Tag Archives: Carter Administration


The following is a continuation of my September 2, 2016 article about the San Francisco 49er quarterback, Colin Kaepernick who refuses to stand while the national anthem is played before San Francisco football games. Some of the following is re-hash, but I’ve also injected new areas of thought.

There’s several pieces to the Colin Kaepernick saga. First of all, he does have the right to sit or kneel while the national anthem is played before San Francisco 49ers football games. Plus everyone else has a right to their opinion about it. Colin is employed by the San Francisco 49ers organization and while he is acting in the course and scope of his employment by San Francisco, he has to do what they say. As his employer, the 49ers’ organization, in my opinion, should tell him to stand. If he doesn’t, he’s out the door. But the NFL and its associated teams have become very leftist over the years, and I guess it didn’t occur to them to just simply tell Mr. Kaepernick, “Yes, you will stand for the national anthem.” But neither the NFL nor the San Francisco 49ers are going to tell him that. So, we’re moving on.

When CK says that American is a nation that oppresses blacks and other people of color, my initial thoughts were just how is happening. Civil Rights legislation was passed in 1964. Subsequently, there was the implementation of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the mid-sixties, where we were told that for a few dollars more a month from taxpayers, we would be able to eradicate poverty among blacks as well as whites. Following the implementation of the Great Society, Affirmative Action legislation was passed and programs were implemented whereby blacks had the opportunity to achieve at the same level as whites without meeting the same requirements as whites. In the late seventies, under the Carter administration, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed which basically allowed banks to lend money to buy houses to people who were not financially able to qualify for a loan to purchase a home. This allowed many blacks to obtain loans to purchase homes.

But wait, these programs haven’t worked. These programs have done nothing to help blacks and other people of color. Instead it could be said that these programs have oppressed blacks and other people of color. Maybe Colin Kaepernick has a point. But I don’t think this is what he and other liberals meant. The above programs plus the rise to power and prominence of teachers’ unions in this country have all contributed to the increased crime rates, increased poverty rates, the dissolution of the nuclear family, and the failing schools which are all prevalent in the black community.

In the second decade of the 21st century, over a half century since Civil Rights legislation was passed and signed into law, terms like “black community” shouldn’t exist except for historical documentation purposes.

One of the programs I cited as detrimental to blacks and other people of color is Affirmative Action, according to the conservative website, Wing Nut Gal, in an article dated October 29, 2014, “Affirmative action is one of the most racist and bigoted practices in the United States of America today. It says to minorities that you’re not good enough to make it in the “white man’s world.” You’re inferior. And because you’re inferior, we’re going to help you because we’re your friends.”  To read the entire article visit The Racist, Bigoted Policy of Affirmative Action.

In the next few days, I will be examining other policies, birthed by liberals that are serving to oppress blacks and other people of color. And you know something, these policies aren’t helping us white folks out much either.



When Republicans propose across the board income tax cuts, the Democrats always holler, “tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich.” Sounds a little like “citizen’s arrest, citizen’s arrest,” doesn’t it?

UNITED KINGDOM - JUNE 16:  U.S. President George W. Bush waves upon arrival at RAF Aldgerove in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Monday, June 16, 2008. Gordon Brown, U.K. prime minister said Britain is pushing the European Union to impose new sanctions against Iran, including freezing the assets of its biggest bank, to pressure the nation to give up its nuclear program at a press conference with Bush in London today.  (Photo by Paul McErlane/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, in his 2008 book, “The End of Prosperity,” indicated that President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. The president’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in American’s pockets would jump start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. The economy lagged and revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

In 2003, President Bush cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20%. In three years, $15 million of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, the federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And the rich paid an even higher percentage of the tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, President Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues when those tax revenues that flowed from the 03 tax cuts could have paid for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

When President George W. Bush was elected, we were in a recession caused by the dot-com bust of the late nineties. The economic prosperity of the nineties, the Bill Clinton presidency years, were fueled by a Republican Congress’s balancing of the budget and the private sector technological revolution which changed forever the way we live our day to day lives.

During the weeks between the determination that Bush had been elected and the inauguration, the main stream media suggested that the word, “recession” not be used to describe our current economic status.  It was the opinion of the MSM that the American people were depressed enough as it was and didn’t need to hear the term “recession.”

However, after the crash of 2008 and the election of Barak Obama to the presidency, the MSM couldn’t use the word, “recession,” enough. In fact they were calling it the “great recession,” and seemed tempted to call it a depression.

The current president, the MSM, and the rest of the Democrats, would have you think that the Bush presidency was one of economic purgatory. Not so. When Mr. Bush first took office, he had the nineties recession or maybe you might call it the “Clinton recession” to combat. Then, there was 9/11 and if you don’t think the first major foreign attack on American soil would not “shake things up,” I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing. The economy did pick up in late 2003 and 2004 and prosperity reigned until the price of gas began increasing in 2008. And we all know when the price of gas increases when a Republican has the presidency, it is the Republican president’s fault. On the other hand, when a Democrat is in office and the price of gas increases, the president actually has nothing to do with the price of gas. Also, the inverse it true.

Then came the crash of 2008 in the fall of 2008, just before the presidential election. Democrats would have you believe that it was all George Bush’s fault when in fact, the problems began during the Jimmy Carter administration, continued with the Clinton administration’s social engineering in order that all Americans could purchase homes, whether they could afford them or not.

I’ve never seen so much hatred directed toward a president as the left has directed toward George W. Bush.

But that’s okay, they’re Democrats, darlings of the media. It’s okay for them to lie, cheat, steal, and kill because they’re Democrats. Sometime I wonder what it would be like to be a Democrat. I wouldn’t get called the names I do now. I wouldn’t get the threats that I do now. I wouldn’t have lies told about me like I do now. Do I want to become a Democrat? NO…NO…NO!

Note: Thanks goes to the Washington Times and opinion/analyst Ryan Dwyer for his February 2010 article in supplying the above information.