Today’s Quote of the Day (QOTD) comes from Dr. Benjamin Carson, regarding education:
It was only days ago when displaying one’s faith, seeking to uphold His word as law, was to invite scorn from the Progressives. At their 2012 convention they actually sought to remove any mention of Him from their party platform. Hobby Lobby was excoriated when they declared that their faith prevented them from funding abortifacient, while Chick-fil-A was boycotted when their CEO mentioned he preferred the Biblical definition of marriage. The Little Sisters of the Poor was recently named to the National Organization of Women’s “Dirty 100” list.
Yet the party of “Keep Your Rosaries Out Of My Ovaries” has suddenly stopped arguing that we remove In God We Trust from our currency to start quoting scripture like the Pope at Mass. It is a spectacular display of shameless manipulation, remarkable even for the world of politics, that the Left has turned to appeals to our Christianity to support their desire for amnesty, and their desire that we not deport anyone – not even the thousands of illegal teenagers who have stampeded our borders recently.
Repatriating of these illegals “not the American way and it’s not the Christian way,” says Univision anchor and longtime open border advocate Jorge Ramos. Kirsten Powers, another advocate for open borders, says it is “a Christian thing.” Stephen King, whose work often mocks conservative Christians (remember Carrie?) tweeted “Revised Tea Party Gospel: ‘Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they’re undocumented kids from Central America.’”
But does Christianity obligate us to be open border advocates, to accept as citizens any and all foreigners, simply because they have entered our country? How does the Bible instruct us in this current illegal immigration crisis?
It clearly compels us to love even those who are foreign to us. Leviticus 19:34 reads, “The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” And as Matthew 25:40 reads, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
However, the Bible does not suggest the the world should exist as if we were all one nation. In fact multitude of nations are mentioned in the Bible. And Act17:26 references national borders, or the “bounds” of man’s “habitation.”
The Bible also makes clear that each of these nations is entitled to make its own laws, as long as they do not supersede God’s Law. The example of this most often quoted is probably Luke 20:25: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s,” but there are many others.
So we can take from this that man is justified in both creating laws and maintaining borders, though we would not be justified in transgressions against the will of God. “Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.” The key is distinguishing what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
The laws of God are clear. They are conveniently compiled in a tidy list of 10. Similarly, Jesus, when asked which is the greatest commandment of law, gives an profound yet simple answer: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 22:37-39
I would argue that there is a distinction against prosecution and persecution, that we may punish those who do wrong, as Jesus did to those who had turned His house into a den of thieves, but our punishment should not be an act of evil itself. We are justified in prosecuting (i.e. imprisoning or levying a fine against) a man who enters our home uninvited, who steals from us, or otherwise does us harm. But we are not justified in treating that man with cruelty, or without compassion or forgiveness: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” Ephesians 4:32
To relate this to the current immigration crisis, it is evident that it is “a Christian thing” to have a border and to punish those who violate that border. If not, then what country has ever been Christian? What would be unchristian however would be to persecute the illegals – denying them medicine, food, and shelter.
If we are treating illegals humanely, are we not meeting the requirement of Christ’s commandment that we love our neighbor as ourselves, or are we obligated to do further? Are parents whose home is full of the children they’ve adopted, and whose budgets are strained with the care of those children, not being true Christians if they say “no more” when another child comes to their door?
If we were such a prosperous nation that we had no poverty among us, it would be unchristian to turn away others who are in poverty, but no one would say that is the case. It may be arguable that a child living in Tegucigalpa faces greater poverty and crime than a child living in Newark, it is not arguable that a child in Newark faces poverty and crime. Nor is it arguable that the greater responsibility for an American government is to that Newark child.
Furthermore, what is the Christian obligation in the face of the evil actions of others? In Corinthians, Paul chastises a church, not for any sin they committed directly and collectively themselves, but for not shunning one of their members for his sin, and delivering him for punishment: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 5:3-5
Like the Corinthian church, we are often “puffed up” when we tolerate the misdeeds of others instead of shunning or punishing them for those misdeeds because we believe that tolerance makes us good Christians. And we show the same pride when we tolerate the misdeeds of other nations.
To not repatriate the illegals, these “undocumented kids from Central America,” would be to not only tolerate their misdeeds, It would be to reward those misdeeds, and to encourage more misdeeds in the future. These governments by sending their most disadvantaged to our nation seek to absolve themselves of their responsibilities to them. Not only does this allow them to not care for them, they are rewarded in the form of remittances. Illegals who find employment in America send a significant amount of their earnings back to the families they left behind, and the amount of that money becomes significant. Mexico received over $22 billion in such payments in 2012 alone from emigrants, many of whom are working illegally in the US.
Therefore the conservative position on illegal immigration, that they be treated humanely, even if we must imprison them, but that they must be returned to their nation of origin, is not only the most sensible position, but it is the most Christian position as well.
That Conservatism, with its focus on self-reliance and the rights of the individual, should be embraced so passionately by a people that saw so many enslaved and oppressed because of the color of their skin is hardly surprisingly. Who yearns for freedom more than a former slave? And with this embrace of Conservatism came a loyalty to the Republican Party, not simply because it was the party of Lincoln, as historians typically suggest, but because it was the party of liberty, or as Frederick Douglass called it, “the party of freedom and progress.”
In 1865, 58 years before Vice President Coolidge famously said in a speech that “Self-government means self-reliance,” Douglass also said “Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, ‘What should we do with the Negro?’. I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall….And, if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!”
The sort of ideals found in the work of Frederick Douglass are the very ideals which have made African American conservatives outliers in the Black community today, and were once not very long ago commonly held by many in the Black community. They were principles that sometimes seemed as familiar at our barber shops on Saturdays as they were at our churches on Sunday. These were the principles embraced by our community leaders; our leaders in academia, business, civil rights, law, and Christianity. They were taught to us in our schools, at our jobs, and, most importantly, we learned learned these principles in our homes.
Not long ago, for example, African American leaders argued against abortion. Jesse Jackson called it “Black genocide” in 1977, asking “What happens to the mind of a person and the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?”
Now of course it is difficult to mention this “Black genocide” without being called racist. In 2011 a billboard featuring an African American child with a caption “The most dangerous place for African Americans is in the womb” – words that echo Jackson’s – was removed after Sharpton (and Bill de Blasio, who is now NYC mayor) led protests against it because they found it “offensive.” Much less offensive to them, I suppose, since they are not leading protests against it as they did that billboard, is the fact that in NYC more Black children are murdered in the wombs than are allowed to be born. Wombs are indeed a dangerous place for African Americans.
Similarly, not long ago, African American leaders argued against illegal immigration. Dr. King ally Reverend Ralph Abernathy joined Cesar Chavez on the Mexican border as part of a protest against the illegal immigration that was suppressing wages and employment for Americans, particularly for Hispanics and Blacks. Coretta Scott King as part of the Black Leadership Forum similarly argued that “America does not have a labor shortage. With roughly 7 million people unemployed, and double that number discouraged from seeking work, the removal of employer sanctions [on hiring illegals] threatens to add additional U.S. workers to the rolls and drive down wages. Moreover, the repeal of employer sanctions will inevitably add to our social problems and place an unfair burden on the poor in the cities in which most new immigrants cluster.” In fact, according to another King ally, Clarence B. Jones, Dr. King would compare the illegal immigrant to a common thief.
Unfortunately, on these issues and on others, Black leadership has “evolved” away from Conservative principles in favor of a sycophantic relationship with Progressivism. Incredibly, to argue against abortion now is to be called anti-women, and to argue against illegal immigration is to be called anti-Hispanic. And those who argue against either will incur the wrath of the Black leadership.
Much like President Obama’s view on *** marriage, this evolution was not purely ideological. In fact, in return for the usual political rewards such as campaign donations and voter support, and faced with the various intimidation tactics of the Left, many Black leaders have effectively abandoned the people they have promised to represent, and have become, essentially, a sales staff for Progressivism.
Progressivism has long made infiltrating the African American community a priority, and the primary entry point has been through the Black leadership. And the deleterious effect of Progressivism on the Blacks these Black leaders supposedly represent are not always taken into consideration. It is often the role of these Black leaders to hide, or to lie about, these deleterious effects.
Why else would the Congressional Black Caucus boast on its website that its members “unanimously support” a “path of citizenship” for millions of illegals, despite warnings from everyone from Reverend Abernathy in 1969 to Coretta Scott King in 1991 to the Congressional Budget Office today that this sort of path to citizenship would hurt the Black community?
Why else would they ignore Congressional testimony that as much as 40% of the 18 point decline in African American employment from 1960 to 2000 was due to immigration, much of it illegal immigration?
Why else would John Lewis, a man still physically scarred from marching with men like King and Abernathy to improve conditions for Black Americans, and who now represents Georgia’s 5th congressional district, tweet “We can’t just build a wall or a fence and say no more. This is America. Our doors are open”? Rep. Lewis represents a district that has a 60% Black population, a median household income 28% lower than the national average, and an unemployment rate a staggering 154% higher than the national average.
Margaret Sanger, a founder of American Progressivism, who favored eugenics and abortion, announced how Progressives should influence African Americans in a letter she wrote in 1939: “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Progressives have since been successful in ‘hiring coloreds’ to do their bidding and to further the Progressive agenda. And, although the days of actual cross burning on the lawns of African Americans who do not further the Progressive agenda has long passed, other intimidation tactics continue.
Glo Smith was a victim of these intimidation tactics not long ago when someone painted white paint over her face on her campaign posters. Ms. Smith is a Black woman running as a Conservative Republican to represent Florida’s 5th district in the House, and the message the person or people who vandalized her posters — that she and her Black supporters who stand with her against Progressivism are not welcome in the Black community — is clear.
Just recently AFSCME, a major union with 1.6 million members, publicly cut ties with the United Negro College Fund to punish it for accepting $25 million dollars from the decidedly anti-Progressive Koch Brothers, instead of shunning the Kochs, as the Progressives want. The primary justification of this severing of ties is that the Koch Brothers are racist, as evidenced by their support of voter ID laws, though the argument that voter ID laws are racist is a specious one, since they do not discriminate against Blacks, nor has there been any evidence that they suppress Black voting participation. Furthermore, if the Kochs wanted to be racist, donating to the UNCF is a terrible way of doing so, since it hurts no African American, except of course for those who were hoping to benefit from the AFSCME/UNCF Union Scholar program, which will be no more.
RebelPundit.com recently posted a startling video of Chicago African Americans asking Obama to “do something for our children. Have the same love for these young people that you have for those across the border.” Another equally compelling recent video featured another African American woman, Bernadette Lancelin of Houston, asking, regarding the current wave of illegal children flooding our borders, “Why can’t they go back? I’m sorry that the parents are in poor living conditions or surroundings or whatever is going out there. I don’t care. I care about what’s going on right here.” The message of both videos is clear: What about us?
African American leaders such as Obama, the CBC, and others believe that as the leaders of the Black community they will be able to continue to guide Blacks like a flock of sheep into Progressive pastures. But as Ms. Lancelin (and Mr. Orwell) make clear, the flock won’t be lead by the shepherd indefinitely, not when it is being led to slaughter.
I remember back-to-school shopping before I got my first job. When my mom purchased my clothing for me, I never blinked an eye at the price tags. If it was cute, I just pleaded with my mom to buy it for me. Then, when I got a job and had to begin kicking in money for my own clothing, I eyed price tags and “cute” suddenly correlated with price! Talk about sticker shock! “$35 for a shirt?” I’d say (back in 1980), and throw the item disgustedly back on the rack and move on.
I wish this is how our government had to shop for goods and services — as if it were with their own money — not with ours. Because, if it were with their own money, I don’t think we’d see such ineptitude, carelessness, waste and excessive largess.
It seems like every week, I read article after article about government overpayments, fake make work contracts (instead of real job contracts), how some government agency is wasting money making line dance videos, making costly errors with taxpayer money, overpaying bureaucrats, or awarding contracts to undeserving cronies.
Instead of mea culpa, the government form of, “oopsie,” why not make our government eat it when they cause these costly errors? Make it where setting it to rights has to come out of these bonuses, perks, and other “goodies” that our government “friends” get? It’s still taxpayer money, but it hits a little closer to home, the offender’s own wallet . . . and strikes at the heart of the matter: accountability.
In the latest kerfuffle — the border crisis in Texas — if these children are ever sent back to their countries of origin, why must it be at the taxpayer’s expense? I would suggest that either the countries the children hail from be billed for their housing and transportation, or the lawmakers who are in favor of this surge have it deducted from their pension packages, etc. Perhaps then, like Teenage Marie, some of these higher ticket items will stay on the rack!
Unlike those of us on the Right who are staunchly pro-life (as I am), those on the Left who consider themselves pro-choice argue that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she brings a pregnancy to term. They believe that a woman should control whether she should be “burdened” with giving birth and bearing the responsibility of raising a child, if this is not her desire. And so, many Americans, especially on the Left, support the right of a woman to choose whether “the fetus” lives or dies. And, most Democrats in our government, including our Commander-in-Chief, support this idea.
Yet, recently, tens of thousands of children have crossed over into our country illegally, and I am expected to take responsibility for them. They have been abandoned here by their birth parents and my tax money is expected to be used to care for them. I would argue that this is a burden that I do not want, nor have I planned for it. This is an infringement on my right to choose whether or not to raise or support these children. But, lately, the only “choice” we are given from Democrats, is the “choice” to support the President in handing over our hard earned tax dollars in the form of a $3.5 billion aid package. I do not hear them supporting my right — nor the rights of any American citizens — to choose to decline in this case. These children have become not only my burden but the burden of the American people.
If the point is that a person should have the right to determine whether or not they bear the burden of raising children, then where are the pro-choice advocates in this case? We need you at the border now!
But as unsurprising as Obama’s lack of popularity is, there was one surprise in that Zogby poll. His approval numbers among African-Americans has dropped 10 points, to 76%
To put this number in context, Barack Obama won 95% of the Black vote in 2008 and 93% of the Black vote in 2012. John Kerry won 88% of the Black vote. Gore won 90% of the Black vote in 2000. Clinton’s percentages were 83% in 1992 and 85% in 1996. In fact, except for Adlai Stevenson winning 61% in 1956, no Democratic presidential candidate since Al Smith of 1928 earned less than 70% of the African-American vote.
Another way to illustrate the significance of a Black president having an approval rating 17 points than the percent he won from Blacks in his last election two years ago and lower than any Democratic presidential candidate in over 80 years is to point out that a 76% approval rating among Blacks makes a Democrat unelectable. As National Review writer Deroy Murdock says, “Securing 15 percent of the Black electorate severely erodes the stalwart Democratic base. If 20 to 25 percent of Blacks vote GOP, it’s curtains for Democrats.”
It would be too much to assume from this Zogby poll that the next Republican presidential candidate will win this 20 to 25 percent of the Black vote, but it does give me reason to be optimistic that this magic number may be in the GOP’s future.
Another reason for optimism is that many African-Americans are aware that the Obama administration has been a failure for African-Americans. Consider Tavis Smiley’s oft-quoted answer to Sean Hannity asking him if Blacks are better off under Obama: “No, they are not. The data is going to indicate, sadly, that when the Obama administration is over, Black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category.”
This is not arguable. For African-Americans, the labor force participation rate, home ownership rate and real median household income are all lower under Obama, while the percentage of African-Americans below the poverty line is higher. Though some still argue that “you have to fish where the fish are biting”, it seems foolish for Republicans to not start expending more energy to reach out to the Black voter.
To a degree we are seeing this happen more often. Although some Blacks may disagree with Rand Paul’s view on drug sentencing reform, or disagree that it should be his primary issue in front of a Black audiences, at least Paul is speaking to them. And as Jason L. Riley of the Wall Street Journal pointed out during African-American Conservative’s interview with him as reprehensible as Thad Cochran’s courting of the Black vote may have been during his recent primary battle, at least he courted the Black vote. His opponent, Chris McDaniel, did not.
Conservatives should not be timid in competing for the African-American vote. They are in a good position to do so. One reason: though recently taunted by the Left as the party of the male, pale, and stale; the GOP (thanks to its “racist wing”, the Tea Party) has had great success in diversifying its ranks, particularly with Black candidates, such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Tim Scott, and Mia Love. Not only are these Black Republicans extraordinary individuals and well qualified for elective office, all are Conservatives who speak to issues that resonate within the Black community; such as Christian values, pro-life, traditional family, jobs, and school choice.
Conversely the Democrats continue to field candidates so aligned with Progressivism that they are often dismissive of the views and the best interest of the people they were elected to represent. No clearer example of this can be found than on the issue of illegal immigration. Despite the negative effect illegal immigration has on the employment and wages of Blacks – including those who live in Texas’ 18th Congressional District – their congressional representative, Sheila Jackson Lee, not only boasted of giving the illegal children currently overwhelming our southern borders lollipops, but has argued that deporting illegals “meets the standard of the Eighth Amendment inhumane and cruel treatment” as well. Oy!
Republicans should not be intimidated by the likes of Representative Lee, or even President Obama, from competing for the Black vote. Instead they should find guidance in the words of Reagan:
The time has come for Republicans to say to Black voters: “Look, we offer principles that Black Americans can, and do, support.” We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs — and we believe that the long-range interest of Black Americans lies in looking at what each major party has to offer, and then deciding on the merits.
Option A) All patrons who pay to enter the theater can also purchase snacks at our candy counter at an increased fee.
Option B) All patrons who sneak into the theater for free will be given free snacks at the candy counter, paid for by the increased fees collected by the patrons who paid to get in.
Which patron would you rather be? Option B has the most incentive.
What would you do if you were an immigrant and the government had this policy?
Option A) All immigrants who enter the country legally can pay taxes and purchase benefits.
Option B) All immigrants who enter the country illegally will be provided benefits without charge, partially paid for by the taxes from the immigrants who entered legally.
Which immigrant would you rather be? Option B has the most incentive.
If we can see the difference so clearly, why can’t our government?
Today the Supreme Court ruled that corporations with strongly held religious beliefs would not have to violate conscience by offering birth control and abortifacients.
In this victory for First Amendment rights, we are sure to see those in the pro-choice community decry this ruling as a “stunning” and “devastating” blow to women. However, as is often the case with the Left, they completely ignore how taxpayer funding already supports Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion services provider in the country, and the organization where Sandra Fluke, Julia and a host of other women can go to get free contraception.
That separation of church and state “thing-y” the Left likes to invoke like a mantra? It’s actually to protect people from the government, not the other way around. It was put into place because our country was founded by those who sought to escape they tyranny of their rulers, who established a government-sponsored religion that dictated only one religious entity, and a compulsory one at that.
Further, detractors of today’s landmark decision will certainly fling around the well-worn “war against women” argument. As noted above, there are already free services in place, however, what the Left misses, yet again, is how killing off half of the female population in utero is the ultimate war against women!
SCOTUS got this one right! Today is a true victory for God, faith, and the First Amendment!
© 2010-2014 African-American Conservatives All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright