"Why I'm A Black Republican"

I found this little gem while looking around on Pinterest.  This video presents Black Republicans/conservatives explaining why they are Republican/conservative.  For anyone who wants to understand, this vid is a short 'n' sweet intro into the "oxymoron" of being Black and Right.  You'll find it enlightening.

Had This Been Michelle Obama...

...there would've been riots in the streets.



Ok, maybe not riots in the streets, but there would've been shrill accusations of racism by the usual suspects had any Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata to bits with a baseball bat.  But let Donna Dewitt, Democrat-supporting president of South Carolina's AFL/CIO, whack a pinata with the face of  South Carolina's Indian-American governor, Nikki Haley, and the self-appointed protectors of minorities are deafeningly silent.  Hmmmm.  Are we supposed to believe that Donna Dewitt's hateful antics were just an expression of political disagreement with Gov. Haley?  Would liberals accept such an explanation if a Republican or conservative bashed a Michelle Obama pinata?  Of course not.  And we conservatives and Republicans shouldn't accept such an explanation for Ms. Dewitt's shameful "fun".   It's time we started calling progressives out on their racism and their hypocrisy.  If they get it thrown back in their faces often enough maybe they'll be put on the defensive for a change and will be forced to retreat from their favorite political weapon: yelling 'raaaaaacist!"  And that can only be a good thing for the country, especially for successful non-white Americans like Gov. Nikki Haley whose triumphs reveal how much America has overcome the poison of racism.  It's high time progressives were made to see that.

Rick Santorum, The Greatest Threat To Black People!

A few nights ago I heard on The O'Reilly Factor about presidential candidate Rick Santorum's remark about not wanting to give Black people more welfare money. My sister also e-mailed a video of Santorum saying his very unpc statement. She titled the e-mail "What a bigot!" Rick Santorum a bigot? Not!

Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?

The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.

A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.

Southern Pride

I saw this on Yahoo! News a few days ago.

Byron Thomas, a Black University of South Carolina Beaufort student who'd been forced to remove a Confederate battle flag (CBF) he'd hung on his dorm room window, was told Thursday (Dec. 2) by University officials that he could display the flag after all. Thomas had put up the banner as a show of Southern pride but was told by USCB's housing office to remove it after several students complained. The University reversed it's decision on advice from its legal counsel, which apparently suggested that the forced removal of the flag violated Thomas' free speech rights. Thomas has said that he might not put his Confederate flag back up due to his parents' disapproval. However, he says he stands firm on his belief that the Confederate battle flag represents pride and that his generation should help make that the primary meaning of the banner.

When I read this story I felt a feeling of validation. I wasn't the only Black person who liked the Confederate battle flag! Like Byron Thomas, I like the CBF. Initially, I fancied this symbol of the South for purely aesthetic reasons. I like the combination of colors, lines, and stars and I love the St. Andrew's cross--the so-called "X"--that crisscrosses the flag. Later, as my cultural consciousness evolved, I came to respect it as a symbol of Southern pride.

Yes, I'm well aware of the Confederate battle flag's association with racism and slavery. But racism and slavery thrived in America under many different flags, including our national banner, Old Glory. In their marches, white racist groups often prominently display Old Glory right along with the CBF. According to the logic of the Confederate battle flag's opponents, that makes Old Glory a hateful symbol of slavery and racism, too. However, most opponents of the Confederate battle flag don't condemn displays of Old Glory as racist. Like most other Americans, they understand that Old Glory symbolizes America in its entirety and don't define it by one or two particularly nasty negatives. I think the same courtesy can and should be extended to the Confederate battle flag. And I think that's what Byron Thomas was doing, in his own way.

I respect Byron Thomas for taking a very unpopular and misunderstood stand. He's right that his generation must redeem the Confederate battle flag from its dark associations and restore it to the symbol of pride it really is. The South, like America generally, is about much more than slavery and racism. And the symbols of the South are, too. So, I say to Byron Thomas, put your Confederate battle flag back in your dorm room window. Let your fellow students see your pride in your heritage. Blacks are Southerners, too, and we shouldn't be ashamed nor afraid to show it. You go, Byron!

Clarence Thomas Redux

It seems that liberals just can't handle the existence of a Black Republican. Tearing down such a creature, especially if he is a popular presidential hopeful, is job 1 for them and that's what they're doing now to Herman Cain with this sexual harassment story. It's Clarence Thomas all over again.

Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.

Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.

The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.

At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.

No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.

Cheering A Black Man...Raaaaaaacist!

I'm watching Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News and he's talking to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain about his 9-9-9 tax plan, among other things. When Huckabee announced that Cain was coming up on the show his mostly white studio audience broke out in cheers. You would've thought that Herman Cain was a rock star. And you'd think that a white, conservative crowd bursting into spontaneous enthusiasm for a black candidate would show that (white) conservatives are NOT racist, and you'd be wrong.

Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.

If you can't believe this, you're not alone.

Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.

Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.

Food For Thought

Question: What do you get when you kill all the white people?

Answer: Haiti

Learn a little history and think about it.

Where's Ben Jealous On This One?

If anyone wants to know where the real racism is in America, take a look at the video below. It'll shock you.



In case you didn't figure it out, these pleasant people are leftist radicals, the folks who're always angrily accusing conservatives of being racists. Here are White people calling for a Black man to be sent back to the fields, to be mutilated, to be strung up, to be hung. Where's Ben Jealous on this one? Why isn't he demanding that the Left expell these bigots from its ranks? Why the silence? If rhetoric half this hateful was merely whispered at a Tea Party rally Mr. Jealous and his leftists friends would've been all over it. White radicals, though, can spew rabid malice against a Black man without the liberal minority protectors batting an eye. Talk about things that make you go, hmmmmmm.

Here We Go Again

Brrrrr! I got so caught up in the big winter storm that's striking well over half the country and pushing temps in my area down to their lowest levels in decades, that I forgot that today is February 1st, the beginning of Black History Month. And I hate that.

I don't like Black History Month. I don't like any of these racial/ethnic history months, ethnic studies, etc.. Liberals would say that minority studies and history months are necessary to right past wrongs and enhance the self-esteem of minority people. I disagree. These things, in my opinion, undermine the whole idea of a shared American identity and are contrary to the spirit of Martin Luther King's assertion that people should be judged by the content of their character and not their race.

When we teach history in schools the accomplishments of Blacks and other minorities should be included as they actually happened, i.e. as an integral part of American history. If a class is learning about inventors, for instance, Black inventors should be included in the same way as White ones, i.e., without stressing their race. Teachers shouldn't emphasize Black inventors as Black inventors. That wouldn't be teaching kids history; that would be teaching kids to like Black people. And that's wrong...and racist. Schools should not promote one race over any other race, not even in the name of racial justice or equality.

If we want real racial equality then educational segregation has to go. We'll never create a colorblind society by constantly highlighting color. It's time to put content of character above race, for real. We can start by saying bye-bye to Black History Month and hello to American history. Period.

Why Isn't This Racist?

Well, the Chosen One worked out a deal with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts. Obama agreed to extend the cuts for ALL Americans, not just the middle class and, exchange, the Republicans agreed to extend unemployment benefits for some people for another year and one month. As compromises go, this one was pretty mundane to me, but not to Obama's liberal base, and that's the interesting part here.

Remember when the Tea Party movement first started? What was the movement accused of? Racism, right? Most of the Tea Partiers were White and that was supposedly prima facie evidence that their movement was anti-Black. After all, what motive but racism could White people have for criticizing America's first Black president? White criticism equalled racism; that was the formula, until just a few days ago.

Obama's agreement with the Republicans on the tax cuts has enraged his liberal base. Even now, they are in a virtual revolt against their erstwhile messiah. For the last several days White politicians have been all over the tv lashing out at Obama. And no one's accusing them of racism. Indeed, the very people who were sanctimoniously yelling, "Raaaaacist!" at the Tea Partiers for criticizing Obama are now yelling, "F--k the president!". But the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Jeanane Garofalo are all silent.

This is solid proof that, for the Left, dissent isn't a right but a strategy to advance their agenda. And playing the race card is an intergral part of that strategy. Leftists originally saw criticism of Obama as a threat to their agenda and tried to discredit the critics by smearing them as racists. Now, though, Leftists see Obama's tax compromise as a threat to their agenda and are going after Obama for his heresy. But their angry revolt against the Chosen One will never be characterized as racist. You see, criticism of Obama or Blacks generally, is racist ONLY when it threatens the Left's objectives. That's why all those White liberals can unload on Obama without being smeared as haters. It's all about advancing the Left. And you actually thought liberals cared about stopping racism. Silly you.

Not Young, Not Black, Not Latino, Not Female...Not Important

Take a look at the picture above. It's Robert Krentz, the Arizona rancher whose murder at the hands of an illegal alien probably helped secure the passage of Arizona's tough new anti-illegal immigration law. But if Robert Krentz's murder propelled the new law into action, that's all it did.

It didn't move the oh-so-compassionate liberals to express sympathy for Krentz. It didn't prompt the Mexican government to issue an apology to Krentz's family for their suffering at the hands of a Mexican citizen. It didn't stir the lame stream media to demand the feds get in control of the border NOW! No, Robert Krentz's brutal murder didn't inspire any of the above because he was the wrong type of person. Robert Krentz didn't belong to any of the categories of people, articulated by Barack Obama, that it's fashionable for liberals to care about. Krentz was an unfashionable victim.

Take a look at the picture above. It's a picure of a human being: older, white, male, and in the mind of a frighteningly large segment of our population, expendable. That's REAL racial profiling. Why don't the liberals condemn that?

English Only Please!

There's something that happens every week at work that really irritates me.

Every Friday morning at work we have a meeting; ok, fine. The meeting is usually short and occasionally even informative; the problem is that the Big Boss always has a Spanish interpreter at the meeting. Everything she says is translated into Spanish for all the Hispanic workers. This upsets me; this is not right.

We are in America, not Mexico. America is an English speaking country. English is the language of American culture and American identity. It is the language of America's history and heritage. English is the language of America's founding documents, her classic art, and her national discourse. English is the linguistic glue that helps to hold this dynamic nation together; it's a key ingredient that puts the "Unum" in E pluribus unum: Out of many, one. In short, English solidifies who we are as a people. For immigrants to become American, as opposed to just being in America, they must speak English. They--and American citizens--are free to use any language they want at home, but they must understand that English is the language of public life and national identity.

Some will say that my view is racist and violates the principles of diversity and multiculturalism. I say no. Multiculturalism and diversity aren't always and inherently good. When they weaken national cohesion and encourage the Balkanization of the nation they are not only bad, but dangerous. Having an English only policy in the public square, including work, can help put a check on diversity and multi-culti inspired disunity and parochialism. If immigrants want to be American as they claim, they should have no problem with the primacy of English in America.

And my view isn't racist. What's racist is the expectation of many Latinos that they should be catered to in their native tongue, regardless of the inconvenience or unfairness to anyone else. Hispanics aren't the only people at my job--or in America--whose native language isn't English. There are Asian and African immigrants who work at the warehouse. However, at our Friday morning meetings the Big Boss never has interpreters to translate her words into Vietnamese or Swahili. Why not? I mean, if the demand of multiculturalism is that all cultures should be respected, then shouldn't the Asian and African workers have the meetings in their native tongues? Why are Hispanics deemed the only non-English speakers worthy of translators? Why do they feel themselves to be so entitled? That's the real racism.

The American ideal is equality; everyone is treated the same. All Americans should live up to the same expectations and abide by the same rules. When it comes to language, equality is expecting everyone to use the same linguistic medium of exchange in public life. It's recognizing that America, like every other nation, has it's own history, heritage, and culture that Americans have a right to preserve within their own borders. And immigrants have to respect that. If Hispanics feel they're being victimized by having to speak English they should remember Billy Wilder. Who's Billy Wilder?

Samuel "Billy" Wilder was a renowned Hollywood screen writer and director who wrote and/or directed such classic films as Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, and Some Like It Hot. Wilder was also an immigrant, an Austrian Jew who arrived in America from Nazi Germany via France in 1933. One of the first things Wilder did after arriving in America was learn English. He didn't whine that he was a victim of racism because everything wasn't handed to him in his native language. Instead, Wilder understood that he was no longer in his native country and his native language no longer applied. Wilder learned a new "native" tongue, became a citizen, and then created some of the greatest movies in Hollywood's history. Billy Wilder knew he was expected to learn English and he did. If a White immigrant had to learn English to make it in America, Hispanics have no right to cry "Racism!" when they are expected to do the same.

One of the planks in comprehensive immigration reform is that immigrants/illegal aliens have to learn English. If we're serious about that then we must stop making it easy for immigrants and illegals to function without knowing English. And we certainly must stop catering to one non-English speaking group over all the others. Equality, as stated above, means the same rules and expectations for everyone. Billy Wilder had to learn English, and he was White. Non-Whites can't now demand a different standard for themselves. It's time to kick the translators out of the meeting. English only, please!

My Flag Too

The Confederate battle flag. How so many people love to hate this banner! I used to be one of them, being Black and all, but over the years I've come to really like this much maligned symbol. Before you throw stones at me or call me an oreo, hear me out.

First, I like the Confederate battle flag (CBF) for purely aesthetic reasons. I just think it's a beautiful image. I love the mix of colors, stripes, and stars. I was fascinated to learn several years ago that the stripes in the CBF are actually a form of the cross called the St. Andrew's or saltire cross. This is the cross on Scotland's national flag and was chosen for the Confederacy largely because the majority of White Southerners were of Scottish descent. I believe it was an appropriate choice as the saltire works to produce a most delightful treat to the eyes. But, aesthestics aside, what about the CBF'S history as a symbol of slavery and racial injustice, many will ask. Doesn't the Confederate battle flag's association with racism offend me? In a word, no.

The notion that the Confederacy's battle banner is uniquely linked to racism is something that I've never understood. It's like the people who promote that idea don't know anything about history, or just don't care because they're too busy making political hay out of the CBF. But the fact is that there is nothing uniquely racist about the Confederate battle flag, and those who claim there is are being profoundly hypocritical. If liberals hate the CBF because it supposedly symbolizes slavery and racism, then why don't they hate every flag that has ever flown over a slaveholding nation, and every symbol ever used by racist groups?

I mean, if the Confederate battle flag is to be despised because of its association with the slaveholding South, then what are we to make of the Star and Stripes? America's national flag waved over a slavery practicing country just as surely as the CBF did. It also waved over a country that was steeped in racism long after slavery was abolished. And that racism was not confined to the South. A documentary on Malcolm X revealed that when he was born in Nebraska Klan membership there was "five times higher than in Mississippi". Is Nebraska's state flag hated because of that unsavory fact? Of course not.

And what about the Muslim flags?

Arab Muslims started trading in African slaves hundreds of years before Europeans did. Yet today Arab Muslims aren't ashamed of their flags; they don't look at them as symbols of a despicable past. But if symbols matter, and if moral consistency matters, shouldn't they be? Wouldn't they be?

The hatred of the Confederate battle flag has nothing to do with morality. It's about a liberal, anti-White ideology and I embrace the CBF as a form of resistance to that ideology. Unlike many liberals I'm a genuine anti-racist. I don't believe in being racist against anyone, including White people. So, irony of ironies, claiming the CBF as my own is, for me, part of opposing racism. But there's another, simpler reason why I like the Confederate battle flag.

I like the CBF just because I'm a Southerner. The Confederate battle flag isn't a symbol of the slaveholding South; it's a symbol of the South, period. Black Southerners are Southerners. We are part of the South and Southern culture is as much ours as it is the slaveholders'. Black Southerners are as conservative as White Southerners. We're proud of the fact that the South is known as the Bible Belt. Yes, we've been influenced by the anti-traditionalist ideology of modern liberalism, but we still hold traditional, Bible-based, Southern values as the ideal to aspire to. The Confederate battle flag's haters forget that the CBF represents those now embattled values more than it represents anything else. Those are values anyone, White or Black, can believe in. And that's why, even though I'm Black, the Confederate battle flag is my flag, too.

No Apology Necessary...Again

A couple of days ago the Senate passed a resolution apologizing for slavery. The House did the same thing back in July of last year. When I heard the news about the Senate's resolution on "The O'Reilly Factor" I was disgusted and angry. I felt like screaming, as Diane Keaton did in that pivotal scene in "Godfather, Part 2", "This must all end!"

When are we going to stop this nonsense?! THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO APOLOGIZE FOR SLAVERY!!!!!

Yes, slavery was a cruel thing, a gross injustice; but America wasn't the only nation to practice it. If apologizing for slavery is supposed to be about atonement and moral cleansing then every culture, nation, and civilization that has practiced slavery should issue a mea culpa. Both houses of Congress should pass resolutions calling on every guilty party to repent.

The Muslim world should be called on to apologize for its millennia long trafficking in African slaves. Africans should be called on to apologize for selling their people to the Arab Muslims and the European Christians. Native Americans should be called on to apologize for their involvement in slavery. Black Americans who are descendants of slave owning Blacks should be called on to apologize for their ancestors' transgression. The Egyptians should be called on to apologize for their enslavement of the Hebrews, and on and on it should go. Of course, this won't happen because apologizing for slavery isn't about atonement or moral cleansing. Apologizing for slavery is about getting power and creating socialism.

Repeated mea culpas for owning human beings perpetuates the myth that White Americans were unique practitioners of that sin. That myth keeps many Whites feeling an irrational guilt. Liberals then exploit that guilt to goad Whites into supporting massive government social programs which often disproportionately benefit Blacks and other minorities. Wealth redistribution is achieved without ever uttering the words "socialism" or "reparations". Marxist mission accomplished.

America, it's time to wise up. Continuing to stoke the fires of racial resentment does America no good. The only people who benefit from that are liberals whose power rests on minorities having a constant feeling of victimhood. It is in the name of those "oppressed minorities" that these liberals seek to establish socialism in America. Most Americans don't want socialism and know it's not needed to overcome racism. This country just elected its first Black president, and whether they love or hate Obama most people understand that his election was a great leap forward on the race front. And that's what we need to do: keep leaping forward. That's the only way to achieve MLK's dream of a society where we are judged by our character and not our color. I want such a society; the slavery hucksters don't. Which side are YOU on?

Blacks Behaving Badly

I guess having a Black president just isn't enough for some Black folks. No, they have to go and raise a child rapist and cop killer to the level of a saint before they can feel good about themselves. What am I talking about? I'm talking about those huge wastes of DNA who marched in support of child rapist and cop killer Lovell Mixon in Oakland, CA.

To bring you up to speed, Lovell Mixon was a career criminal and all around monster who shot five police officers, killing four, in Oakland on March 22. Mixon was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon when he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. He shot the two traffic cops then later shot three members of a SWAT team, killing two, while barricaded in an apartment. Mixon was killed in the shoot-out with SWAT. His death at the hands of cops instantly made him a hero to the mentally disturbed segment of the Black community in Oakland. That segment held a rally for Mixon after his much-appreciated-by-sane-people demise. This is sick.

If anyone wants to know what's wrong with the Black community just look at the rally for Mixon. Efforts have been made to rationalize this despicable display by claiming it's a reaction to police "terrorism". Now, I'm sure there's been police brutality in Oakland and maybe it's worse there than any place else in America, but turning a child rapist and cop killer into a heroic victim is the worst kind of race hucksterism. Mixon wasn't forced into a life of crime by police brutality, White racism, or anything else. He CHOSE such a life. And not only did he choose that life but he chose to victimize mostly members of his own community. Yet it was his fellow Oaklanders, the folks he terrorized, who marched in his defense. Again, if you want to know what's wrong with the Black community look no further than this.

Blacks need to wise up. Whatever the wrongs of renegade cops or White supremacists, the hard truth is that more Blacks are killed by their "homies" than by police or the Klan. Every day Blacks are sacrificed on the altar of thuggery by other Blacks. Every day the Black community is ravaged by its own. Blaming this on anyone or anything other than the garbage who is doing it accomplishes nothing. Social justice is NOT served by a mindless adherence to the doctrine of endless victimization. Making a hero out of Lovell Mixon assures the continued debasement of the Black community by sending the message to young Blacks that crime pays, if only after death. Why work, study, obey the law, and strive to succeed when it's the pond scum who get the glory?

The deification of Lovell Mixon is cause for deep embarassment and concern for every Black person. Mixon was a monster; there wasn't a redeeming thing about him. Getting killed by the cops is what he deserved. Getting shunned like the proverbial plague is what Mixon's worshippers deserve. Turning their backs on those racial radicals is the least decent, rational Blacks can do. Honoring true heroes, like Dr. Benjamin Carson or Colin Powell, is also an absolute must. Young Blacks MUST understand that thuggery is not the way to success and respect. They MUST understand that they are victims ONLY if they choose to be. Rallying around a child rapist and cop killer is an exercise in mean-spirited extremism and communal suicide. It has to stop. NOW!

No Apology Necessary. Duh!!!!

When are we going to get past this noxious notion that America is, or has been, uniquely evil in her history and that she needs to atone for her sins by grovelling to every group that isn't White, straight, and/or Christian? Yesterday the ditsy Dems in the House issued an official apology to Blacks for slavery and segregation, as if that was the most pressing issue facing our great country.

Forget sky high gas prices. Forget the refusal of Dems to let America drill for her own oil. Forget the war on terrorism. Forget mounting foreclosures. No, the one thing America must do is apologize for something that ended over 100 years ago. Without that mea culpa the country can't go on! Gimme a break!

Let me tell you atonement crazy, guilt ridden, libtard weirdos something. I wasn't a slave. My parents weren't slaves. My grandparents weren't slaves. My great-grandparents weren't slaves. My great-great-grandparents weren't slaves. To get to anyone in my family who MIGHT have been a slave you have to go back FIVE generations. I DON'T NEED YOUR F--KING APOLOGY!!!!

Representatives, Senators, get on with the nation's business, and that business is NOT apologizing for slavery. America was NOT the only country in the history of mankind to practice slavery, and Blacks are NOT the only people to ever be held as slaves. Slavery is a HUMAN sin, not a sin only of Whites, Christians, and/or Americans. If Blacks really cared about getting an apology for slavery, if it really meant something to them, why aren't they demanding one from the Arabs, who traded in African slaves for over a thousand years? Too bad no one in the House had the cajones to bring up that bit of inconvenient history.

This whole apologizing-for-slavery con is just that, a con, a way to stoke the fire of White guilt which is one of the engines driving the left's lust for big government. Making and keeping Whites feeling guilty works for the left because such Whites become so obsessed with assuaging their guilt that they forget about everything else. They'll support, excuse, ignore, justify, rationalize, and/or vote for ANYTHING in order to do penance for their (imagined) racial sins. What's right for the country takes a back seat to their desperate need to prove they're good Whites.

Well, I don't need any White person proving anything to me. If you treat me right you're kosher in my book. If you don't, you're an a**hole. Even if you're Black. Now go and do what's right for America...and put your racial manners textbook in the trash where it belongs.

Foot In Mouth Disease

So, Jesse Jackson wants to cut Barack Obama's nuts off. While that idea has crossed my mind, too--just kidding!--I'm shocked at the crime that the dear Reverend feels warrants such drastic punishment. It seems that Obama, from Jackson's point of view, talked down to Blacks. How? By supporting Bush's faith-based social initiatives. The fiend! Well, if you ask me it's Jesse Jackson who needs HIS nuts cut off. He should've had them knifed before he fathered that illegitimate child with his young-enough-to-be-his-daughter mistress. The nerve of this guy!

And what's this idea that endorsing faith-based social programs is "talking down" to Blacks? Aren't Blacks supposed to be some of the most religious people in America? Why, then, would they have a kneejerk objection to church-based charities receiving some government funding? I mean, I can understand how some people might think that government money might have too many strings attached and could, consequently, hinder the Church's job of promoting the Gospel. That's a legitimate concern. But to say that Obama is talking down to Blacks by praising Bush's faith-based initiatives is downright delusional.

Jackson, the illegitimate daddy, was also upset with Obama "lecturing" Blacks on morality. Blacks faced more serious problems, Jackson opined, than paternal irresponsibility. Black men who father children and then walk away are just a symptom of the real problems facing Blacks, Jackson believes. This is a classic liberal view. Minorities behaving badly are not responsible for their actions but, rather, are victims of unjust "structures" forced on them by our racist, capitalist society. This view doesn't just provide an easy out for Jackson personally; it is the guiding principle of the entire leftist, civil rights establishment. And Jackson's attack on Obama shows just how intolerant of dissent that establishment is.

I am no Obama supporter. I'm a conservative who believes that Obama is a strident liberal now trying to pass himself off as a moderate. I believe his Father's Day speech on the need for paternal responsibility was part of that strategy. Still, Jackson's attack on Obama was terribly unfair. There IS an urgent need for more paternal responsibility in the Black community, which has an appalling illegitimacy rate. And liberal orthodoxy has no solution for that. Jackson and others like him should abandon their liberalism and return to preaching Biblical morality and values. Then a moral renewal could engulf the Black community and solve its most intractable problems. But then Jesse Jackson and gang would be out of a job, so we know that won't happen. Oh well, it was nice to dream about, if only for a second. And the abandon Black babies continue to cry.

The Anti-Wright

Look at the picture of the handsome man to the left. Know who he is? He's Dr. Benjamin Carson, one of the world's preeminent neurosurgeons. He rose to fame in 1987 when he performed the first successful separation of Siamese twins joined at the back of the head. Dr. Carson shows how far any American can go, and what any American can achieve when they put their mind to it. Dr. Carson's story is remarkable, that's why I call him the anti-Wright.

Dr. Benjamin Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1951, when in-your-face racism still stalked America. His father left the family when Carson was young so he and his brother Curtis were raised by their mother, Sonya. Sonya sometimes worked three jobs to support her sons. Rebellious, hot tempered Benjamin was on his way to becoming the stereotypical Black male failure until his mother stepped in.

Seeing the bleak future facing her troubled son, Mama Carson limited tv time for both Benjamin and Curtis and required them to read and write a report on two library books every week. The boys had to turn in the reports to their mother. That was the beginning of Dr. Carson's salvation. For years he'd hated and done poorly in school. Then one day his teacher asked his class a question about rocks. Carson was the only child who knew the answer, an answer he'd learned from the books his mom had made him read.

Suddenly, Benjamin Carson realized that he COULD LEARN! And with that realization came a thirst for knowledge that propelled him through middle school, high school, and university and eventually landed him in that operating room separating those little twins. And what really makes this story amazing is that Benjamin's mother, who'd required him and his brother to turn in book reports to her, had only a third grade education and COULD NOT READ. The book reports had been for her sons' benefit, not hers. By making them read books and write about them Sonya Carson was making her boys learn AND making them love to learn. She was also teaching them the discipline they'd need to be successful in all of life, not just school.

Dr. Carson, who survived a bout with cancer in the '90's, continues to distinguish himself in medicine and has also become a successful speaker and author. He especially seeks to inspire young people to achieve their intellectual potential and develop high character. To that end Dr. Carson created a "creed" which he calls Think Big. Follow this "creed" and you stand a good chance of being a successful and moral human being. Here it is*:

Think Big

T is for Talent. God has given you intellectual talent. Develop it and think of the careers where it will be useful.

H is for Honesty. Live an honest life and you won't have to worry about skeletons coming out of your closet at the worst time.

I is for Insight. Learn from the experience of people who've already gone where you want to go.

N is for Nice. Be nice to others and they will be nice to you.

K is for Knowledge. Knowledge makes you a valuable and needed person whom others will pay to keep.

B is for Books. Books, not television, are where you get knowledge.

I is for In-Depth Learning. Learn for the sake of learning, not just to impress people.

G is for God. Never get too big for your Creator.

This is the stuff Rev. Wright should be teaching in his church, not that the-government-is-out-to-get-you junk. All of us has a choice. We can choose to Think Big and become an inspirational success like Dr. Benjamin Carson, or we can think small and become a loud mouth high priest of the cult of grievance like Rev. Wright. I choose to Think Big. I choose to be an anti-Wright. What's your choice?


*This is a paraphrase from the info on the website http://www.achievement.org/.

I Wanna Be Oppressed Like This!

Take a look at this house. It's a $1.6 million dollar, 10,000 square foot minimansion being built in a ritzy Chicago suburb. Dig that entry way! And it's got a cool $10 million dollar line of credit attached to it. Oh, and did I tell you it belongs to Jeremiah Wright? Yes, THAT Jeremiah Wright.

It seems that Obama's former pastor is as big a hypocrite as Jimmy Swaggart. While preaching Black liberation theology and denouncing "middle classism", the dear reverend is quite happy to retire to a tony house in an overwhelmingly White gated community. I guess he couldn't find a Black neighborhood good enough for him. Apparently, it's ok to live with rich White people so long as you trash them in your sermons, thereby showing that your heart is still with the homies in da 'hood.

Ok, I'll be fair to Rev. Wright. This house isn't technically his; it's being built for him by his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. But still, this is the man whose "gospel" is that America is irredeemably racist and Blacks suffer great oppression here. Indeed, all Black folk's problems are the fault of Whites. Rev. Wright preaches this belief in spite of the glaring fact that his own life contradicts it. But why let a little thing like truth get in the way of the lucrative trade of race hustling? Obama's pastor will enjoy every inch of his home's 10,000 square feet. He'll enjoy every stroke on the golf course with his new, pale neighbors. And I'm sure he'll enjoy that $10 million dollar line of credit. Ahhhhh! Oppression never felt so good!

Black History Month

I hate Black History Month. I know; that's an inflammatory thing for a Black person to say, but it's true. I hate it. Why? Because it's so damned artificial and encourages a culture of grievance among Blacks.

Black History Month (BHM) was started by Dr. Carter G. Woodson for the positive and innocuous reason of educating Americans about the contribution of Blacks to this nation. That's great. But as a child I noticed that all I ever learned about Black Americans during BHM was how oppressed they were. In school and on tv everything centered on the Black struggle to overcome. There was very little teaching about Blacks' actual accomplishments except for the obligatory mentioning of George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman, the only Blacks who seemed to do something besides struggle to overcome.

And then, after weeks of being practically force fed stories of struggle and hardship--poof!--it was over. March first came and with it a return to "real" history which didn't include an obsession with Blacks. All during February I learned how evil segregation was but once February was over the school went right back to intellectual segregation. This is why I feel that Black History Month is artificial and encourages Blacks to have a perpetual chip on their shoulders.

If Blacks are full Americans and contributed to the development of this country the same as Whites, then their history should be taught the way it actually happened: as an integral part of American history. There should be no instructional apartheid, with a month for Blacks, another for women, yet another for Hispanics, and so forth. And what children learn about Blacks--and other minorities--should highlight their successes and accomplishments as much as their oppression. Children should be taught, for instance, that most Black families were intact, two parent households even at the height of segregation and racism. Therefore, Whites are not to blame for the current disintergration of the Black family.

Absolving Whites of responsibility for the individual and communal ills of Blacks won't be a popular move. Many Blacks like the sainthood that comes with being perpetual victims of Whites. And a lot of Whites take a masochist delight in doing never ending and totally unnecessary penance for the sins of their ancestors. So intergrating Black history into American history and scrapping Black History Month is sure to meet with strong resistance. But that's the only way to underscore both the progress Blacks have made in modern America and the achievements they made in spite of the racism of the past. The American Dream was and is reachable by Blacks who work for it. Understanding that is what learning Black history should really be about.