WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Archive for the ‘“Tastefully avoiding puns with the word ‘race’ in them” forum’ Category

THE RETURN OF THE WHITE MAN’S BURDEN (or) How Liberalism put White Privilege in charge of deciding when Black Lives Matter…try to keep up!

In "Tastefully avoiding puns with the word 'race' in them" forum on September 19, 2016 at 2:06 pm


Do you like Kipling?

As every educated westerner knows, the proper response to “Do you like Kipling?” is “I don’t know, I’ve never kippled!” But seriously, the man whom Orwell labeled “the prophet of British imperialism” is a profoundly misunderstood chap, especially in our age wherein berating old dead White guys is considered proof of intellectual sophistication. In fact, ranting against someone like Kipling will probably get you more respect on most college campuses than actually reading him! But because he gave us the “hook” for this month’s tumid screed, let’s begin with a brief overview of the writer’s extraordinary fall from grace—a reputational tumble so vertiginous that he is rarely recalled nowadays for his narrative genius and almost never for his intuitive appreciation of certain throne-and-alter conventions that bore the protoplasmic essence of philosophical conservatism. Nobody today echoes Henry James’s assessment of Kipling as “the most complete man of genius…I have ever known,” yet he was England’s most widely read and respected author at the close of the 19th century and the dawn of the 20th.

Kipling for beginners….

rudyard kiplingBorn in Bombay, India, Kipling’s world was the British Raj—the colonizing (and civilizing) vanguard of Victorian cultural refinement following fast upon the impact of British arms.  Later in his life, Kipling returned to India where he worked from 1883–89 writing for local newspapers. When personal differences with his editors resulted in demands for his resignation, he returned to England by way of Rangoon, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and America. Traveling through the United States he befriended Mark Twain, golfed with Arthur Conan Doyle, and settled for quite some time in Vermont.

Shifting the burden in Kipling…

“Mmmm—We think We like the other poem better!”

Repatriated to England, Kipling set about writing a poem in honor of Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee, thus The White Man’s Burden was set to paper. But Her Majesty preferred a different Kipling composition, and Burden was shelved for the moment. It was later–following America’s seizure of the Philippines from Spanish Imperial rule in 1898– that Kipling saw a new role for his poem.

Kipling rewrote portions of the poem to reflect the American situation rather than Great Britain’s. Of course, the perception that the United States is an imperialist power (greedily squeezing the wealth out of the undeveloped world for the benefit of a small cartel of selfish industrialists) is so beloved on the dyspeptic Left from Alinsky to Zinn to Obama, we hardly have the heart to invalidate it here—let us rather agree that what halfhearted efforts America put into colonization came during this expansionary epoch.

When Kipling caught on in the States….

In the refurbished poem, Kipling exhorts America (the colonizing power formerly intended to be Great Britain) to seek empire, yet philosophizes concernedly about the inherent costs of doing so:

Take up the White Man’s burden—And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah slowly) to the light:
“Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?”

Moro warriors--just not feeling the gratitude!

That’s gratitude for you! Liberated Moro tribesmen resist Uncle Sam’s benign governance.

As a revised cri de coeur meant to inspire Americans to share the responsibility for spreading Christianity, medicine, governance and lawfulness across the globe, Kipling’s verse retained some rough edges. Obviously, no American forces were deployed to Africa, thus references to Egyptian nights seemed bizarre. Besides, accepting the Philippines as a going away gift from their previous owner almost accidentally embroiled U.S. Forces in armed contestations with violently disapproving native populations. (Spain may have neglected to mention that problem in its haste to decamp.) As the United States tinkered awkwardly with the concept of empire building, ferocious fighting erupted in response to the American presence; in fact the Moro and other indigenous people of the islands– incensed at not being consulted–declared war on the United States.  American forces repeatedly defeated the indigenous fighters, but even after the Philippine Republic officially surrendered in 1902, guerilla warfare was waged by the Tagalog, Pulahanes and Moro peoples, all of whom maintained proud warrior traditions, many of whom attacked half-crazed on dope, and the majority of whom seemed utterly resistant to anything Kipling had to say about the matter. The resistance was not entirely subdued until 1913 and required the invention of the .45 Colt automatic pistol, which John Browning developed specifically to stop berserk Moros who proved insufficiently daunted by the army’s .38s.

Without the Moros, there might never have been a 1911 .45 ACP pistol--so at least some good came out of the whole business.

Without the Moros, there might never have been a 1911 .45 ACP handgun–so at least some good came out of the whole business.

Nothing in America’s foundational enzymes conduced toward these sorts of enterprises—besides which–or perhaps on account of which–we have always evinced a terribly un-imperialistic tendency to prevail militarily, spread all the gifts of civilization as lavishly as circumstances permit, and then leave.

TR peruses Kipling, despite stylistic reservations.

TR peruses Kipling, despite stylistic reservations.

This is hardly to suggest that large subsets of Americans did not perceive imperialism to represent the next evolutionary step for the Republic. Progressivism, as we shall see plainly in due course, has always maintained an ardor for subjugating and controlling the darker races, and Theodore Roosevelt, whose most regrettable attribute was surely his progressive streak, saw Kipling’s poem as a call for territorial conquest. Writing to his friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Teddy exhorted Lodge to read Kipling’s verse, declaring that it was “rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view.” Kipling’s reaction to TR’s literary critique, if any, is lost to history.

Kipling breaks bad…..

Senator Tillman--not a fan!

Senator Tillman–not a fan!

Many Americans–perhaps the majority—were less fired by the poem than disquieted. It rang with pretensions to racial superiority that seemed–especially given the significance of the Civil War—disturbingly reminiscent of the antebellum south’s assumptions about American Negroes. Somewhat perversely, also, Senator “Pitchfork” Benjamin Tillman took exception, reading Kipling aloud to his peers in the Capital to reinforce his argument for scrapping the Treaty of Paris, asking “Are we to spread the Christian religion with the bayonet point as Mahomet spread Islam with a scimitar?” Pitchfork, himself a fire breathing racist, was opposed to bringing any more “racial inferiors” under the wing of the United States. Kipling struck him as a bleeding-heart trouble maker.  Others, who grasped the author’s mindset more discerningly, nevertheless scoffed at Kipling’s theme of implicit altruism.

Before Kipling was invented….

Others in the United States opposed the poem because it seemed remindful of “manifest destiny,” support for which was always scattered in American politics. Long before Kipling set verse to paper, the concept of Manifest Destiny was abroad in the land. The American Whig party argued, unimaginatively enough, that America’s destiny lay in staying put and offering the world an example of morality and democracy rather than territorial expansion. Of course, the Whigs soon became extinct.

The “Muddy Waters Doctrine”

The man, the myth, the doctrine that we just invented!

The man, the myth, the doctrine that we just invented!

Manifest destiny was also much ballyhooed when events, some glorious, others less so, and still others so labyrinthine as to elude classification, led to what Historians and  Mexicans like to call the “annexation of Texas.” In fact, following his humiliation at the Battle of Santa Jacinto, Santa Ana (not so fresh from overrunning the Alamo) signed treaties requiring his forces to retreat south of the Rio Grande and promised a thoroughly peeved Sam Houston he would instruct the Mexican Congress to recognize the Rio Grande as the border between the two countries. Thus, Texas, to the extent that it was annexed at all, was annexed fair and square, paid for in blood by Bowie, Travis, Crockett, and countless other Texians.  [And yes, we know, Mexico changed its mind about Santa Ana’s bargain when Texas became our 28th state, and the Mexican/American War ensued, during which Mexico was again defeated—but if Muddy Waters was correct in saying “you can’t lose what you ain’t never had,” surely some American academicians can be won over to the equally logical proposition that you can’t annex what you’ve already got.]

Feel the inevitability!

downloadBeginning with Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory and his support for the Lewis and Clark expedition, it seemed evident that North America was set upon a process of civilized expansion into contiguous regions unbounded by borders. It seemed manifest. Our misguided efforts to expand northward (where there were, in fact, borders) were stymied during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 by British and Canadian soldiers who seemed on both occasions adimant about declining statehood.

On the other hand, expanding toward the Pacific struck investors, entrepreneurs, explorers, and frontiersmen, as an ineluctable undertaking; and except in Texas, no foreign armies or contending powers were involved in the country’s Westward march—the obvious exception being the Indians regarding whom White settlers only rarely evinced behaviors approaching the standards of Kipling’s vision. This fact, unpleasant though it be, illustrates another distinction between Imperial colonization and Manifest Destiny. Kipling’s poem begins with the lines:

          Take up the White Man’s burden, Send forth the best ye breed
          Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives’ need…

As Custer discovered when he took command of the Seventh Cavalry, the American war department made no effort to send the best of our breed to its far western outposts— and nobody, no matter how supportive of our sweep toward the pacific, ever rationally argued that our soldiers or settlers were there to serve the needs of the Indians. One could argue, in fact, that western expansion might have been slightly less brutal if Grant and several hundreds of others in the East had been able to read Kipling.

The war to end econo-federalism?

civil-war-cartoon-1862-grangerQuite distinct from the extension of American dominance spreading across the plains, was the morally requisite growth of hostility toward the institution of slavery. It should suffice to comment that slavery became so heated an issue that ultimately, bereft of alternatives in law and threatened by the attempted secession of 11 states, the nation became involved in a vast civil war resulting in 1,100,000 casualties and the sacrifice of 625,000 American lives, not counting Lincoln’s. We realize that readers who are unwitting victims of the sophisticated opinionists currently ensconced in the history departments of higher academe will immediately object when we write the war was waged to settle the issue of slavery—but come off it. The alternative explanations enjoying academic currency wither as soon as they are subjected to the primary test. Go ahead, bounce your enlightened explications off us—each of them can be shown to be vapid unless supported by the dark tradition of human bondage. Economics? Economics based on what—or rather, on whom? States’ rights? States rights to do what? The Missouri Compromise? Gee, what was that about? The election of Lincoln? Don’t make it so easy.

It suits the purpose of liberalism to skirt the issue, in order that America seem less praiseworthy.  Leftist academics achieve this by disguising tautology as sophistication. Urban civil rights activist likewise prefer to ignore this central truth because they can claim grievances more persuasively once ridded of the burden of gratitude (Kipling, anyone?) We bear Southern apologists no ill will, but the civil war was about slavery, gentle readers, and slavery is evil, and the South lost.  Indeed, in the truest sense of Kipling’s verse, the North marched  “To seek another’s profit, And work another’s gain.” Obviously the average Union soldier didn’t think such things, nor did many of his officers and generals–just as many of the South’s finest from Lee to Stuart to Jackson fought for reasons of regional allegiance without any love for slavery; but without the enslavement of Africans in the South, the Confederacy would never have congealed, and Fort Sumter would be a name lost to history.economic-disagreements

Despite all the subversive anecdotage readers may have been compelled to absorb from Howard Zinn and his clones, the United States immersed itself in an internecine conflict so bloody that no war before or since resulted in so many American deaths, and slavery was, in fact, the fundamental issue compelling the states to divide and do battle. No other nation in the entirety of human history has engaged in so monumental a blood sacrifice to such purpose, let alone done so even as that abhorrent institution flourished in most of the rest of the world.  Without making this point emphatically, we cannot accurately relate the American narrative to Kipling’s vision.

Flunking Imperialism

samimagesNow we are at the part of this screed where, were it a motion picture, moviegoers would be shown the legend: “One hundred years later…” And we find that the Philippines are a proudly independent if dysfunctional nation, that Nicaraguans (whom we bedeviled during the same general period) were liberated from a right wing dictator by a half-witted communist and shortly afterward liberated from half-witted communist oppression by President Reagan, Ollie North, and the Contras—following which Nicaragua held free elections, ultimately electing the same half-witted communist as their president, but  hey, that’s Central America.  Elsewhere, many locations where America once fleetingly planted Old Glory and subsequently rethought the matter seem more inclined to pester us for statehood than rage against our tyrannies.

Creative equivocation….

Our national conversation has been hampered by various aspects of militancy, including duck tape.

Our national conversation has been hampered by various aspects of militancy, including duct tape.

Our ambivalence up to this point in advancing our thoughts about Kipling’s opus is not (at least entirely) ascribable to moral cowardice. President Obama wowed the swooning  network newsies 8 years ago and famously set Chris Matthews’s leg aquiver, by encouraging a national conversation about race. At the time, it seemed only vaguely necessary; but after two terms of Obama, Holder, Lynch, and their race-baiting minions conflagrating racial tensions, it seems obvious that such a conversation is overdue. And in any such conversation, Rudyard Kipling is owed a seat at the table.  We know, we know, our liberal and “independent” readers (all seven or eight of them) will feel obliged to send us emails objecting that no liberal in the history of American liberalism ever declared an affinity for Kipling’s obscenely supremacist ravings–and we hereby relieve them of that obligation by replying preemptively, “so what?”  The fact that leftists approach race relations in this day and age from a remarkably Kipling-esque standpoint, and that American Blacks do likewise, is no less a fact for the Left’s inability to perceive it.  Thus, we contend that viewed through a contemporary lens, the themes of The White Man’s Burden are entirely consonant with liberal civil rights initiatives, and have been for decades. How can such an irony endure unchallenged?


It’s the media, cupcake!

“Steffy”the Journalist

Everyone who owns a television set. reads newspapers, or frequents the leftwing blogosphere knows that Republicans and conservatives despise minorities and want to drag them around by chains, or turn fire hoses on them in the streets– right?  Of course the image is pure sophistry, but that is what many Americans persist in believing, especially seeming majorities of people of color. How can this ridiculous perception persist?  It’s the media, cupcake! Want an example?  To avoid aggravating anyone, we shall call only one witness, George Stefanopoulos.

“Uh…oh, right…my Christian faith…”

Readers will recall when Barack Obama, running for president back in 2008, appeared on ABC and complimented his opponent’s religious tolerance, telling Stephanopoulos,”John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.”  Anyone familiar with the incident will recall that Stephanopoulos interrupted Obama at that moment, interjecting “Your Christian faith!” to which Obama flatly replied, “My Christian Faith.”  Oops. Well, anyone can make a darn mistake. How many times have most of us made similar slips?—you know—starting to call ourselves Christian or Jewish but accidentally blurting out “Zoroastrian,” or “Hindu?”

Governor Wallace is famous for declaring,

TRUE FACT:.Governor Wallace is famous for declaring, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” a phrase so admired by the New Black Panthers that they adopted it and use it today!

But more to our point, here was the familiar example of George Stephanopoulos (“Steffy” to the elites)  simply exerting himself to assist a fellow Democrat—and isn’t that what the media are all about? So what went wrong on ABC Sunday last July 24th, when Representative Keith Ellison (D. Minn) began comparing donald Trump to the late George Wallace–you know–the Alabama governor who stood in the school house door to keep Black students from registering in 1962.

Rep. Ellison reconsiders: “…and I’d have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for that meddling cowboy!”

Ellison, who is Black, and ought to know better, explained to Steffy that Donald Trump would be “the worst Republican nominee since George  Wallace.” And here’s the really strange part– Steffy Stephanopoulos just sat there nodding. His long streak of helpfully band-aiding gaffes issuing from his fellow leftists came to a sudden stop.   Ellison betrayed an embarrassing ignorance of civil-rights history, and  Steffy Stephanopoulos, who surely noted the Congressman’s mistake, said nothing. Why not? Is Stephanopoulos racist? Did he want the Black politician to look stupid? Fortunately, ABC Sunday’s other guest was Congressman Tom Cole (R-Okla) who took a moment to inform Ellison that George Wallace was a Democrat.  Ellison stared glumly at his desk, and Stephanopoulos moved things in another, though equally slanted, direction.  Steffy knew that Wallace was a Democrat, like Bull Conner, Robert Byrd (a high-level Klansman), and so many other segregationist Dixiecrats. So why didn’t he nudge Ellison as he had Obama?  The reason is obvious, of course–Ellison’s poor comprehension of history served the leftist narrative that Stefanopoulos strives to advance– and Steffy assumed his viewership wouldn’t know any better.  He reckoned without Representative Cole, however, who spoiled the moment.


Famous segregationists, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, and Robert Byrd are typical of the Democrat Party’s racist heritage. Today, a more subtle racism has swept that Party– Lyndon Johnson’s tactical focus on keeping Americans of color beholden to White Liberal generosity became a less obvious but far more efficient guarantor of servitude than Jim Crow.

So powerful is the Liberal Establishment, gushing similar propaganizements from nearly all available conduits of contemporary culture, it is hardly surprising that Black voters file dutifully to the polls whenever required, to elect or re-elect liberal politicians despite the fact that it is impossible to point to any advantage they have ever gained thereby. Worse, in weirdly self-destructive conformity, Blacks vote overwhelmingly to keep liberal Democrats in charge of cities that are bankrupt or becoming so, violent to degrees that would approach genocide except for the fact that Blacks are also doing most of the killing, and where any possibility of rejuvenation is thwarted by excessive taxation and overt graft combined with street-level anarchy repelling any investors other than the Federal Government, which lavishly incentivizes the very behaviors that immiserate Black communities, including unemployment, single parenthood, and disastrous school systems. Murders in Chicago, meanwhile, are up 72 percent over this time last year, while shootings are 88 percent ahead of 2015. March alone accounted for 45 murders and 271 shooting incidents. Chicago has not elected a Republican mayor since 1927. The archetypically sleazy Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff, became the Windy City’s mayor in 2011 and easily won re-election in 2015. Chicagoans must be pleased with their city’s direction.

Rahm Emanuel's Chicago--where at least the WPA would prove superfluous since despair and terror produce more art than the New Deal ever could!

Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago–where the WPA would prove superfluous since despair and terror produce more art than the New Deal ever could!  Ah, culture!

Detroiters love Democrats too. The Motor City has been run almost exclusively by liberal Democrats since 1962. A recent Washington Post article sneered at what the author called “the Republican obsession with Detroit,” making the case that “Detroit does not vote for Republicans.” In a burst of editorial perversity, the Post writer argued that Republicans were daft to consider solutions for a city that clearly spurned their attentions. Gloatingly, the author added that “In 2012, 97.5 percent of the city went for Barack Obama. The county sheriff is a Democrat, as are the three U.S. representatives whose districts surround the city. The current mayor, the previous mayor, the six mayors before that guy: all Democrats, too.” And Detroit has a higher murder rate than Chicago–almost exclusively Black on Black crime. It is also a fiscal black hole (no pun intended, honestly) into which bail-out dollars vanish ineffectually. It may be recalled that Detroit went bankrupt shortly following Barack Obama’s vow that he would never permit Detroit to go bankrupt.

Barack Obama boasted during the 2012 election that his policies saved Detroit from going bankrupt. Following the election, Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. Where's the white Man's Burden when you need it, right?

Obama boasted during the 2012 election that his policies saved Detroit from going bankrupt. Following the election, Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. Where’s that White Man’s Burden when you need it, right?

The most violent cities in America, listed in descending order of homicidal intensity, are Detroit, MI;  Memphis, TN;  Oakland, CA: St. Louis, MO; Milwaukee, WI, and Baltimore, MD. Each city has been ruled by liberal Democrats for as long as citizens can recall–and each has a Democrat mayor.  Many have been sites of racial violence in which the Black Lives Matter movement played a role. This role will now expand considerably. The perfidious George Soros just poured $650,000 into BLM’s coffers, and the subversive Ford Foundation is preparing, even now, to up Soros’s ante by several million. Being on the trickle-down side of the White Man’s Burden may not provide much enlightenment nowadays, but enrichment there is aplenty!

Be afraid--be very afraid!

Be afraid–be very afraid!


Let Elvis explain.



The Memphis Coalition of Concerned Citizens is a collection of various activist groups — Black Lives Matter Memphis Chapter, Memphis Voices for Palestine [WOOF is not making this up], the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense & Inward Journey, and the Memphis Grass Roots Organization. This illustrious conglomeration recently announced its plans for a “show of solidarity” at Graceland, home to the late Elvis Presley. The singer’s mansion has been maintained in its original condition with furnishings and decor as Elvis left them, and also functions as a kind of museum, shrine, gift shop and popular Memphis landmark. Thus, upon reading that the CCC was planning a “demonstration of solidarity” we wondered what admirable traits of Mr. Presley’s, in particular,  had bestirred so massive a display of empathy…but, of course, we soon recognized our error.

The Concerned Coalition of Citizens intended to show solidarity mainly with Black Lives Matter, and with any other scowling malcontents willing to attachblmimages the issues of race, poverty, and White privilege to Presley’s estate. Their announced intention was to “shut down Graceland” during Elvis Week. Prior to these announcements, WOOF was unaware that Elvis Week was even a thing, much less a thing that any band of self-described civil rights activists could possibly find threatening. One might say our consciousness was raised, or at least augmented, by the Coalition’s statement on the matter, which, in part, read as follows:

 “The demonstration, set for Monday at 6:00pm, is planned as a peaceful show of solidarity, unifying the people of Memphis against systems that promote poverty, violence and economic disparity. Graceland… demonstrates one of Memphis’s most common forms of financial inequity. Graceland recently opened The Guest House, a new 450 room resort style hotel in the heart of the African American community of Whitehaven. The project cost more than $120 million dollars to build and received upwards of 78 million dollars in public funding and tax breaks. Project developers and city officials promised Whitehaven residents the project would be an economic boon to the community, but as has been case for decades, residents have seen little if any of that money ‘trickle down’ into the middle class neighborhood’s economy.”

True, it might have been simpler to admit that ruining the vacations of hundreds of Elvis fans, most of whom drove from out of state to peacefully peruse their idol’s manse and reminisce with fellow Elvis devotees, was a surefire way to get themselves onto the local and national news while creating a big enough impingement on the normal flow of events that some of the singer’s redneck cracker fan base was likely to lose its cool and yell some deliciously microaggressive slurs and maybe even become violent—but we would do the Coalition and its allies an injustice if we failed to parse their official statement for insight, because therein we will discover the continuing relevance of the hero of this month’s screed.

We checked--not an Elvis song!

We checked–not an Elvis song!

First, let’s consider the idea that marching into Graceland with the sole purpose of creating an annoyance is somehow “unifying the people of Memphis against the systems that create poverty” and “economic disparity.” What systems are we intended to infer here? The governance of White Democrat Jim Strickland, who besides joining the NAACP and showing up for photo ops at soup kitchens has done nothing whatsoever to meaningfully improve the lives of Black Memphians?  Or are we intended to think inculpatory thoughts about the all-Democrat, (mostly Black) city council? Because, clearly, all the relevant “systems” are entirely liberal Democrat, and largely African American—and while it is exactly true that they continue to promote poverty, it is difficult to imagine any connection to Elvis. Why not picket the people in power who bear the actual responsibility for mismanagement, incompetence, and to no small degree, graft?  Here’s a thought: Why not stop voting for them? But back to reality: Nobody in the Black community, or in the White liberal community, ever thinks of this–not only because liberalism is incapable of critical introspection, but also because Kipling has liberalism in a philosophical vice grip!


Finally! Someone gets our point! Lead them to personal responsibility and political independence, sister!!!

Apparently “Graceland…represents one of Memphis’s most common forms of economic inequity” Really? First, what on earth can be intended by calling the fortune compiled by Elvis Presley “common?” Does the upper crust in Memphis consist mainly of Rock and Roll singers swept to fame on the wings of social upheaval arguably engendered by their musical performances?  Can we just assume that question is patently rhetorical?


Early Elvis, seen here with Sammy Davis Jr., probably apologizing for all the financial inequity.

No, the only economic inequity generated by Presley was the natural result of his marketable abilities. The idea that talented performers earning large salaries in proportion to  how much approval they generate among the record-buying or movie-going public somehow constitutes unfairness makes sense only on the most sophomoric levels of pop collectivism…but of course, nowadays, that’s most of them.

No inequity, no White Privilege, no problem!

No inequity here, no White Privilege, no problem!

Graceland represents economic diversity, not inequity. It stands as evidence of a fundamental precept of the capitalist system—that some people will provide goods and services so eagerly received and widely demanded that they will amass wealth as a result—and with that wealth they may choose to erect homes, acquire land, obtain automobiles, fly in private jets to get pizza, shoot an occasional TV set, and generally pursue enthusiasms on a scale not available to those whose gifts are more pedestrian and whose surroundings are consequently less opulent. Rap artists are perfect examples of this sort of “economic inequity,” but no BLM protester would dream of considering the fact, nor any White Leftist—because the power structure targeted for destruction by these entities must be perceived and described as White. Otherwise, what’s the point? Otherwise, where’s Kipling?

The Coalition of Concerned Citizens complains that “78 million dollars in public funding and tax breaks” contributed to building a ‘guest house’” (in fact a luxury hotel where tourists may elect to reside while visiting Graceland). Apparently, the outlay of public funds was approved only because developers and politicians promised residents that erecting the hotel would spread economic growth throughout the surrounding community. The Coalition contends that no such benefits ‘trickled down.’ [Their phrase, naturally.]  If such were the case, surely the wrath of BLM and the CCC would be better focused on the city planners, office holders, and organizers who lied about the benefits and are therefore quite possibly liable for their deceptions. Certainly pursuing these culprits would make more sense than assailing the fans of Elvis Presley, who had nothing to do with duping the Black community, and nothing to do with maintaining in office the legions of mainly Black, entirely liberal municipal hacks whose promises routinely prove empty.

epmagesBut no. The overriding symbolism and subtext of the Coalition’s complaint in no respect inculpates the actual villains, because doing so would not serve the template. Instead, the leadership implies that minorities in the vicinity are somehow victims of the White power elite, personified, however awkwardly, by Elvis. The impression given is that every economic woe the underprivileged confront is directly linked to White exploitation. In this popular weltanschauung, the Whites crowding into Graceland are the beneficiaries of an unequal distribution of income that allows them to traipse through the Jungle Room and mill about the trophy building, so immersed in their bourgeois pursuits that they never pause to think of the hardships their very existence imposes upon minorities…or the moral obligations (the Burden) this places upon them!

Police brutality was not much in evidence during the protest.

Police brutality was not much in evidence during the protest.

Properly understood, the message BLM & CCC sent from Graceland is simple. Blacks in the African American community of Whitehaven (which seems  unfortunately appellated, we’d submit) are miserable, and their immiseration is ascribable to Elvis Presley, more or less, and his sneering minions. Ridiculous?  Not once you realize that in BLM’s cosmology it is not acceptable to blame city officials, coordinators, the mayor, or any municipal official, or anyone who repeatedly votes for these sinecurists, because only White racism is allowable as the casual factor,  never the miscreancies of liberal Democrats. It follows therefore that residents of Whitehaven have no means of bettering themselves apart from their reliance on hotels being built for Elvis Presley’s fans. Further, the protestors wish it understood, the hotel was built, and the oppressed minorities of Whitehaven got zip. In fact, we are told, they were materially damaged by the project.

Never mind?


A guest house room, featuring a gold lamé momento symbolic of economic disparity, one assumes.

Except that employment, by every measure possible, leapt upwards with the project’s arrival. Whitehaven Kiwanis Club official, Calvin Burton, who appears authentically Black, called the hotel “a goldmine,” adding that Graceland’s Guest House was “about to start a large snowball effect [in which] people get jobs at Graceland, crime goes down, more businesses move in, and that means more jobs move in, this is the snowball effect residents in Whitehaven are welcoming.” Marvin Newsum, also persuasively Black, added that  he has lived in Whitehaven more than 30 years “and could not be happier,” Both men hailed the 450 jobs already created by the project and a coming jobs fair aimed at making employment available to still more residents. Did someone forget to tell Black Lives Matter? Should the glad tidings be rushed to the leadership of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens post haste?  Don’t be silly!

Who was Darrius Stewart?

stewartCoalition leaders also chose Graceland because “the site has ties to…the death of unarmed teen Darrius Stewart,” although Stewart’s only known association with Graceland is that he was killed in its arguable proximity. Detained by Memphis police officer Connor Shilling, Stewart overheard radio transmissions cautioning Shilling to hold him on several out-of-state warrants stemming from—among other things–charges of sexual abuse of minors. At this point, Connor testified, Stewart, who had not been handcuffed, attacked him. A struggle ensued, much of which is captured on video, during which Stewart seized Connor’s handcuffs and lashed him about the head. Schilling emerged from the struggle with bite marks, bruises, and Stewart’s DNA all over his uniform. Stewart, on the other hand, did not survive the melee during which Connor reached his service pistol and fired two rounds, one of which proved fatal to his assailant. Forensics proved the shots were fired only feet from Stewart, verifying that Shilling fired them in the heat of a struggle and thus “acted in reasonable fear that his life or the lives of others were in jeopardy,” making the use of lethal force permissible. A grand jury refused to indict Shilling, who was nevertheless removed from active duty. As is so often the case, it again appears that a youthful Black male, mythologized by the community as yet another innocent victim of a willfully homicidal police force, might have been spared martyrdom had he simply elected to refrain from physically assaulting a policeman.

Check your “social formations!”

On August 16th, the 39th anniversary of the death of Elvis Presley, Black Lives Matter protesters staged a protest calling for increases in the minimum wage (of course), relief from unemployment (which goes hand in hand, they seem to believe, with increasing the minimum wage), and an end to police brutality in the city.  The police demonstrated their brutality by fencing protesters off to the degree that they could not obstruct visitors to Elvis’s home, and making only three arrests during the entire protest, and this despite the fact that BLM neglected to apply for a permit. Elvis devotees were not significantly obstructed, and the media didn’t get a bloodbath, but no news cycle is perfect.

And as it turned out, the three arrested protesters poorly represented the oppressed classes. What were the police thinking?

As it turned out, the three arrested protesters only partially represented the oppressed classes. What were the police thinking?

So what else did BLM want? Actually, the organization has listed nearly 400 demands phrased in what one might nowadays call paleo-revolutionary argot almost plangently familiar to anyone who dealt with campus radicalism during the militant ‘60s. Most demands are ludicrously divorced from reality, demanding on the one hand the abolition of police forces, and on the other, “increased protection…for black institutions like historically black colleges and ‘social formations.’” Many demands follow florid prologizing, the idea being—it seems—that the demand will seem all the more sensible given the premise provided.  To the contrary, the prefatory rhetoric simply numbs the eyeballs with such fatuities as, “Until we achieve a world where cages are no longer used against our people, we demand an immediate change in conditions and an end to public jails, detention centers, youth facilities and prisons as we know them.”

Kipling rides again

imagesWhat is germane to our theme in each of these demands is the implicit appeal to authority, invariably envisioned as White, (facts to the contrary notwithstanding) to make concessions, however implausible, to people who are Black. These concessions, were any made, would be heralded by the Coalition as capitulations to “the people”—to the community’s righteous demands for social justice; but that would be sheer dissimilation. Concessions, were any made, would exemplify noblesse oblige—the felt responsibility of the dominant culture. The burden, in other words, of the privileged class. Rudyard Kipling, please call your office—the tenor of the poet’s sentiments is altered only slightly by the militancy with which favors are sought, and the fact that those empowered to consider granting them are driven less by altruism than assimilated guilt (or political expedience). But amazingly, Kipling’s burden has not shifted an iota…it is still up to the White Man to give to the Black Man the means of socioeconomic sustenance.

The Milwaukee Riot

Smith, in happier days.

Smith and gun, in happier days.

On the 13th of August, a piteously distraught Mildred Haynes told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel  “My son is gone due to the police killing my son.”And that was a concise summation of events, if not as detailed or nuanced as subsequent accounts. The deceased in this instance was Sylville Smith, known already to police as a suspect in a shooting soon after which he was charged with witness intimidation when he endeavored to coerce the victim into withdrawing his testimony. In fact, Smith’s police record was extensive, including a concealed weapon charge from 2014 and a citation for operating a motor vehicle without a license while speeding and with open intoxicants in view.


On the night of the 13th, Smith was pulled over in a rental car that flagged as stolen. The entire event lasted 25 seconds. For reasons he is unavailable to explain, Smith exited his vehicle. fled on foot, and pulled a handgun as he ran. Officers pursued Smith who at some point during the chase made the additionally puzzling decision to pivot and level his handgun (which was afterwards determined to be stolen) at the foremost police officer, who was Black. The officer thereupon drew his weapon and ordered Smith twice to drop his gun. Smith, as clearly shown on the officer’s body cam, preferred not to. Consequently, the officer shot and killed him. Smith’s gun was loaded—in fact it contained 23 rounds—and the officer’s response was entirely lawful, and may well have averted his own demise. Moreover, the officer who shot Smith was a local rap performer and, it transpired, a classmate of Smith’s in high school.  But no matter any of that—another innocent Black youth (okay, Smith was 23) had been gunned down by the genocidal janissaries of White Racial Supremacy, and a riot almost necessarily ensued.

Say what you will, Detroit really knew how to have a riot!

Say what you will, Detroit really knew how to have a riot!

Okay, riots have happened for far less inflammatory reasons—the Detroit riot of 1967 started over a raided poker game. Milwaukee’s Black population was already chafing under the weight of several recent encounters involving questionable conduct by police, some of which appear substantive. And information is hard to come by at first, so passions are inflamed well before facts are circulated. To the BLM leadership, of course, facts are irrelevant to the narrative, and that narrative sufficed to spark the Milwaukee riot of 2016 which began with approximately one-hundred Black protesters gathering at North Sherman and Auer to confront a line of about twenty police officers as the “community organizers” at BLM set to work ginning up further outrage via social media. Predictably, things got violent.

As riots go, this one was par for the course. Cars, including some police cruisers, were smashed or set ablaze, a gas station was looted and torched, and firefighters proved unable to approach the blaze owing to scattered gunshots and a barrage of bricks. One officer was hit by a brick and rushed to treatment while other protesters, incognizant of the alliances implicit in such events, attacked reporters and photographers who were merely attempting to “get their story out.” But the evening’s festivities ended with only 4 officers injured, all the fires finally subdued, and only the usual number of liquor stores and supermarkets looted and/or demolished. For a time it appeared that peace might be restored and a dialogue opened.

Support trouble-free revolution!

Comrade Dix likes to wear Mao on his chest, so people don't forget he's a communist.

Comrade Dix likes to wear Mao on his chest, so people don’t forget he’s a communist.

But city authorities reckoned without the appearance of a far older, more practiced and calculated malignancy. The Chicago based (go figure!) Revolutionary Communist Party dispatched operatives to Milwaukee who proved so successful at stimulating a second day of wanton destruction that Police chief Ed Flynn singled them out for credit, telling the press on the second day “the communist group showed up, and actually they’re the ones who started to cause problems.”

Reached by phone, comrade Carl Dix, co-founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party, blamed the “righteous rebellion” on Smith’s death, helpfully adding that “This system sees police wantonly murdering people as part of the normal order of things.” Dix took the opportunity to advocate dismantling the police, but feigned astonishment at Chief Flynn’s accusations. “If anybody wants to allege that our people were actually committing those acts, they should bring that to us. That wasn’t what we went up there to do,” Dix said, insisting that his people “did go there to support a revolution but didn’t set out to cause trouble.”

What is to be done?

So now that the bricks have stopped flying and the streets have been swept free of debris, now that the communists have returned to Chicago, what acts of contrition and profferings of largesse can the sectors of White Privilege supply to ablute their guilt?  Yes, we know, the police should be dismantled, and the killer cops thrown to the mob, but seriously, beyond these puerilities, in a phrase Comrade Dix might resonate to, what is to be done?

Reporter Aaron Mak was nearly beaten to death, but the mob let him go when they realized he was Asian. which is kind of heart warming, really.

Reporter Aaron Mak was nearly beaten to death, but the mob let him go when they realized he was Asian. which is kind of heart warming, really.

During the riot’s second day, an intrepid crew of  TV reporters evaded pummeling long enough to perform a man-in-the-street interview with an  unidentified Black gentleman on the periphery of the violence, “It’s sad,” the man explained, “because, you know, this is what happen because they not helping the black community. The rich people they got all this money and they not, like you know, trying to give us none.”  The gentleman, whoever he was, exhibited an uncanny gift for synopsis. The same essential lamentation seemed on the lips of every resident the press managed to buttonhole.

The Raj is where the heart bleeds!

the Raj is where the heart bleeds...

The Hollywood Reporter ran a story recently about Opera Winfrey’s forthcoming TV series Queen Sugar, which in and of itself would matter not a wit to us at this remove, except that during the extensive interview, Ava DuVernay, the series’ authentically Black director, experienced one of those epiphanic moments that beset we mortals on quirkish occasion, and told the Reporter, “If you treat being Black as a plight, it affects your creativity.”  Think about that, gentle readers! Roll it around your frontal lobes for a bit.

Granted, were Ava DuVernay by the remotest chance to discover this screed, she might angrily insist that we have taken her out of context, but we contend that her statement is of that rare caliber that functions in virtually any context—making it worthy of inclusion among The Eternal Verities, postmodernism notwithstanding. And mindful though we be, here in the WOOF cave, of the invidious threat posed by dread cultural appropriation, we believe DuVernay’s insight works equally well for Whites—insofar as they too should desist from viewing “being Black as a plight,” and find more creative ways of addressing issues of inclusion. Sadly, however, nobody from the political left is prepared to do this, nobody to the center-right has the courage, and nobody to the right of the center-right could attempt it without being pulverized by media billingsgate.

TRUE FACT: Even though the terms

TRUE FACT: Even though the terms “Black” and “African American” were yet to be popularized, President Johnson never learned to correctly pronounce the word ‘Negro.’

Instead, American liberalism has created a new Raj in the United States, where White Privilege is seen as a kind of self-accusatory parallel to the old Kiplingism–and one that obliges the dispensation of favors to the perceived underclasses who prefer victimhood to self-efficacy–and who ceaselessly harangue the despised Imperialists (read: White Americans) for more and more contributions in the name of social justice.  It is not really WOOF’s purpose here to say categorically that this is wrong, or even improper. It is our purpose to say only that it is happening, in a weird homage to Kipling, and once again the entire burden of responsibility for the raising up of the underprivileged is placed squarely upon the shoulders of White, largely European elites.  It is placed there by America’s Black population–but they learned the gimmick from Lyndon Baines Johnson. And that says a lot about why liberalism now owns the White Man’s Burden.

And for peace in Southeast Asia, too; remember?

And peace in Southeast Asia, too; remember?

Johnson’s “Great Society” subsidized every social affliction detectable in the Black populations of America’s cities, and by subsidizing such difficulties, caused them to multiply. Liberal exertions destroyed the Black middle class, the Black nuclear family, and Black education  (which prior to Johnson’s meddling often scored higher on national tests than predominantly White school systems).  Once Johnson’s “Great Society” was fully implemented, Black unemployment soared, the Black nuclear family disintegrated, and the new Black dependency on government caused Johnson to infamously remark, “I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!” [NB: WOOF dutifully reports here that SNOPES, while going so far as to admit that “There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson…was…a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private,” still doesn’t think Johnson said this, because nobody at SNOPES has seen enough evidence. WOOF has, but we like to give SNOPES equal time. Also, we will let readers know if SNOPES replies to our request for information regarding what a “sometime racist” might be.]

Kemp contra Kipling?

Remember Jack Kemp’s urban enterprise zones? Probably not. The whole concept was doomed to perish as soon as liberalism retrieved the Oval Office.

kempOne of the most hideously malformed proofs of the hopelessly advancing political sclerosis besetting the GOP was its 1996 presidential ticket, which may be recalled with effort by the mnemonically gifted as advancing the proposition that Bob Dole would make a terrific president, and that Jack Kemp might come in handy as his running mate. In terms of vitality, creativity, and salability to the public, this match-up might be likened to having the Beatles open for Herman’s Hermits. Kemp, the congressional leader of the brain trust behind Reaganomics, was ushered into the number two slot behind the prehistoric Dole, a man who used to tell dead supply-sider jokes on the floor of congress. The result, predictably was another four years of Bill Clinton…but at least good old Bob had his turn in the grand Republican tradition.

So they nominated Bush Senior--really?

So they nominated Bush Senior–really?

But the American Presidency wasn’t the only slot Kemp would have excelled in but never got offered. A few years earlier, he’d come up with a means of bailing out America’s failing cities and the minority populations that inhabited them. Of course, pundits will cluck their tongues and insist that Kemp’s plan for urban enterprise zones was tried and failed—and that is, indeed, the urban myth surrounding the initiative. But like a lot of things everybody knows, it isn’t so.

During his career, Kemp was bored stiff by the mediocre, and the near-mediocre.

During his career, Kemp was often bored stiff by the mediocre, and the near-mediocre.

True, in 1993 Congress passed Kemp’s plan, which the Clinton administration attempted to enact, and, true again, it didn’t work. But Kemp’s proposal bore scant resemblance to the hodge-podge deployed by the Clinton administration. Predictably, Clinton’s version proceeded from a vision of government’s role in the creation of economic growth that was diametrically distinct to Kemp’s. Kemp’s original intent was to promote the entrepreneurial development of abandoned urban areas by laying them open to the creative energies of local residents unbound by governmental red tape and boosted by Federal funds.. True to form, Clinton restructured the entire process as a hand-out to major corporate participants awash in a veritable sea of regulatory provisions certain to exclude local participation except at the most menial levels.  Worked Kemp’s way, the gift of personal responsibility and creativity would have been offered the inner city, and incentivized by Federal dollars ultimately recoverable as revenue.  Urban denizens might well have flourished. Run Clinton’s way, well….the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. And therein lies an important lesson:

Concerning rats…

wfbDecades ago, William F. Buckley, Jr. was debating Black civil rights leaders on his television program, Firing Line, when one of them glared in his direction and offered, as a kind of pre-emptive condemnation of White insouciance, the datum that “There are rats in Harlem!” Buckley agreed that Harlem was overrun with rats, but added, “You make it seem as though I personally sneak into Harlem every night and with a sort of gleeful chuckle, plop down a rat.” His point bollixed his guest. If Harlem has rats, he seemed to suggest, why haven’t the residents of Harlem taken the necessary eradicative measures? Or failing this, why haven’t they prevailed upon their own recurrently-elected yet notoriously phlegmatic officials to allocate funds and personnel toward this end?  This is exactly the line of reason–exactly the part of the “conversation on race”–that the Liberal Church of Sanctified Victimization cannot abide.  The moment personal responsibility enters the dialogue, Kipling’s worldview vanishes. So long as personal responsibility is banished from the dialogue, Kipling’s worldview is inescapable.  So, gentle readers–you probably figure we’re going to let our beloved William F. have the last word on this matter–but no!  When we at WOOF decide to discuss rats, we aren’t messing around.


It would be churlish to call this Leon’s finest moment…we suppose.

The Russian word расистов is a translation of racist, or rather, vice versa. The coinage is often attributed to Leon Trotsky, and while WOOF cannot state with certitude that the communist revolutionary with the ice axe sticking in his head is the progenitor of the term, he certainly made fond use of it.  And there is no doubt that word has obtained a utility beyond its justifiable applications in denouncing anyone who suggests anything related to race relations that might lie outside the purview of political correctitude as daily upgraded by the powers of the liberal academy. We know full well, therefore, that a conga line of shatterpated commenters will form almost immediately to denounce your humble editors and authors as “RACIST!” for daring to suggest that Black Americans take charge of their own future, and give up the idea that it is best dictated to them by the White Leftist Elite and their loyal crew of race-bating “civil rights leaders” who maintain status in accordance with how satisfactorily the Democrat party rates their performances.  Unless they do so, the American liberal and the DNC will eternally assume the White Man’s Burden as a feigned moral necessity, continually employ it as a political lever, and continually deliver nothing except poverty, division, acrimony, and distrust whenever that lever is pulled.  It’s been going on since LBJ invented high-rise housing for Black families– does anyone realistically suppose it will change?

The Great Society

The Great Society

So Trotsky gets the last word, and that word is “racist.” Trotsky used the term as a propagandistic utensil,, and it certainly caught on. We at WOOF dislike to be called racists because we aren’t–but we’re used to it.  We also know that a lot of people really are racist, and we hate that.  But beyond the looney blatherings of Klansmen, Skin Heads, certain of the “Alt Right,” “liberals” like LBJ and those thousands of DNC functionaries who even today deprecate Blacks privately while fawning over them publically, surely the most racist concept in today’s America is the notion that Blacks cannot succeed without Whites showing the way, paying the expenses, handing out largesse and directing the show. This message comes relentlessly from the Left. For decades it was disguised as compassion, but nowadays, as Americans of European ancestry are charged with confessing and lamenting their “White Privilege,” it proceeds equally from an assumption of ethnic guilt–a guilt that may be expiated only by dispensing massive sums of money and promises of preferential treatment to properly certified victims populating the Racial Left.

Hyphens away!

We believe that Americans of African descent will begin to awaken to this fact, not by tumult, but slowly and increasingly. The Left, of course,  is betting they never catch on. Until they do, Kipling’s poesy will remain a perversely applicable fact of life for all of us– in a way Kipling never perceived nor intended. And the White liberal establishment must conceal  Kipling’s ghostly presence in its approach to Civil Rights, in order to maintain its politicians’ electability. WOOF, however, calls on all Americans to free Kipling of his unforeseen roll in our national approach to race relations, to free American minorities of decades of tyranny imposed in the name of Federal assistance, and to cast off the chains of “multicultural” dogma imprisoning us in isolated social redoubts wherein we are so easily manipulated.  We especially say to the nation’s minorities, cast off victimhood and  unite with us in the American adventure! You have nothing to lose but your hyphens!WOOF PRINT


RIGHT BLACK AT YOU! Playing the race card on the side of the angels!

In "Tastefully avoiding puns with the word 'race' in them" forum on September 30, 2013 at 12:30 am
The King of Soul was a Republican? True that! And he wasn't alone!

The King of Soul was a Republican? True that! And he wasn’t alone!

We here in the WOOF cave have been thinking, and since we are tired of discussing Syria and haven’t got anything breaking on Benghazi since our last expose, and since we just reminded ourselves last article about Michel Foucault’s theory of truth as popular discourse, and since we like to fly in the face of “truth” according to popular discourse whenever truth demands it— well, we decided to talk about something completely different!

Actually, we decided to talk about Blacks voting slavishly (forgive the expression) Democrat, and ask a general question: Why on earth do they do that? It rather reminds us of America’s Jewish voters who file to the voting booths each election to vote (slavishly, you should excuse the expression) for liberal candidates who would gladly sell Israel down the river while striking alliances with Islamic terror movements and lobbyists in order to institute a fascistic state in this country, led perhaps in perpetuity by a president so intensely anti-Israeli that he went out of his way to embarrass Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House (check it out here if you don’t recall it) and has shown nothing but contempt for our Israeli allies over the five agonizing years of his presidency to date. But Jewish American voters, we will remonstrate with you at a later date. Meanwhile—


Roughly translated from the Gaelic:”Ethnic groups have always supported their own, and you just have to expect it, it’s only human!” (Okay, very roughly!)

Black American voters, what’s with this Democrat stuff?  We here at WOOF repeatedly ask Black Americans why they vote democratic, and this goes way beyond the obvious fact that Barack Obama is a Black candidate for whom Blacks voted in large part owing to feelings of what might be described as “community” loyalty; and this despite the fact that the Bamster’s mom was starkly Caucasian. (Thus, the New York Times would routinely describe our president as a “White African American” if their editorial policy were consistent with their invention of the “White Hispanic” racial category during the Zimmerman case. But that’s not important now.) Heck, the Irish vote for Irish folks, the Polish vote for Polish folks, the Catholics voted largely for JFK and the Mormon’s predominantly vote for Mormons (and the Bible Belt apparently sits out elections rather than vote for Mormons, leading to four more years of the White African American guy—but we digress). Our point is, we can understand why Obama nailed the Black vote—and we can even understand why people who were not Black voted for him simply to drive home the fact that a Black man could win the presidency—at least the first time around. So let’s exclude Obama from the discussion. (What a great idea, we’re glad we thought of it!) We still want to know why Blacks would vote Democrat on every other occasion! And to be perfectly honest, we have never received a meaningful answer to our question.

Almost invariably the replies have something to do with civil rights. Some of us at WOOF teach at universities where entire classrooms of 20-something students of all races will inform us that the Democrat party has always led the fight for civil and voting rights legislation. Many simply refuse to believe the Republican Party led the way in passing the majority of landmark pieces of legislation designed to ensure Black civil rights, and often over the loud objections of segregationist Democrats (like Al Gore’s daddy and Lyndon Baines Johnson).

Alveda King shares a spiritual moment with an unidentified chubbie friend.

Alveda King shares a spiritual moment with an unidentified chubby friend.

It is true, although largely ignored or ranted to derision by Leftwing media shouters, that Frederick Douglas,Sojourner Truth , Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver, Mary McLeod Bethune, Jackie Robinson, and Martin Luther King Sr, all favored the Republican party. Alveda King, in fact, remains an outspoken conservative. It is somewhat ironic, therefore that LBJ’s horrendous term-and-a-half in office (the Great Society, as he mordantly called it) solidified the idea of Blacks as beholden to the socialist Left, even as Johnson stuck poorer Black Americans in hellish Government high rises and ensured the destruction of the Black nuclear family by dolling out mammoth funding for children born out of wedlock.

The conscience of a conservative

LBJ wore several faces on Civil Rights, from raving segregationist to opportunistic supporter.

LBJ wore several faces on Civil Rights, from raving segregationist to opportunistic supporter.

But here’s the money shot: Once elevated to the presidency by the murder of Jack Kennedy, LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a substantially weaker version of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which he fought tooth and nail during his Senate career. But nobody remembered that part. The clash of the candidates in 1964 was defined in large degree by the Civil Rights issue, and the Democratic candidate (Lyndon Johnson) signed it, while the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, voted against it.  Goldwater (who refused to take leadership of the postwar Air Guard in Arizona unless it was desegregated, thus making it the first fully desegregated military unit in American history) was cast as the racist reactionary, while LBJ, the ranting Senatorial segregationist who called Black people “nigras” was cast as the champion of African Americans, whom he privately described as “uppity.” How did this come to pass?

Goldwater based his vote against the Civil Rights Act on his view that it obtruded undue federal authority upon the affairs of the several states in contravention of the 10th amendment, as well as the Constitutional right of the individual to do or refuse to do business with whomever he chose. He was right in principle, but wrong contrasted against the zeitgeist—and was branded a racist by the media, most Black Americans, and a tremendous number of White Americans, most of whom remained unaware of the Senator’s personal abhorrence of, and battles against, racial segregation in Arizona.

Goldwater desegregated the Arizona Air Guard , had lunch, and climbed into an F-86. Where's the gratitude?

Goldwater desegregated the Arizona Air Guard , had lunch, and climbed into an F-86. Where’s the gratitude?

Lyndon Johnson had a slightly less Constitutional rationalization for his position on the bill. Aboard Air Force One he told two beaming Democrat governors, “I’ll have those n—s voting Democratic for the next 200 years!”  No, he didn’t say “nigras” that time. And while WOOF abhors LBJ’s rehearsal of that most infamous racial epithet (and while we edited it in keeping with our editorial refusal to allow racial slurs on our site) we cannot deny his claim. Sadly, it proved accurate, despite the fact, buried by liberal historians and media potentates, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a majority of Republican votes against rear-guard Democratic opposition.

So, as the execrable Vladimir Ilyich Lenin asked in completely different circumstances, what is to be done?  Well, most Conservatives seem to believe that the case must be made to America’s Black voters that their entire perception of Civil Rights is askew and ought to be adjusted in accordance with the facts. But WOOF sees this as a fool’s errand akin to trying to persuade the average “millennial” that we don’t currently spend enough on our military to ensure that he will remain free to play “Call of Duty” in his mom’s basement. It is achingly true, all right, but impossible to “message,” as they say on Madison Avenue.

"Dude! You're a racist?"

“Dude! You’re a racist?”

Consider the real problem. How many times has some benighted liberal earnestly suggested to you, unless you are Black, that your refusal to support Our Beloved Helmsman is assignable to his race?  Many will be able to reply “every time,”  and do so without exaggerating. We at WOOF like to remind our critics of this stripe that in 2008 we proudly strode into the voting booth and cast our ballots for an exciting candidate whom WOOF endorsed, and who we believed possessed the brains, the vigor, and the creative insight to solve our nation’s problems and who, we like to add, shamelessly taking up the bromidic PC chestnut, “just happened to be Black.” As you can well imagine, the delighted response to this news is invariably, “Oh! So you DID vote for President Obama!” to which we reply, “Heavens, no, we wouldn’t vote for that communist—we voted for Alan Keyes!” (And if that wasn’t true, we couldn’t say it on the Internet!)

Who is Alan Keyes?


All right, so that’s cute, and that’s correct. But what does it prove? Nothing except that we voted in Blue states that were clearly going for Obama anyway, thus we could proudly lodge our protest votes without costing (ugh!) McCain any electoral gains, and feel principled in the process. But what we want to emphasize here is the typical reaction to our sprung gambit, and the almost invariable reaction from men and women of color; that being, “Who is Alan Keyes?”  Well, he’s the guy who got his doctorate at Harvard and went to work at the State Department under the amazing Jeane Kirkpatrick and was appointed ambassador to the UN, and who, Reagan later said,”did such an extraordinary job … defending our country against the forces of anti-Americanism.” He’s the guy who once ran against the leftist drudge Paul Sarbanes in Maryland’s 1988 senatorial race, devastating Sarbanes so utterly in a televised debate that the local PBS affiliate that sponsored the event broadcast the result at 2AM on a Monday. Keyes got clobbered in the election, possibly because on the eve of balloting, pollsters revealed that the average Black citizen of Baltimore did not know who he was. How is that possible?  In 1992 Keyes ran again for a Maryland Senate seat, this time against Barbara Mikulski, the Old Line State’s perennial Menshevik munchkin. He scraped together 29% of the vote, which in ultra-blue Maryland, against the inexplicably adored Mikulski, and despite a local press establishment that militantly ignored or dismissed his candidacy for the second time, was an impressive achievement.

alan_keyes When Keyes, a principled and unalterable conservative, sought the Republican nomination in 2000 he was included, grudgingly, in the debates. He finished 3rd in Iowa, finished 2ndin eight other primaries, drew 20% of the vote in Utah’s primary— and survived the rest of the field to debate McCain and “W” for the nomination. Yet as “W” squared off against Albert Gore, most Americans could not have identified Alan Keyes had he showed up at their doorsteps to say howdy.  Perhaps even more notably, Keyes was hurried into the 2004 Senate election in Illinois by a panicky Republican party whose candidate (Jack Ryan—but not the one in the Clancy novels, unfortunately) dropped out of the race because of a sex scandal. Keyes’s entry into the competition came with less than three months remaining before Election Day. He was handed two-and-a-half million for his campaign, whereas the Left supplied his opponent with upwards of 14 million. Keyes was beaten, of course, and his opponent, a young Marxist named Barack Obama, achieved a 43% margin of victory, the largest Senate margin in Illinois history. And still, no remembrance of Keyes’s role in events?  The media realize that Alan Keyes is a walking press release—and that’s why they play him down.

The most media attention Keyes gained during his presidential bid in 2000 was when he consented to be tossed into a mosh pit as a lark. The media were aghast, of course!

Actually, the most media attention Keyes gained during his presidential bid in 2000 was when he consented to be tossed into a mosh pit as a lark. The media were aghast, of course! (We forget why.)

Jamelle Bouie, Black leftist and opinionist for The American Prospect has pointed out that even a modest increase in black support for a Republican presidential candidate — to Bush’s anomalous 2004 levels, for instance — would dramatically shift the odds in a presidential run-off. In an unusually selfless frame of mind, Bouie suggested that a solid GOP effort to recruit Black voters would be a better use of time and money than the party’s traditional genuflections to Latinos. In an equally selfless frame of mind, WOOF strongly concurs (boy, will Jamelle be pleased to hear that!) although we also continue to believe that all Latinos should be conservatives. Of course, we believe that all liberals should be conservatives, but we digress.

Maddow underperforms Keyes in the same MSNBC time slot--but keeps her job. Lucky for her she's not a Black conservative!

Maddow underperforms Keyes in the same MSNBC time slot–but keeps her job. Lucky for her she’s not a Black conservative!

Keyes is a man who is newsworthy in every respect, but his very existence was treated as a state secret by the Liberal Establishment Media wherever he sojourned. When MSNBC gave him a prime-time program it was abruptly cancelled after 5 months. Everyone agreed that ratings were not an issue, until a spokesperson for MSNBC decided they really must have been an issue, declaring, “His ratings aren’t the strongest,” which is simply to say his time slot was up against the monumentally successful O’Reilly.  Despite this, Keyes’s worst-rated month averaged 213,000 Nielsen households tuned into Keyes’s program each evening. Consider that last month, MSNBC’s flagship program, The Rachel Maddow Show attracted an average viewership of only 173,000 prime-time viewers per telecast—so maybe Keyes should be offered a mammoth re-signing bonus? (No, they’re bringing Ed Schultz back to the 5PM slot—that’ll do it!)

And they always look so natural!

And they always look so natural!

The fact is this: the Liberal Establishment Media harbor an abject terror of significant numbers of Black Americans drifting to the political right. WOOF knows you are probably laughing right now, dear readers—that your beverage of preference may in fact be squirting out your nostrils as you strive to control yourself and avoid tumbling from your chair in unchecked hilarity. Okay, in the immortal words of Daffy Duck, “Ha, ha, ‘tis to laugh!” But think about it for a moment. What conceivable reason does any Black American have for voting Democrat? And in particular, why vote for White elitists who have no use for Black Americans after they’ve sung a few spirituals with them in their churches for photo ops? What benefit has accrued to the Black population of America over the past 40 years as a result of its dogged loyalty to the Democrat party? Coming up with anything? Of course not.

Now, some will occasionally assert that Bobby Kennedy put a call through to Martin Luther King during the 1960 election when King was in jail in Georgia on a trumped up charge. Nixon didn’t—and that’s a fact—but that would be a scant bit of history to squander a race’s future over, even if it could not be demonstrated that Nixon and King were in fact close, had met numerous times, and that King wrote Nixon praising his “assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill [of 1957] a reality,” and for his “devotion to the highest mandates of the moral law.” The letter is available for viewing at the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, California.

nixon and king

We tried to think of what the Left could say about this annoyingly expository photo–and then we thought, maybe it’s cropped!

Apart from the alliance, more perceptual than actual, between the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, and Kennedy’s willingness to deploy the national guard to move George Wallace out of a school house doorway, thwarting Governor Wallace’s infamous stand against school desegregation at the University of Alabama, there has not been a Democrat initiative of any help whatsoever to Blacks since Harry Truman desegregated the military in 1948 (following, one might argue, the lead of  Goldwater who had already desegregated it in Arizona). No single population group, in fact, has been more heartlessly immiserated by Democrat economic policies than American Blacks.

See Governor Wallace blocking the door so Black students can't go to school? He's a Democrat!

See Governor Wallace blocking the door so Black students can’t go to school? He’s a Democrat!

So long as Black conservatives are an undiscovered species, wandering the political wilderness somewhere in the mythic mist, like a rumored tribe of Sasquatch, those who wander out of the wild and expose themselves publicly can be ridiculed into inutility with ease. Like the Patterson film, to pursue the metaphoric conceit—but that’s not important now. What’s important is this: The media and the Democrat party they serve are joined in a conspicuous concordat to deliberately ignore or perniciously malign Blacks who are conservatives—indeed, to ignore or sneeringly berate any Black whose views place him to the proximal right of Bobby Seale.

Besides all the Jim Crow political cartoons that the Left giggled at, we had the more concerted efforts to remind Blacks that they belong in the designated party!

Besides all the Jim Crow political cartoons the Left giggled at, we had the more concerted efforts to remind Blacks that they belong in the designated party!

The motivation is a deep seated fear that America’s Black population might be to any extent swayed to the political right by a few exemplary individuals and particularly that such individuals might gain prominence in numbers too large to permit the Left’s isolate-and-denigrate tactics to function against them (as they’ve done in the past against “uppity” Blacks—LBJ’s term, not ours–like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice who refused to toe the line and play the roles assigned them by the White Left and the White Left’s in-house servitors like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson). The Liberal Establishment Media fear this so intensely that they will stop at nothing to isolate and savage any Black man or woman who takes a stand against the “Borg.” As an example, look at the amount of fire power focused on Herman Caine during the 2012 primaries the moment he broke away as front runner. The solution to this problem is to overwhelm the system with forced exposure of the Black right, and in so doing to impress upon the Black citizenry, as well as Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and so on—that Black conservatism and libertarianism exist, and bear no resemblance to the Uncle Tom-ism so widely ascribed to them. People are not unaware of this because they are stupid, they are unaware of this because it is deliberately kept from them.  The lesson to be taught here must be taught through exemplification, not rhetoric—we need Conservative Blacks in the face of the nation, and this will require a focused effort, particularly in the new media. Okay, so besides Alan Keyes, who are these people? Well, they are increasingly numerous, praise be to God, but let’s check out a sampler.

050421_janiceBrown_bcol.grid-2x2 Janis Rogers Brown is so brilliantly, capably conservative, a young Senator Barack Obama actually set aside voting “present” and made a speech on the floor of the Senate attempting to obstruct her appointment to the DC Court of Appeals—she made it anyway. “Google” the speech for its entertainment value—Obama was particularly antagonized by Brown’s tendency to “use her position in the courts to advocate for increased protections for property owners,” but he enumerates many other shocking offenses, all equally blatant sins against the collective. But Janice Rogers Brown is not merely a savvy jurist who upsets Marxists, she is an outspoken champion of liberty who was dunned by an aghast Washington Post for observing as far back as 2005 that “In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery.” Brown is also an excursive reader who quotes Cicero, the Apostle Paul, Hayek, Ayn Rand and Paul Simon with equal insight. She belongs on the Supreme Court, and she belongs front and center in the American discourse. In these desperate times the woman who long ago warned that “”If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy – a license to steal, a warrant for oppression,” deserves considerably more national attention!

Thomas Sowell is sometimes referred to by Rush Limbaugh as “the smartest man in America,” and without demonstrable hyperbole. Most Americans have no idea he exists because he has done nothing so important that the Left traipses after him begging his observations as they do, say, the socialist drone Cornel West or the boresomely acerbic Spike Lee. Sowell grew up in Harlem, dropped out of high school and joined the Marines in time for the Korean “police action.” Afterwards, Sowell earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard University (without the benefit of affirmative action) and went on to earn his master’s degree from Colombia University. In 1968, he received a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, one of the last bastions of Austrian-school laissez-faire economics. He has held professorships at Cornell and University of California, Los Angeles and taught economics at Rutgers, Howard University, Brandeis and Amherst College. He’s the winner of the National Humanities Medal and the author of over 30 books. His tendentious alacrity in defense of libertarian economic principles is always attention grabbing, and yet somehow he is rarely called upon by network programmers to present Black analysis—or any analysis. Instead, we get Kanye, Whoopi, or the amusingly dysfunctional Touré, who recently offered his viewers a “geography refresher” by explaining that Kenya is “on the north coast of Africa” which must have surprised everyone in Kenya, and a dozen or so MSNBC viewers.  


Thomas Sowell–not Toure–perish the thought!

Allen West has been a WOOF favorite ever since the PC Brigade forced him into early retirement from the Army following an incident in which he fired his sidearm near the head of suspected Iraqi spy to persuade that previously recalcitrant individual to reveal the location of an ambush laid for West’s men. Since leaving the Army Colonel West has only made us fonder of him. A tea party favorite he won a congressional seat in Florida’s 22nd district in 2010 and proceeded to use it as a pulpit from which to shellac the liberal AllenWest1establishment, and to indite 80 of his colleagues for being communists. For some reason, this upset the media elites, who accused West of making unfounded accusations rather than congratulating him on his circumspection. After being gerrymandered and electioneered out of office in 2012 and defeated by a raving, half-witted and arguably degenerate White kid, (Patrick Murphy), West began duty as a FOX News commentator, but hurling him back into the political arena at the first opportunity is absolutely essential to the commonweal, and WOOF is determined to see Colonel West back in office somewhere or other as soon as possible, witness our not unrecent effort to move him to South Carolina in time for appointment by Niki Haley to the Senate in the wake of Jim DeMint’s precipitate departure [available here]. Governor Haley obviously missed our irresistibly logical proposal, she having appointed Tim Scott to the vacancy rather than follow our “moving West” strategy, but Allen’s return to the political arena must remain a priority for the conservative movement!

Tim Scott is next, just to prove there are no hard feelings. He has performed marvelously since his insertion into the Senate and just voted no on cloture on the continuing resolution (that’s a good thing, and also rather gutsy). He is smart, personable, and makes sense as a former business owner when he rips into Harry Reid’s mismanagement of the budgetary process. We will admit that Niki Haley was wise to appoint him, although her rebuff of our more creative approach still stings a bit, frankly. Meanwhile, Scott continues to make sound arguments against the fiscal insanity of Congressional spending practices in common sense language, and deserves to be spotlighted. And this brings up a major issue toward which we will now cleverly and subtly steer our focus!

We know what you’re thinking: our focus was supposed to be on Black conservatives, so what are we talking about—well, our point remains that Black conservatism isn’t problematic because it doesn’t exist, it is problematic only because its exposure is stifled by the Liberal Establishment Media. As we said earlier, (several times now, we know!) one of the most horrifying possibilities haunting the Liberal imagination is that of a split Black vote with a respectable segment peeling away from the Democrats. To obviate such a catastrophe the network news organizations that constitute a major portion of the Left’s propaganda arm avoid discussion of Black conservatism and Black conservatives (the Keyes treatment), unless it is to savage them and question their sanity (the West treatment) or by launching and then ignoring  Jim Crow-style assaults such as the racially denigrative cartoon images of Condi Rice that neither the networks nor the NAACP saw fit to criticize. So can we convert the networks? Hardly. We must do what the new conservative media have been doing since Limbaugh resurrected AM radio, and circumvent them.  Expect no help from the RINO establishmentarians–they are as lethargic on this issue as they are on immigration or Obamacare…no, the new media will have to promote this cause without the old media or the Old Boy Republicans, but  that’s okay, we can do this ourselves. And when a given individual is Black, conservative, and adept at such circumvention, the value of that individual to the conservative effort is treble.  Some examples include:

Crystal Wright:  is a communications consultant and the blogmistress of “Conservative Black Chick” [listed below in WOOF LINKS, or just click here]. Her BA in English is from Georgetown University Cynthia Wrightand she holds a Masters of Fine Arts in Theatre from Virginia Commonwealth University. She is also the major player at the Baker Wright Group, LLC which she describes as a “full service public relations firm, specializing in communications counseling, media relations, message development, media training and crisis communications.” Her blog, she writes, was born in part from frustration with “people telling me that as I’m a black woman I couldn’t be a Republican and should be a Democrat because of the mere color of my skin.” She has excited several Leftist commentators, some of whom are Black, to rant against her as a phony and an attention grabber. She is certainly the latter—and if she came only recently to the conservative cause, we are no less pleased to have her aboard!

Francesca Chambers, in the same vein, is the Editor of “Red Alert Politics” [see WOOF links or just click here]– a blog aimed where a lot more blogs ought to be aimed: at young francesca chambersconservatives, or more to the point, young people who may be inclined to conservatism once they hear about it from someone other than their balding, pony-tailed, vitriol-spewing college professors. Francesca was graduated from the University of Kansas with double BAs, one in Journalism and the other in Political Science. She lives in Washington, D.C. where she has thus far managed to avoid the inside-the-Beltway body-snatcher phenomenon, but is reportedly inclined to relocate to Virginia, which inclination WOOF ardently endorses. Francesca is also a contributor to The Washington Examiner, has spoken at the Leadership Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and CPAC. She also does a lot of TV, so that the cyberspacially challenged can catch her message on ABC’s Nightline, the PBS News Hour and The Blaze, and has even done missionary work to MSNBC, CNN, and NPR. Francesca typifies the kind of young conservative Black woman whom the media would love to ignore but cannot avoid, because her presence on line mandates recognition. (And she has the perfect last name for a counterrevolutionary!)

Sonnie Johnson: Again, a blogmistress extraordinaire, Miss Johnson is probably better at taking her conservative blogging right into the ‘hood Johnsonand keeping it street smart than any other blogger of color, and manages at the same time to keep it all beautifully right wing! Items that appear to be trash talk suddenly transform themselves into marvelous political homiles just as essays on foreign developments resolve into analogies of domestic entropy—and Johnson is featured in Fire from the Heartland (a movie expounding the courage and zeal of conservative women, obviously inspired by WOOF [take a look here if you doubt us] as well as in Sarah Palin’s Undefeated. She is an avid Tea Party spokesperson and a passionate proponent of growing the economy by limiting government!  Sonnie’s blog is “Did She Say That” and its listed in WOOF links [or just click here].

Benjamin Carson: Long the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital (before he was discovered to be un-Liberal and carsonousted), made the news with explosive force when he schooled Barack Obama at the annual prayer breakfast by telling him, without really bothering to glance at him or mention him, how bad Obamacare was going to be and, in considerable detail, what could have been done instead. And Carson could not be “spiked” because the event was national news anyway—and besides he was already a bonafide famous Black person because Hollywood had already (oops!) lionized him in a movie entitled Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story in which Carson was portrayed by Cuba Gooding Jr., (and when Hollywood exhorts you in a movie, the Leftwing Establishment Media acknowledge you as real). For these reasons, Carson’s denunciation of the president’s policies were carried even by the dinosaur networks. Carson’s smackdown of the Affordable Health Care Act and other socialist policies was best described by PolicyMic commentator John Giokaris who called it “the longest 27 minutes in Obama’s presidency.” In an interview with Neil Cavuto, Carson shrugged off all the sudden acclaim from the Right and derision from the Left, saying “Somebody has to be courageous enough to stand up to the bullies.”

Chelsi Henry may not look the type to “stand up to the bullies,” but she stands up for conservative values in the minority community.  and is the first Republican in her family. She is Chief of Staff for the National Assembly of Black Republicans as well as the Florida Assembly of Black Republicans, both chartered by the Republican National Committee (but don’t hold that against them) and the Republican Party of Florida. The goal of both organizations is to motivate, educate, and activate minority Republicans.  She received her law degree from the Florida Coastal School of Law, despite being born to a 16 year old mom and raised on food stamps. “It’s not how you start,” she told National Review, “it’s how you finish.”

chelsi chambers

Perhaps not as pretty as the above-cited blog mistresses, but of incalculable value to the conservative cause, Wayne Dupree is the best argument WOOF has thus far encountered for cloning. He is an eight-year Air Force vet from Maryland’s politically superior Eastern Shore who was motivated by Andrew Breitbart (okay, another really good argument for cloning) to carry his pro-American views to the world—a tall order  for most mortals, but see, Wayne is one of those techno-communications solons who can do that sort of thing at the speed of neo-Teslan genius…while we here in the WOOF cave are still wondering if we can possibly figure out photoshop…like, is that different from Power Point? But anyway…Wayne is the CEO of Newsninja2012.com, does guest shots on Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck (as hosted by Dana Loesch), and declares his readiness to “fight back against the liberal hate machine and meet them head on with like-minded strength and dedication.” Besides delivering public stemwinders, Wayne maintains a Twitter account with upwards of twenty-five thousand followers. His You Tube channel (what’s a You Tube channel?) has amassed two million views and his Facebook account has over five million likes—heck, we’d even like it if we ever looked at Facebook, but they’re commies, right?


Anyway, the takeaway here (as if you haven’t guessed!) is that the growing wave of Black Americans who are dedicatedly conservative must be publicized in ways that reach other Blacks and the country in general, and as with so much else this will mean leapfrogging the mainstream. And those who seem to be best at this task are the Black bloggers, politicians and public personalities who can speak for themselves in the growing arena they are creating. But it is expedient, Woofketeers, that we support their efforts, link to their blogs, and pay heed to the tactical as well as the sociocultural advantages of their participation in our noble cause. And mark our words, gentle readers, front line participation in politics by Black right wingers is the surest way to gain votes in the Black community—and begin the repatriation of America’s citizens of African heritage to the party of Lincoln (or the Tea Party of Lincoln—hey, why not?)

And this concludes our screed on this topic, gentle readers, sorry we didn’t mention Syria, Ted Cruz or the massacre in Kenya—but we’ll get around to it! Meanwhile, support Black right-wing bloggers and expositors, both political and professional, who militate for the Right! We repair now to our cave to await the inevitable congratulatory telegram from the NAACP praising our efforts to draw attention to these superb men and women of African ancestry– but we require no thanks.  Why, these people were standouts even before WOOF mentioned them!

Yup. Ray was a Reaganite!

Ray Charles, too? Yup. Ray was a Reaganite!


…WITH ZIMMERMAN, MARTIN, AND RAHM (WOOF finally caves in and discusses the Trayvon Martin affair.)

In "Tastefully avoiding puns with the word 'race' in them" forum on July 17, 2013 at 4:41 pm


Trayvon deflated, Zimmerman inflated, media frustrated…  

WOOF would like to begin by acknowledging that we weren’t there the night Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, and, of course, neither were any of the several million opinionists who have pronounced authoritatively on the event—except for the witnesses introduced at trial, so we don’t know what was in Zimmerman’s heart of head, or in Martin’s, but we do know this much: No jury could possibly have convicted on the evidence, or rather on the surprising paucity of evidence, offered in the courtroom. The eternally bollixed crew at the Nation may have declared that Zimmerman was freed by “white supremacy,” but it was really just six jurors and an unbreachable defense. The preternatural ineptitude of the prosecution, whose own witnesses either self-destructed or sounded like a cheering section for the accused, startled the media and left the jurors no valid option but acquittal. So yes, Zimmerman should have walked, and yes he should get his gun back. But what is most interesting to WOOF is the deranged sociology that surrounded and continues to surround the events of the shooting. First, WOOF notes the amazing transformation of the main characters, and on several levels of interpretation. Allow us to explain:

We begin with Zimmerman, the run-of-the-mill Hispanic dude, widely considered a reliable sort who apparently lived in a mobile home in the central Florida city of Sanford where he was employed as a mortgage officer, and who often volunteered as a neighborhood watch captain in the gated Twin Lakes community. Not exactly a guy you’d cast to play Reinhard Heydrich, right? And yet a man who, as The Nation made clear in its own lovably asinine way, became the Leftwing Media Establishment’s poster boy for “white supremacy.” Why, the New York Times even created its own race to make Zimmerman appear less ethnic, dubbing him (casually, so that no one would notice) a “white Hispanic.” Obviously, were logic applicable at the Times, the president would necessarily be described as a white black man, but don’t hold your breath.

Untitled 2

Two peas in a pod? It strikes WOOF as unlikely.

As Zimmerman rose through the ranks to become the uncontested worst person on earth in the febrile wasteland of the liberal blogosphere, (eat your heart out, Dick Cheney) he simultaneously found himself ballyhooed as blameless and saintly on the websites of the Right. But George Zimmerman is neither Satan nor Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn—he’s just a guy who was on edge over a cluster of robberies and break ins and therefore decided to follow a suspicious-looking kid on the fateful night of February 26, 2012. His involuntary transformation, whether into the spitting image of Bull Connor (who was a Democrat by the way) or Captain America (who is undoubtedly a Republican) makes no more sense than bringing him to trial did…. But the media created the one image, and the Right responded by creating the other. Lost in all the hubbub is an ordinary man who will never, ever, get his life entirely back.

The purple drank factor

Trayvon as we first viewed him, younger and sweeter than subsequent depictions

Trayvon as we first  beheld him, younger and a tad sweeter than subsequent depictions

And what of Trayvon? In the immediate wake of his death he was hastily inflated also, his pleasant, youthful features lent themselves to angelic allusions, and he became instantly iconic as the innocent kid with the bag of skittles whose only crime was his race and whose death was dealt him by a bloodthirsty bigot who targeted him for summary execution. President Obama lost not a moment jumping in, declaring “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon!” and dispatched his DOJ to stir up anti-Zimmerman hysteria in Broward County. But Trayvon’s elevation to sainthood began to stall as additional facts developed. He was first declared an all A’s and B’s student, but it soon transpired he’d been suspended from school at the time of his death, his third disciplinary suspension of the year. He was eulogized as a carefree kid who lived a law-abiding life, but police reports suggested otherwise, including a search of his person that on one occasion turned up several pieces of women’s jewelry and a screw driver (a standard burglar’s tool). His suspensions were said to be for minor matters of tardiness and truancy, but the third one turned out to be a marijuana violation.  The autopsy report confirmed the presence of low levels of marijuana in Martin’s system. More significantly perhaps, Martin’s liver was damaged in a manner consistent with the abuse of dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup. This syrup is popular in the hip-hop community when mixed with candies (like Skittles) and fruit drinks (like the Arizona Watermelon drink Trayvon was carrying). These ingredients combine to produce a concoction known to gang bangers as “Purple Drank” or “Lean,” the long term effects of which can include aggression and psychosis.. Sadly, the angelic image of Trayvon Martin began to deflate, not because the press was out to get him, (don’t make us laugh), but because their effort to deify him resulted in several thousand researchers in the New Media responding with the unattractive facts, none of which would have come to light if the original police decision to free Zimmerman without charging him had not been intercepted and nullified by Obama, Holder, and their toy news media.


The emergent image of Trayvon–with attitude!

This is neither to say that Trayvon was a psychopathically deranged, irretrievable dope fiend, nor a budding candidate for the priesthood. He was really just unlucky. For all we know he might have straightened out, entered college and become a community organizer—or maybe even something useful, if he hadn’t discarded his life that night by jumping on Zimmerman. For all we know, he just lost his temper and made a fatal miscalculation—but the dignity and normalcy he might have been accorded in death are gone forever now, along with his future. The protesters may have to peel the Skittles bags off their posters as the nasty facts emerge, but they have every right to mourn. The slaying of Trayvon Martin is a tragedy on several levels, for both principles and their families. That it became a political circus is ascribable entirely to the Establishment, which term is nowadays synonymous with the American Left, unless one reasons that it all started when the Right struck back by unearthing the facts.

The media slowly gets the idea--Skittles and also less angelic than first believed.

The media slowly gets the idea–Skittles are also less angelic than first believed.

Angela unchained! (Marissa bound)

But if the protesters were in any mood to drop their Skittles bags and help a sister out, they were conveniently situated because even as George Zimmerman’s acquittal was being announced in Broward County, a black woman was being subjected to positively Kafkaesque levels of injustice in nearby Jacksonville. Yes, fellow Wooferians, thirty-one year old Marissa Alexander, a mother of three small children, was chased from her home by her abusive ex-husband (against whom she had a restraining order) who was loudly and angrily threatening to kill her and who, she testified, tried to strangle her. In terror of her life she fled to the garage with the intention of escaping by automobile, but discovered she had forgotten her keys. She had her gun though, so as her bellicose former spouse drew nearer she decided to discourage his advance by discharging her weapon at a wall. The echoing gunshot sent hubbie scampering, but nobody was hurt. “I believe when he threatened to kill me, that’s what he was absolutely going to do,” Alexander told the authorities. “That’s what he intended to do. Had I not discharged my weapon at that point, I would not be here.”

Corey has a mad on!

Angela Corey has a mad on!

But if Mrs. Alexander saved herself from death by strangulation, it soon became apparent that she had  simultaneously placed herself at the mercy of the dangerously addlepated State’s Attorney Angela Corey, who, you may be interested to learn, is the very same addlepated State’s Attorney who brought charges against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. That Alexander should never have been charged in the first place seems screamingly obvious, especially considering the fact that she never ran afoul of the law prior to exciting Corey’s wrath by warning her husband instead of blowing him away. So, the police arrested her and the execrable Corey decided that the idea of honest citizens defending themselves with guns was sufficiently unthinkable to merit prosecution.  Despite the fact that she wasn’t there and Alexander obviously was, State’s Attorney Corey, who is evidently also a gifted psychic, told the press that she believed Alexander aimed the gun at the man and his two sons, and insisted, “the bullet she fired could have ricocheted and hit any of them.” Of course if we accept the first premise Corey’s analysis puts forth, we would next have to assume logically that Corey believes the bullet might have ricocheted off the children and hit their father, or off the father and hit the children—the only other explanation for the ricochet argument necessitating the belief that Corey wasn’t aiming at anybody at all.

Marissa in jail togs--so much for no criminal record!

Marissa in jail togs–so much for no criminal record!

WOOF is also unaware of what juries in Jacksonville (the venue of the trial) like to smoke during their deliberations, but how a group of Alexander’s peers returned a verdict of attempted murder in such an open and shut case of self defense remains mysterious. Rather sensibly, Alexander asserted her rights under Florida’s `Stand Your Ground Law,’ but the judge threw this out, telling Alexander that she could and should have run for it. His Honor did not go into what she could have done in the event that her husband caught up with her and resumed strangling her, but presumably he had a plan.  Fortunately, State’s Attorney Corey is not without mercy, and she generously offered Alexander a plea bargain and a three year sentence to go with it. Understandably, Alexander said no thanks, little suspecting that the police, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury would all prove simultaneously, and to approximately equivalent degrees, psychotic.

In happier days.

In happier days.

Alexander was given 20 years under a state law mandating 20 years for any reprobate who discharges a firearm in the course of committing a felony. Victor Crist, the Republican state legislator who authored the “10-20-life” bill in 1999 said Alexander’s sentence is not what lawmakers intended, but nobody seemed to care. “We were trying to get at the thug who was robbing a liquor store,” Crist explained, but his legislation is so poorly written (ignoring, as it does, the imperative concept of premeditation) that it could as easily apply to firing a warning shot at a wall. So why isn’t the Leftist Establishment Media screaming with outrage about white on black injustice in this case? Simple: Alexander defended herself with a handgun—oops—big mistake.

Shoot your wall, do 20 in the big house!

Shoot your wall, do 20 in the big house!

Thus we have this surreal juxtaposition of Zimmerman, acquitted for killing a kid (despite the judge having spared no effort to provide his jurors with a smorgasbord of opportunities to send him up the river while NBC dedicatedly doctored 911 tapes to makes him sound racist), and Marissa Alexander getting dragged off to prison for 20 mandatory years because she shot her wall. It is equally bizarre that such a miscarriage of justice should put WOOF on the side of the NAACP, with whom we haven’t agreed about much since around 1966, and Corrine Brown, U.S. Representative for Florida’s 5th congressional district, with whom we have never previously agreed about anything! But you go, sister! (Our hypocrisy knows no bounds!)

Meanwhile, back at the inner city holocaust….

You go, Corrine! (WOOF isn't proud.)

You go, Corrine! (WOOF isn’t proud.)

Meanwhile, in the cities where murder is perfectly all right so long as it does not seem politically incorrect, people are gunned down all day and all night long by killers whose guns are not registered, whose intent is insensately homicidal, and whose killings go unnoticed by the socialist totalitarian establishment and their lap-poodle media because they fail to promote progressive objectives. In Obama’s and Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago, just for instance, where an armed citizenry is celebrated only to the extent that gang bangers may be considered armed citizens, this month has already witnessed 25 shot and killed and 106 wounded. June ended with a total of 40 shot dead and 225 wounded. Over the course of the year to date, the WindyCity has hosted 190 killed and 971 wounded by gunfire. Just since Trayvon Martin was shot, 18 black seventeen-year-old males have been shot and killed in Chicago. (It should be noted that this is actually less murder than at the same time last year in Chicago, but this is because Global Warming apparently caused an especially frigid winter and an unseasonably cold spring. Criminologists agree that murder rates drop with the mercury, although this fact did not prevent Rahm Emanuel from crediting himself with the decrease, he evidently subscribing to the axiom that one should never let a stark repudiation of one’s meteorological lunacy go to waste.

LBJ destroying the black family and building those high rises--but he meant well!

LBJ destroying the black family and building those high rises–but he meant well!

Although blacks constitute not quite 13 percent of the country’s population, they are fully half the people who get murdered every year—and not because they were assailed by skin heads or the KKK. The vast majority of these murders are black on black, but nobody mourns or even particularly notes these victims beyond their families. Writing in USA Today, columnist DeWayne Wickham sapiently mused: “Maybe the people who’ve taken to the streets to protest Martin’s killing don’t care as much about the loss of other black lives because those killings don’t register on the racial conflict meter…” and WOOF couldn’t agree more. But popular opinion in this country is not forged by concerned African Americans, it is forged by manipulative white propagandists (otherwise known as the media and the Democratic party), and to the white liberal establishment the inner city carnage doesn’t matter because it cannot be exploited to political advantage. Worse than that, it points directly to the destruction of the black nuclear family by white socialists (beginning with the disastrous Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson), to the deliberate incapacitation of the public schools by the predominantly white communists of the NEA, and might, if publicized, highlight the positive correlation between strict anti-gun laws and increased shooting deaths.

Despite brilliantly subtle  psychological campaigns like this one, black-on-black crime continues to skyrocket!

Despite brilliantly subtle psychological campaigns like this one, black-on-black crime continues to skyrocket!

And now for a round of double jeopardy

Comes now William Holder, fresh from dispatching his own DOJ agents to organize protests and rallies aimed at eulogizing Trayvon Martin and smearing George Zimmerman well before any testable evidence had been amassed. The legal watchdog group Judicial Watch caught Holder’s minions (Red handed, as it were) and adduced the facts for all to see on its website, viewable here, but of course the media took no notice and Holder, who would have been driven from office in ignominy a dozen times by now were he a white Republican, remains smugly in his seat on Dear Leader’s cabinet. And thus it was with characteristic disregard for legality, legitimacy, and human rights that Holder announced earlier this week that he would be looking for evidence of racial profiling in the Zimmerman shooting, and preferring federal charges if he smelled a rat.  Will Holder make, literally, a federal case of the Zimmerman acquittal?

Uh-ohhh! A hispanic guy shot a black guy and William Holder smells a civil rights violation!

Uh-ohhh! A Hispanic guy shot a Black guy and William Holder smells a civil rights violation!

Renowned defense lawyer, Harvard law professor and gold-plated ultra-liberal Alan M. Dershowitz is lately in the habit of offering opinions that threaten to make WOOF a part of his fan base, even as he risks that most savage of pan-media beat downs—that mass attack reserved by the Left for its wayward adherents.  In an exclusive interview, Newsmax asked Dershowitz if he saw any grounds for a federal investigation focusing on civil rights violations in the Zimmerman case. He replied in the affirmative, but hastened to add that any federal investigation should focus on “prosecutorial misconduct” rather than Zimmerman, He applauded the not-guilty verdict saying, “I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor…The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”  Wow, Alan, you’re the mensch!

aaa evinces elation at the news that WOOF is less unfond of him these days.

Alan Dershowitz evinces elation at the news that WOOF is less unfond of him these days.

miss us yet

Okay, we know, Tom wasn’t actually there, but you get the idea, right? And that puts you way ahead of Our Beloved Leader!

The boys back at Independence Hall in 1787 (remember those guys?) signed off on a document that reserved matters of law enforcement to the several states. Victims of public education may be surprised to discover that the country got along fine with no Department of Justice for over a century. The DOJ as we conceptualize it today did not officially exist as a government entity until its creation in 1933 by—you guessed it—Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or, “that man,” as Little Orphan Annie disdainfully referred to him. But don’t get us started.


When Holder tasked his department’s “Community Relations Division” to rabble rouse against Zimmerman and threatened Florida with various federal unpleasantries if they did not press charges, he was already at tendentious odds with the Bill of Rights. The pundits who expect him to stay his hand owing to the absence of any plausible grounds for federal intervention are typical of those myriad opinionists who honestly think they are living in the America of yesterday—an America where the rule of law was ensured by conscientious conservators of constitutional writ, and an aggressively inquisitive media stood ready to sound the alarm if shenanigans were attempted from any quarter. But that America is gone, or at least on furlough while President Obama’s rascally pack of race baiters, communists, autocrats and anarcho-fascists runs roughshod over the Constitution, a document that the president denounced not terribly long ago as “a charter of negative liberties,” even as he bluntly declared his intention to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

This is President Obama not getting involved.

This is President Obama not getting involved.

The surest evidence that Holder will now move against Zimmerman despite a blatant lack of grounds for doing so is the fact that Barack Obama has elevated himself above such tawdry matters, averring that he will play no part in Holder’s decision. This is funny. Has Obama played a part in any decision during the last five years? According to him and his faithful servants in the news media, he has remained aloof from every disaster, controversy, scandal, and embarrassment that has befallen his administration. Ha! Trust us, Woofketeers, when Our Beloved Leader assures us he will play no part in whether or not his DOJ proceeds against Zimmerman, we may safely infer that he has already ordered Holder to bring him Zimmerman’s scalp on a platter.

So get ready for “Zimmerman 2,” a Barack Hussein Obama production featuring Eric Holder as himself, directed by Al Sharpton, with a script by Bill Ayers from an original idea by Saul Alinsky. (And a cast of millions, of course!) It’s all so predictable it would be amusing, if it weren’t for the sorry spectacle of one short, pudgy Hispanic guy, dragged to the square by the mob, pummeled by a jackbooted government determined to curry favor with the rabble while the media elites call for a necktie party and the rest of us sit on our hands and hope we’re not next. C’mon; show a little backbone America!  WOOF dreams of a day when we can fight bigotry and abject stupidity both at the same time…is this too wild a dream? WOOF PRINT


“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”–Charles Dickens “Oliver Twist”

%d bloggers like this: