Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 31, 2006
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Returning to the party of Lincoln
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A strange thing about President Bush's recent address to the NAACP annual meeting was the lack of pretense that this was anything but a partisan affair.

Referring to NAACP president Bruce Gordon, Bush said, "I don't expect Bruce to become a Republican _ and neither do you."

The president, later in his remarks, added, "I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African American community. For too long my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party."

This causes me to ask two questions. First, if the president felt that he was effectively addressing the black national chapter of the Democratic Party, what was he trying to accomplish? Second, is it really accurate to say that the Republican Party "let go of its historic ties with the African American community?"

On the second point, with due respect to our president, I think it is the African-American community that has let go of its historic ties to the party of Lincoln.

When I think of Lincoln I think of emancipation. That bold stroke of the pen finally did what this nation was struggling to do for a hundred years _ liberate its black slaves.

Lincoln believed in freedom _ freedom for all.

The agenda of the Republican Party of recent years, an agenda fought tooth and nail by the Democratic Party and by the NAACP, has been an agenda of emancipation.

Let parents choose where to send their child to school. Emancipate them from the tyranny of a public school monopoly. Let working Americans take ownership of their social security contributions and build equity in their own retirement savings accounts. Emancipate American workers from the tyranny of the payroll tax and government-controlled retirement.

Lincoln took two great lies head on when he emancipated the slaves. The lie that one man should or could control another's life. And the lie that the African slaves could not be free.

It is the greatest of ironies that both these great lies animate the opposition of the Democratic Party _ and the NAACP _ to emancipating reforms like school choice and private retirement accounts. They believe that government and politicians should control the education choice of private citizens and should control savings and retirement funds of poor people. And they don't believe that African-Americans can be free and take care of themselves.

So what was President Bush trying to accomplish with his address to the NAACP?

Maybe he thought that he could plant the seeds of change by showing up, being civil and cordial, and slipping in a few remarks about choice and ownership.

But, realistically, it was a waste of time. For the NAACP leadership, Bush's gesture was a sign that he might be ready to accommodate them, rather than vice versa. More money, more programs, more statements giving credibility to racism as the cause of poverty.

What will it take to get African-Americans back to the agenda of Lincoln and a belief in freedom and in themselves?

For one thing, understand that much of the NAACP's power and influence results not because it monolithically represents black America, but because so much of white America thinks it does. As columnist George Curry points out, the NAACP has been exaggerating its membership for years. According to Curry, there are less than 300,000 dues-paying members of the NAACP. That's out of a population of 38 million African Americans, 13 million of which voted in the last election.

Millions of dollars of corporate funds go to support the NAACP each year, both as result of intimidation and the mistaken belief that the NAACP is the single national organization representing black interests. The result is that corporate America plays a major role in financing the NAACP's ongoing campaign to keep blacks as Democrats (despite campaign finance reforms that supposedly prohibit this) and on the government plantation.

Note that President Bush's address to the NAACP didn't touch on social issues, such as preservation of traditional marriage, which are of enormous importance to black Christians nationwide. He knows that the NAACP is a regular plaintiff in lawsuits trying to overturn traditional marriage.

Nor did he talk about the enormous success of welfare reform, 10 years old this year, which liberated millions of young black women and their children from welfare dependence. Black liberals uniformly opposed this reform, claiming then, as they do today, that young black women could not be freed from government dependence and take care of themselves.

Lincoln sought the advice of black abolitionist Frederick Douglass on getting the word of emancipation to the slaves in the south. Today's Frederick Douglasses, those many conservative black voices around the country who believe in black freedom and dignity, must be the vehicles for change today.

It certainly won't be the NAACP.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Awakening
I think many Blacks are coming to the same conclusion. But more need to speak out. Only big names like Bill Cosby get any audience. The Main Stream Media only pay attention to the screamers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But keep the message going. People will eventually understand the being a slave (which we all are) to the government is not the way to personal fullfilment.

"White guys can't jump?!!"
HAVEN'T READ ANY RESPONCES TOUCHING ON WHY THE PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO WADE OUT IN A KNOWN POOL OF ALLIGATORS, AND EVEN SHAKE HANDS WITH, AND SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT SOME OF THEM?

PERHAPS IT REALLY WAS PURELY MEANT TO HAND DELIVER A "DOCUMENTENTABLE" OLIVE BRANCH TO BLACK VOTERS. OR, MAYBE, IT WAS A PARTING SHOT AT "THE BOND BOMBER" AND HIS ILK, OF ACID SPEWING CRITICS TO "PUT A SOCK IN IT!"

WHO REALLY KNOWS, AND IN TOO MANY BLACK CIRCLES, WHO CARES?

BUT, CONSIDER THIS, AS MISS PARKER'S COLUMN ILLUDES TO. FORGET THE NAACP!!! (OR "N DOUBLE A CP", AS OUR PRESIDENT PUT IT) THIS WHOLE GIG OF PRESIDENT BUSH MIGHT EVEN RESULT IN PUTTING A NEW BALL IN BLACK AMERICA'S COURT.

WILL BLACK AMERICA STILL KEEP LETTING SOME RABBID CAREER MUCK RACKERS "SLAM DUNK THEIR MOUTHS OFF", OR WILL THE BLACK AMERICA THAT CARES SHOW THEY GOT GAME?

bold and brave
wonderful message.
I wish our president would be as bold
and forthright.

Historical Revisionism
The author wrote:
"When I think of Lincoln I think of emancipation. That bold stroke of the pen finally did what this nation was struggling to do for a hundred years _ liberate its black slaves.

"Lincoln believed in freedom _ freedom for all."


First the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States. Lincold had no authority to unilaterally free the slaves within the Union.

Second, the Emancipation Proclamation freed ALL of the slaves in the South, not JUST the black slaves.

And third, it is well documented that Lincoln's first and primary concern was the preservation of the Union (at all costs). He even stated that if he could keep the Union intact WITHOUT freeing the slaves he would.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a goal of the war. Quite the contrary. It was a pragmatic strategic stroke of genuis.

European nations were on the eve of recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation and were poised to send aid and possibly troops. That could very well have turned the tide in favor of the South. Lincoln knew this.

Lincoln also knew that Europe was "looking the other way" with regards to the South's slaves. By freeing the slaves in the South he (A) MADE slavery an issue of the war and (B) MADE the South the slavery "culprit". And in doing so, he made it very uncomfortable, politically, for Europe to endorse the Confederacy.

NAACP
CMoore, You're wrong about Lincoln and the slaves -- the South sesceeded from the Union BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO KEEP THEIR "LONG-HELD TRADITION" OF SLAVERY. The southern leaders at the time, Calhoun among the loudest, thought that slavery was the only way to keep their economy going with cotton and tobacco.
I recommend you read Bill Bennett's book "America, The Last Best Hope". He has extensive chapters on slavery, Lincoln, Fredrick Douglass, and the Civil War. Our president was right about Abe Lincoln.
Hey Flagwaver, where are you on this?

Party of Lincoln?
Lincoln was a Whig. Even when running on the republican ticket, he admitted such. I’m sure I am paraphrasing but, he said, “Let us be honest. We are all disgruntled Whigs. Ours (membership in the GOP) is a marriage of convenience, not love.” The Whigs liked term limits and pork. That Lincoln freed the slaves is correct in a manner of speaking, but his sole motivation was to win the war. More to the point, why do so many blacks believe that the GOP and the administration don’t care about them? Why do so many feel estranged from the system? It’s too easy and wrong to blame the “leadership” in the community. It goes much deeper and is not necessarily grounded in fact. Remember that perceptions are strong and don’t have to rely on fact. The neo-conservative movement has stumbled on this issue since the Regan Administration and not made progress. Star Parker adds nothing to the debate.

Re: NAACP and MORE Revisionist History
Maryland and Delaware were both slave states AND part of the Union. Neither seceded. Maryland did not abolish slavery until 1864, two years AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation.

Additionally, the Confederacy abolished their African Slave trade in the Confederate Constitution during the war (though not yet freeing currently held slaves).

While fears of abolishinists WAS a factor, it was NOT the cause. High, "unfair" tarrifs on southern goods traded north and a southern disdain for what was perceived as an "oppressive" federal government, an insistence on "State's Rights" and limited Federal government, were the greatest factors leading to secession.

While slavery was AN issue, it was not THE issue as revisionists would have you believe. Neither was Lincoln an abolitionist. He was a Unionist.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

None, I'm on the way!
I'm here now! CMoore is right when he says that Lincoln was committed to keeping the Union intact,with slavery if necessary. And CMoore is right in saying that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the Southern states and did not touch the border states that were supporters of the Union cause. However, Cmoore seems to be implying that the only reason that Emancipation was declared was out of political 'genius' and that Lincoln did not believe in the cause of freedom, which I believe to be wrong. Slavery was always an issue in the Civil War, and had been one for quite some time before hostilities broke out. slavery had been a major issue since the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857, with the Republican party being established around that time with strong abolitionist membership. And as early as 1856, the Republican Party ran John C. Fremont for President on a platfom that was nearly all anti-slavery in response to the Kansas-Nebraska act. So when Abraham Lincoln ran for and won the Republican nomination, he knew that a great deal of the platform of the party was a commitment to ending slavery.

But as far as Ms. Parker's column, that is neither here nor there! What Ms. parker is saying is that the Republican Party never turned its back on Black voters, that it never stopped being a party of freedom; the black voters turned their backs on the party that had waged a war in great part for their benefit. Consider that during Reconstruction it was the Republican party that made sure that black voters were allowed to vote and protected those rights, and it was during Reconstruction that Blacks began to hold elective offices in the south. into the 1920's, blacks were still loyal to the Republican Party, and the Republican party was actively seeking input from black leaders in helping them deal with racial issues in the country. In fact Teddy Roosevelt held Booker T. Washington in great esteem, getting his help in speech writing, formulating racial policies, and getting Mr. Washington to serve as a 'get out the vote' person for the Republicans, with Mr. Washington serving basically as President Roosevelt's unofficial liason to the black community. It was not until the late 1960's when the Democrats starting giving away government freebies that the myth began to take hold that the Democrats were the friends of the Black people; indeed, the Democrats were the ones opposed to all civil rights legislation during that time and were the ones trying their best to discredit the leaders of that movement, such as the Kennedy brothers allowing the illegal wiretaping of Martin Luther King. The problem is that the revisionist historians today,in trying to burnish the legacy of JFK are all too willing to ignore the facts to protect the myth, and the NAACP as a rcipeint of Democrat Party largesse is more than willing to go along in order to keep their seat at the table of power within the party. that is what the column is about, not whether or not the Emancipation Proclamation was an act of pragmatism or not. And by CMooe's reasoning I would have to conclude that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything, because as subjects of the British Crown, the originators of the document had no authority to declare themselves free of the Crown. But we all know that that document held great power in the colonies, because the people believed in freedom; the same must be said of the Emancipation proclamation because it rallied the populace in the cause of freedom, and in so doing helped to preserve the Union. And if the argument is that it did not really free anyone, I suggest that everyone read Booker T. Washington's autobiography Up From Slavery to see just what that meant to the slaves!

None: Is that good enough for you? :-)

Flagwaver
You are correct. Slavery was AN issue, but it was NOT a pivotal issue. As Lincoln stated, his object was to preserve the union, even if it meant keeping slavery. The EP was not a goal of the war. Preservation of the Union was.

As I pointed out, European recognition of the CSA would likely have turned the tide. Lincoln was aware of that and, seeking to preserve the Union, needed a way to forestall, if not completely prevent European intercession. Issuing the EP MADE slavery a PIVOTAL issue. It shifted the political foci of the war from other topics, making slavery the PRIMARY focus rather than just AN issue.

As Lincoln said, he did what he did to preserve the union. I'm sure, if freeing the southern slaves, in and of itself, would have helped the cause, then he would have done it sooner. My conclusion may be wrong, but it certainly seems... timely... that he did not issue the EP earlier in the War but, rather, waited until Britian and France were on the verge of recognizing the CSA.

Lee's loss and withdrawal after Antietem gave the British and French pause, convincing them to reserve action. That gave Lincoln the opportunity to announce his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (September 22). With slavery a pivotal Britian and France, already concerned about backing a possible "loser", could not in good conscience support a "slave" nation and remained out of the conflict.

baseballdr
I agree that blacks started to flock to the Democrat Party after the passage of the civil rights legislation of the 1960's and the Great Society programs of the same time and I touched on that in my post. But, I do not think that it is irrelevant to point out the true history of the Republican Party vis a vis Blacks when the President goes to the NAACP and says that the Party left Blacks, when the exact opposite is true. That is what the column is about and what my post was about and it is imortant to point out that the Republican party has historically been on the side of freedom, both in the civil rights era and still today.

And for the posters that are using Lincoln's quotes to show that he was not really opposed to slavery and was only concerned about preserving the Union, check out Lincoln's "House Divided" speech that he delivered on July 16, 1856 to see where he and the Republican party stood on the issue of slavery. It can be found @:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm

The Republican Southern Strategy
In American politics, the "Southern Strategy", refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states through its racial appeals to white southerners.

The phrase, Southern strategy, was coined by Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips. For the years 1948 - 1984, the southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democratic Party became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the Presidential elections 1960, 1968 and 1976. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, which critics have argued was intended as a signal of opposition to federal civil rights legislation for blacks. This strategy was largely a success, and the South is now considered a Republican stronghold in national elections.

This is the strategy that has gotten the last four republicans presidents elected.

C'mon Flagwaver
Flagwaver wrote:
". . . And for the posters that are using Lincoln's quotes to show that he was not really opposed to slavery and was only concerned about preserving the Union . . ."


Your posts generally reflect a much greater degree of intellectual clarity. I'm disappointed.

No one, particularly not I, has said that Lincoln's quotes, "show that he was not really opposed to slavery and was only concerned about preserving the Union".

I pointed out that Lincoln's first and foremost concern was preservation. That's kinda what he meant when he wrote, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union." That's a far cry from being his "only" concern, however, and, in fact, nothing that I nor anyone else has written could be construed to even suggest that Lincoln was NOT opposed to slavery.

Flagwaver
There is no question that over the last 30 years, the Democratic party has unwittingly advanced policies that have hurt blacks. However, the Democratic Party played an instrumental role in the civil rights movement, and the old Democratic Party must be given credit for it. Truman, JFK, LBJ and the non-Dixicrat Democratic Congressional caucus instituted revolutionary civil rights reforms. Liberal ideologues and intellectuals were certainly the most impassioned advocates of black suffrage. Remember, Southern Democrats switched partys largely because they opposed their party's civil rights agenda. Hence, immediately after signing the Civil Rights Act, LBJ remarked to the scum of all scum Bill Moyers, that he had lost the South for the Democrats for a generation.

Left Angle strikes again:
"This [racial appeals to white southerners] is the strategy that has gotten the last four republicans presidents elected."

This is a patently inaccurate, ignorant and hateful assertion. Please point to a SINGLE example--yes, just one--of a Rebublican presidential candidate employing such a strategy. Thanks.

CMoore
I meant no disrespect and did not mean to offend you in any way. I have heard that type of argument so often and supported in such a way that I allowed my sensitivities to get the better of me. I have enjoyed our debates in the past and look forward to more in the future. Please accept my mea culpa in ascribing any ill motives to you and your post.

Thrasybulus: The Truth Hurts...
The Republican "Southern Strategy" is largely responsible for the elections of Republican
Presididents Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 & 2.

Go back and look at all those red states in the south in each of their election victories, especially in the last two for Bush.#2 the democrats didnt win a single southern state.

The fact is that Racist Southern Dixecrats, who supported "states rights vs civl rights for blacks", left the Democratic party in droves during the 50's and 60's and eventually became
Republicans.

Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Strom Thurmond's conversion highlighted the transistion.

The bottom line is that the Republican Party is
loaded with southern/midwestern bigots. It's just that the way they go about it is much more subtle nowadays. They just dont come out and say it in the open as they used to, it's codified.

Read your history and check it out for yourself.
Just put "republican southern strategy" in your
favorite search engine.

Left Angle
Once again, you have demonstrated your utter inability to cite CONCRETE evidence in support of your arguments. I can't really blame you, since the patently fallacious nature of your argumnents make them indefensible.

There are racist Republicans, Democrats, whites and blacks. Give me ONE example of a Republican presidential candidate using a racist strategy to win votes. The fact is, you can't. Thank you, try again!


Thyashabulus: I just did...
Nixon, Reagan, Bush# 1 & 2 were all elected due to the Republican Southern Strategy. All you have to do is read about the "Dixiecrat Movement"
and the "Republican Southern Strategy", which for reason you refuse to do. Probably because
you know it proves my point.

Thrasybulus
I never said that the Democrat Party was not instrumental in the passage of the 1960's civil rights legislation, nor did I say hey did not deserve credit for it. But the fact of the matter is that Republicans were overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation that was passed. The final vote tally for the CRA of 1964 broke down as follows:
Senate Democrats: 49-17, House Dems: 217-54
Senate Republicans: 30-1, House GOP: 111-20
So by the numbers, the Republicans were more in favor of the legislation than the Dems. As for the exodus of the southern Democrats to the GOP, that came after the CRA and VRA were passed mostly in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The two people used as examples the most are Jesse Helms, but Helms left the Democrats in 1970 and although Thurmond left in the mid 1960's, by 1970 he was openly supporting integration as the correct national policy. As for liberals being the most passionate in agitating for civil rights may be true, their passion may well have gone for naught if not for Republican support in the Congress!

And I don't think that Democrat party support of abortion on demand, their adamant opposition to welfare reform, and staunch opposition to school choice plans are at all unwitting. These are positions that they have chosen to take and the NAACP, in order to protect their seat at the Democrat Party table, have followed along willingly to support policies that have had a clearly negative effect on the black community. They have failed us, along with their Democrat party masters, and should be pushed aside so that Blacks can make their own way in this world. Opportunity is out there, but the NAACP is not trying to help us achieve success; it is simply trying to keep us dependent on the government and thus assure their own continued prominence in the media and the Democrat party.

If anyone wants to see what else i have to say about this , just click on my name here and take a look at my blog. I have an essay about this very issue there; feel free to leave any comments there that you may have.

Flagwaver..I disgree
that you say the democratic party has failed
democrats and also that they want to keep blacks'
dependent on the federal govt.

I think that you, as well as most, if not all repubs/cons, confuse "equal opportunity" with
"entitlement, preferences, and handouts".

WHAT BLACK PEOPLE AND MINORITES WANT IS FOR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS TO ENFORCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.

Which they typically ignore as retribution/revenge for the lack of support of blacks. It's as if they are saying "screw the blacks, we dont need em, they dont vote for us anyway."

Lincoln Is Conservative Anathema
No conservative should want to emulate Lincoln. Not only did Lincoln impose a strong central government that contradicts the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, he opposed free trade and the separation of state and economy. Lincoln is what can be called a Yankee Republican rather than an American Republican. As such, he had far more in common with Hitler than Jefferson Davis did--contempt for federalism, a war of aggression, and armies that made war on civilians, such as Sherman’s.

Ms. Star is also abused of the myth that the Yankees didn’t accept the “peculiar institution” when they ratified the Constitution and that Lincoln’s “stroke of the pen” was a massive taking of private property without due process. Simply put, the Yankees chose to launch a bloody war of aggression rather than obey the Constitution and buy the slaves’ freedom.

Given that Reconstruction abolished consent of the governed for a decade the claim that Lincoln believed in “freedom for all” is pure hokum. His war of aggression was fought to prevent the exercise of popular sovereignty in the South after his federal government lost the consent of the governed there. It also enslaved the South as a colony through protectionist tariffs.

The simple truth is that the Yankees, with the Abolitionists leading the way, refused to recognize that a large segment of the black population constituted an unassimilable minority that refused to accept the values of American society. This is at the root of American anti-black sentiment. The denial of this simple reality is why the so-called civil rights era of the twentieth century went off the tracks and became the corrupt white guilt-black power game described by Shelby Steele. The purpose of white guilt is to assure that a large segment of American blacks remain an unassimilable minority for decades to come. As Steele has noted, Bush’s appearance at the NAACP convention was an expression of white guilt.

Ms. Star’s claim that American blacks are ready for freedom is also dubious. Freedom is characteristic of the white America that the black power types and their followers reject. Nowhere is this expressed more strongly than in blacks’ support of Communism--nine out of ten black voters believe that supporting Communism (as well as supporting the enemy in wartime) is acceptable behavior and the 2004 Paul Robeson postage stamp makes it abundantly clear that they see the crimes of Stalin as part of their “heritage.”

Ms. Star doesn’t seem to be aware of the fact that in Missouri v. Jenkins the Supreme Court has transmuted the base tyranny of taxation without representation into “civil rights.” This is not “freedom” in any form recognizable to Americans.

Ms. Star misses the point that the contemporary NAACP is the fulfillment of Lincoln’s dream--fascistic and anti-freedom.

Left Angle...
You are definately showing your colors today. You may want to take a look at the prominent positions that conservative black americans have held under GOP leadership. You lash out at conservatives who speak out against no longer needed policies such as affirmative action and eo. The fact that the dem's fight to keep these programs in place shows that they have no faith and trust in the black community and continue to hold them as lower class. They believe that these programs are the only way that blacks (and women) will ever be able to hold a job above that of laborers, if that doesn't display dependency on gov't I don't know what does.

As long as black americans keep listening to likes of Sharpton and Jackson and thier ilk, they will continue to struggle. The conservatives are the party of personal responsibiliy and prosperity for all. That comes with competition and holding to strong family values.

If you wander why I keep refering to Black Americans, I do not believe in the whole hyphenated American BS unless you do in fact hold a dual citizenship. This is another reason for the downfall of the American society and sense national pride,

Left Angle
Saying that Reagan, Bush, etc. used this "strategy" is NOT a concrete example. Its demagoguery.

So, Republican presidents don't enforce civil rights legislation? Really? Again, you are being ignorant. Why? Because you can not back up such an overtly eroneous assertion.

Liberal Democrats like Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy and are not for equal opportunity; they are for entitlments, handouts, and racial quotas which are of course tantamount to racism.

Again, left angle, if you expect to be taken seriously on this forum, you need to sharpen your debate skills and practice intellectual honesty. At this point, you're on the same level as Jesse Jackson and other extremists in terms of being able to articulate a cogent, honest argument.

Flagwaver
"I meant no disrespect and did not mean to offend you in any way. I have heard that type of argument so often and supported in such a way that I allowed my sensitivities to get the better of me. I have enjoyed our debates in the past and look forward to more in the future. Please accept my mea culpa in ascribing any ill motives to you and your post."



No problem. No offense or disrespect taken =) (and I apologize if I implied that it was). I was merely trying to clarify.

=)

Thyasabulus: Get real...
first of all, I could care less about what YOU think about me. I dont write for YOU.
furthermore I dont take you that seriously because you speak in groupspeak and youre very ignorant about U.S. history.

The Dixiecrats: is a fact actually happened.

The Republican Southern Strategy: is also a fact..

All you have to do is look it up an READ.
I'm not going to do the work for you.

o.k. if you want a more specific example that your little mind can comprehend.

Bush#2: The Willie Horton ads.

Illeg Warrior: That's your opinion...
and I totally disagree.

What rankles me is that you repubs/cons in this forum "actually believe" that racism and racial discrimination and its problems no longer exist
and have been largely solved and that we live in a society where each person is judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That is a very ignorant dishonest position to take because it isnt based in reality.I find that totally unbeleivable that you think this.

MLK would probably be extemenly pissed off at the way repubs/cons have taken his words out of context and twisted them to mean something that they dont.

Maybe you believe in blind faith that e.o and affirmative action are no longer needed because you trust those whites who are in control to "do the right thing"..I dont and apparently the vast majority of minorities dont other wise the recently resigned Voters Rights Act, wouldnt have been neccessary anymore either using your logic. lol

Left Angle:
Any google on "Dixiecrats" or "Republican Southern Strategy" is just going to come up with a biased Leftwingnut view on things. For example, Wikipedia's article on "southern strategy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy notes at the top that "the neutrality of this article is disputed".

When deciding for myself which party is most racist and full of the biggest racists and panderers and oppurtunists, one can note that the Republicans have put more minorities period, not just blacks, in higher positions than any Democrat president ever has. Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, Carlos Guiterrez, Elaine Chao, Alphonso Jackson, just to name a few. I also note which party's proponents pull out the "race card" more often. In my book, use of the "race card" usually indicates the user is themself a racist.

Are the Republicans perfect? Of course not, they have scandals, sleazy deals, and problems just as much as the Dems. But it is the level of hypocrisy, the chutzpah, of the Dems that leads me to vote Republican.

How can I vote for a party who ran an avowed Anti-War person on the platform of War Hero? The man served 1 month and hauled ass ASAP, and then attended many an anti-war rally protesting the very war he was a supposed "hero" in.

How can I vote for a party that supports abortion on demand yet calls capital punishment for convicted murderers "barbaric"? A party that fights for those who "cannot fight for themselves" yet is responsible for the murder of millions of babies being LEGAL.

A party that touts its aversion to raicsm, yet not only has Robert Byrd still IN that party, but has Barack Obama cozying up to him!!! You want to talk Dixiecrat, Byrd takes the cake!

Left Angle
Great. You finally cited ONE example, the "Willie Horton" ads.

Here's the breakdown: the Willie Horton ads were one hundred percent honest, one hundred percent fair, and one hundred percent relevant. Despite left-wing indignation and demagoguery, the ads entailed no racist undertones. Here are the facts:

Presidential candidate, Gov.Michael Dukakis vetoed legislation that would have made first degree murderers ineligible for weekend furloughs, i.e. unsupervised weekend passes. As a result of this veto, murderer Willie Horton, who was serving a life sentence, was released from prison for a weekend. (Yes I know, this appears unthinkable) He broke into a couple's home, tortured a man and raped his fince. The so-called "Willie Horton" ads thus accurately and persuasively argued that Michael Dukakis is a murder's best friend (my words, not the ad's.)

There you go, Left, I just shattered the one example you offered. The fact is that the modern Democratic Party perpetually plays the race card, divides the country along racial and class lines, and lies about a "Southern strategy". The fact that you can not offer a SINGLE credible example is indicative of the farce that is that "strategy". Moreover, the modern Democratic party does not stand for equal opportunity. It stands for overtly racist policies that hurt whites, blacks, and mot importanly America.

Seriouly though, check out wikepedia for the truth about Dukakis and Willie Horton It just might open your eyes.

Lincoln the Emancipator
There is no doubt that Lincoln is shrouded in a dense fog of historical mythology. We're all taught in school growing up that Lincoln freed the slaves and that the Civil War was a great moral crusade. Of course, this is almost entirely untrue, which any serious scholarship would recognize.

In the first place, Lincoln was clearly a racist. In several speeches and letters, Lincoln refers to the inherent inferiority of blacks, of how obviously superior the white man is to the black man, of how the black man could never be the white man's political or social equal.

In 1847, Lincoln actually defended a slaveowner in court, arguing that his several slaves should be returned to him. Is this the deed of a great emancipator? He supported Illinois' black codes, which harshly discriminated against blacks, and supported an amendment that would have barred free blacks from the state of Illinois.

And Lincoln played a major part in proposing the original 13th Amendment, which would have prevented the federal government from ever interfering with slavery where it existed. Lincoln was perfectly content to leave southern slavery in place.

It is true that Lincoln and his party didn't want slavery to spread beyond the southern states. It was not for moral reasons, however, but for political ones. They wanted to reserve the territories for free white labor. They did not want to have to compete with slave labor.

Also, extending slavery would have expanded Southern political power, with the 3/5ths clause of the Constitution artificially inflating its population. This was a threat to the northern Republican party, which was intent on checking the growth of Southern power. These are the real reasons.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a calculated political move, as others have noted. His own Secretary of State, Seward, mocked it for not freeing a single slave. Even in Union-controlled areas of the South, where the Federalists could have freed slaves, they didn't. These areas were exempted. The E.P. freed no one. Yes, slavery fortunately was ended as a result of the Civil War. But it was only an indirect reason why it was fought in the first place, at least for the North. The myth of Lincoln is almost impossible to penetrate, however, and this from a New York yankee.

Lincoln the Emancipator
There is no doubt that Lincoln is shrouded in a dense fog of historical mythology. We're all taught in school growing up that Lincoln freed the slaves and that the Civil War was a great moral crusade. Of course, this is almost entirely untrue, which any serious scholarship would recognize.

In the first place, Lincoln was clearly a racist. In several speeches and letters, Lincoln refers to the inherent inferiority of blacks, of how obviously superior the white man is to the black man, of how the black man could never be the white man's political or social equal.

In 1847, Lincoln actually defended a slaveowner in court, arguing that his several slaves should be returned to him. Is this the deed of a great emancipator? He supported Illinois' black codes, which harshly discriminated against blacks, and supported an amendment that would have barred free blacks from the state of Illinois.

And Lincoln played a major part in proposing the original 13th Amendment, which would have prevented the federal government from ever interfering with slavery where it existed. Lincoln was perfectly content to leave southern slavery in place.

It is true that Lincoln and his party didn't want slavery to spread beyond the southern states. It was not for moral reasons, however, but for political ones. They wanted to reserve the territories for free white labor. They did not want to have to compete with slave labor.

Also, extending slavery would have expanded Southern political power, with the 3/5ths clause of the Constitution artificially inflating its population. This was a threat to the northern Republican party, which was intent on checking the growth of Southern power. These are the real reasons.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a calculated political move, as others have noted. His own Secretary of State, Seward, mocked it for not freeing a single slave. Even in Union-controlled areas of the South, where the Federalists could have freed slaves, they didn't. These areas were exempted. The E.P. freed no one. Yes, slavery fortunately was ended as a result of the Civil War. But it was only an indirect reason why it was fought in the first place, at least for the North. The myth of Lincoln is almost impossible to penetrate, however, and this from a New York yankee.

Left Angle
I "beleive"(as you spelled it!)
that Flagwaver is "the man"!!

Lincoln, the emancipator
It sounds as though some of you want to deny that the reason for the very founding of the Republican party was opposition to slavery--the first Republicans were mostly breakaway Whigs who felt that party wasn't doing enough to end slavery.

And if Lincoln was no threat to the institution of slavery in the South, why did his election prompt the Confederate states to secede?

Ark ashamed of bill and left angle
I don't know which one of you guys is nuttier. I guess your presence here makes this a fair and balanced forum.

Left Angle & Ark Ashamed of Bill
Equal opportunity means just that, having the same chance to succeed or fail as everyone else. Most Blacks that I know only want to be able to compete by the SAME rules as everyone else, not be given a leg up by the use of affirmative action programs. And by demanding more and more set asides, affirmative action hires, and preferences the Democrat Party and its auxilary, the NAACP has failed us Blacks. By doing this our accomplishments are always suspect and we come to rely on government programs to get ahead. That is not how you treat a group that you want to see succeed; these programs are out there to keep Blacks beholden to the Democrat Party, and the NAACP shamefully participates in this travesty.

As for your trying to speak to what Blacks want, please lest me take a more realistic stab at it, since I am Black and may know more than about that subject than you. When you strip away all partisan labels and the like, nearly every Black person I know does not sit around complaining that we need the President to enforce civil rights laws, we tend to sit around and talk about getting the government out of our personal lives, out of our wallets, and letting us have room to breathe free. That is what we want, not another big government program that allows for more intrusion into our lives.

As for your rant about the President not enforcing civil rights laws, please give me one solid, verifiable instance of a President not enforcing the laws we have on the books. I do not want some he said she said garbage, nor some 'conventional wisdom' either; I want it like Dragnet...Just the facts!

As for AAoBill, while I agree that there are some, maybe even many Blacks that tend to lean towards socialism, I think you may be a off in your sentiments about most blacks being socialists. If the actions of the few are to be used to judge the many, then I could say that most whites are socialists and are not ready for freedom because there are a heck of a lot more whites that are communists than blacks! So do not presume to say that Blacks are not ready for freedom, or that freedom is the exclusive provence of white males. I dare say that that type of attitude is the type of pablum that gives rise to the beliefs of Left Angle and others about conservatives being racists. Since I don't know you I can't say that you are a racist, but your post here could lead a person to jump to that conclusion.And if you are going to throw out statistics such as nine out of ten Blacks support Communism and believe that it is okay to support the enemy in wartime please give us a link to your data so that we can verify it; otherwise it can only be viewed as your own fevered rantings in support of your obvious animosity towards Blacks. Further, the last time I checked the decision to put Paul Roebeson on a postage stamp was made by the US Postal Service, not by some referendum vote of all the Blacks in America. Blacks had no more to do with that stamp than whites did in getting Elvis on one. So please take your old time, secessionist leaning, Dixie-Crat ranting back to wherever you came from; the conservative movement has moved on from the types of sentiments you express and does not wish to dragged into the muck and mire of racial animosities with you!

baseballdr -- The Kennedys and MLK, Jr.
For starters, nowadays the use of the word “racism” should be augmented with a definition. The traditional definition is the belief that certain people are inherently inferior due to genetic characteristics shared by the group of which they are members. The Left has redefinmed “racism” to mean any criticism of favored minority groups, even when the criticism is factual and justified. It eventually will become any opposition to socialism.

MLK, Jr. not only had ties to Communism, he was Communist-influenced through his principal adviser Stanley David Levison, a “secret” Party member. Levison had been an official Party member from 1945-55 and was so highly placed that he was involved in handling the Party’s million per year subsidy from the Soviets. Until March 1953 this meant Stalin was funding the CPUSA.

Hoover’s FBI learned about the Soviet funding circa 1951 when it turned two brothers who were Party members, Jack and Morris Childs, in Operation Solo. This is how Levison came to the FBI’s attention. When the FBI learned of King’s affiliation with Levison it put two and two together and brought the matter to the Kennedy’s attention on the eve of a 1963 congressional vote on a civil rights bill. This precipitated a White House meeting with the civil rights leaders, at the end of which John and Bobby took King aside. When King was informed that Levison and another associate, Hunter Pitts “Jack” O’Dell, King told them he would break his affiliation with them. He lied. O’Dell was eventually let go, but Levison never was.

According to the archives of the First Chief Directorate of the KGB, Levison and O’Dell WERE “secret” Party members. See Andrew, Christopher with Mitrokhin, Vasili. “The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB.” New York : Basic Books , 1999, p. 290.

Given King’s subsequent promotion of the Communist victory in Indochina and his characterization of the civil rights movement as “class struggle,” Hoover’s suspicions were justified. While King was not a Communist per se, he was Communist-influenced and promoted Communist goals.

The sources I have used are David Garrow’s “The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.,” Andrew and Mitrokhin, and Richard Gid Powers’ “Broken: The Troubled Past and Uncertain Future of the FBI.”

Dixiecrat-bashing Is Pro-socialist
flagwaver,

I never said that blacks are socialists or Communists. I did say that contemporary American blacks are overwhelmingly Communist-tolerant as shown by the shameful 2004 Paul Robeson postage stamp and their overwhelming support of pro-Communist leaders and politicians. The sad truth is that using the plight of blacks as an excuse for expanding the power of the federal government beyond that allowed by the Bill of Rights has been a long-term trend in American history. Conservatives are supposed to support constitutional governance, not undermine it as Lincoln did by turning America into a prison of states, just as the tsarist and Soviet empires were prisons of nations.


The tolerance of Communism that characterizes contemporary American blacks impeaches the notion that ALL blacks are ready for freedom. I never said that all blacks weren’t; I did dispute Ms. Star’s assertion that ALL blacks were. Those who believe that antisocial behavior is an authentic expression of their culture clearly aren’t. Using the recent presidential elections as a guide, only eleven percent are. Both Bill Clinton and John Kerry are unrepentant for supporting the Communist victory in Indochina. This means that: 1) they supported Communism; 2) they promoted mass murder and genocide; and 3) they supported the enemy in wartime (the Vietnamese Communist state was a legal enemy of the U.S.). Voting for candidates who are unrepentant for supporting the Communist victory in Indochina is implictly saying that all three of the aforementioned are acceptable behaviors. My recollection of the last presidential election is that Kerry got 89% of the black vote, and I suspect that Clinton got 90% or more. Hillary Rodham, who also supported the Communist victory in Indochina, most likely will be the 2008 Democratic nominee, and her share of the black vote will fall in this range. I would also point out that contemporary blacks see Clinton as one of their own.


Of course, persons of other races who are Communist-tolerant as just as unready for freedom as Communist-tolerant blacks. In absolute numbers there are more American whites who are Communist-tolerant, but the proportion is much lower. Until such time as the proportion of blacks who vote for pro-Communist policians approximates that of the rest of the electorate, claiming that blacks aren’t disproportionately Communist-tolerant simply isn’t credible.


Postage stamp designs are submitted to the Postmaster General by a fifteen-member citizen’s committee, whose members serve at the Postmaster General’s pleasure. While the ultimate responsibility for the stamp lies with President Bush, claiming that the stamp wasn’t issued either due to influence by the black leadership or to appease the same in the corrupt white guilt-black power game simply isn’t credible. The stamp is part of the “Black Heritage” series, and it is hard to conclude anything other than that contemporary blacks see the crimes of Stalin, a man every bit as evil as Hitler, as part of their “heritage.” I have yet to hear any black person say “not in my name” in regards to being associated with Robeson (listed as a Party member on the CPUSA Web site). You could have been the first.

Using the term “Dixiecrat” is problematic. This brings to mind President Bush’s shameful lack of leadership for not pointing out that Stalin-sympathizer Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party presidential campaign was the most evil in 1948 rather than Strom Thurmond’s. For anti-Communists, anyway. The problem is that when one objectively evaluates the rival claims made by the integrationists and segregationists at the start of the civil rights era, the integrationists have been proven largely wrong and the segregationists proven largely right. Nowadays people who advance the same arguments used by the integrationists about equal rights and judging people by the content of their character are denounced as “racists.” Even MLK, III supports the reverse discrimination known as “affirmative action.”

The validity of the segregationists’ predictions is evidenced by the fact that the civil rights movement morphed from a movement to assure all Americans of their rights into an ethnic special interest movement to promote socialism. This is not to justify segregation, but to point out that if the Communist influence had been recognized and dealt with that things would have turned out differently. You may not have noticed that nearly all of the contemporary black leadership supported the Communist victory in Indochina, including the NAACP head Julian Bond before whom President Bush recently renounced all of his conservative principles.


I recently read Shelby Steele’s “White Guilt,” and it was a real shocker. According to Steele, contemporary black America sees America’s military effort to prevent the Communist victory in Indochina as stripping it of the “moral authority” to criticize blacks for anything. Worse, nowhere does Steele disagree with this assertion. Steele is implicitly arguing that people who condone mass murder and genocide are morally superior to those who find it repugnant.


I am of the opinion that conservatives do not condone Communism. Period. The contemporary civil rights leadership is pro-Communist and should be rejected by anyone who claims to be a conservative. If you check out their names on www.DiscovertheNetworks.org it should disabuse you of the notion that there was no Communist influence in the civil rights movement. To claim that the conservative movement has “moved on” by playing the corrupt white guilt-black power game and renouncing its conservative priciples as President Bush has done is absurd.

Conservative agenda vs.black advancement
It sounds as if many who post here did not live through the years prior to, through, and just after the Civil Rights Movement. My political perspective now is not what it was during those times, because the political landscape has morphed into a different agenda. However, those who want Africana people to move to the right, must recognize and admit the colossal racist actions of the right during a time that black people were bravely demanding to end high & low impact "terrorist" techniques that had been routine behavior adopted by every day whites across this nation designed to "keep them in line". I remember the tightnest in my stomach when white men in Chicago intimidated complete black strangers on the street and on the buses. I remember when black men could not walk down Cicero Blvd. Christian whites, many whom now identify as Republican, created "church academies" rather than allow their children to go to school with black children. Unfortunately for today's politics, liberals used their influence to change laws that removed black people from the back of the bus, opened doors to jobs formerly reserved for "whites only", and opened the doors to colleges & universities. Today's conservatives hate affirmative action, but what was the conservative's remedy to hundreds of years of criminal treatment by our society against the very people upon whose backs the opportunities for "immigrants" were provided?
To this very minute we don't hear our outraged conservatives address the veritible sea of horrific injustices that African Americans have withstood, not the least of which is millions of acres of land having been stolen from them all across this nation without redress, then nor now. The only answer is for conservatives is to repent on the issue of race, and appeal to African Americans as Christians. Black America is a church-based culture. Black people understand God's demand forgiveness. Most true black Christians are beginning to question their political allegiances based on their realtionship with God. However, you cannot expect a people who now live in neighborhoods, command jobs that were once unheard of prior to affirmative action; a people who live with relative freedom from the fear of "white viciousness" that once permiated our daily lives to embrace conservatives whose only mantra is "end affirmative action". Despite the fact that I have personally grown to detest liberals, I know, like millions of professional African Americans, including Colin Powell & Condolezza Rice, that a whole generation of black college & university degree holders would not exist if we simply had allowed "business as usual" to maintain it's traditional stance. I know I would have never graduated from Harvard had it not been for affirmative action. We can see what has happened with black enrollment in California's state universities as a red flag to our embracement of political conservatives. We, as a group, have not been middle class very long. We are still "just hanging in there", attempting to build stability. Conservatives must find a way to ensure that we don't have to put our meager advancements at risk to embrace the conservative agenda. You won't accomplish this through self-serving, self-protecting shallow acts of political opportunism. Genuine God-inspired, patriotic outreach is the answer.

Ronald Reagan: Racist Repub Prez?
Ronald Reagan was beloved by repubs/cons here in the U.S., however his relationship with Black Americans is in the pattern of opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, so characaterized
recent Republican Presidents Nixon, Bush#1&2.

here is a excerpt from:

"Reagan: A Contrary View"
by Joe Davidson

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5158315/

"After taking office in 1981, Reagan began a sustained attack on the government’s civil rights apparatus, opened an assault on affirmative action and social welfare programs, embraced the white racist leaders of then-apartheid South Africa and waged war on a tiny, black Caribbean nation.

So thorough was Reagan’s attack on programs of importance to African Americans, that the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, an organization formed in the wake of Reagan’s attempt to neuter the official U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said he caused "an across-the-board breakdown in the machinery constructed by six previous administrations to protect civil rights."


for more deeper detail read the whole article.

Flagwaver is my hero
Flagwaver, I finally had time to read your comments today, and you are eloquent in your prose, and accurate in your history. Thanks for the shout-out. Now, if you can convince more blacks to think as you do, conservatism will reign for years to come!

braveheart Misunderstands Conservativism
braveheart,

The “conservative agenda” is individual freedom, limited government, preservation of American values, a strong national defense, and constitutional governance.

You fail to define “black advancement,” but to judge by the policies advocated by the contemporary black leadership it involves an omnipotent federal government that intrudes into every aspect of our lives, moral relativism in which anything goes in personal morality, a foreign policy of weakness and appeasement, the belief that America is resposible for all the evil and the world and doesn’t deserve to be defended, the belief that whites rather than blacks are responsible for black advancement, and the elimination of the rule of law and constitutional governance to promote socialism. Your complaint about conservative opposition to the reverse discrimination known as “affirmative action” indicates that you agree with this vision of black advancement and fail to understand that reverse discrimination is specifically prohibited by the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was enacted to assure the legal rights of all Americans including blacks. Furthermore, when the civil rights movement began its advocates specifically promised the American people that there would be no reverse discrimination. They lied. Your failure to recognize this indicates that you either have a profound ignorance or profound contempt for constitutional governance. Any American who respects constitutional governance should hate reverse and forward discrimination, even if it is called “affirmative action.”

The conservative response to alleviate the black economic deprivation is to limit the size of government to allow the economy to grow and create economic opportunities for ALL Americans. The conservative response is to try to break the stanglehold of the incompetent, corrupt management of inner city schools so black children can get a REAL education. The conservative response is to beat back the invasion of illegal aliens to raise wages for low-income Americans. You fail to appreciate that the taxes needed to finance the social programs demanded by the black leadership choke off the economic growth that would provide employment for blacks.

Some of us did live through the years before and during the so-called civil rights era and we know that you are misinformed, at best, in insinuating that blacks were forced to sit at the back of the bus in the north, which prided itself for having an integrated, racially just society and castigated the officially segregated South for failing to emulate it.

You fail to recognize that American conservatives are not the “right” in any meaningful sense, since American conservatives are not monarchists. And I doubt that you understand that fascism and National Socialism are not “right-wing” either. Tradional American constitutional governance, the kind the black leadership wants to overturn, is the opposite of “right-wing.” You would do well not to insult us by calling us the right.

You also fail to admit that the principal reason for anti-black sentiment in this country is the rejection of traditional American values by many blacks, as indicated by the leftist authors Francis D. Adams and Barry Sanders in “Alienable Rights” (New York: HarperCollins, 2003). The notion that there is a counterculture of “blackness” that rejects the American values confirms this. Your call for American conservatives to repent smacks of the corrupt white guilt-black power game and indicates that you belive we are chumps.

Your use of the term Christian is also problematic. Conservatives believe that Christians don’t promote or condone mass murder and genocide, that Christians don’t tolerate adulterous clergy, that Christians disapprove of having children out of wedlock, that Christians should be honest, that Christians should eschew anti-Semitism, that Christians know that government social programs are not charities funded with voluntary donations, that Christians shouldn’t make excuses for criminals who are clearly guilty, that Christians shouldn’t foment riots and pogroms, that Christians should abhor Communism, and that Christians don’t advocate a big government that exploits its citizens and objectifies them. The so-called Christian black clergy does not share these views and practice the opposite.

Patriotic people don’t vote for candidates who were disloyal to this country in wartime. Nine out of ten black voters do.

This country has done significant damage to itself to mollify the complaints of the black leadership and we have precious little to show for it. I would expect a Harvard graduate to understand this. You certainly aren’t ready to be a conservative, but you sound like a typical Democrat. Try dancing with the ones that brung you.

White Guilt-Black Power Is Not Christian
braveheart,

I forgot to mention that Christians believe in extending forgiveness when the one who has offended has expressed sincere repentance. Under the corrupt white guilt-black power game there is no forgiveness. Period. Ever.

This is despite the fact that many black power practitioners claim to be Christian clergy.

The flip side is that these types are all too willing to extend forgiveness when there has not been sincere repentance. See Bill Clinton. Even Billy Graham did this.


Blacks Directly Honored Robeson
I forgot to mention that in 1999 the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis had an exhibit honoring Communist Party member Paul Robeson. This conclusively refutes the claim that the 2004 Paul Robeson postage stamp was foisted on blacks against their will.

Black and White
The evil of slavery was not limited only to white people. Africans are also guilty. Not all Africans, and not all whites. And not all crimes committed are white on black or the opposite.

Growing up in the 40s and 50s, many black families lived one or two blocks from us. There were never any racial conflicts. They were not "wealthy". Neither were we. Most of the children, black and white, attended local public schools.

Walking home from grade school with my friend one day, a group of about 4 or 5 black girls came along, heading in the opposite direction. Before they passed us, one of them slapped me right across the face. Why? Because she wasn't walking alone (otherwise she wouldn't have had the guts), and simply because I am white.

Then there was a day when I was riding home from high school. The bus, public transportation, held many of our Catholic high school students, with standing room only. A group of public high school students, mostly black, joined us. One of these girls was standing next to me and got her kicks from pulling the hair of one of our school freshman. When the girl turned around, the instigator adopted a look of total innocence. When she tried it again, I just had to confront her...tell her to cut it out.

On other bus ride home, these kids caused such mayhem that my classmates were begging the driver to stop the bus. He did, as soon as he saw a policeman in sight. The police hauled all the troublemakers off the bus. Sorry to say, but they were the black kids.

What excuse did they have? This was a northern city...no history of slavery. Black men and white men had jobs. As a matter of fact a black man held the same station as my Dad, on a different shift.

Many people can testify to the destruction of the neighborhoods in which they grew up, when a particular element of people moved in. That is the truth. Obviously this cannot be blamed on "the cost of a can of paint". It's a lot more than that.

I truly respect and admire every person of every race who works to better themselves and their world. But why should we pander to any of them who won't even try?

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.