly adopt British secular liberalism is naive at best, suicidal at worst. We see the consequences not in hypotheticals, but in reality: the proliferation of Sharia councils operating as parallel legal systems; demands for gender segregation in public institutions; the systematic harassment and “grooming gang” exploitation of non-Muslim girls in towns like Rotherham and Rochdale, ignored for decades by authorities paralyzed by political correctness; and the regular eruptions of street violence over issues like blasphemy, where mobs enforce their own religious norms on British soil.

This leads to the painful irony highlighted by the observer: many migrants, or their ideological spokesmen in the West, vigorously condemn the historical sins of European colonialism. Yet, through demographic and cultural pressure, they are enacting a form of “Muslimism”—a cultural and religious expansionism that seeks to reshape the public square in its own image. The colonizers of the 19th century planted flags; the colonizers of the 21st century plant minarets, demand the alteration of public dress codes, and insist that long-standing national traditions and laws be subordinated to their religious sensitivities. A nation that will not defend its borders, its culture, and its history has no right to complain when others fill the vacuum. Britain, in its post-imperial guilt and postmodern confusion, has become a nation hesitant to assert its own right to exist.

The connection to global religious persecution is not a distraction but a vital context. The caller’s mention of Christians being “killed LEFT and RIGHT” in Nigeria is a stark reminder of the global dynamics at play. In Nigeria, as across much of the Muslim-majority Sahel and Middle East, Christian communities face existential threats—from the genocidal violence of Boko Haram and Fulani militias to the oppressive *dhimmi* status enforced by blasphemy laws. To be a Christian in many parts of the world is indeed becoming taboo, a dangerous identity marked for discrimination, violence, and erasure. This reality should inform our understanding of migration. When individuals from societies where such sectarian hostility is normalized arrive in the West, they do not automatically shed those deeply ingrained attitudes. Instead, those prejudices can be transplanted, creating new fault lines of religious tension in British cities. The silence of many mainstream Muslim organizations in the West on the persecution of Christians abroad speaks volumes, and it fosters a legitimate fear about the kind of societal harmony that is possible under these conditions.

The conservative response to this crisis is not born of hate, but of love—love for Britain, its inherited liberties, its Common Law tradition, its ancient cathedrals and village greens, its hard-won freedoms of speech and conscience. Conservation is the essence of conservatism. To conserve a nation requires the will to defend its fundamental character. This means, first and foremost, restoring the integrity of borders. The English Channel must not be a porous membrane for illegal migration. The small boat crisis is a symbol of national humiliation and policy failure. It must end through robust maritime turn-back policies, rapid processing and removal to safe third countries like Rwanda, and the explicit prioritization of British sovereignty over the rulings of distant, unaccountable foreign courts like the European Court of Human Rights.

Secondly, it requires a revival of assimilation. Immigration must be legal, controlled, and limited to levels that can be successfully integrated. Newcomers must be expected to adopt the English language, embrace British history—the good and the bad—as their own, and swear primary loyalty to the British nation and its constitutional order. Multiculturalism, as a state policy of encouraging separate development, has been a disaster. It must be replaced by a confident, patriotic integration model that says, “You are welcome here if you wish to become one of us, to contribute to our story, not to overwrite it.”

Thirdly, it demands an end to cultural capitulation. No more appeasement of illiberal demands. No more Sharia councils holding sway over family law. No more police turning a blind eye to religiously-motivated crimes for fear of causing offense. No more schools watering down their curriculum to avoid mentioning the Holocaust or Christianity. British law, founded on Judeo-Christian values and Enlightenment principles, must be supreme for all who reside here. Freedom of religion must be protected as a private right, not permitted as a public veto over the national way of life.

The lady who called in is a canary in the coal mine. Her lament is for a London that is slipping away, a capital that increasingly feels alien to its native people. This is not the inevitable price of progress; it is the consequence of bad ideas and weak leadership. A nation that will not assert its right to exist, to maintain its cultural continuity, and to defend its citizens from the consequences of uncontrolled demographic change is a nation choosing its own demise. Britain stands at a crossroads. One path leads to a fractured, tense, and unrecognizable archipelago of competing identities. The other leads to a reclaimed, confident, and cohesive nation, proud of its heritage and sovereign over its future. The conservative choice is clear. We must have the courage to make it, before the hour grows too late and the transformation becomes irreversible. The soul of Britain depends on it.

#GreatBritain #England #Muslims

 

Hegseth says U.S. has "only just begun" sinking alleged drug vessels

#Hegseth #Trump #Venezuela #DrugBoats

Defending Our Shores: The Hegseth Doctrine and the Imperative of American Action

The vast, ungoverned expanse of the world’s oceans has long served as a highway for those who wish America ill. It is a conduit for the poison that fuels our overdose epidemic, for the illicit wealth that empowers transnational cartels, and for the materials that threaten our national security. When Fox News host Pete Hegseth recently declared that the United States has “only just begun” sinking suspected drug-running vessels, he articulated a bold, necessary, and long-overdue shift in posture. From a conservative perspective, Hegseth’s statement is not a reckless call for escalation, but a logical and righteous affirmation of national sovereignty, the imperative of border security in all its forms, and a moral duty to protect American citizens from a relentless, foreign-sourced assault. It represents a rejection of the passive, procedural paralysis that has defined our approach for decades and embraces a doctrine of assertive defense.

For too long, the United States has treated the narcotics threat emanating from the sea with a counterproductive and fatal restraint. Our approach has been one of interdiction, capture, and judicial processing—a bureaucratic game of whack-a-mole played against networks with near-limitless resources and zero regard for our laws. Coast Guard cutters and Navy vessels perform heroic service, but they are handcuffed by rules of engagement and legal frameworks designed for peacetime law enforcement, not for confronting what is, in effect, a hybrid narco-war. Cartels treat our maritime law enforcement as a cost of doing business, a manageable risk factored into their logistics. They know that at worst, they will lose a shipment and a few low-level crew members, who are easily replaced. This is not a deterrent; it is an incentive.

Hegseth’s proposition—that we shift from seizing contraband to destroying the means of its delivery—strikes at the economic heart of the cartel enterprise. Sinking a vessel is not merely the loss of a single cargo. It is the destruction of a capital asset worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. It is a tangible, irrecoverable financial blow. For the cartels, these “go-fast” boats, semi-submersibles, and fishing trawlers are not disposable tools; they are significant investments and critical nodes in a global supply chain. A policy of systematically destroying them transforms the maritime drug trade from a high-profit, low-risk venture into a high-cost, catastrophic-risk endeavor. From a conservative viewpoint rooted in economic realism, this is the only language these criminal syndicates understand: the relentless, unforgiving logic of force and loss.

Critics, invariably from the left and the institutionalist corridors of the foreign policy establishment, will rend their garments at this suggestion. They will cry about “international law,” “escalation,” and the risks of mistaken identity. These are the same voices that for years have counseled restraint at our southern land border, prioritizing the perceived rights of illegal aliens over the safety and sovereignty of American communities. Their maritime arguments are an extension of this bankrupt philosophy. They privilege a nebulous concept of global order over the concrete security of American citizens. They worry more about the potential diplomatic fallout from sinking a narco-sub than about the certain death from fentanyl poisoning of hundreds of Americans each day. This mindset is a luxury a nation under siege can no longer afford.

International law is not a suicide pact. The right of a nation to defend itself, to interdict vessels engaged in blatant, hostile acts against its populace, is foundational to the concept of sovereignty. The transportation of narcotics, particularly fentanyl—a weapon of mass destruction in powder form—onto American soil is an act of aggression. It is an invasion by other means. Treating these vessels as hostile combatants in this undeclared war is a legally and morally defensible position. Furthermore, the technology exists to make positive identifications with a high degree of certainty. Intelligence gathering, surveillance, and the established patterns of these trafficking operations provide more than enough basis for action. The goal is not to indiscriminately torpedo any suspicious fishing boat, but to establish a new, unambiguous norm: if you are caught running drugs toward the United States, you will lose your ship. Period.

This policy is also a profound issue of justice. The fentanyl flowing across our maritime borders is not a recreational substance; it is a chemical killer responsible for over 70,000 American deaths a year. Each bale of cocaine, each brick of methamphetamine, represents shattered families, lost productivity, and communities consumed by addiction and violence. The human cost is borne almost entirely on American soil, in our towns and cities, while the kingpins operate with impunity from foreign havens. A conservative philosophy believes in justice, accountability, and consequences. Allowing these poison ships to sail with relative impunity is an affront to justice. Sinking them is a tangible act of accountability, delivering a consequence directly to the aggressors. It is a declaration that we will no longer passively absorb the blows, but will actively break the arm that wields them.

Moreover, the Hegseth doctrine aligns perfectly with a broader conservative national security renaissance. It recognizes that our borders are not just lines on a land map, but a complex, multi-domain perimeter that includes cyberspace, the financial system, and the sea lanes. Securing the maritime frontier is as critical as walling the desert. This approach also reasserts American strength and resolve in a hemisphere where adversaries like China and Russia are actively courting and, in some cases, partnering with these very criminal networks to gain influence and undermine U.S. power. A display of decisive force against narco-traffickers sends a powerful message to all state and non-state actors that American retreat and indecision are things of the past.

Some will argue that this is a militarization of a law enforcement problem. This is a false dichotomy. The cartels are not mere criminals; they are paramilitary organizations with budgets that rival small nations, intelligence capabilities, and fleets of submarines. They have long since crossed the threshold from crime into insurgency and hybrid warfare against the American state. Responding with proportionate force is not militarization; it is recognition of reality. We do not send beat cops to stop a tank column; we send the military. The narco-traffickers’ maritime armada is their tank column, and it requires a military response.

Finally, this is a policy of ultimate deterrence and taxpayer efficiency. The current model of interdiction, seizure, and prosecution is a perpetual, multi-billion-dollar drain. It is a cost we pay every year, forever, with no end in sight. A policy of decisive destruction aims to break the model itself. By imposing unsustainable costs on the traffickers, we can reduce the volume of the trade, drive up the street price of drugs, and save countless lives and billions of dollars in social and law enforcement costs. It is an upfront investment in a lasting solution, rather than an eternal payment for managing a never-ending crisis.

In conclusion, Pete Hegseth’s comment that we have “only just begun” sinking drug vessels is not a bellicose soundbite, but a clarion call for a sane and serious national defense strategy. It is a conservative imperative, flowing from the first duty of government: to protect its citizens. It applies the principles of deterrence, economic reality, and righteous force to a threat that has exploited our patience and our legalisms for decades. We have tried negotiation, foreign aid, and cautious interdiction. The result is the worst drug crisis in our history. It is time to try something different. It is time to defend our shores with the full measure of our might and resolve, and to send a message in steel and fire that the free ride for those who traffic in American death is over. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step; the cleansing of our maritime approaches begins with the first hull slipping beneath the waves. Mr. Hegseth is right. Let us begin in earnest.

Black and Brown Leaders are Screwing Black and Brown Citizens

Black and Brown Leaders are Screwing Black and Brown Citizens 

Let's face it. Blue Big American cities are ran by Black and Brown People. Most 3rd World Countries are ran by Black and Brown people. FACE THE GODDAM MUSIC. 

IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE. EVERY COUNTRY HAS HAD SLAVERY. STOP BLAMING 'THE MAN' and MOVE ON!!! GET YOURSELF IN GEAR AND FOCUS ON YOUR POLICIES. 

YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM SPREADING THE WORD!!!

The Betrayal Within: How Elite "Leaders" Are Failing the Communities They Claim to Serve

In the heated national discourse on race, inequality, and justice, a powerful narrative has taken hold: that the primary obstacles facing Black and Brown Americans are external forces—historical injustices, systemic racism, and opposition from political adversaries. This narrative is tirelessly promoted by a well-established cohort of activists, politicians, and organizational leaders who position themselves as the indispensable champions of minority communities. However, a growing and uncomfortable truth is emerging from within these very communities: many of these self-appointed leaders are not liberators, but a new class of gatekeepers. From a conservative perspective, the failure is not merely one of ineffective policy, but a profound moral and practical betrayal. These leaders are screwing Black and Brown citizens by perpetuating a culture of grievance-dependent poverty, sacrificing tangible progress on the altar of ideological purity and personal gain, and actively opposing the very principles of self-determination, educational excellence, and economic mobility that offer a true path to empowerment.

The most damaging legacy of this leadership class is the institutionalization of a grievance economy. For decades, prominent civil rights organizations and their political allies have built vast infrastructures—funded by corporate donations, foundation grants, and political fundraising—predicated on the notion that systemic victimhood is the permanent and defining condition of minority life. From this conservative viewpoint, this is not advocacy; it is a perverse incentive structure. These leaders have a vested financial and political interest in ensuring the problems they purport to solve never actually get solved. Eradicating educational achievement gaps, for instance, would render moot the multi-million dollar advocacy industry built around it. Solving chronic unemployment in inner cities would undercut the political messaging that depends on portraying these communities as perpetually besieged.

This creates a tragic cycle. Instead of promoting models of stunning success—the countless Black and Brown entrepreneurs, engineers, homeowners, and community builders—the grievance narrative amplifies only failure and conflict. It tells a young man in Baltimore or Detroit that the system is rigged against him so completely that effort is futile. It dismisses the power of personal agency, strong families, and hard work—the very values that built thriving Black middle-class communities in the mid-20th century before the Great Society’s well-intentioned but destructive welfare incentives began to displace fathers and erode the family unit. By selling a message of hopelessness and external blame, these leaders disarm individuals of their own power to change their circumstances, creating a dependent constituency forever in need of the “saviors” who proclaim to speak for them.

Nowhere is this betrayal more acute than in education. For generations, a quality education has been the clearest ladder out of poverty. Yet, teachers’ unions—heavily supported by the same political apparatus these leaders belong to—consistently fight against school choice initiatives that are overwhelmingly popular with Black and Brown parents. When a mother in a failing school district desperately seeks a charter school voucher or a tax-credit scholarship to give her child a chance, she finds herself opposed by the very “leaders” who claim to represent her interests. These leaders side with union bosses over poor children, preserving a failed monopoly that traps students in underperforming schools. The conservative argument is clear: this is a moral abomination. It sacrifices the future of minority children at the altar of political allegiance and a collectivist ideology hostile to competition and parental rights.

The recent fervor around "equity" initiatives and critical race theory (CRT) in schools further illustrates the divergence between elite interests and community needs. While activists push to reorient curricula around identity-based grievance and a deterministic view of racial power structures, parents are rightly asking for a focus on core academic skills: reading, math, science, and civics. They want their children equipped to compete and excel in a global economy, not indoctrinated into a worldview that teaches them to see themselves primarily as victims or oppressors. The conservative perspective champions education as a tool for individual empowerment and unity, not for fostering division and a debilitating sense of resentment. By pushing divisive ideologies, these leaders are undermining the social cohesion and shared American identity that are prerequisites for mutual progress.

Economically, the policies championed by the traditional minority leadership cadre have been a disaster for the communities they claim to protect. The unchecked progressive governance in many majority-minority cities—with its high taxes, rampant regulation, and hostility to small business—has stifled the very economic growth that creates jobs and wealth. From a conservative standpoint, the formula for prosperity is no secret: low taxes, sensible regulation, public safety, and the rule of law. Yet, in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco, residents endure the opposite: soaring crime, shuttered stores, and decaying neighborhoods, all while their leaders focus on symbolic gestures and national political posturing.

The "defund the police" movement, amplified by many progressive activists, stands as a stark example of this disconnect. While affluent, often white, activists in secure neighborhoods called for dismantling police departments, polling consistently showed that Black and Brown residents in high-crime areas wanted more, and better, policing. They sought safety, not abstract theories about abolition. The surge in violent crime that followed this movement’s peak fell most heavily on minority communities. Leaders who supported this agenda prioritized a radical ideological fad over the most basic function of government: protecting its citizens. The conservative commitment to law and order is not about oppression, but about justice—and the first justice is the security of innocent life, a security denied to thousands in neighborhoods abandoned by failed policies.

Furthermore, these leaders often stand directly opposed to the engines of economic mobility. They champion minimum wage hikes that shutter small businesses and eliminate entry-level jobs crucial for young workers. They support energy policies that raise the cost of living, hitting working-class families hardest. They remain silent on or actively oppose occupational licensing reform that would make it easier for low-income individuals to start a business as a barber, a hairstylist, or a tradesperson. The conservative vision of free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and deregulation offers a proven path to wealth-building, yet it is relentlessly caricatured and opposed by the very people who should be demanding access to it for their constituents.

Finally, this leadership class engages in a corrosive politics of ideological conformity, silencing dissenting voices within their own communities. Black and Brown conservatives, who advocate for school choice, faith, family, entrepreneurship, and patriotism, are routinely denounced as “traitors,” “Uncle Toms,” or tokens. This is not debate; it is a tactic of intimidation designed to maintain a monopoly on representation. It tells minority citizens that there is only one permissible way to think, and that way must align with a progressive, big-government agenda. This is the antithesis of true empowerment. Authentic representation includes a diversity of thought, and the conservative voices within these communities—voices like those of Justice Clarence Thomas, Senator Tim Scott, or business leaders like Robert L. Johnson—offer a powerful, alternative vision based on dignity, resilience, and the foundational American ideals of liberty and equal opportunity.

In conclusion, from a conservative perspective, the crisis facing many Black and Brown communities is not merely a legacy of past injustice, but is actively compounded by a present-day leadership failure. The grievance industry, educational obstructionism, economically destructive policies, and the enforcement of ideological purity represent a multi-front betrayal. True allies are those who empower individuals, not undermine them. They are the ones fighting for school choice, for safe streets, for job-creating policies, and for the dignity of work and family. The path to flourishing for any community lies in the timeless principles of individual responsibility, strong families, educational excellence, and economic freedom. It is time to reject the leaders who offer only the cold comfort of permanent victimhood and embrace instead the empowering, unifying, and hopeful vision that if you are willing to work hard and play by the rules, you can achieve anything in America, regardless of where you start. The future of Black and Brown citizens depends on seeing through the betrayal and reclaiming that promise.

#BlueCities #Democrats #Blacks

Third World and Big Cities

 

The Foundational Truth: It's About Principles, Not Pigmentation

Let's face it. Blue Big American cities are ran by Black and Brown People. Most 3rd World Countries are ran by Black and Brown people. FACE THE GODDAM MUSIC. 

IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE. EVERY COUNTRY HAS HAD SLAVERY. STOP BLAMING 'THE MAN' and MOVE ON!!!

YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM SPREADING THE WORD!!!

#ThirdWord #Democrats #BigCities

The Foundational Truth: It's About Principles, Not Pigmentation

A recent, heated online declaration has thrust a contentious set of claims into the discourse: that America’s major cities and many nations abroad are “run by Black and Brown people,” that slavery was a universal historical fact, and that the time for blaming “the man” is over. While the phrasing is deliberately provocative, it touches on raw nerves in our contemporary political debates. From a conservative perspective, the core sentiment—that race is not the definitive factor in societal success or failure—resonates deeply. However, the conservative rebuttal to this rant is not found in its anger, but in a calm, principled reaffirmation of the values that truly build prosperous, free, and stable societies: individual liberty, personal responsibility, meritocracy, and the rule of law.

First, let us address the initial claim: “Blue Big American cities are ran by Black and Brown People.” This is a surface-level observation that ignores the foundational ideology governing these cities. The race or ethnicity of individuals in office is irrelevant if they are enacting policies that are fundamentally at odds with conservative, constitutional principles. The issue with cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, or San Francisco is not the skin color of their mayors or city councils; it is their decades-long, unflinching commitment to a progressive, big-government model.

These cities are overwhelmingly run by Democratic Party policies, not by any racial group. These policies have consistently championed high taxes, burdensome regulations on small businesses, soft-on-crime prosecutorial directives, and a reliance on expansive welfare programs that, however well-intentioned, have often disincentivized work and eroded family structures. The results are visible to all: declining public safety, failing schools, unsustainable public debt, and a mass exodus of the middle class. Conservatives argue that these outcomes are a direct result of flawed ideology, not melanin. To claim otherwise is to engage in the very racial determinism conservatives reject. A conservative city councilor or mayor—of any race—governing under principles of fiscal restraint, law and order, and economic opportunity would be celebrated. The problem is the collectivist playbook, not the individual executing it.

The second claim, that “Most 3rd World Countries are ran by Black and Brown people,” and its follow-up that “EVERY COUNTRY HAS HAD SLAVERY,” is deployed to dismiss claims of systemic racial injustice. The conservative perspective here is more nuanced. Yes, slavery and conquest are tragic, near-universal chapters in human history. The Ottoman Empire, various African kingdoms, the Aztecs, and the Roman Empire all practiced versions of it. This historical fact is crucial for rejecting a uniquely American or Western original sin narrative that paralyzes national self-confidence.

However, the true conservative insight is to ask: What made the difference? Why did some nations, particularly those in the West, develop unprecedented prosperity, stable democratic institutions, and protections for individual rights? It was not race. It was the adoption of specific, hard-won ideals. The Enlightenment, the advent of Anglo-American common law, the principles of the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution—these philosophical and legal frameworks prioritized the individual over the collective, property rights, and limited government. Nations that have struggled with poverty and instability, regardless of the race of their leaders, have typically failed to institutionalize these concepts, often succumbing to corruption, collectivism, or authoritarian rule.

The conservative argument is that the path forward for any nation, including America’s struggling cities, lies in embracing these timeless principles, not in fixating on racial categories or historical grievances. The call to “STOP BLAMING 'THE MAN' and MOVE ON!!!” speaks to the conservative ethic of **personal agency**. This is not a call to ignore history’s injustices, including the uniquely brutal and formative American experience of chattel slavery and Jim Crow. Rather, it is a recognition that a culture of victimhood, actively encouraged by the progressive left, is disempowering and corrosive.

Conservatives believe that while government must ensure equality of opportunity—a promise America has striven toward with uneven but real progress—it cannot guarantee equality of outcome. Success is ultimately built on the pillars of strong families, faith, hard work, education, and deferred gratification. Policies that constantly attribute disparate outcomes primarily to present-day systemic racism, and which demand redistribution and equity of results as the solution, undermine these pillars. They teach citizens that they are prisoners of circumstance, rather than architects of their own futures. The most empowering message for any individual, of any background, is that their choices, character, and efforts matter more than any historical or societal force.

Finally, the explosive tone of the original post—“FACE THE GODDAM MUSIC… YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM SPREADING THE WORD!!!”—highlights another critical conservative concern: the erosion of civil discourse and free speech. The anger is often a frustrated reaction to being labeled a racist for simply dissenting from progressive orthodoxy on race, economics, or governance. Conservatives see a deliberate effort by cultural elites, academia, and corporate media to shut down debate by making certain conclusions unsayable. The insistence on “spreading the word” is, at its core, a defense of the First Amendment and the marketplace of ideas.

True progress is not made through shouted slogans or racial generalizations, but through reasoned debate. Conservatives believe their principles win that debate on their merits. They believe that school choice empowers poor parents of all races more than a defunct public school system. They believe that low taxes and deregulation create the jobs that lift communities more effectively than unemployment benefits. They believe that supporting police and prosecuting criminals protects vulnerable, law-abiding citizens in inner cities most of all.

In conclusion, the inflammatory post captures a moment of cultural fracture but diagnoses it incorrectly. The central conflict in America today is not between races. It is between two visions for the country: one grounded in individual sovereignty, constitutional limits, and earned success, and another grounded in group identity, state-centric solutions, and a focus on historical grievance. The conservative perspective holds that the former vision is colorblind and universally empowering. It created the most prosperous, generous, and free nation in history, and it remains the surest path to renewal for our cities and solidarity for our citizens.

The way forward is not to “face the music” of racial determinism, but to once again listen to the harmonious tune of America’s founding principles—principles that offer liberty and justice, and the chance for prosperity, for all.

#BigCities #Politics #Democrats