As reported by PolitiFact/Pennsylvania and Cassie Owens, “There are items on the internet that promote allegations of voter fraud (during the 2012 Presidential Election) in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. For Pennsylvania, it has been reported that, ‘In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes, with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility.)’”

There is a general feeling among certain people (those with brains) that Philadelphia rigged the 2012 presidential election in favor of Barack Obama. Some “experts,” however, still say “no.”

According to Ms. Owens, “This kind of happened, and it’s not actually mathematically impossible. First, the 59 (voting ‘districts’) refers to (‘areas’ in) the City of Philadelphia, not the metropolitan area or region. An absolutely crucial fact: The 59 zones that saw no votes for Romney were not districts, but divisions. There are nearly 1,700 divisions in Philadelphia. Each of the city’s 66 wards claims between 10 and 50 of them.”

Ok…, let’s play the old liberal word game here. So there are called divisions or zones in Philadelphia and not districts, whatever.

She continues, “To provide a sense of how small divisions are, currently, the average number of registered voters per division is 616. The division out of the 59 with the lowest turnout counted 139 votes in 2012; the highest was 612.”

Ok, so if we take the average of the “divisions’” turnout, that would be 376. Then if you take that average times the 59 “divisions,” we come up with 22,184 votes.

Just to be clear, that would be 22,184 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.

That’s 22,184 – 0.

Sean Hannity, of Fox News, first brought this voting “abnormality” to light, on a nation level, but of course, the biased mainstream media chose to ignore the story. What a surprise.

The “experts” cited all sorts of different conditions that would make tampering with the vote virtually impossible.

22,184 – 0.

The “experts” cited changing voting trends that could explain extreme vote differences.

22,184 – 0.

The “experts” cited the fact that, “Romney was going against the nation’s first black president as well.” There aren’t any racist connotations there, are there? But irregardless…

22,184 – 0.

Note one vote for Romney? Not 1?

Ms. Owens and Politifact ruled that this WAS NOT a statistical impossibility, and that there were no indications of improprieties.

22,184 – 0.

Note one vote for Romney. Not 1.

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

– Abraham Lincoln

EVERYTHING was rigged against him, but that didn’t stop Donald Trump!

Thanks to Donna Brazile, the former Democratic National Committee Chairperson, we KNOW that Hillary rigged the Democrat presidential primary for herself against Bernie Sanders. That is an undebatable FACT now.

So…, if Hillary had the fix put in on the democratic presidential primary election, how could it possibly surprise anyone to learn that she, and “the swamp,” attempted to fix the election against Donald Trump?

It’s my opinion that Hillary, with the backing of Barack Obama and the leadership of the FBI, the Department of Justice and the biased mainstream media, did everything they could to rig the general election so Trump wouldn’t win.

But Trump managed to win anyway!

Their house of cards is beginning to collapse all around them now. Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, John Podesta, Ben Rhodes, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, other “swamp rats” at the FBI and the DOJ, and even Barack Obama himself, are coming under scrutiny for their actions before, during and after the 2016 presidential election.

If Hillary had just won, like she was supposed to, everything would have worked out just fine for all of these snakes in the grass, and “We the People” would have been none the wiser.

But Donald Trump won!

Since Donald Trump won, “the swamp” has engaged their emergency contingency plan to try and paralyze Trump’s administration with continual investigations, and eventually, hopefully, some charge(s) that will lead to Trump’s political downfall.

The 2016 presidential election played out just like our founding fathers hoped it would, way back, when they laid out the concept of an “electoral” college in The U.S. Constitution. Thanks to our Constitution, we have Donald Trump, who is President of the United States, and not Hillary Clinton, President of the United States of California and New York.

According to Dan Wetzel at Yahoo Sports, “This is the NFL’s punishment for trying to appease President Trump.”

“The Philadelphia Eagles won’t visit the White House…for the traditional Super Bowl champion ceremony because too few players were willing, available or interested in attending.”

Your level of confusion is impressive Mr. Wetzel!

The National Football League (NFL) isn’t “trying to appease” President Trump, they’re trying to appease the multitude of people that are choosing to not go to football games, and the multitude of people who are turning off football games on TV, because they’re sick and tired of these crybaby, millionaire, football players who can’t do us the courtesy of staying on their feet for our national anthem.

Here’s a bit of breaking news for our esteemed players; kneeling during the national anthem does not help your cause, whatever your cause is. It only causes people to turn away, or anger them.

“Last month, in a moronic move destined to fail, the NFL attempted a Trump Appeasement Plan by (sort of) rewriting its national anthem policy. It didn’t actually outlaw protests during the anthem – players can just stay in the locker room.”

Late Monday night, the president reiterated his stance in a tweet:

“The Philadelphia Eagles Football Team was invited to the White House. Unfortunately, only a small number of players decided to come, and we canceled the event. Staying in the Locker Room for the playing of our National Anthem is as disrespectful to our country as kneeling. Sorry!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2018”

“During the 2017 season and playoffs, not a single Eagles player knelt for the national anthem. Not one. In every single game, every single player stood. Even after Trump called NFL players who did kneel “sons of bitches,” the response by players was to stand for the anthem. They even linked arms with police officers and military personnel who had been invited to the game.”

So what this really is, is a protest by liberal Philadelphia Eagle players against President Trump in general. These Eagle players are mirroring their liberal buddies across our land. If someone doesn’t agree with you, you take your ball and go home. Waaaaah.

Mr. Wetzel goes on to say, “A lot of Americans actually are patriotic and they don’t like protests during the anthem. Others don’t see the logic in allowing workers to act out politically while on the job – at most places you can’t. Still, others just love hearing someone call out highly paid (and mostly African-American) professional athletes for supposedly being ungrateful and un-American. That last segment is unfortunate, but it no doubt exists.”

A lot of Americans actually are patriotic? Oh Really? Thank you for pointing that out “Captain Obvious (aka Dan Wetzel)!” At least it’s obvious to me and most of my friends. The people you hang around with obviously need to be reminded of this.

Then we come to the obligatory…, wait for it…, wait for it…, the obligatory race card!

Mr. Wetzel says, “Still, others just love hearing someone call out highly paid (and mostly African-American) professional athletes for supposedly being ungrateful and un-American. That last segment is unfortunate, but it no doubt exists.”

We can always count on the left to drag race into every issue, as a way to divide the sides and, in their eyes, seize the “social high ground,” when in reality they are just reaffirming to the rest of us how they tend to see everything through racially divisive glasses.

Of course, the liberal local politicians in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania came out in support of the Philadelphia Eagles team, who chose to disrespect the President of our country, and all of their fans who would have liked to have seen their team at The White House. If I remember right, President Trump won the state of Pennsylvania, didn’t he?   He was the first republican to win Pennsylvania in like 30 or 40 years, wasn’t he? Just sayin’.

Mr. Wetzel goes on to say, “The talk of mass TV revolts and fan protests were overblown.”

I beg to differ. TV ratings suffered quite a bit last year, and the fans’ vocal displeasure with the disrespecting of our country, got the attention of the league and team owners. After all, now we are talking about real money!

Wetzel finishes by saying, “The league is so dumb and spineless it deserves every last bit of this humiliation. And the next one. And the next one. And the …”

You’re funny Dan! I totally agree with you, but for the totally opposite reason.

I’ve noticed the biased mainstream media making references to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) quite a bit lately. “The Southern poverty Law Center did this,” “the Southern Poverty Law Center said that,” and so on.

So I started to think, “Who the heck is this Southern Poverty Law Center and what’s their deal?

Well, here we go …

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s own website: “The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the SPLC works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality.”

As usual, like it is with most of these supposed do-gooder organizations, their cause sounds quite noble. I can envision Captain America imparting this creed to the other members of the Avengers.

The truth is that this mission statement is a “star spangled” mask worn by the organization to cover up the ugly truths of what they actually hope to accomplish.  

The truth is that, “…because the SPLC depends on racism, violence, and division for its revenue and reason for being, they have reason to want more of these terrible things, or at least the appearance of more. Their vested interest is not in solving and reducing these social issues, but in maximizing and perpetuating them.”

“The truth is that the SPLC spends the vast majority of its funds on its own salaries and savings rather than the public good.”

Joy Pullmann, executive editor for The Federalist, also recently reported, “The SPLC is basically a very effective scam organization that uses images of the KKK in the white outfits, and now, Donald Trump’s policies, to scare donors into sending them piles of money. Trump-mongering has been very good for their business. The SPLC’s latest IRS form, from 2017, shows that “Gifts, grants, contributions, membership fees” to SPLC almost tripled, from $50,297,653 in 2015 to $132,044,179 in 2016, of course the year Trump ran and won the presidency. Investigative reporters and actual anti-hate-crimes groups say SPLC is largely a shell organization that uses masterful marketing techniques to rake in big-time profits for its staff, especially founder Morris Dees.”

I wonder what their contributions will be up to in 2017?

Its two largest expenses are propaganda operations: creating its annual lists of ‘haters’ and ‘extremists,’ and running a big effort that pushes ‘tolerance education,’ from a very liberal point of view of course, through more than 400,000 public-school teachers.

But what is the single biggest effort undertaken by the SPLC? Fundraising, of course. On the organization’s 2015 IRS 990 form it declared $10 million of direct fundraising expenses, far more than it has ever spent on any legal services.”

Last year, a Washington Free Beacon investigation showed SPLC keeps millions in offshore accounts, which charity experts labeled “a huge red flag” and “completely unacceptable.”

The truth is, it’s funny how almost all of the “haters” and “extremists” the SPLC tends to identify are white and/or conservative.

The truth is that when the SPLC says, “The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society,” what they really mean is that they are dedicated to fighting those who do not agree with their liberal and/or anti-American socialist agenda.

The truth is that when the SPLC says, “…the SPLC works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality,” they mean they are working towards the day when their liberal ideals are basically unopposed.

The truth is that the SPLC can always fall back on the old reliable hate groups, the Klu Klux Klan and Nazi related groups, and the old rallying cries of racism and prejudice. But these groups and ideals are now just used as “cover” by the SPLC.

“SPLC is entitled to its own opinions, but it is not entitled to respect for them or a pretense that they are fair, neutral, unbiased, or free of self-serving motivations.”

In an expose, Harper’s Bazaar magazine said, “Former SPLC lawyer Gloria Browne, who resigned to protest its behavior, “told reporters that the Center’s programs were calculated to cash in on ‘black pain and white guilt.’” They are not targeted to need or effective social solutions.”

“Treating SPLC as a good-faith arbiter of public discourse grants speech police power to an organization whose business model is to make money from poisoning public discourse. Those who care about free speech and justice will grant no such power to folks who, like SPLC, exploit these noble and necessary ideas for their own selfish, cynical, socially destructive ends.”

The SPLC actually did earn a level of credibility back in the 1970’s (40 years ago) fighting some anti-KKK cases. Sadly, that credibility has long been sold out and co-opted.

So there you have it. The next time you hear a reporter or a commentator refer to the Southern Poverty Law Center, you know where they are coming from.

The definition of “fascism,” according to Merriam-Webster, is: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

We hear members of the biased mainstream media, democrats, and liberals in general throwing around the word “fascist” quite a bit lately, when referring to President Trump, conservatives, republicans, and hardworking Americans in general.

But which political party “exalts nation and often race above the individual?” I think the liberal democrats made their position clear when they berated Kanye West from all angles when he said, “You don’t have to agree with trump… I don’t agree with everything anyone does. That’s what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought.”

Which political party stands for an all-encompassing “centralized autocratic government?” Which political party never saw a government regulation, program, or department they didn’t like? The democrats would have to plead guilty in this case as well.

Which political party promotes “severe economic and social regimentation?” I don’t think the democrats can disavow this either, seeing their rallying cries are more “socialistic” than “capitalistic.” In fact, the word “capitalism” is a dirty word in the liberal world.

Lastly we come to “forcible suppression of opposition.” Do masked individuals, dressed in black, terrorizing conservative speakers and conservative students at numerous college campuses, come to mind? Chalk another one up for the liberals!

We have talked about this liberal strategy of accusing others of the exact same thing they’re doing, in order to deflect attention away from themselves. Well, here we have another fine example of that.

The great American novelist, Ernest Hemingway, commonly demonstrated his feelings of solidarity with the allied groups fighting the fascists, in and around World War II. Many people at the time, around the world, felt that it was a moral duty to fight fascism, which they feared may take root world-wide if not checked. This view was given voice later in the well-known poem First They Came for the Jews, attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent German Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

You have to take your hat off to Pastor Niemöller. How many people have you heard about who were brave enough to be an “outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler?”

Nowadays, Pastor Niemöller would probably be shouted down, or not be allowed to speak at all, on most American college campuses.

Think about that.

I hear that The United States, Canada and Mexico are close to coming to an agreement, regarding a new version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

President Trump has reiterated to our neighbors that, “The United States has been taken advantage of for many decades on trade, and those days are over. The United States will agree to a fair deal, or there will be no deal at all.”

Before any deal here is finalized, Mr. President, let me respectfully suggest that we tie an escalating tariff percentage to goods from Mexico based on the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico that we are forced to deal with.

This concept would, in effect, transfer all of the Mexican border problems onto Mexico, saving us the headaches and all of the money to boot. It would make it worth their interest to secure its northern border with us.

This would also allow you to deal with the Mexican immigration and border problems without having to fight the democrats in Congress, and the Congress in general, at least for the time being.

Mexico would have no choice but to go along with this, as they really have no leverage in the matter.

Please contact The White House and let President Trump know that you support this idea! Just go to https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ and voice your support.

Isn’t that one of main things we go to a university for, to be exposed to a diversity of thought?

Recently we have seen how a certain “strain” of liberal thought has latched onto the brains of many of our students, like some sort of symbiotic creature, and it refuses to let go.

It seems that many in this recent generation have an especially high need to be accepted and to belong, which overrides their common sense and their ability to think independently.

This “strain of extreme liberal thought” is propagated via our friendly liberal professors, who then instigate their minions to spread the liberally accepted word and to set the proper tone within the student population.

Congratulations to Harvard University, whose student newspaper recently called-out the university’s liberal bias, and pushed for more ideological diversity on Campus.

According to Newsmax and Fox News Insider, “A recent study showed that nearly 40% of top liberal arts colleges have NO conservative professors! None! The editorial board at Harvard’s newspaper noted that approximately a whopping 1.5% of respondents to their news staff’s survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences identify as conservative or very conservative, compared to 83.2 percent who identify as liberal or very liberal.”

“’These statistics do not reflect America, where 35% of Americans identify as conservative, 23 times the fraction of the faculty survey’s respondents, and 26% identify as liberal,’ the board wrote, arguing that ‘stark divide’ has harmful effects on Harvard’s ability to train the nation’s future leaders, and it also risks alienating current and potential conservative students.”

“The editorial board called for the school to hire professors with diverse beliefs and backgrounds, and to encourage initiatives to promote conversations in which mainstream campus beliefs are questioned.”

“By doing so, we expand the diversity conversation to make as many students feel as welcome as we can.”

Wow, what a novel idea! How long has Harvard been in business? SINCE 1636!!! So it took them only 382 years to figure that out. However, keep in mind this is just the student newspaper talking. Actual university policy has yet to be addressed.

…In other Harvard University news, of course no good deed goes unpunished, as former U.S. Secretary of State and presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, is honored for her “life of service” by the university.

According to Colleen Walsh, a Harvard Staff Writer:

“Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday received the Radcliffe Medal, which annually honors a recipient whose life and work have had a “transformative impact on society.”

(She has had a “transformative impact on society” alright. She has shown us how you can talk about defending women’s rights, while defending your serial rapist husband at the same time. She has shown us how the law does not apply equally to everyone, especially in her case, and she has shown us how you can get away with just about anything, if you have enough money and the support of “the swamp.”)

“She has lived a life of public service. She uses her fierce intellect and determination to create meaningful social and political change. She displays the courage demanded of those who go first,” the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Dean Lizabeth Cohen told the audience at the Radcliffe Day luncheon, reading the medal’s citation.

(The only “meaningful change” Hillary was really interested in was the increasing bottom line of her checking account.)

“Prior to receiving her award, Clinton, ‘…urged her listeners to speak up and speak out, encouraging them to defend the importance of a free press and higher education…’”

(The “free press,” of course, being code words for “the liberal biased mainstream media,” and “the importance of a higher education” as it relates to the proper liberal indoctrination.)

“’We are living through a time when fundamental rights, civic virtue, freedom of the press, even facts and reason, are under assault like never before, but we are also witnessing an era of new moral conviction, civic engagement, a sense of devotion to our democracy and our country,’ Clinton added in her closing remarks.”

(Yes Mrs. Clinton, many of our fundamental rights, laws, government institutions, and democracy in general are “under assault,” thanks to you and your “swampy” friends. Your flowery words are in direct opposition of your tawdry behavior.)

Harvard’s motto is “veritas,” which is Latin for “truth.” That’s a noble motto and a noble goal for any institution of learning. In the case of choosing to honor Mrs. Clinton, however, I feel they have chosen an example of what not to aspire to, or of what not to do.

According to Enews’ Samantha Schnurr & Billy Nilles, “A digital backlash arose after Twitter users caught wind of a tweet (Roseanne) Barr issued on Tuesday and subsequently deleted, reading, “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.” The “vj” referring to Valerie Jarrett, a former senior advisor to former president Barack Obama, and was a response to a tweet which accused Jarrett of helping to cover up alleged wrongdoings for the Obama administration.”

Valerie Jarret is Black, and also a card carrying member of “the swamp,” so, of course, anything derogatory, especially anything racist at all, that is said about her, will be met with the harshest of responses by the biased mainstream media.

Roseanne is paying for her sin, and rightly so.

However…, there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy and selective outrage here.

ABC is owned by Disney. Disney and ABC were quick to cancel Roseanne’s newly rebooted show because of her tweet, and again, rightly so.

But…, then we have the case of “talking head,” Keith Olbermann, who just signed a new deal with sports network ESPN, which is also owned by Disney.

Go back up and re-read Roseanne’s tweet, then come back here and take a gander at some of the things Mr. Olbermann has chosen to tweet about our President, and at our President, President Trump, but was then hired by Disney CEO, Bob Iger.

“You will not destroy the country, @realDonaldTrump. Go f**k yourself. – @KeithOlbermann

“We all heard you, you unhinged bigoted antisemite. You blamed the Nazi Terrorists AND their victims. Resign. Flee. Go f**k yourself, Racist!” – @KeithOlbermann

“Go f**k yourself. Then see a psychiatrist.” – @KeithOlbermann

“Turn in your citizenship, you disloyal f**k.” – @KeithOlbermann

“So people are dead and instead of condolences, you’re attacking the elected authorities, you little rat-faced git? Go f**k yourself, junior.” – @KeithOlbermann

Replying to a tweet by Ivanka Trump about there being no place in our society for racism, white supremacy, or neo-nazis:

“Then tell your racist. White supremacist, neo-nazi father to get the f**k out of our society.” – @KeithOblermann

“You and @potus can go f**k yourselves, you racist Nazi f**k. – @KeithOlbermann

I think you can see why President Trump is a little upset, and many other people are more than a little upset, at the double standards displayed here.

I personally feel that Keith Olbermann’s tweets far, far exceed Roseanne’s tweet, on every level, especially just the vulgarity of the tweets. Olbermann’s tweets are actually quite disturbing, in my opinion.

What do you think?

Mr. Iger should be ashamed of himself for hiring an individual like Keith Olbermann.

The Board of Directors at Disney should take a long, hard, look at who they have as the CEO of their corporation.

The Disney name has always represented more to me than just another company. I felt that Disney held itself to a higher standard, a standard that would NEVER put up with a hateful individual like Keith Olbermann.

Go back and read Olbermann’s disgusting tweets, then tell me you’d offer him a job, doing anything, much less interacting with the public.

Then, let’s play the “what if” game. What if Olbermann had tweeted the same things at President Obama?

Disney and ESPN have not responded to requests for comment on critics accusing the companies of having a double standard regarding comments by their employees.

Thanks to Brian Flood at Fox News for contributing this article as well.

This is my commentary on a recent article by Victor Manuel Ramos for Newsday, titled: NAACP urges renewed commitment to diversity, equal rights.

“Civil rights advocates from Long Island branches of the NAACP on Monday called for a renewed commitment to diversity, and criticized a divisive national political climate they said affects efforts toward inclusion and equal rights in the region,” reported Mr. Ramos.

(Translation: The NAACP is urging a renewed commitment to reverse racism and promoting the interests of Black people at the expense of any other racial group. Their real goals are not diversity and equal rights. Their real goals more than equal, and more than diverse. The NAACP has to make sure there are perceived issues here, regarding race, or there is no need for the NAACP, which means their organization loses power and money to sustain its members that live off of “racial injustice.” They also refer to a “divisive national political climate.” I can’t recall a more divisive climate than the divisive climate that reared its ugly head under former President Barack Obama. I don’t recall any complaints by the NAACP about President Obama at that time though. Hmmm. I wonder why?)

Mr. Ramos continued, stating, “Some advocates were critical of President Donald Trump’s leadership, his statements on issues affecting minority communities and his restrictive immigration policies.”

(What leadership would that be? The leadership of President Trump that has quickly led to Black and Hispanic unemployment rates reaching record lows? That leadership? Black unemployment fell to 6.6 percent in April of 2018, the lowest dating back 46 years, to 1972, while the jobless rate among Hispanics dipped to 4.8 percent, matching the lowest rate ever! Is that the leadership the NAACP is complaining about? And what exactly are these “statements on issues affecting minority communities” that they are referring to? I don’t recall any negative statements that would affect minority communities. If anyone out there can provide me some examples, I’d be more than happy to give them equal time. As far as “restrictive immigration policies” go, I guess that is a matter of semantics. Yes, President Trump does tend to want to follow the laws regarding immigration. So if you want to define the law restrictive, then I guess his policies could be considered restrictive as well.)

“Not only should Congress denounce the president’s statements, they should continue to support our history of inclusion and pass the ‘Dream Act’ that would grant legal status to young immigrants brought here as children,” said William King Moss III, president of the Islip Town Branch of the NAACP, who contributed to Mr. Ramos’ report.

(Again, what exact statements should the Congress denounce? Like I said before, if anyone out there can provide me some examples of these horrific statements, I’d be more than happy to give them equal time. Regarding passing the ‘Dream Act,” I believe it was the Democrats in Congress and the Senate who were not willing to accept a very gracious offer from President Trump regarding “the dreamers.” Instead, they preferred to continue playing “political volleyball” at their expense.)

“This political environment has only increased our fight against injustices,” said the Rev. Larry Jennings, president of the NAACP’s Huntington Branch, and another contributor to Mr. Ramos’ article, “particularly to counter those who feel that they now have a free pass to be openly oppressive against people of color.”

(Translation: This positive economic environment, created by President Trump, has made it much harder for us to make it seem like everything is so bad.)

(Then we have the part where he says, “…those who feel that they now have a free pass to be openly oppressive against people of color.” Ah, excuse me, but if anything, the left, and the biased mainstream media feel they have a “free pass” to be openly aggressive against conservatives, and independent thinkers, of any color.)

I would love to hear from Mr. Ramos, the NAACP, or anyone else who would care to respond to my commentary here. I always welcome my readers’ feedback.

The simple answer is, “of course it is.” But let’s take a closer look at “affirmative action.”

Dictionary.com defines “affirmative action” as, “A term referring to various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of African-Americans, women, and other minorities in jobs and educational institutions historically dominated by white men. The policies usually require employers and institutions to set goals for hiring or admitting minorities.”

“Affirmative action” begs the questions, “Does racism towards one group correct racism towards another? And, can discrimination against one group correct discrimination against another group?”

I would think that an honest, critical thinking, person would answer “no” to both of those questions.

Generally speaking, do you agree with the statement that, “Business and workforce populations should ideally reflect society.”

I believe that a fair-minded person would generally agree with that. I believe that a fair-minded person would also believe that this “reflection of society” would kind of sort itself out without any extra influence or assistance. A fair-minded person would probably not think it was fair to give some special treatment in order to achieve the proper “reflection of society.

The truth is, however, that some racial groups really don’t care about fairness for everyone…, only “fairness” for themselves.

The National Football League (NFL) is a good example of this.

There were concerns earlier this year that The Oakland Raiders had not complied with “the Rooney Rule” during the process of hiring its new head coach.

First of all, what is “the Rooney Rule?” The Rooney Rule is an NFL policy that requires league teams to interview ethnic-minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. It was established in 2003, and variations of the rule are now in place in other industries. The rule is named after Dan Rooney, the former owner of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers and former chairman of the league’s diversity committee.

The league found the Raiders did not violate the rule, however, this ruling is being challenged by the Fritz Pollard Alliance, which is a group that says it promotes diversity, but it really promotes the hiring of African-Americans.

Why do I say this? Well, let’s see.

First of all, let’s take a look at our society in The United States. The racial make-up of our country is as follows:

62.0 % White

17.8 % Hispanic

12.5 % Black

5.3 % Asian

Currently there are 6 Black head coaches in the NFL. There are 32 teams, so 18.75 % of the head coaches in the NFL are currently Black.

Based on the demographics of the United States, African-Americans are more than well represented, yet they have this rule.

In fact, if we look at NFL players, Black players represent 70% of the players, White players represent only 25% of the players, and Hispanics and Asians make-up only 5% of the player population.

Where is the concern about the disproportionate representation of the races amongst players?

Does anyone doubt that the African-American community and their promotional groups would have no problem if 100% of the players and coaches were Black? 70% obviously doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) has an even greater imbalance.

In fact, in an article by J.R. Gamble for “The Shadow League” website, he complained that, “In a league that is nearly 75 percent Black, it’s unacceptable that the head coaching ranks are comprised of just 20 percent African-Americans.”

How so Mr. Gamble? It’s almost funny how he is using one disproportionate figure to make his case for another figure. How could any Black person or Black promotional group be unhappy with a sports league where 75% of the players are black and 20% of the coaches are black, when only 12.5% of the general population is Black?

That’s why I said earlier, “The truth is, however, that some racial groups really don’t care about fairness for everyone…, only ‘fairness’ for themselves.”

Of any racial group, it would seem that Hispanics have a right to question their representation in the NFL, as well as many other areas of our society.

We won’t even get into the gender inequalities in these areas at this time, even though women represent 51% of our population. This is an analysis for another day.